Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / SmokeySaintPolemics‬ Tesseract God’s nature, timelessness, eternal plan, relation to dimensions

Transcript

SmokeySaintPolemics‬ Tesseract God’s nature, timelessness, eternal plan, relation to dimensions · Brett Keane and Eve Show

• 1:38
  None. Voice is right.
• 1:47
  We're breaking through the noise, cutting lights, the
• 1:53
  truth. No time for toys.
• 1:58
  From the airway to the store, we take control.
• 2:02
  The story must be sold. But no chains can hold, No Fear
• 2:12
  can bind. We speak the really the faith
• 2:15
  behind a culture, a rebel tune the signal's strong.
• 2:21
  We're breaking through GOD TV radio, the breaking show GOD TV
• 2:37
  radio something, someone like this through the static hear the
• 2:52
  battle cry, question everything and then.
• 3:04
  We're standing 41 point one. No chains can hold, No Fear can
• 3:17
  bind. We speak the real faith behind
• 3:28
  all. We're breaking through God.
• 3:29
  TV Radio The Breaking show. Tux of venom weaving lies
• 4:04
  spinning webs beneath blood red skies to seek the crown.
• 4:09
  The hearts of stone betrayers kneel on a self for throne.
• 4:14
  No mercy waits, no truth to save.
• 4:17
  Their twisted words dig their own grave.
• 4:20
  Flames rise high, the judgement calls the liars, and fire
• 4:30
  crumbles and falls In the fires of hell they scream.
• 4:38
  Annihilation tears their dream. No escape from the molten fire.
• 4:49
  They're so Sebastian to save us. Their final land.
• 5:01
  Falsehoods caught in a world of pain, Their silver tongues now
• 5:05
  bound in chains. The abistions claims their
• 5:09
  fates. No lights can flee.
• 5:12
  It's burning hate the truth they much now with their souls.
• 5:20
  Please rise high, the judgement calls the liars.
• 5:26
  Fire crumbles and fires and fire crumbles and fires.
• 5:32
  In the fires of hell. They scream annihilation tears
• 5:37
  their dreams. No escape from the molten fire
• 5:40
  fire. Screams echo through the endless
• 6:00
  night. No savior comes to grant them
• 6:03
  light. Their words went sharp now turn
• 6:06
  to dust, betrayed by lies. There bones compos up in the
• 6:11
  interim. Annihilation.
• 6:46
  No escape from the mountain.
• 7:24
  Well, hello ladies and gentlemen, my name is Brett
• 7:26
  Keene from GOD TV Radio. I hope you're all having a
• 7:30
  wonderful day. Let's put Smokey on the big
• 7:33
  screen along with Prophet Daniel.
• 7:36
  What's going on guys? Are you ready for some awesome
• 7:39
  questions and what do you guys been up to?
• 7:43
  Hey, how are you, Brad? Nice seeing you for the second
• 7:46
  time of the day. How are you Smokey?
• 7:52
  What'd you guys think of that intro?
• 7:53
  Is that me that? Was good.
• 7:56
  I liked it. It was good.
• 7:59
  Oh yeah, the songs were pretty good.
• 8:02
  I'm going to share this on Discord just real quick to let
• 8:05
  everyone know that remind them because you tell them, you know,
• 8:09
  days before and you know, life happens, they forget.
• 8:12
  So I'm going to pop it in here real quick.
• 8:16
  I hear you. They might be looking for the
• 8:18
  butt cream I keep hearing about. Yeah, that's yeah.
• 8:22
  They've been playing some very, very cringy antics over there in
• 8:26
  the Free Grace universe. I the way their brains work
• 8:29
  really does just shock the heck out of me.
• 8:31
  So. Well, well, he's doing that with
• 8:36
  Discord Prophet Daniel. How do you feel about your
• 8:39
  conversation earlier with Brother Maverick?
• 8:43
  It seemed like it was a good discussion.
• 8:45
  Yeah, I had the same feeling. It was a good discussion.
• 8:48
  What did you feel about it? I thought it was enjoyable.
• 8:53
  It was what I expected. Everybody was going to talk, be
• 8:56
  respectful and cool, and there was going to be a little bit of
• 8:59
  intensity. So do you think now I'm ready to
• 9:05
  debate David Wood? Yeah, we'll, we'll have to.
• 9:12
  We'll have to work on it. But I think there's some
• 9:14
  potential for sure. So sorry, what did you say?
• 9:19
  I said there's definitely some potential, but David?
• 9:22
  Would it's a. Different kind of animal, so I
• 9:25
  don't know how he'd make me nervous.
• 9:30
  I see you have a debate coming up on Standing for Truths.
• 9:34
  Channel Daniel against praise. I am.
• 9:38
  It's definitely about the lowest hanging fruit you can possibly
• 9:40
  reach on the Christian tree. So you're definitely starting at
• 9:43
  the bottom rung. I wanted to let you know you're
• 9:45
  kind of, you know, if you've ever played RPGs, you know,
• 9:47
  before you get to the boss, you have all the little gremlins and
• 9:50
  goblins and stuff. Praise is like one of them.
• 9:52
  So it's just, you know, the quick slashes.
• 9:54
  And it's unfortunate too, because I'm Christian, but
• 9:57
  praise is such an incompetent nonce.
• 9:59
  I think that it's just going to be a ridiculous blow out.
• 10:03
  You'll probably show him quite a few things and that just like
• 10:05
  how Spider, probably one of the dumbest atheists I've ever come
• 10:08
  across, managed to completely own praise, I am as well and
• 10:11
  wreck him. So best of luck to that.
• 10:14
  Kind of, I guess that's your your premier debut on the
• 10:16
  Standing for Truth Channel, if I'm not mistaken.
• 10:19
  I think that's your first debate over there, isn't it?
• 10:21
  Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Cool.
• 10:25
  OK. Well, best of luck to you.
• 10:27
  Yeah. Thank you.
• 10:27
  I'm basically looking for any opportunity to to put myself out
• 10:32
  there, so I'll take everything that comes my way.
• 10:36
  That's where I was at six years ago where I would just basically
• 10:39
  show up and debate absolutely anything, including veganism.
• 10:42
  I got some following from anti vegans there for hot men, even
• 10:46
  though I wasn't really in the mode to be necessarily anti
• 10:50
  vegan. You know, everyone can choose
• 10:51
  their own diets for themselves, but I got thrown into some of
• 10:54
  those debates. Even got a bit of a following
• 10:56
  just off of the anti vegan crowd.
• 10:59
  Someday I'll tell you about Smokey's fully vegan pig farm
• 11:02
  and that'll. Be.
• 11:04
  That'll be an interesting thing. They, they didn't want to talk
• 11:06
  to me after that much at all. So.
• 11:08
  Right. Well, where do we go from here,
• 11:12
  Brett? You know, just waiting for you
• 11:14
  to post the link and giving you guys an app.
• 11:17
  Yeah, we're good. Yep, I posted it up so if
• 11:19
  anyone's out there they should be popping in.
• 11:22
  I guess the best way to start a a video or show like this is to
• 11:27
  basically have you guys define God's attributes, or at least
• 11:31
  how you interpret them, such as omniscience, omnipresence, all
• 11:35
  that for the audience or people who will hear it down the road.
• 11:40
  OK, sure. Do you want me to start or?
• 11:44
  You know, I'm sure. OK so just so everyone's aware
• 11:49
  of kind of my operational perspective is going to be from
• 11:54
  around about 30 plus years of study of Christian theology and
• 12:00
  multi faith theology, usually with a fixation on logic and
• 12:04
  philosophy and also an understanding of church history,
• 12:09
  biblical hermeneutics, philosophical interpretation,
• 12:13
  metaethics, metaphysics in terms of regards to God's relationship
• 12:19
  to reality. I spent a lot of time looking
• 12:20
  into this because I am one of those people who these type of
• 12:24
  things are left in the milieu of confusion or being unanswered in
• 12:28
  my mind was problematic. So I dedicated a lot of time not
• 12:32
  to what I would say a specific conventional structured type of
• 12:37
  study, but to learn specifically what I felt was essential enough
• 12:41
  to justify my epistemology, that I was coming to correct beliefs,
• 12:47
  and when it comes to the nature of God, just to begin from
• 12:50
  there. So you guys know I'm operating
• 12:52
  from a Mullinist perspective. Most people are familiar with
• 12:57
  Calvinism, Arminianism, maybe some people even open theism.
• 13:03
  I am none of those. I am a Mullinist, which is a
• 13:07
  mildly different category. It lines a little bit closer to
• 13:11
  Armenianism and some people would argue is compatible with
• 13:16
  Arminianism and their viewpoint of the preservation of the
• 13:19
  existence of mankind's free will.
• 13:22
  So in terms of God's sovereignty from this perspective that I'm
• 13:26
  operating from or God's attributes, I would take of
• 13:31
  course the understanding that He is all of those things that you
• 13:34
  typically hear of the Omni's omnipresent, omniscient,
• 13:41
  omniscient, all knowing, and of course omnipotent, all powerful.
• 13:45
  However, the way that many people define these terms is
• 13:52
  philosophically inept most of the time.
• 13:54
  These terms are usually adopted into the realm of absolute
• 13:59
  logical absurdity, and that's not the thing we're talking
• 14:02
  about when we mean all powerful or all knowing.
• 14:06
  Particularly all powerful is the one that is most abused to.
• 14:10
  Generally, every apologetic is just fine with the general kind
• 14:14
  of absolutist idea of all knowing, but different versions
• 14:18
  of the faith will take that to mean different things.
• 14:20
  And just to give you an example, a Calvinist believes that
• 14:24
  generally, and this, you know, there's brands of Calvinism, but
• 14:27
  in general a Calvinist will believe that the universe is
• 14:30
  very deterministic. This means that there is only
• 14:33
  one possible reality, therefore making that reality basically a
• 14:38
  necessary reality or an essential reality.
• 14:41
  It's the only reality that possibly can be.
• 14:43
  So the idea of God having middle knowledge where he could know
• 14:47
  other possible realities is an incoherent factor in their
• 14:51
  theology. They don't have a place for
• 14:53
  middle knowledge in their viewpoint.
• 14:55
  And this is how a Calvinist would approach these things.
• 14:58
  Very different from me because a Calvinist would be much more
• 15:01
  hyper deterministic in terms of their view, even fatalistic in
• 15:05
  some regards. So I do adopt all of the
• 15:08
  traditional Omni qualities, but they would need clarification.
• 15:12
  They're not the general low thinking, low IQ absolutism type
• 15:17
  of definitions that people tend to give.
• 15:21
  Everyone's free will, and I do believe this includes God, is
• 15:25
  tied to their nature. We as human beings cannot make
• 15:30
  decisions that are outside of our nature.
• 15:32
  As an example, I can't walk outside and simply decide to
• 15:36
  sprout wings, fly, and take on the nature of a bird.
• 15:39
  There's a limit of range and scope into my free will
• 15:42
  exercises that are limited by my nature.
• 15:44
  God is the same way. Since God is good, the standard
• 15:47
  of good, that which is good, all of his actions that flow, must
• 15:52
  necessarily be good. This is him acting within the
• 15:55
  range of his nature. And I can take this from a
• 15:59
  different angle, where essentially whatever God would
• 16:01
  do would be good anyway, because he's the only objective standard
• 16:04
  that exists. So anyone arguing from any side
• 16:08
  point about that would argue purely from the subjective
• 16:10
  framework. And it's a completely fallacious
• 16:13
  argument where you start. It's actually nonsensical.
• 16:16
  I'm surprised so many people entertain it by attempting to
• 16:19
  use subjective cultural norms and morality to attack the
• 16:22
  existence of God. Anyway, I'm sidetracking a bit.
• 16:25
  So to basically nail it down, I accept all of the Omni qualities
• 16:30
  with the exception that I wouldn't allow low thinking, non
• 16:34
  theological minds to come up with the definitions.
• 16:37
  I would use actual theological biblically backed definitions.
• 16:41
  So. I'll yield that very good your
• 16:44
  thoughts, prophet Daniel, how would you describe the
• 16:47
  attributes of God? Hey, yeah, thank you for the
• 16:58
  overview of Smokey. I mean, the way I would define
• 17:05
  these qualities of God, omniscience, omnipotence and
• 17:10
  omnibenevolent as a human being. I think God has a relationship
• 17:19
  with me and God has introduced to me with these qualities and
• 17:25
  those qualities are to provide me or equip me with the
• 17:33
  understanding of how God would operate with me in this
• 17:37
  relationship and outside of this relationship.
• 17:41
  God is much more beyond my comprehension.
• 17:46
  And what would that entail in IS his overarching creation in
• 17:53
  which I find myself as a element or a creature.
• 18:00
  But God is so much more than he would obviously communicate to
• 18:05
  me. So what whatever he would
• 18:08
  communicate to me would apply to me.
• 18:11
  But whatever He had, he hasn't really communicated to me is
• 18:15
  where I would not. I would not be able to
• 18:18
  comprehend Him, right? So when he communicates to me
• 18:21
  his qualities of omniscience, the way I would understand that
• 18:27
  is God knows things or about things that exist.
• 18:35
  God is aware of everything that exists.
• 18:37
  Basically, God knows everything. Things that we as human beings
• 18:42
  still cannot see, for example, or cannot perceive, or have not
• 18:46
  means, have not developed the means into knowing things
• 18:51
  because they exist. God already knows them, and he's
• 18:54
  not in any way prevented from knowing things that exist out
• 19:02
  there. So that's how I would understand
• 19:05
  omniscience. I would not necessarily
• 19:06
  understand omniscience to mean all future possibilities or all
• 19:11
  future actualities, for example. So I would not necessarily
• 19:16
  understand omniscience to include a future, although God
• 19:20
  does. God does inform me about some of
• 19:24
  the future things that he would go on to do, but I would not
• 19:28
  necessarily understand omniscience to mean everything
• 19:32
  that I would do in the future, that God is already aware of
• 19:35
  those actualities. So I would not necessarily argue
• 19:39
  omniscience to include that knowledge and omnipotence is I
• 19:46
  would understand again as omnipotence to be like God is
• 19:50
  capable of controlling everything that would have a
• 20:01
  relationship with me kind of thing.
• 20:03
  Like how would I say this is any aspect?
• 20:09
  Which would go on to bring about some sort of some form of
• 20:14
  determinism in human human life. God is in control of it.
• 20:20
  So even though human beings have free will, God is ultimately in
• 20:28
  charge of allowing certain outcomes to occur.
• 20:37
  The determinism right there being God has the capability in
• 20:43
  his omnipotency to cause a divine intervention like the
• 20:48
  miracles for example, God intervened during Moses exodus
• 20:55
  upsetting matters for Pharaoh and God also intervenes with his
• 21:01
  heaven's forces to alter the course of the battles.
• 21:05
  So God is an omnipotent God, but that does not mean that out of
• 21:14
  my own free will and volition I'm prevented normally prevented
• 21:20
  at doing certain things unless God makes this divine
• 21:24
  intervention to to stop my volition.
• 21:29
  Right, So that's how I would understand omnipotence of
• 21:33
  Almighty God. And Omni benevolence is again,
• 21:41
  it's not like a, a permanent thing or a permanent promise.
• 21:46
  Omni benevolence is of course, God has given me this life.
• 21:52
  He's been benevolent to me, which I enjoy like where I'm
• 21:57
  nourished, cherished, even though I maybe not really
• 22:02
  thanking God enough, but God just does it out of his own
• 22:09
  grace that he gives or bestows life.
• 22:13
  And the the determinism right there would be that as I
• 22:23
  understand from the theology in the Quran is if I am becoming
• 22:29
  aware of the truth to a degree that I'm satisfied in knowing
• 22:34
  the truth, but I elect to disbelieve in the truth, then
• 22:40
  God would seize his benevolence towards me.
• 22:44
  So these are the qualities of God, the three essential
• 22:49
  qualities, the oh, God qualities that this is how I relate to
• 22:54
  them. And yeah, so that's my take.
• 23:01
  We got a couple of different attributes as well.
• 23:04
  I'm sure you both have probably heard it.
• 23:06
  The timelessness, eternity existing outside of time and
• 23:10
  space, not bound by linear progression, immutability,
• 23:15
  unchanging an essence or character, and one last one,
• 23:19
  goodness, often described as the very source of moral perfection
• 23:22
  and love. Is this your views?
• 23:27
  Fine with that. Yeah, I mean, again, I think the
• 23:33
  way we I understand this is God is for sure timeless.
• 23:37
  I mean, there's no question about that.
• 23:41
  I mean, you God is not captured in in the in the linear
• 23:46
  progression of time, His being is not captured there.
• 23:51
  But the way I would, I would, I would say is God does interact
• 23:57
  in time, although he is not bound by it, He does perform in
• 24:02
  time and he's performed a number of different things.
• 24:06
  He's created lots of things and us and also has a dynamic
• 24:11
  relationship with us in which he sort of interacts with us in a
• 24:18
  dynamic way. So God does interact in time
• 24:24
  that does not curtail his timelessness.
• 24:27
  And yeah, that's my understanding of his
• 24:29
  timelessness. I guess I could.
• 24:37
  Kind of springboard off of that, and I'm actually glad to hear
• 24:43
  you say that. But Daniel, it's kind of a
• 24:44
  little bit of a meeting of the mindset right away in terms of
• 24:48
  God's being completely detached or separate from any idea of
• 24:53
  chronology, certainly linear chronology or any other type of.
• 24:57
  Potentially higher. Dimensional chronology.
• 24:59
  He is time less. This is this is essentially even
• 25:02
  for God to be philosophically coherent for the universe to
• 25:06
  even be in existence at all. I believe this is basically an
• 25:11
  essential proof to the existence of God.
• 25:16
  However, and this is where again to focus on the idea where like
• 25:21
  what exactly is his function We in in terms of how his thoughts,
• 25:27
  function, actions, things like that.
• 25:29
  There are classical theology takes where like say for
• 25:33
  instance tomistic philosophy and theology is the idea that God is
• 25:37
  basically pure action. He just.
• 25:40
  Is action we see Because when you have the idea that the
• 25:45
  divine is free of any kind of chronology, then the action
• 25:51
  itself is eternal. So there was no point in time
• 25:58
  where God had not decided to create creation because he's
• 26:04
  timeless. So there's no progression of
• 26:09
  thought. There is the mind of God in its
• 26:14
  seemingly incredible complexity that is able to pull together
• 26:19
  all facts of all possible realities of all possible times
• 26:23
  and coalesce it together in singularity.
• 26:26
  Now, we can't imagine how this could possibly function.
• 26:29
  Our brains, the way that we relate to reality is very
• 26:32
  linear. It's progressive, you know, and
• 26:34
  to even attempt to wrap our brains around the type of
• 26:39
  thinking that God would be having doesn't mean it's not
• 26:43
  true. Our inability to grasp in full
• 26:48
  aspects of his nature is to be expected for a transcendental
• 26:52
  entity. Anyone that would claim that
• 26:56
  they have a God that is perfectly definable and
• 27:00
  describable and logical at by the level of finite 3
• 27:05
  dimensional logic and classical mechanics, I'm going to think
• 27:08
  you have a fake God. You have a God that's made of
• 27:10
  something. You have a God that's inside
• 27:12
  reality, not outside reality. This is why the Christian God
• 27:16
  claimed despite the squawking of all the atheists.
