okay uh i'm live i don't have a guest um my four o'clock guest didn't show up uh no worries pikers if you're listening to this we'll do it soon we'll do it again whenever you have time and uh not a problem i'm just hanging out i've been doing a lot of messing around with my audio settings i think i've got something figured out that sounds okay it's not over blasting anymore as it sometimes was i figured out the problem for that but i thought i'd take this time to sort of talk to my listeners oh you're not too many but you know people you know people that know people and you might know someone that's pretty interesting because of their worldview because they're on fire for the catholic faith or for christ generally or for god almighty because of their monotheism or just uh their fanatical about their worldly philosophy maybe they're really into falun gong or scientology or whatever it is uh i'm looking for guests i don't i don't really want to debate i've never been a debater as you know if you've seen my videos or listen to my old interviews you know i'm not really a debater i like to meet people meet new people get them enrolled in perpetual masses get those graces flowing and just chat about what interests the guests everyone knows what interests me but i'll sort of reiterate some of my main areas of interest in religion and philosophy just so that if you are thinking of sending me a guest maybe you could keep in mind the things that interest me most and they are within the realm of philosophy uh for atheists it would be you know the obvious question why is one configuration of matter energy better than any other configuration of matter energy in space-time doesn't really make sense if you don't have a philosophical basis freedom for the supernatural you don't have a philosophical basis for anything other than a hard determinism if you're an atheist so that's one of my main passions in terms of ideas when talking with atheists uh obviously in terms of religious people if you're not a monotheist i'd like to know why not and explore the pantheons and pan atheism or whatever it is that you ascribe to or the nihilism whatever it is not terribly excited about that but it's uh it's always interesting to hear what non-monotheist religious people and for the monotheists obviously if you're not a christian i want to know why i want to know why you think the promised jewish messiah allegedly hasn't come yet i mean it seems to me that the messiah has come and he was jesus jesus christ so uh that's at the talking point for non-christian monotheists and of course for the christian who's not a catholic the topic at hand the salient point of discussion will always be authority by what authority do you know that the canon exists and what which books belong to the canon is that canon a fallible canon a fallible list of infallible books or is it an infallible list of infallible and inerrant books that's the emphasis that i always place on non-catholic christians and then for catholics you know the the journey you're on the ups and downs your experience with the sacraments and prayer you know what to expect from me and my channel you know no matter what you believe you know uh and no matter what my guests believe you know pretty much where i'm coming from and uh if the guest is a liberal so-called uh liberal or progressive catholic then wanted to emphasize morality and uh docile submission to the teachings of the living magisterium and if you're on the other side if you're straying from christ on the right i want to know uh i want to emphasize once again the alsal submission to the living magisterium and all that entails so um but if you're just a faithful catholic that is striving to be obedient to the living magisterium i just want to hear about your journey and gush about jesus christ and the saints and the church and the pope and the popes and the councils and uh you know i placed an emphasis on the living magister which means pope francis gets a lot of emphasis and the the most recent ecumenical council is the second vatican council so i put a lot of emphasis on that they are they shouldn't be but they are controversial topics for catholics many catholics those are the talking points but there's one other thing i want to bring up in case anyone is thinking about maybe being a guest on one of my live streams video chats and that's uh something that's been on my mind a lot i haven't delved too deeply into it but i'm hoping a guest is well well-versed in philosophy can come forward and help me to unpack a modal argument of blessed john dunst i've been chewing on it for a while now it has taken over um from anselm's ontological argument which is an a priori a priority argument it's uh it's taken over that um in terms of the back burner of my mind what i think about uh philosophically it's it's uh dominating because it's a posteriori proof for the existence of god and it sidesteps a lot of issues having to do with time because it it's a simultaneous analysis of causality because if a cause if a if a chain of causality is not strictly speaking simultaneous then the relation of cause to effect is not an immediate relationship in other words the cause is not the immediate cause of the effect the given effect and in that chain we've examined link by link in that chain of causality if it's not an immediate effect then it is not uh is not immediately caused it is not strictly speaking it is not we're not we're not talking about causality strictly speaking so this is the beauty of blessed john donne scotus's approach to the proof of the existence of god as first efficient cause and i i know that there must be some good objections to it i'm curious to know if anyone's versed in in philosophy and especially in scholastic philosophy maybe you know of a scholar that talks about scotus's modal argument maybe you know a scholar specializes in proofs for the existence of god which are a posteriori proves it this is the