CVS Live Guest - 2022-05-12 - Brenda vs. Joe
There are 11 episodes in the Guest:Group series.
Streamed December 27th, 2022
CVS Live Guest - 2022-12-27 - Aidan and Rebekah
Streamed December 10th, 2022
CVS Live Guest - 2022-12-10 - Nikola Krcic and Aidan Lisney
Streamed June 19th, 2022
CVS Live Guest - 2022-06-19 - Secular Rarity and Apostate Prophet
Streamed June 13th, 2022
CVS Live Guest - 2022-06-13 - Brenda vs. Kieran (feat. Pykris)
Streamed May 29th, 2022
CVS Live Guest - 2022-05-29 - Aidan and Rebekah
Streamed May 12th, 2022
CVS Live Guest - 2022-05-12 - Brenda vs. Joe
Streamed May 10th, 2022
CVS Live Guest - 2022-05-10 - Nikola and Aidan
Streamed March 6th, 2022
CVS Live Guest - 2022-03-15 - The Lisney Bros.
Streamed October 28th, 2021
CVS Live Guest - 2021-10-28 - The Lisney Bros.
Streamed September 18th, 2021
CVS Live Guest - 2021-09-18 - Alex vs. Kieran
Streamed February 24th, 2021
CVS Live Guest - 2021-02-24 - The Lisney Bros.
Joe asked if I could arrange a friendly discussion about God with Brenda. This is the result. Not the most productive conversation, but it is what it is. Things got a bit ugly near the end, sadly. God help us all.
These YouTube transcripts are generated automatically and are therefore unformatted and replete with errors.
so we are live i'm here with joe and brenda take it away guys okay uh my name is joe um i'm happy to have a conversation with uh brenda i think uh i'm a theist and she's an atheist so yeah maybe we can both talk about our points of view and uh you know just discuss them i don't think probably neither of us is going to change our minds but uh do we have the set this is the topic of abortion a set topic uh i wasn't gonna i was just gonna talk about if god exists oh okay i thought that was i was misunderstood i i misunderstood oh your daughter okay huh okay um yeah i'm an atheist i i don't think there's any good reasons to believe that in the existence of of god okay all right uh so then let me ask you what what would a good reason to believe in god what what would be a good reason i think that if you could consistently perform some kind of miraculous feat that would give me that would give evidence that would increase my increase the probability that a god exists well if you can consistently do a miraculous feat then it wouldn't really be miraculous would it because you would just sure would sure if you did it all the time it would be normal right no if you could consistently break the laws of of physics for example then that would indicate that there is perhaps a supernatural force or being which could intervene in the physical universe and alter things was just thinking if it happens all the time that would seem to be a normal thing if it consistently happened i understand a miracle to be like a once you know it happens once right or i understand a miracle to be a violation of the laws of uh the universe okay all right so so presumably a god who exists independent of the universe created the universe would have the ability to intervene and that intervention would be what i would call a miracle and he could do it consistently it wouldn't be a mechanic like the loss of the universe it would simply be at his whim right or or something like that but that would indicate to me that there's a higher power okay so so like if what about like somebody rising from the dead would that be a miracle yeah that would change my that would change my outlook i would then have to reevaluate everything i know um either the the world doesn't work the way i thought it died does or there's a being that can step in and intervene in the mechanics of the world okay that's good that's good man i remember i listened to an episode of uh talk even and jay mike said you know j mike is one yes one of the hosts he said well even if jesus rose from the dead it could it's more likely that it's aliens so it's like i would say that yeah the probability would be but if you or somebody else could consistently say pray to god and and have that happen that would indicate that it's not aliens it might be that god it seems to me okay okay that's uh that's reasonable so uh i'll just tell you i i wasn't always a believer i didn't believe a lot of my life so but some things happened in my life and uh i also started studying the arguments and i kind of changed my mind on everything so what was it that happened in your life was it a young catholic girl that happened in your life oh no it was just some personal experiences oh okay but that's the uh dug at pine creek thesis is that young catholic girls have converted more non-believers than any argument ever has well yeah it's not so much that i'm religious it's just i just came to a belief that uh that god actually exists so it's not so much i'm not part of any real religion so it's not that i'm so you you're not a christian ah i mean you can label me that but i i'm a believer but uh i'm not your theist are you a deist does your deity intervene in the universe i believe uh i believe christianity is true how's that so sounds like you're a christian then go through some is that if we go through some of the arguments or okay or if you want to ask me any questions or whatever well i'm just kind of i am kind of curious i i believe that there are no good reasons to believe in the deity so i call myself an atheist if you want to push maybe an atheist agnostic but i have a positive belief that there's no good reason to believe in a deity and so far i understand that you are a nominal christian is that how you would put it yeah i guess you could put it that way why christianity rather than islam or judaism uh judaism is really cool you know you get to go to the the central bank and make a withdrawal when you convert to judaism uh-uh i didn't i was actually i'm bored i'm born i can hear dave i can hear david because he knows my sense of humor i'm born jewish actually so well i come from a jewish family get all that gold man okay all right well i'm sorry i was