In theological discussions, if God is omniscient (knows everything past, present, and future) and created everything, this creates a logical problem for free will: if God already knew what you would do before you did it, and God cannot be wrong, then you could not have chosen otherwise. This suggests that omniscience combined with creation negates genuine free will, as all choices would be predetermined by God's foreknowledge.
拡張機能をインストールして、あらゆる動画内を即座に検索しましょう
Debating Faith & Religion w/@deconstructionzone追加:
Oh, thank you so so much for having me. Thank you. Hi.
>> Your audio is a little bit crackly, but we'll we'll see what happens.
>> How's it going, Derk?
>> Good. How are you doing today?
>> I'm all right. All right. So, yeah. Uh, we think uh God is a fiction. Um, let me just clarify. Are you part of the Abrahamics Christianity?
>> No. No. I'm I'm new age and so I take like a real consciousness is abstract approach and and that it can inhabit like we inhabit a state of consciousness. So this would be like me and you and all of us, but it it's not limited to what we consider to be classic living beings, right? So this this would extend to like higher beings that in the cosmos. One of those I pointed out.
>> Hey Durk.
>> Hey Dirk. Dirk my friend. Um is there any chance you could like refresh your your browser and try again? Your audio is crackling so hard it's difficult to listen to.
>> Oh, you know what? I don't have another way to do it. But thanks so much for having me on. I'll call you back when I get my audio fixed. Thanks, Justin. I'm sorry, Vol couldn't have this conversation.
>> Yeah, no problem. Um, come by. Come by anytime.
>> All right, Durk, take care of yourself.
Okay.
>> Right.
>> So, Dirk is a newager, you said, right?
>> Durk is. And I very tempting. Well, Massie just left.
It's very tempting to want to pop up and ask questions, but it kind of derails the live stream when that happens. So, we we kind of have some boundaries. And for one reason or another, our our guest on TikTok popped out. I guess they couldn't uh didn't want to defend the God claim. So, uh, we're at an interesting spot right now where we're waiting for some guests to load up. And so, next person to request is actually first in line. Now, we'll see. My understanding is you've got some um some background in non-Christian religion.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, I I do like my grandmother was a voodoo practitioner.
Um so um my my significant other uh she's also has background in like Jamaica Jamaican opia you know I mean so these are like African traditional religions so what I like to do is because a lot of people we live in a predominately Christian west of course um a lot of folks have never heard of these these religions never heard these traditions right so I've always said that hey you know all of your arguments for for a god let's say just for the sake of argument I were to accept them I can say that Olumare, the god of, you know, um, your Orisha religion is the real one. You I mean, even if I accept every single one of your premises, I could I could make an argument for that one. Like, you have to make an argument or provide evidence specifically for the Christian one. And of course, they'll they'll say stuff like, "Well, those guards are just wrong." I'm like, "What makes them wrong?" You know? So, it's I I'm I have to find it. But I was actually able to create an entire syllogism for olo dumare. You know what I mean? And I based it on the fact that humanity came from Africa which means that Africa had to have the spurts the first uh the first forms of spirituality. And if they had the first forms of spirituality then that would mean that that spirituality since it was first has to be the one closest to what the spiritual world is. And if it is closer to what a spiritual world is, then then um the spiritual world looks like African spirituality, which means that those gods are correct. You know what I mean? So you can create a whole syllogism out of just something completely ridiculous like that, you know? So it's uh it's just one of those what one of those things where always, you know, I kind of use that background to show them different um um perspectives, especially when they get into the whole oh it's demonic thing, you know. After that, that's when I put my political hat on and say, "Hey, you know, you were told that because of European colonialism." They're the ones who said that all these religions are evil, you know, and they say that simply because it didn't follow their tradition. That's the only reason.
>> You know, they took on the whole white man's burden thing and said everything else is primitive or evil. You know, >> that's actually really interesting because, and you've seen it, most of the arguments that people are going to give for God. And usually they have a specific god in mind would work for almost any god concept. So to me, it's far more interesting for someone to give an argument for their specific religion than for like a generic god. Like why do why do I care if there's a generic uh deistic god out there that like I don't know, sneezed the universe into existence and then like left? It means nothing to me, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Like I've I've always wondered. I was I was like, "Okay, yeah, give me an argument for your like you know you're you're like you know that generic god that just kind of you know I guess he was bored one day and you know he you know got a lighter and farted the universe out. You see what I'm saying? Sure. Uh but like how exactly what's the point of that?" You know what I mean? Like would that be equal to no god at all? There's there's no one interacting with the universe or anything like that. The way that we understand the word God is is something that's an agent that interacts with the universe. If you're going to say that it's just, you know, create the universe and then screw it off somewhere, it's no better than aliens. You know, might as well worship Galactis, I guess, you know, and yeah, you might as well worship that. And um it's it's another thing if they don't argue for that, they would say that everything is God. you know, they kind of lean on Spinosa where, you know, you know, the feeling of love and gratefulness, the universe itself is is God. I'm like, that's basically equal to no God at all, isn't it?
>> Yeah. It's kind of weird.
>> Like, if if the God you're describing is has the identical qualities as no God existing. This seems like the God doesn't exist, which is kind of where we're at. But friends, I've got I got a couple super chats. We'll grab those. If you've got questions for myself or Voli, you're welcome to super chat them in while we're waiting for a guest to load up. Um, I can tell you that Vuli has a really interesting uh set of tools that I don't have. So, would be a great time to ask questions for Vulc 70. Uh, you are correct, by the way. It says, "Way to throw Vuly to the Dirk." And unfortunately, Durk couldn't stick around to uh to to give him the the full dose of Dirk. But, you know, it's it is kind of Durk's growing on me despite the fact that he's got a really weird belief system. Unselves. Thank you for the super chat, Princess. I wonder why do some people waste their time using and abusing philosophy to prove God or the origin of the universe. It's a science question, not philosophy. It's the laziest way to engage with such topics in my opinion. And I don't disagree. I mean, I suspect that, you know, Vulce probably has an opinion. Well, I I just kind of suspect the reason why they turn to philosophy is because they don't have anything else, right?
>> They don't have anything else. Yeah. And and I was um talking about this the other day. It's you could create you could basically make an argument for anything. Now, I don't want to be dismissive of philosophy because philosophy is very very important. And it's the reason why we're even talking about this, right? So, sure, like philosophy is important. Um, but whenever I ask for, you know, do you have some sort of sort of evidence because at the end of the day, uh, scientists, physicists, they didn't argue atoms into existence. They had to demonstrate that atoms existed. Right?
Of course, you know, they had mathematical models. They had any type of argument they had. They said if you look at these effects and these effects, this is what show Adams exist until the point where they had to demonstrate Adams existed. Right? So when it comes to to like these God arguments though, there's really no demonstration. There's no models. There's nothing we can do.
All they can say is, "Oh, you know, based on on this argument and this argument, this argument, therefore God."
And I'm like, "Okay, now what's the demonstration? What do we do now to actually show what you're saying is true?" Nothing. You know, I like any mathematical model at all. Nothing. I I've even sat down. I said, "Hey, listen. If you can show me some sort of peer-reviewed equation that points to, you know, uh a willful agent creating the universe, then hey, everybody won't be atheist tomorrow. We'll just say whatever that was was some sort of uh agent that we that we definitely don't understand, like a agent from a higher dimension, um but isn't necessarily Christian God is." No. Now we'll just argue on what type of agent is it, you know, and should we worship it or not.
That's the only thing that we'll be talking about and in this day and age, but we no one would doubt it. But so far, no one has come up with even that, >> you know. So this is one of those things, you know, you you either got it or you don't.
>> And who was that? Was it Daniel Denn Denn or Christopher Hitchens? He said, um, claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>> Yeah, Hitchens. Yeah, that was a good line, too.
>> Well, we got a guest uh requesting up on TikTok, so we'll grab them and we'll see if we can get some discussion started. I want to make sure I get the Looks like Horus is the name. See if Horus can connect. Welcome in, Horus. Are you at least 18?
Horus, does your does your equipment work, my friend?
Horris, did you request by accident?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. We got you.
>> Okay.
>> Don't think it was still in his pocket.
Okay.
>> Yeah. He was probably walking around with it and didn't realize.
>> The funny thing is like if it if we like say we prove tomorrow through science >> that there is a God, it still we would still have no reason to believe there Christian God. we have no reason to believe it's the Islamic God or no reason to believe it's the Hindu concept. They would still like need to demonstrate that a god existing would necessarily be their god. And I think that's where philosophy is actually helpful because well it can't always tell you what is. It's pretty good telling you what isn't. So for example, if I describe something that is just inherently contradictory, we like well yeah that thing doesn't exist because you know the laws of logic. Right.
>> Right. So I think the burden would still be to prove that their particular god is is out there. And to be fair, most of the people that's engaging in the philosophy conversations trying to prove God's existence, >> they do typically believe in some formalized religion, even if they don't want to argue for it. So I'm not sure that demonstrating like spirits or a god existing would fix the problem. We still need good evidence say that Christianity is true. I don't know of any good evidence that would demonstrate Christianity true at all.
>> Right. Right. Exactly. Because at the end of day, even if we're to show that it created the sin, what sin even is, and then you would have to get all the way to the to the Jesus stuff and all of the issues that happen there. You know what I mean?
Because um you're you're way better at this than I am, but you know, etc., etc. So if Christianity rises and falls on the death and resurrection of Jesus, there's a lot of problems still even if you were to show that the Christian God exists. If you were to show, matter of fact, it would show that it probably not isn't the isn't the excuse me isn't the Christian one. It it's probably Yahweh.
Even if we were to show tomorrow that it's Yahweh, like okay, y'all maybe maybe the Jews are right and not the Christians, you know.
>> And so yeah, everybody will have to to go to synagogue tomorrow. I'm I'm guessing, you know what I mean?
>> We could we could demonstrate if we could demonstrate like immediately that Yahweh existed, it still wouldn't mean that Christianity is true. Jesus would still be a liar and a fraud. And I realize there's some Christians out here crying that I just said that, but it's the truth, friends. Christianity is inherently contradictory. The Trinity is illogical, nonsense. The God of the Hebrew Bible makes very definitive statements that is contradicted in the New Testament. Which means even if that God existed, Jesus couldn't be part of that God and Jesus didn't get sent from that God unless he got sent to be the false prophet predicted in Deuteronomy 13. So >> Christianity is just got a lot of problems.
>> Yeah. Still got a bunch of problems if even if it even if we were to show that Yahweh was true.
>> You mind if I Oh, we're going to read a super chat. You mind if I like uh just No, >> go ahead.
>> All right. Test something to my audience. All right. So, for anybody who's watching me over on the Vuly Thoughts channel, welcome. This is a Tuesday stream stream. Sorry. I usually go Thursday through Sunday, but we're doing a special day today on Tuesday.
Shout out to Justin Deconstruction Zone.
And y'all, if you would like to join in on a discussion, the call link is right there. Tiny.ccdzlive.
I did just put it in the chat. So, for the guy virtual Billy who's talking right now in the comments, I'm I'm not watching the comments. All right? So, just join in here. I I I always tell the people on my live on on uh YouTube, I said, "Hey y'all, I can't see these comments. I'm focused on something else.
So, if you want to go ahead and and call in and talk to me, there it is. That's the link. Just copy it into your browser, come on up, and then we'll have a discussion."
>> Yeah, that's a good point. So, in the description of the video, the link on the screen, you can just click on it if you're watching on YouTube. You don't have to even type it or copy and paste it typically. But, so it's it's not difficult. You don't have to sign up for anything to get in. You just literally all you got to do is click on the link.
But I think we've got one guest up here on TikTok maybe. Uh, so we'll find out.
>> Hello, Wookman. Matthew. Is this uh Matthew Red?
>> Yeah, this is me.
>> Did you change your screen name?
Yeah, I changed my name.
>> Okay. Well, uh, nevertheless, uh, welcome back. I already know that you're over 18, and I already know that you're Christian, so I don't have to do all that. But, um, I do need to ask you to turn down your speaker phone a little bit because it's feeding back into your microphone.
>> Oh, it is. Okay.
>> I didn't even see it moving like that. I thought it wasn't doing that. I'll just go on mute every time I don't talk.
>> Sure. So, um, you kind of already know the shtick. I think you've been here like three times. So, what argument did you want to run tonight?
>> Well, I just want to talk about uh your prompt. It says uh goddess fiction. What do you mean by that?
>> Uh it just means that the the god um that you believe in um is uh it's a character that has been like written about in a book, but it's a fictional character, a character that no one can demonstrate to exist in real life.
>> So, are you saying like the book is fictional?
No, I'm saying that the god portrayed in the book is fictional. The same way the the god depicted say like in the Iliad and the Odyssey is fictional.
>> And I would also say that Matthew, I would also say that um much of the Bible is is what I describe as historical fiction, meaning that it names real places. It may even name real people and sometimes even real events, but the legends around them are are fake. Like for example, um it mentions Egypt, right? But does that mean that >> legend would be a category error though?
That's just that's like historically versus legend isn't the same.
>> Matthew, I I don't care. So like what what I would say is is that it it would it mentions a real place like Egypt, right? Now, was Moses a real guy? Maybe, maybe not. A lot of Jewish historians say he he even wasn't. The the Exodus where there are a bunch of Hebrews that left uh Egypt. Sure, that could have happened, right? But the way that it is described in the Bible, no, that didn't happen.
>> What what didn't happen?
>> The Exodus story, at least the way that it's described in the Bible with all the curses, crossing the Red Sea, etc., etc. >> What are you even talking?
>> We never bring up Exodus. What are you talking about?
What I was trying to say is uh is that the um because Justin said that the uh that the God of the of the Bible is fiction or the God character in this book is fiction. And I would say just to extend on that, I would describe the Bible as historical fiction, meaning that it names real people, real places, sometimes real events, but the way that it describes them are myth are mythology basically.
>> Uh okay. Okay. What does that have to do with Exodus?
>> The Exodus story.
The Exodus story. The Exodus story. The Exodus story isn't a um story isn't is a is an example who I'm talking about. The name's a real place. No, that's not what I asked you. Listen, listen to what I'm saying. Matthew, lock in for me. The Exodus story was an example of what I was giving about historical fiction.
Meaning that Egypt is a real place.
Pharaoh Ramsey's was probably a real person. Moses um was probably a legendary figure. You know what I mean? Not not the way described in the Bible. And all the curses and uh the 10 plagues and crossing of the Red Sea, all those are just mythologized. So there could have been a group of Hebrews in Egypt that went that went ahead and left Egypt and even left Egypt with a leader leading them out of Egypt. But the way that that they describe Exodus is what's mythologized.
Does that make sense now?
>> Okay. So you're saying that you think that it's fiction based off of Exodus Mo mostly?
>> Am I think I think is is it my fault?
>> Not your thought Matthew all he's saying >> and he's just giving you one example of what we're talking about. Like the Exodus story is clearly some form of historical mythology.
>> Well, yeah. That's what I was trying to say earlier. Well, I know that you guys don't believe in God, and I know that you're trying to say that the Bible is fiction, but yeah, obviously if God isn't real, then yeah, it would be fiction cuz it would just be man-made, right? So, you're saying that the Bible is fiction cuz it's man-made.
>> I mean, that's part of it. Yeah, >> it's part of it. Yeah, it's historical fiction.
