Refutations Ep.2 of 8 - 0h56m19s to 1h55m55s (Arguments 46-87)

Author Streamed September 2nd, 2021

audio


video

transcript
These YouTube transcripts are generated automatically and are therefore unformatted and replete with errors.
okay so right back at it right where i left off let's see what the boys have to say today they're talking about the cruelty of evolution teleological argument number 46. let's see how much i could do today if evolution so this is another interesting one we have evolution solutions are cool and people processed i don't think anyone can argue with that uh maybe crazy because anderson feel pain or something but uh god would not use a cruel and painful process a great life life emotion after selection therefore god did not create life evolution by natural selection is a cruel and painful process true if it were a reality it would be true it's not evolution is not the case creationism is the case so we don't need to worry about all those millions of years of evolution because they just didn't happen premise 2 god would not use a cruel and painful process to create life that is true number three life emerged through natural selection that is false you can't get life from non-life i don't care what your process is if your process is natural it ain't happening you can't give what you don't have the principle of proportionate causality look it up voice so of course um one of three are basically inaudible so everything's gonna hit on premise two here and i think like i can only be development god very pleasantly would not use the rule of process of great life so i think that this is a very uh very positive so again if we use craig and standards how plausible this premise is there i think it's a lot more plausible than not and so we have reason to take the conclusion here i don't know why uh they emphasize uh william lane craig so much i guess because james foldover however i say his name father fodor uh wrote a book maybe multiple books on william lane craig but uh i don't agree with william lane craig because he's not catholic and some of his views some of his theology is just wacky and weird not because he's a protestant just because that's the rabbit hole he went down with his own particular world view that one and three are basically um indisputable nice guy though i like him unless the calvinist of course because it glorifies the most in which case i don't know if it's i don't know if it's worth eternal conscious torment to be honest like to just say like wow that guy's a dick and rebel um i don't think that the payoff justifies it but but it's still pretty strong you know like i don't think i could really force myself if i was committed to like you know the process which glorifies this god most is like all this horrendous um like like horrendous struggle for existence between like animals that like emerging intelligence as well and there's weird stuff happening to them if god's a dick to use the colloquial term that you used then don't worship him don't worship any god that is inferior to you in any way or that it's imperfect in any way it's not rocket science so the calvinists are wrong about god they have a misconception about god just like all the false religions do even though even the monotheistic religions have false conceptions of god they attribute things to god that should not be attributed to god uh the calvinists are no different in that way only the catholic saints and preeminently jesus mary and joseph and maybe saint john the baptist really understood what to attribute to god and what not to attribute to god not completely and comprehensively in the case of the saints the human merely human saints but jesus the god-man obviously knows exactly what to attribute to god and what not to attribute to god infallible application of that wisdom because she is by the graces of her son she is in a very very unique situation full of grace then i'd be like wow that guy is a dick but um did you see the deflate video that was a response to cosmic skeptics veganism about about evolution and animals in nature no i didn't so he was saying he was just saying rejecting the idea that um animals are actually suffering and saying that the vast majority of um life for animals that exist in nature is just happiness and playing and having fun um and he basically based it all off this one guy who was um a biologist of some sort in the field and like this quote from him saying like in all my work in the field it just seems that animals in a state of nature are like enjoying themselves or whatever he was like so cosmic skeptic here is completely wrong to assert that animals are suffering like animals do suffer and that suffering is evil because health it's a deprivation of health which is a good one of the goods but we needn't lose any sleep over it god cares about all his creatures all his creation and there's no there's absolutely no risk of any animal burning in hell right they they can't merit heaven or hell there's no praise there's no blame attributable to them in the sense that humans can be praised and blamed because we have free will and reason the animals the lower animals do not have that so we can praise them you're a good boy you're cute you're you're pretty whatever you want to say to your pet that's fine we can praise them in that way there's sort of an anthropomorphism happening and there's also just a uh an honest assessment of uh the goodness of god the way he gave beauty and function and form to his creatures these lower animals so we can praise them in that in that sense but we can't attribute any sort of morality we can't assign any sort of morality to these lower animals it's ridiculous it's really yeah that's a really strange argument to make i mean animals in state of nature mostly just playing around i mean it seems that they're often in a state of heightened alert because they're worried about being eaten or getting enough food or something various diseases i just don't know how you get that from you but he's got that guy quite that most of the time it just seems to him that animal's having fun and that's probably the facial i guess our believing or whatever yeah yeah i mean i think there may be a naturalistic fallacy going on there as well but uh i mean yeah i guess we could respond to that separately at some point but i i like i just don't think that's true like when i even if i just go for like a walk around my neighborhood like there's all these geese along the canal and they're just like fighting every day to like get like little bits of bread and like there's all these duds just constantly raping each other and stuff like that like it's horrible and yet you would want to say that you you are an ape you are an ape and that we are just apes we're animals we're we belong to each and every one of these clades as you go all the way back to the quote unquote first clade and uh you want to teach that there's no such thing as sexual perversion unless it's just some really really extreme uh mixture of uh sex and violence like torturing and raping children you'd probably be against that do you have a philosophical basis for that opinion no you don't but you're against it just because you want to fit in with your peers right that's it there's just this lingering judeo-christian sense of morality that you've you've got this just the slightest wafting remnant odor of the judeo-christian rational morality that's just sort of subtle but it is permeating and you want to cling to some remnant of this morality that's why you atheists are willing you're not able but you're willing to make moral judgments from my from my point of view i would want to live like these geese and ducks and uh oh and like like rats as well and i see like drowned rats in the canal all the time and stuff like that no that's yeah but it's okay to kill babies in the world okay and so forth and so forth and abductive just for you those of you who didn't watch episode 1 their use i would say abuse of the modal form of argumentation is completely inappropriate it's not applicable you can't just say oh this might be possibly necessary so because it's possible it's necessary you can't do that you need to prove rationally that the only way a being or a proposition cannot be the case cannot be true or cannot be cannot have being is if it's logically impossible it's the only way and they haven't established that with any of their moral arguments not one transaction for the emergency supply fire cooling paper processes that life spontaneously or you know not at least not designed by uh god which is what i mean by spontaneously there i think that's probably the strongest formulation of the argument here very strong reason to believe that life response meaning was not created by a god again if you didn't watch episode one there's no need to pay attention to all the different forms of argumentation if they put it into the modal form the abductive form the inductive form and the all these different forms the bayesian form they don't they don't need to do this they're just doing it to bloat their numbers so instead of having uh roughly 100 arguments now they can say they have 500 uh and of course the bayesian form same as usually is all right the lack of teleology in nature well a seed desires to become a tree um i've heard this one recently see who said that um so i think it was like you know the the aristotelian um sorry the aquinas which is our teleology argument which is kind of like um it's like that seeds and things have like a knowledge of what they're gonna become because they like desire towards it but they can't like have that knowledge in themselves so they must have been like given it by by god um i mean like i'm butchering the way that the argument's actually laid out there but um yeah i think it was someone who was who was riffing or what they were parodying someone who was like legitimately committed to this like aquinas um is it his fourth way the fifth way is degrees of being so maybe i don't know which way yeah it's the fourth or fifth way just so you know i'm letting all the this inane conversation play out but i'm running it at 1.5 uh velocity and and yeah it's just that like there's like a knowledge and things that they couldn't have had themselves they would have had to be like set towards that end by god like like a seed towards becoming a tree yeah that's interesting i mean i guess it does depend here on how you understand here theology which isn't really defined here but it kind of just seems like all the species are just doing their best to survive in an evolutionary sense and in that sense it's not clear that there's any directness to it um which is what premise one's trying to get out of here teleology says is the science of understanding ends everything is created with an end in mind a purpose in mind that's obvious um it doesn't seem to be trying to achieve anything other than just like not not going extinct i mean i guess you should call that a team of thoughts but that's not what was it one here it seems kind of to me at least it seems more like a deterministic algorithm type thing where like you know like there's just like death if you don't fit the ecological niche and survival if you do and then you reproduce and there's more like there doesn't seem to be much too much more to it than that yeah wow what a wonderful worldview you have with your uh durham winnie is it darwinianism post darwinianism neo darwinianism whatever you want to call it it's just nonsense and it just keeps going that's the sense in which there's lack of technology here uh that's the central premise one here and if all right then well they'll be clear evidence um which i think is possible enough um and yes i got inaudible and christian claims he did so christianity is false oh my god premise one is false there is clear evidence of tediology in nature everything was created with an end or a purpose in mind if you see a building you can understand from the architecture what was going on in the mind of the architect if you're awake if you're alert if you have your it is possibly necessary that if god created nature there would be clear okay this is just uh the modal form okay so they're going through this nonsense and there's a motor form with that as always and there's a basic form of that as always the bayesian form just uh tries to set up probabilities where we can argue one thing's more probable than another but in when it comes to proofs of the existence of god there's no room for probabilities as i said in my episode one if you haven't listened to episode one you might want to go and listen to that because i don't want to repeat all this basic stuff the argument from cognitive biases now this is an argument that i came across as well which things kind of interesting so humans experience a wide range of cognitive biases and makeup faculty's often unreliable i think that's pretty much established now by science if humans are created by god they're not experiencing such a wide range of cognitive devices so yeah exactly so god wouldn't create our faculties in a way such that we regularly and consistently deceived in many different contexts not in every context but at least in enough in a wide range um so um i think this is actually quite quite an interesting point here um says who i mean who who are you to say that god would not allow for error for uh abuse of free will who are you to say that i mean it's manifest if you look around you that we have cognitive biases if you want to use that term it's manifest i blame that on the fall and i blame the fall on the abuse of free will which is good free will is good the abuse is not good so these arguments against christianity and particularly against god just don't hold any water if you understand who and what god is and of course you can make a modal form of that and an inductive form of the humans have a large number called the bias which makes effective software this is unexpected um therefore we have reasonable beliefs that does exist which is false in this case uh but an abducted form the best explanation of why we have so many biases that humans evolved by natural forces without divine guidance because we didn't have divine guidance he would expect that god would want us to be our belief formerly faculty support regularly and consistently truth conducive um people were just talking before in the chat about how inaccurate a lot of um plato's what plato and aristotle's metaphysics were and the worldview you see discussed in the bible and so forth um but it's just i mean god could have done that but it's not really why he would have and it seems that he wants to again if a whole point is to like you know exercise free will or whatever then you want to be able to do that better by forming more accurate beliefs about effective your actions and so forth okay uh before we move on i just say hi to jay hello brother god bless you can you please clear your screen a little bit clear your screen what does that mean does that mean my uh does that mean my does that mean my camera is dirty or does that mean that i've got too much on the screen let's just wipe the screen here and see i'll wipe my camera is what you're talking about j we could letter make a make a whole entire sentence for are you talking about the legibility of these slides because i didn't put together the slideshow you can either type j you can either type in a more complete explanation of what it is you want from me or you can just sort of deal with what you got don't you don't give me one excuse me audience while i talk to jay try to explain more accurately username right send let me see moving on now who was the um when prophecy fails in cognitive dissonance guy and festberg yeah that's right you'll notice a lot of name dropping uh with nathan and james they seem to be impressed with themselves that they've read so many brilliant atheists and their arguments and how they formulated all these arguments and uh you know they'll be they'll be name-dropping throughout this entire presentation probably yeah interesting it's also interesting how um how much cognitive biases do play a role in sort of like doomsday cults and like the origins of like religions and the end times coming which is you know sort of what christianity is an example of not that um yeah not that not