being flippant but um why not islam or hinduism uh with hinduism you've got like about several thousand gods to choose from oh because i don't believe that's true so i believe that i believe i believe in the evidence for the resurrection so oh that isn't that what it all comes down to so well i don't know well first you have to believe god exists if god doesn't exist then then christianity is obviously not true correct right if there's if the judeo-christian god doesn't exist then there's no good reason to believe in any of the three major um abrahamic religions right yeah so well for me i like a lot of the philosophical arguments those are those are things that convinced me so really yeah the first the first question i always ask myself is i think it's leibniz questioning why does something exist rather than nothing do you think there's an answer to that um i'm not sure there is a good answer to that i i think that something does exist if nothing existed then i'm not sure how there could be anything right right i mean that's i guess that would mean something has always existed wouldn't you agree some well yeah either something or some person i suppose or some being that's usually how it's put usually how it's put in with leibniz's cosmological argument is that it's either a being or some principle or some aspect of the universe that has always um existed but um yeah i can just i can just postulate that there's always been uh something even with the big bang i could say that there just has been a prior prior conditions of some kind okay so uh so now wouldn't that do you believe like an infinite regress is possible it might be i'm not sure i see a logical problem to an infinite regress um but there are people they're called infinitive infinitivists who do believe that infinite regresses are not necessarily um bad i think i would tend to um reject uh reject an infinite regress type of argument okay but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean i i think that the universe can have an infinite past oh that's interesting i don't see any contradiction and lots of people have written about it that there doesn't seem to be any logical contradiction between their having being an infinite past or an infinite future i mean after all if you can have an infinite future you can have an infinite past okay well i think there's pro i think there's quite a bit a bit of problems with that so it's all right if i so yeah an infinite pass okay there's a lot of problems with an infinite past but the infinite future you you know the difference between potential infinite and actual infinite sure okay so like a potential infinite you know we could go on into the future forever right yeah potentially but actually but the actual infinite will will never reach it right we'll never reach a point where we've reached an actual infinity right that would seem to be the case so so there's no such thing as an actual infinite i don't know i i i would tend to reject actual uh infinites existing in our universe yeah okay so so that then there's a problem with uh an incident i think the multiverse could be infinite and there are people who say that the universe itself could be of infinite size there are people who say that i'm talking about like infinite quantities like you can never have an infinite number of things well there's people who say that the universe could be infinite in size okay well there's no there's no number infinity so you can't have a like i couldn't have an infinite number of pens right it doesn't seem so no right so and the problem with an infinite past is so if there's a series of events that goes back infinitely you would actually never arrive at any you would never arrive at today and you would never arrive at any point in time because there would always be an infinite number of the number of events before any single event so there's a lot of problems with an infinite past which i think it's just illogical what's the contradiction well well the first contradiction is there's no such thing as actual infinite so if you can't have an actual infinite you can't have it couldn't be i don't know why there couldn't be there's no logical contradiction in an actual infinite i think i think that the multiverse could very well be an actual infinite okay there's no such thing as having an actually infinite number of patterns right now you agree to that there could be an actual infinite in the multiverse and there could be one pen in only in each universe and therefore you could have that as an actually infinite number of patents so you can't have an infinite number of pens it could be um i don't see how it would work in this universe although there's people that say it could be infinite but it doesn't seem likely to me but you could have an infinite number of pens spread out through an infinite number of universes so you can't have an infinite number of things sure there's no contradiction to reach an infinite number once you have to reach the number that precedes that number infinity is easily dealt with in modern mathematics today all the time but it is a concept but there are infinite sets and mathematicians deal with infinite sets all the time i know but we can't have an actually infinite number of anything can we i don't know why not i'm not seeing the contradiction there's set theory deals with infinite sets and there's no logical contradiction in an infinite set so i think you could have an infinite number of pens in an infinite number of universes i i think that would constitute you know the set of pens and it would be infinite okay i mean i think we'll just disagree i mean i don't think infinity is it's not a number it's not a quantity it's an unreachable quantity so you can have an infinite number of universes and you can't have an infinite number of pens because infinitely you're just rejecting that a priori i don't see the justification for that because mathematicians deal with infinite sets all the