• 27:20
  And this is again, I don't want to get down this road, but I'd
• 27:22
  love to do a stream even sometimes talk about why the
• 27:24
  Pascals wager is one of the best arguments if the atheists were
• 27:28
  ever actually honest about how other religions compared to
• 27:31
  Christianity in terms of what the God claim actually is.
• 27:34
  Our God claim makes sense. OK, We're talking about an
• 27:38
  entity that is a source of all reality, all facts, all truths,
• 27:43
  all laws of logic, laws of physics, the function of the
• 27:46
  universe. All these transcendental
• 27:48
  constants that permeate our reality cannot be constants of
• 27:53
  their own all in singularity. They all have to be grounded
• 27:56
  somewhere because they all mesh with each other, They all fit
• 27:59
  together together with each other.
• 28:02
  And to adopt the idea that you have a plurality of constants
• 28:06
  out there that just so happened at near random to come together
• 28:10
  to be coherent, a rally is, is a wild speculation, far more wild
• 28:15
  than the speculation that there is a God that grounds and
• 28:18
  reasons all facts and transcendentals.
• 28:20
  It's also why I think the tag argument is generally powerful.
• 28:24
  It's not particularly convincing because people suppress the
• 28:27
  knowledge and their unrighteousness, so they don't
• 28:30
  always come to terms with it. But I do think it's, it's
• 28:32
  coherent if anyone's being objective and rational and
• 28:36
  honest that they will go up on to that.
• 28:38
  So God cannot have any type of chronology to him.
• 28:41
  And it doesn't matter if you don't like it because you can't
• 28:45
  wrap your brain around it. It's just how it is.
• 28:48
  So when we are defining God or talking about God, we should be
• 28:51
  cautious that we're not doing anything.
• 28:53
  We're attaching any kind of chronology to him.
• 28:56
  We do not want to do anything where we are taking part of
• 29:00
  creation and saying God is just like that.
• 29:04
  It's blasphemy in Islam. It's a reprobate blasphemy.
• 29:08
  It's the unforgivable sin called shirk.
• 29:11
  Once you compare and equivocate part of Allah's creation along
• 29:15
  with him, it's over for you. You're going to go to hell where
• 29:18
  Allah does horrible things with your nether regions apparently.
• 29:22
  Or something. If you believe the hadith,
• 29:23
  that's that's up to you. But in any case, you have to be
• 29:26
  conscientious that we were describing God.
• 29:29
  There are going to be certain components of Him that we can
• 29:31
  only reference analogically. At best, you can only say God's
• 29:34
  kind of like this. He's kind of like this thing,
• 29:37
  but he's kind of like this idea. We cannot correlate a direct one
• 29:41
  to one ratio because God himself by nature is transcendental.
• 29:44
  And to think you're going to drag him down to our level and
• 29:49
  make him perfectly easily understandable and definable in
• 29:53
  his transcendental nature with our finite minds and finite
• 29:56
  limitations, that's absurdity. That's a fool's errand.
• 30:00
  So the thought of yield. Yeah.
• 30:05
  I mean, I kind of see some of the rationale that you just laid
• 30:12
  out have got some problems, especially with the decisions
• 30:18
  that you attribute to God has been has always been timeless.
• 30:25
  And that really takes away the ability of God to articulate a
• 30:30
  new a new thing or a new idea, for example, because those
• 30:35
  articulations are basically prompted or requested by an
• 30:41
  agent who's who's human in this case, for example.
• 30:44
  So human pleads to God, brings new matters to the attention of
• 30:50
  God, beseeches God. So for God to have decided
• 30:55
  those, made those decisions in a timeless fashion, and then
• 31:02
  manifest them through the instantiation of of His
• 31:08
  timelessness decision into a speech.
• 31:13
  Kind. Of builds the fatality model or
• 31:18
  the the Calvinistic model again in making those ideas of God or
• 31:25
  decisions of God as portent of determinism, which basically
• 31:31
  caused the actualities with these people beings with free
• 31:35
  will to to imitate. Towards.
• 31:42
  Towards complying towards those decisions that were previously
• 31:45
  made already with God. So it it does gravitate towards
• 31:50
  a Calvinistic, federalistic, deterministic model eventually,
• 31:55
  because if God cannot speak anew, then God is not free or
• 32:02
  say dynamic, which limits in a way his omnipotence.
• 32:07
  The the premise that God should know these things in a timeless
• 32:11
  fashion and should have made those decisions in a timeless
• 32:14
  fashion kind of backfires on God's omnipotence not to have a
• 32:19
  dynamic volition with his beings who are capable of free will.
• 32:25
  Otherwise, the real capability of free will is sort of
• 32:30
  diminished if God has made timeless decisions in favor of
• 32:34
  those agents who have or possess this free will, for example.
• 32:39
  So it's kind of kind of the rational that you were trying to
• 32:41
  bring with the with the premise that our limitations, we can
• 32:47
  never understand God and we should not insist in
• 32:50
  understanding or comprehending God.
• 32:53
  I do understand when I laid out my own premise that in relation
• 32:57
  to how God speaks to us, we fathom or comprehend him in that
• 33:02
  lens. But outside of it, we don't
• 33:04
  really know the capability, the full capabilities, or the full
• 33:08
  suit of capabilities of Almighty God.
• 33:11
  We can only make sense of Him in the way He communicates to us in
• 33:15
  and in the way that He's communicated to us.
• 33:19
  Like. We see in also in the Bible, we
• 33:23
  see God gives promises and makes covenant and calls them as
• 33:28
  everlasting. But we also see God kind of
• 33:31
  dynamic gives a dynamic or issues a dynamic response upon
• 33:35
  the disobedience of these agents who are manipulating the free
• 33:39
  will that as an award that God has given them to be obedient
• 33:45
  out of liberty, right? So when they manipulated and
• 33:48
  become malevolent, God dynamically reproduce them and
• 33:54
  it has new words like like disciplining them, abandoning
• 34:02
  them. So which is which is contrary to
• 34:04
  some of the words that he had. He had.
• 34:06
  He gave them as in the form of promises before real.
• 34:10
  Quick to nail it down, are you saying that God is like offering
• 34:13
  the choices of his agents or or are you not saying that I'm not,
• 34:18
  I'm not quite gathering it. Sorry, what did you say?
• 34:22
  Or are you? Saying God is offering the
• 34:25
  choices of the agents that he creates or I'm not saying.
• 34:30
  Or. Are you saying that my position
• 34:32
  has to say that? Is that what you're saying?
• 34:34
  Yeah, Yeah. That's.
• 34:35
  What I'm saying OK. OK.
• 34:38
  That I think is a little bit of a category error, but I want to
• 34:42
  let you finish before I answer it.
• 34:44
  I just wanted to clarify if you weren't saying that this was, I
• 34:47
  just want to make sure you weren't putting your position or
• 34:49
  you were saying this was what my position entails.
• 34:51
  So I just want to make sure. So go ahead, OK.
• 34:54
  So the reason why I'm saying that is when God has this
• 34:57
  timeless decisions being made already, they are necessarily
• 35:03
  true and they have, once they are pronounced, they become
• 35:08
  predictions and a necessary outcome will ensue because God's
• 35:15
  decisions that's forgone in timelessness have to necessarily
• 35:21
  be realized in in reality. So it makes God a deterministic
• 35:27
  God who at the same time is in this dilemma whether he has
• 35:33
  really given absolute free will to his agent or is pretty much
• 35:39
  dictating that free will to perform a set of or a series of
• 35:44
  actions in a linear time frame for which he has already made
• 35:49
  decisions in the past or before time.
• 35:54
  So timeless speech is not essential to divine will and
• 35:59
  agency. It may be a misappropriation of
• 36:04
  a necessary trade of the divine agency.
• 36:08
  I don't necessarily see decisions made in a timeless,
• 36:13
  timeless way as an as essential to the divine will, an agency,
• 36:19
  and in my opinion, that really does not define God's nature as
• 36:26
  as justified through his attributes because they inhibit
• 36:32
  his omnipotence to have a dynamic coalition with the
• 36:36
  agents of free will. So is.
• 36:41
  Essentially what I'm getting from this is that if you cannot
• 36:44
  experience emotions like a human, you can't experience
• 36:48
  emotions. Is that kind of what I'm getting
• 36:50
  from this? Cause like, let me put it this
• 36:56
  way, Let me put it a different way.
• 36:58
  Let me, let me start back. Let me let me backtrack a little
• 37:01
  bit, let's say. So there's two.
• 37:04
  Possible realities, one where Moses talks to the rock and one
• 37:09
  where Moses strikes the rock. There's two possible realities.
• 37:13
  God wants him to do one thing and there's two possible
• 37:17
  realities. Moses is either going to listen
• 37:19
  or he's not going to listen. Now before that event has ever
• 37:21
  happened in reality, could you agree that God could have chosen
• 37:27
  what he would have done with either one of Moses decisions?
• 37:33
  I, I, I would say the actualities were not decided by
• 37:38
  God. The actuality, the God was aware
• 37:42
  in his omniscience of the probabilities and striking the
• 37:47
  rock twice would have been like, that's a probability that Moses
• 37:53
  could do. He could strike it once, twice,
• 37:55
  or thrice for example. I'm not.
• 37:57
  I'm not talking about a God that deals in probabilities.
• 38:00
  My my God is on omniscient. He does know everything, but he
• 38:04
  also. Along the lines.
• 38:06
  Of middle knowledge. Middle knowledge means God knows
• 38:11
  all possible realities, not. And.
• 38:16
  Actually, I I might even argue this would be a completely
• 38:18
  different thing. It's not really germane to what
• 38:20
  we're talking about. I would argue that God possibly
• 38:22
  even knows all impossible realities.
• 38:23
  But anyway, nonetheless God, God is fully aware of the spectrum
• 38:29
  and range and scope of the creation that he made and the
• 38:31
  ranges and possibilities all there is and has decisions pre
• 38:36
  made depending upon whatever his free will agents choose to do
• 38:40
  from the beginning. And this is more of the
• 38:41
  Molanistic perspective, because the way you're unpacking it,
• 38:44
  you're actually going backwards. You're actually making God
• 38:48
  required to act upon knowledge as if it's necessary.
• 38:53
  Instead of starting back at the beginning and saying of all
• 38:56
  possible realities that emerge, God have could have chosen what
• 38:59
  He wanted to do, whatever each one of His free will agents
• 39:01
  chose to do. So and.
• 39:04
  What it sounds like is maybe there isn't quite a clarity in
• 39:07
  terms of an understanding of the difference between, say, hard
• 39:10
  determinism and soft determinism.
• 39:12
  And to clarify that for anyone in the audience that isn't
• 39:15
  understanding, you should know about this, especially if you're
• 39:18
  going to go out and you're going to attempt to tackle Calvinists
• 39:22
  or fatalists or determinists. This is something you need to be
• 39:26
  very intimately aware of about God's reality and and his
• 39:31
  creation. Hold on.
• 39:34
  I'm so sorry, guys. 2 seconds. I will be right back. 2 seconds.
• 39:37
  Take your time all. Right.
• 39:39
  No. Problem.
• 39:42
  All right, I guess I'll throw a question at you while we're
• 39:45
  waiting and all that, and I'll repeat it to Smokey.
• 39:50
  Do you assert that God himself has beliefs?
• 39:56
  God himself. Has beliefs?
• 40:02
  Well, I would say so. I would say so I would say yes.
• 40:12
  OK, I'm so sorry. I don't know if you heard
• 40:15
  Smokey, but I had thrown out a question because I had no idea.
• 40:19
  If I Yeah, I'm sorry. So one thing.
• 40:22
  Yeah. So just to get back to it, we're
• 40:23
  talking about Moses and these two possible realities that
• 40:26
  emerge. I want to go and reframe it.
• 40:27
  I want to talk about actually one particular example with
• 40:32
  Joseph and his brother. So you know, Joseph was sold
• 40:34
  into slavery, so. Joseph.
• 40:38
  Joseph is decided to be hated by his brothers.
• 40:40
  Part of this, we understand, is instigated by a dream that he
• 40:43
  has, which he decides to go and share with his brothers.
• 40:46
  His brothers get extremely jealous and they decide, well,
• 40:48
  we hate Joseph. He's getting all the attention
• 40:50
  from his father. We don't like him.
• 40:52
  So they're going to take Joseph and they're going to basically
• 40:56
  capture him and sell him into slavery.
• 40:57
  Now, God knew this was going to happen.
• 40:59
  I was really aware that this was an event that was going to
• 41:01
  happen. We also know that God is all
• 41:03
  powerful and that He could have chosen to stop it.
• 41:07
  Now what is the simple fact of the matter is that while God
• 41:10
  knew what was going to happen and could have stopped it, He
• 41:13
  didn't. Now this does not mean He
• 41:16
  authored the decision of the people.
• 41:21
  He did not believe He authored the decision of the brothers to
• 41:23
  do this. He didn't reach in their hearts,
• 41:25
  reprogram their minds and make them want to do this.
• 41:27
  This was a manifestation of their own selfish desires and,
• 41:31
  and hatred towards their brother and and just jealous envy,
• 41:34
  covetousness really of the position amongst amongst their
• 41:37
  father and really kind of being the favorite.
• 41:40
  This was just a manifestation of their their disgust, their their
• 41:43
  general hatred and evil that was in their hearts directed toward
• 41:47
  their brother. God didn't author this.
• 41:49
  It exists and this is what we see in the past and we see later
• 41:52
  on where it says what you meant and Joseph is talking to his
• 41:55
  brothers is what you meant for evil.
• 41:58
  God had meant for good. Now the determinist, the
• 42:01
  fatalist will look at that passage like the Calvinist and
• 42:04
  they'll say, oh, God made the brothers do this.
• 42:08
  God intentionally made the brothers do this.
• 42:13
  God pre programmed their brains. He could have changed things a
• 42:17
  certain way, but he didn't and he made sure and absolutely that
• 42:21
  his brothers wouldn't want to do this.
• 42:23
  However, the Molanist or even the compatiblist or the soft
• 42:27
  determinist, which again, this is another brand of Calvinism,
• 42:29
  which if you guys are going to argue with Calvinism, you should
• 42:31
  know this, which is the soft determinism, which is basically
• 42:34
  more of what I presented that God did not author the decision,
• 42:39
  the evil of their hearts. It just was there and he just
• 42:41
  didn't do anything to stop it, you know, and in doing so
• 42:45
  basically allowed that to be his will that manifested.
• 42:48
  That does not mean that God determined it.
• 42:51
  That does not mean that God created a necessary reality
• 42:55
  where that had to happen. It was an event that occurred,
• 42:59
  and this could have happened any other number of ways that didn't
• 43:02
  have to go exactly the way this story did with the brothers
• 43:05
  developing this hatred in their heart.
• 43:07
  Maybe the brothers had chosen differently and maybe there was
• 43:09
  a different plan or some other way to go about where the
• 43:12
  salvation of the people would have emerged.
• 43:14
  We don't know. But this is what the decisions
• 43:16
  of the free will agents chose to do.
• 43:19
  And God operated within that dynamic of the free will agent
• 43:23
  choices to bring about His will or the best possible ends based
• 43:28
  upon the conclusions of the free will agents based upon their
• 43:31
  actions. So you can see God operating,
• 43:35
  and I believe this is seen clearly in Scripture, how God
• 43:38
  operates with reality. This is his good pleasure.
• 43:42
  This is his exercise of sovereignty is to actually work
• 43:45
  with reality instead of simply micromanaging it like some sort
• 43:51
  of little model that he set up that's pre programmed to operate
• 43:54
  in a specific way. In this regard, reality is
• 43:58
  organic. It's alive, it's valuable
• 44:03
  because it's full of expressions of free will.
• 44:07
  The thing that makes our our expression towards God in terms
• 44:11
  of worship and faith so incredibly value is partially
• 44:15
  because we could have chosen otherwise.
• 44:18
  In a reality where we don't have the option to disobey God, our
• 44:24
  choices to obey God are really just.
• 44:29
  I mean, who cares? You know, you're just a robot.
• 44:30
  I mean, what is that relationship?
• 44:33
  I mean, what it what good is it to have, you know, a Stepford
• 44:36
  wife, some automaton that you program like how organic and
• 44:40
  real is that relationship? Is that fulfilling?
• 44:42
  No. And God's good pleasure was to
• 44:44
  have fulfilling relationships with his creation.
• 44:47
  And this requires free will agency.
• 44:49
  And that also means that when the agent decides to exercise
• 44:53
  their free will, you don't show up and stop them doing it
• 44:58
  because it's not exactly dead on the bullseye, which by the way,
• 45:02
  that's what all sin is. Only God makes decisions
• 45:05
  perfectly. Everything we do will be
• 45:07
  somewhere outside of the scope cause only God can do it all
• 45:10
  perfectly. OK, so if God shows up every
• 45:13
  time we're not on bullseye, what's the point of having free
• 45:15
  will anyway? He's negating free will.
• 45:18
  There is no free will if that's what's happening.
• 45:21
  So we need it's important to understand the importance of the
• 45:26
  primary feature of reality. The only.
• 45:30
  Reason this reality exists, it's teleology is to provide an
• 45:35
  environment for a direct, real, meaningful relationship with the
• 45:39
  creator. And that needs to be basically
• 45:44
  the type of reality that we're in where you can choose to do
• 45:49
  the wrong thing because now when you choose to do the right
• 45:51
  thing, it has value because you didn't have to choose that.
• 45:55
  You have a chance for a real, genuine, actual relationship
• 46:00
  with God. He's not a spiritual rapist.
• 46:02
  And this is my big problem with Calvinism, because I'm sorry,
• 46:05
  but I shouldn't say that. I apologize.
• 46:08
  No, that's cool. Man, I got it.
• 46:10
  He's he's not forcing you into a love relationship.
• 46:14
  This is not how any of us recognize love to be one of the
• 46:19
  absolute unequivocated force. You know, this is not how any of
• 46:24
  us see love. So I don't know how we can adopt
• 46:28
  any type of idea of deterministic reality.
• 46:32
  And unfortunately, Daniel, no, I don't agree.
• 46:34
  I don't think that my position leads to any type of strict
• 46:38
  determinism whatsoever because it doesn't require God authoring
• 46:43
  the will of his agents. It just requires him making
• 46:45
  decisions prematurely before time of what he would do when
• 46:50
  they choose based upon what they choose.
• 46:51
  And that's really all it requires.
• 46:53
  And God can know what choice they're going to make and choose
• 46:56
  to not act on that knowledge. God is not required to act on
• 47:01
  all knowledge that he has at his disposal.
• 47:05
  That's that's a violation of his free will.
• 47:07
  Just like if I know yet tomorrow's winning lottery
• 47:11
  numbers, I don't have to do anything with that knowledge.
• 47:14
  But if I want to, I can go down and buy a ticket and be a
• 47:17
  lottery. But I'm not a lottery winner
• 47:20
  just by knowing what the lottery numbers are.
• 47:23
  So all you ever thought, hey. Thank you.
• 47:28
  I mean, you laid out the story of Joseph in a very, very
• 47:33
  agreeable manner. I mean, I totally agree with the
• 47:35
  whole narrative that you brought about in the storyline of
• 47:39
  Joseph. But the sort of conclusions that
• 47:43
  you draw, I believe, are where the problem is.
• 47:48
  Because when you say the decisions have been made already
• 47:53
  in a timeless fashion because God knew exactly what would
• 47:57
  happen. And but you also go on to say,
• 48:01
  oh, it need not have happened in a particular way because the
• 48:04
  agents with free will could have acted in slightly different way
• 48:08
  and the outcomes could slightly be different.