that that has too much pertinence to this argument specifically yes i also think that that's a that's a quite interesting argument and of course there's amazing form humans experience a large number of cognitive biases more likely under atheism than other theism all right now this is another one that i picked up the argument from revulsion against natural health i think this is um uh or is it which way is it is it unfortunately on uh really fairly on yeah i'm just getting the computer yeah i don't even know um i i don't know that much about him but he's coming on my channel for an interview in a week i think actually yeah so yeah that'll be fine anyway i think this was his argument here so he says i am rightly repulsed by various horrors of the natural world um if the natural trade i would not be right there a possible variety of international world according to these worlds sorry see isn't this false believe in a fallen world if you don't get it i mean i suggest you pick up a newspaper or if you're new school go on the internet look at the news if you can find a news source that's reporting nothing but good news then uh congratulations but most of the news reflects the fact the self-evident fact that we live in a fallen world where we have abused and continue to abuse the good gift of free will which we were given by our all-good creator so i'm horrified by sin not only by sin but but by the consequences of sin both original sin and actual sin the consequences of original sin the consequences of actual sin they surround us we can we cannot deny it so the idea he had in mind is well different aspects of the natural world so i think so one of the ones that he mentioned i think is um and every evil every evil that we see around us is a consequence of sin original and actual what is it called like uh the species that um the species that eat their mates during cannibalism what's that called again oh the spiders like yeah yeah there's a word for that i mean why i've got like self innovations to come ahead which just set yourself on fire like those buddhist monks um yeah i know what you mean yeah so there's a filial yeah so sexual cannibalism is what that's called there's also filial cannibalism where adults eat their offspring in certain in certain as well as infanticide uh oh there's also intrauterine cannibalism oh the other embryos are impregnated but only one the large ones consume their less developed siblings as a source of nutrients i mean the cannibalism one i think we find naturally repulsive um and i don't know what our reasons are for finding cannabis and repulsive whether that's just like um you know whether that's because of our culture because some human cultures have been into cannibalism or whether there's like an evolutionary thing there because like there's all sorts of diseases you get from like eating the nervous system of like urine species or whatever but um the other thing that i'm thinking of i like all these goofy like parasites and that horrible wasp that like lays its uh eggs in you know like the head of like another insect around like butterflies um you know things things that just lay their eggs inside of other creatures and then they have to eat their way out as like yeah yeah that's another example of guinea worms those sorts of things oh yeah um and intestinal worms as well uh those are just so disgusting if boys if you're disgusted and horrified by the various horrors of the natural world as you call them and just wait till you see what satan has in store for you and hell it ain't pretty yeah so the idea is that the argument doesn't attempt to explain why we find these repulsive just that we are another obvious point here is that if one configuration of matter energy and space time is better than another for example health is better than sickness and having bodily integrity is better than being eaten from the inside out by a bunch of worms and parasites if one configuration is better than another configuration in any way then you know with certainty that your atheistic worldview is false you've been sold down the river by satan and as minions and that god does exist and it's not too late you can repent and believe the good news and change your life for the better start pursuing virtue not only the natural virtues but the supernatural virtues faith hope and charity first and foremost and that wouldn't be the case if god created the natural world viruses that give you pneumonia and your lungs something you know you could make a full argument again here as well but again you just walk back why did god create a universe on the teaching of falling into a situation where there's all these horrific horrors i don't think that's very good well because the only way you can love god is to love god freely the only way you can love your pet dog is to love your pet dog freely the only way you can love anything is to love freely otherwise you're just a robot a monkey bot going through the motions in a hard determinist world means nothing very counter oh right and that concludes the telegeological argument so to summarize it's basically a combination of like bad design horrific design painful design um and um also the cognitive biases or like why would he create it so that we're so confused and confusing laws of nature sort of thing but all of this is easily dismissed by two facts one god is good and two everything that god does is good everything he created is good every gift he gives is good including free will but free will is by its very nature subject to the possibility of abuse was that abuse inevitable i think so i don't know what the theologians say i don't know what the church teaches on that i believe it was absolutely inevitable that the creatures who were given free will would fall a certain percentage of them a certain percentage of the angels fell and with humans we have a much more merciful situation where we were allowed to fall and then repent the fallen angels cannot repent why i have no idea but i know that god is good and that's why he ordained it so it's good those could have been bolstered though i think um analogical argument parodies and and like those aquinas type arguments which are appealing to like specifically like weird and a weird understanding of what like like things possessing knowledge to be like aimed towards an end like you know like an acorn c desiring to grow into a tree or whatever and you could just kind of be like well well no that's you know like our understanding of dna and stuff like basically reduces that to essentially mechanical chemical process and so it doesn't have like a knowledge in it where it knows it wants to become a tree unless i i guess you could say like well the dna code and cosmologist i think there's something to be said of that where you could just like you know like deny one of the premises right at the opposite way and get to the alternative conclusion in terms of the desire he's so horrified and repulsed by this notion of desire existing in non-sentient or i guess plants are sentient so um in the sense that they have senses not the full uh senses that an animal would have much less a human but nathan seems repulsed by this idea of attributing will to a non-human right uh well two things what what's the philosophical basis that you have for attributing will to a human uh and what is what is a philosophical basis for making any distinction whatsoever between a human and a non-human and then from the catholic perspective we say that uh you know your dog and your cat and your host plant do have a will and uh in a certain sense a stone could be said to have will in that aristotelian sense but what distinguishes humans from other non-human creatures is that uh we alone have a rational well among material preachers we alone have a rational will and that rational will there's a special name for that it's called free will yeah that's a good point well more arguments for the next version yeah yeah all right ontological arguments so these are some of my favorites just because intellectual arguments for the existence of god i think very silly and so it gives an opportunity for some imagination parody arguments all right nothing silly about the ontological arguments nothing silly at all about the ontological arguments nothing could be further from the truth the modality for atheism is possibly ah this is again this modal abuse their constant and unremitting abuse of the modal form of argumentation premise one it is possibly necessary it is absolutely necessary that god does exist we know this using pure reason without recourse to faith revelation or anything else just using pure reason we know that god is necessary he he alone absolutely is he has being in a way that none of his creatures have so it is an abuse of the modal form of argumentation to say that it's possibly necessary that god does not exist this is this is the very heart and root of the absurdity of atheism it calls up down left right good evil and it inverts everything there's absolutely zero respect given to logic to reason to philosophy in among all these 500 or whatever the number is arguments against christianity against the christian god there is no respect given to logic to reasoning or to philosophy it's sad it's embarrassing jay is saying in the comment in the live chat that they're uh sorry to say but animals have animals have no soul well not a rational soul but if we think about the catholic dogma which was proclaimed at the council of vienna vienna however you pronounce that soul of the human being is the form of the body of the human being the soul is the form of the body okay so this harkens back to i'm not saying it's completely aristotelian but it harkens back to the aristotelian notion of the soul where the tension in the violin string is the soul of the violin right it's a function and form and the the way that this uh body the body of the violin uh has a certain tension in it and this is the soul of that instrument without which there would be no possibility of having music this is just an analogy that aristotle used but i think it's a very colorful one an interesting one and animals do have a soul in that aristotelian sense now if you're not comfortable saying using the word soul for non-human animals that's fine but bear in mind that the catholic church does teach dogmatically infallibly that the human soul the rational soul of the human being is the very form of the body this is why we know that creationism is true and all the evolutionary theories are false including theistic evolution by swift if it's possible we necessarily don't exist and doesn't exist god doesn't exist because obviously i mean so this is the standard conception of god's existence right it's necessary so it's either god exists necessarily or it doesn't exist necessarily so just as crazy do you think it's possible that god does not exist because if you do think it's possible god does not exist and it follows logically and inescapably no if you if you think that it's possible that god does not exist you haven't understood what you're talking about right you just have not understood what we're talking about when we talk about god because what we're talking about when we talk about god is the necessary being it's that that which nothing greater can be conceived it's the uncaused first cause etc and so on we could talk about it in many different philosophical terms but it has never ever been a part of classical theism or monotheism to even speculate about the possibility that god it's not on the table it's never been on the table so if as i said in a recent interview with i think with chad or if you as an ostensible christian admit that you are not certain about the existence of god then whether you like it or not you strayed not only from jesus christ you strayed from classical theater you've strayed from monotheism and luckily we have a god who's merciful and kind and he understands invincible ignorance not everyone has studied philosophy not everyone is thought deeply about contingency and necessity so you don't need to worry i'm not worried about your eternal salvation excuse me but it is nonetheless the case that if you think it's possible god doesn't exist you do not understand god and of course i'm speaking in an understanding of god that is not comprehensive you've plumbed the depths of god and you know comprehensively everything that is to be known about god because no creature has that privilege the closest would be well i was going to say mary but i suppose if you talk about jesus's human nature which god took upon himself i mean obviously that uh i want to be careful with my wording here but i think that the the it's obvious that the human nature is a creature jesus's human nature is a creature so there's that one exception where a creature can know the depths of god but even there i'm not sure how that how that plays out jay here in the live chat says how on early he claimed that god doesn't exist i think some atheist doesn't want to acknowledge god because of their sinful nature what do you think brother yes i agree 100 i was an atheist for most of my adult life and the nagging suspicion that i'm a sinner and that god exists was always there lurking in the shadows on the back burner and it was a real relief to come back to god because uh running away from god is silly it's foolish it's selfish it's it promises pleasures but it doesn't really satisfy our our hearts are restless until they repose in god when they say boom that's the sound of their dead souls tumbling into the abyss i'm just being dramatic here but i mean these people need to wake up we don't know how long we have right i mean we could perish in an instant so it's of the utmost importance to stop joking around and to get right with god before the judgement asking's on the local language for atheism this is one the greater the handicapper the more impressive the achievement the most formidable handicap would be on existence therefore the greatest conceivable wing is one who creates ah this non-existent creator is god therefore god does not exist the greater the handicap of the creator this is this is a serious is this a serious proof against christianity and the god of christianity i don't know who this gas king guy is but he's not too bright is he doesn't what's it that craig says there's a contradiction in this right that um that it doesn't exist and exists um no there's no contradiction because we're not saying that god exists and doesn't exist we're saying he creates without existing yeah yeah they're not they're not created so yes so god doesn't exist yeah i see i see what you mean but i'm pretty sure that's what craig says though he's saying that you know like god exists in order to be the non-existent creator and doesn't exist so there's like a contradiction because i think that's where he goes we're just predicating properties of the non-incision great you can predict of non-existentiality just like your santa claus right so there's no contradiction there that's not god creates because there's no logical contribution to be swinging god doesn't exist and god creates the universe doesn't logically contradict each other the only thing you could say is that it's metaphysically impossible for a non-assistant being to create but then that's just making the question against the non-existent god creation theist proponent right that's just that's especially because they're just saying that god doesn't exist and creates the universe so so i think um there's something there's an interesting like metapoint here about like the the general dialogue um between like these and atheists and philosophers and stuff um and so there's this channel that makes um clips from philosophy lectures and there's one that thank you there's one um a graham priest one where he's talking about nothing and it's like five minutes of him sort of like saying things that sound really silly about nothing but then he's like you know like like nothing doesn't exist nothing doesn't have existence but i went to the fridge and there was nothing in the fridge nothing was in the fridge but i was like listening to this over time and going more and more crazy i started to think that this actually does sound like when fierce trying like describe god and like add credit and stuff it genuinely does seem to me