time it's set theory is it a number or not it's not a number then it is a concept it's a set right there's a potential you can potentially go on forever but you can't have an infinite number of things i don't know why not because there's no number that precedes it but you can have a set with an infinite number of members an incident meaning unlimited but there's no quantifiable number that that that can be here it's not a quantity i i suppose in the traditional sense it's not a it's not an integer an infant set is not an integer i don't think maybe it's a different type of thing it's a mathematical object and it's perfectly valid to talk about infinite sets and like i said you could have say in this universe there's only one pen but in the multiverse which i believe is possible if not even somewhat likely i'd give it greater than 50 at least there could be another infinite number of universes with one pen where did that predict that could exist okay if you say so but uh you said that it's you said it's more likely it's 50 percent likely that we have uh well that's i i'm no expert i'm not i'm no expert on this i just take what the people who um seem to know what they're talking about have to say at their face value and the and the physicists that i read about tell me that the multiverse is highly likely to be true so they believe that there are multiple universes in addition to ours right our our universe our cosmos i do they say cosmos for the multiverse i forget which our universe is just one among a multitude which i believe could be infinite and our universe could be infinite in size and that's just what the the theoreticians in physics tell me and i'm not an expert enough to dispute what they have to say so i just take take them at their word well i i guess i've heard different because i i remember watching a video with lawrence krauss and he was you know he i think he believes in the possibility of a multiverse and he was on a panel with a bunch of physicists and uh the other physicist said there's no evidence at all of a multiverse so that's right there's no evidence of a multiverse but they still think that it's a possibility it's my understanding okay that's fine yeah there's no evidence of a multiverse i don't know how you would you would get evidence for that i don't know how that would work but according to our best empirical theories about our universe my understanding is is that a multiverse is a distinct possibility okay that would need an explanation too wouldn't it if there's a multiverse uh yeah i suppose we would like to have one yes we believe in the principle of sufficient reason yeah i'm not sure i do know that everything needs an explanation yeah i think some things might not have an explanation oh that's interesting i think that i i think that so i think the principle sufficient reason is that everything has either an explanation and something else and an external cause or uh yeah it's a necessity of its own nature right so and you think there's something but there could be an underlying substance or principle to our universe that simply has always existed that would make it necessary right i don't know if it makes it necessary it could just have always existed i don't know what that would mean to me say it's necessary necessary means it can't it cannot not exist i'm not sure that having always existed is the same as cannot not exist i'm not sure those are the same yeah i think those are just okay you you think they're this i'm not sure about that i think you're right they're not the same oh okay i think necessary would be like maybe if it exists in all possible worlds like two plus two will always equal four in every single possible world possibly yeah i'm not an expert you know way more philosophy than me so i don't know a great deal there's lots of people who know a lot more than i do yeah all right uh are there any other are there any arguments that you like to talk about with uh i don't know that you find yeah it seems to me that i don't know how a mind can exist without a body wouldn't that be would that be an argument from ignorance um it would be an empirical argument and it would be simply an inductive inference that it doesn't seems to me that minds are always the consequence of brains brain activity right and it and i have a hard time understanding how a mind could exist without an uh without a brain to give rise to mental activity there's a lot of people who are substance duelists right like i don't know if you've heard david david chalmers he's like an expert brain uh scientist i know i think he i don't know much about him i'm really sorry i i doubt he's a substance duelist isn't he a property duelist uh i don't you might be right but maybe the property i'm not sure i think substance dualism is really hard to justify i really don't see how you can justify their a substance due list what do you think uh this is something i thought about this i watched josh rasmussen and he said he's talking about what thoughts were right guitar yeah what are they that's the activity of neurons in your brain it's the firing of neurons what are they made of neurons your thoughts are made of neurons the thoughts are what you have when your neurons are firing like yeah we can be pretty sure of this because when your neurons don't fire people tend to be dead it seems to me thoughts are immaterial entities how do you how how did you figure that because my my thoughts can't be part of my brain why not because they're not physical they're not physical things so you're just begging the question well they're not well if you think if i think the thought uh how much does a dog weigh and i think that thought and i think well where is that thought what what does that thought look like it would look like your neurons firing then aren't you begging the question how do you know that no it just it just seems to me that that's what it would be because when we turn off those neurons you don't have