Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / Which Theory of Knowledge Explains Reality Best? | Atheism VS Theism By Daniel

Transcript

Which Theory of Knowledge Explains Reality Best? | Atheism VS Theism By Daniel · Brett Keane and Eve Show

8:10
Sound check. Can we get a sound check real
8:13
quick? Keith, how do we sound?
8:16
Go ahead and just leave a caption if you would.
8:38
Great. Thank you.
14:31
Hey, Dylan, can you hear me? Loud and clear?
14:35
Yep. OK, Daniel, you want to go
14:39
first? Yeah.
14:42
Can you hear me all right? Yep, I can hear you.
14:45
So we were. We would wait until eight O 5 to
14:48
let people come in, OK? Sure.
14:51
All right. And then I'll give, I'll give a
14:53
brief introduction and then we'll start And Daniel, you're
14:57
going first. Yep.
14:59
All right. Sounds good.
15:00
And we'll start at 805. All right.
19:58
All right. And is now six O 5.
20:02
Hey, everyone, thanks for tuning in to tonight's debates on the
20:05
fundamental question of our existence.
20:07
I'm your moderator, Dylan, and I will be guiding our debate this
20:11
evening. Before we proceed, let me take a
20:13
moment to introduce our panelists.
20:15
First, representing the theistic worldview, we have Daniel
20:19
opposing Daniel's viewpoint. We have evidentialism with our
20:23
handle. Our format for tonight's debate
20:26
will be as follows. Each panelist will have the
20:28
opportunity to present their opening statements for 10
20:31
minutes each. Next we'll have round one with
20:34
six minutes allotted per person, followed by a cross examination,
20:39
a series of directed questions with the allotted time of seven
20:42
minutes each. After that, we'll take a three
20:45
to five minute intermission. Then we'll kick it off with
20:50
round two is 6 minutes per person.
20:52
Finally finishing with the closing remarks, 5 minutes per
20:56
person. So without further ado, let us
20:59
begin our debate on the topic. Which theory of knowledge
21:02
explains reality best, Deism or atheism?
21:06
Daniel or Theistic representative will have the
21:08
opportunity to present his opening statement first.
21:11
Go ahead, Daniel. All right.
21:14
Good evening. I'm really excited to be talking
21:17
about this topic today. Before I begin, I would just
21:21
like to say that I appreciate my opponent for accepting this
21:25
debate. It's not always easy or fun to
21:28
do this type of thing and I respect he showed up tonight.
21:32
I also want to commend him because he clearly has given
21:35
this some thought as he has written out his epistemological
21:38
framework in great detail, which is a lot more than most people
21:42
ever do. I'd also like to thank the
21:44
moderator for his time tonight, Dylan and all of you listening
21:48
as well. Tonight, my opponent and I will
21:51
be debating about whose worldview can account for and
21:54
make sense of our ability to have knowledge, theism or
21:59
atheism, God or not God. I'm humbled and honored tonight
22:03
to have the privilege of representing my Lord and Savior,
22:06
Jesus Christ, and I will be arguing in defense of the
22:09
Christian worldview tonight. This debate has a long history
22:13
in Western countries. Many have asked these questions
22:16
before. What is knowledge?
22:18
Can we be certain? How can we know when we know a
22:22
thing is true? Tonight we are going to talk
22:24
about this topic and you will all hear the arguments from 2
22:28
very different world views. Tonight I will be arguing the
22:32
following premise. One, either atheism or Christian
22:36
theism best accounts for the preconditions necessary for
22:40
knowledge. Premise 2 Atheism does not
22:44
account for the preconditions necessary for knowledge.
22:48
Conclusion. Therefore, Christian theism best
22:51
accounts for the preconditions necessary for knowledge.
22:55
In order to understand this argument, I first need to
22:57
explain what a worldview is. Have any of you ever asked?
23:02
Been asked why by a child? Did the child ever just keep
23:06
asking why? What happens if someone asks you
23:09
why you believe a thing, and then when you tell them, they
23:12
ask why you believe that thing? And so on?
23:15
Eventually you're going to hit a bedrock belief.
23:18
You're going to hit a belief that you hold without
23:20
justification, A belief that isn't based on any other
23:23
beliefs. These are core beliefs, and
23:26
they're sometimes called axioms or presuppositions.
23:30
A worldview is a network of presuppositions which are not
23:35
testable by natural science and in terms of which all experience
23:39
is related and interpreted by a worldview.
23:43
As a lens, it's a way of seeing the world and understanding
23:46
reality. Worldviews are the reason why
23:49
two people can look at the same fact and draw totally different
23:53
conclusions about that fact. Worldviews tell us what to
23:56
value, if value even exists, or meaning.
24:00
They can tell us why we are here and where we are going, and they
24:04
tell us if and how we can know a thing.
24:08
Another crucial aspect to this argument is the word
24:11
epistemology. Epistemology is the theory of
24:15
knowledge. How can we know things?
24:18
In order to know that, we need to talk about what knowledge is?
24:22
Knowledge is justified true belief.
24:26
In order for us to say we have knowledge, the knowledge must be
24:29
true, we must believe it, and it must be justified.
24:33
Meaning we have sound reasons for the belief.
24:36
This is called justified true belief.
24:40
But what is required to be in place for knowledge itself to
24:43
even be possible? In other words, what are the
24:46
necessary preconditions for the possibility of knowledge?
24:50
If you want to make an apple pie, what do you need?
24:54
You need apples. You need flour.
24:56
You need sugar. These are some of the necessary
24:59
preconditions for the possibility of an apple pie.
25:04
If apples don't exist, you really can't make apple pie, can
25:08
you? The possibility of knowledge
25:11
requires necessary preconditions as well, and these are some
25:17
sound reasoning. If you do not have sound
25:20
reasoning and can't trust your own mind, how can you be
25:24
justified in any belief? And if you're not justified in
25:28
any belief, how can you know free will?
25:32
In order for us to have knowledge, we have to be able to
25:36
choose beliefs based on good reasons.
25:39
Without free will, our beliefs are chosen for us by mindless
25:43
processes, Laws of logic. Without the laws of logic, we
25:49
can't make sense of anything. And if you can't make sense of
25:51
anything, then you can't know anything.
25:55
Uniformity of nature. Will the future be like the
25:59
past? Will the sunrise tomorrow, as it
26:01
always has. Without uniformity of nature, we
26:04
can't know anything. Accurate sense data.
26:08
Do our senses, our sight, smell, touch, etcetera, tell us true
26:14
information about the outside world?
26:17
If our senses aren't reliable, then we can't know anything
26:21
about the outside world. These are some of the necessary
26:26
preconditions that must be true for knowledge to even be
26:30
possible. Think for a moment about a fish.
26:34
Can a fish survive in a vacuum with nothing else?
26:37
No. A fish can live and thrive only
26:42
with help. A fish needs certain things,
26:45
certain preconditions. In order for a fish to be alive,
26:49
it must have a decent amount of clean water to swim in, it must
26:53
have a food source and correct water temperatures, etcetera.
26:58
There are a lot of things fish need to live as fish.
27:01
Likewise, for us to be able to know anything, we must be able
27:06
to reason, we must have uniformity of nature, we must
27:09
have logic, and we must have free will.
27:12
My opponent and I are like 2 fishes, and we have two
27:16
different types of philosophical lakes in which we can possibly
27:19
know things. Let's talk about these two
27:22
lakes. My opponent's lake Slash
27:25
worldview has no justification for the necessary preconditions
27:29
I stated above, and in fact his worldview undermines and
27:33
contradicts them. In my opponent's worldview, we
27:35
are nothing but a collection of tiny particles that are simply
27:39
falling through mostly empty space.
27:41
We have no real meaning or purpose.
27:43
All matter is moving and in constant flux.
27:47
Nothing is fixed in a lake where everything is material.
27:52
Where do immaterial laws of logic come from?
27:56
In a lake where all matter is controlled by laws of physics
27:59
and cause and effect? How is free will possible in a
28:04
lake where our reasoning reduces down to tiny atoms and molecules
28:08
having chemical reactions totally independent of us?
28:11
Why would we trust in our reasoning in a lake that is here
28:16
by total chance for no reason, just an accident?
28:20
Why would uniformity of nature exist?
28:23
You see, my opponent doesn't have a lake that allows for him
28:26
to know. He assumes these things are
28:28
true, but he cannot explain why they are true and according to
28:32
his worldview slash lake, they really should not be true.
28:37
Now let's talk about my lake. In my lake Christian Theism, we
28:42
are humans made in the image of God.
28:44
We are made by God to glorify God and to keep His
28:47
commandments. If we do not keep His
28:49
commandments, then He will hold us responsible for our sin.
28:53
In order to know what sin is and glorify God, we must be able to
28:58
reason validly and we must be able to use our senses.
29:02
The Christian worldview accounts for free will as it clearly says
29:06
that God will hold us responsible for our sins.
29:09
Why would God hold us accountable for our sins if we
29:13
didn't have the ability to not sin?
29:16
The laws of logic are also accounted for perfectly, as they
29:19
are the rational way that God thinks and we reflect these laws
29:23
in our thinking. Uniformity of nature is
29:26
accounted for in my life as God has made the universe and God
29:31
keeps and sustains the universe so that we can make plans and
29:34
make sense of our world. Tonight I want to ask I want you
29:40
to listen closely to my opponent.
29:42
Ask yourself, has he accounted for these necessary
29:45
preconditions in his lake? Ask yourself, are the things he
29:49
talks about and assumes even consistent with the epistemology
29:53
he espouses? He says he's all about evidence.
29:56
Does he have evidence that logic exists?
29:59
Does he have evidence that the universe will continue to be
30:02
uniform? Does he have evidence that his
30:05
reasoning is valid, or that his senses are giving him accurate
30:08
information about the outside world?
30:10
Does he have evidence that he has real free will and can
30:14
freely choose which beliefs to hold based on what he thinks are
30:18
good reasons? Or does my opponent just take
30:20
all this totally for granted, as if it just simply is for those
30:26
of you that don't know me, I was an atheist all my life until
30:29
three years ago. When I was an atheist, I thought
30:31
much the same way my opponent does.
30:33
I said I just need evidence in order to believe.
30:37
Give me evidence and I'll believe.
30:38
It's that simple. But what I was not considering
30:41
is the world view and the lens that I had assumed based on
30:45
presuppositions which drastically affected the way I
30:48
looked at evidence. What I had not taken into
30:50
account was that if there was no God, I couldn't account for
30:54
anything I would need in order to even look at evidence in the
30:58
first place. In politics, they say, it
31:00
doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes.
31:04
And when it comes to evidence, it doesn't matter what the facts
31:07
are. It matters how one interprets
31:10
the facts. Tonight, my opponent is going to
31:13
talk a lot about evidence, what it means.
31:17
But I want you all to remember that how we see evidence and
31:20
what it means is based on our worldview.
31:23
The reason my opponent rejects supernatural claims is not
31:26
because there is no evidence, it's because he is a naturalist.
31:30
He already assumes a position that makes miracles impossible.
31:34
The questions I am asking are more fundamental than that, and
31:38
these are the questions that we should be asking whose worldview
31:42
best accounts for and explains logic, reasoning, uniformity of
31:46
nature, accurate sensory data, and free will.
31:50
Tonight I'm going to demonstrate that my opponent simply cannot
31:53
justify or account for these things, and that his position
31:57
reduces into contradictions and absurdity in the debate between
32:02
and Christianity. Only Christianity can supply the
32:05
essentials for knowing anything at all.
32:07
Thank you. All right.
32:10
Thank you, Daniel. Evidentialism, You now have 10
32:12
minutes for your opening remarks, starting now.
32:16
Thanks. And by the way, I'm on a
32:18
creaking chair, so sorry for the background noise.
32:23
I mean, I would ask everybody to ask themselves, did he really
32:26
give an epistemology? Because it sounds to me like he
32:29
just said, well, God created the world and then God gave us
32:33
reason. That's not an epistemology,
32:36
that's just saying, saying stuff.
32:38
An epistemology is how we know what is true.
32:41
Did he give us a method for this?
32:43
And he. I don't think he did.
32:45
Ontology is what is right. Epistemology is how we get to
32:50
know what is. And I don't think he actually
32:53
provided an epistemology. And I don't mean to be too
32:56
harsh. I'm sorry if I if I am being
32:58
that way. I don't mean to offend.
33:02
If if he wants to discuss words like natural, supernatural,
33:06
physical and non physical miracle, I think I think we
33:09
could but it'll have to be like in the in the back and forward.
33:11
So whenever we get to that stage because I feel like those words
33:15
are a little bit vague and they need to be defined.
33:19
So let me just introduce my epistemology here before that.
33:26
So my epistemology rests on some intuitions and it rests on
33:34
ultimately on an axiom, which I'll explain later.
33:37
So we have a world that's in here, like inside of her head,
33:41
that's what we call our imagination.
33:43
And then we have a world that's out there outside of her head,
33:46
that's what we call the real world.
33:49
Like an example to illustrate this is like, Can you imagine a
33:52
£400 gorilla in your room right now?
33:55
Can you imagine this? So you can imagine it, but you
33:59
cannot see this gorilla. So that's an example, right?
34:02
There's a there's a difference between our imagination and the
34:06
real world. And then what closes down this
34:10
difference? It's the census ultimately.
34:13
OK, so I said ontology is what is right.
34:19
So we have subjective truth and then objective truth.
34:22
Right now I'm talking about when I'm give my whole talk on
34:26
epistemology, it's it's about objective truth.
34:29
But in short, subjective truth is what is true only inside your
34:33
head, right? And then objective truth it's
34:36
what's is what is in and outside of your head, right.
34:42
So when we're talking about objective truth, we're talking
34:45
about our imagination and the real world, OK.
34:49
And I agree with his definition of knowledge.
34:52
I like that. OK, so let's talk about
34:56
subjective truth. So what?
35:00
What is inside what? What is inside of our minds, our
35:03
imagination? We have direct experience of
35:06
that, right? Like, you know your thoughts,
35:10
you know if you're feeling pain, you know this stuff directly
35:15
because you experience it directly.
35:17
But how do we know the world outside of our head, right?
35:20
How do we know the real world? How do we get objective truth?
35:23
And that's through the senses and through reasoning.
35:28
And then how do we get to know other subjective truths?
35:31
Like how do we get to know what other people think, how how
35:35
other people feel, right? And that's we cannot experience
35:39
the feelings of other people directly, we cannot see their
35:42
thoughts directly. So that relies on indirect
35:46
evidence, which I'll get to later, which again is also the
35:48
senses and reasoning which which I will get to later.
35:52
OK, so with that said, let me I didn't have like notes.
35:56
I just had some bullet points. OK, so let me present my
36:02
epistemology. So when again, when I'm saying
36:07
epistemology is, what's your method for getting to know what
36:10
is true? Right.
36:12
How do we get true? That's an epistemology.
36:13
It should be a method. Saying God did it is not enough.
36:16
It's like how do we know? Like, give me like some steps,
36:19
right. Yeah.
36:21
When I say epistemology, I could say something like don't trust
36:25
people if they benefit from convincing you, right.
36:28
Like if if a used car salesman is selling you his cars, you
36:31
know, he's probably not trustworthy.
36:33
He probably won't tell you all the defects, right.
36:35
But that's like very, you know, emergent level epistemology.
36:39
I want something more foundational.
36:41
So something more foundational could be the following.
36:43
And I'm going to get my epistemology now.
36:46
So it could be scope, like how much your your explanation
36:52
actually explains, right? If your explanation explains a
36:55
lot of data, it's a better explanation.
36:57
And another way to secure the truth.
37:01
Objective truth is consistency, right?
37:05
So if you're contradicting yourself, that's an error, so
37:09
and then you can have internal and an external consistency.
37:12
So internal consistency is the idea that you're throwing out.
37:15
If it contradicts itself, then you know it's not consistent.
37:19
But it's also not just internal consistency but also external
37:22
consistency. Does your model not contradict
37:25
itself? But also, does it not contradict
37:28
other well established models? That's also another test.
37:32
Parsimony is a very important one, and a lot of theists miss
37:35
this, Miss this one, actually. So parsimony or what people
37:38
could call Occam's Razor is does your explanation assume the
37:43
least possible, right? If you can come, if you can come
37:46
up with an alternative explanation that assumes less,
37:48
that's a better explanation. And then finally, ultimately is
37:53
empiricism. So experience experiencing
37:56
something directly or sensing something directly So we have
38:01
direct and then indirect evidence when it comes to
38:04
empiricism. So direct evidence could be like
38:08
seeing something. Indirect evidence could be
38:10
predicting with that model. Post hoc rationalizations do not
38:14
work, and I'll explain that later.
38:16
But for example, if you see an apple, that apple is real.
38:20
Objectively, that's how that works.
38:22
Or if you predict with your model, if you cannot see the
38:25
thing directly, but you can see the consequences of the thing
38:29
and you can predict with it, then that's also indirect
38:32
evidence for it. And both of these are empirical.
38:35
Is that my time now? You stop.
38:39
Stop 4 minutes. Oh, OK, good, good, good.
38:42
Sorry, I just heard a weird sound.
38:44
OK, OK, so anyway, this is my criteria, my methodology for
38:52
getting truth, objective truth. That's my epistemology.
38:56
As you can see. I don't think Daniel presented
38:59
that or anything like that. I don't even see really a
39:02
method. But anyway, that this is my
39:05
method. Now it does rely on an axiom,
39:08
which I'll explain in a bit, but my senses in the empiricism
39:14
ultimately grounds reason for me, right?
39:17
So he was saying like can you ground logic?
39:19
And I'm like yes, yes I can, For example the law of non
39:23
contradiction, which is what I said when I said consistency.
39:28
That's what I meant, right? The law of non contradiction is
39:31
you know, you can't make contradictions.
39:34
You can say that it you cannot say that X is and isn't at the
39:38
same time in the same sense because that's a contradiction.
39:40
The census ground this actually, because when you look at the
39:45
real world, we do not see real contradictions, and every time
39:48
we think we see a contradiction, if you keep looking, we'll see
39:52
that somebody was lying or somebody was mistaken.
39:54
That's usually what happens. So this is how consistency is
39:58
grounded by the senses. Another one is parsimoning,
40:01
right? Parsimony is also grounded by
40:03
the senses because and again, you can try it out yourself.
40:08
Make a lot of assumptions and then see how reliable you are.
40:12
You're usually very unreliable because making a lot of
40:14
assumptions usually doesn't work out.
40:16
So the senses ground reason ultimately.
40:21
OK, so let me get into my axiom. So my epistemology does rely on
40:26
an axiom, and here's here's the axiom.
40:28
My perceived reality is my actual reality.
40:32
That's my axiom. So my senses are foundationally
40:36
trusted and they give me access to the real world.
40:40
Now I would say that my opponent also shares his axiom.
40:44
His epistemology may have more axioms, but I know he shares
40:47
this one. I know he does because he
40:50
trusted this axiom before he even was aware of God, right
40:54
before he went to sermons, read holy text, read apologetics or
41:01
theology books, he already trusted this axiom.
41:04
And I know that he trusts this axiom because he's here speaking
41:07
with me, right? So that's evidence of it for me.
41:11
If he's here debating with me, obviously he's trusting his
41:15
senses. So I would say everybody has
41:19
this axiom. And if they don't, we call them
41:22
crazy usually. And you usually these people
41:26
need treatment, you know, because they, they get
41:29
themselves hurt, right? They can go in traffic, get run
41:32
over by a car, they can hurt their loved ones, They can do
41:36
all kinds of things if they do not trust their senses.
41:38
So most people do trust their senses.
41:40
And I don't know how much time I have left, but just to just to
41:43
conclude, I'm not saying that my senses prove my senses.
41:48
I'm saying that my senses are the foundational assumption.
41:51
They're the starting point so that I can build up an
41:54
epistemology. However, I do allow my senses to
41:58
correct my senses, right? I could be a brain inside the
42:01
Matrix, but the only way for me to know is if I actually wake up
42:06
from the Matrix, right? If I end up sensing that I wake
42:10
up, that I take the wires out of my neck or whatever, then I will
42:14
believe that I'm inside the Matrix.
42:16
But if that doesn't happen, then I'm not going to believe that.
42:21
How much time do I have 5:00. Seconds.
42:24
OK. I'll see the rest of the time.
42:27
All right. And if you guys like, I can give
42:29
you a one minute warning up to you.
42:32
Or I can just let the time run out until it's time.
42:35
Personally, I do want that. OK, one minute warning.
42:38
You got it. All right, let's start with
42:40
round one. Daniel, you have 6 minutes
42:43
starting now. All right.
42:47
So let's see. The first thing that I want to
42:50
address is that my opponent said that I didn't give my
42:53
epistemology, and that's correct.
42:56
I gave something that is more important than an epistemology,
43:00
which is the necessary preconditions for this
43:03
conversation about knowledge to even take place.
43:05
But since he wants the epistemology, I do have it and I
43:09
will give that right now my epistemology reasons from God,
43:13
as God is a necessary precondition for the possibility
43:17
of accurate reasoning in the 1st place.
43:19
God exists, and we can know things because God exists
43:22
through His revelations to us which come from the Bible.
43:26
The Bible is the inspired word of God which tells us why we can
43:30
rely on our senses, our reasoning, and why we ought to
43:34
be moral, care about truth, and learn about God's creation.
43:38
Since the Bible's truth is the foundation for all knowledge, I
43:42
can then build upon that foundation by using my senses,
43:45
reasoning, logic, uniformity of nature, and free will, which are
43:49
all filtered through the biblical lens.
43:53
So that is my epistemology. A few things that my opponent
43:57
talked about that I want to go over is starting with that he is
44:03
beginning with the axiom that his senses are real or
44:08
correspond to reality. So what I would say about that
44:11
is when you use your senses to validate your senses, that's
44:18
blatant question begging. He's just assuming that, and he
44:21
says that that's an axiom, which that's fine.
44:24
He can say that that's an axiom if he wants, but there's no
44:28
evidence that his senses actually give him accurate
44:32
information about reality. He's just assuming that.
44:35
So right off the bat, his epistemology is not evidence
44:39
based, it's assumption based. That's not all though.
44:44
He also was using logic that entire time, and I haven't heard
44:48
any actual evidence for the existence of logic.
44:52
He used a logical argument from his senses for why logic exists,
44:57
but that assumed the very thing in question.
45:00
You cannot use logic in order to prove logic.
45:03
That's begging the question. So we haven't heard any actual
45:07
evidence from him for why he believes in logic, and I
45:10
understand that he was doing his initial, so we will see what he
45:16
says in his rebuttal. But so far that was question
45:20
begging about logic. He hasn't said anything about
45:23
free will yet, so we will see if he addresses that.
45:27
He's also clearly assuming uniformity of nature, and I
45:30
haven't heard any evidence for that yet, but we'll see what he
45:34
says when it's his turn. Speak.
45:38
Also, my opponent was reasoning the entire time.