like they're like creating like nothing like they're just negating all of this stuff that we can actually point to and be like you like material extended and they're just going no not that not that not that and like um it's like they've oh my god so embarrassing nathan you claim to have been a christian you claim therefore to have been a monotheist you claim to be a learned man who studies philosophy this is metaphysics 101 this is classical theism 101 god preeminently exists he is being you are nothing god is everything you nathan are nothing you james are nothing i david i'm nothing god is that's why in the old testament when moses met god he said i am these people have no clue what they're talking about they want to build something from nothing the way god does but god is not nothing you are nothing he created you out of nothing and he's staying he sustains you in being a relative being not an you are nothing he is everything he is he has being omnipotent is often defined in uh as a negation because they say the absence of limits on power or the absence of limits because it's like impossible to like disprove nothing like they're literally just saying that but i i mean i don't know how this what i'm saying here is actually relevant to what we're saying but i think i think maybe this parody can like bring out some of those weird intuitions about what's actually going on in these these governments yeah so they admit that it's just silliness and parody that they're engaged in and i i understand that this is obviously that one of the silliest arguments they've come up with so far it doesn't even try to take itself seriously it's tongue-in-cheek but just if you love the truth why don't you seek the truth why don't you talk about with yourself in your own mind to find a quiet space and think about being and nothingness okay think about freedom and responsibility think about contingency and necessity just go off in a quiet place and think about that it'll do you a world of good all those books behind you boys that you've allegedly read they've filled your heads with nonsense they've confused you to the point where you can't even find a quiet space to meditate on the most fundamental aspects of metaphysics being nothingness freedom responsibility contingency necessity 20 minutes spent meditating on those concepts will yield more fruit and however many years of mental masturbation you've been engaging in with your youtube with your books with your interviews with all your discussions okay yeah i really like this argument for we did this on purpose yeah and i made a moderator too i never should take it back all right uh played it's like some people might say that right so that's not a standard plane isn't though divine conceptualism different plagiarism um but anyway if necessary objects exist independently of god god cannot be sufficient uh and this is just what craig thinks right craig thinks that if later's mystery necessarily just isn't playing with god and craig thinks that if he objects to this girl cannot be sufficient um of frames as two and three here um and i guess four as well i've got it cannot be selected like this because that's just the definition of god right um so he just he just redirects one here but you could argue that there's a lot of good reasons for except one therefore follows logically and inescapably the god does not exist yeah again they're just being silly uh i mean if you if you hold to christianity then you believe that christianity is true and if someone comes along trying to sell you platonism you just have to politely point out that platonism got all of its truths from christianity and all of its lies and errors do not come from the god man jesus christ they come from satan and his minions or from plato himself or from his some errors are introduced innocently right anyway this argument is beyond silly sounds good i'm an the best possible includes i'll say the best words and god would only create the best possible world right so therefore this is not the best possible world i've debunked this in our last episode one it's a dogma of the church that god created a good world but it's also a dogma of the church that god could have created a better world this is not the best of all possible worlds always for the best in the best of all possible worlds that's live next who parody that was it voltaire is that yeah yeah yeah voltaire's condi that's a great book by the way that's um okay great meaning entertaining yeah yeah because that's live next is this is the best possible world yeah and then and then the the parody is like stuff that's happening that's like plausibly true and the characters keep saying that um is it happening right is that yeah it's a very funny book we're always terrible stuff happens and just keep saying well you know it's for the best sort of thing by the way 69 viewers it's nice oh it's 71 sorry let's realize uh that book by the way was dedicated to the pope of uh voltaire's day as you know on his on his live stream sometimes oh well good job everyone and braxton's got like 12k followers he gets similar like 100 odd uh viewers well the aces are just more committed not be happy to listen right but you know uh so this is just possibly necessary the plaintiff is true fighters throughout this objective of god this is abbreviated a little bit sometimes i just throw his five in the conclusion but you get the idea of how it works but by virtue of which platonic form is plagiarism true you know well anyway right you just need a single you just need one platonic form to exist and then and then the segment goes forward so it doesn't matter this is the thing people think if you can reach this or that form or like you know uh universals or particular forms of set theory like you only need a single platonic object to go to exist and then the argument goes ahead so that makes it a lot stronger all right um planet is a divine society abductive so plagiarism is the best explanation of objects which a lot of philosophers agree with inflation is true these faults which people create agree with therefore they could reduce religious these faults very simple argument there i was thinking of like a self-referential thing like the platonic form of platonism as like a metaphysical theory or something well that's not a contradiction they'll be like the platonic form that kind of responds to the non-existence of the falsity played in the middle of something i don't know yeah yeah it's called the third man argument from the contingency of mines um so i'm just trying why is this not too logical argument i think because it's an argument against assessing necessary existence so all mines are contingencies god is a necessary mind so therefore doesn't exist yeah it's like an essence all minds are contingent entities well all created minds are contingent but god is not a creator he's not a creature he's the creator do you not understand that this is this this is such a waste of time trying to refute such puerile and inane arguments but i'm just doing it as an exercise yeah yeah uh yeah so to answer this question you can see what number argument we're on in the bottom right corner by the way i'm doing any push-ups let's deal with that how many how many are we doing that's how do i enable super chats um i don't know if you can do it live but somewhere in creator studio um it's fine it's fine you can save them up guys and donate them later well we're going to do the push-up i was going to like you know like get people to donate through doing the push-ups oh i see well let me have a quick look at i mean people keep complaining i don't know what i'm doing which is perfectly true because i still get new to this let me see i'll see if i can uh where i do it in my uh youtube create something maybe under under my studio and then go to monetization oh supers yeah i should just take a second so yeah everyone people how many people have got watching so yeah 71 people watching i think i do think um i think when cameron has like a big guest on he goes but brexit generally gets about 120 there now um i'll hold off the press up until the end just in case because he didn't tell me until the streams probably may come make philosophical arguments in favor of that as well so i was like well for any of mine you can just conceive that they're not existing right so argument sorry first time ever to favor this and you can probably make um uh yeah so to promise one here i mean i think we've got very strong argument sorry first trying to favor this and you can probably make um make philosophical arguments in favor of that as well so it's like well for any mind you can just conceive that not existing right so um if the relevant uh mental combination of facets weren't in existence then that might exist i was continuing you know you can argue something along those lines maybe um and of course there's a modal argument so it's possibly necessary that all minds are contingent by one is five or more contingent god is necessary so it doesn't exist and there's an interactive form all no minds are contingent god is supposed to be in this reminder we have strong evidence he doesn't exist and there's an abducted form all minds all known minds are contingent the best explanation of why all known minds and concentrations that all minds are conditioned there aren't any necessary minds but god's supposed to be necessary mind so uh we have strong reasons to think that he doesn't exist um and amazing of course as always so if they knew that god is defined as a necessary mind why did they use premise one saying that all minds are contention these people don't know how to think they're no maximal being argument so this one i think is kind of interesting um god is supposed to be the worst possible thing or actually great being but for every great being there is a considerable being which is which sorry how's your face here there's simple being with at least one more greatness making property than that being therefore they cannot be a massive great being therefore doesn't exist this is so silly and stupid i mean you when we say that god is infinite in every per pure perfection every perfection in other words that it's better to have it's infinite god's perfection is infinite so even if you don't believe in god do you understand the words that are used in the definition of god we don't define god into existence but there is a definition of god that we can give there are many definitions that we can we don't claim to understand comprehensively what god is we haven't plumbed his but we can talk meaningfully about god when we say he's infinite in every perfection that it's better to have and and if you understand the words then you will not come up with a silly argument like this you just won't because it's it's it's a meaningless you're saying yeah he's the greatest but well have you understood the definition he's infinite in every pure perfection have you understood that if not maybe you should go and think about it and then you will inevitably if you're honest with yourself you will become a monotheist jay says in the live chat my brother i will keep you in my prayers thank you my brother you too i'll keep you in my prayers thanks for being here this is this is actually pretty interesting um you know because because of the way the way that like um what's it called on logical like i can't tell me nonetheless trying to like derive that contradiction from like you know if it didn't exist then you could conceive of one greater and but that i think that does implicitly depend upon like saying that there actually can be differences in people's conception of a maximally great being where you can like add properties to it oh jay uh jay's on his way out i think but he said something interesting in the comments in the live chat here only pre presupposition nothing else that brings to mind a couple of comments that i received on youtube on different videos videos i've done videos that i've commented on uh i'm thinking in particular now of the atheist experience video when i called in four years ago but different places i've received this comment that i'm a priest oh you're a precept if anything i'm the polar opposite of a presuppositionalist i don't presuppose what i believe i presuppose the opposite of what i believe and then follow it to its logical conclusions and then i'm forced by reason by logic to accept monotheism as absolutely true and then i built my faith by the grace of god and by years using my free will and my reason i'm able to upbuild through my study through my reading through my thinking through my and i have determined that christianity is true catholicism is the fullness of christian truth and you can go watch my meta episodes that talk about doubt faith and reason to talk about that and i walk you through the process of becoming a monotheist and then from there becoming christian and then from there becoming a catholic it's well founded faith well-founded faith that i have very well founded so well-founded that i've never ever ever been nervous or challenged by anyone from any other worldview no one's on uh unsettled me with your arguments the problem with the atheist worldview is that it does the exact opposite it doesn't have well-founded faith it has shoddy faith which serves as a foundation and they build on this shoddy faith these faith-based faith-based beliefs they build on that using what they think is reason and philosophy it's a complete inversion of the one true worldview so instead of building on pure reason and certainty which we which enables us to know and then using reason and the faith that comes from being a sincere monotheist and building a structure of faith upon that certain foundation what the atheist is forced to do is to build on a flimsy shaky foundation of faith based beliefs that they don't even most atheists think that they only have beliefs based on evidence they don't know that that most of their worldview is based on faith-based so with all their ostensible reasoning and thinking and system building and philosophizing speculating and even their agnosticism it's built like a house of cards on shifting sand it's destined to fail is doomed to fail because they do not have a solid foundation they do not build on a solid foundation so i just wanted jay is just clarifying atheists do more presuppositions than you please do not misunderstand me and also protestant they also use presuppositions when they debate catholics of course of course because they don't have that ultimate foundation which is authority in the catholic worldview we have pure reason which gives us monotheism we have history which gives us christianity and then we have authority the question of religious authority which gives us the living magisterium the pope and the bishops who teach in union with him so we have a very very very solid faith there's no need for presupposition for the catholic but every other worldview needs to sneak in some presupposition because they have unchecked on uh unknown assumptions axiomatic assumptions they're unaware of very very very dangerous the project that they're engaged in yeah well i mean yeah so in terms of intense premise two there how would you defend that well it kind of depends what you think greatness making properties are right but you can always just say well like god has an extra one or like god god i mean you could look in terms of how great he is in terms of like well he created this many people so you could create an extra one of them but maybe you said that has to be an intrinsic property that's an extrinsic one um but i think the only real way around this is to just say that all greatness making properties are non-quantifiable so that you can't specify how much that god has because otherwise it doesn't make sense you just say he has more than he does um but even if that's true you can just then add on more properties it doesn't scotus blessed john dunn scotus does a great reduction to absurdity proof for this exact question about it's short it's sweet and it's airtight so go read some blessed john dunsta's voice there's like um physical i mean i guess it's like physical properties that you could predicate like great yourself right that i don't know if it would make sense would you say that god has to have them even though god's a material being and