• 48:11
  But God knew all those possibilities beforehand 'cause
• 48:13
  he's omniscient. And I would, I have a
• 48:17
  categorical argument here for you to deal with.
• 48:21
  How can I mean, given that God is free will, God has his will
• 48:27
  and it's free will basically, and agents also have received
• 48:33
  the gift of free will. So agents do exercise the gift
• 48:38
  of free will. And how could God Almighty who
• 48:44
  provided agents with this free will?
• 48:48
  Sort of. Hijack their free will in
• 48:51
  knowing the the actualities of what these agents would go on to
• 48:59
  determine utilizing their free will.
• 49:01
  So it's kind of like a argument which is at the crossroads here.
• 49:07
  So free will by nature entails that the choice that the agent
• 49:15
  would go on to determine is cannot be known unless and until
• 49:19
  the agent comes up with that, with that decision.
• 49:22
  Categorically false. That's categorically false.
• 49:26
  So how? Why would?
• 49:27
  You say it's. It's false because what you're.
• 49:29
  What you're saying is that whatever the choice is, is
• 49:32
  necessary. That's not you're working
• 49:34
  backwards. The the eventuality of the
• 49:37
  choice does not dictate the choice.
• 49:39
  You're saying What you're basically saying is that the
• 49:41
  conclusion dictates the 'cause. That's asinine.
• 49:46
  That's philosophically incoherent.
• 49:48
  You're saying the, the, the conclusion or the effect it
• 49:52
  causes the cause. It's, it's nonsensical.
• 49:56
  This is not how things operate. There's there's no, there's no
• 50:00
  connection between the two. The one is the antecedent.
• 50:04
  You're not, you know, you can't affirm, you know, the precedent
• 50:08
  with the antecedent. You know, you're, you're
• 50:09
  basically trying to, to make it, you know, justify itself.
• 50:13
  And that's just not how it works.
• 50:15
  What the conclusion of the thing doesn't mean that the decision
• 50:19
  was necessary. It could have been either way.
• 50:22
  And even if God knows which one it is, he's not required to act
• 50:26
  upon it to make sure it's one or the other.
• 50:29
  He can allow it to the consequence of the free will
• 50:32
  agent and the environment set up.
• 50:33
  He's not required to act upon it like and I I need some sort of
• 50:37
  argument that shows that if that's really what you're
• 50:40
  presenting. I kind of I.
• 50:44
  Kind of didn't didn't really get what you what you just concluded
• 50:46
  out of my out of my explanation. Basically, you are the one who's
• 50:53
  telling me that God has made these decisions in timeless way,
• 50:59
  right. And can you can you go into the
• 51:02
  nitty gritty of these decisions that God has made in the story
• 51:05
  of Joseph, for example, what sort of decisions did he make
• 51:07
  Well? Well, again, well, let me put it
• 51:10
  this way. We can track this back any
• 51:12
  number of ways, but the point is that you don't.
• 51:15
  You're not in taking the story of Joseph.
• 51:17
  You're not required to take some sort of fatalistic idea that
• 51:20
  Joseph was forced into this situation, that this was a
• 51:24
  necessary reality. That's not what it is.
• 51:27
  The free will agents chose this and God worked with it to
• 51:32
  basically bring out. Had they chose differently, God
• 51:36
  would have made different decisions to bring about His
• 51:39
  will. See, like just because this
• 51:41
  unfolded, just because this is what unfolded doesn't mean it
• 51:45
  was the necessary reality. And just because God foresaw it
• 51:49
  doesn't mean it was the necessary reality.
• 51:52
  Again, he's not required to act, to act in any type of way in
• 51:56
  reality to make sure anything happens in any type of way.
• 52:00
  If he doesn't want to, he can. He can do that.
• 52:03
  He can certainly alter things and do some sorts of dynamic
• 52:07
  things, but in general what we see is that that God respects
• 52:11
  his relationship dynamic with his reality and that generally
• 52:14
  his choices always fall in line with continuing to protect the
• 52:20
  primary teleology of reality, which is this meaningful
• 52:23
  relationship. This is why God just doesn't
• 52:26
  take, you know, good people and snap them out of reality and put
• 52:30
  them on a cloud or give every person their own planet and
• 52:33
  solve all the wars in the world and do all these things that we
• 52:36
  supposedly expect them to do. This is all part of the
• 52:39
  essentiality of reality, to be a free will interrelationship
• 52:44
  dynamic with the Creator. This is why it is this way.
• 52:48
  It does not mean he's in any way dictating the choices of his
• 52:52
  agents just because he knows what they're going to do.
• 52:55
  It doesn't. That does not require him in any
• 52:58
  type of way operating on that knowledge to make sure they
• 53:01
  choose one way or the other just because he knows what they're
• 53:04
  going to do. This it's just non sequitur.
• 53:06
  It's not connected. You were saying?
• 53:09
  Smokey that we don't get our own world.
• 53:12
  No endorsements here folks, but Mormons are for the planets.
• 53:15
  Well, there's reasons. When the atheist come to you and
• 53:17
  say hey, why didn't God during the flood snap all the babies
• 53:21
  away and put them all on their own planet.
• 53:23
  And there's this crazy crap that like T Jump would throw at me
• 53:26
  and like, not even understanding how he completely misunderstands
• 53:31
  the entire purpose of reality in the challenge from the Christian
• 53:34
  worldview, it's a completely incoherent challenge.
• 53:37
  We're not even talking about really a possible reality here.
• 53:41
  We're not talking about a reality where God has any type
• 53:44
  of real, genuine, meaningful relate.
• 53:48
  Hold on, God, hold on a second. OK, no problem.
• 53:54
  Well, I won't. Ask any philosophical questions
• 53:57
  whenever he needs to take a break or you take a break.
• 54:00
  I'll just simply ask you how you been.
• 54:03
  Are you feeling all right? Yeah, I'm, I'm.
• 54:06
  Feeling all right, I just got up too early today, but the but I'm
• 54:10
  nothing nothing wrong. I'm I'm I'm all right.
• 54:12
  So I just want to understand from you now as I'm talking to
• 54:16
  Smokey, I, I just finished the Smokey and I'll, I'll jump back
• 54:20
  with you. So I want to call from you,
• 54:22
  Brett, Go ahead. How do you think?
• 54:25
  How do you think the conversation is going between me
• 54:27
  and Smokey here? Where?
• 54:28
  Where do you think is? Is the understanding not coming
• 54:34
  together between me and Smokey? Well, unfortunately, I Daniel,
• 54:40
  it's not really, this wasn't really meant for a debate, but
• 54:43
  if you were to get an opinion on this, it appears as though
• 54:46
  you're falling into some of the Calvinist views where you're,
• 54:51
  you're kind of taking away the concept of free will.
• 54:53
  That's what I'm getting from it. And he's trying to explain
• 54:56
  something else. Would you guys mind if I gave an
• 54:58
  analogy? And if you want to RIP it apart,
• 55:01
  you can, sure. My.
• 55:04
  Being that I'm a gamer, my my games are programmed and they're
• 55:08
  set up and they're predetermined on how they're going to work.
• 55:12
  But once I grab the controller and my avatar within the
• 55:16
  program, I can move it around and I have the framework to be
• 55:20
  able to meet the goals. The goals are known.
• 55:23
  Everything about it, the levels, the environment, it's all known,
• 55:27
  but I have the ability to navigate through it.
• 55:31
  That's how I see it. If I if you want to tear it up,
• 55:34
  you can. It's it's an interesting.
• 55:41
  Analogy. I think in a way, yes you can.
• 55:46
  You can do within your decision making of the character.
• 55:51
  Just taking the character in the game as an example, you can do
• 55:54
  anything within the scope of what the programmers have set
• 55:58
  for you to do. And now you could progress along
• 56:05
  with the developer's intended story.
• 56:08
  You know that they programmed in there.
• 56:10
  You know, they said that if you, you know, do this, this type of
• 56:14
  thing will happen. You'll have a cutscene and
• 56:17
  you'll have this interaction. Then you get a chance to do this
• 56:19
  quest, and if you choose to do it, you'll get this prize fine.
• 56:24
  Programmers also. Allowed it for you to just, I
• 56:27
  don't know. I don't know if there's this
• 56:28
  feature in Fallout where you can just sit in the grass and just
• 56:31
  do nothing forever. You know, you could turn the
• 56:36
  console off, you could self delete, you know, you could, I
• 56:40
  don't know, wander into bandit camps non-stop until you know
• 56:44
  you're just sick of regenerating and throw the game in the
• 56:46
  corner. You know, there's lots of things
• 56:48
  that you can choose to do, none of which even necessarily
• 56:53
  require you operating within the scope of what the program is
• 56:57
  required, which is to follow the storyline.
• 57:00
  They expect you to, they plan something for you if you're
• 57:04
  willing to go along with it, if you're willing to make that
• 57:06
  choice. And there will be events that
• 57:09
  occur that they pre program that will occur, but they're not
• 57:12
  forcing you to choose to do that.
• 57:14
  You can go fuck around in the desert and just hunt animals or
• 57:18
  you know, shoot the wild rat creatures or the evolved
• 57:21
  scorpions or whatever the hell it is they have in that game
• 57:23
  anymore these days and just do nothing other than that and not
• 57:28
  actually do the things that the developers clearly intended you
• 57:32
  to do, which was to follow the script because why else would
• 57:35
  they have written it? But they're not so rigid as I
• 57:38
  think you have to follow the script and they're not going to
• 57:41
  program something in there that's going to force you to
• 57:44
  follow the script and violate your free will.
• 57:47
  I mean, some of them might, but you know, depends on the game.
• 57:50
  But anyway, I think it's a good analogy.
• 57:52
  I like it. It's fine.
• 57:53
  I can use it. I've got a few questions real
• 57:56
  quick. Real.
• 57:57
  Quick, I do need to clarify something.
• 58:00
  He's right. I do play Fallout and usually
• 58:02
  the games I play are open world that give you the ability for
• 58:06
  free will to do whatever the hell you want.
• 58:08
  You do. You're not forced to move
• 58:10
  forward like Mario grabbing mushrooms and just trying to get
• 58:14
  to the flag. It's not like that.
• 58:16
  So very good. Continue on.
• 58:18
  Go ahead, Mr. Daniel. So yeah, I.
• 58:21
  Just had a few questions in my mind right now to sort of get to
• 58:26
  the bottom of what Smokey is saying, because I do know what
• 58:29
  Smokey is saying Now. I, I can, I think I can assert
• 58:33
  that I know what, what he's telling me about how God's
• 58:36
  decisions still are inclusive of the agents free will to, to
• 58:41
  exercise at his own volition. But I just need some
• 58:46
  clarification here. So God, I can, I can imagine God
• 58:51
  had timelessly decided to to give some dreams to Joseph.
• 59:03
  OK, so you would agree with me. So this decision was for, you
• 59:08
  know, timelessness belongs to the timelessness category, for
• 59:11
  example. And then the brothers got
• 59:16
  jealous of Joseph's potential favour with God and his with his
• 59:26
  love from his father and all of that sort of stuff.
• 59:29
  So the jealousy of the brothers, was this a decision of God?
• 59:34
  I'm just trying to understand. No.
• 59:38
  No, because again, he's not the author of their decisions of
• 59:43
  what to operate from their epistemology.
• 59:46
  What they choose to adopt is their priority, their emotional
• 59:49
  set. These are all within their own
• 59:51
  decision making processes to decide upon themselves.
• 59:53
  They're accountable. For their.
• 59:56
  Decisions and how they choose to operate based upon whether
• 59:59
  stimulus and information is given to them.
• 1:00:03
  Falls upon. Them as to what they're going to
• 1:00:05
  do with it. And God's God had a decision
• 1:00:09
  regardless of what they chose to do, God had a decision of what
• 1:00:13
  he was going to do. And that alone right there, it
• 1:00:17
  doesn't mean either one of those decisions to covet or to not
• 1:00:21
  covet, to be jealous or not jealous was necessarily or
• 1:00:24
  required to happen. Gotchas.
• 1:00:27
  So. So but you do agree that God had
• 1:00:31
  in timelessness, decided that he would give some dreams to
• 1:00:33
  Joseph? Do you?
• 1:00:35
  Sure that's fine? Yeah.
• 1:00:36
  Of course, yeah, I'd have to. OK, so in in.
• 1:00:38
  In that case, my my investigation would be taking
• 1:00:42
  this course that when Abraham like for example, when Abraham
• 1:00:49
  was called by God, obviously, what do you think?
• 1:00:58
  I mean, if, why would, if Abraham was like, for example, a
• 1:01:04
  bad guy, not worthy of God's calling and Abraham was just one
• 1:01:13
  of these guys in in town who were like dedicated to idols and
• 1:01:18
  all of that sort of stuff. For example, whom, whom God did
• 1:01:20
  not call, you know, call out. So if Abraham had no, had no
• 1:01:27
  volition out of his own to search for God or to look for
• 1:01:32
  God, for example, OK, so the decision of Abraham to be a bad
• 1:01:39
  person obviously was his, just like the brothers of Joseph had
• 1:01:43
  their own decision to be feeling jealous of Joseph.
• 1:01:48
  So if Abraham was something like that whom God could not call,
• 1:01:54
  OK, so the decision that God had made earlier to to to like give
• 1:02:04
  dreams to Joseph would not have come into fruition, would you
• 1:02:08
  agree? Hypothetical.
• 1:02:11
  The hypothetical Would you agree?
• 1:02:14
  Say that one more time, OK? So given the premise that God
• 1:02:20
  had made a decision in timelessness to give a dream to
• 1:02:22
  Joseph, right? That's a premise.
• 1:02:24
  That's fine. But if, if, if Abraham was a bad
• 1:02:28
  person whom God could not call to his service, they're saying
• 1:02:32
  if Abraham. Had chosen to reject or
• 1:02:35
  something. Is that what?
• 1:02:35
  Yeah, the. Hypothetical the hypothetical,
• 1:02:37
  right? So if Abraham was this bad
• 1:02:40
  person whom God could not call and bless him for his seed to
• 1:02:45
  become a nation in covenant with Almighty God, then the timeless
• 1:02:53
  decision to give dreams to Joseph would not have come to
• 1:02:58
  fruition, would not have materialized, correct?
• 1:03:00
  Would you agree? See like.
• 1:03:03
  The way you do this, like what what's happening is you keep
• 1:03:06
  reframing it back into determinism.
• 1:03:09
  Like, I know you're not trying to, but like I keep reiterating
• 1:03:13
  this. His.
• 1:03:14
  His. Eternal decisions are based upon
• 1:03:17
  multiple possible realities, not just one, not just the one
• 1:03:21
  that's gonna happen. And you make it sound like his
• 1:03:23
  only decision he made is only in the one that actually is gonna
• 1:03:28
  happen. What I'm saying is he has the
• 1:03:31
  full set of middle knowledge to know his decision and also the
• 1:03:36
  outcome all the way to eternity of each one of those decisions.
• 1:03:42
  So like he's. Not determining which one is
• 1:03:45
  happening. When you when you say he's made
• 1:03:48
  the decision beforehand, you always isolate it to only the
• 1:03:51
  one that happens. That's 'cause you keep reaching
• 1:03:54
  back into this deterministic framework.
• 1:03:57
  You're kind of ignoring what I'm saying, that the eternal
• 1:03:59
  knowledge is that he knows what he'll do in any possible
• 1:04:02
  reality, in any possible set of choices of the scope and range
• 1:04:07
  that he's allowed his creation to have.
• 1:04:08
  He knows what he's going to do. He doesn't just know.
• 1:04:13
  What he's going to. Do with the reality that
• 1:04:15
  actually manifests like he knows all of them.
• 1:04:19
  So when you're talking about eternal knowledge, you don't
• 1:04:21
  want to negate or let out that fact.
• 1:04:24
  Otherwise you're kind of forcing me in this questioning into this
• 1:04:27
  deterministic reality because all you're focusing on is God's
• 1:04:32
  knowledge about the one thing that actually happens, not the
• 1:04:35
  middle knowledge of all possible realities.
• 1:04:37
  And that's where we're getting our wires crossed here, because
• 1:04:39
  you keep reframing it back into determinism.
• 1:04:44
  I got to look. At.
• 1:04:45
  Something real quick, I don't know what the deal is.
• 1:04:48
  It rained earlier today, but for some reason every like 10-15
• 1:04:52
  minutes I keep getting knocked out of the room.
• 1:04:55
  It's throwing up some kind of air.
• 1:04:57
  I'm having the Internet problem. So if I disappear, continue on,
• 1:05:02
  hopefully the thing will just continue to play even if my ass
• 1:05:05
  gets virtually raptured. Is this is?
• 1:05:08
  This on stream yard Brad or what's it on?
• 1:05:11
  I think that. Yeah, it's stream yards, but I
• 1:05:13
  think it's the damn browser. What browser do you 2 use?
• 1:05:16
  Because I typically. Use Chrome usually.
• 1:05:19
  Yeah, same. Same here.
• 1:05:21
  All right, I'm going. To have to start using Chrome
• 1:05:23
  then. I've been using Edge for a long
• 1:05:25
  time. I've always called for stream
• 1:05:27
  yard. I usually don't have problems
• 1:05:29
  with it, so. Sorry.
• 1:05:31
  About that, I'll definitely next time I open a show I'll have
• 1:05:35
  Chrome and I'll probably even get Firefox just to make sure.
• 1:05:40
  So it's. The the the thing to draw to
• 1:05:43
  Daniel is that that God's God's decisions.
• 1:05:48
  While. Eternal are not somehow set to
• 1:05:52
  be absolutely necessary because he makes decisions based upon
• 1:05:56
  all possible realities, and even though He knows what reality
• 1:06:00
  will happen, he's not forced to operate on that knowledge or
• 1:06:03
  change anything to make sure a different reality emerges in His
• 1:06:07
  sovereignty. He can leave it to the
• 1:06:08
  manifestation of His free will agents and choose what he's
• 1:06:11
  going to do based upon those decisions, whatever those
• 1:06:14
  decisions may be. Which means he has basically the
• 1:06:18
  decision pre made. For anything and is.
• 1:06:21
  Set of all infinite knowledge he has it all pre made that he is
• 1:06:26
  indeed going to do what he's going to do no matter what
• 1:06:28
  reality emerges. That does not mean the reality
• 1:06:31
  that emerges is necessary. It's just a non second.
• 1:06:34
  It's not. It's not connected.
• 1:06:37
  I, I I. Totally get this better than we
• 1:06:41
  had a conversation I think a couple of days ago.
• 1:06:44
  I didn't get this facet of your thoughts that that have been
• 1:06:50
  really made clear to me. Now I do understand where you're
• 1:06:53
  coming from and the sort of premise that you're laying,
• 1:06:56
  laying here for God, that God has the foreknowledge of
• 1:07:01
  everything and has made those decisions, but does that does
• 1:07:05
  not necessitate those exact outcomes.
• 1:07:09
  But whatever probabilistic or outcomes do result, God is aware
• 1:07:16
  of those those exact actualities that may unfold through these
• 1:07:22
  agents of free will. Is that what you're saying?
• 1:07:26
  Well, no, like no, because. Now it sounds like you're making
• 1:07:28
  it sound like open, which is, which is God doesn't really know
• 1:07:32
  the future. He just kind of guesses.
• 1:07:33
  He just makes intelligent guesses and that's not that's
• 1:07:37
  not what I'm going from. It's not a probabilistic
• 1:07:39
  knowledge like. God has.