>> So, what why would we believe that that the God of the Bible does exist?
>> Uh, yeah. Let me just pull up my notes real quick. I got to get a verification code. Just give me one sec.
>> Sure.
All right, cool.
>> Are his notes on his phone?
>> Probably. If your notes are on your phone and swiped out, we can't hear.
>> I'm on my uh I'm not home right now. I'm I'm not I usually on my computer, but I'm using something weird >> and I got to sign my uh not uh my note app real quick. Just give me one second.
I need to verify my email. Hold on.
>> Okay. But I want to talk about something certain that I was preparing because we haven't talked in like I think a week or two and I'm >> it's been we talked about was the resurrection and I I got a lot of new stuff I would like to bring up. We don't >> talk about love to talk about resurrection.
>> So just to let you know when you swipe out of the Tik Tok app we can't hear you. So if you say something we won't we won't hear it. All right. Just let you know.
The fun thing with the resurrection, Boly, is that, you know, we could just grant that the resurrection happened and Christianity would still be false. But I think Matthew here wants to I think he's got some new talking points to try out.
So, I'm I'm eager to hear him.
>> Yeah. Because I remember the last time that we talked uh you were telling me like something that the Greek Septuagen is 500 years after Jesus, but that's actually not true.
>> I I never said that.
>> Yeah, you did. No, what I said is that the documents we have, the actual physical documents post date Jesus.
>> Oh, so you didn't say that the Greek Septuagent itself was 500 years after Jesus cuz you asked me for a manuscript that fixes the verse and then I told the manuscription is older and also to mention Dr. the manuscript that you listed postdated Jesus by a long shot.
Oh, the manuscript that I >> Oh, you're talking about the certain manuscript they mentioned.
>> Well, I was I said the Greek Septu I never br up like us. Oh, so you're saying that? Oh, so you're saying the verse or the the main Okay, the verse, right? Wasn't >> what I'm saying after Jesus.
>> We don't have a complete Greek Septuagent that predates Jesus. like all of our complete copies of the Septuagent post postate Jesus the sinaticus is the earliest of them and that's the fourth century at best.
>> All right. Well, yeah. Okay. Well, >> talk about I guess >> Yeah, go ahead. What What What did you you want to talk about the resurrection?
What do you want to bring up?
>> Uh yeah, I do want to talk about the resurrection, but I feel like I don't know. saying that the Bible is fiction is just like without actually giving you a reason because like there's a lot of reasons on why it shouldn't be and I can give you those two. You might have a a lot that make say that it could be but I have a lot that say it's not.
>> Well, let me ask you a question. Um >> there's different I don't really need to explain it. We all know that we all have good reasons to think what we think, right?
>> Uh maybe maybe not.
>> Maybe. Yeah.
>> If you could do me a favor though, your your speaker is still a little bit loud and every time we talk it feeds back into your microphone and it it gets a weird feedback loop. If you could bring it down just a notch, that'd be helpful.
>> Yeah, my bows. I'll forget. I keep forgetting to mute myself.
>> It's okay. Okay. So, um if I asked you, hey, is the Iliad and the Odyssey a fictional story? What would you say those two stories?
Uh, I would say I'm agnostic on that because I don't know.
>> You You don't know if like Zeus is real.
>> Well, uh, no, he's not real. Obviously, that's a legend. Like, I have no reason to believe that, >> right?
>> Have to be I would have to be agnostic because I'm not too knowledgeable on it, but I would say I'm leaning more towards no because I mean, I have no reason to believe it to begin with.
>> Right. Right. Right. Because the Iliad Odyssey mentions, you know, Cyclops and and trolls and >> that's where the word leg that's where the word legend comes in. You know what I'm saying?
>> Yeah. Right. But there's no reason to believe that because there's no evidence of cyclops and >> I just want to talk about the second law of thermodynamics cuz last time you were telling me that the universe uh >> bro what? Wait, hold on. Well, whiplash what? How do we get there about the second law of thermodynamics? Justin knows >> an analogy on uh on how that doesn't mean the beginning, >> but I mean not a eternal static eternal universe cuz Yeah. And I can explain.
>> Well, go ahead and give your argument and I I'll tell you why you don't understand thermodynamics.
>> Well, if do you want to premise the premise because I you already know what I'm about to say right now? Like you already know what this argument is, right?
>> I mean, there's a multiple arguments.
>> It's the colum cosmical argument. Like the clam is not the same as the argument from thermodynamics.
>> Oh well, I mean it's a part of that. I guess in a way it's part of the justification.
>> Hey what Matt, you just figure out which argument you want to run and go ahead and run. We'll do it.
>> All right. So look, the second law of thermodynamics is entropy, right? So ent entropy equals energy spreading out becoming unusable, right?
>> No.
>> Uh it's always no with this guy. You always know something new. What is it now? What are we not understanding now?
What is it? Tell me. Do >> the word entropy is just describing how we're calculating the amount of energy in something, right? So when the well say we have a a cup of coffee, right?
There's uh there's particles inside of this cup of coffee and the hotter it gets, >> the more those particles move around and they become what is described as disorderly, right? And the cooler it it gets, >> the more they're going to like crystallize. So like if I let this sit in my cup forever, it's going to cool down and eventually some particles are going to bond to each other and crystallize and they're going to have a lower state of entropy. So the universe when we talk about entropy, we're we're really talking about like the amount of energy.
>> Doesn't entropy work different in a cup from the universe?
>> Well, it can. We don't actually know if the universe isolated works. I don't think it works like that how the way you're putting it. It >> does the universe. When it comes to the universe, I don't think so.
>> So, entropy um inside of a cup would be an isolated system.
>> We don't know.
>> We don't know that.
>> We don't know that.
>> Oh, okay. So, wait. Doesn't the second law of thermodynamics say that in a closed system, usable energy decreases over time?
>> No. So, the second law of thermodynamics is >> Oh, but but he says right, you say no.
>> Do you just want me to You just want me to read you the law or >> But he says right, you say no. So the second law of thermodynamics says that the total amount of entropy meaning energy inside of an isolated system will only ever from particle to particle increase until it reaches equilibrium.
That's what that means. Once it reaches equilibrium then there's no energy transfer is running down toward equilibrium. Usable energy is being lost. That's what that's what >> no you can't lose energy. Energy doesn't doesn't just disappear.
energy transfers like so >> like ceramic uh resistor. Uh then what you'll find is that there's energy that's dissipated through heat but that energy doesn't just disappear at >> talking to me. I'm lagging.
>> I'm talking to you. All right. And so you want to swipe out and come back >> and all you're doing is explaining what equilibrium is. But like I said, in a closed system, usable energy increase over time. The universe is running down toward equilibrium. Usable energy is being lost.
>> Actually, in a closed system, you would never run out of energy. It it would always just be the same amount of energy you started with.
>> No, nobody said you're you're running out of energy.
Usable usable energy is being lost.
We're not losing energy.
>> We're losing usable energy. Well, this would also this would also be >> I don't really think I I honestly think that this is just like a bunch of you jibberjapping the random words and not actually like paying attention and >> you're the one jibberjapping between the two of us. I'm the only one that's ever like done any work on thermodynamics when we were in school.
>> But wait the Okay. Well, wait. Okay. So, in a closed system, usable energy decreases over time. The second law doesn't say that.
>> No, that's not really what it's saying.
And I don't even think you know what usable energy means. When it talks about usable energy, when I talk about usable energy, it's just talking about the energy that is capable of of producing anything. Like for example, if you got a particle here and a particle here and they've got different temperatures, you're going to have energy transfer from one to another. But when they're in equilibrium, there's no more energy transfer unless there's something causing an imbalance to no longer be at equilibrium. And that's easy to achieve if you have gravity, and we do.
>> Yeah. So, you just now said that usable uh the energy uh basically gets weaker and they use each other to stay alive.
What the hell? What? What the hell are you talking about?
>> You didn't say any of that. Are you okay?
>> Yes, you did. That's >> Are you not Are you like >> Are you intoxicated today?
>> No. What are you talking about right now?
>> Simple.
>> And also, I just want to clarify that the other guy agrees with me and not you.
>> No, he does not.
>> I didn't agree with you.
>> That's what the second law says. He He literally agreed with me. You both. He said right.
>> Now he's backtracking. We got this on video, buddy.
>> Sorry, you're still wrong.
>> I'm not wrong.
>> Yeah, you are.
>> Okay. So, okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Matthew, let me ask you a question. Matthew, hold on. Hold on.
Matthew. Matthew. Matthew. Matthew.
Matthew. I have a question for you.
Matthew, I have a question for you. Just a quick question. Amongst the three of us, who is the electrical engineer that actually has done work on this?
>> Uh, are are is that are you finished?
>> The subject that we're talking about.
Yeah, I'm I ask the question. The subject that we're talking about, who's the person who's actually done actual work on it? Who's the electrical engineer that actually has done work on it? Is it me? Is it you? want to actually do the work and we know and you don't.
>> Uh but yeah, it's not like he's totally disagreeing with what I mean though. He literally said no at first and then he said no, not really.
>> Uh I'm going based off of things that he said before in the past. So everything that I'm saying right now is just >> you clearly aren't doing anything with things I've said before. I've told in fact this is just >> I've gotten notes from the last thing that we've talked about and >> as usual you have no idea what you're talking about and you don't even have a good memory.
>> Okay, but literally everything that I'm going based off of was what you said.
What are you talking about?
>> No, it wasn't.
How does how does this get get us to a god? Because we still haven't gotten to that yet. We haven't gotten to a god yet at all. You just talking about entropy systems.
>> We're not at a god yet. What What are we at? No, the question the question right now that you're asking, how does the universe beginning prove there's a God?
That's the question you're meaning to ask right now.
>> No, we don't mean to ask it at all.
>> That's why I'm asking you. I'm asking everything that you're talking about.
How does it get to God?
>> How does the Cuz this is an argument for the universe beginning and he's saying how does this universe He's saying how does this get us to God?
>> Matthew, even if the universe began, that wouldn't show that the God you believe in made it.
>> That wouldn't show it in what way?
You're if if let's say the if we if we grant you that the universe had a beginning, that would not demonstrate that it was the God that you believe in that created the universe.
>> Would that wouldn't that demonstrate that it needs a cause, right?
>> It would demonstrate it would need a a cause, but that doesn't mean that the cause is a supernatural cause of space and time like what would that cause?
>> We wouldn't know. It could be a natural cause that we don't understand yet.
>> Okay. But if the universe began, what does the universe begin? Space, time, and matter, right?
No, there's a number of different models.
>> There's a number of different models for the beginning of the universe. Some of them include no time at all. Hold on. My cat's trying to >> Can you give me one model that goes eternally into the past real quick?
>> Yeah, you can do strong Carol's cyclical model.
>> Show me.
>> You can do >> show you the model or show you the show you the >> Show me a real physics model. Show me a real physics model that goes >> Yeah, Justin would know. I want to know.
Jessica model that goes internally into the past.
>> Oh, easy. Okay.
>> Well, there's a bunch of them. Uh Sean Carroll is vaguely popular right now for this particular thing, but there's also the Hardle Hawking, but that's not the one I'm thinking of. The one I'm thinking of is uh Roger Penrose's cyclical model. That's That's probably the one I like.
>> Oh, you're talking about maybe the one I like best.
>> You're talking about Triple C. No, >> I'm talking about Penrose. That's Oh, I thought Oh, David. I thought you said David Penrose. My bad.
>> No, Roger Penrose uh has a uh conformal concyclical cosmology model.
>> Wait, is that Roger or is it David?
>> It's Roger.
>> Okay.
>> And there's there's a bunch of them.
There's like 12 different conclal models. Like you can you can pick your poison there. And all of the conyclical models work mathematically and they have scientific support. What we don't have any scientific support for is a magic man in the sky that zapped the universe into uh existence.
>> Oh, I know what we have support for. So, the big bang theory is a standard model and then you say that we have the Copenhagen survey, but that doesn't that doesn't say that there's no beginning of time. It's just saying that it's not an absolute beginning. So, you're just going on live streams and lying about everything.
>> The survey we went over this last time.
The survey is >> the survey does not say that time did not begin at the big bank. We'll just we'll just pull up the the survey again since you were listening the first time.
>> Absolute not an absolute we'll just >> Matthew Matthew Matthew Matthew Matthew >> Waw for me real quick bro.
All right because you're super excited and going mile a minute. Yeah. Woo.
Woo. Relax.
>> Yes. Math. I'm saying relax.
>> Are you accusing me of dishall?
>> I'm accusing you of being too excited.
Relax, bro. I need you to relax. Every time we say something, Every time we say something, you have to jump right in and interject. Relax for us real quick, bro.
>> Cuz I I don't even know who you are, buddy. All right. I'm talking to this guy, >> buddy.
>> I'm that guy. You know what I mean? I'm that guy. That's who I am. I'm that guy.
>> I'm the guy that met your girlfriend once. I'm I'm that guy, Matthew. Hey yo, >> my girlfriend's 15 years old, bro.
>> Are you Wait, how the how the [ __ ] old are you, Matthew?
>> Oh, I didn't think about that. You're over 18, you [ __ ] pedophile.
>> Yeah, it's like, how old is you?
>> Oh, no. No.
>> Now that Now that's going into the chat notes for today's episode.
>> How old How old is you, Matthew?
My >> bad.
>> He's a pedo. That's going to that's going to go really well for you. Yeah, >> man. Talking about not thinking.
>> I tried to get you. I got myself. I guess we got each other.
>> No, you definitely got You definitely got yourself.
That was a big cell phone there, my guy.
But uh yeah, >> yeah, that be a blunder. So, >> we'll uh No, you you said it of yourself. I'm just agreeing with you.
So, we'll do this for the last time. I I won't be doing this again. Uh the survey is is this dude's not even sober. All right. You know what, Matt? We're not going to do this today.
>> No, I I don't think you're okay, bro.
You got to get out of here before you get arrested for pedophilia. Apparently, >> oh my goodness.
>> Really prove God >> today. I mean, are you are you a believer now?
>> Okay.
>> Well, [ __ ] friends, we've got some people loaded up here. It looks like uh Time Gate is going to be next. Uh if you don't want to be next, uh now is a good time to get in. Don't wait till 9:00 tonight to get into the queue cuz we might not be able to get you. And timegate just left, so I guess we're going to do Brian after that.
Christopher, good to see your friends is still not related to Ben. Thanks for clarification, but he seems cool.