then if you're like well god can't have them it doesn't that kind of undermine you're maximally great because god isn't maximally great if he doesn't have a great pair of boobs for example like the pure perfections of god are those perfections that it's better to have than not to have as i keep saying so having great boobs is wonderful but it's not a perfection that it's better to have than not right depends on what nature you have if you're a woman great if you're a ruler and you're trying to draw straight lines with a ruler you don't want a great set of boobs on your ruler right everything has a nature even god has a nature and it's in god's nature that he has the pure perfections all of all of the pure perfections and to an infinite degree it is wonderful and perfect to be a circle but it's not better to be a circle than not to be a circle so god is not a circle even though circularity is a perfection but it's not a pure perfection it's an impure perfection so when you're choosing tires for your bicycle or your car or your wheelbarrow you want that circularity it's appropriate to that nature the nature of that creature that vehicle okay so you boys need to go back and read some metaphysics yeah yeah i think that's always that he's before yeah but i mean like he's got the fastest runner for example yeah yeah is that great he's making property yeah but could god have like he's got the best um is he a great stock trader how can you have read all those books behind you boys and not understood the fundamentals of metaphysics ontology it's embarrassing yeah i i don't know maybe maybe this is a great agent maybe this undermines just um like a realist interpretation of like greatness or something like that you know it's like i don't know there's always room for more discourse on all of these but yeah i'm not sure about myself because i don't know what like i'm actually great being means to be honest and i think this is not pushing against what that might mean uh and of course then we have a modal form of that it is possibly necessary for everybody being there so even if it's not maybe you don't have it possibly there could be every great beingness there is at least obviously property it's right at the top of my uh comment stream by how long of the soul is i thought it was signing up so you'll see what you think of this so probably aloneness argument against classical theatre so i'm starting to skip uh i didn't want to do this but it's just it's so painful so very painful pontificating about stuff they have absolutely no clue no clue what they're talking about no clue what they're talking about it is so incredibly painful god give me patience so yeah i just thought it was interesting so this is one that i know i found in my research so you'll see what you think of this so possibly god exists without a non-god world so that means god could exist by himself like sans creation just just god so that's saying it's possible so god continually has wholly intrinsic knowledge uh this means that it's possible like continually in some possible worlds there is just god and he only knows things about himself he doesn't know anything about the world outside of himself because there is no word outside of himself now whatever whatever you say sans i always think of comic sans the font just well that would say sans serif right which is the little yeah um see some strokes on the end of the letter so that's yeah so it's the same word i guess is the point anyway whatever is highly intrinsic to a being is either an essential feature that being or an accident of them so this was a tricky argument to um formulating these premises but i think it's actually interesting so i'll try to explain it here so how interesting means it's just internal to you like not dependent on something outside of you so that's what holy interesting knowledge is god has knowledge only of himself and not anything outside himself because there isn't anything else like himself so anything that's totally intrinsic to a being is either an essential feat of that being meaning it's like critical to them and they always have to have it or it's an accident which means that there's no reason for it right it just sort of happens as a brute fact or something like that um and the reason for that is because it kind of happened for a reason outside that being because i'm thinking about um transubstantiation sorry as you're talking okay well i don't know how that relates to this well yeah i just think about the idea that like the essential properties of bread can change into god but the accidental properties can remain the yeah how can you change the essential properties of something that would make it into something else well because it does it becomes go it whatever interesting is either a central feature or an accident which means there's no so you can't all the premise that you're saying is that um a whole intrinsic property cannot be caused by something outside of being because anyone will be holding intrinsic it would be from outside that's what that's the point that's being made there now purposeful no contingent property of god can be essential um and um the idea of this here is that god exists necessarily and so all of his properties are necessary and so there can't be something that is a property of god that is just contingent because that would be consistent with essential nature um so according to five here so from all the following what we get is that um possibly it's possible because looking very experimental that's possibly god has an accidental property and that accidental property will be his knowledge um consisting only of the fact of uh let me rephrase that his accidental property is essentially whether he has knowledge of things outside himself that's just an accident meaning that it's there's no identical to his properties so therefore is an accident so this is an argument against them against classical theism it's so much wrong with this argument the so-called proof i'll just pick it apart number one possibly god exists without a non-world have you looked around there's a non-god world here meaning that we have contingent beings all around us you're one of them james you're another one of them nathan and i'm another one of these non-god contingent beings look around so it's manifest it would be absurd to deny the manifest fact that god created a world okay so one is scrapped already it's not possible that god exists without a non-god world it's not possible it's manifest that god created us did god need to create us no so in that sense you know god could have not created but it's not possible that he did not create because we're manifest number two so meaning therefore god contingently has holy intrinsic there's nothing contingent about god's knowledge there's nothing contingent about god's knowledge period so two is scrapped number three whatever is holy intrinsic to a being is either an essential feature of that being or an accident you don't understand what essence the distinction between essence and accident in essence talks about what in hears in itself an accident in hears in an essence or a substance right you've misdefined accident in this proof not in the text here but in the in your explanation of it when you were dwelling on number three number four no contingent property of god can be essential obviously the contingent is not an essential property of god obviously what's your point number five so meaning therefore possibly god has an accidental property god took on flesh he became man he took on accidental properties he had a certain skin color height and all the rest but god in his divine nature not in his human nature but in his divine nature doesn't have accidental properties we've already discussed that under classical theater number six under classical theism god is identical to his but what's your point number seven therefore god is an accident no god in hears in himself he inherits in his own substance and his substance his essence he's principle of sufficient reason every accident there's a reason why the sky is blue okay it has to do with the the essence of that creature which is the earth and in hair is brown or whatever color it is has to do with the substance in which it inherits right my hair it's the nature of hair what is the there is a sufficient reason for my hair color there's a sufficient reason for every accident and there's a sufficient reason for every substance every essence there is in fact a sufficient reason for everything and everyone so this is once again metaphysics 101 you guys really need to brush up it's just a brute fact not a necessary fact which is supposed to be a contradiction because god is not in computation right so this is supposed to be reduced against classical theosome this is not my argument this is i don't remember who um this is this is taken from a paper by philosopher so um it's quite sort of technical so maybe i won't try to explain it again because i feel like i just did the best i could but i have a read of it it's called the segment it's kind of interesting it's supposed to be a reduction against classical theorem which says that is properties which i think is a silly position anyway just doesn't really make any sense but um there's a lot of physical theories around so this would be an argument against it doesn't make sense to you because you're a creature and you're that he's contingent that he's comprised of acts a whole bunch of accidental i will i will look into the accident how do accidents relate to the essence of god because obviously god created natures that have accidental properties i will look into that as an interesting question how does that relate to the essence of god it's an interesting question but you boys haven't really understood what an accident is an accident is something that a property that can hears in a substance in essence is that substance against that formulation all right let's move on here so that was all the ontological arguments so often they were like parodies of the theological arguments or attempts to deduce like contradictions in the nature of god or his necessity or something like that now we're moving on to um theological arguments regarding theism so these are basically aspects of the specific aspects of the nature of god that are supposed to contradict your evidence for their non-existence but not about christianity specifically all right the incompatible properties argument so this is an old one um the properties of the god of classical theorism are mutually contradictory uh you don't really have to say classical theorem here i guess you can just say the theories of god uh the prop it's the properties of god's escalating responsibility i've got none of this by definition the properties or attributes of god of classical theism aka monotheism are not mutually contradictory they're not that's the whole point that's the entire point of classical theism is that it deduces without any reference to faith or revelation it deduces using pure reason the attributes of god and that those attributes are identical among themselves and identical with god is that counterintuitive to you do you find that bewildering do you find that weird because you as a finite creature see justice and health and beauty and goodness and truth and unity as different things to be treated separately is that what's confusing your little because with philosophy you're supposed the obvious beyond what's intuitive to you as a creature supposed to go beyond to find the truth the ultimate and absolute and unchanging truth how do you look yourself in the mirror and say that you are a lover of wisdom a philosopher it's embarrassing obviously i was just going to say which which properties are we saying uh contradictory in this argument because it's gonna you know that is gonna kind of depend on a particular model of god right well yeah and i think that's maybe why i threw in um i threw in classical theism here because uh is it like the only thing that's more well defined it's well defined in classical theism that all of the attributes of god are identical among themselves and identical with god um yes i'm trying to remember i think i put some examples later on as to things like okay typically put uh mentioned let me see if i can find that i don't know i mean maybe they i i've not thought too hard about the contradictory ones but i certainly have thought about like um either them just not making any sense to me whatsoever like what omniscience or omnipotence even means or um the other thing is like um inconsistent sets of beliefs so for example like theo all classical theaters want to say that god's omniscient right so he knows all propositions but then i also want to say that there are souls with like qualia but then and they'll also want to believe that god is like distinct from the you know because they're making like a creator creative distinction so they're not pantheists and then there's like an issue for this because they're believing that god's like omniscient so he like has all of the qualia knowledge of your like private soul first person experience but then he also like isn't you like a panther believe and so there's like some kind of like tension between all these like things that they want to believe about the way the world god it is true god knows my experience better and more thoroughly more completely more comprehensively than i do than any scientist could or any shrink for that matter could better than my wife my mother my best friend okay that's true because god knows everything he there there are absolutely no limitations to god's knowledge right so there's no contradiction implied by that fact he's omniscient okay my self-knowledge my self-awareness is very limited because i'm a finite finite and fallen creature i don't know about yeah sorry i don't know i was just going to say that um yeah i think it's hard to understand it and we just mentioned this before how old the properties fit together but in terms of some of them that um seem flawless so one would be a divine society and creation or or the fact that god has purposes i suppose really any purpose to be honest um we seem to configure the idea that he's self-sufficient because i don't have a purpose to like just being what you are doesn't you can't have a purpose to be what you are it doesn't make sense like the purpose is about doing or changing or making something your purpose flows from your essence god's essence his goodness love beauty truth justice that flows from him so yeah god being outside of time someone's saying god being a beautiful and having a libertarian free will but i also think like yes unchanging and like the idea that god made decisions to like create and stuff like that yes and yeah there's a distinction that needs to be made between the internal and the external like what happens in the life of the trinity there's no free will there god does not love himself freely god loves himself of necessity again read blessed john don scotus for an excellent summary of that what he does uh add extra is free perfectly free god is freedom amazing um and um what else was going to say there was another one in mind um oh yeah so god being well i was guessing god being a person all the classical theatres i don't know that they exactly accept that but regardless this will just be different you've got so god being a person and god being timeless um and or the god of classical theism aka monotheism is a personal god yes we can know that by the light of natural reason without recourse to any faith any faith-based beliefs any revelation or anything like that um which seems to be pretty critical aspects of being a person arguably at least oh another thing i thought about you know because um they like to think about like thought being this like special thing that isn't can't be like part of the physical is that it seems to be like an essential property of thought that it is like tense like it's like you know like moving through time and this is like the main argument yeah a theory is like a psychological interpretation of like the phenomenology of like our experience and um like i don't know how it's possible to say like god has th

transcript2
These ReWatch transcripts are also generated automatically and are therefore sometimes improperly unformatted and replete with errors.