• 1:07:41
  The moment I use the. Probability, the word
• 1:07:44
  probability, you sort of make a decision that it's, it's, it's
• 1:07:48
  something different. And the way you give me the
• 1:07:51
  impressions of how God makes decisions without using the word
• 1:07:55
  probability, I'm still given to think it's, it's probabilistic
• 1:08:02
  in a way. Like I, I perceive that to be
• 1:08:05
  probabilistic in a way, because even though you're articulating
• 1:08:08
  without the use of the word probability or probabilistic,
• 1:08:11
  but still you're telling me the same set of things.
• 1:08:14
  Let's see, let's see. If God knows the probability of
• 1:08:17
  something that's going to happen, is he required to change
• 1:08:19
  it? I'm not saying that he's
• 1:08:24
  required to change it either. That's then it's.
• 1:08:26
  Just a non point. It's just a non sequitur.
• 1:08:28
  It's a non point. He is.
• 1:08:30
  He decided before all of creation what he would do with
• 1:08:35
  every decision that his free will agents chose to do it.
• 1:08:38
  It's just that simple. It doesn't mean.
• 1:08:41
  Why would you even? Assert that for example smoking
• 1:08:43
  where they had to choose that. Thing if I may stop you.
• 1:08:46
  Here, if I might stop you here, why do you even feel obliged?
• 1:08:52
  Or why do you even think it's fundamental to your faith in
• 1:08:56
  your episteme that you have to come to this premise that God
• 1:09:02
  has decided everything in a timeless way?
• 1:09:06
  Why do you, why do you even subscribe to this view?
• 1:09:10
  Because it's a necessary. Because it is timelessness, I
• 1:09:13
  can't attach any chronology to him.
• 1:09:16
  So his there's no progression of thoughts.
• 1:09:20
  There can't, there can't be a progression of thoughts.
• 1:09:23
  There can't be one thought followed by another thought
• 1:09:26
  followed by another thought. Just like where I used the
• 1:09:30
  example of the tesseract the other day, The box and the box
• 1:09:34
  opens and every stage of the box opening is all happening at one
• 1:09:39
  time. OK, that's the tesseract.
• 1:09:42
  It's all happening at one time. I use this kind of an example.
• 1:09:45
  This is probably a terrible one because this is even way below
• 1:09:47
  where God's at. But imagine that and the idea
• 1:09:50
  that God can have thoughts that have no chronology.
• 1:09:53
  They're just there, they exist, they are part of this thing, the
• 1:09:56
  decision. There was never a point in time
• 1:09:59
  because there's no time to God. There's no point in time where
• 1:10:02
  he didn't decide to create reality.
• 1:10:05
  The decision to create reality is an eternal decision.
• 1:10:08
  There's no chronology to it. There's no progress, There's
• 1:10:10
  nowhere like he's sitting up there and you know, just
• 1:10:13
  enjoying eternity, a constant progression of infinite regress
• 1:10:17
  and says to himself, hmm, I think I should do something.
• 1:10:20
  I think I'm going to create reality.
• 1:10:21
  This is, I mean, this is not how God's thinking works unless
• 1:10:25
  you're trying to attach chronology to God.
• 1:10:29
  So he has to be timeless and so does his essence, so do his
• 1:10:32
  nature. And you cannot attach chronology
• 1:10:36
  in any part of him, any section of him, any attribute of him you
• 1:10:41
  know, and any type of way you want to dice it.
• 1:10:43
  Because now you have a real whole whole bunch of
• 1:10:46
  philosophical problems, including the infinite regress.
• 1:10:50
  If you have an infinite number of progressive linear God
• 1:10:54
  thoughts before the thought that leads to our reality, our
• 1:10:58
  reality never exists. Because we never get to.
• 1:11:01
  The point where he makes a decision for our reality to
• 1:11:03
  exist because it's infinite previous to us.
• 1:11:08
  So it's, you cannot reasonably attached time to God.
• 1:11:12
  You have to in some way reconcile that these components
• 1:11:17
  of God are timeless. These things that you're
• 1:11:19
  describing, these, these attributes of God that you're
• 1:11:21
  attributing them have to be timeless in terms of how you
• 1:11:24
  dissect them. So, and this is just what
• 1:11:26
  necessarily follows that all of God's decisions about reality
• 1:11:30
  were missed were made beforehand.
• 1:11:32
  But that doesn't mean it's decided in a deterministic
• 1:11:35
  fashion that he was somehow required to force things to
• 1:11:39
  happen in such a way for him to ultimately make that decision.
• 1:11:42
  This isn't coherence. There's no connective argument
• 1:11:45
  for that. He can allow the free will
• 1:11:47
  agents to choose as they want and already make his decisions
• 1:11:50
  outside of time what he would do based upon whatever they chose
• 1:11:53
  to do. That doesn't mean that what
• 1:11:55
  manifests is somehow a necessary reality, in as much so that if I
• 1:12:00
  program a robot and by some complex miracle I extend free
• 1:12:06
  will to the robot, and I know what's going to happen if it
• 1:12:10
  goes in the right door. And I know what's going to
• 1:12:13
  happen if it goes in the left door.
• 1:12:15
  If it goes in the right door, it doesn't mean I made it go in the
• 1:12:18
  right door, because I know what's going to happen when it
• 1:12:19
  goes in the right door. You get what I'm saying?
• 1:12:24
  It's like a mom and a dad, and they know that when they have a
• 1:12:28
  child, the child's going to end up having heartbreak one day.
• 1:12:31
  Child to end up going to school, even though the experience
• 1:12:34
  hasn't happened. They simply know that's what's
• 1:12:36
  going to take place. Right?
• 1:12:39
  I'm going to fetch. Myself an iced tea real quick.
• 1:12:41
  Daniel, take your time to respond.
• 1:12:43
  I'll be listening. I'm just going to go in the
• 1:12:45
  kitchen and grab myself a beverage.
• 1:12:47
  Actually, probably an iced tea. Yeah, maybe sparkling water.
• 1:12:50
  I'll be right back. Just give me like 2 minutes.
• 1:12:51
  Go ahead, take your time. I'll be listening.
• 1:12:53
  Love to. Hear.
• 1:12:54
  And I do have a question for you guys when he gets back and it'll
• 1:12:58
  probably throw a wrench in the monkey business.
• 1:13:01
  Go ahead. It's all yours.
• 1:13:07
  GAIL, time to rock. So I kind of, I kind of get what
• 1:13:14
  Smokey is saying. Trying to explain that if I'm
• 1:13:23
  wrong, I hope he corrects me because he says he can hear.
• 1:13:26
  But there's a difference between having the knowledge of
• 1:13:29
  something and making something happen.
• 1:13:32
  You get it. It's like, you know what would
• 1:13:34
  happen. I mean if.
• 1:13:36
  Yeah, I I totally get the point that God may have knowledge of
• 1:13:40
  all sorts of possibilities, and not just possibilities, but
• 1:13:44
  actualities. For example, even if I grant
• 1:13:48
  that to you, but to the statement that.
• 1:13:52
  God has made. Decisions.
• 1:13:57
  Those. Decisions like that's different
• 1:14:01
  from God knowing right omissions is separate thing from
• 1:14:09
  attributing God to have made decisions that would require
• 1:14:15
  necessary reality, right? Say for example, the robot, if
• 1:14:21
  it goes on the right, you know there should be Thunder and
• 1:14:25
  lightning and if it goes on the left, there should be sunshine,
• 1:14:29
  for example. If that's the decision that's
• 1:14:33
  that's happened, that's happened in a timeless fashion, then God
• 1:14:42
  in a way is a deterministic God. He, he's actually influencing
• 1:14:48
  things in his own, in his own way, because he has made those
• 1:14:53
  decisions in a timeless way. You know what I mean?
• 1:14:56
  I think that. That's where you in Smokey are
• 1:14:58
  having your conundrum. You continue to refer to things
• 1:15:02
  like, for instance, the decision of the robot in the carnival
• 1:15:05
  ride and all that is as a necessary thing that has to
• 1:15:09
  happen that the robot necessarily has to go through
• 1:15:12
  one of those type of doors. It's very possible that if it
• 1:15:16
  did go left and it was raining that it may the sun might come
• 1:15:19
  out in a couple minutes. It might be that it gets on the
• 1:15:23
  carnival ride and the carnival ride just simply doesn't work
• 1:15:26
  and he goes on to do something different.
• 1:15:29
  God knows all the alternative outcomes that could possibly
• 1:15:32
  happen. I mean, I'm not denying that.
• 1:15:37
  I'm, I'm not denying that, OK? What I'm denying is the
• 1:15:40
  decisions of God. See, suppose, suppose for
• 1:15:42
  example, if Joseph, if God had made the decision of providing
• 1:15:47
  dreams to Joseph, and if Joseph was making bad decisions for
• 1:15:50
  himself, then the decision of God to provide Joseph his dreams
• 1:15:56
  would not materialize. Would you agree?
• 1:16:01
  Yeah, I believe that God influenced him through dreams
• 1:16:04
  short, but that's different than actually making him or forcing
• 1:16:08
  him. He could have acted in a way
• 1:16:10
  that was outside of the purview of his dreams.
• 1:16:14
  So therefore. What I'm saying Smokey Brett is
• 1:16:18
  the decision of God that he has made in a timeless way would not
• 1:16:23
  materialize. And if you agree with that, then
• 1:16:28
  basically we we have no disagreements like I I'm very
• 1:16:33
  much in line with how how I would say that is God making all
• 1:16:39
  those redundant decisions that could be curtailed by agents of
• 1:16:44
  free will is not even necessary. You know, you know what I mean.
• 1:16:48
  I'm coming from that premise forgot to make those decisions
• 1:16:51
  that agents of free will could curtail.
• 1:16:54
  It wasn't even necessary, so there.
• 1:16:56
  So to attribute to God to to make those decisions in a
• 1:17:00
  timeless fashion is basically redundancy.
• 1:17:05
  Well, let me let me throw the wrench at you because I I
• 1:17:08
  understand that you have a a different faith and an outlook
• 1:17:12
  and God, even though there seems to be a lot of stuff we relate
• 1:17:15
  with and identify with. Do you believe that God lives in
• 1:17:19
  the present, the future, and the past all at the same time?
• 1:17:23
  Think about this. If he's timeless, does he exist
• 1:17:26
  in all areas of linear as well as spatial?
• 1:17:33
  OK. God exists in a timeless way,
• 1:17:38
  there is absolutely no doubt about it.
• 1:17:40
  I don't have double thoughts or second thoughts right there, but
• 1:17:44
  what I believe is God has the volition and the potency
• 1:17:50
  omnipotency to perform in a new like as is applied or in a in a
• 1:18:01
  dynamic way with us. And he he need not have thought.
• 1:18:05
  He need not have made those decisions in a timeless way.
• 1:18:08
  So not making a decision in a timeless way does not prevent
• 1:18:13
  God in having this dynamic relationship with us.
• 1:18:17
  That's my, that's my position. Do you agree that we have
• 1:18:22
  literally three options as theists, as those who believe in
• 1:18:25
  the God with all these attributes, we either have to
• 1:18:29
  believe that everything is predestined, predetermined,
• 1:18:32
  basically determinism, or we suggest or imply that we have
• 1:18:37
  free will, our own agency, or there's a third choice.
• 1:18:41
  Some things are set in stone, but somewhere in the framework
• 1:18:45
  we have the ability to choose. Where are you at on that?
• 1:18:48
  The only way I, I do want to point this out for people who
• 1:18:51
  are listening, the only way we can go beyond the three is if
• 1:18:55
  God has the ability to limit his own powers and attributes.
• 1:19:00
  Does that make sense? Well, where, where do you get
• 1:19:06
  that from? Actually, I mean to, I mean, I
• 1:19:08
  understand the three options that he just laid out, but even
• 1:19:10
  to, to curtail it, to say there's no fourth option, where,
• 1:19:15
  where, where do you pull this doctrine from?
• 1:19:17
  Well, I'm saying that. There's only the only way that
• 1:19:19
  there can be 1/4 option or more than that is if God can limit
• 1:19:25
  one of his abilities or more. If he can, is it possible that
• 1:19:28
  he could be wrong? In deducing that, well, I'm not
• 1:19:31
  really. Sure, that's really considered
• 1:19:33
  like an attribute, but I think on a philosophical level there,
• 1:19:38
  Well, I'll give you an example of something and hopefully I
• 1:19:40
  don't screw this up because this is a, this is a tongue twister.
• 1:19:45
  Do you? Do you believe that God actually
• 1:19:49
  makes choices or has some kind of thinking process like we do?
• 1:19:59
  Where? Information comes to mind into
• 1:20:01
  his mind and then he acts on it. What it?
• 1:20:05
  What is your view on this? I believe so.
• 1:20:09
  I believe that that's the case. So you believe in our real time
• 1:20:15
  as we exist as sentient beings? God can do that.
• 1:20:20
  Do you as a Muslim believe that God has a divine plan or or some
• 1:20:25
  kind of concept of what he's looking for with his optimal
• 1:20:29
  universe? Yeah, he does OK.
• 1:20:34
  Well, it seems like you and I are riding the same way.
• 1:20:37
  We're surfing it, brother, Surfing it.
• 1:20:42
  Yeah, I think there's a little niche area here which would sort
• 1:20:47
  of where we need to find compatibility.
• 1:20:50
  And I think Smokey sort of goes like, oh, oh, even if you don't
• 1:20:58
  understand this necessarily, obviously because God is.
• 1:21:05
  Beyond our. Comprehension we we need not
• 1:21:07
  understand everything of of his but then goes on to attribute
• 1:21:14
  like timeless decision makings for God and and what's the
• 1:21:19
  premise like where do we get this from the Bible timeless
• 1:21:24
  decisions of almighty God well there's.
• 1:21:28
  Well, I can give you an argument for each one of the three
• 1:21:30
  categories of God's knowledge as is adopted in Mullen ISM.
• 1:21:35
  However you want to approach it, I could start with necessary
• 1:21:39
  knowledge. Necessary knowledge.
• 1:21:40
  So is it is. It, I'm so sorry, is it
• 1:21:42
  modalism? Modalism.
• 1:21:45
  No, no. Not modalism.
• 1:21:47
  Modalism is a heresy that's based upon Arianism or
• 1:21:51
  Unitarianism, no? So what are you?
• 1:21:53
  What are you? MOL.
• 1:21:55
  IN it's from a a Jesuit priest named Molina who basically
• 1:22:00
  created it. It's a general kind of
• 1:22:02
  overarching philosophy about God's relationship.
• 1:22:04
  Yeah. Can you please?
• 1:22:05
  Respell that for me. I'm sorry, sorry.
• 1:22:06
  It's Molinism M. OLINISM.
• 1:22:11
  There's a PhD professor who's does a lot of content on Mullen
• 1:22:16
  ISM. His name, I forget his name
• 1:22:19
  right off the top of my head, but his channel is free thinking
• 1:22:21
  Ministries and you can type him in and he has some very, very
• 1:22:25
  interesting arguments. And we have a very, very
• 1:22:29
  similar, almost identical take on the solution to the problem
• 1:22:33
  of evil as well. The problem of evil is not much
• 1:22:36
  of a problem for a Molenist. It is for a Calvinist.
• 1:22:40
  It is for a determinist or fatalist, not so much for an
• 1:22:43
  open theist, but the open theist God is just deaf, blind, dumb,
• 1:22:47
  and, you know, incompetent. So and yeah, that's true just
• 1:22:52
  how it is. I don't care if they don't like
• 1:22:53
  that. I say that that is that is what
• 1:22:55
  they describe their God to be. They essentially eliminate,
• 1:22:58
  dilute, or destroy all of his intrinsic attributes.
• 1:23:01
  So I can support all of the three areas of God's knowledge
• 1:23:07
  from Bible, from his own testimony about himself.
• 1:23:11
  I can support the more on the stick view biblically in terms
• 1:23:14
  of the three categories. Did you?
• 1:23:16
  I mean. I mean, I was saying something
• 1:23:18
  when you were out and about getting a drink for yourself.
• 1:23:22
  I was saying you were basically alluding to God making a set of
• 1:23:27
  redundant decisions. Is that correct I.
• 1:23:31
  Don't understand what you mean by redundant decisions.
• 1:23:35
  OK, God has. Made a number of decisions, but
• 1:23:39
  they don't have to be necessary actualities, right?
• 1:23:43
  That's what he said, right? Correct.
• 1:23:45
  He can. Make this some of his.
• 1:23:47
  Decisions could be just redundant, right?
• 1:23:50
  What's that? Some of his.
• 1:23:52
  Decisions therefore could just be redundant, right?
• 1:23:56
  What do you mean redundant? I don't know what you mean
• 1:23:59
  because they. Are not required.
• 1:24:00
  They are not required to become necessary actualities, right?
• 1:24:05
  Yeah, no. His his decision making is based
• 1:24:08
  upon a synergy with the actions of the free will agents so and
• 1:24:14
  there is a core will that he desires to manifest that he does
• 1:24:18
  operate within reality to bring about.
• 1:24:22
  But if this is relational, it's not, it's not fatalistic.
• 1:24:27
  This is where we're getting our fingers crossed 'cause it seems
• 1:24:30
  like you're presenting or at least defending a hyper
• 1:24:34
  fatalistic reality, which I'm not surprised at cause
• 1:24:36
  generally, typically I find Islam to be hyper fatalistic.
• 1:24:41
  Usually it's like. Oh, it's like.
• 1:24:43
  Calvinism on crack I usually find so like I OK but.
• 1:24:47
  I, I don't, I don't necessarily think that to be the case.
• 1:24:50
  I I'm not in favor of fatalism or Calvinistic ideas that you're
• 1:24:53
  trying to. Well, it seems like you're kind
• 1:24:54
  of. Defending it whenever you're
• 1:24:56
  trying to kind of negate the timeless properties of God's
• 1:24:59
  decision making. You know, I'm I'm only.
• 1:25:02
  Trying to understand kind of defending.
• 1:25:04
  The idea that this has to be deterministic or you're
• 1:25:07
  defending A deterministic reality I don't have.
• 1:25:11
  AI don't have a preconceived set of notions here in the in this
• 1:25:15
  particular discussion, I I don't subscribe to say, certain
• 1:25:19
  schools of thought within Islam whose ideas of theology or
• 1:25:26
  teleology I'm trying to defend. I'm not doing nothing of that.
• 1:25:30
  I'm only trying to understand the full spectrum of
• 1:25:35
  presentation that you're that you're bringing here.
• 1:25:38
  And I see in my own intelligibility or cognition, I
• 1:25:44
  find that's what I'm saying. When I say just because God
• 1:25:48
  knows what he will do with each decision of his agent doesn't
• 1:25:52
  mean he made them choose one or the other like you do, I get
• 1:25:55
  that from you. I get it, I get it.
• 1:25:58
  But you can answer my questions without being I'm, I'm sorry to
• 1:26:06
  say this not being like like really judgmental about where
• 1:26:09
  I'm, I'm not trying to be. Condescending.
• 1:26:10
  It's just the core point. It doesn't seem to be working
• 1:26:13
  its way into the challenge. Do you get what I'm saying?
• 1:26:16
  Like that's that's where I'm struggling with it.
• 1:26:18
  I I just tried. I just got this point from you
• 1:26:21
  that God does make decisions and not all those decisions are
• 1:26:26
  meant to be necessarily actualized in reality, so
• 1:26:32
  therefore it entails that God does make.