thoughts anymore so you think your thoughts are made of matter well they're the consequence of of your neurons activity right so when you're when your neurons are not active right then you don't have thoughts but what do you think they're made of they're not made out of anything they're they're the consequence of of brain activity okay so they're not making any so they must be immaterial if they're not made of any no i don't think so so this computer right now is very active right and when i turn it off it will no longer be active but that doesn't mean that the software is immaterial it's not immaterial the software actually exists on the hard drive it's simply being the consequence of what i can see right here in front of me and the operation of the computer all of that is i woke up i woke up alexa computer stop [Music] i'm gonna have to think of another word because because that's my wake word for alexa um so stop laughing david i changed the wake word to the c word now i can't use it um no computer [Music] there it goes computer stop god damn um so so um i don't the software is not immaterial right it simply and these events that are happening on my screen are not immaterial they they really exist and they're the consequence of my pc and its operation and so my thinking my experiences um and all my beliefs and sensations are the consequence of my brain when it is um working properly or even improperly then i get bad experiences okay you know i think we can just disagree i think i think thoughts are immaterial things but uh yeah how come because i just think they're not i think it's really almost self-evident that they're they're they're immaterial entities that they exist they're not doesn't seem self-evident to me at all it seems to me it seems to be pretty evident right if i drink alcohol um it changes my thoughts because it's changed my brain right if i take lsd it i've never done that um could i be terrified of doing that if i take a psychoactive drug it changes my my experiences because it changes how my brain works how does how does um alcohol affect an immaterial substance i can't answer every question i just think uh i think the mind is i think your thoughts are immaterial entities that's just my opinion but uh dude we go to something else if you want well no i i kind of want to pursue this because this was elizabeth of bohemia's objection to descartes which was she didn't see how material objects could affect immaterial world or the immaterial could affect the material right unless you're saying there's some sort of causal connection between the material and the immaterial do you think that there is uh you know i'm not like a brain expert or anything why can't why can't immaterial things affect the material world because they're causally um isolated from each other because otherwise if if and because we think that the uh the physical world is uh causally closed there's no outside it would violate a number of conservation laws right so so where in the brain does the soul connect to the brain to to the body these are questions i can't answer you know i'm not i don't have every answer to everything and then it seems to me that it's not terribly up um self-evident if you can't if you just hypothesizing something for what you can't have any kind of explanation and or any kind of mechanism i can offer a mechanism which is simply that my thoughts arise due to the activity of neurons in my brain i can point to them i can point to the region that's responsible for vision i can point to the region where there's higher order thinking and all kinds of things but you can't give any explanation well you're the one who said that thoughts are not made of anything so that would be the definition of thoughts are they're not a substance they're just the activity of the of the brain well it's got to be made of something if it exists why so you think if if it exists it's got it has to exist either material or immaterial right those are the only two options sure well he says these could be different levels of description right so one way of talking about for instance the the water in my teapot is that it's hot it has a temperature but there's no such substance as temperature temperature is just a way of talking about the collective activity of all the molecules in the water which is that they have a kinetic energy that results in the teapot water boiling but there's no substance called temperature but it's just it's just a way of talking about about the water okay so the thoughts they're not made of anything then they're not material they're just they exist right do they basically there's a supervenience there's a supervenience there's a way of talking about things how how does the neurons create the thoughts i don't think we know that i don't think you know that but they the neurons um have connections with each other and it's their activity that gives rise to thoughts thoughts and memories memories are stored are memories stored in the soul i have no idea well we're pretty sure that they're stored in the brain and i believe it's many of the memories maybe not all are stored in the neuron as chains of of molecules inside of the neuron i could be wrong about that i'm not up on everything so but it's memories are are are physical i can go into your brain and erase your memories if i know where a specific memory is i can erase it by scrambling that region of the brain can you put like a memory and like can you hold a memory land can you put it in a box probably at some future time we might have the technology to do that okay i think we just disagree it's fine well you don't have any reason you haven't given any reasons for any of the things that you're talking about it's just you just believe these things i have reasons and evidence which is that substances affect the brain which affects my thoughts you have no explanation for why that would happen you have no explanation for memories it doesn't seem possible