Okay, so right back at it, right where I left off, let's see what the boys have to say today. The talking about the cruelty of evolution, teleological argument, number 46. Let's see how much I could do today. Even evolution. So this is another interesting one, the [inaudible] process. And I was getting, I can argue with that. I'm gonna be crying cause I don't wanna feel pain or something, but we don't use a cruel to bank for us. It's a great life, life, emotional reflection. They for God did not create life. Evolution by natural selection is a cruel and painful process through if it were a reality, it would be true. It's not evolution is not the case. Creationism is the case. So we don't need to worry about all those millions of years of evolution because they just didn't happen. Premise to God would not use a cruel and painful process to create life. That is true. Number three, life emerged through natural selection. That is false. You can't get life from non-life. I don't care what your process is. If your process is natural, it ain't happening. You can't give what you don't have. The principle of proportionate causality, look at an oyster. So of course I'm one of three are basically inarguable. So everything's going here on premise to here. And I think like an army of different God, very possibly we're not use a roll of paper for us. It's a great life. So I think that this is a very, very close. Welcome. So again, if we use Greg and standards, help plausible spread premise through there, I think it's a lot more plausible than not. And so we have reasonably at the conclusion again, given. I don't know why they emphasize William Lane Craig so much, I guess because James foldover, however I say his name fodder folder wrote a book, maybe multiple books on William Lane, Craig, but I don't agree with William Lane Craig, because he's not Catholic. And some of his views, some of his theology is just wacky and weird. Not because he's a Protestant, just because that's the rabbit hole. He went down with his own particular worldview. That one in three, basically indisputable. Nice guy though. I liked him. Unless the Calvinist of course, because it glorifies the most. In which case, I don't know if it's, I don't know if it's worth eternal, conscious torment, to be honest, like to just say like, wow, that guy's a Dick and rebel. I don't think that the pedal justifies it, but, but it's still pretty strong. You know? Like, like I don't think I could really force myself if I was committed to like, you know, the process which glorifies has got most of this, like all this horrendous, like, like horrendous struggle for existence between like animals that like emerging intelligence as well. And then these weights, the founding to them. If gone to Dick to use the colloquial term that you used, then don't worship him. Don't worship any God that is inferior to you in any way or that it's imperfect in any way. It's not rocket science. So the Calvinists are wrong about God. They have a misconception about God, just like all the false religions do. Even though even the monotheistic religions have false conceptions of God. They attribute things to God that should not be attributed to God. The Calvinistic no different in that way. Only the Catholic saints and preeminently Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and maybe St. John the Baptist really understood what to attribute to God and what not to attribute to God, not completely and comprehensively in the case of the saints, the human merely human saints. But Jesus, the God-man obviously knows exactly what to attribute to God and what not to attribute to God. And I think Mary has a pretty infallible application of that wisdom Maya, because she is by the graces of her son. She is in a very, very unique situation full of grace. Then I'd be like, wow, that guy is a Dick, but did you see the deflate video? That was a response to cosmic skeptics, veganism argument about, about evolution and animals and nature? No, I didn't. So he was saying he was, he was just saying rejecting the idea that animals are actually suffering. And it's like that the vast majority of life for animals that exist in nature is just happiness and playing and having fun. And he basically based it all off this one guy who was a biologist of some sort in the field and like this quote from him saying like in all my work in the field, it just seems like animals in a state of nature or like enjoying themselves or whatever. And he's like, so cosmic skeptic here is completely wrong to assert that animals are suffering, like. Animals do suffer. And that suffering is evil because health it's a deprivation of health, which is a good one of the goods, but we need to lose any sleep over it. God cares about all his creatures, all his creation. And there's no, there's absolutely no risk of any animal burning in hell, right? They can't merit heaven or hell, there's no praise. There's no blame attributable to them in the sense that humans can be praised and blamed because we have free will and reason the animals, the lower animals do not have that so we can praise them. You're a good boy. You're cute. You're, you're pretty, whatever you want to say to your pet, that's fine. We can praise them in that way. There's sort of an anthropomorphism happening. And there's also just an honest assessment of the goodness of God, the way he gave beauty and function and form to his creatures, these lower animals. So we can praise them in that, in that sense. But we can't attribute any sort of morality. We can't assign any sort of morality to these lower animals. It's ridiculous. It's really, yeah. That's a really strange argument to make. I mean, animals, instead of nature, mostly just playing around. I mean, it seems that they're often in a state of heightened alert because they weren't being eaten or getting our food or something, various diseases. I just don't know how you get that from him. But he's got the guy who's a field biologist, his quote that most of the time, it just seems to him that animals having fun. And there's probably, I guess seemings all believe things or whatever. Yeah. I mean, I think that might be a naturalistic fallacy going on there as well. But I mean, I guess we could respond to that separately at some point, but I, like, I just don't think that's true. Like when I, even if I just open like a Walker, I mean, I've heard like there's all these diesel on the canal and they're just like fighting every day to like get like little bits of bread. And like there's these, it's just constantly raping each other and stuff like that. It's horrible. And yet you would want to say that you, you are an eight, you are an ape and that we are just apes, we're animals where we belonged each and every one of these claims as you go all the way back to the quote unquote first clade and you want to teach that there is no such thing as sexual perversion, unless it's just some really, really extreme mixture of sex and violence like torturing and raping children. You'd probably be against that. Do you have a philosophical basis for that opinion? No, you don't, but you're against it just because you want to fit in with your peers. Right? That's it, there's just this lingering Judeo-Christian sense of morality that you've, you've got this just the slightest wafting, remnant odor of the Judeo-Christian rational morality. That's just sort of subtle, but it is permeating and you want to claim to some remnant of this more morality. That's why you atheists are willing. You're not able, but you're willing to make moral judgments. From my, from my point of view, I would want to live like these decent ducks and oh, and like rats as well. And I see like drowned rats in the canal all the time and stuff like that. No that's yeah. But it's okay to kill babies in the womb. Okay. Yeah. I think it's interesting. Put it down. Let's get going. I'm gonna say the motor folder that is it possibly necessary, but we're not just going to have a process by five and so forth and so forth and abducted form. So. Just for you, those of you who didn't watch episode one there use, I would say abuse of the modal form of argumentation is completely inappropriate. It's not applicable. You can't just say, oh, this might be possibly necessary. So, because it's possible, it's necessary. You can't do that. You need to prove rationally that the only way a being or a proposition cannot be the case cannot be true or cannot be, cannot have being is if it's logically impossible. That's the only way they haven't established that with any of their modal arguments, not one. Function for the emotions of my fire called paperworks. This is that life spontaneously or not at least not designed by God, which is what I mean by sometimes with that, I think is probably a strong formulation element here. A very strong reason to believe that life is leaving. It was not created by a God. Again, if you didn't watch episode one, there's no need to pay attention to all the different forms of argumentation. If they put it into the modal forum, the abductor form, the inductive forum and the, all these different farms, the Basie, and they don't, they don't need to do this. They're just doing it to blow their numbers. So instead of having roughly a arguments, now that can say they have 500. And of course the banks informed same as it usually is. All right. The lack of teleology in nature. Well, a seed desires to become a tree. I've had this one recently. See, who said that? So I think it was like, you know, the, the Aristotelian, sorry, the Aquinas, which is our city teleology argument, which is kind of like, it's like that seeds and things have like a knowledge of what they're gonna become. Cause they like desire towards it. But they, they can't like have that knowledge in themselves. So they must've been like, given it by, by God, I'm butchering the way that the elements actually laid out there. But, huh, I think it was someone who was, who was riffing on what parody and get someone who was like legitimately committed to this, like Aquinas, is it his fourth way? The fifth way is degrees of being so maybe, or maybe it's the fourth or fifth way. Just so you know, I'm letting all of the, this inane conversation play out, but I'm running it at 1.5 a philosophy. And, and yeah, it's just that like, there's like a knowledge of things that they couldn't have had themselves. They would have had to be like set towards the end, by God, like, like a seed towards becoming a tree. Yeah. That's interesting. I mean, I guess it does depend here on how you understand technology, which isn't really defined here, but it kind of just seems like all of the spaces are just doing their best to survive in an evolutionary sense. Like I don't, and in that sense, it's not clear if there's any directness to it, which is what premise was trying to get out of here. [Inaudible] the science of understanding and everything is created with an end in mind, a purpose in mind. That's obviously. It doesn't seem to be trying to achieve anything other than just like, not, not going to think. I mean, I guess you could call that a technology of sorts, but that's not what it seems to me. At least it seems more like a deterministic algorithm type thing where like, you know, like there's just like death. If you don't fit ecological niche and survival, if you do, and then you reproduce and dismal, like doesn't seem to be much too much more to it than that. Wow. What a wonderful worldview you have with your, during Winnie isn't Darwinian ism, post Darwinian, ism, Neo Darwinian, ism, whatever you want to call it, it's just nonsense. And it just keeps going. That's the sensing, which is lack of theology here. Let that's the center part is one here and it got great answer. Well, there'll be clear evidence of reality, which I think is suppose well enough and yes, I got enough credit. I'm not sure Wells and Christina claims they did so presenting false. Oh my God. Premise one is false. There is clear evidence of TD theology in nature. Everything was created with an end or a purpose in mind. If you see a building, you can understand from the architecture, what was going on in the mind of the architect, if you're awake, if you're alert, if you have your wits about you, it is possibly necessary that if God created nature, there would be clear evidence of TD ecology in nature. Okay. This is just a, the modal form. Okay. So they're going through this nonsense. And his motor home with that as always, and as basic form with that as always. The Basie informed, just tries to set up probabilities where we can argue one thing's more probable than another, but in, when it comes to proofs of the existence of God, there's no room for probabilities. As I said, in my episode one, if you haven't listened to episode one, you might want to go and listen to that because I don't want to repeat all this basic stuff. It's an element from cognitive bias. You know, this is an argument that I came across as all these things got interesting human security, a wide range of consequences to make on faculties often, unreliable. I think that's pretty much established now by science. It seems like all they, we don't expect such a wide range of cognitive biases. [inaudible] faculties in a way such that we would regularly and consistently to see them in different contexts. Not every context, at least in another, in a wide range. So I think that this is actually quite quite interesting point here. Says who, I mean, who, who are you to say that God would not allow for air for a abuse of freewill? Who, who are you to say that? I mean, it's manifest. If you look around you that we have cognitive biases, if you want to use that term, it's manifest. I blame that on the fall. And I blame the fall on the abuse of free will, which is good. Freewill is good. The abuse is not good. So these arguments against Christianity and particularly against God just don't hold any water. If you understand who and what God is. And of course you can make a motor phone with that. And an inductive form with that, the humans have a large number coming by systemic factors. And I'm like, oh, this is unexpected. Therefore we have reasonable releases that about us exist, which I felt in this case. And then I've got to find the best explanation of why we have so many biases is that humans evolve by natural forces without divine guidance, because we didn't have divine guidance. You'd expect that God would want us to be, I believe for me, faculties regularly and consistently truth conducive. People were just talking before in the chat about how inaccurate a lot of Plato's will played on Aristotle's metaphysics, where in the world he's at discussing the Bible and so forth. But it's just, I mean, but it could have done that, but it's not really clear why he would have, and it seems that he'd want us to, again, if all point is to like, you know, exercise your free will or whatever, then you want to be able to do that better by forming more accurate beliefs about effective of your actions and so forth. Okay. Before we move on, I just say hi to Jay. Hello brother. God bless you. Can you please clear your screen a little bit clear your screen? What does that mean? Does that mean my, does that mean my, does that mean my camera is dirty? Or does that mean that I've got too much on the screen? Mr. Swipe the screen here and see a white. My camera is what you're talking about. Okay. We could tell me in the live chat. Nope. Use your words, Jay, use your words letter, make a, make a whole entire sentence for me. Are you talking about the legibility of the slides? Because I didn't put together the slide show you'll need a bigger screen. You can either type J you can either type in a more complete explanation of what it is you want from me, or you can just sort of deal with what you got. Don't use joke. Don't give me one word answers. Excuse me, audience. Well, I talked to Jake, tried to explain more accurate. Maybe you're saying Great. Well send it's thanks. Moving on. Now. Who was the one prophecy fails in cognitive dissonance and festival? You'll notice a lot of name dropping with Nathan and James. They seem to be impressed with themselves that they've read so many brilliant atheists and their