• 1:26:37
  A set of. Decisions that become eventually
• 1:26:40
  redundant because the way he does not necessitate them to
• 1:26:45
  come into actuality or reality, because he has a relational
• 1:26:50
  relationship with the agents of free will and he works through
• 1:26:53
  them with them or he works through them.
• 1:26:57
  So this working through them again.
• 1:27:00
  So there is this problem of redundancy that God has to deal
• 1:27:04
  with and OK, he can just, he can just ignore the redundancy and
• 1:27:10
  there's no problem as such. I'm not, I'm not saying that
• 1:27:13
  he's a problem, but I'm saying that he's an aspect.
• 1:27:17
  And the other thing that when you're saying he actually works
• 1:27:20
  through synergy in a, in a relationship with the agents of
• 1:27:24
  free will again, necessitates God to become part of
• 1:27:30
  chronology, which you are trying to defend him against.
• 1:27:33
  So how do you, how do you see this play together?
• 1:27:37
  Do you understand? The essence energy distinction
• 1:27:40
  and like say, Core Orthodoxy, for example.
• 1:27:43
  Have you ever come across that? I might.
• 1:27:46
  Not so you might have to. You might have to appraise me
• 1:27:48
  about about those things. So when God interacts with
• 1:27:54
  reality in any type of way, it's not the fullness of his essence
• 1:27:59
  because the fullness of his essence can't be quantified at
• 1:28:02
  this level. This is what basically in the
• 1:28:05
  Orthodox Church, and I do like this from their particular
• 1:28:08
  perspective. They explain this better usually
• 1:28:11
  then the Catholics tend to who tend to learn more towards to
• 1:28:13
  Mystic divine simplicity. The Orthodox do better, I think,
• 1:28:18
  in terms of delineating the essence energy distinction
• 1:28:22
  because God is transcendental by essence, by nature.
• 1:28:26
  So he cannot be in his fullness filtered down into this finite
• 1:28:31
  space of his creation, not in entirely.
• 1:28:35
  It's a violation of his nature. So what manifests here is a
• 1:28:39
  distinction that they notice between the essence and the
• 1:28:41
  energies. And there's a lot of Orthodox
• 1:28:44
  thinkers that do a lot on this regard and talking about how
• 1:28:48
  this relates to how God manifests in reality.
• 1:28:51
  So the the mistake here generally is requiring God to
• 1:28:59
  experience things as men experience things in order to
• 1:29:03
  experience anything at all. God can.
• 1:29:06
  Experience things as God and then still be just as
• 1:29:09
  meaningful, arguably more so than experiencing them as a man
• 1:29:14
  does. And because we experience things
• 1:29:17
  in linear progression, we expect God to experience things in
• 1:29:21
  linear progression. But God is timeless, so God
• 1:29:23
  can't experience things in linear progression, so it must
• 1:29:27
  be something else. So even when I'm giving you all
• 1:29:30
  of these statements and facts, they're really ultimately
• 1:29:32
  analogous. And at the end of the day, to
• 1:29:35
  fully quantify and fully understand exactly how God's
• 1:29:39
  timeless mind works, well, let's be real.
• 1:29:43
  I mean, we're not. I mean, we, the only way to know
• 1:29:46
  that would mean we would have to be God.
• 1:29:48
  The only way to fully know God would have to be God.
• 1:29:51
  So I don't think that's that's within our purview to be able to
• 1:29:55
  even understand. But there are certain things we
• 1:29:58
  can understand about it through the process of like what I just
• 1:30:01
  did, process of logical elimination and definition by
• 1:30:07
  negation. You know, maybe sometimes when
• 1:30:09
  it comes to God, and this is generally true throughout all of
• 1:30:12
  church history, when people overreach, when they try to
• 1:30:17
  define God too much, they end up in heresy.
• 1:30:21
  You know, Nestorianism or Valentinianism or Gnosticism or
• 1:30:26
  Nicolaitanism, whatever that was, these things that God
• 1:30:30
  hated. Perversity is against his
• 1:30:31
  nature, trying to overreach, trying to define him
• 1:30:36
  philosophically at our level a little bit too much, violating
• 1:30:40
  the clear statements of scripture by demanding that God
• 1:30:43
  be completely understandable and definable.
• 1:30:45
  And these are always seen as heresies.
• 1:30:47
  And through the emergence of these heresies, we actually
• 1:30:50
  ended up getting a clearer picture of theology and one of
• 1:30:53
  the things that we understood basically in principle and how
• 1:30:57
  we're relating to God, defining God.
• 1:30:59
  There's two primary ideologies that you generally have to abide
• 1:31:03
  by and still be respectful of his nature as a transcendental
• 1:31:05
  enemy. One is analogical predication.
• 1:31:09
  You can't draw any one to one correlation of exactly what God
• 1:31:12
  is like to anything in creation 'cause that's a blasphemy.
• 1:31:15
  You can't do that analogical predication.
• 1:31:18
  And the other one is God. Sorry, I just had it on the tip
• 1:31:21
  of my tongue. I was just talking about.
• 1:31:24
  It apologies, you said. Predication.
• 1:31:28
  It's been a long day. Sorry, you said.
• 1:31:30
  Predication. I was, yeah, analogical.
• 1:31:33
  Predication was the first one. There was another one.
• 1:31:34
  My brain was white on it and it just slipped out.
• 1:31:36
  I apologize, I was trying to help.
• 1:31:38
  You get the memory back no I. Appreciate it.
• 1:31:41
  Thank you. I had I had them there, but
• 1:31:44
  anyway, the the churches sounded from the very beginning that
• 1:31:48
  there's. Necessary.
• 1:31:50
  Constants in terms of how we relate to and understand God.
• 1:31:54
  Oh, I'm sorry. And the next principle, the
• 1:31:55
  second principle I was going to talk about, is that in many
• 1:31:58
  instances of defining God's nature or certain attributes to
• 1:32:02
  him, sometimes we only can define it via negation.
• 1:32:06
  What this means is you can't always define exactly what it
• 1:32:09
  is, but you can generally say what it isn't.
• 1:32:13
  And that's what ends up happening with a lot of these
• 1:32:16
  overreaching heresies that emerged in church history.
• 1:32:19
  They said not that. They didn't.
• 1:32:22
  Necessarily go along the lines of clearly defining or
• 1:32:26
  delineating beyond what the person was trying to present.
• 1:32:30
  They didn't really even start doing stuff like that until
• 1:32:33
  10:50 with the Filioque and the great church split.
• 1:32:35
  Such a grand disappointment because they violated the very
• 1:32:38
  central core ideology of how they generally went about
• 1:32:41
  approaching the nature of God. And it was a complete
• 1:32:44
  catastrophe for the entire Christian world.
• 1:32:46
  But typically, in a sense, we understood that we're referring
• 1:32:50
  to God. We have to be very, very
• 1:32:51
  delicate and gentle or we easily tread into the realms of heresy
• 1:32:55
  by trying to drag God down to our level to be easily
• 1:32:58
  understood so. This is all.
• 1:33:02
  Analogous. Everything I'm communicating
• 1:33:04
  here is all ultimately analogous to the grand position that we
• 1:33:08
  are dealing with a transcendental entity.
• 1:33:11
  Daniel, you seem to agree that he has timeless thinking.
• 1:33:15
  So if you have a different model of the timeless thinking and how
• 1:33:19
  that operates that doesn't break down into hyper fatalism, I
• 1:33:22
  promise you I'm all ears. Yeah.
• 1:33:26
  So let me just now try to understand a different aspect.
• 1:33:32
  I mean, we have been talking philosophy until this point in
• 1:33:34
  time. I would just want to get into
• 1:33:36
  the Bible and understand some of the things I mean.
• 1:33:42
  I mean, one more thing is you say something.
• 1:33:45
  Daniel, Daniel, do you need something to drink?
• 1:33:47
  Maybe some coffee or tea? Because you look a little wore
• 1:33:50
  out. It's been a rough day for you as
• 1:33:52
  well. He's got a.
• 1:33:54
  Wrong day. Hey, he, He.
• 1:33:55
  Looks like he's had a hard day. Do you need something to drink,
• 1:33:58
  ma'am? Don't worry about it.
• 1:34:00
  I'm OK. All right.
• 1:34:02
  Go ahead. Yeah, so.
• 1:34:06
  You there are two aspects that I want to bring to your attention
• 1:34:09
  and get your sort of your thoughts there.
• 1:34:13
  One is you have said a few different times that the God of
• 1:34:19
  the Bible, it's different because his timeless and and God
• 1:34:25
  of in Islam it's different. I don't necessarily see that to
• 1:34:31
  be the case, but yeah, I would, I would love to have your
• 1:34:35
  thoughts there based on the philosophy that you were trying
• 1:34:39
  to articulate. But the most important thing,
• 1:34:43
  the first thing that I want to discuss now is how do you
• 1:34:47
  understand when the Bible says God is the 1st and the last, the
• 1:34:53
  alpha and the Omega? So how do you understand the
• 1:34:55
  first and the last thing? Well again this to.
• 1:35:02
  ME would be, at best, analogical language.
• 1:35:05
  I don't think the Bible is somehow violating the core
• 1:35:08
  intrinsic principle of analogical predication that
• 1:35:11
  pretty much the whole church has held to since its inception.
• 1:35:15
  So I do believe that in terms of that, it's still analogical.
• 1:35:18
  It's basically what we would call in literary genre to parse
• 1:35:24
  it out. It's what we would call a
• 1:35:26
  mirrorism. Are you familiar with that term
• 1:35:29
  mirrorism? OK, so if.
• 1:35:32
  You can spell that for me please.
• 1:35:35
  MERISM. Mirrorism.
• 1:35:39
  OK. And.
• 1:35:40
  Amirism is basically like, I'll give you an example.
• 1:35:45
  Like let's say you lost your keys, right?
• 1:35:48
  And you walk up to me and you're like, I can't find my keys.
• 1:35:53
  I've looked high in love. Now.
• 1:35:56
  You wouldn't think that I would take that to me.
• 1:36:00
  And you looked on the ceiling, and you looked on the floor.
• 1:36:03
  Which if you. Took a real literal take it that
• 1:36:06
  hey I looked high and low. That doesn't mean I only looked
• 1:36:09
  high and only looked low. It means I looked everywhere.
• 1:36:12
  That's a mirrorism. So it's kind of like taking the
• 1:36:15
  2 extremes of a thing and using it to communicate the whole.
• 1:36:20
  So when God is saying alpha and Omega, or when he says he
• 1:36:25
  created the heavens and the earth, so the utmost point with
• 1:36:30
  the lowest, most point is meant to connotate everything, all of
• 1:36:34
  reality. This is a mirrorism.
• 1:36:36
  It's the same idea here that God is using basically analogical
• 1:36:42
  statements about his nature, something we can understand
• 1:36:45
  because we only understand things through the process of
• 1:36:47
  linear thinking, linear time. He's going to communicate at
• 1:36:50
  that level. He's going to use an analogy and
• 1:36:53
  he's going to use it in the form of a literary structure known as
• 1:36:57
  a mirrorism. This basically communicates that
• 1:36:59
  he is all he is, timeless. He is before everything that
• 1:37:04
  exists. He is after anything that
• 1:37:06
  exists. He is the only absolute of all
• 1:37:10
  of reality, the only essential necessary being.
• 1:37:15
  You're are you basically saying Smokey, that the starting and
• 1:37:19
  end point that he gives and his analogy is, is talking about the
• 1:37:23
  the very origin of the universe to the it's presenting an idea.
• 1:37:27
  Of his totality of supremacy and position.
• 1:37:30
  It's not saying he has a beginning and he has an end,
• 1:37:34
  like he is the beginning and the end, but no more so than when
• 1:37:37
  you say I looked high and I looked low.
• 1:37:40
  This is a common turn of phrase and it seems that many times, I
• 1:37:43
  don't know why, but when we interpret Bible, we forget that
• 1:37:47
  language is more than just words and definitions.
• 1:37:50
  It's cliches, axioms, idioms, turns of phrases, cultural
• 1:37:54
  understandings. I mean, 1000 years from now, now
• 1:37:57
  someone could dig up a children's book, look at the
• 1:38:00
  word butterfly, and thought there were flies made of
• 1:38:02
  butterflying around. They didn't have a cultural
• 1:38:04
  context of how our colloquial language actually works.
• 1:38:08
  They would look at the etymology, they would look at,
• 1:38:10
  you know, just like they mistranslated monogenesse for
• 1:38:13
  the better part of what, 4-5 hundred years, you know,
• 1:38:16
  because. But they but they didn't
• 1:38:20
  understand that there were other uses.
• 1:38:22
  For the word, the only thing they had context well was
• 1:38:24
  basically here, and they ended up parsing the etymology to get
• 1:38:28
  the definition. That is not always how language
• 1:38:30
  works. That's just not a that.
• 1:38:31
  Does happen. By the way, I should tell you
• 1:38:33
  that does happen in religions. It happens a lot.
• 1:38:37
  I really heard an Islamic Sheikh make that mistake for golden
• 1:38:44
  butterflies. He understood literal gold
• 1:38:46
  material made butterflies instead of understanding the
• 1:38:51
  monarch butterflies to be what was.
• 1:38:53
  What does that mean? Right, if you heard someone say
• 1:38:56
  like golden butterflies, you wouldn't generally think
• 1:38:59
  butterflies made out of gold. You would think gold in color.
• 1:39:02
  Maybe they were just color of that, like, you know what I
• 1:39:04
  mean? Like again, this is all about
• 1:39:06
  how there is components to cultural communication that you
• 1:39:11
  should understand if you're trying to interpret the
• 1:39:14
  scripture. This is why I despise type of
• 1:39:17
  fundamentalists KJV only those types of nonsense insane
• 1:39:23
  movements. It is theology for the lazy man
• 1:39:28
  to take the simplest, easiest way out in the approach to your
• 1:39:32
  faith with the the most minimal amount of effort at critical
• 1:39:36
  thinking or application of intelligence.
• 1:39:39
  It's it's the, it's the lazy man's way out to try and claim
• 1:39:45
  God has to be simple. Theology has to be simple.
• 1:39:49
  Sanctification has to be simple. Salvation has to be simple.
• 1:39:54
  Relationship has to be simple. Where is this?
• 1:39:57
  Where is this idea that the most valuable things are simple to
• 1:40:04
  achieve and attain? Where is this idea?
• 1:40:07
  Where does this nonsensical virtue come from?
• 1:40:11
  I don't get it. And I never will.
• 1:40:13
  I don't. I don't necessarily.
• 1:40:16
  I don't necessarily see the problem with that, to be honest
• 1:40:18
  with you with the insinuation that God is simple.
• 1:40:23
  For example, I would consider God is simple because as a human
• 1:40:27
  being I have limited ability to have a relationship with God,
• 1:40:33
  and in that limited ability I see God as a very simple being
• 1:40:38
  to have a relationship with. So I don't necessarily see why
• 1:40:41
  it can't be simple from a human point of view.
• 1:40:45
  God may be far more complex than how how much I would perceive of
• 1:40:50
  him, but to me in my relationship with God it can be
• 1:40:55
  very simple. I have a creator who gave me
• 1:40:59
  life and I relate to him and I thank Him and that's as simplest
• 1:41:05
  as it could get to me. And I'm comfortable with that.
• 1:41:08
  I, I, I see my relationship with God being that real simple.
• 1:41:12
  I don't necessarily have a problem with that.
• 1:41:15
  I want to just come back to this alpha and the other thing, the
• 1:41:19
  relationship. Being simple and the deity being
• 1:41:21
  simple, those aren't interconnected.
• 1:41:22
  I don't and I I don't understand this idea of the the.
• 1:41:27
  I don't really even know what you mean by the entity being
• 1:41:29
  simple, to be completely honest with you.
• 1:41:32
  Look. If.
• 1:41:33
  Because it almost sounds like you're.
• 1:41:34
  Saying like, like you can only relate to God if God's relating
• 1:41:38
  to you as a man. I, I keep getting these types of
• 1:41:41
  like kind of entailments or seemingly like prepackaged
• 1:41:45
  somewhere in your statements is kind of this idea that like if
• 1:41:48
  somehow God is not experiencing a relationship the way you do,
• 1:41:53
  then it can't be true or valid. Am I getting this wrong?
• 1:41:56
  Because it's kind of No, I'm not saying.
• 1:41:58
  I'm not saying it becomes invalid, what I'm saying is
• 1:42:01
  just. Just real quick, I'll I always
• 1:42:03
  keep things really fast. I have never in my entire life
• 1:42:07
  heard of a simple relationship, especially when the relationship
• 1:42:11
  involves loyalty, honor, commitment, love, and all these
• 1:42:15
  things starts getting really, really messy as you go.
• 1:42:19
  Go ahead. Yeah, yeah.
• 1:42:21
  I mean, I those those points that it brings to the table are
• 1:42:23
  valid. But I mean, I commend you for
• 1:42:25
  that, for bringing those things in, those people out.
• 1:42:28
  There have a simple relationship with God those.
• 1:42:31
  Those. Things.
• 1:42:32
  Do complicate things from from its simple relationship and
• 1:42:37
  makes it complex relationship for sure, but I think that
• 1:42:41
  doesn't really take away take away the simplicity of an
• 1:42:46
  ignorant person to have a relationship with God.
• 1:42:48
  That's what I'm saying, see, my son can have my my son can
• 1:42:52
  relate to me as a, as his father in his simplistic terms and may
• 1:42:56
  not really comprehend the love, the the regard, the care, the
• 1:43:02
  expectation, all of those things because he has the simplistic
• 1:43:07
  conscience or intelligence with which he tries to relate to me.
• 1:43:12
  And that's, that can be kept that simple.
• 1:43:15
  It's your love for. Him with higher complexity and
• 1:43:19
  then he experiences it towards you.
• 1:43:21
  It's basically that's it. So for.
• 1:43:23
  Him. It's simple, right?
• 1:43:24
  Yeah. For him it's I think that.
• 1:43:27
  Smokey, what you were with Smokey, what you were talking
• 1:43:29
  about with fundamentalists and how they do things?
• 1:43:32
  When I hang out with people like that, where I get the view that
• 1:43:36
  they don't want to go any further, do research, I feel
• 1:43:38
  like they're looking for a friend with French benefits or
• 1:43:42
  however they say it. They want to be saved and they
• 1:43:44
  want the cookies, but they don't want to get to know the person.
• 1:43:48
  They don't actually want to be close.
• 1:43:49
  They just want the goodies. Agreed.
• 1:43:52
  Agreed. It does tend to reach into that
• 1:43:55
  what it seems. Yeah, they, they, a lot of
• 1:43:59
  people will adopt things that do just feel good to believe.
• 1:44:02
  You know, there are people who will adopt things like in the
• 1:44:06
  sense of believing that, you know, their dad loves them when
• 1:44:10
  they go, they didn't and abandoned them, but they'll
• 1:44:12
  believe it. You know, they'll even concoct
• 1:44:14
  wild, you know, speculations and arguments to try and believe it.
• 1:44:20
  Some people have crazy hypochondriac, you know, type
• 1:44:24
  symptoms where they believe they have cancer and it doesn't
• 1:44:28
  matter if they get 20 different doctors to say that they don't,
• 1:44:32
  we'll still say that they have have cancer.
• 1:44:36
  So, you know, they they will still believe it even if they
• 1:44:39
  the doctors say otherwise. So I mean, we do have the
• 1:44:42
  ability to choose our epistemology.