Scheduled for shoulder surgery number eight. Holy [ __ ] that's a lot. To fix my God's perfectly designed anatomy. May Doug keep me safe and bless Justin's cleansing. Thank you, Chris. I appreciate that. And uh hopefully your your eighth will be your last. Holy [ __ ] But um >> yeah man I'll be all right first >> fine tuning and all that right >> as Shandere thank you for the super says question for Buli I apologize if this is inappropriate but as a black person how do you feel about black Christians given the history of slavery >> n not offense not um offended at all this is um a question I I get a lot and I always say what Chris Rock says you have a very short memory that's what I'll always say you have a short memory one of the things about uh Christianity The thing is that when it comes to speaking to black Christians, I try to be very very understanding because I came from that tradition. And not only that, because of the history of the United States, because of the history of the West, there were not a lot of institutions that black people could have built um where we were free from like um you know uh scrutiny or we were free from not being feared or free from hatred. So the only thing around that time was Christianity. The black church was the center of community, you know, I mean, it was a center of of communal relations, of child care, of even business and commerce. The black church was it. So, I I I get it. For a lot of people to for a lot of Christians to uh a lot of black Christians to leave Christianity, they're not only using losing their support network, they're also losing a sense of their identity because it's been part of the community for so long. So, I'm I am, you know, uh person like I'm I am, you know, uh empathetic. That's the word I'm looking for. I am very very empathetic to towards black Christians. But being empathetic doesn't mean that I can't be assertive in saying that this religion has caused damage to to our community as well. You know what I mean? for a lot of um a lot of beliefs within the community. A lot of the toxic beliefs that with that are internal into the culture is more of a political thing. I don't want to go there live, but a lot of these internal issues that we have, a lot of them are from Christianity, especially when it comes to uh misogynistic beliefs, you know what I mean? A lot of that comes from Christianity. A lot of that didn't really exist prior to that. You see what I mean? A lot of it comes from Christianity and Islam. So, uh, anytime I I meet a black Christian, the first thing that they one of the one of the first things that that, uh, that we talk about is the sense of identity. And I get that. I do get that. I do understand that. Um, but I'm always still assertive in the fact that this has caused damage to our community and we need to deconstruct from it. Even if you end up still believing, the fact that you think more critically about what you're believing now is um is a win for me in my in my opinion because there are too many people I'm not going to say on the live, but there are too many people that I that I see out there, especially black Christians, uh who don't um recognize I I'll end it there. It's it goes into a lot of things in our in our community, and I I'll have to end it there. But yeah, but thank you for the question. I I appreciate that. Um I'm very empathetic towards black Christians, but I'm still assertive on how much damage the the black church has caused to us.
>> All right, we've got a couple people waiting to get in. I think Brian was next. So let's look at Brian and then um after that looks like Jimmy and then Brandon.
Welcome in. Brian, are you at least 18?
>> Yes.
>> Awesome. And do you believe in God?
You met us before. I believe in Yahweh.
>> The same bride as before, huh?
>> Yep.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> I'm back.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Let's see. Uh what Let me see. Believes in uh Yahooa.
There we go.
>> What?
And uh >> let me ask you a question this because I >> It's definitely not called Hebrew. You absolutely don't know any.
>> No, it's not.
>> No, it's not.
>> There's no shurik in PaleoHebrew, idiot.
>> I'd hate to break the news to you, but yeah, it was like BC when that first script of Hebrew, so you don't know. And there wasn't a shurik in the original form of Hebrew that came >> that comes closer to the period got evidence of here to argue that.
>> All right. Well, I know you're not here to argue that you shouldn't have said.
>> What I'm saying is that you don't ask me a question.
>> That's part of communication. When I ask you a question, >> yeah, you're you're a great communicator, right? You're the best of the communicators. Can't wait. So what's your argument talking?
>> So Yahweh is his real name, not whatever you >> certainly not the case, but go ahead and give me your bad argument.
>> So my bad argument is that it's not even has to do with something I created. It's something I listen to. So when I hear your guys' speeches, and this is atheist, and you guys are trying to prove a point to what you call Christians, >> he's trying to I am. So you actually had to listen. So you actually have to understand that when you're you're bringing all these points up, you come attacking that scriptures and your scriptures are attacks or the they're come as what she was trying to call the other dude a pedophile is that you your biggest argument is that if we do we have a heavenly father, how could he let children get raped?
>> No, that's not that's never been an argument.
>> Sickening, >> Brian. Never once have I ever said that.
What I said, what I said was God didn't allow it. He caused it. That's that's the difference there. The allowing something to happen, first of all, is terrible. But causing it to happen, I think, is even worse.
>> He caused it to happen.
>> I know he did. Yeah.
>> So, cuz if people fail the citizens around them and don't protect them, that's somehow his responsibility because you left your part actually protecting your neighbors, right?
>> No. No. He says he's causing it.
>> Oh, [ __ ] Yeah.
>> I thought he was off. I'm >> saying is that everybody likes to put the point to him because they they're lazy. They don't want to actually take action in their own heads. Take, you know, >> but you're like powerful. What? He gave you power, didn't he? Gave you free will, didn't he?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um um he did. He's the one that's watching over the Hey. Hey, Brian. Brian. Brian. Brian.
Let's let's go through this from the beginning. As a matter of fact, does does God know everything? Is he all knowing?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, if he's all knowing, that means that he knows everything we're going to do, past, present, future.
>> He told you that.
>> So, we don't have any free will.
Everything that we do, he already knows.
We It's already set in stone.
>> What does that have to do? No, that's not >> said. We have free will.
Wait, hold on. Hold on, Brian. Brian, I just asked you. Does God know everything past, present, future? You said yes.
>> Does he create everything as well? Past, present, future?
>> Yes. Okay. So if he knows everything past, present, future, he created everything past, present, future. That means me right now doing all of this, he created these events, too. So I don't have free will according to you.
>> Well, actually, no. That's not what he said at all. And that's way out of touch.
>> I'm going off what you said. I Okay, let's go do this again. Let's go do this again. Does God know everything past Brian? Does God know Brian Brian?
Yes.
>> Does Does God know everything past, present, future?
>> We all talk fast talk each other. I'm going to tell you right now.
>> Brian O'Brien. Does God know everything past, present, future?
>> Did I say yes?
>> Okay.
>> You think my answer going to change for you?
>> Did God create everything past, present, future?
>> Where's the answer last time? It's not going to change.
>> Okay. You said yes. That means according to your That means according to your will. That means that has nothing to do >> that means according to the theology that you just stated we don't have free will.
>> Actually that is a lie what you just stated because it has nothing to do with what was said cuz he created something.
What does that have to do with free will? Free will is the basic is I gave you a simple set of rules. You have the free will either to follow them or to disobey them. He's not going to force it down your throat. He's not going to bully you. He's not going to kill you for a minute. He says you have the free will to walk this earth and do whatever you want to do. And if you choose to walk with him, that is your path and your punishment.
>> That's not free will. If you have to punish somebody, if you punish somebody for making decision, they don't have free will.
>> Means he's watching your heart.
>> So Brian, we need you to focus because trying to explain something to you that maybe is like in your understanding.
Okay. So maybe I I'll I'll dumb it down.
Let's imagine that like I'm a I'm a creator, right? I I know all the future, right? So in the in this analogy, I know all things. Now I'm at the top of a hill and I've got I've got one ball to roll down that hill. I've just got one ball.
Right now I'm at the top of the hill. I no matter where I put that ball, I know exactly where it's going to end up when I put it down that hill. Correct.
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. Now, if I put it down the front side of the hill, does that mean that I wanted it to roll down the front side of the hill when I could have put it down the back side of the hill?
>> I have no clue.
>> Well, try to think. Okay. If if I know the future and I've got an infinite number of options for me disposing of this ball down the hill and I decide to throw it down the front side of the hill, does it not imply that my desire was for everything to happen where that ball went when I put it down the front of the hill?
>> Yeah.
>> Right. Because I'm not making arbitrary decisions. I'm all knowing. Okay. So what that means is the outcome of me pushing the ball down that hill was the outcome that I wanted. Now as it turns out God did the same thing. He had an infinite number of worlds he could have created. He knew the future and he decided to create this exact world. The world where Buly and I would be atheists. The world where you would be an obstinate believer. This is the world he decided to create. Even though he could have done anything, the the minute he spoke everything into existence, he knew that this particular iteration would result in every single thing happening. So what that means is you only have the illusion of free will cuz God personally selected the world where he knew you would make the decisions that you made and we would make the decisions that we made. But he selected that path for us because he he had an infinite number of paths to choose and he chose that one. That's why you don't have free will.
>> But you just said you had free will. You said you had the world actually made you where you complete atheist and yet you're on the phone and I haven't seen you getting smitten yet.
>> I said the the illusion of free will >> illusion because funny is that I have the choice to believe just like every other, you know, person out there that believes in our heavenly father. And you don't have a choice to believe >> to actually you know believe that you know when you die you go to a black hole and that's it.
>> Going to judge you.
>> You don't have the choice.
>> What I'm saying is that >> you only think that you have the choice.
>> Things atheist belief is that >> when God created the Brian when God created the world did he know that you were going to be a believer?
>> Actually he actually built it for a family and hoped that we would actually be when God created the world. Did he know that you were going to be a believer?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Can you choose to make God wrong about what he knows?
>> You can choose to change your path. Yes.
>> I didn't ask that. I said, "Can you choose to make God wrong about what he knows?"
>> My No, >> I didn't ask about that either.
>> Didn't ask about that either.
>> Try to focus here. Try to focus. Brian, pay attention. My question is really easy. choice.
>> It's a just a yes or no question. Can you make God wrong about what he knows?
It's >> my pure answer.
>> It's just a yes or no. Well, the answer needs to be yes or no.
>> Try it again.
>> My heavenly father knows I have choices and I chose >> No, I didn't. I didn't ask you about choices. That wasn't the question. That wasn't the question. The question Ryan, listen to us.
>> Can't say my name all day long. Listen to us, please. Listen to Ryan. Listen to us, please.
>> The question that we're trying to ask you is, can God be wrong?
>> No.
>> No, he can't. Exactly. So, that means that every and you and we already established like you agree agree with me that the God that you believe in knows everything and created everything, which means he possibly can't be wrong. Which means that I don't have that means that I have the illusion of free will. You have the illusion of free will because everything that we do, he already knew what happened.
We can't choose anything else.
>> We can't choose anything else though.
But Brian Brian, we can't choose anything else, right? We cannot choose anything else.
You just said, you just said that God knows everything and he cannot be wrong.
He knows our choices before we make them and he cannot be wrong. Which means that I cannot choose anything different than what God already knows.
>> Really? What does that say about you though?
>> Look at your your actually your screen right there. It says >> it just means it's predestined, right?
Prove us wrong.
>> So that series of events that will send me to damage.
>> Say pre you will if I say yes or no to that statement right there.
>> I Yeah, he will. Do you?
>> I certainly do.
So free will stands for is if I have a choice to follow my heavenly father or I choose to follow atheism or choose to follow Satan. I mean you have >> Well, that's not what free will is. You want me to give you the actual definition of free will?
>> Do you want me to give you the actual definition of free will?
>> Yeah, there you go.
Who is it from though?
>> Uh from the dictionary.
>> Dictionary. Mhm.
>> It's the ability to make a decision without any outside force or coercion.
But the problem that you have is it's not you don't have a free choice because one of two things is is going to be actually both of the two things I'm about to say are true. One, God will punish you if you make any decisions that he doesn't like. And number two, he already created the world where you would make this decision. He could have created any other world. He when he made the recipe for the universe, he specifically included all the ingredients for the universe to be exactly the way he wanted it. And those ingredients meant that Brian is going to believe a thing and you can't do anything about it. Because if God created that world and knew what you were going to do before he created it, then even after he created it, you couldn't have chosen otherwise.
>> I I'm confused where you're lost here.
>> You are confused. So, let's go back to your job. You are very confused.
>> When your dad told you No, no, no. I want to explain this. When your dad told you, "Hey, boy, you better not stick your hand in that candy jar before you eat your dinner."
>> They only have one illustration ever.
Are you No, this is a good representation. You don't want to hear.
>> No, it's not factual.
>> You're missing the part. You're missing So, you're missing Brian. You're actually missing the piece. No, you're missing the piece because the analogy is that the person one created all things and number two is omnisient. Your dad isn't omnisient and your dad didn't create the universe.
>> Your dad knows exactly what you're going to do. He knows you want your hand.
>> Wait, are you omnicient?
>> Do you know everything your child ever did?
>> You know your kid's looking at that kid.
>> Imagine Imagine being this dumb. You know he's going to sneak it out. Imagine being so dumb that you think having a little bit of predictive uh ability over your children is the equivalent of having omniscience >> wrong.
>> Yeah, it's very stupid, Brian. Because what happens when people are wrong?
Because my parents thought that I would take my parents thought I would take the cookie cookie drug, but I never did because I was a very obedient child. My sisters did, but I didn't because my sister because my sisters my sisters were the ones who were disobedient. They took the cookies. I didn't. But my parents thought that I would take the cookie and they were wrong.
>> What happened to your sister?
>> The issue is The issue here is that what Justin already said. Our parents are not omnition. Brian, >> our parents are not omnicient. No, no, I'm not listening. Our parents are not I'm not listening. The prime the the parents are not omnition. Your parents are not omnicient. Our parents are not all knowing, Brian. Our parents are not all knowing, Brian.
>> Our parents are not all knowing, Brian.
The God that you believe in is supposedly all knowing.
>> Talk somebody all day long.
>> Ryan. Brian. Ryan.
>> Our our parents are not omnicient.
>> Our parents are not omnicient. The God that you believe in supposedly is omnicient, which means that he can't be wrong. Which means all the choices that we make are already known to him.
>> You guys are going to stick your hand in the jar. He was wrong about you because you made a different choice. Your sisters didn't. What happened to your sisters?
>> That's irrelevant to my point. That's irrelevant.
>> Not even in the same ballpark of relevancy. No one. That's not irrelevant.
>> Nobody here is talking about consequences. We're talking about whether or not we actually do choose our future or whether or not God predetermined it for us.
>> What you subtracted from scriptures.
>> Nobody subtracted anything from the scripture. No, >> it's not.
>> Scripture says I have free will to do what I want.
>> Where? Show me that choose to follow that punish.
>> Show me where it says it say that verse, please.
>> Where you do? I have to go to Hold on.
I'm telling you about this and you're arguing it >> because uh the Bible in Romans 9 says that it it depends not on human will or exertion but on God who shows mercy.
>> So is your salvation based on human will or is it based on God's mercy?
>> There's no consequences.
>> Is God's will based is God's uh salvation based on his will and his mercy or on our will?
Was it Matthew telling you that you know >> Romans 9:16 all the stuff and then >> Romans 9:16 you're going to address it or no?
>> What' you say chapter you're looking for?
>> Romans 9:16. Do you have a Bible?
>> Yep.
Well, while he's looking for that Voli, I'm going to use the restroom. Uh, sure thing. I'mma bring it up right now.
So, you there Romans 9:16. You there, Brian?
>> I'm getting there.
>> Mhm.
All right. While he's using the restroom in while um uh Brian is getting to Romans 9:16. Uh shout out to my my my chat. I appreciate you all being here and thank you all for uh letting me on this uh this live uh over on Deconstruction Zone. I appreciate the audience over here on Deconstruction Zone uh over on the Black Atheist Coalition. I appreciate y'all watching me. Even those who are calling me stupid, uh I appreciate you. Just call in on tiny.ccdzlive.
Same thing over on my channel, Vythoughts. Uh tiny tiny.ccdzlive.
You guys can go ahead and come on up and discuss with us. All right, Brian, you got there yet?
>> Yeah.
>> All right, cool. So, Roman 9:16. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy.
You know what that means, right?
>> Yeah. But I'm going to read an original text.
>> The original text? You read Greek now.
>> Original text wasn't Yeah, it wasn't Greek. you.
>> So it is then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but the alohim that shows mercy. For the scripture says unto Pharaoh, >> even for the same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show you my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
>> Therefore, has he say >> on whom he will have mercy? I think he just said alohim.