45:42
That's what you kind of need to do in order to show up to this
45:44
debate. I would like to know what the
45:46
evidence is that my opponent has that validates or justifies his
45:52
belief that his reasoning is valid, because that wouldn't
45:56
come from sense data, and he says that that's his only axiom.
45:59
So I'd like to hear what his evidence is in support of that
46:03
belief. I didn't say that God did it.
46:07
I never said that. What I said is that God is a
46:11
necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge, that
46:15
my worldview can account for the necessary preconditions for the
46:19
possibility of knowledge. And I explained all of that.
46:23
Remember, there are two lakes, 1 Lake.
46:25
No God. My lake has God, and my lake can
46:28
explain why we should be able to depend on our reasoning, why we
46:33
should believe in logic, which is immaterial and universal.
46:40
And I think that's about all I have.
46:45
So I will yield the rest of my time.
46:47
All right, you have one minute left.
46:49
Evidentialism your side of round 1-6 minutes starting now.
46:54
OK, I have some things to say still on my epistemology, but I
46:58
just have to address some things.
47:00
So I think I made it clear, but maybe not enough.
47:03
I'm not saying my senses prove my senses, I'm saying my senses
47:06
are a foundational assumption. So I'm not saying I'm proving
47:08
them right now my senses proved my senses.
47:13
I'm not saying that. But I'm saying I do allow for my
47:15
senses to correct my senses. So like, let me give you an
47:18
example. If I'm hearing like I don't know
47:21
if you guys know this, but there's a cougar and this animal
47:25
makes a horrendous sound and you guys should hear it on YouTube.
47:29
It sounds people say it sounds like a woman getting murdered,
47:32
sounds horrendous, sounds like a woman screaming to death or
47:35
something like that. So if if I if I hear the sound,
47:39
I will believe. OK, somebody needs help.
47:42
A lady is getting assaulted or something if I hear the sound,
47:46
But if I go outside and I open the door and I see a cougar
47:50
making this horrendous sound, I will change my mind.
47:53
I'll be like, oh actually, no, I changed my mind.
47:56
That sound is not a woman getting murdered.
47:58
That sounds actually an animal making a horrendous noise that
48:02
only sounded like it was a woman getting murdered, for example.
48:05
Right. So that's my senses.
48:07
Correcting my senses, right. So I do allow for my senses to
48:10
correct my senses. I just don't allow them to prove
48:13
my senses. I assume my senses
48:14
foundationally. It's my foundational assumption.
48:19
So he was saying before that, you know, the kids will ask why
48:22
and then why, and then why. Eventually you'll have to stop
48:26
somewhere, at least for your epistemology, right?
48:29
Because if you don't stop, if you don't stop anywhere, do you
48:33
even have an epistemology? Right.
48:35
If you have axioms, you'll stop somewhere, right?
48:38
And then you'll ask, well why to that axiom when it comes to
48:42
epistemology. And there is no why?
48:44
Because if there was AY, it wouldn't be an axiom.
48:47
So I think here it's just not understanding the nature of
48:50
axioms. That's why I think Daniel did
48:53
not present an epistemology because you know, the nature of
48:57
action of axioms will reveal this just real quickly, a set a
49:04
side tangent. I usually describe epistemology
49:08
in four stages and I think it's very relevant.
49:12
So the first stage I would call the superstitious stage.
49:15
Here's where people just believe things based on intuition, like
49:18
feelings or based on like text they read or things they heard.
49:23
OK, so that's a very poor epistemology.
49:26
The next stage I would call modernism.
49:29
In modernism, we try to look for reasons, right?
49:33
So it's like, OK, I feel like this is true, or I've read that
49:35
this is true. Let me go find a reason for
49:38
that. And then we have post modernism
49:41
and post modernism, people become skeptical of reason
49:45
itself because we learned the limitations of reason, right?
49:49
And I think if you stay here for too long, you become an
49:51
epistemic nihilist and that's not what you should do.
49:55
The final step is what people call post post modernism or meta
49:59
modernism. And in this stage you use your
50:03
reasoning but you're aware of the limits of your reasoning.
50:08
So I would say that I'm a meta modernist or a post post
50:11
modernist. Daniel seems to be superstitious
50:15
or modernist kind of. I think it shifts back and
50:18
forward. So like I am, I'm using
50:21
reasoning, but I'm aware of the limitations of my reasoning and
50:25
I don't think that makes me worse.
50:26
In fact, I think that makes me better because I'm more self
50:28
aware. Anyway, that's what I had to
50:31
say. How much more time do I have,
50:33
Dylan? You have two minutes 20 seconds.
50:38
OK, so OK, well just real quick, I said.
50:43
Empiricism is king like the census.
50:45
And again you have direct and indirect direct you see the
50:48
thing, indirect you predict with the thing.
50:51
I said post hoc rationalizations are not good.
50:55
And that's because people. That's because you can mess with
51:00
your reasoning to rationalize anything.
51:02
That's the problem with reasoning, right?
51:04
I use my senses and I use reasoning, but I ground my
51:08
senses in reasoning, right? The real world existed before
51:12
you and I, right? And this world, you know, gave
51:17
rise to us. And then we have to come up with
51:19
reasoning to match the real world.
51:23
If you get stuck in your imagination and you're not
51:27
constantly checking with the real world via your senses,
51:31
you're going to fall into delusion.
51:33
And I think that's what has happened with a lot of people.
51:36
And so you can make your story fit.
51:38
You can make any story fit if you're willing to sacrifice
51:41
empiricism, the senses, consistency, and parsimony.
51:46
And not just that, you can make any inconsistent story
51:49
consistent again if you sacrifice parsimony or you just
51:53
give up on consistent, on consistency, on consistent
51:56
entirely. So I could give examples of
51:59
this, maybe I will save this for the cross examination, but my
52:06
thank you. My point is the census are very
52:10
important, like very very important.
52:13
And if you do not understand this point, this will reveal why
52:15
it's very important. You can make a model, fit
52:19
anything. You can believe in God or not
52:22
believe in God. It doesn't matter what happens,
52:25
you can always justify your beliefs.
52:29
You know, especially if you don't care about your senses.
52:31
You know you don't see God. It doesn't matter.
52:34
The story is inconsistent. Well, let me just sacrifice
52:37
parsimony and make it extra complicated.
52:40
You know God is mysterious and the reason for that is because
52:45
you're sacrificing parsimony. You don't see this God, but it
52:49
doesn't matter. Things seem to be inconsistent,
52:52
so you make the story more complicated by making more
52:54
assumptions. So you make it work again, OK.
52:59
All right. Thank you both.
53:00
That concludes round one. Next, we're going to segue into
53:04
the cross examination. During this cross examination,
53:07
each participant will be able to ask a series of directed
53:10
questions and receive a directed response to these questions.
53:13
Please be careful not to consume your opponent's time to excess.
53:16
And keeping with the respectful debate, Daniel, you are good to
53:20
go. 7 minutes starting now. All right.
53:24
Thank you. So, evidence, I'm curious, do
53:28
you believe in free will? Free will.
53:34
Could you define libertarian free free will for me and
53:36
everybody else you? Should have done otherwise.
53:40
OK, so I have a very complex answer.
53:42
The short answer is yes, but if you want the long answer let me
53:44
know. If you believe in it, then I'd
53:47
like to hear what your evidence is.
53:49
That and you do have free will. Right, so the evidence for free
53:55
will. OK, so then you're asking me for
53:58
the complex answer. So if you believe that you like
54:02
the person who's doing the will, if you are your consciousness,
54:06
then you do not have free will because your consciousness is
54:09
controlled by your nature and nurture.
54:12
It's controlled by your subconscious.
54:13
It's controlled by your environment, by your culture, by
54:17
your genetics, all sorts of things.
54:19
Right now, if you now, that's if you believe you is your
54:23
consciousness. But if you identify with your
54:26
nature and nurture, then you control you, right?
54:29
Your nature and nurture is you, right.
54:32
Genetics A. Different way do your Do the
54:35
atoms in your brain ultimately control your thinking?
54:43
Do the atoms in your brain? Yes.
54:45
Is that what ultimately controls your thinking?
54:48
Alone, no. Because everything is connected,
54:52
there's a causal chain, so the atoms alone do not control
54:56
everything in the brain. Is it ultimately all atoms that
54:59
control, for everything that happens around us, the laws of
55:03
physics? Well, it's nature and nurture.
55:07
So, so like, that would be the nature part.
55:09
The nurture part would be the experiences, right?
55:12
So like the parents you have, the family you have, the
55:15
experiences with them for your character.
55:18
Yeah. So do you actually have evidence
55:21
that you have free will, or is this just assumed as well?
55:25
No, it would be true by definition, right?
55:27
If you identify with your nature and nurture, then you control
55:32
you because you are your nature and nurture.
55:36
Did you get what I'm saying or not?
55:38
Yes. I mean, it just sounds like
55:39
you're defining it, but you don't actually have evidence
55:42
that it would be the case. Well, I'll put it this way.
55:46
I'll put it this way. I haven't like, I haven't.
55:50
I don't have any any example of something that controls me.
55:55
That's beyond my nature and nurture, right?
55:56
So like my nature is who I like what what makes me me physically
56:01
right? My genetics and stuff like that.
56:04
My nurture is my experiences. I don't have, I don't see
56:06
anything beyond that. But if you can show an example
56:09
then I will change my mind, right?
56:11
Do you have justification or evidence for the belief that the
56:15
future will be like the past? Yeah, I would say it's my, say,
56:20
my senses and it's Bayesian thinking, right.
56:23
So if I sense something and I'm seeing a pattern, that's totally
56:26
fine. But you also have to be open
56:28
minded, like the pattern can change.
56:30
And we do know patterns do change.
56:32
The sun will rise tomorrow, yes, but one day will not, and we
56:36
know that as well. OK, do you have justification or
56:41
evidence that the laws of logic exist?
56:45
Yeah, so for example, for me reasoning is rested on the
56:50
senses and reasoning I'm I'm including like you know, logical
56:53
arguments, logic itself, mathematics.
56:56
Basically, when we're looking at logic, we're saying, you know,
57:00
based on the premises, the conclusion must be true or else
57:04
there's a contradiction. And then contradictions cannot
57:06
be, so we can. So we're going to accept the
57:09
conclusion. That's how like logic and math
57:11
works. That's how proof works.
57:14
And so how why do we believe? The question is, why do we
57:18
believe that the world has to be consistent?
57:20
And I would say based on the census, I don't experience
57:25
contradictions. Now some people say that, you
57:29
know, that might not be the case when it comes to quantum
57:31
physics. I actually do not believe that's
57:33
the case. But I'm also not educated in
57:36
that area. Sorry, go ahead.
57:37
Do you do you have any evidence or justification that your
57:40
reasoning is valid? Yep, so my senses, my senses
57:46
correct. My reasoning.
57:47
So this question is amazing. How do we know that our
57:52
reasoning our reasoning is correct?
57:55
And for me, it's empiricism the senses.
57:58
If the senses and the reasoning do not match, which do you
58:01
change? I change my my my reasoning
58:04
because I trust my senses. OK.
58:12
Let's see. Is it true that you believe that
58:17
the fewer things that you assume, the better?
58:22
Yes. And I could give you a long
58:26
answer, but it's your time. Go ahead.
58:28
Well, if that's true, then shouldn't you assume absolutely
58:31
nothing? Wouldn't that be ultimately
58:33
ideal? Ultimately, yes, but that axiom
58:38
actually gets me that, So no. So my I trust my senses, right?
58:43
And then when I trust my senses. By definition, assumptions that
58:47
aren't proven. So you are assuming when you say
58:50
that I have this axiom. So if it was actually better to
58:54
assume as little as possible, well, zero is as little as
58:58
possible, right? So why are you assuming it
59:01
anything at all? Gotcha, gotcha.
59:04
Two things. One actually actually wouldn't
59:06
be better and just just to make sure parsimonious, assume the
59:10
least possible not assume zero. I cannot assume 0 because if I
59:14
assume 0, I cannot have an epistemology to begin with and I
59:17
cannot have a good life, right? If I assume nothing, that makes
59:21
me a radical skeptic. That's the problem with with
59:23
post modernism. And again, if you truly assume
59:27
nothing, like you have no axioms because you assume nothing,
59:30
that'll be a horrible life for you, but nothing.
59:33
Is less than one, isn't it? Yeah, but how do you I would say
59:41
correct but I'm I would say that is true.
59:45
But to even to even hold parsimony as important, you need
59:49
the senses to even hold that because if we lived in a world
59:52
where you could assume as much as you want and it wouldn't
59:54
affect the truth, then it this parsimony would not matter.
59:58
But we know. We assume the exact right amount
1:00:01
of things in order to have a coherent world view, because
1:00:04
based on what you're saying, you're making an exception to
1:00:07
your own rule. Well, axioms are exceptions.
1:00:11
By definition. They're, Yeah, you're.
1:00:13
Saying we should assume as little as possible.
1:00:15
Zero is less than one, but you're still assuming more than
1:00:18
0, so you're making an exception to your own rule.
1:00:21
Time. OK, so.
1:00:26
Evidentialism. You got 7 minutes, Good to go.
1:00:29
OK. Thank you.
1:00:32
So I I mentioned something before and then I'll like show
1:00:35
with examples now. So I was saying that empiricism
1:00:37
is very important, like empiricism grounds your
1:00:39
reasoning. Or it should, Because if it's
1:00:42
not, then you're just lost in your mind and your imagination.
1:00:45
And I was saying that humans can rationalize anything.
1:00:48
That's the that's the problem with being disconnected from the
1:00:51
senses. So I think people do that with
1:00:55
the Bible all the time. Do you think the Bible has
1:00:59
contradictions, Daniel? No, I don't believe that the
1:01:02
Bible has any contradictions. Got you.
1:01:05
And I would say it does unless you break parsimony and let me
1:01:09
show you like what I mean. So here I've got some things
1:01:12
written down. Here I have very complex ones,
1:01:17
but I'll just stick with like very simple ones.
1:01:19
So, for example, the death of Judas.
1:01:22
Acts 118 says that says that Judas, when he betrayed Jesus,
1:01:27
he got the money. He threw it in the temple.
1:01:33
Yeah. No, sorry, sorry, sorry.
1:01:34
I'm sorry. Acts 118 says that with the
1:01:37
money that Judas betrayed Jesus, he bought a field for himself.
1:01:41
Then he fell and then like he burst open and then his guts
1:01:44
spilled out. That's what Acts 118 says.
1:01:48
Matthew 27. Five.
1:01:51
Chapter 27 verse five says that Judas threw the money at the
1:01:54
temple, the money that he used to betray Jesus, and then he
1:01:58
went to hang himself. I can see how you can try to
1:02:03
reconciliate this so you remove the contradiction.
1:02:07
I can see how you could do that, but you'll be sacrificing
1:02:09
parsimony because you'll make a lot of assumptions.
1:02:12
Now Daniel, how do you make sense of both of these without
1:02:16
contradicting yourself? Well, I believe that they're
1:02:20
both harmonized and that he went to the field, hung himself, and
1:02:25
at some point he got bloated and his entrail spilled out.
1:02:28
I don't see it as a blatant contradiction.
1:02:31
It's just two different views of the same thing.
1:02:37
Just like if an accident happens in front of two people, you're
1:02:41
going to get two different accounts from two different
1:02:46
people who have different perspectives and saw the exact
1:02:49
same thing. And we see that all the time and
1:02:52
eyewitness accounts. So.
1:02:54
So the fact that the gospels do differ on certain things that
1:03:00
are not actually contradictory actually corroborates the fact
1:03:04
that these witnesses were not comparing stories or sharing
1:03:07
notes. And if you read a book like Cold
1:03:10
Case Christianity, he actually goes over that and explains why.
1:03:14
But go ahead and ask your next question.
1:03:17
Gotcha. And I would say you know that is
1:03:18
correct. You can remove that
1:03:20
contradiction, kind of, but you have to sacrifice parsimony
1:03:23
because now you just made a story that's very complicated.
1:03:26
Like, hold on, I'll ask you a question a little bit.
1:03:28
So like, for example, a way to explain this is just that the
1:03:32
Bible says different things in different places.
1:03:34
And in one place Judas bought a field with the money and then he
1:03:40
fell and he split himself open. And another story, he threw the
1:03:44
money at the temple and then he went to hang himself.
1:03:48
The whole tone of the story changes in it.
1:03:50
But your story, I I see how you can, you know, remove the
1:03:52
inconsistency. But I would say that's an
1:03:54
example of sacrificing, you know, Occam's racer or principle
1:03:57
of parsimony. And I think you have to do that
1:04:00
because you're probably probably being a little dogmatic here,
1:04:03
like you do not want to change your mind when it comes to the
1:04:06
Bible having contradictions. And I think that's the problem
1:04:09
with. Dogmatic about their axioms.
1:04:11
That's the nature of axioms. That's the nature of a
1:04:13
worldview. Of the axe.
1:04:15
Presupposition of beliefs. Of the axioms?
1:04:19
Sorry of the axioms, probably, but we're not talking about
1:04:23
axioms here. Has.
1:04:24
No contradiction. It's a fundamental belief that I
1:04:27
hold. And I would say I don't actually
1:04:31
think that's fundamental. And I think you believe that
1:04:33
yourself as well, because before you were aware of the Bible,
1:04:37
before you were aware of God, you already trusted your senses.
1:04:41
So I I just, I don't actually believe that.
1:04:43
And I don't think you do either. I want to ask you a question.
1:04:47
So both verses you you made, you made remove the contradiction by
1:04:52
saying that Judas both hung himself and then later like he
1:04:56
was split open, right? How do you explain the money
1:05:01
situation? What do you mean so?
1:05:05
Acts 118. He bought a field with the money
1:05:08
in Matthew 27. Five He threw the money at the
1:05:12
temple. He didn't want to receive it.
1:05:15
He bought a field with the money.
1:05:16
I believe it says that a field was bought with the money.
1:05:20
That's Matthew 27 five. Yeah, I I don't believe that
1:05:24
that actually says that. Sure.
1:05:27
Would you mind if I use my time to pull it up?
1:05:30
Nope. OK, hold on just a second.
1:05:34
So I'm just Googling how much time do I have left?
1:05:36
By the way, you. Have. 2 minutes, 2 minutes.
1:05:40
OK, I'll hurry up. OK.
1:05:45
Acts 118 with the payment he he received for his wickedness.
1:05:50
Judas Bottlefield. There he fell headlong, his body
1:05:54
burst open and all his and all his intestines spilled out.
1:06:00
That's acts 118. And then let me just real
1:06:02
quickly read Matthew 27. Five.
1:06:12
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left.
1:06:16
Then he went away and hung himself.
1:06:19
Do you still believe that the money situation is not really a
1:06:22
problem? Yeah, I mean, he may have went
1:06:25
back and gathered the money. Someone may have brought him the
1:06:28
money back after he had thrown it one minute.
1:06:32
That's easily harmonized in a multitude of ways.
1:06:36
I would like to hear like how the money is harmonized because
1:06:40
in one he bought a field. Gave 2 examples he went.
1:06:43
Back and got. It some he went back and got it.
1:06:47
Somebody brought him the money as he was leaving.
1:06:50
They scooped it up and gave it to him.
1:06:52
I mean, there are a bunch of different explanations.
1:06:55
Perfect. Perfect.
1:06:55
The rest of my time, I just want to finish this thought quickly.
1:06:59
Yeah, that that that also works, right?
1:07:01
You remove the contradiction. But just notice, this is what
1:07:04
atheists would call mental gymnastics.
1:07:06
And we we noticed that theists do it a lot.
1:07:08
And it's because you really, really, really, really do not
1:07:12
want to be wrong that the Bible contradicts itself.
1:07:14
So you're reading outside of the text.
1:07:16
You're making extra assumptions. The story gets really
1:07:18
complicated. That's when you sacrifice
1:07:20
parsimony. And that's what I'm saying.
1:07:21
It's very important that you do not lose touch of your senses,
1:07:25
because if you do, you're just stuck in your imagination.
1:07:28
And you know, it can lead to being a little, you know,
1:07:31
delusional. And I don't mean that to be
1:07:33
offensive. Sorry if I was.
1:07:37
All right, now we're gonna set way into a three to 5 minute
1:07:40
break. We'll start with three minutes,
1:07:42
and I'll check in with you at the three minute mark, see if
1:07:45
you need an extra 2. Sound good?
1:07:48
Sounds good. All right, sounds good to me.
1:10:49
All right, three minute mark. We need an extra 2 minutes.
1:10:56
I think I'm ready if evidence is.
1:11:06
No worries, we'll write it out until the five minutes.
1:11:11
Oh, sorry. I was downstairs.
1:11:12
Sorry. Go ahead.
1:11:13
I'm ready. You ready to go?
1:11:14
OK. All right.
1:11:17
So now we'll start with Round 2. Daniel, you'll be our first
1:11:20
speaker at six minutes. Whenever you're ready.
1:11:26
All right, I'll go ahead and get started.
1:11:28
So the last thing he said was that I really, really need the
1:11:33
Bible to not contradict. And I would say that he really,
1:11:37
really needs the Bible to contradict because he wants to
1:11:41
invalidate the Christian worldview because he's an
1:11:46
atheist. We all have worldviews.
1:11:49
So it's it's interesting that he said that.
1:11:55
He also mentioned in his earlier response about a cougar analogy,
1:12:01
and in my opponent's cougar analogy, he said that he thinks
1:12:05
he hears a woman screaming and then he realizes that it's not a
1:12:08
woman screaming, it's a cougar. His senses in this situation are
1:12:13
correcting his senses. But saying I allow my senses to
1:12:17
correct my senses begs the question once again.
1:12:20
Because we want to know how you know your senses are ever
1:12:24
reliable. Using sense data to correct
1:12:27
sense data assumes the senses are reliable because if they
1:12:32
weren't reliable then they cannot be used to correct
1:12:34
previous sense data. So this reduces down to my
1:12:38
senses are valid because my senses are valid, which is not
1:12:41
justification on my opponent's own grounds of Epistemon
1:12:45
epistemology. Sorry, I cannot say that unless
1:12:50
he now thinks that begging the question AKA circular reasoning
1:12:54
is justification. Another thing that my opponent
1:13:00
talked about was that he uses his senses to prove logic.
1:13:06
He made a logical argument to prove the existence of logic
1:13:09
when I asked him Do you have evidence that logic exists?
1:13:13
He gave me reasons and he gave me a logical argument.
1:13:17
He said my senses do X and therefore that's assuming the
1:13:21
existence of logic in order to prove logic.
1:13:26
That's question begging. Once again, that is not evidence
1:13:29
unless evidence to evidence. My opponent is question begging.
1:13:35
So we have to ask ourselves does he think that question begging
1:13:39
circular reasoning counts as evidence because that's what he
1:13:42
just did. He used logic in order to prove
1:13:45
the existence of logic. Latent question begging.
1:13:50
Let's see, when I asked him if his how does he validate his
1:14:00
reasoning, he sat there and reasoned.
1:14:02
He used his reasoning in order to validate his reasoning.