that the soul even has memories maybe it doesn't you have no explanation for any of these things i never mentioned this all you did you kept mentioning it against the soul material or immaterial i never talked about this the salt what do you think what would it be if it exists i don't think a soul exists all right well i didn't say anything about this all i just talked about your thoughts yeah what does the soul think look did all i talked about was thoughts and i said they were they were immaterial yeah i don't think they're immaterial i think they're material and i said we disagree and that's yeah yeah but what do you think do you think that our souls can think i do i probably yeah i do i do i think i think your mind is your soul oh okay well how does that work i don't know how does the multiverse work um it come it came into being as a result of inflation in the early part of the universe how'd that happen i'm not sure i don't know okay so you're defending something you don't know i don't know everything either you know i i i don't understand where you're going with this so you seem to want to have this position but you don't seem to want to have to defend it all right i'll just say you're right how's that is that better because we'll just go around and run in circles do you want to keep going in circles we would just go on for an hour talking the same stuff you don't want to do that all right if you want to change if you figure up some up something else in mind no don't you think that's a better idea than just keep going around and go ahead sure what are you what are your thoughts on uh morality do you think like i think uh you know some atheists think it's objective subjective like i think it's easier to put it like are there just moral facts or moral opinions so um do you know that what what is uh on the objective morals to you dude how do you understand that uh i would say i guess a moral fact would be something that's true regardless of whether any person believes it or not right so objective means that it's independent of personal opinion yeah right and so where do your morals come from no i'm just i'm just asking are there more are there such things as moral facts i'm not sure that there are but what do you think uh yeah i think uh there are more facts i would go towards that because i think i think if there are no more facts then it just becomes everything just becomes merely subjective to each individual and then that means you can't really say anyone is done right or wrong because everybody can just make up their own moral system yeah i'm not convinced that if there are no moral facts everything is subjective i don't believe that so then you think it's objective no i didn't say that well it's got to be either objective or not objective which would be subjective i'm not sure about that isn't that a dichoto a strict dichotomy objective or not objective well i don't think there are any objective morals but i don't think that if there are no objective morals then everything is just is just um piggledy pealty why not i because i think that there can be there can be obligations and um possibly you could use the language of obligations and duties you could take the utilitarian view that what's what's moral is what's in the what's best for everybody you could take a number of views and those don't have to rely on any objective moral facts they don't have to where do more obligations come from um probably for me from society and from my my my culture and my parents the people around me so like if i came from like nazi germany then my obligation would be to do what they did right would it by your theory i think is that that's not my theory we said it comes from our community our families where we come from yeah well if i came from nazi germany shouldn't i do what they do and like kill the jews i'm not convinced that that was in line with the culture of germany for one thing i think that they may very well been out of a line with the culture of germany okay what about like like i used to live in africa and uh i lived in uganda for a little while for two years that it's illegal to be gay and they they maybe they kill gays that's part of the culture is that yeah is that wrong objectively yeah i think it's wrong or it's opinion i don't think it's objectively wrong okay so they have their rights but i cannot like things and i can think that i can think that that is um not a good law for people to have right it doesn't follow that because that if i have if i don't agree on moral facts that therefore i have no say in anything yeah of course you can have your opinion but it's just your opinion versus their opinion nobody's right nobody's wrong well you're just kind of totalizing right and wrong i think i think that right and wrong could be different than simply that i think um i think it's it's a good thing right to help people to not cause harm to other people and what if i and so that would be in line with my moral belief that you shouldn't not necessarily harm people so laws against homosexuality would unnecessarily harm homosexuals yeah well that's just your belief why would they yeah well because well because i i think it's it's just a better way to do things right so it would be my job to convince the legislatures of that area to change their laws like if i was back in the pre-civil war south and there's laws permitting slavery i would be against that i think i would be against it i hope i would be against it but then it would be my duty to convince people around me that they should change their laws and no longer practice slavery because i think but because i think it's immoral in moral meaning that it causes harm to people unnecessarily and they shouldn't do that so it's a fact that it's immoral no no it's it's it's my it's my my my belief it's my moral principles it's my my moral beliefs and somebody else who believes slavery's all right then that's theirs like in the bible like in the bible