>> Who said that owed to you?
>> Who said just because you walked the third?
>> Did you um did you catch the part where God says that your future is not your own will but God's a mercy?
>> So you agree with us, right? Um Brian, where it clearly says in in Romans that our future is up to God, not up to us.
Boy, didn't that make sense if if I had free will to say, you know, I'm not going back to >> the kingdom in front of judgment.
>> But Brian, this verse where I go after >> Brian, this verse, this verse clearly says that your future is not up to you.
It's up to God. So that means tomorrow is not up to you. It's up to God. The next day is not up to you. It's up to God.
>> Promise to you.
>> So you don't not have free will by day.
And don't don't make plans for the future because you don't know what the future holds. That's the oldest saying in the book. I mean, what are you going with?
>> That's actually not the oldest thing about >> Oh, no. So, oh, so don't make plans for the future. I So, you're not going to pay your bills this month?
>> That's what I'm saying.
>> You trust >> You said don't make plans for the future. So, you ain't going to pay your bills this month?
>> Can't you pay bills on a daily basis?
What do you got to plan for a future for on that one for?
>> You you play you pay your bills on a daily basis. No, it's just >> telling you that you don't go out and thinking that, oh, I'm going to be here on the 31st to pay that bill.
>> Even though you save the money up for it, it just make sure only thing our heavenly father says, make sure you save up for your children just in case anything happens to you.
>> Why do we have children if we plan for the future?
>> Pro for your children.
>> Why should we have children if we're not going to be planning for the future?
>> What does that do with their future?
>> You said don't plan for the future. So why why would we have >> you don't know what Genesis said?
>> What about it?
>> I made you to make a big giant family, not for you to sit there and make a couple people and go, "Oh, here we go."
>> So we should plan for the future.
>> Which one is it?
>> Make children and live day.
>> So we should plan for the future. Which one is it?
>> What are you planning for?
>> It's very confusing.
>> Very confusing.
>> No, you're confusing me. Very confusing.
>> What What does it go from our heavenly father giving you free will to you wanting kids in the future? Uh because uh as we already explained this, if God knows everything and he cannot be wrong as you already agreed, you're asking me the question now you're talking.
>> If God knows everything and he cannot be wrong, what you already agreed with, then that means any choice that we make, he already planned it out, which means we don't have free will.
>> So you do have free will, though.
>> How do we have free will? If any choice that we make, he already knew beforehand. He cannot be wrong.
>> Ten Commandments, right? What does it say?
>> He'll never answer the question. He's terrified.
>> Actually, no. He's not terrified of anything. But I'm telling you, he's >> terrified, which is why he won't actually answer the question.
>> Oh, no. I'm answering your question here. Ten Commandments, right?
>> You're actually not going to actually not going to answer the question.
>> You can't answer the question, can you?
>> You didn't ask a question. Both as a question and you didn't answer.
>> No, Brian ask.
>> No, no, no, no, no, no. this back and stuff. I will give Volce more power cuz apparently he thinks he needs to be the head of the mic instead of letting people other people talk. Seerian up there says, "You've done nothing but be an inconsiderate [ __ ] every time you've ever been in a live stream that's included me. We have no reason to treat you with respect."
>> Yeah, Brian. Ryan, Ryan, the first thing the first thing the first thing you said was you're going to act you was going to give me the the floor and now you're trying to colonize the floor. All right.
So, let's go ahead.
>> Let's go ahead. Let's go ahead and give me the floor now, right? All right.
Cool. So, the question um from from the beginning was >> about free will. That's what we're talk we're discussing. Our point myself and Justin was that if God knows everything and God created all events which you which you agreed with then that means we cannot have free will because all the choices that we make in our lives he knows beforehand and he cannot be wrong.
>> So if he cannot be wrong about any of the choices that we make that he knows beforehand we didn't choose anything. He we don't have free will. How do we have free will if he if he knows all the choices that we make and he cannot be wrong?
>> Huh?
>> My question back to you is that you >> He'll never answer. A question is not an answer.
>> Actually, here's your answer, Chief. You answered your own question. You told me a story about you and your sisters.
Well, you kind of answered your question there, too. It's the same answer I'm going to give you.
>> Still waiting for the answer. a choice to make a decision on your life.
>> No.
>> No, we don't. Bro, you do. I told you you don't. No. Seriously, the Bible in front of your crowd.
>> The Bible told us.
>> Really?
>> Yeah.
>> The third world country.
>> Before David was born, were all of his days written for him?
>> Oh, for who?
>> David. King David, the guy that God loves so much, did not God write all of his days for him ahead of time.
>> Yeah. Then he fulfills prophecy.
>> So that means David was doing what God wrote for him to do. That's why he says, "Behold, your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me when none of them as yet existed." So what that means is God wrote the map for David.
>> God designed what David would do, how long he would do it, and how he was do it. And David didn't actually have a say in it.
>> Now, could King David change his mind?
>> King David can't can't make God wrong about what he knows. So, no.
>> No. Could he not change his mind?
Because, you know, uh, didn't Solomon change his mind?
>> He wouldn't be able to change his mind because he can't make God wrong about what he knows.
>> Yeah, buddy. You're backtracking here, buddy. Is >> I'm just reiterating the same point that's gone over your head 15 times.
>> God can never be wrong about what he knows, which means you can't choose otherwise.
>> Yeah, you can. Who told you?
>> No, you can't.
>> God can't be Wait, can God be wrong about what he knows?
>> It's not even scripture what you're saying.
>> Can God be wrong about what he knows?
>> But what does that say in scripture?
>> Can God be wrong about what he knows?
>> What he knows?
>> This what I'm saying is you can't even >> You're not saying anything. We're waiting for you.
>> I've already given you two and you haven't addressed either one of them.
>> I've already given you two of them. I'm still waiting for you to answer whether or not you can make God wrong about what he knows.
>> King David, I said King David.
>> Still waiting for you to answer the question. Can you make God wrong about what he knows?
>> King James, but he'll never answer.
>> No.
>> All right. Well, I think we've heard enough of you for today, Brian. We're going to move on to an adult. Okay. Uh let me know if we need to send a nurse to give you some uh some uh you know oatmeal to gum with your uh your dentures when you get them out tonight.
Okay. I'll send someone to tuck you into bed.
>> Oatmeal and some melatonin and some essence of night shade.
>> All right. I Well, I think Jimmy was up next. Let me grab a couple super chats, friends, and we'll get uh we'll pull Jimmy right up in here. Bird Keeper says, "Let me tell you something."
Actually, >> let me tell you something. Let me tell you something.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.
>> Jesus came on me and a cloud last night and said he's not the prophet. Checkmate Christians. Yep. Divine revelation.
>> Hey, divine revelation.
>> Unell says, "Perhaps the philosophy guys think if they run the same argument for the 10,000th time, they will become convincing. Crazy some people fall for this." You know what? That's the part that gets me with the philosophy goofs is I know that in three quarters of the conversations they're going to have these arguments are going to fail miserably. I don't know why they just continue to run them anyways.
Surf Murf. Hey, good to see you. Thank you for this is Justin Anboly. What is Doug's view of oat milk? If I'm lactose intolerant, will he still bless my bowel of corn flakes? A bowl of corn flakes.
Sorry, we missed a a letter in there.
Uh, listen, Doug absolutely loves uh cereal, so you're good. No worries there.
>> Design, good to see you tonight. Thank you for the super chat. Says, "When we factor in the fact that a black Christian might receive better treatment before the American legal system, we're looking at a legit survival tactic." I get it.
>> There were rules in place.
>> There were rules in place. Yeah. Um, and what what's crazy about about this is is that even though like uh you know they were afraid of of Martin Luther King and and and that message, right? But the question that that Martin Luther King bought up to the segregationist in the south was something that scared a lot of people and he asked a simple question.
Is heaven segregated? You know I mean once he asked his heaven seg is is heaven segregated? A lot of southern Christians became uncomfortable with Jim Crow. Yeah. You know what I mean? and they were afraid of that. But the ones that they really went after is the black secular um organizations such as the Black Panthers because the Black Panthers didn't claim any religion.
Yeah. You know what I mean? And um of course they were Marxists and they were like um Marxist materialists of course.
So Huie P. Newton I know was an atheist and so was Fred Hampton. And then what happened to Fred Hampton? They immediately had to take him out, you know. So, it's just one of the those things like uh it it's crazy that even though a black Christian might receive better treatment a little bit, it's not not that much. You know, it's a it's a but that little is enough, you know, just that little is enough. We're going to read two more super chats. We're going to bring Jimmy in here. Uh Chris says, "I forget which Christian apologetic is it that includes laughing, yelling, deflecting, and not listening.
All glory to Doug whose existence needs no cope." Indeed, that is the case. Most most of the apologetics for people who sound like Brian basically is a whole lot of incredul. I think that's the best apologetic they're going to bring. And the design with a follow-up super chat says, "Isn't free will debunked by every genie story ever? Have we all not agreed uh that it would not be justified to see you trampled by a herd of deer after wishing for 1 million bucks?
A spiritual deer. Spiritual deer.
>> Spiritual deer.
>> Oh [ __ ] that was a good one, Design.
>> Yeah, I love that. Shout out to Design.
>> All right, we'll bring Jimmy in here.
Welcome in, Jimmy. Are you at least 18?
>> Uh, I am. Can you hear me? Okay.
>> Yeah, I can hear them.
>> Jimmy, do you believe in God?
>> Uh, I believe in one God. Yes.
>> Sure. And which God is it?
>> Um, uh, I believe in Jesus Christ.
>> I'm wondering, uh, what god do you guys think is fiction?
>> Well, I would say all of them.
>> Yeah, essentially all of them.
>> And how do you know that?
So when we describe something that's fictional, we're suggesting that it it exists maybe in the imagination or in literature, but then not in real life.
The same way you would say that the tooth fairy is fictional.
>> Yeah, but I'm asking how do you know that? How do you know all gods are fiction?
>> Well, it's never been demonstrated. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Justin. Well, >> well, first of all, it's never been demonstrated, which means the claim isn't warranted. The other thing is that almost all the God concepts in existence entail contradictions. So, you're claiming no one knows?
>> No, I didn't say that.
>> So, you're admitting that someone could know for a fact that God exists.
>> Sure. You have evidence of it.
>> Well, no, I'm just asking. You're making the claim that God is fiction. I'm just asking where your proof is.
>> Yeah, because the God that you believe in entails contradictions.
>> So, well, hold on. So, you're saying Jesus Christ didn't exist or doesn't?
>> No, the human Jesus Christ probably existed. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Do we have no issue with Jesus existing as a person?
>> Hold on. Hold on. Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, hold on.
>> It's possible that Jesus as a guy could have existed, but Jesus as a god is definitely fictional.
>> Uh well, well then what you're saying is we have a difference of definition of what God is, right?
>> And that perhaps your def So what's your definition of God then?
>> I'm talking about like a supernatural being. I'm talking about the Jesus that's in the Bible that walked on water, turned water into wine.
>> What's What's your definition supernatural?
>> Something outside of the natural. I'm I'm not >> Is the word supernatural tripping you up there, Jimmy?
>> Well, no. I'm just wondering what your definition of supernatural is. I'm assuming we have different definitions for a lot of things, and I'm just wondering. So, >> okay. So, I would need to understand how you understand what supernatural is because I think we all kind of have an idea what what I mean by supernatural.
>> Well, you're the one who made the claim, not me.
>> Yeah, I'm talking >> supernatural. Give me an example of super.
>> He just he just gave you what it means.
>> Outside of the >> Yeah, outside of of our uh reality. Um things that happen that are not part of our reality. Like someone walking on water. That's not natural because humans have more density than water, right? So, walking on water is not possible. So, same thing as a as a ver a virgin birth.
We know that women, we know that women need to have sex before or men and women need to have sex before they get pregnant and have a baby, right?
>> Yes. Men Yes. And if that doesn't happen and if that doesn't happen and if that doesn't happen, then it's a supernatural event.
>> So, so hey, Jimmy. Hey, Jimmy. Hey, Jimmy. Hey, Jimmy. I'm going to let you speak. I'm going to let you speak after I'm done. I'm I'm going to let you speak. I'm going to let you speak, but I actually have to be done with my sentence first.
>> I'm sorry that the middle of my sentence interrupted the beginning of yours.
>> So, that's okay. So, something that um that that's supernatural are things that are outside of our natural physical reality, such as a human walking on water. We know that's not possible when um a woman giving birth and and being a virgin. We know that's not possible, right? Without having sex. Well, we have, you know, technology now to make it possible, but back then that wasn't the case, right? So, that's what I that's what we mean by supernatural, turning water into wine, turning one thing into a completely different substance of another thing. They're both liquid, but water and wine are different substances. So making that happen would not be um impossible. That's supernatural. That's outside of our natural reality, our natural realm.
>> That's what I mean by supernatural.
>> We can even add, you know, anime.
>> For the record, For the record, God Jesus Christ does exist, right?
>> He was he was probably a real person.
Sure.
>> So you would admit then that my God is not fiction.
>> No, your God is fiction.
>> Well, Jesus Christ is my God. And you just said that >> Jimmy, we've already been over this and I don't know why you change your name every time you come here. We can say that a human being exists without admitting that that human being is God.
>> You made the claim that all exist. Jesus Christ is my God. You admit that he existed.
>> Does this rock exist?
>> Jimmy, does this rock exist?
>> I don't understand what that has anything to do with what we're talking >> Just answer the question. Does a rock exist?
>> Oh yeah, that rock exists. If I call this rock God, does that mean that this God rock exists or does it just mean a regular rock exists?
>> Could be God. To you it could be God.
>> No. In reality >> in reality to you it could be God.
>> I'm asking about me outside of my reality.
>> If you make the claim that that is God, then in your mind, sure.
>> Oh, well asking about like if I'm if I'm a >> This is This is why Jimmy has to call in with a different name every time. Jimmy, what what was your name last time you called in here?
>> It's very It's very >> Hey, Jimmy, what name did you pick last time you were here?
>> Your claim.
>> You didn't debunk it. You didn't debunk a single thing.
>> We both admitted that Jesus Christ is real, right?
>> Oh, we both admit that Jesus Christ is not a god, right? So, Muhammad >> Okay. Well, now you're >> Muhammad uh Muhammad existed, but you're also >> Is Muhammad a prophet?
>> Nobody knows.
>> Jimmy, is Muhammad a prophet?
>> No.
>> But but he existed.
>> Correct. But people believe he's a prophet.
>> Correct.
>> But he's not a prophet.
>> But he's a >> correct.
>> Okay. So in the same way your own I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> But to those people prophet, right? To >> we're not asking We're not asking about somebody's perspective. We're asking about what is in reality claim.
>> Jimmy, just shut up for 5 seconds. I I This is why you have to change your name every time you come in my live is because you're such an idiot that won't listen. Just because something exists and some people believe a thing about that thing doesn't mean that the thing they believe about it is true. The same way you don't believe in reality Muhammad was a prophet. We don't believe in reality that Jesus was God. Do you understand? I'm not asking you what people believe. I'm asking you what is reality.
>> So So are you saying a man wearing woman's clothes is not a woman?
>> I again we're talking about Jesus right now.
>> Yeah. But I'm just I'm just wondering that's >> I know you're just wondering and this is the same thing this is the same thing you brought up >> you brought up Muhammad.