1:14:06
That's also question begging. You cannot use your reasoning in
1:14:09
order to prove your reasoning. So when he says, well my senses
1:14:12
do this and my senses do that and therefore I can reason
1:14:16
correctly, that's him reasoning in order to prove his reasoning.
1:14:20
So if his reasoning was not correct, then all of the reasons
1:14:25
he just gave wouldn't be correct, right?
1:14:28
So he used the thing in question to prove the thing in question.
1:14:32
That's question begging. Once again, that's not evidence.
1:14:35
So I just want to point out so far that just like I said, my
1:14:41
opponent cannot give evidence for the necessary preconditions
1:14:45
for the existence or the possibility of knowledge.
1:14:49
We've talked about reasoning. He gave me reasoning to prove
1:14:53
that his reasoning was true. That's begging the question.
1:14:55
That's not evidence. I asked him about logic.
1:14:58
He gave me logic to prove logic. That is not evidence.
1:15:02
That's question begging. We talked about free will and he
1:15:06
had, I mean you guys heard what he said.
1:15:10
He basically just assumed it. That's not evidence that he has
1:15:13
free will and he shouldn't believe free will according to
1:15:17
his own worldview. When it comes to uniformity of
1:15:20
nature, I don't think he really understands the issue at all.
1:15:24
So I'll go ahead and talk about that a little bit.
1:15:28
Let's see. So the problem of uniformity of
1:15:34
nature or also known as the problem of induction, was talked
1:15:37
about by Hume and Bertrand Russell.
1:15:39
The problem of induction is about the assumption that the
1:15:42
future will be like the past. For example, how do we know that
1:15:46
the sun will rise tomorrow? Because it has in the past,
1:15:49
right? But this assumes that the future
1:15:51
will be like the past. This is a big assumption.
1:15:54
How do we know that the future will be like the past?
1:15:57
No one has ever experienced the future, so we really know
1:16:01
nothing at all about it. To say well so far the future
1:16:04
has always been like the past begs the question.
1:16:07
We aren't asking if the future has been like the past, but on
1:16:11
what grounds that will continue. You cannot appeal to past
1:16:15
uniformity in order to argue for future uniformity.
1:16:18
So once again, my opponent does not understand the things that
1:16:22
we're talking about and he has no evidence for these beliefs,
1:16:26
just blatant question begging. I'll read this quote from
1:16:29
Bertrand Russell about this issue one minute said.
1:16:33
It has been argued that we have reason to know that the future
1:16:36
will resemble the past, because what was the future has
1:16:40
constantly become the past and has always been found to
1:16:44
resemble the fact the past, so that we really have experience
1:16:48
of the future, namely of times which were formerly future,
1:16:51
which we may call past futures. But such an argument really begs
1:16:56
the very question at issue. We have experience of past
1:16:59
futures but not a future futures.
1:17:02
And the question is will future futures resemble past futures?
1:17:06
This question is not to be answered by an argument which
1:17:09
starts from past futures alone. So I want to know on what ground
1:17:14
is my opponent assuming that the uniformity of nature will
1:17:18
continue and he hasn't supplied that at all, which is also a
1:17:23
necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge, and
1:17:29
I'll yield the rest of my time. All right.
1:17:31
And time Evidentialism. You have 6 minutes.
1:17:36
Whenever you're ready. Thank you.
1:17:39
And I I speak really fast because I have a lot of things
1:17:45
to say and I I think it kind of hurt my vocal cords now.
1:17:48
So maybe I cannot speak that fast anymore.
1:17:51
Just real quick. I have to say I do not dislike
1:17:57
theists people, OK, I really like them.
1:17:59
So I don't know, maybe I came in too hot and I did not mean to.
1:18:03
I'm just trying to talk really fast, like for example, like I'm
1:18:06
an atheist, right? I used to be a Christian.
1:18:08
I became an atheist when I was like 12 years old, before I even
1:18:11
knew what the word atheist was. But I just stopped believing in
1:18:14
God then. Anyway, I still have family
1:18:19
members that are that believe in God.
1:18:21
A lot of them are Christian, right?
1:18:22
Some of them are Catholic. I don't have a problem with
1:18:24
them. I actually like them quite a
1:18:26
lot. Sometimes I go to church with
1:18:28
them, you know, it's really not a problem.
1:18:30
So I'm an open minded person and I think we should all be open
1:18:34
minded, OK. Anyway, I think when it comes to
1:18:40
epistemology, remember I mentioned 4 stages of
1:18:44
epistemology. Certainty is a very touchy
1:18:48
subject, right? Because we want to be very,
1:18:51
very, very certain. There's limitations with that.
1:18:54
And I think he quoted Daniel Bertrand Russell.
1:18:59
Yeah, a lot of mathematicians and philosophers have been
1:19:02
discussing the limitations of reasoning and the limitation of
1:19:05
the senses and all this stuff. You know, God doesn't really
1:19:10
solve that. Saying God, you know, it's just
1:19:12
saying stuff. You know, I can say, you know,
1:19:14
if I was intellectually dishonest, I can say my senses
1:19:18
are true and I know that they're true and they ground, they
1:19:21
ground my knowing or something like that, right?
1:19:24
And then I can say for my ontology that quantum fields
1:19:27
ground reality and that's it. I know that with 100% certainty.
1:19:32
I just don't do that because I'm actually intellectually honest.
1:19:35
Like, I admit the limitations of my reasoning.
1:19:38
And there's nothing wrong with that.
1:19:39
In fact, that just makes me intellectually honest, right?
1:19:44
I think Daniel was saying that, like, for your senses, to
1:19:48
correct your senses, you have to assume your senses correct.
1:19:51
I do assume my senses. But then how are you saying that
1:19:54
I'm using my senses to prove my senses?
1:19:57
I am not. I'm assuming my senses, right?
1:19:59
I'm telling you, I do not prove my senses with my senses.
1:20:02
I don't prove my senses at all. I'm assuming my senses are true
1:20:06
foundationally. And I think you do as well.
1:20:08
I think everybody here does as well.
1:20:12
Why? Well, because you use technology
1:20:14
to get here somehow, right. How did you do that?
1:20:17
Well, of course because you trust your senses.
1:20:20
And and again, people that are saying that you know God or the
1:20:22
Bible is their axiom. I just don't believe them
1:20:26
because they have to become aware of the Bible.
1:20:29
They have to become aware of conceptions of God.
1:20:32
And how did they become aware of that?
1:20:34
Well, it's because of their senses.
1:20:36
So everybody trusts their senses before they trust, you know,
1:20:41
before they even know of God, let let alone trusting God,
1:20:44
right. And and then I would say like
1:20:47
here it's a problem, right? So we have reasoning and then we
1:20:51
have the senses, right. And I think the problem is that
1:20:55
I believe the senses ground reasoning, not the other way
1:20:58
around. Right?
1:21:00
So just think about this. If you had a, you know, if you
1:21:05
invented a math equation that you believe described something
1:21:08
in the real world, but then with the telescope you're seeing that
1:21:13
it does actually, it actually does not behave how you
1:21:16
described mathematically. What do you change?
1:21:20
Do you change the real world or do you change your math
1:21:22
equation? Of course you change your math
1:21:24
equation so you actually change your reasoning when your senses,
1:21:29
when your senses tell you to. So the senses are king here.
1:21:32
If you're if the senses are not king when it comes to
1:21:35
epistemology, you know you kind of become a crazy person.
1:21:39
You can fall into conspiracy theories.
1:21:41
You can become a little delusional.
1:21:43
And I don't mean that to be insulting again.
1:21:45
So sorry. Maybe I should use better words.
1:21:48
Anyway, where should I go? How much time do I have left?
1:21:52
2 minutes. OK.
1:21:54
I wanted to say two things then. But I think the imagination is
1:21:58
great. I think it's powerful and it's
1:22:01
constrained by the senses, right.
1:22:03
And I would say that the imagination is great because you
1:22:06
build hypothesis in your imagination and here's how we
1:22:10
make discoveries or inventions. We have an idea and then we test
1:22:14
it to the real world. Then we go, we go back to
1:22:17
thinking, right back to our imagination and then we test it
1:22:20
to the real world and then back to thinking.
1:22:22
It's a it's a it's a little game we play to discover things and
1:22:26
to invent it and to invent things.
1:22:28
We're constantly checking with the real world.
1:22:30
If you're not doing that, you're stuck inside your mind and you
1:22:33
can become delusional. So just be careful.
1:22:35
And I have one question for Daniel that he can use for his
1:22:38
closing statements or he doesn't have to answer.
1:22:40
It's fine. But I would say that everything
1:22:44
in everything inside the imagination, everything in the
1:22:47
imagination is from prior experience.
1:22:50
Can Can you imagine anything that's that is totally
1:22:54
disconnected from the sense? Because I would say that the
1:22:59
imagination is just playing with whatever has been experienced
1:23:03
before. So I just want to talk about
1:23:06
three types of neurons. We have sensory neurons, which
1:23:09
is, you know, the sensory input interneurons, which is when
1:23:13
we're processing that information, and then motor
1:23:16
neurons, which is when we act based on that information.
1:23:20
So the imagination, Can you imagine anything at all that is
1:23:24
completely disconnected from the senses?
1:23:26
And I would say no. The senses ground reasoning,
1:23:30
they even ground our imagination.
1:23:32
And if you lose touch of the senses, you're losing touch of
1:23:35
the real world. And when you do that, you know
1:23:38
you're stuck inside your mind and you're no longer seeking
1:23:41
objective truth. At this point, you're in
1:23:43
subjective truth territory, which OK.
1:23:50
All right. Now we're going to go ahead and
1:23:53
start with our closing remarks. Daniel, 5 minutes, whenever
1:23:56
you're ready. All right, I'll.
1:24:00
Go ahead and get started. So tonight we looked at 2
1:24:03
worldviews, 2 lakes. I argued that these lakes are
1:24:06
not at all the same. One lake, the atheist lake,
1:24:10
cannot account for the necessary preconditions that are required
1:24:14
for the possibility of knowledge.
1:24:16
The other Lake Christian Theism can account for these
1:24:20
preconditions, meaning that believing in these preconditions
1:24:23
makes sense in my worldview. 1 worldview says everything is
1:24:27
matter in motion and we are just a strange, insignificant
1:24:31
accident. The other worldview says we are
1:24:33
made by a perfect, loving, wonderful creator made in his
1:24:36
image, to love him, love others, and to keep his commandments.
1:24:41
My opponent tonight says that he only believes in things that he
1:24:44
has good evidence for, but is that the case?
1:24:47
Has he given good evidence for the preconditions, for the
1:24:50
possibility of knowledge? Has he given good evidence that
1:24:53
his reasoning is valid? No, he begged the question.
1:24:56
Or that logic exists. Same thing.
1:24:59
Or that his sense data is accurate.
1:25:01
Same thing begged the question. Or that the universe will be
1:25:04
uniform and that the future will be like the past.
1:25:07
He doesn't even understand what that is about.
1:25:10
No, all of these things have been assumed tonight.
1:25:13
He has not provided any evidence whatsoever that these things
1:25:16
should be believed besides just simple question begging.
1:25:20
What this means is that my opponent is really just being
1:25:23
arbitrary and he doesn't care about his own standards.
1:25:26
On one hand, he is assuming beliefs that are convenient,
1:25:29
such as his belief that his reasoning is valid, and then on
1:25:32
the other hand, he has made he is demanding actual evidence for
1:25:36
beliefs in things like the existence of a Creator.
1:25:39
There is no consistency in his standards.
1:25:42
If my opponent cared about being consistent with his own
1:25:45
epistemology, then he would reject all the beliefs that he
1:25:49
holds without evidence, including all the necessary
1:25:52
preconditions for the possibility of knowledge.
1:25:55
Furthermore, let's just say we grant all of these beliefs to my
1:25:59
opponent that he can reason that the universe is uniform,
1:26:03
etcetera. Has he accounted for why these
1:26:06
things would be the case within his worldview?
1:26:09
In his worldview, he is just another random assembly of
1:26:12
atoms. Does he have a good reason for
1:26:15
believing that mindless assemblies of atoms can reason
1:26:18
to truth? As a materialist, does he have a
1:26:21
good reason for why immaterial laws of logic can exist in a
1:26:25
universe that is only matter? Does he have a good reason to
1:26:29
believe that the future will be like the past in a universe that
1:26:33
is random and purposeless? Does he have a good reason for
1:26:36
believing he has free will? No, he does not.
1:26:39
His worldview makes belief in these things absurd.
1:26:44
As a lifelong atheist, I would it was only when I critically
1:26:48
examined the atheist worldview itself and what it would
1:26:51
actually entail that I realized, wait a second, this leads to
1:26:55
absurdity and contradiction. I realized that on my own
1:26:59
standards for belief, I shouldn't believe that my
1:27:01
reasoning is valid, or that logic exists, or that nature
1:27:04
will continue to be uniform. When I realized all this, I had
1:27:07
a decision to make. I could lie to myself and keep
1:27:10
making exceptions to my own rules and continue to live in a
1:27:13
world that is contradictory and absurd.
1:27:16
Or I could leave that worldview and embrace a different
1:27:19
worldview which is not absurd and which can account for logic,
1:27:23
reasoning, uniformity of nature, free will, etcetera.
1:27:26
Ultimately, it was the relentless pursuit of truth that
1:27:30
led me finally to Christianity. And what I found there is that
1:27:33
truth is not a thing. It's a person.
1:27:36
Jesus Christ is the truth. If any atheists here are truly
1:27:40
seeking the truth, Christ is where you will end up.
1:27:43
The Bible says that all men have sinned.
1:27:45
We have all lied, cheated, stolen, fornicated, lusted,
1:27:49
hated. None of us are good.
1:27:51
Not one. Each of us deserves justice from
1:27:54
a perfect, holy God, and justice means eternal damnation.
1:27:58
That is how serious sin is. But despite how wicked we are,
1:28:03
God sent his Son here to die for us on a cross.
1:28:06
Jesus died on that cross because of my sins and because of your
1:28:09
sins. He paid the debt that we owe to
1:28:11
God for our crimes and he drank the wrath of God in our place.
1:28:15
He was tortured, spit on, hated, and yet he said Father, forgive
1:28:19
them, for they know not what they do.
1:28:22
Christ made a way for for us to enter back into a fellowship
1:28:25
with God and to appear righteous in God's eyes despite our sin.
1:28:30
All you have to do if you're not saved is to surrender.
1:28:34
Give your life to Christ and put all your faith in Him as your
1:28:37
Savior. The Bible says by faith are you
1:28:39
saved Not of works. Only faith in the finished work
1:28:43
of Christ can save us from the wrath of God's perfect justice.
1:28:46
The gift of salvation is free and it's not God's will that any
1:28:50
should perish tonight. If you're not a believer, I urge
1:28:53
you to think about this. Jesus said, what shall profit?
1:28:56
A man who gains the whole world and loses his own soul.
1:28:59
Each and every person listening to this has a soul which is
1:29:02
precious to God. Thank you very much for
1:29:04
listening and God bless you all. And time evidentialism.
1:29:09
Thank you. OK.
1:29:12
So I would say my epistemology is grounded, right?
1:29:15
So I think, I'm not sure it's kind of sounded like it was
1:29:19
mixing ontology with epistemology, right?
1:29:22
Ontology is what is, and the epistemology is how we know what
1:29:25
is right. So I can say, if we want to talk
1:29:28
ontology, that's fine. I could say quantum fields,
1:29:31
ground reality, right? I can say something like that.
1:29:34
And physicists actually do believe that, so that's fine.
1:29:36
I'm not a scientist, but they have predictive models.
1:29:40
Christians do not have predictive models.
1:29:41
So I'm gonna just go with them. I can also say that there is an
1:29:46
like, back to ontology. I can say, I know, I think I
1:29:49
know why we reason so well and we reason so well because
1:29:54
there's an evolutionary pressure for us to get it right, you
1:29:57
know, You know, we have an imagination and then we have the
1:30:00
real world. How do we know that our
1:30:03
imagination is actually comporting to the real world?
1:30:06
And I said it's an evolutionary pressure, right?
1:30:10
Those that could not get it right consistently, they just do
1:30:13
not get to reproduce because they die, right?
1:30:16
Either because they hurt themselves or, you know, there's
1:30:18
other predators that can reason better.
1:30:21
And then they get it. They get at them.
1:30:22
So there there is pressure to get it right.
1:30:25
If you do not get it right, you die.
1:30:27
If a car hits you, you die. You know, if a lion gets you,
1:30:30
you die. So, OK.
1:30:32
Anyway, enough of that. I think a lot of words have been
1:30:36
thrown out here. But when we define them
1:30:39
carefully, there's really no problem where it's like
1:30:41
physical, right? Physicists that do physics, they
1:30:46
define physical as anything we can interact with somehow,
1:30:50
right? So that would include, like,
1:30:52
what's inside of our minds and what's outside of our minds,
1:30:55
right. So he's saying, like logic and
1:30:57
math, well, that's physical under the broad definition that
1:31:00
physicists use whatever we can interact with somehow.
1:31:04
Right now, there's different ways to define words.
1:31:08
There's another way to define it.
1:31:09
And that's how we make a sharp distinction between the physical
1:31:13
and the mental, right? One way to define physical is
1:31:16
just whatever is in the real world.
1:31:18
And then mental, whatever is inside our imagination or inside
1:31:22
our mind, right? And then we could go through
1:31:24
other words like nature, super nature, etcetera, etcetera.
1:31:28
I think once you define words, a lot of problems get removed.
1:31:32
Anyway, how much time do I have left?
1:31:36
You have 2 minutes 45 seconds. OK, not nearly enough.
1:31:41
All right. Well, I wanted to talk about a
1:31:44
couple things, but I cannot. So maybe if we extend the time I
1:31:47
will or if there's AQ and A later I will, or if there's
1:31:50
another debate. But I I don't think I can really
1:31:53
reach Daniel right now because I do think he's been a little
1:31:56
dogmatic and I don't mean it to be offensive.
1:31:58
So sorry if if if it feels that way, but I think I know how to
1:32:04
get you to be more rational. So I can undermine the Bible
1:32:08
very easily like how I did with Judas and I can like undermine a
1:32:12
lot of arguments for the existence of God.
1:32:14
So maybe we should discuss that later or today or another debate
1:32:18
or Q and AI don't know. But I would say like for example
1:32:21
if you read Matthew 24, I think the Bible itself is showing that
1:32:25
Jesus, that the Bible itself is showing that Jesus is a false
1:32:29
prophet because he had a false prophecy.
1:32:32
I believe that and I can maybe we can go through the Bible if
1:32:35
you want. Another thing, I can go through
1:32:37
the arguments of God. To make it short, I believe that
1:32:41
the intuition is incorrect. You can argue that the universe
1:32:45
must have a first 'cause, and then you can argue that the
1:32:48
universe has a lot of complexity or order.
1:32:51
Therefore there must be a conscious first 'cause, right?
1:32:54
And the argument has a lot of problems.
1:32:55
And just to make it short, the problem with that thinking is
1:32:59
that it makes a lot of assumptions.
1:33:01
If you look at the real world, you will see order come even if
1:33:05
there's no consciousness around, right.
1:33:07
Ice crystals, for example, you can Google ice crystals or just
1:33:12
YouTube ice crystals when they're when they're forming
1:33:16
nature itself with no signs of consciousness can produce order.
1:33:21
So that. So that assumption is just
1:33:24
wrong. And a lot of, I would say a lot
1:33:27
of thinking from the theist side is based on assumptions.
1:33:32
And I would say it's based on assumptions because they're
1:33:35
disconnected from the real world.
1:33:38
My epistemology is not meant demolish God.
1:33:42
It's just meant to find truth. And I think my epistemology can
1:33:46
find a God if there is a God out there.
1:33:49
So if you're a theist, don't be afraid of asking questions, and
1:33:52
don't be afraid of being skeptical.
1:33:55
And don't feel like if you're asking questions, you're going
1:33:58
to go to hell or something. Because that used to be me, and
1:34:00
I hope that's not you. Don't ask.
1:34:02
Sorry, Keep asking questions, keep being skeptical, have an
1:34:05
open mind. That's all I have to say.
1:34:11
All right. Thank you.
1:34:13
So now we have the option to open it up for Q&A.
1:34:17
If we have two EAS, we'll do it. Otherwise, we can we can pick it
1:34:25
up at another time. What do you guys think?
1:34:27
It's a yay for me. I don't know what Daniel wants.
1:34:29
Yeah, sure. Let's do it.
1:34:31
All right. And we already have one person
1:34:33
requesting. I'll go ahead and patch him
1:34:36
through now. Anthony, you're good to go.
1:34:48
Hey, this questions for evidentialism, you said when the
1:34:51
debate started that perception, your epistemology is that
1:34:54
perception is what's real, is that right?
1:35:01
That perception gets me what is real.
1:35:03
Would you say that if somebody who perceives like a
1:35:06
schizophrenic perceives a demon in the room, that that would get
1:35:10
them what's real? No.
1:35:15
So how do you know what's real then, if it's not perception?
1:35:19
Great question. I can answer that.
1:35:22
Is that your full question or do you want to add more to it?
1:35:24
That's all. OK.
1:35:28
So I said that my senses correct, my senses schizophrenic
1:35:31
people, they know they're going crazy.
1:35:34
OK. I think people are imagining
1:35:36
that they're like on a whole other reality.
1:35:38
That's not the case. OK, they're like it's like
1:35:40
augmented reality kind of right. Schizophrenic people are very
1:35:44
rational most of the time. Well, some of them, right?
1:35:47
It depends. Schizophrenia as a spectrum.
1:35:49
Some of them are worse. Some of them are not that bad.
1:35:51
Some of them are very, very bad. But usually and against
1:35:55
schizophrenia as being delusional, like just having bad
1:35:58
reasoning, as usually when you sacrifice parsimony, you make a
1:36:03
lot of assumptions or it's illusion and that's when you're
1:36:06
seeing stuff that are not there right now.
1:36:09
Usually your sense is correct. Your sense is there.
1:36:11
Like the schizophrenic people can see something but they
1:36:13
cannot touch it. When they touch it, the illusion
1:36:16
goes away or they just go right through it.
1:36:18
So that's an example. The senses can correct the
1:36:21
senses. Another example is if you put a
1:36:23
stick in water, the stick look like the stick looks like it's
1:36:27
bent because of refraction, right?
1:36:30
But you can feel the stick and the stick is not bent, so your
1:36:32
senses can correct your senses. That's totally fine and that
1:36:36
would help schizophrenic people. Did I answer?
1:36:39
Oh, just real quick because it's very important.
1:36:43
This is why I'm saying post hoc rationalization or very bad
1:36:47
because you can rationalize everything.
1:36:49
Anything. I used to like I used to be a
1:36:53
Christian. I used to be very paranoid.
1:36:56
That's kind of like a schizophrenic symptom, right?
1:36:59
So I used to be in my living room, and I used to feel like
1:37:02
something was looking at me. So I turned back and I saw
1:37:05
nothing. But I I still could rationalize
1:37:08
it. Like the demon is hiding.
1:37:10
That's a problem with schizophrenic people.