yeah right it'd be purely subjective no no no you're just making this dichotomy because everything has to be either all this or all nothing and i just don't i just don't accept that it has to be all or nothing like that it seems to me to be a very extreme view i think i i am able to say that some things are wrong based on my beliefs and desires about and i think that we should not hurt other people to the as much as we have you know unnecessarily cause harm to people and i think that therefore that gives me a um a duty to convince other people that they should they should don't do that you know when you're hurting gays or enslaving people you know don't do that and and i have to convince and i think that's what history shows is that people over time come to the conclusion slavery and it's a bad idea um being anti-gay that's a bad idea we should we should value other people right and not harm them unnecessarily that's those are bad ideas yeah yeah i think that's a moral truth that we should value other people i would say that's a moral fact not more not a moral opinion well you know the rapist or the murderer or the pedophile or whoever they're just gonna say well why should i listen to brenda why shouldn't i make up my own uh do what's in my self-interest well they don't actually believe that though do they they don't rapist don't rape do rapists think that they should be raped well do they rape no i'm saying do rapists think that they should be raped i don't know what they think i i would i would guess that most rapists would think that they ought not to be raised so what they're doing what they're doing is making an exception for themselves over other people it's like the thief it's like the thief who steals thieves don't think that you should steal from them but they think they can steal from you therefore they're making an exception for themselves correct right so they don't actually believe that that theft is good they only believe it in you know it's just it's just i get to do it and and you know right so they're making an exception for themselves which is illogical right they think whatever benefits them is right right so they're making an exception for themselves and who says they can't well if you have a moral law right that's not going to say it's not going to say um theft is theft is bad except for john doe it's gonna say theft is bad okay i think we just i think that there are moral facts and you think i don't know what you think but uh i think i told you what i think okay i don't know i believe in the principle of harm which is that we shouldn't harm other people all right well you think that's an opinion though not a fact i think it might be a little bit more than just an opinion i think i think it's a bit more than that what does that mean i don't know what that means it's more than an opinion it seems like it's either you have an opinion or you have a fact i don't think there's anywhere in between okay all right convince each other i don't think either way but uh i think we probably disagree on everything so huh what do you think about design what i'm guessing you don't think i know you don't think you got a whole list don't you i mean if we're going to talk i don't know what is design so i think that evolution is a fact right because it is our best theory that accounts for all the evidence that we've found right about animals about speed different species fossil animals and living species today evolution is the best explanation for how biology works without evolution biology doesn't make any sense so evolution is the best explanation that's a that's a claim how do you know that it's the best one we've come up with it conforms the theory the theory of evolution explains the facts that we find on the ground the the fossils that we dig up and the animals that are still alive when we um when we um understand them it's a unifying theory that explains the biology that we see on earth how did evolution start i don't know oh what about abiogenesis is there evidence for that yeah there's evidence for that there is i never thought about that what is it you haven't looked into it then why should i talk about it with you you don't know what you're talking about all right there's evidence for abiogenesis but we don't have anything definitive or near to the level of evolution uh evolution takes place you know afterwards so that's okay so evolution is the explanation for the origin of species by means of natural selection descent with modifications abiogenesis is the explanation for the origins of reproducing life on earth there are a number of theories we found that molecules for life like rna will spontaneously self-replicate in clay in in clay um on the surface of clay and stuff they just spontaneously assemble themselves hmm i rather there's a lot of problems with that experiment but what have you read the the other side too i haven't read that much on it but i don't think i would suggest that um this is something i do in both politics and sciences is that if there's something i don't know i google the pros and the cons so i would read um not just the people who are making claims from the creationist side i would read the the evolution side right and so there's a lot of good material out there that's not hard to find so i think you should do your due diligence and and look for the answers unless you're just looking to confirm prior beliefs i agree with you i think you should look at both sides right so berkeley uh berkeley university has an excellent um website on evolution which which is really good and explains a lot of the fundamental concepts so you could look into that and there are a lot of there are a lot of undergraduate level college texts that are available you could probably find free older pdfs of college-level texts and those are approachable by reasonable people and you could find out about them i would suggest i do the same thing with politics too when somebody says such and