>> This is the same thing you brought up last time and that I ended up kicking you out on because you couldn't focus on the actual debate. You kept trying to pivot to nonsense uh like political debates which is not what we're doing here tonight. We're talking about God.
>> So do you want to talk about God or no?
>> How is how is Jesus Christ not >> Is God a he him?
>> Not political.
>> Uh he is. Yes. Is God the father? Does he have a penis?
>> Well, I was made in his image. So, I >> Does God have Does God have a physical penis?
>> He might. I don't know.
>> Does he have chromosomes?
>> Seen God? I've never seen God.
>> Why do if you don't know if God has chromosomes or a penis? Why do you call him a father?
>> Well, because he refers to himself as him.
>> Okay. So, it's okay just to pick prefer preferred pronouns then.
>> Well, I'm sure that Oh no, I'm taking my own argument now.
>> You're just going to interrupt me?
>> That's That's why transphobia doesn't work.
>> You're just going to interrupt me?
>> All right. You want to get back to the actual argument or you just want to get clowned on things you don't understand?
>> So, I want to hear I want to see proof that you guys from you guys that no gods exist whatsoever.
>> Oh, it's easy.
>> That that no god exists.
>> We finally we finally got around to the actual argument. Yeah. Because all the God concepts entail contradictions, namely that you can do things outside of space and time. You can't do anything outside of time because time is a sequencing of events. And without a sequencing of events, >> logic as well. God is >> Oh, so God's illogical.
>> No, God is logic.
>> No, God isn't logic. Logic isn't a thing.
>> God is logic.
>> No, logic is not a thing.
>> Logic is a thing.
>> Logic is not a noun.
>> So non-contradiction, the law of non-contradiction isn't real. The law of non-contradiction describes reality.
It's not a thing that exists in the universe.
>> So, it's not real.
>> It describes something. It >> So, it's not real is what you're saying.
>> No, Jimmy, that's not what we said. What we're saying is that it's describing something that we see in reality. It's not a thing onto itself.
>> So, so the laws of logic aren't real.
>> The laws of logic are descriptions of reality. How many times you have to hear it?
>> They're descriptions of reality, bro. We look out into the universe. We see how it works and we're saying that things don't contradict themselves. Well, that's one of the laws.
>> Laws come from where those laws >> they come from us.
>> So, they don't ex they don't exist outside of a mind.
>> They're invented by a mind.
>> Okay. So, you're saying that if the mind didn't exist, the human mind, we'll just say for simplicity that the human mind is the only mind in the universe. Okay.
So, let's not bring up aliens and stuff like that. So, if the human mind didn't exist, then contradiction could exist in the universe. No.
>> So then it exists absent the human mind.
>> No. What we're saying is the laws of logic are describing the behavior of things. So if human mind didn't exist, >> Jimmy, shut the [ __ ] up.
>> If human minds didn't exist, then the law wouldn't exist, right? The law of excluded middle wouldn't exist. The law of non-contradiction wouldn't exist. The law of identity wouldn't exist because it a mind had to come up with it. But the behavior that it's describing that the way things interact with reality that behavior will still keep on behaving that way. So the laws that we're referring to don't have existence but they are describing things that do actually happen something that happens consistently which is why we can call them laws.
>> Yeah. So they exist outside the human mind.
>> No.
So something can be contradictory outside the human mind.
>> Nope.
>> No.
>> So then they only exist within the mind.
>> Yeah. The laws of logics are mind- dependent.
>> Okay. So if humans go away, okay, the mind goes away. The human mind, those laws go away.
>> The laws go away, but the phenomenon that they describe still continues. No, there wouldn't, idiot.
>> The laws of logic. So something could >> the laws of logic are descriptive not prescriptive right no no nothing in the universe is checking with the laws of logic the laws of logic are just describing the behavior of the universe that's what's happening also I'm pretty sure this is uh is this praise I am hey Jimmy is this praise >> who >> are you praise I am >> I don't know who that is >> you sound a lot like praise I Nope. I'm just trying to figure out if the laws of logic exist outside of the human mind.
>> Well, we already told you that the laws of logic are mind dependent.
>> They don't. So, okay. So, they said a lot like praise.
>> So, so you're saying Hey, Jimmy. Jimmy, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I got you. I'm not going to derail it. I'm I'm I'm not I'm on the I'm on the same subject. I'm on the same subject.
Listen, Jimmy. Would trees exist whether or not humans are here?
Oh, sorry. I muted.
>> Laws of logic.
Listening. So, the laws of Wait, wait.
I'm I'm in with I'm within the law. I'm just I'm trying to explain. I'm just trying to demonstrate what I'm just trying to elucidate what what what Justin is saying.
>> If humans weren't around, trees would still be would still exist. Right.
>> Correct. But they wouldn't exist.
>> Hold on. Wait. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Jimmy. Jimmy. Jimmy.
>> Jimmy. Jimmy. Hold on. Hold on. Jimmy, let me just let me just finish what you're saying. Okay. So trees would exist whether or not humans are here.
Would the word tree would a description of brown and green would those exist without humans being here?
>> The color green would exist. Correct.
>> I'm talking about the color. I'm talking about the word the word the description.
Would that exist? Exactly. So that's what the that's what that's what um Justin is saying about the laws of logic. The phenomenon is still there but the description of that phenomenon depends on us.
Okay. So, the laws of logic exist outside of our mind.
>> No, the phenomena description. No, he didn't.
>> That's what So, so can exist and not exist at the same time absent the human mind.
>> Obviously, the tree can't exist and not exist at the same time exist outside the human mind.
>> Said that their mind, >> the laws of logic are just describing the way things behave. That's it. there doesn't mean the law exists. It just means that this is how things behave and these laws describe that behavior. It's not very difficult.
>> So, you're just going to keep muting me?
>> Yeah. Yeah. You're the type of person that needs muted.
>> Often when you mute people, that means you're losing the argument.
>> No, it means you're incapable of listening.
>> Mute me. You have to mute me. No, >> it just means that you're being a disruptive [ __ ] That's why you get muted.
>> Yeah. Yeah. In fact, typically the only people that get muted in my stream are like pieces of [ __ ] like you.
>> Oh. Oh, okay.
>> So, so now that we've So, now that we've discovered that trees can exist and not exist at the same time, >> is it can that happen absent the human mind? Absent the mind?
>> You mean does the phenomenon still hold true if we're not here to describe it?
>> Correct.
>> Yeah. The phenomenon still holds true even if we're not here to describe it.
So that law of the phenomenon is not a lawreated createre where the laws of logic described >> they were created.
>> They were created. So something existing and not existing at the same time was created. Huh?
>> No, that's a description.
>> Okay.
>> How is this over your head? We we've given you like three different examples we gave it. Sure, we can.
>> And your reptilian brain isn't even capable of understanding it. My own [ __ ] cat can understand this. This is not very difficult.
>> Sure. We put words to it, but we didn't have words. If we put words to what for some >> we put words to what I'd say. If you'd stop interrupting, I'll say >> Okay. So, we put words to something existing and not existing. Okay. But even if we took away those words, but we understood the concept of it, right, of something existing and not existing, that would still be there, right?
>> What would be there in the concept without words?
>> Do laws exist in the universe? Are there laws that govern the universe?
>> No.
>> So the so the speed of light isn't the universal speed limit of the universe.
>> It is, but not because the law not because we not because >> it's crazy that >> Thank you.
>> Actually wasn't easy. You dumb [ __ ] If you wait 5 seconds to hear my answer, you'd understand why it sounds so stupid because nothing's checking with these limits in the universe. The laws of physics are just describing behaviors that the universe typically abides by. Nothing's checking with these laws. It's not like light is like, "Oh, [ __ ] I can't go faster than this." That's not how this works. The way physical laws work is we're saying, "Look, here's the way things behave. If it always behaves in that particular way, we're we're just going to call this a law because it's something that always happens or at least almost always happens."
So the laws laws of physics don't exist outside the human mind either for you guys.
>> No [ __ ] they're just descriptions.
They're >> descriptions. So So Jimmy, how do how do we get to a god now? Jimmy, how do we get to a god now? How do we get to a god? Because we already answered this question, right? Like all the all the god concepts um yes I am. All the god concepts all the god all the yes I am.
All the god concepts entail contradictions and they never been demonstrated in within reality.
So, it's fair to say that they're fictional. Just like Frieza has never been demonstrated in reality. Just like Naruto has never been demonstrated in reality. Just like Spider-Man has never been demonstrated in reality. So, we can say that they're fictional.
>> Hey, uh, is this John?
>> So, you're saying go. So, you're making a claim. You're making the claim that John has never existed in anyone's reality. That's a That's a pretty bull.
>> Hey, Jimmy. I know exactly who this is now. Hey, Jimmy, let me ask you a question. Can you now name this >> homonym attack me and if I try to >> No, I'm just going to make fun of you.
>> Usually, you know, you're having a debate.
>> Are you capable? This I know exactly who you are now. Are you capable of naming the first five books of the Bible this time around? Cuz last time we talked, you couldn't.
>> What What does that have to do with anything now?
>> So, you still can't You're Johnny. You called in. You called in. Does that have anything?
>> You called in under the name John last time and last time I clowned on you and then you couldn't even name the first five books of the Bible.
>> But what does that have anything to do with >> I knew it was [ __ ] hell. You are by far >> the dumbest caller that has ever come on my channel. In fact, let me for a second. Anyone wants to hear the dumbest caller that has literally ever been in my channel ever, maybe dumber than praise, go find the video clip of a guy named John on my channel. It might even be in like the top 10. I forget uh if it was in the top 10 for 2025. Uh it was only a matter of time before somebody pegged you, but this is absolutely John.
I can't name the first five books of the Bible.
>> Attacks and more ad homonym attacks and muting. Huh?
>> Uhhuh. Uhhuh. Is that all you guys can do is add hominemimatics? And >> we can't with you. Yeah, because you don't have any substance.
>> What are you talking about? I just within 30 seconds of being on here, I proved you wrong. I don't know what you mean.
>> No, you didn't.
>> You guys both accepted that real.
>> You both doesn't make him a god.
>> The fact that you think thinking a human being is real.
>> Absolutely.
>> This guy This guy's really uh this guy's really off his rocker tonight. You're just you're just going to need >> Yeah. Yes.
>> We're just going to make fun of you to your face publicly.
>> That just means you lost the debate.
>> No, certainly not. It means you're not worthwhile.
>> Hey, Jimmy, did did you go around like the the corner and was it was it meth or was it Molly? Which which one which one was it, buddy?
>> Odd hominem attack.
>> Yeah. Before Before you hopped on here, which one was it?
>> Go back to saying >> it's pretty messed up. Uh, >> what?
>> We got to get to the crack of the conversation. You know, >> you're the one with the Ohio hoodie on.
And isn't Ohio the meth capital of the United States?
>> Probably probably not the capital, but I would say there are some parts of the state that are that used to be pretty high.
>> Ohio has more drug over >> I'd say pretty high in definitely the 90s, maybe even the 80s. Um, but as it turns out, I don't participate in that.
Sounds like you do though.
No. No. So, well, I mean, I just to be just to be clear though, Jimmy, you still can't even name the first five books of the Bible, can you?
>> I don't see what that has anything to do with anything.
>> Just checking. Just Just making sure you still can't.
>> So, so more ad homonym attacks. Is that what it is?
>> No, I'm just insulting.
>> Come back again in a couple weeks and we'll do it all over again.
>> Someone asks if this is staged. Uh, it it seems pretty staged. I think that at this point I think he just calls in for the laughs. Tell you to win. Tell you the truth. And he rejoined as Jimmy wins. That's crazy.
>> It's crazy that Jimmy thought you just ate with that.
>> Hey, whatever you got to tell yourself to sleep at night there, buddy. Question everything. Thank you for the super chat. It says, "I'm giving this super chat of my own free will. A free will given to me by Doug.
Perhaps I'll consult the oracle." And William, good to see you, my friend.
Thank you for the spirit. It says the nobody cares about your pronouns people freak out when you refer to God with she her pronouns. I need to start doing that just by default every time >> we get one of these clowns to start calling God or her and watch their head spin. They really don't like it.
>> They hate it. They hate it.
>> Blanker, thank you for the super says, "Why did Jesus cross the road?" Oh, wait. He didn't cross the road. He rode the cross. Hey.
Hey. That's a good one.
That's pretty good. I like that. Yeah, that was wonderful.
>> Relax with Russell. Good to see you tonight. Says Brian the [ __ ] kid doesn't have free will either. If they will be punished for taking the cookie, they don't have free choice. They have a directive. Exactly.
>> 100% on it.
>> Uh Ren Resistance, good to see you.
Says, "The average Corvid is more intelligent than Brian. I'm convinced his parents tried to name him Brian and misspelled it. Explains a lot.
trying to name him brain and misspelled it first. Thank you for the super says my depression screening has improved significantly. Shout out to all of this community. You're the best. Thanks be to Doug. Rock hard for Doug. Simply wet for Sharon Sharon. Justin's [ __ ] rock and gay for Justin. Well, thank you Porcelina. I am glad that you're feeling better. Super super appreciate you letting us know. And Chicus is with us tonight. Jimmy sounds like he like his wife better never refuse to make that sandwich. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, he does.
>> Uh we'll do one more super chat here. Uh from uh Nasius says, "They were once called the laws of thought because they were a first person description of the act of thinking."
>> Exactly. Wow, I didn't know that. That's something new I learned. Oh, wow. I didn't know that. Well, let's bring in our next guest is going to be Brandon.
After Brandon, we're going to bring in Mike from the Tik Tok Q and then Cara from the Tik Tok Q.
Welcome in Brandon. Are you at least 18?
And do you believe in God?
>> Yes, to both questions. What's up, boys?
What's up, Justin? Mr. Vy, how are you doing today?
>> Doing well, thanks for asking. How are you? How's it going?
>> I am doing well. Hopefully everything looks good on the screen.
>> Yeah, we should be good.
>> Awesome. Okay. Um, yes, this is this is more casual for me, so I'm not like coming up here with like a bunch of notes or anything like that, but um yeah, I'm a theist, so I'm convinced there is a god. Um, one of my biggest things I'm curious to get your perspective. And again, I'm I just want to be convinced of the truth. You know what I mean? Um, I don't want to follow a thing. I want I don't want to follow fairy tale because it's comfortable to me. I think as human beings our duty is to follow the truth no matter how uncomfortable that is. Um so with that being said, I did a deep dive into my own faith. You know, why do I believe in God etc etc. One of my big things that you know there's there's a good amount but the creation of the universe what was before the universe. Um if if scientists are saying hey everything comes to uh uh you know the big bang you know how did that get started that's one of my reasons for theism um I'm thinking that the thing that made matter time um was a space has to be outside of those things and I think theism is a fine explanation for that where I find atheism is a is not as convincing. What do you What do you guys make of that?
Because again, I just want to learn from that. Yeah.
>> Uh >> yeah, your mic's a little bit low right now, Voli.
>> Give me one second. We're back now.