• 1:44:46
  We do have the ability to essentially choose what paths we
• 1:44:50
  want to entertain in terms of our thinking and our methodology
• 1:44:53
  of discovering truth as to what we really ultimately want to
• 1:44:55
  adopt. And this is where we see.
• 1:44:58
  Really crazy insane. I would argue extra biblical
• 1:45:03
  dangerous doctrines like 3 grace, hyper grace, O.
• 1:45:07
  SAS, you know. Jehovah's Witness, you know, 7th
• 1:45:10
  Day Adventists, all these radical divergent ideas and all
• 1:45:14
  these things that really are just repackaged heresies from
• 1:45:17
  the past. That if most Christians
• 1:45:20
  dedicated time to diligent study and looking back and really
• 1:45:26
  growing in their faith and learning more, they wouldn't
• 1:45:28
  struggle as much as learning as to what to avoid and what to
• 1:45:32
  keep. Because a lot of this stuff has
• 1:45:33
  been tested and refuted or adopted in the past.
• 1:45:37
  And they just don't want to learn and they just don't want
• 1:45:39
  to put any work in. To me, my relationship with God
• 1:45:44
  is absolutely far from simple. And granted, you know what?
• 1:45:49
  There's some people, God bless them, Daniel Mayo, some of you
• 1:45:53
  guys know exactly what I'm talking about there.
• 1:45:56
  Daniel Mayo's a real super special boy and he's getting
• 1:46:01
  emotionally manipulated by a bunch of predatory deviants over
• 1:46:05
  there at the pod team. There's nothing really you could
• 1:46:07
  do about it, you know, And he doesn't know any better.
• 1:46:11
  I mean, clearly I and the, I mean, the poor guy, he's really
• 1:46:15
  touched, but his relationship with God is simple, you know, I
• 1:46:23
  don't think that Daniel Mayo is accountable to what he believes.
• 1:46:26
  I think Daniel Mayo is in the loving embrace of God because he
• 1:46:31
  is in this world with a minimal equipment set, not much he can
• 1:46:36
  do with it. And I believe that God is
• 1:46:39
  gracious and merciful and that no matter what Daniel believes,
• 1:46:41
  he's flying. I believe Daniel Mayo is covered
• 1:46:43
  by. Basically what we would.
• 1:46:46
  Call in Christianity common grace, which is something
• 1:46:49
  everyone has effective by Christ work on the cross and God's plan
• 1:46:55
  of redemption for mankind. So we all have this access to
• 1:46:58
  this common race. So Daniel to his capacity is
• 1:47:02
  just is just fine. His relationship with God is
• 1:47:05
  really simple, but I think much more differently.
• 1:47:08
  Daniel thinks much more differently.
• 1:47:11
  Brett, you think much more differently and deeply and the
• 1:47:15
  capacity a relationship we have will be very different and it
• 1:47:20
  doesn't mean that Daniel Mayo's relationship isn't special to
• 1:47:25
  God and I'm not defeating it or demanding it.
• 1:47:28
  That type of probably childlike innocence and approach to the
• 1:47:32
  divine probably has its own point of pleasure and joy to God
• 1:47:39
  for his time here on this earth until I believe that he's you
• 1:47:42
  know will have his mind and body fully rejuvenated and and
• 1:47:46
  glorified. And I believe Daniel Mayo if
• 1:47:49
  anyone over there at those free grace deviant team is saved is
• 1:47:52
  Daniel Mayo that I would bet on and everyone else.
• 1:47:56
  So people like us, we have a certain accountability and the
• 1:47:58
  Bible is clear on this. To whom much is given much will
• 1:48:01
  be required. This is why God doesn't expect
• 1:48:06
  you. To take what you've.
• 1:48:08
  Been given and squander it or waste it on selfish ambitions
• 1:48:12
  and I spent a good chunk of my life doing exactly that All
• 1:48:16
  these whatever talents or skills you guys see me demonstrate in
• 1:48:21
  these rooms or in these debates or in these interactions, all of
• 1:48:25
  these things that I'm now doing to try and present to the
• 1:48:29
  benefit of the glory of the Kingdom of God was all used for
• 1:48:32
  personal gain and. You know.
• 1:48:35
  Constructing and negotiating contracts and closing deals and
• 1:48:39
  transferring portfolios and things of this nature.
• 1:48:41
  This is what I was using my talents that God gave me for
• 1:48:46
  nothing, for really the glory of his Kingdom at all.
• 1:48:50
  But now I do. Now I want to take what time I
• 1:48:53
  have left on earth with what I've been given on top of the
• 1:48:56
  knowledge and the wisdom that I think I've built to try and
• 1:49:00
  sound out to be a voice of reason.
• 1:49:02
  To give people some good arguments and some good
• 1:49:05
  justifications for what they believe, to help them make the
• 1:49:08
  decision to get onto the right track.
• 1:49:12
  So. And that's why I do.
• 1:49:13
  What I do? And that's why I now exercise
• 1:49:16
  these talents, however intensive or in depth or good you think
• 1:49:20
  they are. I had a choice.
• 1:49:23
  I I'm sure God would have liked me to use these talents
• 1:49:27
  similarly along the line as I have earlier, but I didn't I as
• 1:49:32
  to make Brett to take your analogy of the game, I didn't
• 1:49:36
  stick to the story. I went and did a whole bunch of
• 1:49:38
  side quests and just fucked around.
• 1:49:40
  You know, for the better part of, you know, 20 years all about
• 1:49:44
  doing the side quests. Wasn't really sticking to the
• 1:49:46
  main story. Now finally, a little late, but
• 1:49:49
  I feel like I'm finally now getting onto the real teleology,
• 1:49:53
  the real purpose, the real story, the story that God
• 1:49:56
  probably intended. I have a wonderful, beautiful
• 1:49:59
  young wife who is excited to have a family with me.
• 1:50:04
  I have a channel where I'm equipping a lot of Saints with
• 1:50:07
  good arguments and good perspectives and encouraging
• 1:50:09
  them and enriching them and even converting some that have
• 1:50:13
  thought Christianity was a total crock.
• 1:50:15
  And to the glory of God. I do these things.
• 1:50:18
  But only now do I feel like I have finally come to a point of
• 1:50:22
  genuine synergy. But probably what was God's
• 1:50:26
  actual will for me to do so? Before.
• 1:50:29
  This point, while God I'm sure would have preferred me to use
• 1:50:35
  my talents differently, He didn't force me.
• 1:50:37
  He let me do it. And now my choice to do so I
• 1:50:40
  think has a lot more meaning and value than it ever would have
• 1:50:44
  been had he forced me to just start doing this in my 20s.
• 1:50:47
  So it's. Monkey, you shouldn't, you
• 1:50:50
  shouldn't get down on yourself for this.
• 1:50:53
  Sometimes when you do all those side quests and you go
• 1:50:56
  exploring, it really exercises you mentally and physically and
• 1:51:00
  prepares you for the actual war and main story.
• 1:51:03
  So it's a. It's a good thing.
• 1:51:08
  Appreciate the solver. Yeah, just.
• 1:51:10
  Continuing if you if you guys don't mind, I was talking about
• 1:51:15
  the alpha and the Omega. The way that I understood that
• 1:51:20
  verse is God puts or inserts himself into the set of the 1st
• 1:51:27
  and the last. So if I.
• 1:51:30
  Were to understand that to mean God is the 1st and he's he is
• 1:51:36
  the last like you know. So.
• 1:51:40
  He he he is inserting himself in this time frame or or sorry, in
• 1:51:46
  this set that basically kicks off the time.
• 1:51:50
  So if I were to understand that verse as OK, God is the time, he
• 1:51:55
  himself is the time and he's not really timeless, but he is
• 1:52:02
  himself the time. How?
• 1:52:03
  How do you understand that? He himself.
• 1:52:07
  Is the time. Based on the. 1st and the last,
• 1:52:11
  he's the alpha and the Omega for example.
• 1:52:13
  He's in the set. He's not outside of the set, but
• 1:52:17
  he's within that set or he is. He is the set for example, right
• 1:52:23
  So. So if.
• 1:52:26
  We were to say time and timelessness are two two
• 1:52:29
  different sets. So the first and the last would
• 1:52:33
  be is indicative of the set that has time, for example, and God
• 1:52:40
  is the first. So he's a time.
• 1:52:43
  And how, how do you understand this to be for God to be himself
• 1:52:47
  the time, rather than being, well, that's fine.
• 1:52:51
  I could take your position on that and that's fine.
• 1:52:55
  I guess I could use that. I guess if I was, if I was
• 1:52:58
  taking kind of your language, your approach to it, then I
• 1:53:01
  would say it's kind of similar like this.
• 1:53:04
  The principle of the Kalam argument I'm sure you're kind of
• 1:53:08
  familiar with, which is kind of just basically the idea of the
• 1:53:11
  the first mover. You know, kind of there's an
• 1:53:15
  originating source of first mover that in and of itself
• 1:53:18
  cannot be moved in and of itself.
• 1:53:21
  There's something independent that sets all things in motion.
• 1:53:26
  So when you talk about the first, talk about the first
• 1:53:30
  mover, the first thing and, and by nature of it being the first
• 1:53:34
  mover, it must be exactly that. The first mover kind of
• 1:53:38
  necessarily entails. It's timeless, it's non causal.
• 1:53:43
  So there's no chronology to it. There's nothing, there's
• 1:53:46
  nothing. It's not contingent upon
• 1:53:48
  anything. There's nothing that is supreme
• 1:53:52
  over it or that limits it essentially, other than its own
• 1:53:57
  nature, of course. So this is something that kind
• 1:54:00
  of necessarily has to be timeless in this regard.
• 1:54:04
  If you're talking about the first or the first of all, the
• 1:54:07
  first mover, the first mover must be unmovable or unmoved.
• 1:54:12
  Otherwise, again, you fall into this attaching chronology to God
• 1:54:17
  getting into an infinite regress and all these other
• 1:54:19
  philosophical incoherences. So.
• 1:54:23
  Mr. Daniel, are you reaching towards the concept of
• 1:54:26
  pantheism? I'm just curious.
• 1:54:30
  Almost sounded a. Little like that.
• 1:54:31
  Yeah. I'm curious, yeah.
• 1:54:35
  So I'm thinking to to imagine a timelessness.
• 1:54:39
  For example, because God always exists, he's the first.
• 1:54:44
  So would it be fair to imagine timelessness just doesn't exist?
• 1:54:52
  Well before there. Was time, there was
• 1:54:54
  timelessness, now the ideas. That's that's how I look at it
• 1:54:59
  as far as beginning and end. I believe that he's talking
• 1:55:02
  about from the moment of construction of the universe and
• 1:55:05
  its laws to the end of it. First, last I started it, I'm
• 1:55:09
  going to finish it kind of deal. I think, well, he and the idea
• 1:55:14
  to me is that he transcends, you know, the beginning of reality
• 1:55:19
  and the end of reality. And she does 'cause he's outside
• 1:55:23
  of it, he's beyond it. And again, anything else
• 1:55:27
  essentially ends up in some way, shape or form directly
• 1:55:30
  correlating time with God. And if, and there's a lot of
• 1:55:35
  problems that emerge once you do that, once you attribute any
• 1:55:38
  time of chronology, especially linear chronology, to God, not
• 1:55:43
  only are you removing his timeless characteristic, but now
• 1:55:48
  you're putting him into an impossible infinite regress,
• 1:55:51
  tied and attached to a physical property of his own creation.
• 1:56:00
  Now, Daniel, you said earlier something really unusual.
• 1:56:03
  It was the first time that Smokey needed to take a break
• 1:56:06
  and all that. But I had asked a question, Do
• 1:56:10
  you think that God has beliefs? And you said yes.
• 1:56:14
  Can you explain that a little bit more?
• 1:56:18
  Yeah, I mean. The reason why I would think
• 1:56:20
  that is to be true is. God has.
• 1:56:26
  Invested hopes in in his people and had has believed them to to
• 1:56:34
  meet those expectations. And.
• 1:56:38
  Yeah, that would make me sort of go down this path in thinking
• 1:56:43
  God held beliefs, you know, God, God holds beliefs.
• 1:56:49
  So that that that's where I thought about it.
• 1:56:54
  And I said, yeah, that's possible to for God to have
• 1:56:57
  beliefs. Yeah.
• 1:56:59
  So does that mean? God has faith.
• 1:57:04
  Yeah, in people like he obviously expected some people
• 1:57:07
  to perform in certain way and meet expectations, keep his
• 1:57:10
  covenant. So he believed he had faith in
• 1:57:13
  those people to, to, to abide in, in the covenant.
• 1:57:18
  Yeah. Interesting it's such a.
• 1:57:24
  Simple sounding question, but it it's a rabbit hole, ain't it?
• 1:57:30
  Yeah. What's?
• 1:57:32
  What's the what's the Yeah, I mean, I.
• 1:57:34
  Would take the opposite position.
• 1:57:36
  I I would say it it's actually for the Christian God claim from
• 1:57:40
  my view that to ask if God has beliefs is actually kind of
• 1:57:43
  incoherent. Cause like you, generally you
• 1:57:47
  only can have a position of belief.
• 1:57:50
  Towards hold. On one second.
• 1:57:52
  Sorry, you can only have a position of belief towards
• 1:57:55
  something. Freaking cats.
• 1:58:03
  You can only have belief towards something you don't know.
• 1:58:05
  You can only have faith directed towards something you don't
• 1:58:07
  know. And even.
• 1:58:08
  Well, hold on, before I go down that road, Daniel, what is your
• 1:58:12
  definition of faith? Just just so I know, just so I'm
• 1:58:15
  not saying something assuming. You know, kind of what?
• 1:58:19
  Your definition is what? Well, I I sort.
• 1:58:21
  Of treat the word for what it is like in language.
• 1:58:24
  We developed language like human beings came up with language and
• 1:58:29
  we have meanings to the words in, in human, not necessarily
• 1:58:33
  from a theological point of view, but we do have meanings
• 1:58:38
  for words in, in day-to-day usage.
• 1:58:43
  So we do have faith in things other than God.
• 1:58:47
  We do have faith in our relationships.
• 1:58:50
  And there's there's so much more to the word faith than just
• 1:58:54
  having faith in the unseen God, for example.
• 1:58:58
  So just using the word for what it is in its own semantics, like
• 1:59:03
  in its own etymological sense of usage and semantics, you there.
• 1:59:11
  There's nothing wrong to say that God did have faith in
• 1:59:15
  Israel to perform some duties and be a loyal to the covenant.
• 1:59:20
  Yeah, I don't, I don't see any necessary problem arising there.
• 1:59:26
  Well, you don't think? It you don't think it kind of
• 1:59:28
  erases the omniscience component you know of God, No.
• 1:59:35
  I don't I. Don't.
• 1:59:36
  I don't think so. Well.
• 1:59:39
  Like, OK, so try to think of a way to, I'm not, I'm not 100%
• 1:59:44
  sure what your definition of faith really is here, but let me
• 1:59:47
  just try and play a, a kind of hypothetical and see if I can
• 1:59:51
  kind of round it out here a little bit.
• 1:59:55
  Do you? How much faith do you need to
• 2:00:00
  come to the conclusion that you have a mother?
• 2:00:05
  How much faith? Do you need?
• 2:00:08
  To come to. That conclusion I'm almost.
• 2:00:11
  Certain like there's not even a requirement like you're just
• 2:00:16
  you're. Really.
• 2:00:16
  You're really in a state of knowing, like you don't really
• 2:00:19
  need to jump out on a limb there, you know, to think that,
• 2:00:24
  you know, you don't have a, a mother by all reasonable, you
• 2:00:28
  know, 'cause I'm sure you've seen your mother.
• 2:00:30
  I'm sure you know, all people that exist have a mother.
• 2:00:33
  Like there's just, this is just the nature of reality.
• 2:00:36
  You have basically the most absolute confidence possible
• 2:00:40
  that you have a mother. Is that fair?
• 2:00:43
  Yeah, I'm. Fairly certain that I have a
• 2:00:45
  mother, Yeah. So.
• 2:00:47
  When you, when you talk to people, you I'm sure you never
• 2:00:52
  say I believe I have a mom. You just say, oh, I have a mom
• 2:00:56
  and her name is. You don't say I believe I have a
• 2:01:00
  mom. Because you have.
• 2:01:02
  You have a knowledge claim. You're not operating in faith or
• 2:01:05
  belief. You're operating on knowledge
• 2:01:07
  now I now that's not now we can go down a rabbit hole of how
• 2:01:12
  that's not really technically true because we're subjective
• 2:01:15
  agents and can only know so much and with for based upon our our
• 2:01:18
  own subjective reasoning, we might be mistaken.
• 2:01:21
  It might be a solipsistic universe where we're all in the
• 2:01:24
  matrix just alluded to the idea, but I don't want to go down that
• 2:01:26
  rabbit hole. I'm just saying in terms of our
• 2:01:28
  ability to have confidence in things, you basically have the
• 2:01:31
  strongest confidence possible that you have a mother and that
• 2:01:34
  doesn't really need any faith. Like that's not something you,
• 2:01:38
  you put under the category of things you believe.
• 2:01:42
  You put that under the category of things you know.
• 2:01:45
  So you know, there's a difference.
• 2:01:46
  Now, if God is timeless, he's outside of time, He knows all
• 2:01:50
  and sees all and he's omniscient, then there is
• 2:01:53
  nothing for him to believe in. There's nothing for him to be
• 2:01:57
  questioning about to put faith in.
• 2:01:59
  There's he's an objective agent. He knows and sees all things.
• 2:02:03
  So there's nothing that manifests that he's not fully
• 2:02:06
  and completely and absolutely aware of and all the dynamics
• 2:02:09
  they're in. So he doesn't need to, as I can
• 2:02:12
  see, really have as, as you seem to be presenting it, faith and
• 2:02:16
  anything. Now there's we are.
• 2:02:19
  We can't talk about different versions or definitions of
• 2:02:21
  faith. That's fine and maybe go down
• 2:02:23
  that road. But in terms of how I seem like
• 2:02:26
  you're presenting it, God as an objective agent, you know,
• 2:02:30
  wouldn't be having faith in anything really, essentially.
• 2:02:44
  I mean, I think it's in the book of Job.
• 2:02:47
  Yeah, it is Job four and five I believe, where it says he does
• 2:02:54
  not even trust, put trust in his servants talking about like the
• 2:02:59
  angels and with his, you know, servants he charges with error
• 2:03:04
  or sin. So even even the free will
• 2:03:08
  agents, you know, of the heavenly realms are not devoid
• 2:03:12
  of free will exercise and possible results therein, just
• 2:03:17
  like the evil rulers, you know, presented at night.
• 2:03:19
  I believe it's Jeremiah or Isaiah that are talked about by
• 2:03:23
  Jesus later on that are are called the Elohim or gods.
• 2:03:27
  But they'll die like men talking about, you know, not only the
• 2:03:31
  evil supernatural rulers that are observing and ruling in
• 2:03:36
  these places, but also the rulers themselves of the Jewish
• 2:03:40
  tribes that were evil and making merchandise of men.
• 2:03:44
  So there is this capacity I see all throughout scripture of the.
• 2:03:50
  Protection. Of the dynamic of free will
• 2:03:53
  pretty much across the board. In fact, the entire story of Job
• 2:03:57
  is based around a free will challenge to the one true God in
• 2:04:02
  the halls of heaven. So you know, anyway.