1:37:12
They could rationalize their their feelings.
1:37:14
Go ahead. So I mean, if you say the senses
1:37:17
can correct the senses, how do you know when they've been
1:37:22
corrected or if they're still, they're still in error?
1:37:26
Because you would have to exceed your senses at that point,
1:37:28
right? Gotcha, gotcha.
1:37:31
Yeah, you can go with like whatever your senses pull more,
1:37:36
whatever your senses are pointing more to or whatever
1:37:39
comes like prior. But I would say whatever you,
1:37:42
your senses pull more to. Like for example, if you usually
1:37:46
do not see a demon and then once in a while you see a demon and
1:37:49
you cannot touch this demon and nobody else can do that, you're
1:37:53
probably going crazy. That's a good guess.
1:37:56
What if you see one all the time?
1:38:01
Oh, perfect, perfect predictive power then, right?
1:38:03
So can this thing predict? So, like, OK, so if you can ask
1:38:09
questions to this demon can, does this demon know something
1:38:12
that you do not know? That would be a good, good test
1:38:14
for this demon hypothesis. I can make more tests like this
1:38:18
in my in my mind, there's ways to know if you're actually going
1:38:22
crazy. A lot of your illusions actually
1:38:24
do not know any more than you do.
1:38:27
So basically, since you can't really question it, you should
1:38:29
kind of just assume it's not real.
1:38:34
You should test your hypothesis. And so, like for example, what
1:38:39
would we expect demon to be like, right?
1:38:41
We expect the demon to, like, know things that we do not know
1:38:45
because they're not us. If they are us, they wouldn't
1:38:47
know any more than us, right? So we can try to interact with
1:38:51
it, see if we can ask questions. If this demon, for example,
1:38:56
could tell you something that's going to help it.
1:38:58
Sorry. If this demon can tell you
1:39:00
something that's going to happen tomorrow, and it does happen,
1:39:03
OK, that's predictive power, right?
1:39:05
So that thing probably is real, right?
1:39:09
So you probably probably not going crazy.
1:39:11
Probably it is a demon. So that would be like a test an
1:39:13
example. Yeah.
1:39:14
So if it has predictive power, that's a good indicator if it's
1:39:17
real or not. Yeah, post hoc rationalizations
1:39:22
are bad. You can make, you can make
1:39:24
anything fit your narrative, right?
1:39:26
For example, like, hear my story.
1:39:28
I felt like something was looking at me.
1:39:31
I was working out. I felt like something was
1:39:32
looking at me. So I turned right.
1:39:34
I turned around and I couldn't find anything.
1:39:36
And I was frantic looking around, right?
1:39:40
And that's when I still believed in God.
1:39:41
So I was just looking around and I couldn't find anything right
1:39:44
now. I can totally rationalize that.
1:39:46
I can rationalize, I can rationalize that by like the
1:39:49
demon is hiding or the the demon dematerialized or something like
1:39:53
that, right? You can always justify anything.
1:39:58
That's the problem with post hoc rationalization.
1:40:00
So predictive power is better. Whatever data points that
1:40:05
happen, you can always make an explanation that fit them.
1:40:09
Right. But to come up with an
1:40:10
explanation that predicts the past and the future now, that's
1:40:13
hard to do and that's very good. Sorry, Go.
1:40:15
Ahead. All right.
1:40:16
So we're gonna continue with more questions and then Anthony,
1:40:19
I'm gonna remove you as a speaker.
1:40:20
If you have another question, just just re request, we'll go
1:40:27
to knee. Before you remove him as the
1:40:35
speaker, I have some things that like I'd like him to answer if
1:40:38
that's cool. He's he's gone.
1:40:43
Yeah, I'll put him back. On he just kind of gave this
1:40:46
demon the power to fucking see the future.
1:40:49
And if the demon can't see the future, it doesn't exist.
1:40:52
But his idea about like, if you can't see it, it's not real.
1:40:55
Like radio waves. Fucking light waves.
1:40:58
Germ theory. There's a lot of fucking holes
1:41:00
in that argument, bro. Oh, I think he was talking to
1:41:04
me, actually. Yeah, I was like.
1:41:08
Why did? You.
1:41:08
Why did you just, like, give this demon like?
1:41:11
Well, if the demon's real, he would know what the future is.
1:41:13
Why did you just give him that power?
1:41:16
Gotcha, gotcha. So I'm not saying it's definite,
1:41:20
definite evidence. It's just some evidence, right.
1:41:23
And I'm just saying something quickly.
1:41:25
Just real quick to answer your question.
1:41:27
I don't know if you were here earlier or not, but I think I've
1:41:29
been. Here for about 5 minutes, so
1:41:31
yeah. OK, so you didn't hear when I
1:41:34
when I was describing my epistemology.
1:41:37
So when I'm saying like empiricism, empiricism, the
1:41:40
senses, it's not just seeing, right?
1:41:42
It's every sensory experience. So taste, your sense of balance,
1:41:47
physical touch, all of this is sensory experience right now.
1:41:51
We can do it directly or indirectly.
1:41:54
So I would count both as empirical some.
1:41:56
People would say that you have a sixth sense.
1:42:00
Yeah, some people would say that.
1:42:01
But does it predict that's the problem?
1:42:03
Because if it doesn't, it's probably inside your head, You
1:42:05
know, you're probably just having feelings.
1:42:07
But for example, if you felt something like a Spidey sense
1:42:10
and then you turned around and there was actually danger every
1:42:14
single time, that's evidence for the spider sense actually,
1:42:17
right? But if.
1:42:18
Did you, did you know that there actually is data and that
1:42:20
they've done studies? Would that like on people?
1:42:24
If they can tell people are looking at them through things
1:42:27
like 1 sided mirrors, and there's been correlated data
1:42:30
that suggests they can. I'll be honest, very skeptical
1:42:35
of that, but I will look into it.
1:42:36
If you can link the paper now, I will say this real quick.
1:42:39
I'm open minded, right? We know there's quantum effects
1:42:42
on biological organisms. Some animals can tell the
1:42:46
magnetic poles of the Earth. That's very weird.
1:42:49
How do how do birds know the magnetic pole?
1:42:51
Well, they just do quantum effect.
1:42:53
So I can, I can totally open my mind to, you know, wrap my head
1:42:57
around that, but I would need some evidence.
1:42:59
That's actually much easier to explain.
1:43:01
They actually have a physic and sense of magnetic field.
1:43:06
Like just just because their bodies aren't built the same
1:43:09
way, it doesn't mean that you know their their sensory data
1:43:13
isn't relevant. But aside from that, it it.
1:43:20
I don't know, it seems like you just go on like real therapist
1:43:23
level. Like if we can't prove it
1:43:24
empirically, then the data suggests that it doesn't exist.
1:43:28
And that's kind of like the same thing that atheists attack God
1:43:30
with on a pretty regular basis. I, myself, Amethyst that doesn't
1:43:35
pretend to know what that means because, you know, we're fucking
1:43:38
humans. How are we going to understand
1:43:40
something like this? But like in the case of like
1:43:44
trying to see if a demon is real or in your head like number one,
1:43:47
wouldn't a demon be smart enough to confuse you to the point if
1:43:51
it was real or not? And if you if you want to go and
1:43:55
say demons exist, isn't like the devil the strongest example of
1:43:59
such And you know the common quote the the best trick he ever
1:44:03
pulled is to make us think he didn't exist.
1:44:06
Perfect. Perfect.
1:44:06
Hold the thought, you're you're adding too much stuff.
1:44:08
OK, so I would say that this is paranoid thinking, and I'll tell
1:44:11
you why. You can justify any belief if
1:44:15
you sacrifice parsimony, right? So for example, the devil is
1:44:18
tricking me, right? That's why I cannot see the
1:44:22
devil. Or you know, the demon is just,
1:44:24
you know, messing with me, but it's hiding because it doesn't
1:44:27
want me to believe in God or whatever.
1:44:29
You can always justify this and it this might not feel like
1:44:32
crazy thinking to you, but just try to think about this about
1:44:36
anything else about goblins theory.
1:44:38
Which was proven, yes. And it doesn't sound ridiculous,
1:44:42
like goblins, so you can't obfuscate the fact.
1:44:45
Oh. Perfect.
1:44:45
Perfect. Before, yeah, But hold on, Jim.
1:44:48
Germ theory. You know ultraviolet or
1:44:52
infrared. We have empirical evidence for
1:44:55
these, right? So we didn't always, and before
1:44:58
we did, people, we're just like, that's poppycock.
1:45:00
You're talking about goblins the same way you just did.
1:45:03
No, but that's fine, right? Because if you're open to the
1:45:05
evidence, you know, I might not have everything right.
1:45:09
But if I have evidence of it, I'll change my mind.
1:45:11
That's totally fine. You don't have to have
1:45:13
everything right. The problem is that you have to
1:45:16
avoid superstitious thinking, right?
1:45:18
So you were saying, I feel like something is behind me or
1:45:21
something. That's superstition.
1:45:23
You know, why do we feel this way?
1:45:25
How do we know if it's real? And.
1:45:27
Calling it superstition, if someone can feel it and they had
1:45:31
another sense where you can detect these things, such as
1:45:33
what you were calling a Spidey sense, then their personal.
1:45:38
Although you can't use it as empirical evidence, like
1:45:41
personal experience, you know that that that's something.
1:45:46
Real quick, I have to ask something.
1:45:48
So sorry, not ask. I have to tell you something.
1:45:50
So real quick, just don't interrupt me for like 30
1:45:52
seconds. Empirical evidence is direct.
1:45:55
You can see the thing or indirect, you can predict with
1:45:58
the thing, right. So when we're talking about
1:46:01
prediction, that's when we can know things even if we don't see
1:46:06
them directly, right? Germ theory like, well, we we
1:46:10
actually can see germs. But even if we couldn't, if we
1:46:13
could predict with it, it's totally fine.
1:46:15
Before germ theory, we couldn't see germs because we didn't have
1:46:18
a microscope but capable of seeing germs.
1:46:20
But go on. Right.
1:46:21
And to be honest, that's kind of what confirmed microbiology.
1:46:26
But anyway. And so my point is, because we
1:46:28
don't have the technology to see a demon or spirit doesn't mean
1:46:32
that a demon or spirit doesn't exist.
1:46:35
Yeah, but we don't have good reason to believe in them
1:46:37
either. Like, I I don't mean to offend,
1:46:39
but just real quick, how do we know that there's not an
1:46:42
invisible bomb behind all of our heads and it's going to go off
1:46:45
any minute? How do we not know that there
1:46:47
definitely is. OK, but like, how do we not know
1:46:51
that there's like an undetectable bomb?
1:46:54
We can't detect it in any way, and it's behind all of our heads
1:46:56
and it's going to go off at some point.
1:46:58
We cannot really this proof this, but it's paranoid thinking
1:47:02
because we don't have good reason to believe it.
1:47:04
Just real quick, hold on. When we're talking about
1:47:05
predictions, there's good predictions and there's bad
1:47:09
predictions. So good predictions keep track
1:47:13
of the hit to miss to miss ratio.
1:47:16
If you throw a whole bunch of predictions and some of them
1:47:19
come, come through, come true, that's not good, right?
1:47:24
You need to keep track of the hits and the misses, or else
1:47:27
people are just going to throw you know, BS against the wall to
1:47:31
see what sticks. So there's criteria for
1:47:34
predicting right. Another one is to have detail,
1:47:37
because if you make predictions, hold on.
1:47:39
If you make predictions that are too vague, it's going to come
1:47:41
true. Or you can make it fit to come
1:47:43
true. For example, I can predict that
1:47:46
you're going to have a good day next year.
1:47:50
That's way too vague. I need more detail.
1:47:52
And then finally, you need to have a time frame, because if
1:47:55
you do not have a time frame, you can make people wait in
1:47:58
Infinity in order for your prediction to come true.
1:48:01
So that's just an example. So we're going to move on to
1:48:05
another question, if you got another one, just re request,
1:48:07
OK. All.
1:48:13
Right. Go ahead, Richie.
1:48:26
Richie, you're on. You guys can hear me OK, cool.
1:48:32
Just going to be brief because I see a lot of the too much back
1:48:35
and forth and not enough like answering questions.
1:48:37
So my question for the atheists, would you agree that circular
1:48:42
reasoning is fallacious? Yes.
1:48:47
OK cool. So can you justify your
1:48:51
empiricism without appealing to your empiricism?
1:48:57
Not appealing to my empiricism. My empiricism is grounded by the
1:49:00
census. I think what you meant to say is
1:49:02
can you ground your senses without appealing to your
1:49:05
senses, Right. Is that?
1:49:06
What you meant to say, well, you're saying you're an
1:49:08
empiricist, so yeah, I mean you're you're you still have to
1:49:12
ground that worldview within the that that paradigm.
1:49:15
So yeah, you have to use your senses.
1:49:17
So if it's circular, and you just conceded that reasoning in
1:49:22
a circle is illogical, then how do you how do you justify your
1:49:27
senses without appealing to them?
1:49:30
Gotcha. Gotcha.
1:49:31
OK. And I don't know if I could have
1:49:32
some back and forth with you or not, but if it's if not, totally
1:49:34
fine. I'll explain.
1:49:36
One answer and then one follow up and then we'll move on and
1:49:39
we'll just keep going. Gotcha.
1:49:41
Gotcha, gotcha. OK.
1:49:42
So real quick to answer your question, the senses do, can you
1:49:47
silence that yourself real quick?
1:49:51
Thank you. Sorry about that.
1:49:53
For the audio, the senses do not prove the senses.
1:49:58
They're a foundational assumption, right?
1:50:00
If you keep asking why, why? Why like epistemically, like,
1:50:04
how do you know that? How do you know that?
1:50:06
How do you know that? How do you know that eventually
1:50:09
you have to stop somewhere. I stop at my senses.
1:50:12
Now if you ask me, well, why? Again, I just have to tell you
1:50:15
this is the bottom. We hit bedrock, right?
1:50:17
This is my bedrock. Now, for example, you can say
1:50:22
God and I'll be like, well, why? And you'll just be like this is
1:50:26
there is no why behind God. God just is.
1:50:29
That's what I'll say for the senses.
1:50:30
Right now I'll ask you a question.
1:50:33
You think that God, I assume, grounds your epistemology.
1:50:37
How do you know that? What grounds God?
1:50:40
Go ahead. Well, the question is is, is.
1:50:45
The question has a hidden assumption then is that God is
1:50:48
not the ultimate authority. So if I if I appeal to something
1:50:55
that's outside of God, then therefore that the that's that's
1:50:58
going to be God and it's not going to be the God that I
1:51:01
believe in. So that doesn't there's a faulty
1:51:04
assumption there, because you're assuming that God is not the
1:51:07
ultimate authority and I have to appeal to something else outside
1:51:10
of him. Gotcha.
1:51:13
And I would say just one more question if I could ask you real
1:51:16
quick. Did you trust your senses before
1:51:19
you even were aware of God? And please answer as honestly as
1:51:23
you can. Go ahead.
1:51:26
I trust my senses, sure, but they could be wrong, right?
1:51:32
They could be wrong. And the problem is that as an
1:51:36
atheist, your senses are a product of time and chance
1:51:40
acting on matter. As a Christian, my senses are,
1:51:46
although imperfect because of the of the noetic fact of sin.
1:51:50
I still can be certain of some things, not all things, but I
1:51:53
could be certain of some things because I live in a universe
1:51:56
that God created. And there is a a doctrine of
1:52:00
Providence and he keeps it orderly and we're creating His
1:52:04
image and therefore we think his thoughts after him.
1:52:07
So sure, like they could be imperfect.
1:52:10
The problem is that under your epistemic system, your senses
1:52:17
and your reasoning is a. It's it's based on a worldview
1:52:27
of time and chance acting on matter, and why what drives you
1:52:31
is the laws of physics and the laws of chemistry.
1:52:33
There's nothing else outside. Of that, can I quickly add
1:52:36
something? It's not just that, it's also
1:52:37
evolution, right? And there's an evolutionary
1:52:39
pressure to get it right. But that's a.
1:52:42
That's a presupposition from your part.
1:52:44
You didn't prove that it's a presupposition from your part.
1:52:47
Hold on, just let me finish. Natural selection is A is a
1:52:51
evolutionary pressure because AD do not get it right, right.
1:52:55
So we have an imagination and then we have the real world.
1:52:58
How do we know our imagination is true?
1:53:00
It's it's objective, it connects to the real world.
1:53:03
Well, if it doesn't, a lot of us die.
1:53:05
So we're the products of people that managed to survive and
1:53:10
reproduce and to do that. That's a presupposition, Sir.
1:53:15
Back and forth the senses we're. Going to We're going to go to
1:53:20
the next guy, so go ahead finish and then Richie, if you want
1:53:22
another one, just re request, all right.
1:53:24
Just to be clear. Thank you.
1:53:25
I appreciate it. Thank you.
1:53:26
God bless you guys. Thank you.
1:53:29
Just to be clear, the senses are representation, but the
1:53:31
evolution? No, it's derived from our
1:53:35
understanding, which is based on the senses, right?
1:53:38
So evolution, I don't assume evolution.
1:53:41
There's evidence for evolution, right?
1:53:43
We have models that predict we can see it with artificial
1:53:46
selection, we have fossils. So I don't think I assume
1:53:49
evolution, but I do assume my senses go ahead.
1:53:54
All right. We got Anthony, Jonathan and
1:53:56
theolones. One question, one follow up.
1:54:06
Hey, can you hear me? I'm sorry.
1:54:08
Yep. So I'll ask evidentialism, could
1:54:11
you be wrong about everything you claim to know?
1:54:18
OK. Just want to follow up on that
1:54:19
because I don't know what you mean.
1:54:21
Are you saying that if I have 100% certainty, is that what
1:54:24
you're asking me? No, I mean, do you know, out of
1:54:27
everything you claim to know in the world, I mean, would you
1:54:31
make, would you ever make a knowledge claim?
1:54:35
Yes. So you'd say.
1:54:37
I know that you're speaking to me you'd.
1:54:38
Say you do know things right. Yep, I know you're speaking to
1:54:42
me. Could you be wrong about
1:54:44
everything you claim to know? Could I be wrong?
1:54:49
If I'm if I'm ultra skeptical, which I'm not, yes, but I'm not
1:54:54
ultra skeptical. I mentioned 4 epistemic stages
1:54:58
and I'm not a postmodern A postmodern might might say.
1:55:02
You know my I don't really have proof for my senses so yeah, I
1:55:06
guess I could be wrong about everything.
1:55:07
But I'm I'm not that right so I I I do admit the limitations of
1:55:11
my reasoning. I think everybody honest should,
1:55:15
but I do trust my reasoning. I just know it's limited but I
1:55:19
trust it. So I would say it's I would say
1:55:24
I do have. Can you silence yourself?
1:55:28
Sorry man, it's just a lot of air.
1:55:31
I would say that I do have certainty.
1:55:32
I don't have 100% certainty. Could I be wrong?
1:55:38
Sure, I'm open minded but my senses are my senses are the
1:55:42
only thing that are going to correct me, right.
1:55:45
I don't. I do not believe I'm in the
1:55:46
Matrix, but if I open my eyes and I you know I actually see
1:55:50
I'm in the Matrix, then I'll believe that then.
1:55:53
But only my senses can correct me.
1:55:56
Go ahead. You want to add something?
1:55:59
All right. We're moving on to Jonathan
1:56:01
Anthony rerequested. Go
1:56:13
ahead. Hello, how are you all this
1:56:14
evening? I'm good, doing good.
1:56:19
So my question is for evidentialism.
1:56:21
And I kind of feel like I'm, I'm cheating because Daniel's had no
1:56:24
question so far, so he might just be sitting there with his
1:56:26
feet up. And, you know, we're all just
1:56:28
asking you questions. Pretty.
1:56:31
Much I also want to say that I really kind of appreciate the
1:56:34
way that you've handled yourself eventualism, just because I've
1:56:37
done these spaces before and they are not fun, especially
1:56:41
when you can't see people's facials, expressions.
1:56:43
You know, there's a lot of stuff in there, so I really appreciate
1:56:44
the way that you've handled yourself of these questions and
1:56:48
the debate itself. So I I I really appreciate that.
1:56:51
I guess my main question is a little bit different than what
1:56:53
other people have been asking. You've said several times that
1:56:56
you used to be a Christian when you were much younger, but the
1:57:00
Holy Bible in itself defines what a Christian is very
1:57:03
uniquely. And it kind of sounds like from
1:57:05
the conversation that you've had, that your experience you
1:57:08
were just kind of raised being told this was true, but you
1:57:12
didn't necessarily believe it wholeheartedly and meet the
1:57:15
other definitions of what a Christian is according to the
1:57:17
Holy Bible. So my question is, do you think
1:57:20
that your definition of what a Christian is, is a standard and
1:57:23
that you were a Christian? Or is it possible that you
1:57:26
didn't meet the definition of the Holy Bible and that you
1:57:29
weren't a Christian? That's an excellent question.
1:57:33
I'll answer it and then you can respond something and then we'll
1:57:37
move on. I do believe that I was a true
1:57:40
Christian. I can tell you a little bit
1:57:41
about it. So it's going to sound
1:57:45
ridiculous because I actually believed it.
1:57:47
I feel like a lot of Christians really do not believe the Bible
1:57:51
or Christianity. It seems right.
1:57:53
They take everything metaphorical.
1:57:54
I really believed in it. Really.
1:57:57
Hardly. A lot of Christians do not read
1:57:58
their Bible. What's up with that?
1:58:00
Right? Or a lot of Christians cry like
1:58:03
SOB when somebody dies, right? And they cry as if they're
1:58:08
really, really dead. So I I actually had questioned
1:58:11
how much people actually believe in God, you know?
1:58:13
But I really did believe in God to a ridiculous degree.
1:58:16
I was paranoid. I thought the coming of Jesus
1:58:19
was coming. And I was very paranoid.
1:58:21
I was very delusional. I thought, I thought that like,
1:58:26
you know, sometimes at the night you get the creeps.
1:58:28
I thought I was demons. I was super religious Christian.
1:58:33
I still hold a lot of, like, my beliefs now that I'm an atheist.
1:58:36
I didn't change everything, but I did change a lot of my
1:58:38
supernatural beliefs, but a lot, But a lot of my moral beliefs I
1:58:42
kept because I didn't see a problem with that.
1:58:45
But a lot of my, like, supernatural beliefs, those went
1:58:47
away. I used to pray to God to give me
1:58:50
evidence of his existence so that I could, so that I could
1:58:53
share with humanity. I really believed in God.
1:58:55
I didn't need evidence, but I wanted to convince humanity.
1:58:58
So it's going to sound ridiculous to you, but I used to
1:59:01
try to walk on water because Jesus said that we'll do greater
1:59:05
things than him in his name, right?
1:59:07
The Bible says that Jesus walked on water.
1:59:10
The Bible says I can do greater things than Jesus.
1:59:13
I should be able to walk on air, for that matter, right?
1:59:15
So I was like, OK, I'm going to try to walk on water.