There we go. All right. Um yeah, so whenever I There we go. Sorry about that. All right. Yeah. So, um this is something that that I struggle with as well when I was uh deconstructing. So, here's what I I always say, right? I think about what we know about our universe, what we know about not not just our planet, but anything that we see out there, what are the explanations for them? Has have we ever had a supernatural explanation for anything that we know about our universe, for rain, for star formation, for galaxy clusters, anything? Has it ever been a supernatural explanation? an explanation that needed uh an agent outside of space and time causing it to happen. We've never needed that for anything, right? People used to think that, you know, gravity was basically demons pulling you down to the ground, right? So, but we know that that's wrong. And people used to think that, you know, the ancient Greeks thought that rain and lightning was just Zeus being mad or, you know, committing domestic abuse on Hera. You see what I'm saying? But we know that that's wrong.
So whenever I I think about the same subject about our existence, uh yeah, we can um we can postulate that it was uh a supernatural agent or being outside of space and time that that made it. But why is that the answer and not simply a natural process that we simply don't understand yet? Because our ancients didn't know the natural processes of earthquakes and stuff like that. So they blame them on gods, too.
But right now we understand that there's a natural process to what earthquakes are. So why would the existence in of itself, the universe need a uh another supernatural explanation and it not simply be a natural explanation that we just don't understand yet and can't explain with our our models of physics at the moment. It could that could be the answer. Now you could your answer be um also be true? Yeah, sure. But do we have evidence for that? Is it probable?
There's really none of that. We really don't have any, do we? So, why believe that over what we've always had in a as a human species, natural explanations for just about almost anything that we have. Why does the universe need a supernatural one? Does that all make sense?
>> Yes, sir. Thank you for that um explanation. Justin, would you be of the same impression or would you have a little bit of a different answer?
>> Well, I think I first of all, I do agree. Um, if there was a start to the universe, I think it would necessarily be a naturalistic start, but I actually don't think that the universe has a start. And I don't think that that's what the big bang teaches.
>> The big bang is literally just telling you like this is far back we can go in time. Um, because of the way our universe is formed. So, I personally believe in the big bang big crunch model and I think there's scientific data for that model which suggests that the universe always existed in some form.
Um, and it's been expanding and contracting essentially for all of eternity.
>> Interesting. So, with that, the big bang big crash, I've never heard of that, by the way, so I apologize for not being familiar with it, but my my issue is that it's hard for me to just presume it's already been in existence with it being material and such.
>> Why?
because it is a thing, >> you know, it's it's physical. It's actually exists and for me to just say it is has always been there.
>> But what's the evidence that it hasn't always been there? Because we have good reasons to believe it has been there.
>> Well, that's I would guess I would just disagree there. I I would think the universe has not always been there. Why?
>> Because there is, if I'm not mistaken, evidence that it began somewhere that the universe is expanding.
>> Not really. Cuz the the big bang explains that the universe expanded from a hot dense state and or a singularity.
And when scientists say hot dense state or singularity, it's basically just a placeholder for, you know, our ignorance because our models of physics can't really explain what's happening there.
like our our models of space and time kind of break down. We don't really know what's going on. Now, there's of course physicists today that are figuring it out, but we should let them figure it out instead of simply saying that it must have came from some some other agent, right?
>> So, you're saying the consensus is it's it's always there's always been matter. It was never a time there was not matter.
>> No, no. The the consensus is actually that there isn't one. So, if you ask physicists, in fact, there's a survey that was done um it was published uh from Copenhagen. In fact, I still have it up because we were talking about this earlier. Um most most people don't have um a consensus, most scientists don't have a consensus on like what was before the big bang, but if you ask them was there nothing like was the big bang the start of all things and even the start of time, the majority of scientists say no. So in the survey recently it says um in your opinion how should we understand the big bang? Option number one is an absolute beginning of time with a singularity at its start which got about 11% so nine votes and then the other option is an absolute beginning of time but without a singularity which got six votes or 6% 5 votes. But the by far the most popular was option three, a theory that says the universe evolved from a hot dense state that says nothing about whether there was an absolute beginning of time or not. So the big bang isn't really making claims like the big bang theory isn't really making claims about what came before the big bang. It's just describing the expansion of what was what seemingly already there.
>> Interesting. Very interesting. Okay.
because I always want to steal men positions. I don't want to just like strong because that's who's that helping, right?
>> Um, >> if you would, one of my other things is about I'm not sure. I'm sure I think Justin you have the MD. You probably heard about this where some things have a nec some things are necessary and others are contingent.
>> Yeah. I mean, the argument from contingency is pretty popular in Christian philosophical circles.
Yeah, that's really been my biggest hangup. How can we understand, you know, what we know the story we can think of a dragon? It doesn't make it real, but it's possible.
But if we have the example of God which is you know omnisient which is maximally all things um it would be necessary for that being to be in one of the worlds which makes it necessary for all the worlds. Is that a >> a >> this is kind of the like a version of the onlogical argument where you kind of get to dream something into existence.
But I think the problem with the onlogical argument is it makes a huge leap between premise number one and premise number two, which is that because you can imagine something existing in all possible worlds that it must exist in all possible worlds. But that's not really how necessity works.
Just because you can imagine something existing in all possible worlds doesn't mean that it it could or would exist in all possible worlds.
>> Well, from my understanding, it's that if God's possible one Well, yeah, if God's possible. I actually don't think God is possible.
Not the way it's described in uh in the literature because I don't think it's possible for something to exist outside of space and time because something outside of space and time would have nowhere to exist and couldn't exist for any amount of time and certainly couldn't take actions to create. Like all creation events would be a sequence of events and you can't have a sequence of events without time. So existing out of time would mean that God would be 100% impotent.
my >> there are there are other issues that that I've seen with that um as well right because well one well know what one what Justin already said you know just because you can imagine it therefore is is all possible world I can imagine that God is evil therefore God is evil in all possible worlds or I can imagine that God is a bald black dude and and who carries a big stick and looks like my dad therefore my dad is a god in every possible world it like it gets more and and more like uh more and more like ridiculous. You I mean if you know if if this is possible in this world then that means all they're all possible. It's like at that point it's like anything is possible. You know Willy Wonka could could be real in another dimension. It's >> Yeah. You know what I mean?
>> Um >> I lost my train of thought, but just >> Oh, sorry about that. Sorry about that.
>> No, you're good. So the idea that a god couldn't exist because it doesn't make sense for, you know, that god to operate in time uh or to manipulate matter.
I I'll be honest, I feel like that's kind of like a, you know, a fish looking out of the the fish tank bowl and saying that surely something that breathes air couldn't exist and walk on the ground.
You know, it feels like because of our inability to understand what would happen outside of our constraints, I don't think that necessitates that that thing couldn't exist.
>> You know what I mean?
>> I think the problem is like once you start entailing um like contradictions in your worldview, they become very difficult to hold up. So, for example, if God doesn't have to abide by logic, we could then say that God uh can exist and not exist in the same moment, how does that work, >> right? And that's that's actually one of the fun ones because we say like God's omnipotent, but can he make 1 plus 1 equal three? You know what I mean? And that's like it's like logically no. Then he can't do something. But I'm like I don't know. Like I feel like God's just working on different he's work literally working on a different realm. So >> trying to fit my constraints on him, I feel is a >> is disingenuous. It's it's an unfair playing field.
>> Well, I think it's actually just describing reality pretty well, right?
So if something exists, it just is, right? Can something exist and not exist at the same time? Well, clearly not because they're they're true dichotoies.
If something does exist, then that means it doesn't not exist. If something doesn't exist, it means that it doesn't exist. I mean, it just isn't there, right?
>> So, if if like if God can't play by the laws of logic, that just means um that he can exist and not exist at the same time, which is to me like the height of absurdity because if God doesn't exist, how could you say that he does exist?
>> So, is there a problem with God logically existing? we can say >> well my thought is if there is a god it would have to abide by at least the laws of logic meaning it can't break the laws of logic because the laws of logic are literally describing existence but um you could have a god that is within time and within space but now we're we're going to be limiting this god this god isn't actually the creation or the the cause of all creation this god is somehow inside of creation and at that point like once you have a god that's inside of creation it becomes weak to be like, well, do we still call it God? Has it always been there? Did it develop from within creation? There's so many questions. And if the God exists within creation, then what's he good for? If we already grant that there's a creation that God didn't create, then it seems like God is now a useless concept.
>> Yeah. Um, and uh, for me, like that that's really the the issue. I've I've always had the outside of space and time thing because spacetime is basically all of reality, right? So if you said that God is outside of space and time, he's outside of reality, which makes him not real by definition. But even if we were to grant that, going back to your previous um example of a fish in a in a fishbowl saying that it's impossible for someone to walk on the ground and and and breathe oxygen, that's really just, you know, uh different forms of basically different frames of of reference. Like I'm pretty sure an an ant can't perceive what we are because their their mind just are not there, right? But if we're going to say that um this this God, he's outside of space and time because he's in some sort of higher dimension, that would still make him some something bound by um some sort of physics that we just don't understand yet. And at that point, is it a god or is it just an alien that we don't we don't understand? So is the position that God is not all um powerful because he is bound by logic.
>> I would say that um the the the the gods that are described by like classical monotheist um apologetics like uh omni balevolence, omnisient um >> that is that entails contradictions.
Yeah. I mean, so I I won't think that that that God exists. And if we're going to be getting to a God just like how Justin said it was is within the bounds of spaceime like uh I would say that that's basically, you know, how I said earlier in the live, that's basically Galactis.
You know what I mean? More powerful than us, but >> more powerful than us, but is is it all powerful really? You know, >> right? and the the description you're saying these descriptions that we're classifying God what like it's it's it's difficult because we all we always have these biases that we always put into you know God about what we think of course who he is and such >> but I'm trying to understand the the maximally you know ontologically he's the maximum being um how that and I would agree with Justin that a god inside creation would not make it god because a god I think ontologically by definition has to be outside of creation.
>> So any god has a start couldn't be god would have to be eternal.
Um yes. So Jesse, would you be able to clear that up for me on on the the logic and god part? If we presume that God is outside of uh creation >> because if if God is outside of time that means he must create time. And the problem we have is in order to create anything you've got a sequence of events at a minimum you've got at least two sequences. One sequence where the thing doesn't exist and another sequence where it does exist.
>> So what that what that means is in order to create anything you need time to already exist. And that means time itself couldn't be a creation because you need time to create time. So it must have always existed.
>> That's why I think maybe we're talking past each other because I would have no issue saying that uh God is beyond time and is not bound by it in any way, shape or form.
>> But then he can't do anything.
>> I would disagree because I think time is more of a of a us constraint in the same way like where is he? You know what I mean?
>> Where is he doing these things?
>> Okay. Can God would say would assume that he's got some spiritual fingers of some nature. Can God click his fingers?
>> Well, that's that's a presumption that he is existing in space and time. I think if he wanted to snap his his fingers, he would have to create space and time to do that, >> right? But you can't create >> But you can't create without time already existing because creation is a sequence of events.
Creation is a sequence of events >> because you've got at at a minimum you've got one frame where it doesn't exist and then a second frame where it does exist. That's a sequence of events.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. It's like how does God do things without some sort of time taking place?
Cuz one thing happened and another thing happened. That's that's time taking place. is beyond a sorry >> if God if he even thought about what he was going to create before he created it well that's in time too if he didn't even think about his creation before he created it that means it's entirely arbitrary >> interesting that is interesting >> is it possible that God can exist but time still be a contingent being and not necessary or a contingent thing. Maybe not being is a is a proper word. Whereas because God's God exists, it has to exist. Time has to become a thing.
>> Well, it seems like if time always existed, then it would exist independent of God.
>> But that's what I'm I'm I'm supposing that God would have to be a thing because time's a thing. But if there was no God, there would be no time for that thing to be a thing.
>> This is getting really fun with our thing words.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I mean, if God is a thing, whatever we call a thing, it would have to be in time or else the thing can't do anything, right? In order to like any any verb, any action, anything um that does anything is necessarily inside of time.
I'm just struggling to see how it is.
So you're saying so okay you see the the cogs are turning in real time >> that >> God can't be possible because he would need time beforehand and >> basically that time is a thing as a creative thing.
>> Yeah. All acts of creation happen within time. Which means the act of creating time would be in time already.
>> Yeah.
>> Very interesting. That's one of the arguments on a lot of my streams I have just never heard before. That was actually one of the main arguments that took me from generic theism to atheism was once I realized that like a god outside of space and time didn't make any sense, I was like, "Oh, well, it's nonsense now."
>> Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure.
>> Do you have time for a third question?
>> Okay.
One of my other arguments for theism is I believe in an objective morality. um where something is wrong, no matter where you are, when you are, who you are, um something is wrong, you know, said thing is wrong. Um and if there is no theism, you know, there is no God, then I think there is no objective morality because we're all just really clumps of Adams, you know, with this illusion of personhood.
Um, what would be y'all's both I'll take both of y'all's position um on that.
What would you make of that?
>> I'll tell you what I would say to it and I don't know if he's going to say the same thing, but I don't believe objective morals exist. So, >> if if God does exist and God created morals, they're still actually not objective. They're just subjective. It just happens to be that they're subject to God's mind instead of our own mind.
So, that doesn't get you to to objective morals. Um, >> if I could real quick just add in, I would I'm >> going to put forth that morals are actually uncreated. That's why they're objective.
>> So murder is wrong because it's ontologically part of God's nature.
>> What does it mean for a moral to be part of God's nature? If like what is a nature?
part of being.
>> But how how does God being get morals?
>> Because it is I guess it's going to sound pretty crude but it's like his universe.
So anything that is part of him it is in that creation.
>> So he would decide what is right and wrong.
No, I don't think that's >> So God can't decide what's right or wrong.
>> Not exactly. I think there are things that are part of his character that are that he are undecided right and wrong.
Something like murder. However, if you look at the um the Christian account of um I guess Exodus where he forbids the uh eating of pork and such. That would be wrong for said person to eat pork, but only because God had put that into motion. It's not wrong according to his nature.
>> But how is it possible that they're objective when he changes them?
>> No, no, no. I think the the dietary restrictions would be an example of subjective morals.
>> Those are those are laws. Whereas the objective morals would be murder, um lying, um would be another good one.
>> Why are those objective and the other one's not? Because God does murder and lying.
>> Okay. So, I'm going to say that those things are wrong because they're part of God's nature. And then we have to fit the the scripture. Okay. Does the Christian God do these things? You see what I'm saying?
>> Yeah.
>> So, if we put aside the Christian God and just focus on the idea of God's nature imposing an objective reality, what would you say to that?
>> Well, God's nature doesn't have the like causitive power of imposing anything.
That's what minds do.
>> Interesting. Okay. because that that's gonna be my presumption there is that God's nature does impose a morality.
>> How does a nature have causitive power without a mind?
>> Well, I would think that because you know the a god we're talking about is beyond our you know perfect understanding. It might be a little bit rough around the edges, but that his existence in the way that he created creation would have that in in order. Is that what I say?
>> But so when we talk about God's nature and character, we're really just talking about God's attributes, right? We're saying here's how we can define God, right? So the nature of God isn't something with causitive powers. It's just saying here's how we describe God.
These are things that fit his description. So I don't see where the like the positive power comes from.
>> Let's try this on for size then that anything that deres or sorry not maybe derives that deters from that from those attributes is evil.
>> Why?
>> If we presume that God is all good.
>> Why would I do that? Yeah. My question why we presume >> understanding >> Yeah. VI actually I really love this argument. Vi you want to run with it?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I was going to ask why would we um presume that that God is um good any in in the first place.