arguments and how they formulated all these arguments. And you know, there'll be, there'll be name-dropping throughout this entire presentation. Probably. Yeah. I'm just interesting. It's also interesting how, how much cognitive biases do play a role in sort of like doomsday coats and like the origins of like religions and the infants coming, which is, you know, sort of what Christianity is an example of. Not that, yeah, not that, not that, that has too much pertinent to this. And specifically it's just a, an interesting side point. Yeah. So I also think that that's a, that's a quite engineer argument and it about seeing form humans expend a large number of cognitive biases, more likely on racism than other. So he has a, Oh right. This is another one that I pick up the argument from revulsion against alcohol. I think this is Phillip early on. What was it? Which way is it? Is it [inaudible]? I don't even know. I, I don't know that much about him, but he's, he's coming on my channel for an interview in a week. I think actually. Yeah. So that'll be fun. Anyway. I think this was his argument here. So he says, oh, I'm rightly repulsed by various harbors of the natural world. If an actual [inaudible] false. We live in a fallen world. If you don't get it, I mean, I suggest you pick up a newspaper or if you're new school, go on the internet, look at the news. If you can find a news source, that's reporting nothing but good news then congratulations. But most of the news reflects the fact, the self-evident fact that we live in a fallen world where we have abused and continue to abuse. The good gift of free will, which we were given by our all good creator. So I'm horrified by sin, not only by sin, but by the consequences of sin, both original sin and actual sin, the consequences of original sin, the consequences of actual sin, they surround us. We can, we cannot deny it. So the idea he had in mind is what different aspects of the natural world. So I think talking about, so one of the ones that he mentioned I think is. And every evil, every evil that we see around us is a consequence of sand original enactable. What is it called? Like The species that, the species that ate their mates during cannibalism. What's that called again? Oh, the spider's like, yeah, there's a word for that too. I mean, I've got like, self-immolation, it's become habit. Just set yourself on fire like this, but yeah, I know what you mean. Yeah. So there's affiliates. So sexual cannibalism is what that's called. It's also filial cannibalism where I'll see their offerings in certain situations, as well as the fantasized, an intrauterine cannibalism. Oh, the embryos are impregnated and consuming, less developed siblings as a source of nutrients. I mean, th the cannibalism one, I think we find naturally repulsive and I don't know what our reasons are for finding kind of loose and repulsive, whether that's just like, you know, whether that's because of our culture, cause some human cultures have an to cannibalism or whether there's like an evolutionary thing that, because like there's also some bad diseases you get from like eating the nervous system of like your own species or whatever. But the other thing I'm thinking of like all these goofy, like parasites and that whole horrible wasp that like lays its eggs in, you know, like the head of like another insect or I'm like bot flies, you know, things that, things that just lay their eggs inside of other creatures. And then they have to eat their way out as like, yeah. Yeah. There's another example. Guinea worms, those sorts of things. Oh yeah. And intestinal worms as well. Those are just so disgusting. Boys. If you're disgusted and horrified by the various horrors of the natural world, as you call them and just wait till you see what Satan has in store for you in hell it ain't pretty. So the idea here that the army doesn't attempt to explain why we find these revolts repulsive, just the way our right to regard them as a positive, whatever sense you want to appropriate or whatever you want to got that. Another obvious point here is that if one configuration of matter energy and space, time is better than another. For example, health is better than sickness and having bodily integrity is better than being eaten from the inside out by a bunch of worms and parasites. If one configuration is better than another configuration in any way, then you know, with certainty that your atheistic worldview is false. You've been sold down the river by Satan and his minions, and that God does exist. It's not too late. You can repent and believe the good news and change your life for the better start pursuing virtue, not only their natural virtues, but the supernatural virtues, faith hope and charity first and me. And that wouldn't be the case. If God created the natural world, viruses that give you a new Monier and you learn something, you know, you could make a full argument again, here is all. But again, you just go back. Why didn't God create a universe on the teaching of falling into a situation where there's all of these horrific all results? I don't think that's very good. Oh, because the only way you can love God is to love God freely. The only way you can love your pet dog is to love your pet dog freely. The only way you can love anything is to love freely. Otherwise you're just a robot, a monkey bot going through the motions in a hard determinist world means nothing. Oh, right. And that concludes the teleological argument. So to summarize, it's basically a combination of like bad design, horrific design, painful design, and also the cognitive biases, or like, why would he create a, so there were so confused and confusing was a major sort of thing. All of this is easily dismissed by two facts. One, God is good. And to everything that God does is good. Everything he created as good. Every gift he gives is good, including free will, but free will is by its very nature subject to the possibility of abuse. Was that abuse inevitable? I think so. I don't know what the theologians say. I don't know what the church teaches on that. I believe it was absolutely inevitable that the creatures who are given free will, would fall a certain percentage of them. A certain percentage of the angels fell. And with humans, we have a much more merciful situation where we were allowed to fall and then repent the fallen angels cannot repent why I have no idea, but I know that God is good and that's the way he ordained it. So it's good. Oh wait. Those are, those could have been posted though. I think analogical argument parodies and, and like those acquaintance type arguments, which were appealing to like specifically like with a way of understanding of what like, like things possessing knowledge to be like aim towards an end, like, you know, like an acorn seed desiring to grow into a tree or whatever. And you could just kind of be like, well, we'll know that, you know, like all of a sudden you have DNA and stuff, like basically reduces that to essentially mechanical chemical process. And so he doesn't have like a knowledge in it where it knows it wants to become a tree. And that's, I guess you could say like, well the DNA code it goes and I'll just like, I think there's something to be said of that while you could just like, you know, like, you know, one of the premises when it, the opposite way and get to the alternative conclusion. In terms of the desire. He's so horrified and repulsed by this notion of desire existing in non sentience or I guess plants or sentience. So in the sense that they have census, not the full senses, that an animal would have much less a human, but Nathan seems repulsed by this idea of attributing will to a non human, right. Well, two things what's the philosophical basis that you have for attributing will to a human. And what is, what is the philosophical basis for making any distinction whatsoever between a human and nonhuman. And then from the Catholic perspective, we say that, you know, your dog and your cat and your host plant do have a will. And in a certain sense, a stone could be sent to have will in that Aristotelian sense. But what distinguishes humans from other non-human creatures is that we alone have a rational, well, among material creatures, we alone have a rational will and not rational. Will. There's a special name for that. It's called freewill. Yeah. That's a good point. Well, Laura, I'll give it to the next version. All right. Also want your documents. So this is some of my favorite just because ontological humans, the existence of God are I think very silly. And so like there's an opportunity for mentioning parody, ligaments, all right. Nothing silly about the ontological arguments, nothing silly at all about the ontological arguments. I think it'd be further from the truth. The motor lag of thesis. It was possibly necessarily to go to an all exist. This is again, this modal abuse there, constant and unremitting abuse of the modal form of argumentation. Premise one, it is possibly necessary that God does not exist. That's false. It is absolutely necessary that God does exist. We know this using pure reason without recourse to faith revelation or anything else, just using pure reason. We know that God is necessary. He, he alone absolutely is. He has being in a way that none of his creatures have being. So it is an abuse of the modal form of argumentation to say that it's possibly necessary, that God does not exist. This is, this is the very heart and root of the absurdity of atheism. It calls up down left, right? Good evil. And it inverts everything. There's absolutely zero respect given to logic, to reason to philosophy in among all these 500 or whatever the number is arguments against Christianity against the Christian God, there is no respect given to logic, to reasoning or to philosophy. It's sad. It's embarrassing. Jay is saying in the comment in live chat that there a sorry to say, but animals have animals have no soul, well, not a rational soul, but if we think about the Catholic dogma, which was proclaimed at the counsel of Vienna Vienne, how are you pronounced that? V I E N N E. That dogma is that the soul of the human being is the form of the body of the human being. The soul is the form of the body. Okay. So this hearkens back to, I'm not saying it's completely Aristotelian, but it hearkens back to the Aristotelian notion of the soul, where the tension in the violin string is the soul of the violin, right? It's a function and form. And the way that this body, the body of the violin has a certain tension in it. And this is the soul of that instrument without which there'll be no possibility of having music. This is an analogy that Aristotle use, but I think it's a very colorful one. An interesting one, and animals do have a soul in that Aristotelian sense. Now, if you're not comfortable with saying, using the word soul for nonhuman animals, that's fine. But bear in mind that the Catholic church does teach dogmatically infallibly that the human soul, the rational soul of the human being is the very form of the body. This is why we know that creationism is true. And all of the evolutionary theories are false, including the mystic evolution. [Inaudible] and it goes like this transcoders don't exist because honestly, I mean, so this is the Sandy conception of Celtic distance, right? It's necessary. So it's either going to necessarily, or it doesn't just necessarily. So just as great, I'll start with you. Do you think it's possible that God does not exist? Because if you do think it's possible, God does not exist. Then it follows logically and inescapably that God doesn't exist. No, if you, if you think that it's possible that God does not exist, you haven't understood what you're talking about. Right? You just have not understood what we're talking about when we talk about God, because what we're talking about when we talk about God is the necessary being it's that then, which nothing greater can be conceived. It's the uncaused first cause, et cetera. And so on, we could, we can talk about it in many different philosophical terms, But it has never, ever been apart of classical theism or monotheism to even speculate about the possibility that God could not exist. It's not on the table. It's never been on the table. So if, as I said, in a recent interview with, with Chad or someone, If you, as an ostensible, Christian had made that you are not certain about the existence of God, then whether you like it or not, you've strayed not only from Jesus Christ, you treat from classical theater, you've straight from monotheism. And luckily we have a God who is merciful and kind, and he understands invincible ignorance. Not everyone has studied philosophy. Not everyone has thought deeply about contingency and necessity. So you don't need to worry. I'm not worried about your eternal salvation, Excuse me, but it is nonetheless the case that if you think it's possible, God doesn't exist. You do not understand God. And of course, I'm speaking in a understanding of God that is not comprehensive. You've plumbed the depths of God and you know, comprehensively, everything that is to be known about because no creature has that privilege. The closest would be, well, I was going to say Mary, but I suppose if you talk about Jesus as human nature, which God took upon himself, I mean, obviously that I want to be careful with my wording here, but I think that the, the it's obvious that the human nature is a creature. Jesus is human nature is a creature. So there's that one exception where a creature can know the depths of God, but even there. And I'm not sure how that, how that plays out, what the church teaches about that. Jay here in the live chat says how on early, he claimed that God doesn't exist. I think some atheist doesn't want to acknowledge God because of their sinful nature. What do you think, brother? Yes. I agree. 