• 2:04:07
  I don't know if that was really. Germane, that was maybe a little
• 2:04:10
  off point, apologies, but I just ran.
• 2:04:12
  Hey, Smokey. Just I want to get you back to
• 2:04:14
  alpha and the Omega. It's sure, yeah.
• 2:04:17
  There's ideas. Popping in my brain, you know, I
• 2:04:19
  want to have a discussion about that.
• 2:04:22
  So why would it necessarily be inappropriate or philosophically
• 2:04:27
  incoherent to to identify God as the first so so as the time
• 2:04:37
  itself? Because.
• 2:04:39
  That because that means you had a beginning.
• 2:04:44
  Like it sounds like. You're staying the first, the
• 2:04:46
  first. Means you had a beginning.
• 2:04:47
  The first means you had a beginning.
• 2:04:50
  Well, that seems to be. What the way you're putting it?
• 2:04:53
  Because if he's, because if he's not beyond the first thing, if
• 2:04:57
  he's not the first thing, the unmovable first thing, the
• 2:05:00
  unmoved mover, If he's not that, that means there's something
• 2:05:04
  either beyond him that is moving him, or there's an infinite
• 2:05:10
  regress where we don't even get to the creation of a reality.
• 2:05:15
  If we get. Out of.
• 2:05:17
  Daniel. Daniel let.
• 2:05:18
  Me ask you something and this might bring bring us around out
• 2:05:22
  of the out of this unfortunate loop we found herself in.
• 2:05:26
  If an entity exists before the physical universe, before space
• 2:05:31
  and time and and all things nature wise, where would the
• 2:05:36
  beginning and end be within that concept?
• 2:05:39
  Let's subtract the universe, space and time.
• 2:05:43
  So at what point is God in this? What's happening according to
• 2:05:48
  your your visual here? Well, I'm having at the moment,
• 2:05:56
  I'm having difficulty in imagining timelessness because
• 2:06:01
  Daniel. If I could real quick, are you
• 2:06:03
  picturing it kind of like where it's in, it's an infinite set
• 2:06:08
  series backwards. Like in terms of timelessness is
• 2:06:12
  just God in an endless, you know, no.
• 2:06:17
  I think, I think I'm feeling I am comfortable with the position
• 2:06:21
  that God is the first. And.
• 2:06:23
  With this statement, I don't necessarily worry about
• 2:06:28
  timelessness, because timelessness just falls out of
• 2:06:31
  the set. It doesn't even belong to the
• 2:06:32
  set. So when God is the first, that's
• 2:06:36
  where everything has its origins.
• 2:06:41
  So from there on, God will abide, you know, And for
• 2:06:47
  example, the cosmos will be destroyed, but God will abide.
• 2:06:51
  And the space-time fabric that we are in can be destroyed, but
• 2:06:57
  God will abide. So the time that as we relate to
• 2:07:01
  it in our domain of space-time fabric can get destroyed, but
• 2:07:06
  God will still continue to abide because God was the 1st and God
• 2:07:10
  is the last, so to speak. He will abide.
• 2:07:14
  And I cannot perceive a timelessness for God because God
• 2:07:21
  is the first God's been there. There's never been a time when
• 2:07:25
  there was no time, no time, you know, timelessness kind of
• 2:07:29
  thing. But it's just we as human beings
• 2:07:32
  made out of material find ourselves in into this time,
• 2:07:37
  space, fabric. And we have this idea of time
• 2:07:43
  and chronology, but but to attribute timelessness to God
• 2:07:50
  would be something that is not supportive of in the doctrine of
• 2:07:57
  God. Like the doctrine of God
• 2:07:59
  communicates that he belongs to the set.
• 2:08:01
  He's not outside of the set. He's the 1st and he's the last.
• 2:08:05
  And we are like we have come in and relate to this time in our
• 2:08:13
  perspective relative to human human lifetime.
• 2:08:17
  We understand time as a material and space-time thing.
• 2:08:21
  But God is really the 1st and the last.
• 2:08:25
  And we can't really conflate our our idea of timelessness outside
• 2:08:33
  of the time and space and project it to God as a post hoc
• 2:08:40
  rationalizing of timelessness to God, because God himself.
• 2:08:46
  Does not. Put himself outside of the 1st
• 2:08:48
  and the last thing he's inclusive in the set of the 1st
• 2:08:51
  and the last. Timelessness is necessarily
• 2:08:54
  entailed by by spacelessness like it's necessarily entailed
• 2:09:00
  like if God has time and God has space and God has made a
• 2:09:04
  material. Like he's it's.
• 2:09:07
  It's inseparable. So you are making problems and
• 2:09:13
  entailments on multiple angles, and again, you're still kind of
• 2:09:16
  seemingly trying to attach some type of chronology to God, which
• 2:09:22
  now makes him again subservient to this thing, which is a
• 2:09:28
  progression or a chronology. I'm not really sure what type of
• 2:09:31
  time you're presenting, whether it's linear, geometric, whether
• 2:09:35
  he's able to experience multiple things at the same time or can
• 2:09:38
  only experience things in progression.
• 2:09:40
  I'm not really sure. The model you're defending, so
• 2:09:44
  I'm not entirely sure what able to go at it, but it almost in
• 2:09:47
  some way seems like you're trying to defend the idea that
• 2:09:51
  God is trapped to a sequence or a set.
• 2:09:55
  In terms of. Chronology, which now also
• 2:09:57
  brings an added problem of him now having to be made of
• 2:10:01
  something because now he has to have material, he has to have
• 2:10:06
  something to him to experience time, because that's how we
• 2:10:08
  experience time. And you, you, yeah, and you did
• 2:10:11
  say that in your statement as well.
• 2:10:13
  So I know you know that. So there are there are
• 2:10:15
  entailments to this. And you do have the problem.
• 2:10:19
  Like I said, once you're attributing any type of
• 2:10:22
  chronology to God, you bring in a package of problems.
• 2:10:25
  That's just one of them. Yeah, I.
• 2:10:29
  Smokey, if I if I come off wrong on this, you guys can feel free
• 2:10:33
  to correct me on this. But when I hear alpha Omega
• 2:10:36
  beginning and I feel like it's an analogy for the constraints
• 2:10:40
  of the universe as it is or how it, its origin and its end.
• 2:10:45
  I I don't think that God's actually how do I put this if he
• 2:10:49
  exists within a timeless place outside of nature and all this
• 2:10:53
  and this means he's and some form of dimension or, or higher
• 2:10:57
  point. It could be even simpler than
• 2:11:00
  that, Brett. If he's beyond the first 'cause
• 2:11:05
  and he's after the last event, we get right to his timeless,
• 2:11:11
  faceless nature right there. If he truly is the first, which
• 2:11:16
  means he's beyond any causal first in reality, and if he is
• 2:11:21
  indeed the last transcendental beyond what anything else could
• 2:11:26
  persevere or or or extend to, and he's he's the absolute
• 2:11:30
  extremes of all of these things, then he is beyond all of these
• 2:11:35
  things. I think it's pretty simple to
• 2:11:38
  me. I mean, even analogously, it
• 2:11:41
  seems to be fairly simple to follow.
• 2:11:44
  And you still get his primary attributes of spaceless,
• 2:11:47
  timeless, all knowing. You know, certainly he's going
• 2:11:51
  to know everything because he's not tied to time.
• 2:11:53
  He's not making probabilistic guesses about the future.
• 2:11:55
  He knows everything. You know how you.
• 2:11:58
  Explain that we're at the end, we basically wrap right back
• 2:12:02
  into timelessness ourselves. And so that could kind of be an
• 2:12:07
  argument for why it is that we are able to exist in the state
• 2:12:12
  that we do with God in the afterlife or whatever you guys
• 2:12:15
  want to call it, because entropy, the law of entropy, no
• 2:12:18
  longer no longer exists. You know what entropy is,
• 2:12:21
  Daniel? Yeah.
• 2:12:24
  All right. I'm glad I was able to make some
• 2:12:26
  sense. All right, you got any more?
• 2:12:32
  I just. Daniel, if you could, maybe if
• 2:12:34
  you could kind of just take him. I, I don't know, a minute or two
• 2:12:37
  and like walk me through kind of like how you see your model,
• 2:12:42
  like how God kind of, you know, relates to reality, his
• 2:12:48
  decisions towards it based upon what he knows and kind of like,
• 2:12:53
  you know, like do you see him in a progression?
• 2:12:57
  Do you see him as having multiple thoughts and feelings
• 2:13:01
  at the same time since he sees all or like I mean, do you think
• 2:13:06
  he can only have one emotion at one time or something like that?
• 2:13:09
  Like give me get just if you could just try and elaborate on
• 2:13:13
  kind of your model like how you kind of see how all this kind of
• 2:13:17
  coalesces. Yeah, OK.
• 2:13:20
  I'll try my best. I don't necessarily superimpose
• 2:13:31
  limitations to God in a way that he has just one unidirectional
• 2:13:36
  emotion or feelings or things of that nature.
• 2:13:44
  He's he's beyond my comprehension as to how he or
• 2:13:51
  who he is. Basically, we as a as a human
• 2:13:55
  being possessing the free will that I have received as as as a
• 2:14:00
  gift, for example, the way that I would manage my free will is
• 2:14:06
  not necessarily how God would function.
• 2:14:09
  His will is greater than all, for example.
• 2:14:13
  So I would not I, I don't claim to be comprehending a lot about
• 2:14:18
  how God goes on to do his business, but I can relate to
• 2:14:23
  him and I can understand how he functions with us through the
• 2:14:30
  words that he communicates to us.
• 2:14:32
  For example, so we have these books of God, the Bible and the
• 2:14:36
  Quran, and we have so much material in there.
• 2:14:39
  So through through that material, when I try to read
• 2:14:43
  God, God is like this. I I cannot attribute to God a
• 2:14:51
  timeless dimension of decisions that he has made, some of which
• 2:14:59
  could become redundant. And I don't necessarily see God
• 2:15:04
  operating at this level of wastage that he has made N
• 2:15:09
  number of decisions and N minus something number of decisions
• 2:15:14
  would be redundant. I don't necessarily see God
• 2:15:17
  operate in this fashion. I would see God like operate
• 2:15:21
  with agents as human beings in a much more dynamic way that he
• 2:15:27
  can. He can he can have an impromptu
• 2:15:32
  approach in A at a dynamic relationship with us human as
• 2:15:36
  human beings. And I don't necessarily see that
• 2:15:39
  dynamic relationship as being any hurdle to the philosophical
• 2:15:45
  coherence of his omniscience or or omnipotence.
• 2:15:49
  In fact, I believe if he, if he weren't dynamic, that would be
• 2:15:53
  impeding into his omnipotence. That's what that's that's how I
• 2:15:57
  would see it. So I, I hope you get you, you're
• 2:16:00
  getting sense of what I'm trying to say to you.
• 2:16:05
  Smokey, Are you ready for me to throw something out there based
• 2:16:09
  upon the conversation we're having right now?
• 2:16:11
  Just one of the questions. I think Okie's pooping or
• 2:16:17
  something. He's probably listening then.
• 2:16:20
  But the the question to go along with what you're talking about
• 2:16:23
  there, Daniel, is does God know every possible future or just
• 2:16:27
  the one that happens? I would not.
• 2:16:33
  Say, I would not say that I What I would say is God knows.
• 2:16:39
  God has determined future, but he has not.
• 2:16:44
  He has not determined the outcomes, the actual outcomes of
• 2:16:49
  the agents of free will like like us, for example.
• 2:16:52
  So God has not determined or what I would do, say in the
• 2:16:59
  evening for example, what I would decide in the evening.
• 2:17:03
  He has no decisions there, but He becomes knowledgeable once I
• 2:17:07
  have made my decisions. You know what I mean?
• 2:17:12
  I hear you. It sounds a little bit like
• 2:17:14
  you're going towards compatibilism a little bit.
• 2:17:19
  Compatibilism. So what is compatibilism?
• 2:17:22
  Compatibilism. Is it to do with that means?
• 2:17:24
  That God basically set some things in order and some things
• 2:17:28
  are predetermined and set stone is where within the framework
• 2:17:32
  you're still able to make some choices.
• 2:17:34
  Hopefully they articulated that properly.
• 2:17:39
  OK. Yeah, I think, I think yours,
• 2:17:48
  well, whatever. I think I've kind of said kind
• 2:17:50
  of everything I need to say on that.
• 2:17:51
  What was your question again, Brett?
• 2:17:53
  Exactly. I, I think I probably answered
• 2:17:55
  it, but just just to kind of make sure I I heard it
• 2:17:58
  correctly. You talk about like God's
• 2:18:00
  knowing what is going to happen or something making it
• 2:18:02
  necessary. Is is that what you asked?
• 2:18:05
  No, this is. Kind of something that you've
• 2:18:07
  scratched during quite a few times when I've heard you.
• 2:18:11
  Does God know every possible future are just the one that
• 2:18:14
  happens? Yeah, that's.
• 2:18:17
  Called middle knowledge, that's one of the three categories of
• 2:18:20
  knowledge that the moments talk about.
• 2:18:23
  It's one of the generally easier ones to prove, especially
• 2:18:26
  explicitly from scripture. Necessarily.
• 2:18:29
  Well, they're always proof, but. Middle knowledge is easy.
• 2:18:32
  To prove from Scripture, there's an example of this when the
• 2:18:35
  Israelites are asking and crying out to God, they had every
• 2:18:39
  intention to want to flee to Egypt and they were asking God,
• 2:18:44
  you know, hey, what will happen if we flee to Egypt?
• 2:18:48
  What will happen if we stay here?
• 2:18:51
  God communicates very clearly knowing exactly what would
• 2:18:55
  happen if they did one or the other.
• 2:18:58
  This is God demonstrating middle.
• 2:19:00
  Knowledge where he. Knows the outcome of possible
• 2:19:04
  realities based upon what they will choose to do.
• 2:19:08
  That's not obligated in any way, shape or form to instigate that
• 2:19:12
  choice or determine that choice, But he does know what the
• 2:19:17
  outcomes of either one of the choices are, and he does know
• 2:19:20
  which one they will choose. But again, this is knowledge
• 2:19:23
  that he's not required to act upon.
• 2:19:27
  And again, just when you. Create the free will agent and
• 2:19:30
  you know what it's going to do. It does not mean that you've
• 2:19:33
  dictated what it's going to do. It doesn't mean that that
• 2:19:36
  knowledge is necessarily intrinsically tied to its
• 2:19:39
  decision. It just means that you are aware
• 2:19:42
  and knowledgeable of what the outcome of the decision is.
• 2:19:44
  This is, I think at the beginning of the conversation.
• 2:19:47
  This was the error that I thought Daniel was kind of
• 2:19:49
  making, trying to necessarily tie the knowledge of the sense
• 2:19:53
  of now. It's in a realm of determinism
• 2:19:56
  that it now somehow negates the action of the free will agent.
• 2:20:00
  That's and that's why I was kind of trying to overcome with it.
• 2:20:02
  But that's the idea of the category moladism of God.
• 2:20:05
  'S middle knowledge. So, and by the way, it
• 2:20:08
  completely defeats that stupid idiot theology of open theism
• 2:20:12
  with the most uncoherent garbage I've ever heard in my entire
• 2:20:15
  life. Because in open theism, God
• 2:20:16
  doesn't know what's going to happen, He just operates based
• 2:20:19
  upon probabilities of wagers. It's absolute nonsense and
• 2:20:22
  confident. Dumb blind deaf dumb idiot God.
• 2:20:25
  Yeah, open fee isn't ridiculous. Smokey.
• 2:20:28
  I'd like to ask you something outside of my philosophical
• 2:20:31
  questions. You had said earlier that you
• 2:20:33
  are interested in doing a show based upon the subject matter of
• 2:20:37
  atheist. I'm not sure what it is.
• 2:20:39
  Probably has something to do with them being dumb.
• 2:20:42
  Would you like me to get a show going for you next Friday or do
• 2:20:46
  you want to go to channel? I'll think about it.
• 2:20:51
  Well, I'll, I'll, I'll chew it over tonight, then I'll, I'll
• 2:20:54
  shoot you an e-mail. Or something.
• 2:20:56
  All right, sounds good. Daniel, you got any other
• 2:21:00
  thoughts or would you like me to throw out some more questions?
• 2:21:03
  And you asked, you asked me earlier about the rabbit hole.
• 2:21:06
  What does that mean? You haven't heard the rabbit
• 2:21:08
  hole concept before? I, I I.
• 2:21:10
  Have but I I did not really understand what did you mean by
• 2:21:13
  that? In, in, in.
• 2:21:15
  Wonderland. Whenever she goes into the the
• 2:21:17
  weird world and stuff and it just takes her all over the damn
• 2:21:20
  place, things go crazy. OK, that kind of thing.
• 2:21:24
  Alice in Wonderland, a classic. You ready for a question?
• 2:21:30
  Yeah, sure. All right.
• 2:21:33
  We are now going to actually be on our 4th question.
• 2:21:38
  Here we go. It's got a.
• 2:21:41
  Half. Hours.
• 2:21:41
  We got to four. That's great.
• 2:21:43
  No, but. It's been a fantastic
• 2:21:45
  conversation. I'm glad if you guys are
• 2:21:48
  interested in stretching it out for other times, it's up to
• 2:21:51
  Daniel. He's had a long day.
• 2:21:53
  Well, I mean, but it's totally. I think I think we can.
• 2:21:57
  We can close with this question and no, I mean when I.
• 2:22:00
  When I stretch it out, I mean for other times, like we can
• 2:22:04
  just wait for another day or bring something up every once in
• 2:22:07
  a while. It's all good.
• 2:22:09
  Yeah, sure. Sure, we.
• 2:22:10
  Having this conversation. Wherever in fact, I I, I I
• 2:22:14
  wouldn't even mind doing a stream on something like problem
• 2:22:17
  believable or what what I. Would like to do is I would like
• 2:22:21
  to have a different conversation with Smokey before I come back
• 2:22:27
  to this because I want to understand some of the
• 2:22:32
  entailments of Smokey's philosophy into understanding
• 2:22:37
  some some scriptures for example like John One and one.
• 2:22:42
  I would want to know how this all fits in there, like if
• 2:22:47
  Smokey's comfortable talking to me about John 1 and one for
• 2:22:49
  example. I don't care.
• 2:22:51
  You know matter. Yeah, we can talk.
• 2:22:53
  About it maybe in the next stream and and and then I will
• 2:22:58
  I'll be able to correlate how you kind of tie it up all off
• 2:23:02
  you know what I mean. So I can I can I can better
• 2:23:04
  understand yeah. I can better understand your
• 2:23:06
  epis to me. Yeah.
• 2:23:08
  No, I'm fine with that, yeah. Whatever you want to.
• 2:23:10
  Yeah, throw out whatever and we'll we'll do it.
• 2:23:13
  Yeah, I don't care. Yeah, not now, but.
• 2:23:14
  A different stream, for example? Sure.
• 2:23:16
  Yeah, I'm good. With that, yeah.
• 2:23:19
  Yeah. You are, you said.
• 2:23:20
  Smokey that you have a interest in the the evil problem and
• 2:23:25
  stuff that a lot of people I guess like to bring up.
• 2:23:28
  I guess it's not a problem for me.
• 2:23:29
  I. Mean.
• 2:23:30
  Oh, I understand. I.
• 2:23:31
  Understand I I guess I could throw this out for you both so
• 2:23:35
  you can have some fun with it that you aren't.