>> I guess it goes back to the um was it the I think the I guess the the was it the tag or the cosmological argument that God has to be maximally good. So we're already running with that, you know, good and bad. Like what do we mean by that?
>> Right? So it comes to Yeah, it there's a big problem at the first premise uh in in the in the first place cuz like why we would assume that that that God is good and what what what does maximally good even mean?
>> You know what I mean? So it's uh it's it's it's one of those things where while we presume that but at the end of the day even if we do presume that that will still make moral subjective because it depends on what God nature is. It's up to him.
>> Well ah that's the thing I don't think God's nature will be up to him. That sounds kind of weird because he is that thing and if he is the maximum thing of that he doesn't have a choice in that.
>> Okay. So his nature isn't even the dependent on because just like L said nature is basically uh your attributes.
So God doesn't decide his own his own attributes. If that's the case, >> wouldn't that mean wouldn't that kind of imply that his attributes were decided by something else? Because all of my attributes were decided by kind of my parents, right? I have brown eyes.
>> Sure.
>> I have the same skin color as my dad, my same the same bone structure, etc., etc. So that's where my attributes were decided from from my genetics. If God's not is not deciding his attributes, then that kind of imply that it came from something else.
>> Right? I think the issue there is that you are you are a created being whereas God would not be. So God wouldn't get his attributes. It just is his attributes because the idea is that God is maximally eternal without creation.
If God was created in some way, then he's not God as he's not, you know, before everything. Now, if we can assume that that God is is always existed eternally, why why can't we just do the same thing for the universe?
>> Because that's why my my original premise is that the universe did have a beginning.
>> That that's why I'm saying the big bang is what brought about the universe. So, if there was something if there was nothing before the big bang, that's where I'm drawing into a you know, contention. Hey, wait a minute. That doesn't really make sense.
Yeah, I got you. Well, when it comes to like the scientific realm, they >> before Big Bang is not really a thing, right? It's uh it's essentially a state where we're it's an expansion of spaceime and we're not sure what the hot dead state is. You see what I mean? So, it's before Big Bang is not really it's like asking what's north of the North Pole. You see what I mean? So, um, >> but if if if that's the case, then it could be possible that the the universe did exist eternally just in a different form that we can't explain yet. You see what I mean? So, it's um it's one of those things where >> No, I get that.
>> Why would it Yeah. Why would it uh why would we assume that for um for for God, but we can't for the for the universe?
You see what I mean?
>> Sure. And I don't want to get too far off from the uh the original argument which is about moral objective morality.
So my my my my understanding is that assuming okay this this might be a helpful um distinction here where there is not necessarily an evil thing but the almost depravity or lack of bad lack of good in a thing that's where we get evil. So if God is a source of good, anything that is apart from that isn't necessarily um bad isn't a thing. It's kind of like uh like hot and cold.
>> Cold isn't necessarily a thing. It's just the lack of heat.
>> So well, what is good?
>> Anything that is godly. That's going to be my I guess my answer there.
>> So why would we attribute goodness to God?
because he's the maximum being.
>> What is he not the maximum evil being?
>> Well, that the presumption is that evil is not a thing. It is only the lack of good.
>> Yeah, but I don't agree with that.
>> You don't have to agree with it. Just the position of >> you can define God any way you want to, right? Just defining God as good is kind of meaningless because good and bad are just subjective terms. are saying one is desirable and one is undesirable, right?
So, you're just saying, you know, basically whatever God desires, we're going to call good. But I don't see why we would do that.
>> Well, I think we both agree that there's an objective truth or no, do not agree with that.
>> I mean, I think we agree that there's probably an objective truth. I don't think we agree on objective morals, >> but the morals would come from the truth. If the truth is, >> okay, so let me play with this example and see where we disagree on this.
>> If let's just say like the baseline the truth is murder is wrong.
>> Mhm.
>> Would we not agree that the morals are going to come from that where >> that's a moral claim, not a not a truth claim necessarily. So I can say that it's true that the universe exists, right? That's a claim about objective reality. But if the universe exists objectively, that tells me nothing about whether or not morals exist objectively.
>> So then, but that's like, so then the position would be that morals cannot be based in truth claims because there's no truth claims that intersect with moral morality. Well, if you make a a claim related to morality, that claim must first rest on the fact that objective morals exist, which we we don't grant. And so, if you're saying it's true that it's always wrong to do X, Y, or Z, um well, now you have on your plate the task of determining why this is objectively the case, >> right? But I'm just trying to understand if we agree there's an objective truth, why there wouldn't be an objective morality.
>> Something being objectively true has nothing to do with morality. Truth is just an evaluation of a proposition. So if if I said I'm holding a can, uh it might be objectively true that I'm holding a can, but that's just because we're doing an evaluation. Our eyeballs are saying, "Yep, he he he said a thing." And our eyeballs confirm it.
It's true.
understood.
But >> yeah, because truth is like what comports with reality, right? And um morals are are basically how human beings interact with it with each other.
Not not all morals are going to be based on any any truth claim because that's why we say that morality is is subjective because um there are some societies out there that say being part of the LGBTQ community uh is immoral but there's no truth there's no truth to saying that it's harmful for someone to be LGBTQ. You see what I'm saying? So it's the that's why those two things like um that's the best example I can give. those that's why the like something can be objective that's why objective truth and morals moral claims are not exactly the same thing you can't put them in the same category >> well yeah let me get your your opinion on this so something like um and this this might go into I guess a a type of utilitarianism where it's like um heroin heroin's bad for a human Mhm.
>> Injected heroin's bad. Um, would he agree on that or we're going to say no?
>> Depends.
>> Now, I I think it depends. There are occasions where opioids are actually really good for humans. For example, if you're on hospice care and you need to be free of pain in your final weeks or months, uh, opioids are really good for you.
So, but that that's I feel like that's kind of like my point there that there's like we're saying this is good for us here.
>> Yeah, that's my opinion.
>> Something Okay. So then that So all claims then are just going to be opinion based.
>> Oh yeah. All all of my moral claims are are constantly opinion based. Every every moral claim I would ever make is open to being reconsidered and questioned because they're subjective. I don't have access to objective morals because they don't seem to exist.
>> I would say too, and people don't like subjective morals a lot, but I think it's actually better than objective morals because if in fact objective morals exist and they came, we'll say, from the Christian God, it would mean that objectively is true that it's okay to like unalive uh infants uh to cut pregnant women open, to cannibalize children, and you wouldn't have any say in it. You'd be like, "Well, God said to do it, so it must be okay." And at that point, I don't even know what we're doing here anymore. Why are we It's objectively okay to cut women open with the sword and dash their babies against rocks.
>> But I'm I'm kind of struggling to see where you would have a problem with that.
>> We both agree we can have problems with that. But >> if your basis is there's no objective morality there, >> then you can't say that that's wrong.
>> No, I can say it's wrong in my opinion.
And it's wrong because in my framework harm harming people unnecessarily is what I consider to be wrong. Right? So in subjective morality everybody gets to say everybody gets to say hey actually this is how I feel about it and then we get to make laws that we can all agree on and that we're all happy abiding by.
And once you start mixing in uh objective morals, there's nothing that you wouldn't have to do if God told you to. Like if God told you to kick a puppy and that would make kicking a puppy objectively moral, right?
>> So, but you you could say it's my opinion that this thing is wrong, but we cannot say that this is actually wrong because that's there'll be a truth.
>> Well, it's not a matter of a truth claim. It's a matter of whether or not morals are objective. Like, we can make truth claims. That's different than making moral claims about objective morals.
Well, help me understand that because if we say if you say, "Hey, murdering is wrong." I agree. It's good. It's a good It's a good moral to have.
>> Uh, and you say, "Hey, this this group is murdering."
And I have no problem with you saying, "Hey, it's my opinion that murder is wrong and these guys are doing something bad." But to say that it's actually wrong, I think is is contradicting the stand.
>> I didn't say that.
>> Again, all moral claim I've ever made is is my opinion.
>> Right. So, I'm just we're on agreeing agreement then that you we you couldn't say that it's actually wrong just as your opinion.
>> I don't know what you mean by actually wrong.
>> So, it's going back.
>> You mean objectively? Is it objectively wrong?
>> I mean, sure. Yeah, we I guess we can do that.
>> Yeah. I mean, again, we don't believe in objective morals, so we wouldn't say that it's objectively wrong. we would say that this wrong given our framework um and we would have a wider dialogue like in society we get to come together and make laws we're a democratic society and um if we all agree that hey we really like this law then we just adopt it that's it >> very interesting okay the thing I was we were talking past each other for a second just want to make sure we're on the same page there um interesting okay Well, folks, you have answered my questions. Very interesting. Any final thoughts for you guys before I head off? I appreciate this, by the way.
>> Yeah, Brandon, thanks for coming in and being a good pallet cleanser after our last couple of numbum skulls that came up in here. You were very polite. So, um, you know, as always, when we have nice guests, we give them room to talk.
We let them ask questions or do whatever they want to. So, um, keep being a decent individual and think you'll you'll find that the atheist community is not that bad.
>> I appreciate that, SDL. Um, I apologize for anyone who claims to be Christian and is very uncivilized. That's just unhelpful for everybody.
>> But definitely appreciate you, um, Brandon. There we go. Yeah, definitely appreciate you, Brandon. It's always good to uh talk to someone who's uh who's polite and we can exchange, you know, ideas. Like, I I love it.
I appreciate you. Thank you for having me on. Hopefully I'll be back in the future with some better answers.
>> Come on back. We'll we'll talk.
>> Sounds good. God bless.
>> Nice guy. We needed that. Well, friends, we don't have a long stream tonight. Uh we're we're we're going to be out of here before 9:30 at the latest. So, we're going to read super chats. We appreciate you being here and obviously we appreciate Vulce for joining me.
>> Appreciate y'all, man. Thank y'all so much for for letting me here. And um Justin, I appreciate it a lot. We've been I've been wanting to do this for a while. So uh definitely. And um I got to get you over on on my channel as well for uh for some times. And uh I I definitely want to see you go live with Dooall because you know how me and bar we do uh black people shouldn't be Christian. Dooall does white people shouldn't be Christian.
>> Oh [ __ ] >> Which is hilarious. You you should you should definitely go on that. It's always it's always kind of funny whenever I get someone who's like who's like Irish and I always say, "Yeah, you shouldn't be Christian either. You should be Celtic." You know what I mean?
Those those guys were amazing. That that was that was fun what y'all was doing then.
>> I'll check that argument out. I'll have to check it out. I I Dub and I are good buddies, so we'll definitely have to make that happen. I appreciate that.
Well, friends, let let me read some super chats and um uh we're going to cover as many as we can before we have to sign out. Survivor series says, "Consider reading the transcript of the disputation of Barcelona from Rabbi Moses Ben Nakman. Great insight history to debating Christians." Interesting. I don't think I've even heard of that.
Give me one second to grab that about the disputation of Barcelona. Okay. It looks like it's readily available on the internet. So, hi. Hey, thanks for the resource there, Survivor. And Aerys, good to see you tonight. It says, uh, only if Nebraska Steve calls in the true one too punch.
We do we do miss Steve. I actually starting to get worried. I haven't seen Steve in probably two or three months and um it's getting concerning. Aris, if you know where Steve's at, send him this way. Adam says, "Papa Legba is the ground of all being." Hell yeah.
Voodoo bench. Voodoo is bitching. Yes, Papa Legba is the ground of all being.
He is the crossroads demon. Praise Papa Legba.
>> Hell yeah. Relax. Russell, thank you for the additional supervisor. This guy is clown shoes. Yeah. I mean, everybody except for the last guest we talked to was like clown shoes so big there's like sticking out the the windows of the clown car.
Game guy says, "It's always no with you." It is. You say dumb stuff, we're going to say no right away.
>> No. No.
>> And how my friend, thank you for that.
Super says, "Matthew is the human most acquainted with the taste of his own foot." And that is accurate. I'm never understand. Matthew we thought a couple weeks ago turned a corner and started being polite and courteous and then he went back to this nonsense. So I don't >> I don't know what we're going to do with him.
>> He might not come back now that we outed him as having a 15-year-old girlfriend.
That's going to come back to bite him, I suspect.
Russell, thank you for the additional super. Don't want to be a jerk, but this guy just doesn't seem knowledgeable enough for this condescending tone. This guy's a tool. Oh man, we we've had a lot of tool bags that came up. My goodness.
Oh boy.
You should come over to to some some of mine. Some nice Justin cuz I I get the Oh boy.
>> I bet. I absolutely believe it. Bronco says, "Matthew puts the amp in amp in the rock.
Oh, poor Matthew.
>> Oh, poor Matthew.
>> It's not his fault. Genetics doesn't uh help everybody. Game guy says, "Whoops.
I just outed myself as a PDF file.
Yahweh would be proud." Indeed, he would. Well, >> actually, Yahweh would be proud.
>> He would. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, he would.
Yahweh would be proud. You're right about that.
>> I mean, he meant that as a joke, but it's it's true. True. If Yahweh was real, he'd be like, "Thumbs up." You know?
>> Birdkeeper says his argument for absolute is based on it not making a claim for what we can't observe. We observe the beginning at t equals zero.
Matthew is dishonest. Matthew's always dishonest. I mean, to be fair, we only bring him up at this point because he's like good for the crash clips, but like for actual dialogue, he's a waste of space. Now, SPL, good to see you, buddy.
Uh, did you change your name, SPL?
Anyways, today Christianity harms the black community more than racism. I'm living witness. True.
Um, and the the the crazy thing that um that that that I would say is that I I don't know if you ever read this book, Justin, but it's called The Religion of Whiteness.
>> And uh basically it it kind of explains how uh Christianity in America operates basically with um as a white supremacist framework essentially. Because for a lot of um unfortunately um I guess obviously for white evangelicals cuz you know we we don't know who they voted for. For a lot of white evangelicals, Christianity is not about you know um how like black Christians would do it like community and stuff like that. It's all about keeping racial and national hierarchy in place. Yeah. I mean, all the all the verses about helping out your neighbors, about um you know, uh welcoming the foreigners or whatever, they all for for a lot of the the study found that for a lot of white Christians, it was all about keeping the hierarchy in order, not about actually helping somebody out.
Which is why that that woman who everybody crashed on crashed out on a few months ago who was calling all the churches asking for help for her hungry baby. You see uh most of the of the white churches and the mega churches were saying no but the black churches were saying let's see if we can help you out. It operates completely differently in in these different frameworks which is incredible. So right now um I would add on to that uh it's not that Christianity harms the community more than racism is that right now Christianity is racist which is Christianity is racism but yeah thank thanks for the super chat and uh yeah definitely I would definitely say that Steve thank you for the super chat says nurse here it is doctor uh doctor nurse I asked for the butt light not a bud Dustin. Oh, nurse. I'll take that actually to be fair.
I'm going to need some.
Oh, boy.
>> Not it'll be in the morning tomorrow, so I'm going to be I'll probably be loopy all day. Bird Keeper says, "Brian might be my new favorite character here with his NPC responses and room temperature IQ. Him and the other Yahasha Data Dasha believers share a brain cell. A single brain cell for sure.
Yahasha dasha is amazing.
>> The fact that he would literally say something like it's paleo Hebrew when I know he doesn't even know standard Hebrew is crazy.