100%. I was an atheist for most of my adult life and the nagging suspicion that I'm a sinner and that God exists was always there lurking in the shadows on the back burner. And it was a real relief to come back to God because eh, running away from God is silly. It's foolish, it's selfish. It's it promises pleasures, but it doesn't really satisfy. Our, our hearts are restless until they repose and God, When they say bloom, that's the sound of their dead souls, tumbling into the basin. I'm just being dramatic here. But I mean, these people need to wake up. We don't know how long we have, right? I mean, we could perish in an instant. So it's of the utmost importance to stop joking around and to get right with God before the judgment. Askings ontological and racism, the greater, the handicap of the greater, the more impressive the achievement, the most liberal handicap would be on existence. Therefore, the greatest conceive of is when he breaks everything while non-existing This nonexistent creator is God, they forgot is not exist. The greater, the handicap of the creator of the more impressive, the achievement. This is, this is a serious, is this a serious proof against Christianity and the God of Christianity? I don't know who this Gaskin guy is, but he's not too bright. Is he? Well, what's it. The Craigslist has a contradiction in this, right? That doesn't exist. That it exists. There's a contradiction because we're not saying that God exists and doesn't exist. We're saying he creates without existing God. So God doesn't exist. Yeah, I see. I see. I see what you mean, but that's what, I'm pretty sure that's what breaks us though. You think that God exists in order to be the non-existent creator and doesn't exist. So there's like a contradiction. I think that's where he goes. Oh, I just predicating properties of the longest is great. You can predicate. Not only just an entity, just like Santa Claus, right? So there's no contradiction there because there's no logical country to be saying, God doesn't exist. And God, the enemy doesn't logically contradict each other. The only thing you could say is it's metaphysically impossible for nonexistent being to create. But then that's just making the question against the non-existent God's creation, theist, proponent, right. That's just that's especially because they just saying that God doesn't exist and creates the universe. So I think there's something there's an interesting, like meta point here about like the general dialogue between like thesis ideas and flippers and stuff. And so there's this channel that makes clips from philosophy lectures. And there's one that there's one, a great priest. One where he's talking about nothing. And it's like five minutes of him sort of like saying things that sound really silly about nothing. But then he's like, you know, like, like nothing, it doesn't exist. Nothing doesn't have existence, but I went to the fridge and there was nothing in the fridge, you know, thing was in the fridge. But I was like listening to this over time and doing more and more crazy. I started to think that this actually does sound like when theater and like described God and like an expert and stuff. It genuinely does seem to me like that. Like creating like nothing. Like they're just negating all of this stuff that we can actually point to and be like material extended did it. And I just go, no, not that. Not that, not that. And like, it's like, they're defined like and nothing to anybody. Oh my God. Ah, so embarrassing, Nathan, you claim to have been a Christian you claim, therefore to have been a monotheist, you've planned to be a learned man who studies philosophy. This is metaphysics 1 0 1. This is classical few. So on 1 0 1, God preeminently exists. He is being, he is being, you are nothing. God is everything. You, Nathan are nothing you James or nothing. Oh, I do it. I'm nothing. Oh, he is. That's why in the old Testament, when Moses met God, he said, I am, I am that. I am. These people Have no clue what they're talking about. They want to build something from nothing the way God does. But God is not nothing. You are nothing. He created you out of nothing. And he's staying, he sustains you in being a relative, being, not an absolute being. You are nothing. He is everything he is. He has being. Non-dependent is often defined as a negation. Cause it says the absence of limits on power, the absence of limits on knowledge. So it's like impossible to like disprove nothing. Like literally just saying, but I mean, I don't know how this, what I'm saying here is actually even relevant to what we're saying, but I think, I think maybe this parody can like bring out some of those weird intuitions about what's actually going on in these basic elements. Yeah. So they admit that it's just silliness and parody that they're engaged in. And I understand that this is obviously one of the silliest arguments they've come up with so far. It doesn't even try to take itself seriously. It's tongue in cheek. But just, if you love the truth, why don't you seek the truth? Why don't you talk about with yourself in your own mind to find a quiet space and think about being a nothing in nothingness. Okay. Think about freedom and responsibility. Think about contingency and necessity. Just go off in a quiet place and think about that. It'll do a world of good all those books behind you, boys that you've allegedly read parts of. At least they filled your heads with nonsense. They've confused you to the point where you can't even find a quiet space to meditate on the most fundamental aspects of metaphysics being nothingness, freedom, responsibility, contingency necessity, 20 minutes spent meditating on those concepts will yield more fruit. In however many years of mental masturbation. You've been engaging in with your YouTube, with your books, with your interviews, with all your discussions. Okay? Yeah. I really like excitement for that reason because yeah, I'm gonna write it too. I never should take it back. Alright. Right. Platonism in defined society. So plagiarism is true. Now, obviously everyone's gonna accept that, but you can appeal to all or Platonism. You can appeal to the fact that it's most popular of human philosophy. So it is sensibility of numbers. Lots of [inaudible]. That's just what and holds, right? Neoplatonism like Davon, conceptualism plate. Like some people might say that, right? So it's not a standard plane. Isn't there conceptually in different places. And anyway, if necessary objects is just dependent on God not gonna be self-sufficient and this is just what Greg thinks, right? Craig thinks that if [inaudible] and great things that you've actually got, because it's all going to be self-sufficient. So Craig, Bruce, the pharmacists, you went right here and I guess forward as well with audit because that's just the definition of it, right? So he just, he just sticks one here, but you could argue that there's lot of the racists, except one therefore follows logically and inescapably that God does not exist. Yeah. Again, they're just being silly. But I mean, if you, if you hold to Christianity, then you believe that Christianity is true. And if someone comes along trying to sell you Platonism, you just have to platelet point out that Platonism got all of its troops from Christianity and all of its lies and errors do not come from the God man, Jesus Christ. They come from Satan and his minions or from Plato himself or from his followers. Some errors are introduced innocently. Right? Anyway, this argument is beyond silly. That sounds good. And also the best possible [inaudible] the best possible world, right? So they'll go to some exist. This is not the best possible world. I debunk this in our last episode one, it's a dog with the church that God created a good world, but it's also a dogma of the church that God could have created a better world. This is not the best of all possible worlds. The best in the best of all possible worlds. That's alive next. W. Well, terrors Condi. That's a great book by the. Way. That's. Great. Meaning entertaining. Yeah. Yeah. Cause that's a line that says this is the best possible world. Yeah. And then, and th th the parody is like stuff that's happening. That's like plausibly. True. And the characters keep saying that as it's happening. Right. Is that, Yeah, it's a very funny book. We're only this terrible stuff happens. And you keep saying, well, it's for the best sort of thing. Oh, the 69 view is nice. Oh, it's 71. Sorry. Somebody has Cameron. That book, by the way, it was dedicated to the Pope of Voltaire's day. As you know, when he's on his livestream, sometimes Braxton's got like 12 K followers. He got similar, like a hundred dollars. Committed, not be happy, used to listen right here. Sorry. This is just possibly necessary. Plaintiff's mistruth, but isn't really necessarily consistent. Like, oh God, this is breaking out a little bit. Sometimes that can throw us off at the conclusion of it, you get out of your fabrics. But buying furniture with which platonic form is Platonism troop, you know? Well, anyway, you just need a single, you just need one place on the phone to exist. And then Platonism and incitement goes forward. So it doesn't matter. This is the thing. People think that you can do this, a laparoscopic form of like, you know, universals or particular forms of set theory. Like you only need a single platonic objects to go to exist. And then the argument goes here. So that makes it a lot stronger. Alright. Plight has been defined society. I'm lucky. I'm so pleased with [inaudible], which will have flossers agreement in place and mysteries themselves, which people already agree with. They forget the reason, very simple adamant that I was thinking of like a self-referential thing. Like the platonic form of Platonism was like a metaphysical theory. Well, that's not a contradiction. They'll be like the tonic form that corresponds to the non-existence of the falsity played in the most. I was on the, I don't know. That's about the third man argument. I think. I run from continuously of minds. So I'm just thinking, why is this an ontological argument? I think because it's an adamant against it and assessment necessary existence. So all kinds of contingencies, God isn't necessarily mine. So they've forgotten to exist. It's like an essence contains existence, but essence like opposite. All minds are contingent. Entities will, all creative minds are contingent, but God is not a creator. He's not a creature. He's the creator. Do you not understand that this is this, this is such a waste of time trying to refute such prayer, isle and inane arguments. But I'm just doing it as an exercise. Yeah. Yeah. So it answered this question. You can see what number I can get, what we're on in the bottom right corner. You got me doing any pushups. What's the deal with that? I mean, how many, how many are we doing? That's the question called? How do I enable stupid chats? I kinda like you can do it live, but somewhere in creative studio. And if you do it later, it's fine. It's fine. You can save them up guys and donate them later. What are we going to do? The pushup. I was going to like, you know, like get people to donate through doing the pushups. That's the, oh, I see. Well, let me have a quick look. If I can people get complainant. I don't know what I'm doing, which is perfectly true because nobody just leaves off Nathan. He does all the work. Let me see. I'll see if I can find where all I do it in Mali. Write something maybe under, under my studio and then go to monitorization. Oh, super's yeah. It should just take a second. You can. So people, how many people got 1 71 people? I do think, I think when Cameron has like a big guest on, he gets what Braxton jet generally gets about 120. Then now I'll hold up the precip still again, just in case. Cause I know it really didn't tell me until the train is probably my com my philosophical argument in favor of that, as well as I was like, well, for any mind, you can just consider that not existing, right? So the argument, sorry, you can probably make the premise one here. I mean, I think we've got very strong argument. Sorry. You can probably make, make philosophical argument in favor of that as well as I was like a friend of mine, you can just conceive that, not existing, right? So if the relevant mental combination of facets one in existence, then that mind when he says I was contingent, I'll get something along those lines, maybe a medical thing. So it's possibly necessary that all nines contingents by when it's five, all mine's contingent, God is necessary. So he doesn't exist. And there's an objective and well known to contingent. God is supposed to minister in mind. So we have strong evidence. He doesn't exist and isn't all minds, no one minds contingent the best explanation of why or mode, minds, indigenous that all minds are going to do. There aren't any necessary minds, but God, suppose to innocent mind. So, oh, we have some reason to think that he doesn't exist and a basic form, of course, as always. So if they knew that God has defined as necessarily mine, why did they use premise? One saying that all mines are contingent. These people don't know how to think. I know the maximum being argument. So this one, I think is interesting. God, it's supposed to be the worst possible thing or the maximum great thing, but for every great being, there is a conceivable being, which is which, sorry, I have a friend that's musical being with at least one more greatest make property than not being able to help. Great being difficult. As long as this. It's just so silly and stupid. I mean, you should learn how to think people. When we say that God is infinite in every pur, pure perfection, every perfection, in other words, that it's better to have and not have It's infinite. God's perfection is infinite. Things are positive. So even if you don't believe in God, do you understand the words that are used in the definition of God? We don't define God into existence, but there is a definition of God that we can give. There are many definitions that we can give. We don't claim to understand comprehensively what God is. We haven't plumbed his debts, but we can talk meaningfully about God. When we say he's infinite in every perfection, but it's better to have. And not to have, we are saying something true about God. And if you understand the words and you will not come up with a silly argument like this, you just won't. Cause it's, it's, it's a meaningless straw man argument. You're saying, yeah, he's the greatest, but there could be greater. Well, have you understood the he's infinite in every pure perfection? Have you understood that? If not, maybe you should go and think about it and then you will, inevitably, if you're honest with yourself, you will become a monotheist. Jay says in the live chat, my brother, I will keep you in my prayers. Thank you, my brother, you too. I'll keep you in my prayers. Thanks for being here. This is, this is actually pretty interesting, you know, because, because of the way, the way that like, what's it called ontological, like insomnia, neurological agents, trying to like drive that contradiction from like, you know, if it can exist that you can conceive of one greater. And I think that does implicitly depend upon like saying that there actually can be differences in people's conception of a maximally great being where you can like add properties to it. I dunno if that's. Oh, Jay Jay's on his way out, I think. But he said something interesting in the comments in the live chat here only pre presupposition, nothing else that brings to mind, a couple of comments that I received on YouTube on different videos, videos. I've done videos that I've commented on. I'm thinking in particular now of the atheist experience video when I called in four years ago, but different places I've received this comment that I'm a pre sup, oh, you're a precept or he's a precept precept. And I'm not a presuppositionalist, if anything, I'm the polar opposite of a presuppositionalist in my apologetics. Don't presuppose. What I believe. I presuppose the opposite of what I believe and then follow it to its logical conclusions. And then I'm forced by reason by logic to accept monotheism as absolutely true. And then I built my faith by the grace of God and by years using my freewill and my reason I'm able to build my faith through my study, through my reading, through my thinking through my speculation, prayer sacraments, and I've determined that Christianity is true. Catholicism is the fullness of Christian truth, and you can go watch my Mehta episodes that talk about faith and reason about to talk about that explicitly. And I walk you through the process of becoming a monotheist and then from there becoming Christian, and then from there becoming a Catholic it's well founded faith, well founded faith that I have very well founded. So well-founded that I've never, ever, ever been nervous or challenged by anyone from any other worldview? No, one's been able to successfully unsettled me with your arguments. The problem with the atheist worldview is that it does the exact opposite. It doesn't have well founded faith. It has shoddy faith, which serves as a foundation and they build on the shoddy faith, these faith based faith based beliefs. They build on that. Using what they think is reason and philosophy. It's a complete inversion Of the one true worldview. So instead of building on pure reason and certainty tree, which enables us to know certain truths and then using reason and the faith that comes from being a sincere monotheist and building a structure of faith upon that certain foundation. But the atheist is forced to do is to build on a flimsy shaky foundation of faith based beliefs that they don't even for the most part know they've adopted Most atheists think that they only have beliefs based on evidence. They don't know that they, that most of their worldview is based on faith based beliefs. So with all their ostensible reasoning and thinking and system building and loss, sufficing speculating their open-mindedness and even their agnosticism, it's built like a house of cards on shifting sand. Destined fail is doomed to fail because they do not have a solid foundation. They do not build on a solid foundation. So I just wanted to mention that Jay is just clarifying atheist, do more pre presuppositions than you please do not misunderstand me. And also Protestant. They also use presuppositions when they debate Catholics. Of course, of course, because they don't have that ultimate foundation, which is authority. And the Catholic worldview. We have pure reason, which gives us monotheism. We have history which gives us Christianity. And then we have authority the question of religious authority, which gives us the living magisterium, the Pope and the bishops who teach in union with him. So we have a very, very, very solid faith. There's no need for presupposition for the Catholic, but every other worldview needs to sneak in some presupposition because they have on checked on unknown assumptions, IQ, axiomatic, assumptions. They're unaware of very, very, very dangerous the project that they're engaged in. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah. So in terms of intense apprentice today, how would you defend that? Well, it depends what you think, right? It's making properties out, right? But you can always just say, well, the boat has an extra one or like, oh God, I mean, you could look in terms of how great he is in terms of like, well, he created this many people, so you could create an extra one of the, but maybe you said it has to be an intrinsic property. That's an extrinsic one. But I think the only real way around this is to just say that all greatest making properties are non quantifiable so that you can specify like how much of them God has, because otherwise it doesn't really make sense. You just always say he has more than he does. But even if that's true, you can just add on more properties. Like doesn't have to be. SCOTUS it. John DUNS SCOTUS does a great reduction to absurdity proof for this exact question about the pure perfections as he calls them, It's short, it's sweet and it's airtight. So go read some blessed John DUNS, SCOTUS Boyce. Th there's like physical. I mean, I guess there's like physical properties that you can predicate like greatness. And that, I don't know if it would make sense. Would you say that God has to have them even the gods in the material being, and then if you like, we'll go, can't have them. It doesn't that kind of undermine your maximum. Great because God isn't maximally great. If he doesn't have a great pair of boobs, for example, like. The pure perfections of God are those professions that it's better to have than not to have as I keep saying. So having great boobs is wonderful, but it's not a perfection that it's better to have and not right. Depends on what nature you have. If you're a woman. Great. If you're a ruler and you're trying to draw straight lines with a ruler, you don't want a great set of boobs on your ruler, right? Everything has a nature. Even God has a nature. And it's in God's nature that he has the pure perfections, all of the pur all of the pure perfections and to an infinite degree, it is wonderful and perfect to be a circle, but it's not better to be a circle than not to be a circle. So God is not a circle, even though circularity is a perfection, but it's not a pure perfection. It's an impure perfection. So when you're choosing tires for your bicycle or your car or your wheelbarrow, he want that circularity it's appropriate to that nature, the nature of that creature, that vehicle. Okay. So you boys need to go back and read some metaphysics. Yeah, I think that's always cool. Yeah, but I mean like he's got the fastest runner for example, is that a great property? Yeah. He's got the best. Is he a great stock stock trader? How can you have read all those books behind you boys and not understood the fundamentals? Metaphysics, ontology, epistemology. It's embarrassing. Yeah. [Inaudible] player. Maybe this undermines just like a realist interpretation of like greatness or something like that. There's always room for more discourse on all of these, but yeah. I'm not sure if it's, I think it's just because I don't know what, like a maximum great being means, to be honest. And I think this isn't going to put you against what that might mean. And, and course we have to have a motor that adamant is possibly necessarily for everybody being there. So even if it's not, maybe you don't have to, but possibly there could be every crepiness. There is at least on personal property. It's right at the top of my comments stream by how long the soul is. I thought it was like, so you'll see what we think of this. So probably aloneness argument against classical theism. Sorry, I'm starting to skip. I didn't want to do this, but it's just, it's so painful. So very painful listening to these morons pontificating about stuff. They have. Absolutely no clue, no clue what they're talking about. No clue what they're talking about. It is so incredibly painful. God give me patience. So interesting. So this was one that I, when I got into my research, so you'll see what we think of this. So possibly exist without a non God world. So that means God could exist by himself. Like sanitary action. Just, just God. So that's thing as possible. So God contingently has holy intrinsic knowledge. This means that it is possible. Like intentionally it's all possible worlds. There is just God. And he only knows things about himself. He doesn't know anything about the world outside of himself, because there was no world outside of itself now, whatever it is, that sense. I always think of comic sense the phone. Well, let me say it's shit. Send Sarah Fry, which is a little, yeah. Seize them strokes on the ends of the letters. So that's yeah, so it's the same word, I guess it's the point. Anyway, whatever it's Holly intrinsic to a being is either an essential feature that being, or an accident of them. So this was a tricky I'm going to do. I'm formulating these premises I think is actually a new thing. So I'll try to explain it here. So I'll interesting if it's just internal to you, like depending on something outside of you. So that's what whole interesting knowledge is. God has knowledge only having self, not of anything outside himself, if there isn't anything else like himself. So anything that's really intrinsic to a being is that an essential feature that being meaning it's like critical to them and they always have habit or it's an accident, which means that there's no reason for it. Right. They just sort of happened as a bird factor or something like that. And, and the reason for that is because it kind of happened for a reason outside that beam because they wouldn't be holy intrinsic. I'm thinking about transubstantiation stories. You're looking okay. Well, I don't know how that relates to this. I'm just, I'm just thinking about the idea that like the essential properties of bread can change into God, but the accidental properties remain the same. Yeah. How do you change the essential properties? Just like it would make it into something else. Well, because it builds, it becomes, it becomes Jesus Jesus's flesh, right? The bread and the wine, it becomes, then it's no longer bread. Right? Yeah. [inaudible] yeah. So just thinking about that, as he was thinking about that, what was I saying here? Sorry. So that's the, I'm sure it's everything whatever's holding particularly is either an essential feature or an accident, which means there's no, all the premise really saying is that Holly intrinsic probably cannot be caused by something outside of being, because it will be called intrinsic. It'll be from outside. That's what that, that's the point that's being made day now, principle and no contingent probably about be essential. And the idea of this here is that God exists necessarily. And so all of these properties are necessary. And so they can't be something that is property of God. That is just contingent because that would be consist with essential nature. So according to five years, so it's a, from all of the following, what we get is that possibly it's possibly, because looking back to parents, one that's possibly God has an accidental property and that accidental property will be his knowledge consisting. Only of the fact of let me rephrase that. He's actually in a property, essentially, whether he has knowledge of things outside himself or not, that's just an accident. Meaning that it's, there's no reason for it. Under classical theism. I think I had to do to break it down. I'm the classical face and God is identical to his properties. So they have already an accident. So this is not even against this and against classical theism. So much wrong with this argument. The so-called proof. I'll just pick it apart. Number one, possibly God exists without a non world. Have you looked around, have you looked around lately? There's a non God world here. Meaning that we have contingent beings all around us. You're one of the James, you're another one of them, Nathan. And I'm another one of these non God contingent beings look around. So it's manifest. It would be absurd to deny the manifest fact that God created a world. Okay. So one is scrapped already. It's not possible that God exists without a non-par world. It's not possible. It's manifest that God created us. Did God need to create us? No, that's when that sense, you know, God could have not created, but it's not possible that he did not create because we're manifest number two. So meaning therefore God contingently has holy intrinsic knowledge. There's nothing contingent about God's knowledge. There's nothing contingent about God's knowledge period. So it's two is scrapped. Number three, whatever is holy intrinsic to a being is either an essential feature of that being or an accident. You don't understand what essence, the distinction between essence and accident and essence talks about what inheres in itself and accident. Inheres in an essence where a substance, right? You've missed defined accident in this proof, in the text here, but in the, in your explanation of it, when you were dwelling on number three, number four, no contingent property of God can be essential. Obviously the contingent is not an essential property of God. Obviously what's your point? Number five. So meaning therefore, possibly God has an accidental property. God took on flesh. He became man, who on accidental properties. He had a certain skin color height and all the rest, but God in his divine nature, not in his human nature, but in his divine nature, doesn't have accidental properties. We've already discussed that a hundred classical theater, number six under classical theism. God is identical to his properties, correct? But what's your point? Number seven, therefore, God is an accident. No, God inheres in himself. He inheres in his home substance and his substance, his essence he's identical to his properties and his essence, his existence. So this is a real hot mess here, conflating accent, the, the technical term, accidental with the colloquial sense of accidental and conflating. God's essence with what you are assuming to be contingent knowledge. There's no basis for that. If you understand who and what God is, and you understand the distinction between philosophical essence and accident, this is just a complete hot mess here. Right? And, but by an accident, it just means that there's no reason for God's existence. Effectively. Every accident has a reason for its being. This is the principle of sufficient reason. Every accident. There's a reason why the sky is blue. Okay. It has to do with the, the essence of that creature, which is the earth. And then in the sky, there's a reason why my hair is brown or whatever color it is, has to do with the substance in which it inheres right. My hair, it's the nature of hair. What is the nature of hair? There is sufficient reason for my hair color. There's a sufficient reason for every accident. And there's a sufficient reason for every substance. Every essence, there is in fact, a sufficient reason for everything and everyone. So this is once again, metaphysics 1 0 1, you guys really need to brush up. Or just a brute fact, not, not necessarily fact, which is suppose to be a contradiction because God is not gonna call me next time. Right? So this is suppose to be reductive against classical theism. This is not my argument. This is, I don't remember who this is. This is taken from a paper by philosopher. So it's quite sort of technical. So maybe I won't try to explain it again because I feel like I just [inaudible], it's quite interesting. It's supposed to be, are reductive against classical theism, the [inaudible] properties, which I think is a silly position. Anyway, it really make any sense, but there's a lot of facilities around. So this would be an against. It doesn't make sense to you because you're a creature. And you're assuming that God is just a big man that he's, that he's contingent. And that he's comprised of acts a whole bunch of accidental features. I will, I will look into the accident. How do accidents relate to the essence of God? Because obviously God created natures that have accidental properties. So I will look into that as an interesting question. How does that relate to the essence of God? It's an interesting question, but you boys haven't really understood what an accident is. An accident is something that property that inheres in a substance and essence is that substance right. Against that formulation. All right, let's move on here. So that was all the ontological argument. So often it was like parodies of the theistic ontological elements, or it tends to produce like contradictions in the nature of God, of his necessity or something like that. Now we're moving on to theological arguments regarding citizen. So these are basically aspects of the niche specific aspect of the nature of build there's suppose to be contradictory evidence where they known existence, but not about Christianity specifically. Alright. Think about it. What property's arguments. This is an old one there properties of the God of classical theism are mutually contradictory. You don't really have to say classical theism here. I guess you can just say the theoretical, the probably it's a property's about [inaudible]. By definition, the properties or attributes of God, of classical theism make a monotheism are not mutually contradictory. They're not, that's the whole point. That's the entire point of classical theism is that it did deuces without any reference to faith or revelation introduces using pure reason, the attributes of God and that those attributes are identical among themselves and identical with God. Is that counterintuitive to you? If they find that be wilderness, do you find that weird because you, as a finite creature, see justice and health and beauty and goodness and truth and unity as different things to be treated separately is that what's confusing your little brain because with philosophy you're supposed to go beyond the obvious, beyond what's intuitive to you as a creature it's supposed to go to beyond to find the truth, the ultimate and absolute and unchanging truth. How do you look yourself in the mirror and say that you are a lover of wisdom of loss for it's embarrassing. Nobody thinks about Taiwan, but sorry, go ahead. I was just gonna say, which, which properties are we saying contradictory in this argument? Cause it's gonna, you know, that is going to kind of depend on a particular model of God, right? Well, yeah. And I think that's maybe why I throw in, I throw in classical theism here, because is it like the only actual well-defined. It's well-defined in classical theism that all of the attributes of God are identical among themselves and identical with God. Yeah. So I'm trying to remember. I think I put some examples later on as serious things. Okay. We typically put a mentioned, let me see if I can find that. I don't know. I mean, maybe I've not thought too hard about the contradictory ones, but I certainly have thought about like, either them just not making any sense to me whatsoever, like omniscience, omnipotence even means, or the other thing is like inconsistent sets of beliefs. So for example, like theater or classical theater want to say by God's omniscience. Right. So he knows all propositions, but then they also want to say that there are souls with like Qualia, but then the, and then they'll also want to believe that God is like distinct from the, but you know, cause they're making like a creator creative distinction, so they're not pantheists. And then there's like an issue for this because I believe you might go to like our mission. So he like has all of the Qu