1:59:17
It never worked. But I really, really believed.
1:59:21
I was always searching for evidence on YouTube, like
1:59:23
miracles or something, and I was just bombarded by hoaxes, right?
1:59:28
The sounds from hell. I was like, oh, that's evidence.
1:59:30
Finally, it was a hoax. It came from a movie, a lot of
1:59:33
these miracles from churches. It's fair tricks.
1:59:35
And I was just getting so desperate that I was looking and
1:59:38
looking for evidence and I couldn't find it.
1:59:40
And then I was reading the Bible and there's some contradictions
1:59:43
in there, which is a problem. And there's some immorality in
1:59:46
there, which is a problem as well, right?
1:59:48
It seems like Jesus is nothing like his father, Right, Jesus?
1:59:53
Sorry, the Father God seems a little to be a little bit more
1:59:56
cruel, right? Seems to condone slavery.
1:59:59
And then we could talk about that cause.
2:00:01
A lot of Christians deny that. But I I I've read it, maybe we
2:00:04
could discuss it later. So through morality, and through
2:00:09
just failing to find evidence and even find finding the
2:00:12
contrary, I lost my faith. But I actually believed.
2:00:17
And I was very I was a paranoid person.
2:00:19
And I was constantly trying to, like, do miracles because I
2:00:24
believe that was possible. But it never really was.
2:00:27
And then I lost my faith and I got depressed for like
2:00:31
seriously, seriously depressed for like 3 days or four days,
2:00:35
probably a week. And then months happened by and
2:00:38
I got better slowly. But yeah, it actually hurts to
2:00:42
lose your faith. It really hurts.
2:00:43
I don't know why anybody would want to be an atheist, because
2:00:49
there's no super, there's like no afterlife.
2:00:52
There's You have a limited life on Earth.
2:00:55
That sucks, man. Nobody wants to.
2:00:56
I want to live forever. I want to live, but no, I get
2:00:59
like 50 to 70 years. That's horrible.
2:01:02
I want to live more, but. Keep talking to my mind,
2:01:05
evidentialist. I'll get you out of atheism,
2:01:07
don't you worry. OK, man.
2:01:10
Sorry you have a want some back and forward or are you done?
2:01:14
And then I have a question for Daniel.
2:01:15
So we don't keep him doing nothing here.
2:01:21
All right, so I think Jonathan's done.
2:01:23
We request. Can I ask a quick question?
2:01:26
Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.
2:01:28
OK Daniel, this is for you. So when your reason does not
2:01:35
match with your senses and you want them to match again, which
2:01:40
would you change? Go ahead.
2:01:44
Can you give me an example? Sure.
2:01:47
So let let me give you an example.
2:01:49
You're writing a mathematical equation that you think explains
2:01:52
something about the world, the real world at your hypothetical
2:01:56
world, but a real world. So you write this math equation,
2:01:59
blah blah blah blah blah, and then you look at the real world
2:02:02
and it does not conform to your equation.
2:02:05
Which would you change? Your sensory experience or the
2:02:10
your reasoning? Well, in order to know or to
2:02:17
trust your senses or to understand the real world, you
2:02:21
need both your senses and your reasoning.
2:02:23
So if I had an idea about the world and I observed like, how
2:02:31
about a different example and you tell me if it's not fair or
2:02:34
whatever. Sure no pick pick pick your.
2:02:37
Example. Let's say I have this belief
2:02:40
that there's gold in my backyard because of the color of my
2:02:44
grass. OK.
2:02:46
And because I read some books that said that, that would be
2:02:49
the case. So I I have this belief based on
2:02:53
authors that I trust that there will be gold in my backyard if I
2:02:56
pull out the grass and then I pull out the grass and there's
2:02:59
no gold. So in that situation, I would
2:03:03
believe that I would take it that, you know, those authors
2:03:08
were probably mistaken or maybe, you know, I was mistaken about
2:03:12
the color of the grass, you know.
2:03:13
But obviously there's something that isn't adding up.
2:03:17
So I think I'm giving you the answer that you want.
2:03:24
I would say there's nothing wrong with that.
2:03:26
You can still, if you use my epistemology doesn't mean you
2:03:30
become an atheist. It means you still have senses,
2:03:33
you still have reasoning, but you ultimately have to predict
2:03:37
or directly sense that'll. That's all it means.
2:03:40
It's a lot of scientists, sorry. Just real quick, there's a lot
2:03:43
of scientists that actually believe in God, so that should
2:03:46
tell you something, right? So go ahead.
2:03:48
The thing that I'm trying to explain to you that you're not
2:03:51
understanding is that if I used your epistemology consistently,
2:03:55
because I used to be an atheist, I used to think exactly the same
2:03:59
way as you. As far as I have to see it.
2:04:01
It's got to be verified by my senses.
2:04:05
And what I realized is that I was special pleading all over
2:04:09
the place. There were all kinds of things
2:04:11
that I believed in that are not able to be verified by the
2:04:15
senses and you haven't realized that yet.
2:04:19
But what I'm trying to tell you is if I used your epistemology
2:04:22
and I was consistent about it, I couldn't believe anything.
2:04:26
All of it goes. That's what I'm trying to tell
2:04:28
you. Your system is self defeating,
2:04:33
self defeating. It cannot account for knowledge
2:04:35
or anything. I would say like, so you have
2:04:38
axioms that build up your system, but you cannot use that
2:04:42
system to judge the axioms itself.
2:04:44
That's a problem with epistemology.
2:04:47
A lot of math. Well, that would be circular.
2:04:49
A lot of mathematicians, philosophers have actually
2:04:51
debated this. Girdle has this incompleteness
2:04:53
theorem, for example. It's a problem, right?
2:04:56
And it's all it's a problem if you want 100% certainty, which I
2:05:00
do, but if I cannot get it, fine, I'll just get whatever is
2:05:03
next, right? I'll just get what's you know,
2:05:06
down the line, which is I'll get certainty but not 100%.
2:05:10
Let me ask you a question. OK?
2:05:16
Maybe if with a question I could reveal what I'm getting at with
2:05:19
what I said before. You believe God grounds like
2:05:23
epistemology and even ontology, right?
2:05:26
Yeah, I believe God is a necessary being that must exist
2:05:29
in order for the preconditions of intelligibility to be met.
2:05:33
And I also believe that God is a necessary precondition for the
2:05:37
possibility of knowledge. I can explain in detail if you
2:05:41
need, more if you don't. Understand what I mean?
2:05:43
Got you. Now I'll ask you a question and
2:05:45
I'll keep asking it until we get somewhere.
2:05:49
So how do you know that? Well, because I have knowledge.
2:05:54
Because to know nothing is a contradiction.
2:05:59
All claims that are about truth, for example, or, say falsehood.
2:06:05
If you say something is false, you're also saying that it's
2:06:08
true that this thing is false. And in the same way, whenever
2:06:12
you say I don't know, that's also a knowledge claim in and of
2:06:16
itself. So to say that everything is
2:06:19
false is a contradiction because that's a true statement.
2:06:22
Everything is false is a truth statement.
2:06:25
Everything cannot be false. But everything could be true
2:06:29
because falseness gets its existence from truth.
2:06:33
You could say that falseness is like the shadow of truth.
2:06:36
And in the same way, ignorance can only exist if knowledge
2:06:39
exists. Meaning that for a being to say
2:06:42
I know nothing is a contradiction.
2:06:44
So we have to have knowledge because to say I know nothing is
2:06:49
a contradiction. And that's actually why atheism
2:06:53
cannot be true. Because in the atheist
2:06:55
worldview, they can't justify or account for how they know.
2:06:58
They can't get rid of the knowledge, but they can't
2:07:00
account for how they have the knowledge.
2:07:03
And the reason for that is because if you say I know
2:07:06
everything, or sorry if if you say I know 1%, right, we both
2:07:11
agree, we both have knowledge. I say, well, how much do you
2:07:13
have? And you say, well, I have, let's
2:07:16
say you have 1% of all possible knowledge.
2:07:19
So we draw a circle. Here's all the possible
2:07:21
knowledge that you could possibly have, and you know 1%
2:07:24
of it. Well, if that's the case and you
2:07:27
say I know 1%, is it true that the knowledge that you don't
2:07:32
know or the 99% can prove you wrong about the knowledge that
2:07:36
you think you know? And the answer is yes, of
2:07:39
course, that's what happens when new information is revealed.
2:07:43
So if you can be wrong about the 1%, then you really can't know
2:07:48
anything unless you know everything.
2:07:49
You have to know the whole in order to know apart and so.
2:07:54
And you you think you know the whole?
2:07:56
No, no I don't. But I'm getting to that.
2:08:01
What what I'm trying to explain is that in order to know
2:08:04
anything you have to know everything.
2:08:07
Or the only other possibility is you have revelation from someone
2:08:12
who does know everything. And I believe in a God who is
2:08:16
all knowing, and since I have knowledge, it then follows that
2:08:19
he must have revealed knowledge to me.
2:08:22
Got you. So you know somebody?
2:08:24
God. Is a necessary precondition for
2:08:26
knowledge. Right.
2:08:27
So you got somebody who knows everything, but how do you know?
2:08:31
Couldn't he be lying to you? Right.
2:08:32
Like that's I could keep asking questions like this and just
2:08:35
real quick. Sorry, just real quick.
2:08:37
I just because there's some objections and then I think I'll
2:08:40
move on because I'm actually hogging a lot of time here.
2:08:42
But if you say I know nothing, that is self refuting, right?
2:08:47
In a way, but you can, you can make it, you can make it so it's
2:08:50
not like Socrates made it, so it's not, he said.
2:08:53
All I know is I know nothing. There.
2:08:55
No, that's still a contradiction.
2:08:57
That's like saying the only truth.
2:08:59
No, I just that there's no truth.
2:09:01
It's either there's no truth or there's a truth.
2:09:04
It's a contradiction. But still, Socrates blatantly
2:09:06
contradicted himself. It's actually not a
2:09:08
contradiction. Sorry about it.
2:09:10
He's not saying he's not saying there is no truth.
2:09:13
He's saying there is no truth except in one case.
2:09:15
That's what he's saying. So.
2:09:17
So if that would remove the contradictions.
2:09:20
You know because he says there is no truth except for this.
2:09:24
So there is a truth. Therefore there cannot be no
2:09:27
truth and a truth. That's a contradiction.
2:09:30
I'll give you an example like I could say you could say there's
2:09:32
no God except, you know, the Trinity or whatever.
2:09:36
That's not a contradiction. You're saying the only gods that
2:09:40
exists are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2:09:42
Like that's not a contradiction. I can move on to other things
2:09:46
that I just had in my mind real quick.
2:09:47
So I see your point. You're saying there can't be
2:09:52
falsehoods, right? I just don't see how that
2:09:54
connects to God. And then just real quick,
2:09:57
another point to say that if you deny the law of non
2:10:00
contradiction, that would be like self refuting.
2:10:03
It's actually not, it's just inconsistent, right?
2:10:06
So like if you ask somebody like is the law of non contradiction
2:10:10
false? If they say yes or no, they're
2:10:15
they kind of have to accept the principle right?
2:10:17
But if they say, if you ask them, if you ask them like do
2:10:20
you deny sorry, do you think the law of non contradiction is
2:10:24
false? If they say yes and no, they're
2:10:29
not really, they're not really, it's not really self refuting
2:10:32
anymore, they're just inconsistent, right?
2:10:34
You'll be like that's contradictory and they'll say
2:10:36
right, So they'll say yes and no.
2:10:40
So they'll just contradict themselves if they deny the
2:10:42
principle. But it's not necessarily self
2:10:44
refuting, it's just that it doesn't match the real world.
2:10:48
So you see you sound crazy to people.
2:10:50
So sorry, I'll let you finish to whatever you want to touch on
2:10:54
and then. Since you since you brought up
2:10:56
logic, I'll just say that the nature of logic, if you actually
2:10:59
think about it, the logic is immaterial, right?
2:11:03
You've never held a law of logic in your hand.
2:11:05
It's universal meaning. It's true in all places.
2:11:08
It's a transcendent meaning. It's above all of us.
2:11:10
Everyone came into this debate with the laws of logic.
2:11:13
In their mind they wouldn't accept if I said, well, I have
2:11:17
this logic, so therefore I'm right, right.
2:11:20
Logic transcends all of us, these laws.
2:11:23
So you've got these things that are law, law like and that
2:11:27
they're universal, immaterial, conceptual, eternal.
2:11:30
Meaning that at no time could it have been true that A did not
2:11:34
equal A. And the question is, why would
2:11:37
an atheist believe in such a thing, given their worldview?
2:11:41
How does? An atheist OK, sorry, just real
2:11:45
quick. So these are universals, right?
2:11:48
They're abstractions. But abstractions are built from
2:11:51
particulars, right? And so let me just real quickly,
2:11:55
like, describe the error. You can say things like can you
2:12:00
show me red? I cannot show you red.
2:12:02
I can show you a thing that's red, right?
2:12:05
I can show you a red apple, a red car, red hair.
2:12:10
But I can't show you red. Red is an abstraction.
2:12:13
Red is. But but here's the thing.
2:12:16
This abstraction is built from particulars, right?
2:12:20
And the abstractions only exist inside our minds.
2:12:23
So that's totally fine. It's just a predictive tool.
2:12:25
That's what it is, the abstractions.
2:12:27
So it it would be the reification fallacy.
2:12:30
If you want me to, if you want me to treat an abstraction as if
2:12:33
it were a concrete, then I I cannot do that.
2:12:35
But that's just a a fallacy, a known fallacy.
2:12:38
I cannot give you red. I can give you a thing that is
2:12:41
red, right? I I don't know if I'm making
2:12:44
sense like when we're doing mathematics.
2:12:46
Discovered or are they invented? That's interesting.
2:12:51
Nice, I would say it's discovered, but but we invent
2:12:57
like symbols for it. Like.
2:12:58
I'll give you an example. Yeah, but that means that it
2:13:00
existed before we came around. We didn't create them.
2:13:04
They were already here. I agree our world is consistent
2:13:08
and we get to know our world is consistent through our senses.
2:13:11
Just real quick. Did we invent cat?
2:13:15
CAT. No, I don't believe.
2:13:19
That we did. And.
2:13:21
And that's how you see logic. OK, we did not invent cats.
2:13:25
Cats existed here. We did not create cats, but we
2:13:28
named cats. We gave them the label.
2:13:31
And that's what we do with the real world.
2:13:33
So I go ahead. But in in your world view,
2:13:35
frankly, you shouldn't believe in Katniss, because in your
2:13:39
world view, you're only seeing particular instances of
2:13:42
creatures that look like quote UN quote Cat.
2:13:44
You're seeing a particular and another particular and another
2:13:48
particular. That's not Katniss.
2:13:50
You're not seeing Katniss. You're just believing in
2:13:53
Katniss, or darkness or darkness, which is a universal
2:13:57
which doesn't follow from your worldview, because in your
2:14:00
worldview all you have is particulars.
2:14:02
How do you justify an account for universals within a
2:14:06
worldview that is only only has particulars and can account for
2:14:10
them? Got.
2:14:11
You I don't want to hog all the time, but this is a great
2:14:13
question so I just want to stick to it a little bit as much as
2:14:16
the moderator lets us. Anyway, this is a great
2:14:19
question. So we do experience particulars
2:14:22
and then we invent the universals, right?
2:14:25
So and This is why when you define things you find issues
2:14:30
like what is a table, right? And then you.
2:14:33
I think I could show you some particulars where you are not
2:14:36
sure if it's table or not or like funny discussions like what
2:14:39
is a soup? Is a serial a soup, right?
2:14:42
Because some definitions it would be, some it's not.
2:14:45
So this is so humans create language, right?
2:14:50
Universals are language. It's how we categorize things.
2:14:53
And we we we don't, we do not always share the same
2:14:56
definitions or the same categories, which is not a
2:14:59
problem as long as you as you define your terms, right.
2:15:03
You can define things differently.
2:15:05
Just say what you mean and it's totally fine.
2:15:08
But yeah, but there's there's problems with categories because
2:15:11
some particulars we're not sure like how however we define human
2:15:17
some of our some of our some humanoid things may or may not
2:15:21
count. You know what I'm saying?
2:15:23
Or for example, Pluto. I don't know if it's a planet or
2:15:26
not anymore but definitions can change.
2:15:29
So your so your categories can change.
2:15:31
But that's just human language. We create the universals to make
2:15:35
it easy for us. Even if we get to concepts like
2:15:39
red, we we we have shades of red, right?
2:15:44
We don't just have like perfect red.
2:15:47
Go ahead. You're saying that we just
2:15:50
create these abstractions, but you're talking about them like
2:15:53
they're real, but at in the same instance, in your view, we
2:15:57
created all these gods and yet you reject belief in them.
2:16:01
So once again, I'm trying to explain to you that you're not
2:16:04
being consistent. Because if you were going to be
2:16:06
consistent, when I say that I believe in this God, you say,
2:16:10
well, I need evidence for that. You're doing, you're saying I
2:16:13
need evidence for belief. You know, to to justify
2:16:16
believing in God. But then on the other hand,
2:16:19
you're saying, well, when it comes to these universals, I've
2:16:22
never seen Katniss or dogness. I can't prove it scientifically,
2:16:26
but and and and I also believe that we're making it up just
2:16:29
like I believe that we're making up God.
2:16:31
But I'm going to believe in it. Do you see how you're special
2:16:34
pleading like nothing about your piston.
2:16:38
Piston. I cannot say this word tonight.
2:16:40
I'm sorry. There's nothing about your
2:16:42
system, Yeah, nothing about your epistemology is consistent.
2:16:47
You're just going to be special pleading and contradicting
2:16:50
yourself all over the place. I don't agree there's a very big
2:16:54
difference between Katniss and godness.
2:16:57
Can you like, try to think about it for a second?
2:17:00
I'll give you the answer if you cannot think about it, but
2:17:02
what's the difference between like, a cat and a God?
2:17:04
There's a major difference here. When it comes to the evidence
2:17:08
for Katniss and godness based on your epistemology, the
2:17:13
difference is none. There is no evidence that
2:17:16
Katniss exists, and you're saying that there's no evidence
2:17:19
that God exists, yet you accept the fact that Katniss exists
2:17:23
even though you even just said that we made it?
2:17:26
Up. And yet you don't accept that
2:17:28
God exists, so that's special pleading.
2:17:31
Gotcha. So let me just untangle a couple
2:17:33
of. Things keep in mind real quick.
2:17:34
We got other questions. It's like it's your guys's time,
2:17:36
your debate, but up to you. If you want to keep going, up to
2:17:40
you. OK, OK, I'll just say one thing
2:17:43
then, real quick. So abstractions.
2:17:46
These are ideas, right? Some of our ideas exist only in
2:17:50
our head. Now some of ideas, some of our
2:17:52
ideas also exist outside of our head, right?
2:17:56
So how do we know if our idea is also a concrete, that's
2:18:00
objective truth right now. There is a difference between
2:18:03
like cats and God. Empirical evidence.
2:18:06
That's the difference, right? We can create whole categories
2:18:10
of like *. Wars.
2:18:12
You only have instances of particular beings.
2:18:15
You don't have any instance or scientific proof that Katniss
2:18:20
exists. Katniss.
2:18:22
Purely abstract. I'll get, I'll get to that.
2:18:25
I'll promise. I'll get to that.
2:18:27
That's a good point, by the way. I'll get to that.
2:18:31
When your abstractions are built on particulars, that's a good
2:18:33
abstraction. It's an objective abstraction.
2:18:35
If your abstraction is not based on particulars, concrete, and
2:18:40
it's all in your head, right? Abstracts are not all in her
2:18:43
head, right? Well, if they're objectively
2:18:45
true, objectively true abstracts are true in and out of her head,
2:18:49
right? So we do.
2:18:50
So we have a category called cats, and then we have
2:18:52
particulars that fit that category.
2:18:55
We can define what cats are and then we look at the real world.
2:18:58
If things fit that definition, we give them that label.
2:19:01
So that thing exists objectively.
2:19:03
Now we can define what God is and then we can look at the real
2:19:07
world. And if we do not have this
2:19:10
concrete, then we cannot put a label on it.
2:19:12
It's just an abstraction. If something is an abstract and
2:19:15
a concrete, then it's objectively real.
2:19:16
Now just to answer your question, you were saying that,
2:19:19
but we don't have Katniss. We get to define our terms like.
2:19:23
I think this is just a misunderstanding of what
2:19:24
definitions are. We do not define things into
2:19:27
existence. We create definitions and then
2:19:31
we see if the particulars do or do not fit the definition.
2:19:34
If they do fit the definition, we, you know, tag them with that
2:19:37
label. If they don't fit the
2:19:39
definition, then we just don't give them that label.
2:19:41
So that's how definitions work. Do you have you want anything to
2:19:44
add I? Would just say that when we talk
2:19:48
about universals, we're not really talking about
2:19:51
definitions. Once again, is Katniss something
2:19:57
that's discovered or is it invented?
2:19:59
I would argue just like the laws of logic, it's something that we
2:20:02
discover, but it's not something that we discover scientifically.
2:20:06
You cannot prove Katniss. It's just the universal.
2:20:11
And if you actually study the philosophy behind universals
2:20:15
versus particulars? What I think you would find is
2:20:18
that it's actually strong evidence for the existence of
2:20:21
God, because these types of things are conceptual in nature.
2:20:25
So not only that, but I really don't think you can actually
2:20:29
account for universals within your worldview.
2:20:32
I know you think that you can, but really you're borrowing from
2:20:35
my worldview when we do it. OK, I have to ask you a
2:20:39
question. Final question.
2:20:40
It'll just reveal what I'm trying to get at.
2:20:43
Like, we create definitions, and then if things in the real world
2:20:46
fit that definition, we label them that way.
2:20:48
If not, we don't. We get to create words, right?
2:20:52
That's what that's what humans do.
2:20:54
We create words. We do not create reality, right?
2:20:57
But when we create words, things either fit that definition or
2:21:01
they do not. Now let me ask a question.
2:21:04
What is a table that the universal, the definition,
2:21:07
whatever however you want to call it.
2:21:08
What is a table? What is tableness?
2:21:12
Sure. What is tableness?
2:21:13
Or what is table? Whatever.
2:21:15
Tableness is whatever makes something a table.
2:21:20
So I mean, I would say it's something that people can eat on
2:21:25
that stands above the ground. I mean, they have to really
2:21:30
think about the ontology of tableness, but I think that'll
2:21:35
do for now. Sure that that's a good
2:21:37
definition. And just real quick, I do want
2:21:39
give me 3010 seconds to conclude.
2:21:42
Some people do not use that definition and that's where
2:21:44
you'll find problems. It shouldn't be a problem.
2:21:47
As long as you define your terms, you won't see a problem.
2:21:49
It's like, for example, your definition, a carpet is a table
2:21:53
because it's above the ground and people can eat on it.
2:21:56
A lot of people would not consider that a table.
2:21:57
And that's the problem with all definitions or universes.
2:22:00
Sorry, go ahead. I'll give you the last word.