>> Natia it says a belief information is subconscious is a subconscious act when valid warrant is perceived. Um it cannot be a choice. True. We didn't even get to that did we both? Yeah we didn't. We didn't cuz I want to bring that up because but he kept on crashing. I was going to say we don't really choose what we believe. You're either convinced or something or you're not. You know, you're not really choosing it.
>> I I can't choose to believe the tooth fairy right now. I just can't do it.
>> No, never can. I didn't choose to be an atheist. It just happened to be that I lacked belief over the course of my, you know, years of studying and thinking.
>> How somebody says, "One Brian, I'm sorry, is a smart dog. The other is a fool." Oh [ __ ] >> I bitched. Good followup. And Chip, my friend, good to see you. Says Brian is the lowest five dumbest callers ever. I I have to agree, Chip. I It's hard for me to imagine somebody dumber than Brian. He's in the same classification as John, although John called in today as Jimmy for reasons we all know why.
Yeah.
>> Check out I think the there's a the clip with John was titled something akin to the dunningness of Krugergs. Isn't that what it was called? I think so. I think it was called The Dunningness of Krueger. If you want to watch John's first call, uh, aka Jimmy >> Tim Davidson says, "If God knows I'm going to have cornflakes tomorrow morning, what are the chances I have an omelette?" [ __ ] zero, buddy.
>> Zero.
>> None. Exactly.
Be wrong.
>> You know what? When when this argument first came up, um, Skits used to run it a lot. And at first, I didn't understand it. I like, "Well, God only knows what you're going to do because he has foresight." And then the minute somebody was like, "No, no, no. It's not just that he has foresight. is that he created everything which means before he created he knew what was going to happen and he could have changed any of the parameters which means he chose the course of events without that in there then people would be right being omnisient doesn't mean that you lack free will but being omnisient while being the creator of all things absolutely negates your free will >> exactly >> Carrie thank you for the super chat saysrew Wilson school of debate tie people up in semantics but never make a claim Harry, you actually nailed it.
Very few times have I ever seen Andrew Wilson like actually make a claim and then try to substantiate the claim. The goal of a lot of these bad faith debaters is to, like you said, tie them down in semantics or actually try to hijack terms with the words that you use >> and then also never actually defend your own position. Just try to punch holes in the other person's position and then pretend like your position won. That's not really how that works, >> right?
Gentlemen, Viking, good to see you.
Says, "Did Jimmy just commit blasphemy?"
You know, I wasn't paying attention. Did Jimmy commit blasphemy?
>> Yeah, we I gota run the clip back and see because he might have curious all the BS you were saying.
Yeah, all the BS you he was saying. He probably did.
>> He was really making Christ proud tonight. Chris, thank you for the super chat. Francis Light, I better check on the speed limit. Lol. Isn't that crazy?
They think that the laws are uh prescriptive.
weird >> because like no one is doing anything to to make these happen. These are just phenomena we observe guys.
>> Uh Ashandre, good to see you again, Francis. I think we I need to count your hairs again to wash out the image of Jimmy and God sharing the same shape of you know.
It's wild that he actually he actually uh became agnostic on whether or not God had a penis. That's not something you hear too often.
Oh man, that's hilarious. This does have a tally whacker.
That's funny. Date Wall says, "Why do people who keep interrupting non-stop cry the hardest when they get interrupted and muted for interrupting rock for Doug?" Simple for shared gay for Justin Walsh. You got me. I'll never understand why people will constantly talk over you and interrupt you and then when you have enough of it and you're like, "Well, [ __ ] it. I'm just going to mute them." Then they cry forever. It's because that's the goal to begin with.
The goal is to steamroll the opponent and then when they steamroll you back, you just cry about it. That's >> Yeah, exactly.
>> It happens in my lives all the time.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Uh I like I've seen God in she's black.
>> She's black. Yeah. I used to have a t-shirt that said I don't know what happened to that t-shirt. My parents might have sent it to Haiti, but I love that. I love that slogan. I've seen God and she's black.
Cameron, thank you for the $20 super chat. Friend says, "Talking donkeys, talking snakes, wizards, demons, goblins, goons, walking on water, Virgin Mary, turning liquid into wine, Noah's ark, resurrection, saints, earth stops spinning, sin, heaven and hell, just in time." Cameron, it's baffling to me that people when we start adding up the laundry list of the nonsense that they just don't go like, hm, well, that doesn't seem right. They just keep on piling on. Um, there's a glutton for punishment. And Chroica says, "Theist definitions. I just want to learn means I think I'm about to cook you on some trit rhetoric."
Yeah. Or they'll say that when they know they've been defeated and they don't want to feel like they're losing. Well, I didn't lose because I just came to learn.
>> I'm sure you did.
>> Cameron says, "The stories for three-year-old toddlers. Cinco deio just in time.
>> You know what? It is the 5th. I should if I didn't have a a colonoscopy tomorrow, I would have got some Cinco deio celebrations, but unfortunately not going to happen today.
>> And I got work tomorrow, man. There was there was a storm over in Texas, so I got like 30 claims in a day. So, it was insane. Yeah, I work I work in car insurance, so it's like >> going to be a busy day.
>> Awful.
>> Steve Arvey, good to see you. says, "I heard someone claim that Gentiles would be under Noahhide laws in the Messianic age, but I thought everyone had to follow Mosaic law." Right. According to the Hebrew Bible, yes, according to the Hebrew Bible, they're going to be following the laws. Think like uh Ezekiel 44, Jeremiah 33, Isaiah 56, uh Zechariah 14, among others. So, yeah, it didn't say anything about the Noahide laws in there. Amber saying, "Thank you for the additional super chat." Says, "I called it in my second super chat. My prophecy declared that a caller wouldn't understand infinity. I'm better than Jesus. My success rate is 100%.
A million% better than Jesus.
>> And Randy, thank you for sending out 20 deconstruction zone gifted memberships.
I really appreciate that, friend. Good to see you tonight. I hope you're doing well. And thank you also for the super chat. Randy says, "If you can please support this channel and other channels like this, please do. And also make sure you go into Vulce's channel. In the title of this video, I've got the at to Volce's channel. Drop him a follow. He's doing these live debates just like I'm at I'm doing them. He's on Tik Tok. He's on YouTube. Make sure you're following him on both platforms.
And ungooable man says timeless, spaceless, immaterial. Sounds a lot like never, nowhere, and not made of anything.
>> Out of anything. Yeah, exactly.
If your god is >> like identical with non-existence.
>> Sounds like it doesn't exist.
>> Doesn't exist.
>> Aan with the followup at two hand said um is the baby pace covered by the dietary laws also for super chat.
Um you know what it it can't be against the dietary laws in Leviticus because God does command the eating of babies.
in Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, and it shows up in Jeremiah 19:9, and there's another spot that I'm not thinking of right now where it shows up, but yeah, I mean, it just seems like God must be okay with cannibalism. [ __ ] if Jesus is is uh if the transubstantiation's correct, God loves cannibalism. That's his plan for salvation.
Fellow dragon, good to see you, my friend. Thank you for the super. Saying God is good tells us nothing more than saying God is God. It has no meaningful content and that's 100% it. What does good mean? If we're just saying God is good, what what are we just saying? Like like it doesn't mean anything to me. Um it's a meaningless statement. Good describes a behavior or an action or a thing that is preferable if you just look it up in the dictionary. I don't know why theists want us to throw the dictionary out. Weird.
>> Exactly. You know what's you know what's what's funny? Me growing up in in in in the black church. Every time I hear God is good, I automatically want to say all the time. You know, >> it's like a a conditioning. It's like a Pavlov's uh dog. They they they have the same repeated lines over and over again.
>> Like if you're from Ohio and someone yells out oh, you know what to do next.
But you know >> you don't have that in in the other states. Ohio. If for people who don't aren't from Ohio, if you're anywhere in the universe and somebody shouts O, the only appropriate response is IO. And it's even better if you do the shape IO.
That if you're, you know, >> that's funny.
>> Uh there's a there's an old joke you can always find uh wherever you're at where people from Ohio are just by shouting oh, and it's relatively true. In fact, people in the Discord are doing it now.
Jeff, my friend, thank you for the additional super chat. Says, "If God's nature is absolute good, then God is incapable of doing, commanding, or allowing anything not good. Therefore, either genocide, grape, etc. are good or God's nature isn't good." That I think we kind of pressed on that a little bit and then he he pivoted. But if or maybe he just refused to bite on it. If God's nature is is what causes things to be good, objectively good, that means it's objectively good to unal alive babies, to rip women open. And >> we didn't really get to bite into that too much, but it I don't see how that doesn't follow.
Two hand Dan does have a question. Thank you. Two hand Dan says, "Where does baby paste fall on the Christian food pyramid? The chat says it's a dessert and not covered by dietary laws." So, this is where it gets really tricky because baby paste uh much like flour is more of a base, which means you can use it for baby paste cake. You can do baby paste jerky. Uh you can even do baby paste pate. You can have savory or sweet kind of like cheese. You can have sweet cheese or savory cheese. Baby paste is such a good universal food uh for your believing friends that whatever food group you need to put it in, it can act as a base inside of that food group.
It's very versatile. Um, also we do have baby pace stickers and fridge magnets in the gift shop. Friends, design, good to see again. Thank you for a super chat.
Says, "If aliens watched humans on Nat Geo type of show, human morals would be whatever the voice over was saying.
We're biased to label good and bad because we're the subjects."
>> Exactly. We're biased to say good and bad because good and bad always refers to a preference. And so when we say good, we're just saying, you know, it is our preference. It is our opinion and the dictionary agrees with us.
>> Exactly.
>> Good question. Thank you for the good question. Good to see you tonight. Would you say morality makes sense only if there is a moral action target regardless of the existence of a moral action source? Example, is it morally bad to disregard media rights if they could hurt me?
>> Those are good questions. So my my moral framework is essentially this like when I say morals I think the only thing that can do a moral action or an immoral action would be an agent right so I wouldn't say that a meteor can do something that's immoral because it's not really an agent as far as I can tell morals come from our decision-m processes um I hope I understood your your question right there good question um so um is there a target so Is it, for example, if I lie to myself, is it still immoral? Well, I'm not even convinced that lying is always immoral. In my framework, I'm more of a utilitarian where I think we would avoid certain behaviors if those behaviors cause harm because harm is a thing that we all agree we don't want.
>> Right.
>> So, I agree.
>> I would suspect that even if there's not a target, we could engage in moral and immoral behavior even if it has maybe accidental consequences.
Mhm.
>> Lynn, thank you for the super chat, friends. It's nice to meet you, Voli. I enjoyed your perspectives tonight.
Justin, good luck with your procedure tomorrow. And uh Justin's [ __ ] rock and SFJ must mean I already forgot SFJ.
[ __ ] Straight for Justin. There we go.
Straight for Justin. We got you, Lynn.
Thank you. Friends, we've got three more super chats left and we're going to sign off. Roy, good to see you, my friend.
Thank you for the $2 super. Thanks. And Elvis Presley, Touch Me says, "If having hatred in your heart is the same as murder and lusting is the same as adultery. Once you have the thought, why not carry out the act?" This is a fair point. And if all sins are the same, Paul says, "If you've broken one law, you've broken them all." all >> that means like there's really no be no difference between me thinking something and me doing something. It does kind of make Jesus's laws seem kind of silly.
Now that you know they're they typically try to frame it as being more moral, but if you flip it on the head, Jesus's new laws in Matthew 5 actually make it more problematic because now you're giving somebody like somebody the, you know, part blanch to like go actually do horrible things whereas previously they might have just thought them.
That's a good point. I have to remember that one. Hey, good to see you tonight.
Hey Justin, quick question. Couldn't you use Colossians 2:8 to throw back at the fields?
Um, I think somebody actually asked this recently. Um, not to use useless philosophy. Is that the one? Colossians 28 talks about useless philosophy. I thought says, "Watch out that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit."
>> Empty deceit according to human tradition, according to the elementary.
Yeah. Yeah. True. I could just start using Colossians 28. When they start using the tag argument, they're like, "Ah, talk Colossians 28. It's useless.
That's you're sinning, buddy.
>> It's almost like somebody was using good sound logic against Paul and Paul was like, "Don't listen to that philosophy.
Don't words don't mean words." Remember that.
Good question says, "Is it immoral for you to defund a project that would protect me from meteorites?" Oh, gotcha.
Okay. So, um, if there was a project and me defunding it was going to cause harm, especially if it was going to cause more harm to end it rather than keep it, then I personally would feel like I was doing something immoral. So, it's almost like allowing something to happen, right? If I'm walking by a child getting harmed and I don't do anything, I just allow it to happen. Whereas I could have stopped it from happening, I feel like I have moral culpability in that. And I this is kind of falls in line with the trolley problem. I think everybody has a different answer to the trolley problem.
I can only tell you what my perspective is. My perspective personally is I know I would feel morally culpable if I didn't stop something that was harmful that I knew I could stop.
And last super chat from our friend Bacon and Bush says, "A magician I know has a funny saying. Morals are uh good ballast." Oh, okay. Like like a ship ballast. Uh you need something to throw overboard when the ship starts sinking.
Oh, [ __ ] That's that is actually what Christians typically do to their morals. So the minute the the Christian boat starts sinking, the morals go out the window and they start cursing at you and uh >> all over.
>> Then we get all then we get all that Christian love. All right. Over on my end, I only have uh two super chats. I hope I hope I get get more like like Justin cuz he be he be killing it. All right, but Moon Dog, thank you for the $1 super chat and Resist, thank you so much as well, saying great show. He appreciates me and Justin. Thank you for the 499 super chat. I appreciate you guys. Only two, but it's all good and well. We we'll pump him up next time, y'all.
>> Friends, make sure >> y'all being here.
>> Oh, sorry. Make sure you're dropping down to the title and following Vulce's channel and catching his live streams.
What days of the week do you usually stream, VI?
>> I usually stream Thursday to Sunday. No, barring any like emergencies or maybe I'm just like tired that week. I'm going to go live this this week even even though like I have 40 cases to take care of. Jesus Christ.
Even though I have that to take care of, I'll still go live this week. I'm live every Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Uh Thursday and Friday from uh about 6:30 to about 9:30. Thursday and Friday and Saturday and Sunday from about 3:30 to 6:30. All right. So um join join for these join for those. This week I think I'm running politics this week. That's what I I switch off every other week.
>> One one week I do politics, another week I do religion, so I switch off. So this week is going to be the politics week.
So definitely join in for that. And we'll be discussing I got I got I got a few of them. I got a few of them to discuss cuz people really uh the the people come out the hoods come out whenever I talk about reparations for African-Americans. Oh boy, dude. Dude, those hoods come out.
>> I love your political debates. They're amazing.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate it. Thank you guys. And yeah, um thank you Justin so much for um having me here have me here tonight. And um I hope we can do this uh do this again. You know, whenever you have time and have space from me again, I'll definitely come come by and I'll set up for a day. If you want to do politics one day, you you go ahead and come by as well.
>> All right, perfect. We'll schedule that for sure.
>> Oh, yeah. Definitely. Definitely. All right, friends. Thank you so much for being here. I don't think I'll be live tomorrow. I'm probably going to be a little bit loopy from uh from the medications, but I should be a lot for the link number two that made this series number nine already out Three.
関連おすすめ
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