only a posteriori proof that i know of there may be others i haven't heard about them but i haven't done a real search for a posteriori proofs i in my discussion with atheists i always go to a posteriori any posteriori sort of intuitive approach which is outlined in various passages of the bible where it says that we know about the invisible creator by the visible creation created things so this isn't a posteriori approach loosely speaking because we're looking at the effects and then we infer a first cause so this is sort of a this is not a rigorous argument that's presented in the bible but the there is a dogma of the church that says that we can know with certainty by the light of natural reason without recourse to faith we don't need faith-based beliefs we don't need special revelation we don't need public revelation we don't need private revelation we have everything that we need in order to come to this certain knowledge that god exists so the modal argument of what's it john dunst is something i'm very interested in picking apart but it's more fun to do it with uh someone that is resistant to the idea because i'm very i'm very happy to accept his argument i'm very predisposed to accepting all of his conclusions and that there are no logical leaps or fallacies involved in his proof and i want to tighten up my understanding of his proof and it i think i might know where the late the week the week the weakness lies or the perceived weakness lies in the argument at the proof of scotus i think i know i'm not gonna give it away here but uh it would be interesting to see if i if i could find some guests whether they're atheists or or not a guest who is interested in unpacking and dissecting maybe challenging uh the proof the proof as it is the proof as it's understood by my guess the proof is understood by me and it would only help me to grow in my understanding of this very very subtle proof and he's called the subtle doctor scotus because of his his very intricate and delicate thought the argument is it makes a few twists and turns in terms of lateral thinking that uh that really appealed to me his writing style is not very um i don't find it um it's it's a bit of work involved it's a little bit of work involved reading his his writings mainly because they were sort of thrown together from notes and bits and pieces and scraps there wasn't it wasn't really like a complete finished composed work that we have in terms of the modal argument so for that reason uh tends to be a little bit broken up and the flow isn't quite there but even if it were i think his uh thought is so subtle that it would be difficult to follow his his style i'm just getting uh a message now from pie chris my four o'clock guest he says today is not good for me i'm really busy so it's good to hear pie chris glad you're keeping busy i hope everything's okay and uh we'll do the interview soon don't worry about it tomorrow i do have a an exciting guest i've had him on before if you know me you know that i am on fire for creationism from the traditional catholic perspective creationism versus over against any theories of evolution including theistic evolution of course and uh hugh owen from the colby center has agreed to come back he's been my guest once before this time he's agreed to talk to me about geocentrism i'm not really excited about geocentrism but i know that he um he's sympathetic i don't know exactly what he believes i want to hear what he has to say about geocentrism i would prefer to be a geocentrist um and i have no problem putting the earth at the center of god's creation i think the eucharist is the heart and center of god's creation and that man is the center of god's the first of course the primary instance of man being jesus christ himself so we are at the center in many ways are we at the geographical uh center the the spatial center of the universe doesn't really matter to me but i'm interested to hear what hugh owen has to say because i've been chatting with a couple of people about geocentrism recently and i'm really not ready to embrace a non-rotating earth would just involve too many inordinate forces on those heavenly bodies which are very very distant allegedly or ostensibly very very distant from earth and if they're rotating around the stationary earth the forces are for all intents and purposes infinite and uh not sure what sort of substance they would be made of to withstand those those accelerations and those forces but so that seems ridiculous to me um a stationary earth not rotating if it's at the center and it's rotating that would that would make a little bit more sense but anyway i'm exploring this not because i'm passionate about geocentrism just because i had a few people reach out to me and talk to me about it and uh because people know that i believe in creationism i think the earth and the entire universe is less than let's say a dozen thousand years less than twelve thousand years old something like that um so a lot of people come for a few people have come forward talking to me about geocentrism so that's tomorrow night uh we're gonna probably chat around 7 30 p.m eastern standard time so i look forward to that and uh thanks for listening if you know anyone that would be an interesting guest for me please send them my way i'm always looking for guests not to debate but if they if they are a passionate person with a lot to say about the church for or against uh you know i'm here to listen i'm here to put in my two cents worth and i might have a few things to uh to say if they attack you know i'm very comfortable defending the church and christ and the vicar of christ so uh or if it's just someone that was that's very passionate about their philosophical or religious uh inclinations and they just want to share that i'm here to listen and share that with with you the listeners so thanks for being there for me and we'll talk very soon we'll talk very soon take care and god bless