2:22:02
I do need to respond to that. That has absolutely nothing to
2:22:05
do with the conversation with people may or may not think
2:22:10
because we're talking about universals, and just because
2:22:13
somebody thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't mean that it's really
2:22:18
relevant. So just because other people
2:22:20
define something differently doesn't in any way invalidate
2:22:24
that. You and I are both talking about
2:22:26
universals, and pretty much all human beings do all.
2:22:30
Right. Let's take another question.
2:22:31
Let's take. Another question.
2:22:33
Let us sit. Let us sit.
2:22:34
All right, Theolonious here one one question, one follow up and
2:22:40
then I'll remove you from speaker re request if you need
2:22:43
to. Perfect.
2:22:44
So during the conversation about free will, you said that all of
2:22:50
your beliefs are determined by your nature and nurture, and you
2:22:54
believe you have free will because you identify with nature
2:22:57
and nurture. Correct.
2:23:02
Yeah, I am my genetics. I am my experiences.
2:23:04
Go ahead. OK, so if you're determined by
2:23:07
your nature and nurture, how do you know that you're not
2:23:11
determined to hold false beliefs?
2:23:13
And how is any response to this not also determined by nature
2:23:17
and nurture, which is what's in question?
2:23:21
No. Like what I what I what
2:23:23
convinces me or not is determined by my nature and
2:23:26
nurture, right? As is yours.
2:23:28
Like if I like, I'm making my case, Daniel's making his case.
2:23:32
Whatever you find convincing will be based on your nature and
2:23:35
nurture, your experiences, your genetics.
2:23:38
Like, I'll give you an example. If you have not read certain
2:23:42
books, that will affect you, right?
2:23:44
That's an experience. So yeah, I don't think that's
2:23:47
really radical to say. Sorry, go ahead.
2:23:49
Do you want to add something? Already moved on to the next
2:23:52
one. Now we got Neo all right.
2:24:01
I think he's just listening. So now I'm moving on to.
2:24:03
Now I'm moving on to Anthony. Can you hear me?
2:24:16
I can. Hear.
2:24:20
You So I don't think I really got a straight answer before,
2:24:24
but you mentioned that you don't know anything with 100%
2:24:28
certainty. So what?
2:24:29
Why should we believe anything you've said tonight if you don't
2:24:32
know any of it to be 100% true? Great question.
2:24:37
I I'm answering that quickly and then maybe you can answer back
2:24:39
and forward like one if you want.
2:24:42
Because I'm being intellectually honest, right?
2:24:45
I can. I can lie to you if you want.
2:24:48
I can be dishonest and say actually my system has 100%
2:24:51
certainty, but you know, I'm just trying to be honest.
2:24:55
Honesty is better. You said you're being honest.
2:24:58
Yeah, I'm being honest with the limitations of my reasons.
2:25:00
But you're not 100% certain about that, right?
2:25:04
Sure. So you might being dishonest.
2:25:08
OK. That's all.
2:25:10
Thanks. Thank you, Anthony.
2:25:17
Wait, I just want to add one thing.
2:25:18
If somebody tells you I am telling you the truth and I
2:25:21
would never lie to you, I never lie.
2:25:24
Maybe be a little skeptical, OK? All right, next we got Maverick
2:25:29
Christian up. You're good to go, Maverick
2:25:41
Christian. All right, well, since they're
2:25:48
not available, they did hit me up with a question, so I'll go
2:25:53
ahead and ask it for them unless they decide to chime in.
2:25:56
This was their question. How do we know on atheism that
2:26:00
induction, for example, the future, will probably relevantly
2:26:04
resemble the past is correct? The theists can say that God
2:26:07
designed our cognitive faculties such that when they're
2:26:11
functioning profitably properly, we intuit that induction is
2:26:16
correct. But if atheism is true, how do
2:26:19
we know induction is correct when we know that using sense
2:26:22
experience, for example, it worked in the past so it'll
2:26:25
probably work in the future, is circular reasoning, and thus
2:26:28
fails to deliver knowledge of induction as opposed to mere
2:26:33
true belief? Yeah, that's my question there.
2:26:37
You go. OK, I'll answer then maybe he
2:26:39
could add something if you want. So I'm not saying my senses
2:26:42
prove my senses. I I take my senses as a
2:26:45
foundational assumption. Now the induction thing, we can
2:26:50
see patterns in the world. In the real world patterns don't
2:26:54
always hold up. So we know like conductive
2:26:56
reasoning, like there is issues with it.
2:26:59
OK and like I I don't have like 100% certainty.
2:27:03
So you the best you could do is this, you can notice a pattern
2:27:07
and then you can use it to predict.
2:27:09
But you have to always be open minded and say to yourself, this
2:27:13
could change. And then if it when it does
2:27:16
change, hopefully if there's enough consistency in the real
2:27:20
world so that you can see another another pattern, right?
2:27:24
The real, the truth is this. The real world is changing all
2:27:27
the time. Some things are more consistent
2:27:29
than others, especially the foundational stuff, but there's
2:27:32
a lot of change in the real world.
2:27:33
All you can do is get a pattern, notice it, and then use it.
2:27:37
But then it it probably will change, especially if it's
2:27:40
emergent, and if when it does, try to look for the new pattern.
2:27:45
I don't know if that answers the question.
2:27:48
I'm afraid it doesn't quite. It might not be correctly
2:27:50
understanding that question, just just so that we're clear.
2:27:53
I think the reason why I'm asking is I think there's some
2:27:55
sense which you and Daniel are talking past each other because
2:27:58
Daniel's appealing to God's existence means to make this
2:28:01
type of knowledge possible. So that I said before Athis
2:28:04
could say God designed her faculty such that when you're
2:28:06
functioning properly, we have this intuition that this is the
2:28:08
way that reality works. Now, in atheism, we don't really
2:28:12
have, you know, God giving us this intuition.
2:28:14
So how do we know that the future will probably relevantly
2:28:17
resemble the past? Because if we just say, well we
2:28:19
observed this pattern happening in the past, therefore will
2:28:21
happen in the future, well, that's circular reasoning.
2:28:23
So can you give you have anything besides circular
2:28:26
reasoning that would give us knowledge, as opposed to mere
2:28:28
true belief that the future will in fact probably relevantly
2:28:32
resemble the past? So like me, seeing patterns is
2:28:37
thanks to my senses. Now what justifies my senses?
2:28:41
It's foundational assumption. Like I I don't know if we're
2:28:44
speaking past each other now. A foundational assumption to me
2:28:47
means this is my starting point. There is no why behind it.
2:28:51
This is the thing that gets me the whys, right.
2:28:53
And then I would add something else.
2:28:55
And I would say I feel very confident in my axiom because
2:29:00
everybody here accepts that axiom.
2:29:02
And I believe this because you're here talking to me,
2:29:04
right. I don't believe you're figments
2:29:06
of my imagination and neither do you.
2:29:08
That's why you're here. So I've trusted my senses and so
2:29:11
do you. And not just that.
2:29:12
I'll just add one more thing. You trusted in your senses
2:29:16
before you even were aware of God, right?
2:29:19
A lot of you. Like, I like if somebody tells
2:29:21
me that they were aware of God before they picked up the Bible,
2:29:24
or before they heard some theology, or before they had
2:29:27
some conceptions of God. I don't believe them.
2:29:30
The senses come first, God comes next.
2:29:32
You want to have something else, Maverick?
2:29:35
I wasn't asking about how you know the senses are correct.
2:29:37
I was asking how do you know that the inductive principle
2:29:40
that is that the future will probably relevant resemble the
2:29:43
past. How how that is known because it
2:29:46
seems like theists can provide an explanation for knowledge.
2:29:49
I think that's where Dylan was going at about an atheism that
2:29:52
seems like, well, you don't really have anything that
2:29:55
delivers knowledge. You can do circular reason and
2:29:57
say, well it happened in the past therefore it'll probably
2:29:59
happen in the future. But that that that circular
2:30:01
reasoning wouldn't be wouldn't seem to be giving knowledge it
2:30:03
seems to me. Ed.
2:30:05
Just real quick, can you like talk a little more?
2:30:07
Could you tell me, walk me through how it's circular?
2:30:11
OK. Well, to oversimplify it a bit,
2:30:15
the and the doctor principle in question is that, well, if it
2:30:18
happened in the past, it will probably occur in the future.
2:30:21
So how do we know that belief is correct?
2:30:23
If you say, well, this belief worked in the past, therefore
2:30:26
it'll work in the future, well, that's just using induction and
2:30:29
justify induction. That's circular reasoning and
2:30:31
philosophy. This type of thing is known as a
2:30:33
problem with induction, which is how do you justify it?
2:30:35
My question is related to that and I think what Dylan was
2:30:37
adding that's like well or I'm sorry, Daniel was looking at was
2:30:41
how do we know that induction is correct.
2:30:42
Now it seems like these, and we have an explanation.
2:30:44
But atheism? We could have a true belief,
2:30:46
perhaps, but it doesn't seem like we'd be able to have
2:30:49
knowledge of it because of that circular reasoning problem I
2:30:51
described. Gotcha.
2:30:53
And I, we've had two debates before.
2:30:55
I think you told me that God does not ground inductive
2:30:58
reasoning either. Is that correct?
2:31:00
I'm not saying he, I'm saying God could give us knowledge of
2:31:05
inductive reasoning. That's I think what that I and
2:31:07
myself and Dan was getting at was that God, if God exists, we
2:31:12
could have a means for us to know that the inductive
2:31:15
principle is correct by giving us this, you know, intuition
2:31:18
assume. That.
2:31:19
But how would we know that? But how would we know that?
2:31:23
So that's kind of how. How do we know what?
2:31:26
How do we know that God would give us this Or is giving us
2:31:29
this? Well, and depending on your
2:31:32
theology, you wouldn't necessarily have to know that
2:31:34
God is the one that's doing it. You could be an atheist and
2:31:36
simply have this intuition. You could still have knowledge
2:31:38
of it. The the point is that if God
2:31:41
does exist, he would note that the universe operates this way.
2:31:43
I mean, he created it and he could give us this sort of
2:31:45
intuitive knowledge that it works that way.
2:31:47
So we could least on theism have knowledge that the induction
2:31:50
principle is true. But atheism, it's it's very
2:31:53
difficult to see how we could have knowledge on this
2:31:56
induction. We could have true belief, but I
2:31:58
don't see how you're going to have knowledge on atheism.
2:32:01
Gotcha. So I would say you can say you
2:32:03
have knowledge. I know you can do that.
2:32:04
I could do that too. I just, I I I do not.
2:32:07
I cannot do that in good conscience.
2:32:08
But I could do that, you know, I I don't.
2:32:12
I don't know how God solves anything to be honest.
2:32:14
Technically, because God God knows that the induction
2:32:17
principle is true. He knows everything about how.
2:32:19
Inverse. How does God know that?
2:32:22
I'm not saying how do. We know that God does it.
2:32:25
No, because you're you're saying I know a being who knows
2:32:28
everything, and then he tells. I don't think I'm quite
2:32:31
understanding. I don't think you're quite
2:32:32
understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that on theism it is
2:32:37
possible for us to have knowledge of the inductive
2:32:39
principle. I'm not saying that on on that
2:32:43
that I know that God. I mean that's sort of kind of a
2:32:47
sort of distraction here. I'm saying that if theism is
2:32:49
true, we could have knowledge of the inductive principle in the
2:32:53
way that I described. But on atheism, it does not seem
2:32:55
like we would have knowledge of the inductive.
2:32:57
Principle got you, got you, got you.
2:32:58
So you're saying if then, right? Yeah.
2:33:01
Yeah. And I would say the problem
2:33:03
there is the if statement because then you have to secure
2:33:05
that. And then here's the thing.
2:33:07
When people are saying if, if, if that's a way to hide your
2:33:12
assumptions or to put them under the carpet.
2:33:13
You know, I could say, you know, if like, for example, you were
2:33:17
saying there's a God that knows everything and then he could
2:33:20
give you knowledge. So if we're working under that
2:33:22
worldview, then you know you have knowledge, right?
2:33:25
I could work under a different worldview, right?
2:33:28
I could have a worldview that if there's natural selection that
2:33:32
selects for reasoning, then humans would have reasoning.
2:33:37
I could have that worldview too, right?
2:33:38
And I actually, actually, I do have that worldview, so that's
2:33:42
fine. I don't see what's the problem
2:33:44
with my worldview then, compared to yours.
2:33:46
Well, again, because how is it on atheism, we do have knowledge
2:33:51
of induction. You could you could think this
2:33:52
way. So here's if I were to put on my
2:33:54
atheist that I could say, well, it's because that natural
2:33:57
selection gave us this, this inductive principle gave us this
2:33:59
intuition, and that's how we know it.
2:34:02
Now the problem is that why? Why is it that natural selection
2:34:04
gives us intuition of induction? Well, because it works so far,
2:34:07
so far in the past. And there's it'll.
2:34:09
Well. It's not because of that.
2:34:11
It's because if it doesn't give us this, we die.
2:34:15
That's why. OK, but then how do we have
2:34:18
knowledge that the universe will operate, Will probably operate
2:34:21
this way? I'm not saying.
2:34:22
How do we have the belief it does?
2:34:24
How does it give us knowledge it'll operate this way?
2:34:27
And yeah, you can come up with an explanation for the
2:34:29
intuition. The problem is.
2:34:31
I could do. Existence.
2:34:33
No, but I could come up with an explanation.
2:34:34
You could come up with an explanation.
2:34:36
Now I would say mine is more what I'm.
2:34:37
Asking for is an explanation on atheism, how we have knowledge
2:34:40
that the future probably resemble past.
2:34:43
Got your Bayesian thinking, the senses, but just real quick,
2:34:47
just real quick word. We have a world inside her head,
2:34:49
A world outside of her head. Like you can imagine things and
2:34:52
you cannot see them. Like, like a one I like to say
2:34:55
is imagine there's a four £400 gorilla in your room right now.
2:34:59
You can imagine it, but you can't see it.
2:35:01
So the question is, how do we know when our imagination is
2:35:04
conforming to the real world? How do we know that?
2:35:09
I would say it's through natural selection, the ones that if you
2:35:14
don't know where you're located in reality and what you have to
2:35:19
do to get out of danger. If you do not know that, if
2:35:21
you're just stuck in your imagination and you do not know
2:35:24
how to do that in the real world, you die.
2:35:26
You can fall off a Cliff. You can get eaten by a smarter
2:35:30
predator that the smarter predator predator that actually
2:35:33
can do this. That's actually why we believe
2:35:36
hunters are actually smarter than the prey.
2:35:39
Anyway, there is reasons why if you cannot accurately predict
2:35:43
you die now, your prediction will not be 100% because
2:35:47
patterns do change, right? You can, you can, like have you
2:35:51
can see, pretend you're a hunter.
2:35:54
You can see where your prey is moving right.
2:35:57
You can see because they usually have like routes that they
2:36:00
commonly use. So you can you can through
2:36:03
inductive reasoning, say say you can through inductive reasoning
2:36:08
plan you know where to ambush your prey or where to wait.
2:36:12
But sometimes a pattern changes right and then when it does you
2:36:16
can starve. So natural selection has has
2:36:19
given us inductive reasoning and has also given us ability to
2:36:22
change based on based on when the patterns patterns change.
2:36:27
Sorry, did I still answer your question or not?
2:36:30
Really. No, I'm afraid not.
2:36:31
All you need was to say here's an explanation on atheism for
2:36:34
all we have the belief in abduction.
2:36:36
I I I grant you that I asked for an explanation of how we have
2:36:41
knowledge of abduction, not true belief.
2:36:43
Knowledge that the future will probably relevantly resemble the
2:36:46
past. I'm afraid all you did is give
2:36:48
me an explanation for all we have the belief.
2:36:50
I mean, do you think that the scenario you've described
2:36:52
actually gives us an explanation?
2:36:54
Not for the belief, For the knowledge, Yeah, for the
2:36:58
knowledge. I would say yes, because if it's
2:37:01
only true in your head. Pretend you're a prey or a
2:37:04
hunter, whatever. Pretend you're an animal and
2:37:06
something is true only inside your head.
2:37:09
You're completely disconnected from the real world.
2:37:12
You can imagine how it's easy to die, right?
2:37:15
If and also not just the imagination, just the senses.
2:37:20
Imagine that you're you're seeing.
2:37:24
Imagine that you're seeing like a flat ground, but in reality
2:37:27
there's a Cliff and your senses are lying to you.
2:37:29
Just imagine this. Your senses are bringing,
2:37:32
bringing. Sorry, I've been talking.
2:37:35
About getting a bit far afield from what I was asking here.
2:37:38
Because I think this is important.
2:37:39
Just real quick, I'll finish up. Imagine you're in a you're,
2:37:43
you're in reality, you're in a Cliff.
2:37:46
OK, there is a drop off point and it's like 1000 feet down but
2:37:50
your senses are lying to you. Your senses are oh damn, I am
2:37:54
actually getting sorry about that.
2:37:55
I was I'm asking, I'm telling you why the senses are correct.
2:37:59
Are you asking about induction, right?
2:38:01
Yeah, I was asking induction because the scenario that you
2:38:03
described where natural selection gives us belief, I
2:38:05
mean, what is the evolutionary algorithm here?
2:38:06
Well, this this type of reasoning, induction, inductive
2:38:10
reasoning worked well in the past.
2:38:11
Therefore I will give him the intuition that'll probably work
2:38:14
in the future. That's just another kind of
2:38:15
circular reasoning. It doesn't slightly would give
2:38:16
us knowledge. I mean, I mean Daniel, am I
2:38:20
understanding correctly? This is the sort of thing which
2:38:21
you you had in mind with on theism and something like
2:38:24
induction gives us knowledge in. A bit.
2:38:28
I think I can maybe help evidentialist here.
2:38:32
So imagine that we put our hand into a vase that we can't see
2:38:38
inside of, and we pull out a purple marble.
2:38:41
And then we do it again and we pull out another purple marble.
2:38:44
And we don't know how many marbles are in this vase.
2:38:47
But let's say we pull out 100 purple marbles.
2:38:50
How many purple marbles would we need to pull out before we could
2:38:55
safely conclude that all of the marbles remaining in the vase
2:38:59
are purple? Do you understand why I'm
2:39:01
asking? Yeah.
2:39:03
And what I would say is you could never conclude that.
2:39:05
That's why I'm saying you have to be open minded.
2:39:07
You can see a pattern. OK, I see a pattern. 100 marbles
2:39:11
that are purple. So you can use that to predict.
2:39:14
OK, I'm seeing something. It seems to be repeating.
2:39:17
I'm a predict with it. Now you have to be open minded
2:39:19
because you do not know if it's always going to be purple.
2:39:22
The pattern can change and then when it does, hopefully you can
2:39:26
find another pattern. Sometimes you cannot because
2:39:29
it's too much chaos, right? Unless you know what a real
2:39:33
roulette wheel is, right? Sure, yeah.
2:39:38
We're we're you and I are standing at a roulette table and
2:39:41
it spins and it lands on Snake Eyes, right?
2:39:44
00, OK And we watch it and it spins again and we get 00 again
2:39:50
and we just sit there and we watch this thing keep spinning
2:39:53
and it keeps landing on 00 again and again and again.
2:39:57
It does it like 4000 times in a row.
2:40:00
OK. And what's the probability on
2:40:02
that, by the way, more or less. You don't have to give me the
2:40:05
exact. Oh, I I have no idea.
2:40:08
Is it less than 50%? Well, technically, oh, it's not
2:40:12
probable, but the question is if I believe that the table is
2:40:20
fixed and you believe that the table is random, right, that the
2:40:28
roulette table is going to land on zero on the next spin, or 00.
2:40:34
And just to be just to make, just to be clear, I wouldn't
2:40:36
believe it's random. I would believe it's not random
2:40:39
kind. Of the point.
2:40:43
Also how we doing on questions? What do we?
2:40:45
Think that seems just real quick I that seems to be an argument
2:40:48
for for God, not what we're talking about right now.
2:40:52
And I would I could easily. I think that's a whole other
2:40:55
discussion. Problem of induction Because is
2:40:58
it? Yeah, it is because when we.
2:41:01
Say I don't see any problem. Sorry, go.
2:41:05
Ahead will be uniform. We're saying that it has
2:41:07
remained steady. The laws of nature have not
2:41:12
changed, right? So this is like the roulette
2:41:15
wheel. Spinning and landing on zero.
2:41:17
Spinning, landing on zero. It's not changing.
2:41:19
It keeps landing on 0 every second that we're alive.
2:41:22
The laws of physics are remaining the same, but in your
2:41:27
world view, there's no design, there's no designer there, The
2:41:31
universe is not fixed by any intelligent person.
2:41:35
So in your world view, just like if you were truly a person that
2:41:40
believed that the table was not fixed, you should believe that
2:41:43
this is the greatest coincidence of all coincidences, and you
2:41:47
should not believe that it's going to land on 00 on the next
2:41:50
spin. That would be absurd, because
2:41:52
it's incredibly unlikely to. Be honest, I don't know.
2:41:57
Just as much possibility of of landing on anything else.
2:42:00
So what we're trying to say is that given your worldview, why
2:42:04
would it be the case that you believe that the future will
2:42:08
resemble the past? How do you account for that
2:42:10
belief? We know that you can't justify
2:42:12
it. Nobody can.
2:42:13
It begs the question, We're both begging the question, but how
2:42:17
does your worldview justify the belief in the first place?
2:42:21
You see what I'm saying a little bit.
2:42:24
So to be honest, I feel like that was more of an argument for
2:42:27
God instead of induction problem in which we could discuss that,
2:42:31
but it would be a long talk which I you know, if you want we
2:42:33
could do it. Let's move on.
2:42:35
Let's let's get some more questions down.
2:42:37
Just real quick, just the induction part.
2:42:39
I won't discuss the argument argument for God because that's
2:42:43
a long thing to discuss. But the induction problem, I
2:42:46
think this is a lot of philosophers that have not
2:42:49
touched grass in a long time because, you know, we can see
2:42:54
patterns. I don't really see the pattern.
2:42:56
I don't see the problem with that.
2:42:57
If we're getting snake eyes, you said, or whatever, like if we
2:43:00
were getting something that's very improbable every single
2:43:03
time, I can notice the pattern. Now, if I if I knew the
2:43:06
probabilities and I could calculate how improbable that
2:43:10
is, I would actually be like, yeah, somebody is cheating here,
2:43:13
right? That's what I would believe.
2:43:15
Now, as it relates to our universe, do we know the
2:43:18
probability of certain things? I mean, how many universes do we
2:43:21
have? We have 1.
2:43:22
So it's kind of hard to tell the probability of that.
2:43:24
And there's a whole lot of other problems that we could discuss.
2:43:27
Go ahead, Dylan, we. Were going to let somebody else.
2:43:30
Come on, I'll, I'll shut up. All right.
2:43:32
All right. We got three questions right
2:43:34
now. So next is Robert Duck.
2:43:43
Everybody going to hear me? One question, one follow up and
2:43:48
then I'll remove you as speaker. Oh, thank you.