such uh well joe biden is responsible for inflation and then i i look around and i google it and i find the people that say he is and the people that say he's not and then i make a decision yeah i think you should look at both sides i'm 100 that's yeah that's what i do good right i applaud you right and the same is true for um policies surrounding uh mask wearing uh policies around vaccinations uh policies around tax policy gun control um any of those other what we should do in the ukraine there are different people giving their different opinions and if you look up and if you just put like debunked um after the search term you'll get sites that will say that they're debunking this or that and you can get the other opinion and then hopefully you make a choice based on on the best available evidence um you're not always going to do that i don't always do that but um it's a good way to approach things i agree with you i'm with you 100 i think you should examine both both views we'll see which is the most better explanation for everything and uh conclusions on everything right and in my understanding the best explanation of of the presence of life on earth or species of life on earth is evolution by natural selection which is that there it we have an environment in which only some animals will survive to the next generation right and only those who are capable of surviving will in fact survive and those traits get passed down to the survivors and so over time right you get new species that way for example the evolution of whales from a land um dwelling pecacetus there's hundreds of fossils and you can that have been uh discovered that show a clear progression from the land dwelling quadruped of pacquisitis to an ocean dwelling uh a whale or or other species for instance right and this explains how that happened you can you can practically watch right the nose the nostrils go from the front of the snout right to the middle of the head how many generations do you think it would take for a for a land dwelling animal to turn into a whale it's a result of populations over millions of years so it takes millions of years for these things to happen here's one question i have about evolution i i was always wondering how did male and female come to be for every mammal it seems to me like every wikipedia page on that there you know it seems to me it's more we're almost out but there's an advantage to having males and females because it mixes the genes better so did every animal split into two it seems like that what are you talking about how did every animal split into two yep male and female how did that come from one single thing what are you talking about oh yeah yeah yeah i i don't know what you're talking about what do you mean they split into two how did male and female come to be i don't know but you know that there are male and female bacteria right i don't know yeah you don't know a lot you're right neither do you actually i do i've been able to answer all of your questions i don't think you've answered any of them well if you're going to be rude to me i'm going to be rude back but you haven't answered any of my questions and i've i have answered all of them well i thought all your answers were wrong remember because you answer a question doesn't make your answer right does it david sorry man if somebody's gonna be rude to me i'm gonna be rude back i don't think i was rude i don't i don't think i was rude no problem it's fine i'm just going to summarize it which is i was able to answer every single one of his questions he has no idea what he's talking about on any of the subjects no idea how souls no idea how souls have memories how souls work or function you have no idea how how the universe came to be you have no idea how species come to be you have no idea how how life came to be you don't have any answers uh every and i asked answered every single question that you asked me and you gave no answers to anything that i asked you all right if you say so brenda you couldn't tell me what the multiverse was you couldn't tell me where the multiverse came from you couldn't tell me a good answer what thoughts were you couldn't tell me how evolutionary i told you what thoughts were yeah and you were wrong those aren't some doubts you haven't you didn't show i was wrong just said you just went nuh-uh no you said there you said they're not even made of anything i did too i said they're they're they're the the result of the active brain activity and i wouldn't say they weren't made how do i know that yeah because when you because when the brain activity stops the thoughts stop so are your brain you're a brain expert i guess let's agree to disagree and let's not get let's not get nasty let's not get nasty let's i think it's over buddy peace and peace and love well we're out of time anyway because google meet is going to kick me off in two minutes so uh yeah i don't think we accomplished anything uh productive there it's okay i i'm not overly upset or anything don't get worked up either of you i'm not overly worked out don't get overly worked up if i had to choose a winner i'd choose brenda i think brenda won thanks david no because come on you gotta you gotta bring you gotta bring more than that joe you can't just say that brenda's beliefs are stupid you need to bring principles you have to bring principles and so uh i mean it's nothing it's not i'm not putting you down joe i'm just saying you're ill-equipped to uh because brenda had explanations based on a materialistic worldview and you needed to go deeper into the metaphysics and get to those philosophical principles which are immutable eternal talk about causality talk about the difference between an infinite in actual infinity on a number line or in set theory and then uh composite physical objects which are always subject to cause and effect it's gonna the call's gonna end so we'll talk soon thanks for doing this all right peace out bye-bye have a good one bye