2:43:50
So First off I apologize for the handle I started to count to
2:43:54
follow sports comedians and I just want to say that this is a
2:43:58
wonderful space I appreciate what you're doing.
2:44:01
Also I think we should thank evidentialism for for fielding
2:44:07
these questions. I I I feel like he's in a
2:44:09
difficult place and he sees doing a good job and and I
2:44:13
appreciate that. So my my question I I do wonder
2:44:20
whether we're so so to begin with we we we've we've covered
2:44:24
Hume's issue of of inductive reasoning.
2:44:28
So that's fine. I I I wonder whether there's a
2:44:35
category error happening in this conversation.
2:44:38
So when when we discuss epistemology and we're talking
2:44:43
about the best theism or atheism, are we discussing the
2:44:48
easiest or are we discussing the most effective?
2:44:52
And I I I'm not sure what best means here.
2:44:56
So I I suppose my question would be to to to the theists.
2:45:04
It sounds like if if you're if you're positing an epistemology
2:45:08
that relies on a deity you first need to prove that deity and and
2:45:14
to the atheists, well they don't.
2:45:21
So so if if we're talking troopersmology we're talking
2:45:24
like the broader scape of of of what is known and unknown
2:45:28
there's an onus on the theist to build that foundation 1st and I
2:45:34
I'm not I'm not seeing this in that discussion and I'll I'll
2:45:38
stop talking now. Thank you first.
2:45:42
Of all, I would just say that in order to prove anything, it is
2:45:46
going to depend on one's world view in the 1st place.
2:45:50
All right. You can't prove to somebody
2:45:53
who's a flat earther that the earth is round unless they are
2:45:56
actually open to it. You can't prove anything to
2:45:59
anyone that they don't want to believe.
2:46:01
So saying that someone needs to prove something really kind of
2:46:05
misses the mark as to what we're talking about right now, which
2:46:08
is worldviews, because that's the whole point.
2:46:11
The point is, evidentialist and I are both coming into this with
2:46:16
different worldviews and one's worldview, How one looks at
2:46:22
facts, how one interpreted interprets evidence.
2:46:27
So it's not really a matter of proof.
2:46:29
But do I believe that I can prove God?
2:46:32
Yes, I do, and I have actually talked about that.
2:46:35
I said that God is a necessary precondition for the existence
2:46:39
of knowledge. We have knowledge, therefore God
2:46:41
exists. And I went through and explained
2:46:44
that a little bit. And I've also written a very
2:46:47
long thread all about the other necessary preconditions for
2:46:52
intelligibility, like our ability to reason and the
2:46:56
existence of logic etcetera, which all explain why God is
2:47:01
required for these things to even be the case.
2:47:04
These are transcendental arguments, and in case you don't
2:47:07
know what I mean by that, which based on what you said, you
2:47:10
probably do. But for the listener, A
2:47:13
transcendental argument says what are the necessary
2:47:16
preconditions for a thing to be the case.
2:47:18
So for example, I am thinking right now what is a necessary
2:47:23
precondition for me to be able to think?
2:47:26
Well, you might say that a mind must exist.
2:47:30
So a transcendental argument then would be precondition for
2:47:37
the possibility of thinking. Thinking is happening, therefore
2:47:41
a mind must exist. And that's exactly the type of
2:47:44
argument that I'm making for the existence of logic, for the
2:47:48
existence of knowledge, etcetera.
2:47:50
These things can only exist and be true with something like God.
2:47:55
So I do believe I've proven it. But it depends on one's
2:47:59
worldview, because a lot of people are coming into these
2:48:02
conversations with naturalist predispositions, and so to them
2:48:07
I can talk to I'm blue in the face and I'm not going to prove
2:48:09
anything. All righty.
2:48:14
Cool. Can I think he asked me a
2:48:15
question too, right? Go.
2:48:18
Ahead. OK, so I just want to, I'll
2:48:20
finish in like 2 minutes I hope, or less.
2:48:23
So I reject post hoc reasoning. You know your reasoning comes
2:48:28
from your senses, right? How would we know how something
2:48:30
is? Like The only way we can know
2:48:32
how something is like is based on our senses, right?
2:48:35
We can imagine how things could possibly be right, and all that
2:48:40
it requires is that there's no contradiction.
2:48:43
I can imagine that like an electron that's negatively
2:48:46
charged and then an electron that's negatively charged
2:48:50
attract instead of like repel each other.
2:48:53
I can imagine that they attract instead of repel.
2:48:56
That's totally possible, right? But the real world shows that's
2:48:59
not the case. So the the real world is
2:49:02
actually what should guide us, not our thoughts, because we
2:49:04
could get lost in reasoning and then burden of proof.
2:49:08
I think that's what he mentioned, the person that asked
2:49:11
the question. If you are purely neutral
2:49:15
towards both claims, you have no burden.
2:49:18
But if you lean towards any side then you have a burden of proof
2:49:21
to justify that leaning right? So either X is true or X is not
2:49:26
true. If you lean towards either side,
2:49:28
you have a burden. If you're pure.
2:49:30
If you're purely neutral, you have no burden.
2:49:33
So that's how that would work. And just world views.
2:49:36
I think Daniel's worldview could get you to heaven, he would say
2:49:39
that. And it could give you peace,
2:49:41
things like that. My worldview can give you peace,
2:49:45
and it can give you things that you can actually like sense.
2:49:48
It could give you heaven, it could give you medicine, it
2:49:50
could give you robotics. My worldview gets you to the
2:49:54
moon, right? So my worldview gives you a lot
2:49:56
of things. Daniel's world worldview gives
2:49:59
you heaven, but we've never been there, so who knows, right?
2:50:03
And I would say that if you just add God did it to the end of it,
2:50:06
that doesn't really add any anything, right?
2:50:08
If Einstein gives us general relativity and then you add God
2:50:12
did that, it doesn't add anything.
2:50:14
Or if you give me the germ theory of disease, evolution,
2:50:18
whatever, and then you add God did it at the end, that doesn't
2:50:21
really do anything. It just seems to be like an
2:50:23
extra assumption. If adding God doesn't predict
2:50:26
any better, just extra. It's like adding wind spirits to
2:50:30
the wind. It's unnecessary.
2:50:33
That's what I would say. Sorry, go ahead.
2:50:37
All righty, Susio, Lolly, Rubber ducky, I saw you.
2:50:40
If you wanted to re request your #3, go ahead, Susio.
2:50:57
Susieo, you're up. All right, we're going to move
2:51:08
on to the next one. While you were next, did you did
2:51:15
you have anything for your request now?
2:51:21
All right, we'll go back to rubber ducky.
2:51:37
I'm a duck Europe. Give me now.
2:51:42
Hello. Oh thank you.
2:51:45
So Daniel, I'm I'm I'm curious about how your proof of God's
2:51:48
existence. Well, I'm I'm I'm curious about
2:51:54
your proof of God's existence. Let's let's start there.
2:52:03
I mean, I would say I could talk about logic, I can talk about
2:52:07
knowledge. So if we talk about the
2:52:09
existence of logic, since I haven't really talked about
2:52:12
that, logic, if you think about it, is immaterial, conceptual,
2:52:17
universal, unchanging could not equal A and it never will be.
2:52:30
So if logic is this way, which I think we all agree that it is,
2:52:37
if you just think about it, the question is for logic able to
2:52:46
exist in the way that it does. And since logic itself is
2:52:50
conceptual, well, concepts must exist in a mind by nature, and
2:52:54
it couldn't be any of our minds because it's eternal.
2:52:57
So it must be an eternal universal mind, because logic is
2:53:01
also universal. So the necessary precondition
2:53:04
for the existence of logic would be a mind that is eternal,
2:53:08
universal, unchanging, etcetera. So that would be 1 proof for the
2:53:13
existence of God. And then I've talked about
2:53:17
knowledge, but I think you want to probably follow up.
2:53:20
Does gravity require the existence of God?
2:53:27
Everything requires the existence of God because
2:53:31
everything that we see is finite around us, meaning that
2:53:38
everything is causal, It's caused by something before it.
2:53:41
And I believe that an infinite causal regress is impossible,
2:53:47
meaning that there must be some end point, a point where all
2:53:51
things that exist got their being from a necessary being.
2:53:55
So gravity is not a necessary being.
2:53:57
Gravity didn't start until the beginning of the universe.
2:54:01
Everything other than God that exists must have got its
2:54:06
existence from the necessary being.
2:54:09
So I would say that anything that exists that is finite must
2:54:13
have its existence from an infinite being, which would be
2:54:16
God. So I believe the answer is yes.
2:54:20
OK, so gravity does require God. This requires God to exist.
2:54:27
OK. I think we may have
2:54:30
respectfully, I'm. I'm not.
2:54:33
I'm not, you know, I think we have.
2:54:36
We made a scrutiny here based on fundamental principles that are
2:54:40
not provable. I I am a intuitionist from from
2:54:49
the metaethical perspective and I feel that there are certain
2:54:55
precepts that are objectively true even if we are not able to
2:55:01
prove them. And I don't think we need a God
2:55:04
to prove them. Yeah, that's that's that's all I
2:55:14
have to say. Question Or did you just want to
2:55:19
leave it there? I already removed him, sorry.
2:55:28
Do you want him back or move on? Do you want me to add something
2:55:35
or because he didn't ask me anything?
2:55:36
All right, what do you want? We'll move on to the next one
2:55:41
and he can rub rubber duck. You can re request.
2:55:43
Absolutely. Just for the sake of time we'll
2:55:46
we'll get through these questions.
2:55:48
All right. Next we have Lolly.
2:55:58
You have Lolly. Hello.
2:56:02
Hi everyone. Daniel, I wanted to sort of
2:56:06
touch base on your I found your roulette table interesting
2:56:15
because you were talking of of dice of course and but at the
2:56:21
same time as far as that goes it was interesting in the way of I
2:56:29
feel like what evident evidential is that your
2:56:33
evidentialism. OK.
2:56:37
I was interested interested in this because you you know it's
2:56:41
also red black numbers you you know that's how the table goes
2:56:48
and you only refer to the dice. So it it it was sort of a a very
2:56:54
interesting concept. Would would you like to
2:56:57
elaborate a little bit more on that refer?
2:57:02
To the dice on a roulette table, there's a zero and a 00 that are
2:57:08
green. Isn't that right?
2:57:12
You said you're you're Speaking of a roulette table, as in like
2:57:17
that. Oh, OK, OK, let's move on to
2:57:25
something else. So rubber, Rubber what Ducky was
2:57:33
Speaking of. You said that gravity has to be
2:57:37
like there must be God and with logic there must be God which by
2:57:46
the way I I am a Christian. I'm I'm just curious but I also
2:57:51
question things you can be a Christian and question things.
2:57:56
So I I I suppose that that that's what I'm asking like here
2:58:01
is you feel like logic is so straightforward that there must
2:58:11
be and and and who was it that said something about there's
2:58:15
only one universe aside of aside from multiple.
2:58:20
I mean, because we we don't know that it is something.
2:58:25
Something you believe. I think like, I think, I think I
2:58:28
said that because he was saying that if something is very, very
2:58:32
improbable and it happens, we would assume that consciousness
2:58:34
was behind it. And I would say that analogy
2:58:37
breaks down because how do we know what is or isn't
2:58:39
improbable, right? We have one universe, so how do
2:58:42
we know that our initial conditions are very improbable?
2:58:46
That seems to be very like an assumption.
2:58:49
But there could be more universes.
2:58:50
You're correct there could be from.
2:58:52
Daniel is when it comes to logic which please if I'm if I'm
2:59:00
misspeaking please I'm I'm sorry Daniel you said that logic has
2:59:06
to be brought on like by by God alone and is that what you
2:59:13
believe I mean we we have we were all given you know the
2:59:21
mental capacity that the brain to have logic and reasoning Do
2:59:26
you believe that it was that that it's God that that
2:59:30
absolutely gave us that and there is no other possibility at
2:59:33
all I. Believe that God is a necessary
2:59:38
precondition for our ability to reason validly for us to have
2:59:42
free will for all of these things.
2:59:45
And I know it might sound strange be especially if you
2:59:49
haven't heard it for the first time, but there's actually quite
2:59:52
a lot of thinking that goes into what I'm saying.
2:59:56
For example, when I talk about free will, if imagine for a
3:00:02
second that the atheist world view is true and that everything
3:00:07
that happens happens because the laws of physics determine it all
3:00:13
matter. All atoms are just reacting and
3:00:17
following the laws of nature. Well, if that's the case, then
3:00:20
there really cannot be any free will, because everything.
3:00:24
Boils down to atoms, which are just reacting according to the
3:00:28
laws of nature. And so upon that worldview, we
3:00:33
really are unjustified in believing anything.
3:00:36
Think about it like this. Imagine a ball is rolling down a
3:00:39
hill, OK? And this ball is bouncing and
3:00:42
behaving according to the laws of physics, and it's going down
3:00:46
a hill. And at the bottom of the hill
3:00:48
are a bunch of boxes, OK? And all of the boxes are
3:00:52
circling this hill so that the ball is going to roll into one
3:00:55
of them, inevitably. And each and every box is red.
3:00:59
Except for one. One box is blue.
3:01:02
Now, is it reasonable to believe that that ball is going to roll
3:01:06
into the one blue box? Of course not, because odds are
3:01:10
it's going to roll into. Not reasonable, but probable.
3:01:13
I mean. I mean that you're possible.
3:01:15
Sorry, not probable. Something that is improbable.
3:01:19
Though it is possible. But it's unreasonable to believe
3:01:25
something that's very unlikely, right?
3:01:28
Like. It's not.
3:01:29
I don't agree with that. I'm sorry.
3:01:30
I don't because it is possible. I'll I'll make the let me make
3:01:35
the point at least. So it's not reasonable to
3:01:38
believe that I'm going to pull out five cards from a deck and
3:01:42
it's going to be a real flush. Is it possible?
3:01:44
Yes. But it's unreasonable to believe
3:01:46
that that's going to happen because it's incredibly
3:01:48
unlikely. Yeah, yeah.
3:01:50
OK, I agree with you on chances are unlikely, but it is still
3:01:54
probable, correct. Improbable, but let me make my
3:01:59
point. So what I'm trying to say is
3:02:01
that this ball rolling into a the one blue box or one or one
3:02:06
of the many red boxes, it's incredibly unlikely that it will
3:02:10
roll into the one blue box and that blue box represents a true
3:02:14
belief. OK, so if our minds are really
3:02:17
just the result of chemical processes and we don't have free
3:02:21
will, and all of our thoughts and beliefs are determined
3:02:24
mindlessly by the laws of nature and physics and chemical
3:02:28
reactions, then our minds are like that ball going down that
3:02:32
hill and the chances of our minds falling into a true
3:02:37
belief. Or incredibly unlikely, because
3:02:39
for every true belief there are numerous potential false
3:02:42
beliefs, potentially even infinite false beliefs, right?
3:02:45
Because like, I'm talking to you right now, that may be true, but
3:02:48
the number of false beliefs someone could have about what
3:02:50
I'm doing are potentially infinite.
3:02:52
Like I could be on the moon, I could be sleeping in bed with my
3:02:55
wife, I could be talking to my daughter, right?
3:02:58
I could be doing potentially infinite things that are not
3:03:02
true. So, and when I say that the
3:03:04
boxes are circling the hill, that's really kind of me being
3:03:08
charitable in this instance. So what I'm trying to say is
3:03:11
that given naturalism, given the atheist world view and
3:03:16
materialism, it's incredibly unlikely that any belief we hold
3:03:20
is true. And if it's incredibly unlikely,
3:03:22
then it's unreasonable to believe that any belief we hold
3:03:25
is true. And if it's unreasonable to
3:03:28
believe that any belief we hold is true, then we shouldn't
3:03:31
believe that any of our beliefs are true, including naturalism
3:03:36
and determinism and atheism. That's what I'm trying to
3:03:40
explain. This world view is self
3:03:42
defeating. It eats itself.
3:03:45
Hey Daniel, can I ask you a quick question relevant to this?
3:03:53
It's OK if you don't want to, it's fine.
3:03:56
Sorry, I will. I'm actually finished.
3:04:02
Thank you Dylan for for having me.
3:04:06
No problem. Hello, can you hear me?
3:04:12
Yeah, we can hear you now. You, you've been cutting out.
3:04:15
Yeah. Can I ask a quick question?
3:04:16
Yeah, go ahead. OK, it's relevant to this.
3:04:20
So you were saying that like under my world view, there's no
3:04:23
free will or something like that.
3:04:24
I don't know how we get free will under your world view at
3:04:29
all. So for example, if we have a God
3:04:31
that's all knowing, all powerful, and this God created
3:04:35
the universe, where is the free will?
3:04:37
Because to me, it sounds like there's a movie director that's
3:04:41
all powerful. He has complete control of
3:04:44
what's going into the movie. And then he, you know, shoots
3:04:48
the movie, he directs it, he edits it, and then, you know, he
3:04:50
sits on the couch and then watches his own movie.
3:04:53
And yet he expects the actors to act differently or else they go
3:04:57
to hell. That really makes no sense.
3:04:59
So your world, I don't see the free will because God's all
3:05:02
knowing, all powerful and he created everything.
3:05:04
So I don't see the free will and it even sounds perverse to have
3:05:08
hell under your system because you know, God made us
3:05:12
completely. He knows everything and he did
3:05:14
everything. Sorry, go ahead.
3:05:16
How could we respond to an objection like this?
3:05:19
Sure. I think I have at least three
3:05:22
things to say to that. First of all, God knowing what
3:05:25
we're going to do does not force us to do what God knows.
3:05:32
For example, I know everything or I know some of the things
3:05:35
that Napoleon did in his life. That doesn't mean that Napoleon
3:05:40
didn't have a choice and isn't responsible for the choices that
3:05:43
he made. Just because I know what he did
3:05:46
and he can't go back and change it now does not mean that he
3:05:49
can't or wasn't responsible at the time when he made those
3:05:53
choices. But if you created the universe
3:05:55
too. No, that's the first point.
3:05:59
The second point is that the Bible is very clear and so is
3:06:02
God in the Bible, that we do have a choice and that he will
3:06:07
hold us responsible for that choice.
3:06:09
God is constantly in the Bible telling us that we need to
3:06:14
follow him, that we need to love our neighbors as we love
3:06:16
ourselves, etcetera. God is.
3:06:20
That wouldn't make any sense if God was controlling us and
3:06:23
forcing us to do things. And the entire point of the
3:06:26
Garden of Eden and our relationship with God is that he
3:06:30
has given us free will and that's why he allowed Adam and
3:06:33
Eve to sin. Because he said in order for you
3:06:36
to have a relationship with me, I have to give you free will.
3:06:40
Because if you don't have free will, then it can't be real
3:06:43
love. Love cannot exist if there's no
3:06:47
choice. If I put a microchip in my
3:06:49
wife's brain so that she acts very loving towards me, that is
3:06:54
not free will, That is not love. In the same way, if God is
3:06:58
actually controlling US1, it wouldn't make any sense for him
3:07:01
to punish us for the things he made us do.
3:07:03
And two, there would be no love. So the Bible is very clear that
3:07:08
God will hold us responsible for our actions and that we do have
3:07:12
the ability to have free will. Now I'm not saying that it's
3:07:16
easy to understand how we have free will with an all knowing
3:07:19
God, but he's very clear that we do have it.
3:07:21
And if he's all powerful, he can give us free will.
3:07:25
No, But it's like about that. But it's not just he's all
3:07:28
knowing. He's all knowing, all powerful.
3:07:30
And he created the universe so like he knows.
3:07:33
He can create free beings. There's nothing complicary about
3:07:37
that. Well the question is how though,
3:07:39
because like. A thing happens.
3:07:41
You don't have to understand how something happens in order to
3:07:43
understand that it happens, right?
3:07:45
Like I don't have to understand how my car works in order to go
3:07:48
and get in my car and drive somewhere, right?
3:07:51
Well, you could drive your car. We can't see a God.
3:07:53
It's still a little different, but.
3:07:54
But the point is that you don't have to understand how a thing
3:07:57
works to believe that The thing is.
3:08:00
And I don't understand how exactly it works, but I know
3:08:04
from reading the Bible that it is you believe you are the same
3:08:10
way. By the way, there are all kinds
3:08:11
of things that you believe that you don't know how they are.
3:08:14
For example, the beginning of the universe, right?
3:08:17
But go ahead, I. Was going to say you believe in
3:08:22
libertarian free will, You told me.
3:08:24
So you believe we could do otherwise.
3:08:27
I'm saying how if God knows what we're going to do and he created
3:08:31
the universe, and he he created with all being all powerful, so
3:08:34
he could have created the initial conditions differently.
3:08:36
But he didn't, right? So he created the way he created
3:08:39
it and he knows everything. How could we do otherwise if we
3:08:42
do otherwise? God didn't know it.
3:08:46
Well, no, there's there are theories about this.
3:08:49
I'm trying to think of what it's called.
3:08:52
But there's a theory that God potentially knows all the
3:08:55
potential worlds that could manifest and that we can choose,
3:09:00
you know, what choices to make. I mean, it's a difficult
3:09:05
question for sure, but it's called malinism.
3:09:08
That's what I'm thinking of. But the fact of the matter is
3:09:13
God is very clear that we do have a choice.
3:09:16
So explaining once again how really isn't relevant because
3:09:20
God says that we do. And there's a lot of things
3:09:22
about God that I don't understand because I'm a limited
3:09:24
being. Just like ants do not understand
3:09:27
me right, because I'm a much higher level being than they
3:09:30
are. So just because I can't
3:09:32
understand how God does the thing doesn't mean that I don't
3:09:35
believe he has done the thing. Yeah, sorry for derailing this.
3:09:39
I you know, I I I'm not an I'm not a theist, but that's a good
3:09:43
explanation. I would say that that seems to
3:09:45
demote God to not being all knowing, but that's good because
3:09:48
that removes issues with the model, let's say.
3:09:52
So if God is not necessarily all knowing, but he's all Mac.
3:09:56
But let me just finish, let me cook a little bit.
3:09:59
So what if instead of being all knowing, God was all maximally
3:10:04
knowing or maximally knowing? I've heard something like that.
3:10:06
Like if you say God's all powerful, some contradictions
3:10:10
can seeping, right? Like could God build a rock so
3:10:13
heavy he can't lift it? You could word it differently if
3:10:16
you don't like it. But there's ways you can find
3:10:19
issues with being all powerful or all knowing and having free
3:10:22
will or stuff like that. And if you remove the all
3:10:24
powerful part and you stay with maximally powerful, it's less
3:10:29
ambitious, but it's more logical.
3:10:32
I'm sorry. Christians are arguing.
3:10:34
OK, can I? Were you finished?
3:10:36
I didn't mean to cut you off. No, no, I'm sorry.
3:10:38
I'll let you have the last word. Sorry about.
3:10:40
That no, Christians are arguing that God can both be God and not
3:10:44
God at the same time. No one is arguing that.
3:10:46
That's what all powerful means. Christians are arguing that God
3:10:51
can do anything that is logically possible.
3:10:54
OK, we're not saying that God can create a stone that's too
3:10:57
big for him to lift. That was never the argument.
3:11:00
That's just a strongman argument that atheists who don't care
3:11:03
about theology bring up. Interesting.
3:11:07
So logic. Wait, so if God cannot trump
3:11:11
logic, how does logic come from God?
3:11:14
God is. Logical.
3:11:16
And can he? Oh, OK, so I see what you're
3:11:18
saying. Well, here's a problem with
3:11:19
that. If you're saying that God's like
3:11:22
God, God is partly logical. I can wrap my head around that.
3:11:26
But if you're saying that God is logic, as in like a synonym,
3:11:30
you're kind of eliminating your conception.
3:11:32
Of logic exists in the mind of God, and God is a logical being.
3:11:37
So just says God is eternal, so is logic because they both
3:11:42
existed eternally. So God is logical just like God
3:11:48
is good. It's one of his traits.
3:11:51
Gotcha. Gotcha.
3:11:52
Gotcha. OK, so God does.
3:11:53
God is logical and he will never not be logical because he wants
3:11:56
to be logical, right? Well, he just is logical because
3:12:00
you can't be illogical. There are necessary things like
3:12:05
I talked about how. That's interesting.
3:12:08
Is the shadow of truth like you can't have a world where
3:12:14
everything is false, but you could have a world where
3:12:16
everything is true. You can't have a world where
3:12:18
everyone is weak, but you could have a world where everyone is
3:12:21
strong. There are shadows of things, and
3:12:24
then there is the real thing, and God is all the attributes
3:12:27
that are real. He's all knowing.
3:12:31
He's totally logical. He's basically the fullness of
3:12:35
being right. So he couldn't be all knowing
3:12:38
and know nothing. He's the fullness of being.
3:12:42
Can God change himself or can he not?
3:12:45
God is a necessary being. He's unchanging.
3:12:48
OK, but can he change himself? It's OK if it's confusing, no?
3:12:53
He cannot. If he changed himself, he would.
3:12:55
He wouldn't be God anymore. OK, I mean, to be honest, that
3:12:59
seems like maybe not all powerful, maybe all powerful,
3:13:03
except he can't change his nature or something like that.
3:13:06
And then it's fine, you know. No, because if a perfect being
3:13:09
changed itself, it wouldn't be perfect anymore, which would be
3:13:13
illogical because then the perfect being has to be perfect.
3:13:16
So break the law of identity. Right.
3:13:19
But like, but if a perfect being is all powerful, why couldn't he
3:13:24
make himself imperfect? Right?
3:13:26
Like if if I was perfect, could I not make myself imperfect?
3:13:31
And if I couldn't, then that's something I can't do.
3:13:33
Yeah, because then God would be not God.
3:13:36
That's that's the point. That would be illogical.
3:13:38
God is logical. No, that wouldn't be illogical.
3:13:40
It wouldn't be God is God and not God at the same time.
3:13:42
It would be God can demote himself, right?
3:13:45
Like if you're president, you can say I quit.
3:13:47
If you can't do that, seems like a limitation, you can have that.
3:13:52
View. That's not the way that I see it
3:13:55
at all. I think that would be illogical.
3:13:58
No, it's true, to be honest. This is why I have problems with
3:14:01
getting too far from the senses, because it seems to be
3:14:04
speculation and we don't really know who is right or who's not
3:14:08
because the real world cannot correct us.
3:14:10
And that's actually my problem with, you know, getting too, too
3:14:15
away from the senses. But no, I I get.
3:14:16
I get your point. You want to move on or I'm I'm
3:14:20
moving on. You can say something if you
3:14:21
want. No, that's fine.
3:14:23
We can move on. Well, we got, we got three, we
3:14:26
got four questions. So what do we want to do?
3:14:28
We want to do 2 more questions and then call it a day.
3:14:32
Yes. OK.
3:14:34
So we got Maverick and then rubber Ducky.
3:14:36
So Maverick, you're on. Go ahead.
3:14:47
Maverick is it. Is it just me that can't hear
3:14:57
him or always muted now? OK, I can't hear him.
3:15:00
OK. Can you hear me now?
3:15:02
OK, so my question is somewhat related to the previous one I
3:15:07
asked. Suppose we define a counter
3:15:09
inductive world as a world that behaves, you know, pretty much
3:15:12
as it is, but like tomorrow, it behaves wildly differently and
3:15:16
an inductive world is 1 where the future continues to
3:15:20
relevantly resemble the past. Now, because with respect to our
3:15:23
past knowledge, the inductive world and the counter inductive
3:15:27
world are empirically indistinguishable from each
3:15:30
other, how do we know on atheism that the inductive world is
3:15:35
probably the one that we live in?
3:15:40
That's a good one, right? And to be honest, now that
3:15:43
you're saying it, we kind of take like both in a certain
3:15:47
sense, like it. It depends to what degree.
3:15:50
Some things are very, very unpredictable.
3:15:52
So we hold an unpredictable model to it.
3:15:54
We would hold the counter to it. Some things are more
3:15:56
predictable, so we'll hold a predictable model, like I'll
3:15:58
explain, the sun will rise tomorrow.
3:16:01
That's a very predictable pattern.
3:16:04
So that's fine. The laws of gravity, very
3:16:07
predictable. They keep working.
3:16:09
They have been working, it's fine.
3:16:10
But some things are not very predictable.
3:16:12
Like, for example, I don't know, Daniel's married.
3:16:17
Maybe the mood of your wife and, you know, maybe you're like, oh,
3:16:19
she's very happy. And under these circumstances
3:16:22
and then something can change and you're like, oh, I'm in
3:16:24
trouble or I don't know, something like that, right.
3:16:26
Some things are more unpredictable, especially if
3:16:28
they're very complex and chaos. Theory takes order.
3:16:33
Sometimes we cannot predict. So then we really can't.
3:16:37
Fluids are hard to predict. Minds are hard to predict.
3:16:40
A lot of biological systems are hard to predict, right.
3:16:43
What we tend to do is just throw something and see if we could
3:16:46
predict maybe, but it's really hard to do that.
3:16:49
So when some things we cannot see patterns and some things we
3:16:52
can and sometimes a pattern changes very quickly that it
3:16:55
cannot pick up on it. And if we can't pick up, then I
3:16:58
guess we can't predict, predict with it.
3:17:00
Does that answer your question, Maverick?
3:17:03
I'm afraid not. So remember when I said that in
3:17:05
the inductive world is that the future relevantly resembles the
3:17:09
past? So for example, the sun will
3:17:11
rise tomorrow. The laws of physics and
3:17:13
chemistry continue to work as we are, as they are.
3:17:16
So given that both the and. So this is just a basically
3:17:19
another way of framing the problem of induction.
3:17:22
And what I think kind of what Daniel's getting at is like, you
3:17:25
know, on theism we can have knowledge that we live in an
3:17:28
inductive world rather than an inductive counter inductive
3:17:31
world. So how is it that on atheism we
3:17:33
know that we probably live in an inductive world rather than a
3:17:37
counter inductive world when both worlds are empirically
3:17:40
indistinguishable from each other?
3:17:43
Oh, I I think I answered this. I said both.
3:17:45
I mean, not every time. No.
3:17:47
No, no. Yeah.
3:17:48
I don't think you're misunderstanding because we
3:17:51
obviously don't live in both, because if both were, it's
3:17:54
logically impossible for both to be correct.
3:17:56
They're they're, they're logically inconsistent with each
3:17:58
other, the inductive worlds where the future relevantly
3:18:03
resembles the past relevantly. So again, that's like the sun
3:18:06
will rise tomorrow. The laws of physics and
3:18:08
chemistry continue to work as they are.
3:18:10
Counter inductive world is the opposite of that.
3:18:12
Where that does not hold true, all those sorts of things wildly
3:18:16
diverge from the current course of things like the laws of laws
3:18:19
of physics and chemistry don't continue to work, the sun will
3:18:22
not rise tomorrow, all that sort of stuff.
3:18:24
Oh, OK, OK. You're saying you're reducing
3:18:26
this to chemistry, physics, and what?
3:18:30
Well, I just want to give examples of what I meant by
3:18:32
relevantly resembling the past. So we're talking about
3:18:35
everything in general, right? Yeah, so that it's basically
3:18:38
another way to frame the problem of induction.
3:18:41
Cause like again theism could say, well, God designed our
3:18:43
cognitive faculty in such a way that when they're functioning
3:18:45
properly, we we intuit that we live in the inductive world, not
3:18:48
the counter reductive world, but an atheism that's that seems
3:18:51
more problematic. How is it that on atheism we
3:18:54
know that we probably live in the inductive world rather than
3:18:56
the counter inductive world when both worlds are empirically
3:18:59
indistinguishable from each other given our past experience?
3:19:03
OK, so I would say they're not empirically indistinguishable.
3:19:06
From our past experience, and I would say they both had the same
3:19:11
past, empirically observed past. So how do we know that we
3:19:14
probably live in the inductive world rather than the counter
3:19:16
inductive? World.
3:19:18
Got you. Give me like 30 seconds and then
3:19:19
I'll tell you, tell you tell me what you think about it.
3:19:21
So I would say they're not empirically distinguishable.
3:19:24
We can, we can notice patterns, right?
3:19:27
And that would break the distinction, right, if I'm
3:19:30
seeing the sunrise over and over and over and over.
3:19:32
OK. And it's inductive.
3:19:34
If I'm seeing something that's too chaotic and I can't predict
3:19:36
with it because I just can't make sense what the next move is
3:19:39
going to be. And that's counter.
3:19:40
Now I would say something real quick.
3:19:42
To me it sounds like black or white thinking it only has to be
3:19:45
one or another, some things in this world we can't predict,
3:19:49
some things we cannot predict, right.
3:19:50
And just one more thing, and I really hate this concept because
3:19:54
I just don't like it, but I've heard some quantum physicists
3:19:57
say that probability is. It's like a nature in reality.
3:20:03
It's not just like our lack of understanding, like there's like
3:20:06
a probability wave and that like nature foundationally like acts
3:20:11
and probabilities. Now I really hate that concept.
3:20:14
I hope that's wrong because I do not like that.
3:20:17
But again, if that is right, no induction is not necessarily
3:20:21
right. We would have moments of
3:20:23
induction, moments of counter induction, hopefully, and this
3:20:27
is what my hope is, but I'm not sure.
3:20:30
I hope that every moment that seems random to us, hopefully we
3:20:35
can find some order in order to predict.
3:20:37
That's what I hope, but I don't know if that's true, right?
3:20:40
I don't know if anybody knows if that's true, but that would be
3:20:43
my answer. Sorry, I was like a minute and
3:20:46
1/2. I'm afraid you haven't correctly
3:20:48
understood my question. So the the counter reductive
3:20:52
world has the same past as the inductive world.
3:20:55
So with respect to our past experience both the inductive
3:20:58
world and the counter inductive world are empirically
3:21:01
indistinguishable from each other.
3:21:04
So given that both worlds are empirically indistinguishable
3:21:07
from each other with respect to our past experiences and again
3:21:11
the the inductive world, just that that's usual relevantly
3:21:15
resembled with our our past like with respect to our lost age.
3:21:19
Whereas the counter reductive world like say sometime tomorrow
3:21:21
everything will just go haywire, laws, efficiency, chemistry
3:21:24
won't continue to work you know, and so forth.
3:21:27
So given that the two worlds are empirically indistinguishable
3:21:32
from each other with respect to our past experience, how do we
3:21:35
know that? On how an atheism do we know
3:21:38
that we probably live in the inductive world rather than the
3:21:42
counter inductive world? Got you.
3:21:46
No, I think I did understand your question, right.
3:21:49
We live in this world, right? So which one is it, inductive or
3:21:52
counter inductive? I think it's both.
3:21:54
It just depends what you're looking at sometimes.
3:21:57
No, no, no. We we the counter inductive
3:21:59
worlds where the laws of physics and chemistry don't continue to
3:22:01
operate. They can't.
3:22:02
Both the philosophies and chemistry can't both operate and
3:22:05
not continue to operate at the same time.
3:22:07
These are logically inconsistent views.
3:22:10
Well, wait, when you mean inductions, not that they
3:22:12
operate, it's that we can know that they will continue
3:22:15
operating as they did before consistently.
3:22:18
It's not just operating, it's operating consistently, right?
3:22:21
OK, the inductive, OK, in the in the inductive world, the losses
3:22:26
in the inductive world the loss of physics and chemistry
3:22:30
continue to operate as we've observed them in the past.
3:22:32
The the future continues to relevantly resemble the past and
3:22:37
the counter inductive world. Say sometime tomorrow the laws
3:22:41
of physics and chemistry cease to operate in the in the way
3:22:44
that we've observed now. Given that both the inductive
3:22:47
world and the counter inductive world are both empirically
3:22:50
indistinguishable from each other with respect to our past
3:22:52
experience, how do we know that we live?
3:22:55
How an atheism is it that we know that we live in the
3:22:58
inductive world rather than the counter inductive world?
3:23:01
Gotcha. So maybe this will and maybe we
3:23:04
just disagree on this. We'll have to come back later.
3:23:07
I reject that. It's either or something in our
3:23:11
reality are inductive. Some things probably are not.
3:23:13
I'll give you an example. The sun will rise tomorrow.
3:23:16
That's an induction. We could we could do that.
3:23:18
Because it's it. It it works.
3:23:20
We know it will stop working. We know that we know the sun
3:23:23
will go supernova and eventually there will be no Earth.
3:23:26
We know that. So that's a good.
3:23:28
Answer to laws of physics and chemistry SO.
3:23:30
Yeah, yeah. But real quick I'll answer you.
3:23:32
When we go into, for example, like particle decay or like
3:23:37
electron location, there is no induction there.
3:23:41
We use statistics. My hope is that eventually we'll
3:23:44
stop using it because we'll determine where it is, but we
3:23:47
cannot determine where It seems to be random and a lot of
3:23:50
physicists actually believe that randomness is a part of nature.
3:23:53
I do not like that conception, actually, because it means we're
3:23:57
limited on our, on our, on our sorry, it means we're limited on
3:24:01
our knowledge. So I hope that's not the case.
3:24:03
But some physicists that you know more than me, we actually
3:24:06
do believe that there's randomness to the world.
3:24:08
We there is not. It's not like all of reality is
3:24:11
inductive, like again like electron location or particle
3:24:14
decay. We use probabilities because
3:24:17
we're not really sure. Does that answer your question
3:24:19
or still? Well, no.
3:24:22
I mean like scientists and engineers both assume that the
3:24:25
laws of physics and chemistry will continue to operate
3:24:29
tomorrow as opposed to the counter reductive world which
3:24:31
says they will not continue to operate tomorrow.
3:24:35
So my question is how is it on atheism we could know that we
3:24:39
probably live in the inductive world rather than the counter
3:24:42
inductive world. Now again the counter inductive
3:24:44
world is where the laws of physics and chemistry don't
3:24:48
continue to operate and the inductive world is where as
3:24:52
engineers and scientists I believe probably will continue
3:24:56
to operate. How do we know that we on
3:24:58
atheism? How is it that we could know
3:24:59
that we probably live in the inductive world rather than the
3:25:02
counter inductive form? I don't know if this is on
3:25:05
atheism, it's just more on my epistemology which which I
3:25:07
happened to be an atheist. But I don't think my
3:25:09
epistemology make like forces you to be an atheist.
3:25:12
But based on my epistemology, I would say that we probably live
3:25:16
on the inductive one because we've experienced, like we have
3:25:21
not experienced for example a reversal or sorry like a like a
3:25:25
foundational change in like physics, right, like where the
3:25:30
the laws of physics we have not experienced the laws of physics
3:25:32
change fundamentally. But yes, But remember, both the
3:25:35
inductive world and the counter reductive world are empirically
3:25:37
indistinguishable from each other with respect to our past
3:25:39
experiences. So we can't just point to our
3:25:41
past experiences to say that we live in a counter an inductive
3:25:44
world rather than counter inductive 1.
3:25:46
Yeah, you're saying there's consistency until there's not,
3:25:49
right? And both in the counter
3:25:51
inductive world and the inductive world are empirically
3:25:54
indistinguishable from each other with respect to our past
3:25:56
experiences, yeah. I think I got your question
3:25:59
though. So we live in this world, and
3:26:01
how do we know that the consistency will keep holding on
3:26:04
forever or whatever? Or if eventually the consistency
3:26:08
will like, seize being? Like if the pattern will change
3:26:11
or something. I think that's what you're
3:26:13
saying. Like we have, we have the law of
3:26:15
gravity. How do we know it'll keep
3:26:16
forever or if it'll change one day, right?
3:26:20
Well, sort of. The key part is that the
3:26:22
inductive world and counterdictive world are
3:26:24
empirically indistinguished from each other with respect to our
3:26:26
past experiences. So.
3:26:29
So we can't just point to empirical data to decide between
3:26:32
the two with respect to our past experiences, because they're
3:26:35
they're, they both have the same empirical viewpoint for the past
3:26:38
data that. Makes that makes sense.
3:26:40
So we have a pattern. How do we know if this pattern
3:26:43
will change, right? And the answer is based on other
3:26:46
patterns. Now you could ask the same
3:26:48
question. Well, how do you know that
3:26:49
pattern will always hold? Eventually you'll get to a
3:26:52
pattern which we do not know. And that's fine.
3:26:55
No, I'm just admitting my own ignorance.
3:26:57
Like, for example, I gave you an example the sun will rise
3:26:59
tomorrow. That is inductive and it works.
3:27:03
And we know it will eventually stop working.
3:27:05
We know that, right? Why do we know?
3:27:08
So we. OK, so we know the sun will rise
3:27:09
tomorrow because we've experienced that.
3:27:12
And we also know eventually that'll that'll that'll cease
3:27:14
that pattern, That pattern will change.
3:27:17
And we know that because we know other patterns.
3:27:19
We know that stars goes supernova eventually, or they
3:27:22
collapse into black holes or whatever, right?
3:27:24
OK, anyway, eventually stars die.
3:27:27
So we know eventually the sun will stop going around us.
3:27:30
We know that. Or actually we'll we'll go
3:27:34
around the sun anyway. Whatever, we'll know eventually
3:27:37
the sun will seize, so we'll know that pattern will change,
3:27:40
and we know that based on other patterns.
3:27:41
But eventually we will hit rock where we do not know.
3:27:46
We don't know if the if the if the pattern will or will not
3:27:48
change. Like the law of gravity.
3:27:52
That's like the foundational thing there.
3:27:53
How do we know it will hold? We actually don't know.
3:27:57
If it does change, then we'll try to find a new pattern.
3:28:00
But if we can't, then we can't, and we'll stop predicting there.
3:28:05
All right. So, so I'm going to have to cut
3:28:06
in right here. I promised one more question,
3:28:10
one question, quick response because we're way over time.
3:28:14
So Robert Ducky was next. I'm sorry to everybody else who
3:28:18
didn't get their questions answered.
3:28:19
We should do this again. But Rubber Ducky, Go ahead.
3:28:23
One question. Actually actually my questions
3:28:32
been answered, so we we can move on.
3:28:39
All right. And I believe Shindigiti was
3:28:42
next one question, Shindigi, All right, want to move, move on.
3:29:03
Hello. Oh, you OK.
3:29:05
All right. There you are.
3:29:06
So you got one question? Yeah, back to natural selection,
3:29:09
how that can justify reasoning and how true beliefs keep us
3:29:13
alive. But didn't natural selection
3:29:16
give us religion, which is false, and we didn't go extinct?
3:29:22
That's a good objection. Yeah.
3:29:25
I mean, natural selection doesn't give us everything.
3:29:29
That's like, like, I could, I could tell you things like, for
3:29:33
example, humans, brains, we're good at some things.
3:29:37
We're not so good at other things.
3:29:38
Natural selection doesn't give us like 100% certainty, makes us
3:29:42
100% rational logical beings. It doesn't do that, obviously,
3:29:46
Right. It doesn't do that, but it gives
3:29:48
us enough. Now humans are paranoid by
3:29:52
nature and it's we're like that. I think we call it's called a
3:29:55
Type 1 error. When we have a false positive,
3:30:00
like we think there's something there, but there's it's really
3:30:02
nothing there. That's what humans tend to tend
3:30:05
to be like. And that's because imagine, I
3:30:10
heard somebody else say it this way, but imagine the wind is
3:30:12
moving, right. You see the wind moving.
3:30:15
Now you can have two thoughts. It's just the wind, right?
3:30:18
Or you can have another thought. It's a predator hiding, stalking
3:30:21
me in in in between the grass, moving the moving it.
3:30:25
And it's actually not the wind. It's actually like somebody come
3:30:27
in to get me. People that are more paranoid
3:30:30
tend to survive. So better being safe than sorry
3:30:33
kind of that philosophy. That's like a false positive,
3:30:37
you know, it keeps us paranoid, but it keeps us safe.
3:30:39
Now that's not necessarily the most rational, It's just the one
3:30:42
that helps us survive. So survival doesn't always give
3:30:46
us rationality. It's just give.
3:30:47
It just gives us enough rationality for us to inspect
3:30:50
ourselves. And then we we we kind of laugh
3:30:53
at ourselves and laugh at our limitations.
3:30:55
Does that answer your question? All right.
3:31:00
Well, Daniel, you got any final remarks real quick or Are you
3:31:06
ready to wrap up too? I will just say that I really
3:31:11
appreciate evidentialist. I think he did a really good job
3:31:16
tonight and I respect his tone, I respect his language and I
3:31:23
don't respect his epistemology, but I do like that he's giving
3:31:27
these things a lot of serious thought and I would love to talk
3:31:30
again. Evidentialist I would really
3:31:33
like to talk about this and maybe morality and some other
3:31:38
things. So I'd just like to say kudos to
3:31:40
you. You did a great job tonight.
3:31:43
Yeah, we could talk. And hey, you also did good.
3:31:45
And I I respect you as a person. You know, I'm no longer a
3:31:50
Christian, but I do have Christian family members,
3:31:53
friends. Sometimes I go to church.
3:31:54
Like I said, it's fine. You know, I like Christian
3:31:57
people and they, some of them do tend to have good morality.
3:32:00
Now, some Christian people, some of them are bigoted, and I don't
3:32:05
like that, but a lot of them are very loving people.
3:32:07
And I do think that they're incorrect, but I think they're
3:32:10
loving anyways. And that's, I don't know,
3:32:12
probably that's even better. Sometimes I would prefer a
3:32:16
spending time with somebody who's a nice person, who's a
3:32:18
good person than somebody who's intellectual but is a horrible
3:32:22
person. So I appreciate everybody here.
3:32:26
All right. And special thanks to everybody
3:32:29
that tuned in and evidentialism. And Daniel, thank you both for
3:32:33
allowing me the privilege of hosting.
3:32:35
It's been a great honor. I really enjoyed it and maybe we
3:32:38
can do it again sometime. So with that being said, this
3:32:41
concludes tonight's debate. And good night everybody.