• 2:23:38
  If God is good, why do bad things like suffering exist?
• 2:23:41
  Go. Ahead, Daniel.
• 2:23:47
  You want. To hit it, Daniel, God is good.
• 2:23:49
  Why do suffering exist? So it's.
• 2:23:54
  A classic. Atheist question.
• 2:23:56
  This is the one that makes them have the sad.
• 2:23:59
  So there is two people. Question.
• 2:24:01
  It is the problem, yeah. Yeah, basically.
• 2:24:03
  Yeah, that's what it is. But there's there's there's 2
• 2:24:05
  perspectives. 1 is suffering comes from human volition, human
• 2:24:10
  will, and also from God's volition or God's will because
• 2:24:16
  we do have calamities, unprovoked calamities I would
• 2:24:20
  say. For example, even if you take
• 2:24:22
  away the evil human who who might get punished by Almighty
• 2:24:27
  God through calamities, so take him away, animals do suffer.
• 2:24:32
  So animals are not evil, they won't be burned down in hell,
• 2:24:35
  but they do suffer from God's actions on planet Earth, for
• 2:24:39
  example. So that if that is a kind of
• 2:24:42
  suffering that you're talking about and you're asking me if
• 2:24:45
  God was compassionate and why does he, why does he bring
• 2:24:50
  suffering into innocent animals? How would that, how would I
• 2:24:56
  answer that would be completely different from sufferings that
• 2:25:01
  suffering. Remember that everything from
• 2:25:03
  pushing a little old lady in front of the bus to kicking the
• 2:25:06
  kitten? Go ahead.
• 2:25:10
  So I wouldn't necessarily separate the two.
• 2:25:14
  I would separate suffering to human beings who are responsible
• 2:25:20
  creatures like we are responsible in the teleology of
• 2:25:22
  God to conduct well and to to abide by the covenant that God
• 2:25:28
  has with us. A failing which God might mount,
• 2:25:31
  suffering our way through natural calamities.
• 2:25:34
  But why would these impact the non human species is where the
• 2:25:40
  debate must be in my opinion. All right, so if if that's what
• 2:25:45
  is the question at hand which the atheists might agree that a
• 2:25:51
  benevolent God need not be subjecting non human or non
• 2:25:57
  sentient species into suffering. I would answer that in this
• 2:26:03
  fashion. I might be wrong, but I would
• 2:26:07
  answer that in this fashion that God has made the object of
• 2:26:14
  planet earth and the life on this planet as a lesson for
• 2:26:21
  humans to draw upon. So there is an instruction in
• 2:26:25
  this organized life to draw out for human beings.
• 2:26:31
  So human beings learn their subservientness to Almighty God,
• 2:26:37
  their their position before the majesty of Almighty God as a as
• 2:26:43
  a servant and to learn the humility that God is in charge.
• 2:26:48
  So there is a lesson that we derive out of it because God
• 2:26:52
  ultimately is the one who awards life and death.
• 2:26:55
  And it's easy for God to avoid, to award life and death, so he
• 2:26:59
  gives life. Which species become protective
• 2:27:04
  of and would want to survive, would want to be safe and ensure
• 2:27:09
  their well-being, but at the same time, God can bring death
• 2:27:12
  to them. And this is what God does.
• 2:27:15
  And at this, right at this stage, God's is above our
• 2:27:19
  questioning because God does what he does, and God gives life
• 2:27:23
  and God gives death. And as creatures, we tend to
• 2:27:26
  enjoy the gift of life, and there's a larger instruction out
• 2:27:31
  there of death and how God would award us eternal life if we
• 2:27:37
  persevered in His covenant and abided in His covenant.
• 2:27:41
  So there is instruction. God organizes this whole
• 2:27:46
  suffering on planet earth as an instruction to human being.
• 2:27:51
  So human being can come to God in humble ways as a subservient
• 2:27:55
  servant. So that's my take.
• 2:28:02
  OK for me I guess I don't want to take a hour answering this,
• 2:28:07
  so I guess I'll just try and boil it down to its lowest
• 2:28:11
  common denominator. The allowance of evil is for an
• 2:28:15
  ultimate higher good. So there is a.
• 2:28:18
  Higher good that is available than the good that we perceive
• 2:28:24
  as the good of limiting or neutralizing evil.
• 2:28:27
  There's a higher good than that and the higher good is
• 2:28:30
  protected. So in terms of the reality that
• 2:28:34
  we have, there's certain components of it that basically
• 2:28:38
  you could think of would almost be necessary if it was created
• 2:28:43
  by a loving God. And one of kind of those
• 2:28:46
  necessary components is this dynamic of free will, because we
• 2:28:53
  even understand and recognized and are moral programming that
• 2:28:58
  the annexation or violation of someone's will is generally, not
• 2:29:04
  always, but generally A moral wrong.
• 2:29:08
  And this flows, of course, I believe, from the nature of God
• 2:29:11
  himself, from the nature of reality, is that we recognize
• 2:29:15
  that it's not loving for us to take our child and chain them in
• 2:29:22
  the basement so they never make any dangerous decisions and
• 2:29:26
  endanger themselves or make a decision that you don't approve.
• 2:29:30
  We don't see that as loving. We don't recognize that as
• 2:29:33
  loving, and there's a reason for that.
• 2:29:36
  We don't recognize forced love or grape as something that is
• 2:29:41
  love. And this, I think, is a
• 2:29:44
  reflection of basically God's nature that is programmed into
• 2:29:48
  US of a sense of intrinsic morality.
• 2:29:51
  There's some of these core ideas that we kind of just understand
• 2:29:56
  basically is a reflection of God and his nature.
• 2:30:01
  So. To me, when I look at reality, I
• 2:30:04
  think about this idea that there is a higher good beyond simply
• 2:30:08
  the elimination of evil. I look at the idea of the
• 2:30:12
  importance of the free will dynamic, the importance of the
• 2:30:16
  relational dynamic with the creation of the necessity for
• 2:30:20
  God to really, if he is truly loving to create a reality where
• 2:30:24
  true love is able to actually manifest, not by force or decree
• 2:30:29
  or determinism or fatalism, but actually exists.
• 2:30:32
  So, and to make an analogy so everyone can kind of get this
• 2:30:37
  into into perspective of what I'm really saying.
• 2:30:40
  If you were to think about reality as a program being
• 2:30:45
  created by a programmer, and the program has a specific purpose,
• 2:30:49
  just like a calculator as a purpose to calculate numbers and
• 2:30:52
  a calendar has the purpose to calculate time, reality has a
• 2:30:56
  purpose. It has a teleology behind its
• 2:30:59
  creation, and I believe that this teleology, this highest
• 2:31:03
  purpose to it is to have a meaningful deep relationship
• 2:31:08
  with the creation. I believe all that is must be
• 2:31:11
  integrated in a way where it protects this primary purpose,
• 2:31:14
  this primary teleology of reality.
• 2:31:17
  So there are going to be certain aspects, certain components of
• 2:31:21
  that reality that necessarily follow.
• 2:31:24
  If the the idea is to create a reality we're a meaningful
• 2:31:29
  organic free will relationship can emerge with the creation,
• 2:31:32
  then there's going to be certain necessary components of that
• 2:31:35
  reality to exist. And this is where we get the
• 2:31:39
  idea that the highest good above the mitigation or elimination of
• 2:31:44
  evil is the allowance of the manifestation of the free will
• 2:31:49
  choice of the creation to choose or do not choose and therefore
• 2:31:53
  have an actual meaningful relationship with the Divine.
• 2:31:57
  And those that choose the otherwise are basically just the
• 2:32:00
  ones that are part of the equation that will, if they are,
• 2:32:05
  choose to exercise their free will, they will emerge and
• 2:32:08
  deviate to the other side. But it does not negate the value
• 2:32:13
  or eliminate or present any lack of justification for the
• 2:32:17
  allowance of the manifestation of those who want to have that
• 2:32:21
  true, loving, genuine relationship with God.
• 2:32:24
  I am one of those that take the position, and this is even
• 2:32:28
  something that could be discussed a little more in depth
• 2:32:31
  later, that I actually believe that we live in the and I'm.
• 2:32:35
  Going to be real careful. With my language here, don't
• 2:32:37
  take a deterministic spin off of what I'm about to say.
• 2:32:41
  We. Live in the minimal scope.
• 2:32:45
  Possible evil. Worlds and what I mean by that,
• 2:32:49
  just to give an example, and I would defend this if anyone
• 2:32:52
  wants to challenge me on this. We look at all the evils in the
• 2:32:56
  world and we think to ourselves based upon a limited
• 2:32:58
  perspective, this is as bad as it could possibly get.
• 2:33:00
  That's completely not true. As an example, imagine if, you
• 2:33:05
  know, suddenly we had people like the X-Men or telepaths or
• 2:33:09
  psychics or things like that. People that could make people
• 2:33:12
  see things, hallucinate things, control, people crack through
• 2:33:17
  concrete, you know, could fly. Imagine all the incredible extra
• 2:33:20
  scopes of evil mankind would be capable of if we had these extra
• 2:33:25
  ranges and scopes in our nature. So I hold the position that God,
• 2:33:29
  I believe, created basically the reality in scope and range.
• 2:33:33
  Not determinism by choice, but in scope and range of the choice
• 2:33:37
  of nature of his created agents to provide for what I think was
• 2:33:41
  the most minimally possible universe, most minimal possible
• 2:33:46
  amount of evil to emerge, while still protecting the free will
• 2:33:49
  dynamic that I do believe. Oh, OK.
• 2:33:53
  Very. Articulate, I myself, I, as you
• 2:33:56
  know, Smokey, I had a issue with the evil problem and all that
• 2:34:00
  for a while there, I recall, but I recall.
• 2:34:04
  I would I. Talked to somebody and
• 2:34:06
  everything and they luckily they were very patient with me and
• 2:34:10
  they said, I go, why would God create, you know, evil and
• 2:34:14
  suffering and all this kind of stuff?
• 2:34:16
  And he goes, well, if you read the Bible, Brett, he didn't
• 2:34:20
  originally do it that way. They, these people were perfect.
• 2:34:24
  They were good. They had everything going for
• 2:34:26
  them and they were given a decision and we're told clearly
• 2:34:30
  and specifically what was going to happen.
• 2:34:32
  And then suddenly I started feeling like my position was
• 2:34:36
  falling. The shit that's that's and I was
• 2:34:39
  like, oh man. So that's what helped me change
• 2:34:42
  some of my views and it really helped me through my problem.
• 2:34:46
  Well, good. Awesome.
• 2:34:47
  Praise God. That's great.
• 2:34:48
  Good. All right.
• 2:34:50
  Well, that's about I guess all I had on that topic.
• 2:34:55
  If you, I don't know if we're going to wrap it up now or I
• 2:34:57
  mean it was a good talk to you, it's totally up to you.
• 2:34:59
  Guys, I got, you've seen my page probably it's like 50 and we're
• 2:35:05
  only like 4. Awesome.
• 2:35:07
  Yeah, yeah. I think.
• 2:35:09
  I mean, it's up to you. No, I'm in favor of.
• 2:35:13
  Wrapping it up so I'm. Good with that.
• 2:35:15
  Yeah, we can always, yeah, we can always come back and pick
• 2:35:18
  this up again, you know, let the, you know, questions take on
• 2:35:21
  a slightly different, you know, role or something.
• 2:35:24
  I, I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure.
• 2:35:26
  I'll go back and re listen to your kind of take on that about
• 2:35:30
  the, the stance of of evil or something.
• 2:35:33
  But in any case, I, I think I certainly got out what I wanted
• 2:35:37
  to say on a lot of these subjects, I think, and I really
• 2:35:40
  appreciate you coming along and, you know, presenting kind of the
• 2:35:43
  other side and the viewpoint and it kind of even I think
• 2:35:46
  stimulated me getting some of these things out.
• 2:35:49
  And I think this is a really good time.
• 2:35:50
  I actually really, really enjoyed it.
• 2:35:52
  I thought this is great, really fruitful.
• 2:35:53
  So. Yes, I'm.
• 2:35:55
  Here, I mean, it's, it's very interesting to learn from where
• 2:35:58
  you're coming and all of the other interfaith within
• 2:36:02
  Christianity. I mean, you seem to have a
• 2:36:03
  plethora of understanding of all of these different branches of
• 2:36:06
  how they relate to these philosophical ideas.
• 2:36:11
  So it's good to know. It's good to know and learn from
• 2:36:13
  you. And yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 2:36:18
  I mean, it's going to be a relationship of learning, I
• 2:36:21
  suppose, at least for me. So yeah.
• 2:36:27
  Well, I'm I'm. Interested to learn your take
• 2:36:28
  too, you know, and even on some of these things, especially the
• 2:36:32
  Quran only stuff. And you know, I mean, I'm
• 2:36:34
  curious on some of these other things.
• 2:36:36
  So I mean, because I know here's the thing.
• 2:36:37
  I see you've kind of come to, you know, we're all responsible
• 2:36:41
  for our own epistemology and what we choose to believe.
• 2:36:45
  I tend to get real cautious about wandering too far from the
• 2:36:52
  lines of Christian Orthodoxy. Unless I have a.
• 2:36:56
  Really good reason to and the reason is because I don't want
• 2:37:03
  to take a position where I'm trying to like.
• 2:37:06
  Elevate my. Understanding or grasp of
• 2:37:09
  knowledge suddenly higher than the entire collective effort of
• 2:37:14
  like, the theological world. Yeah.
• 2:37:16
  Like, to me, it would be a little ridiculous even on its
• 2:37:20
  face to like, adopt, say, for instance, Arianism, you know, or
• 2:37:24
  like Jehovah's Witness theology, where Jesus is a created being
• 2:37:28
  and not actually God. Because in 325 AD, pretty much
• 2:37:33
  the entirety of the theological world came together to refute
• 2:37:39
  free heretical, you know, priests or bishops.
• 2:37:44
  Arias sent his to supporters and the entire theological world,
• 2:37:49
  300 plus, you know, bishops and theological leaders came from
• 2:37:52
  all over the world to show up and contend and debate and say
• 2:37:57
  Arianism is bullshit. Now it's for me to look at that
• 2:38:01
  story and think that I'm somehow supposed to place a bat the
• 2:38:06
  loser, You know, the people that propagandized their heresy to
• 2:38:11
  the leaders to basically make it some sort of overarching forced,
• 2:38:15
  you know, narrative. And even to this day, I have
• 2:38:17
  degenerate little idiot atheists running around claiming that
• 2:38:20
  Arianism was some super huge, massive, wide reaching theology
• 2:38:25
  simply because certain propaganda spread it to certain
• 2:38:28
  rulers who adopted it in their regions.
• 2:38:31
  You know, and to the idea that that someone's going to look
• 2:38:35
  back in church history and say, I'm going to side with these
• 2:38:39
  three nut jobs that were basically ostracized, you know,
• 2:38:43
  not not excommunicated. I mean, areas stayed a priest
• 2:38:46
  until the day he died, but he was kind of isolated and he
• 2:38:49
  didn't really have any teaching position or any respect in the
• 2:38:52
  church. I'm going for someone to come
• 2:38:53
  along and say, Oh, no, that that guy had it right.
• 2:38:56
  You know, the guy that lost all arguments everywhere and was
• 2:39:00
  completely clowned across the entire theological world and
• 2:39:03
  couldn't get really anyone to agree with them other than two
• 2:39:06
  radical people, you know, that were that were under his study.
• 2:39:10
  You know you got. To look at things like that, I
• 2:39:13
  think the the Christian has to look at that stuff with a sense
• 2:39:16
  of intrinsic scrutiny. And you really want to, you
• 2:39:19
  know, to to think the idea that the entire theological world
• 2:39:23
  that came together to write the Nicean Creed was simply devoid
• 2:39:28
  of the Holy Spirit, that they were able, you were able to get
• 2:39:31
  300 plus minds come together and completely agree on the verbiage
• 2:39:37
  of with all these different prepackaged ideas and
• 2:39:41
  presuppositions and interpretation stuff.
• 2:39:42
  And they can all come together and refute this heretic with a
• 2:39:47
  Nicean creed that delineates the nature of the Trinity.
• 2:39:51
  You know, and it's basically as as analogously or close as it
• 2:39:54
  possibly can. I mean, the Bible proves that
• 2:39:59
  the Trinity is personhood via the Granville Sharp rule.
• 2:40:02
  It's pre programmed in the Greek Matthew.
• 2:40:05
  Is it 20? It's 28 or something.
• 2:40:08
  I have to go look it up. Go baptized in the name of the
• 2:40:11
  Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
• 2:40:12
  Go look up what the Granville Sharp rule is very specifically
• 2:40:15
  in the Greek. This is communicating personhood
• 2:40:18
  in the text. So.
• 2:40:21
  It's there anyone you know? Jesus said.
• 2:40:24
  He who has, you know, ears to hear, let him hear.
• 2:40:26
  You know, it's it's all there for anyone that wants to see it
• 2:40:29
  and look at it. But we adopt things based upon
• 2:40:32
  what we like and what feels good.
• 2:40:34
  And I am trying real hard to not be one of them.
• 2:40:38
  Real hard. In fact, those people tend to
• 2:40:40
  irritate me. And God forbid I'd be one of
• 2:40:42
  them. I want to adopt what's true.
• 2:40:45
  Yeah. I hear you.
• 2:40:46
  I guess I. Hear you.
• 2:40:47
  I can wrap things up with one last thing for you both.
• 2:40:51
  It won't be a philosophical thing about God's nature, but
• 2:40:54
  it'll be more about the nature of atheist.
• 2:40:57
  Would you guys be interested in that real quick?
• 2:41:01
  Can you? Can you just hold on?
• 2:41:02
  Brad, I'll just have to say a word to, to Yeah.
• 2:41:06
  So Smokey, I would be interested to, if you could, if you could
• 2:41:10
  think about what I said of the redundancy problem that comes
• 2:41:16
  with timeless decisions of Almighty God.
• 2:41:20
  And would that impede on him being a perfect God?
• 2:41:28
  I, I want, I want you to think about this and in, in the next
• 2:41:32
  stream, probably talk about it a little bit, right?
• 2:41:36
  That's fine. I don't really see a redundancy
• 2:41:39
  problem, and I don't even really see how it's redundant at all
• 2:41:43
  because, you know the choice is based upon whatever actualizes.
• 2:41:47
  So his choice only actualizes based upon what actualizes in
• 2:41:51
  reality. So I don't see any redundancy by
• 2:41:53
  him having an operational knowledge of what he would do in
• 2:41:56
  any possible reality. I don't see any redundancy
• 2:42:00
  problem because it's not like I'm not talking about some
• 2:42:02
  multiverse concept where, you know, there's multiple universes
• 2:42:07
  where he's making all these decisions at the same time in
• 2:42:09
  different timelines. That's not, I mean, there's no
• 2:42:11
  redundancy in that regard. It's just he has already decided
• 2:42:16
  what he will do based upon any decision of any free will agent,
• 2:42:20
  and it doesn't mean that he dictated what the free will
• 2:42:23
  agent to do to make those decisions.
• 2:42:27
  Right. It would probably just as you
• 2:42:30
  suggest to Smokey to think about that.
• 2:42:33
  You might want to try to think of another way to articulate
• 2:42:36
  this because I think you're trying to make a point, but it
• 2:42:39
  it keeps on, sadly, it keeps on being said over and over, like a
• 2:42:43
  repeat at this point. So that both of you might, you
• 2:42:46
  know, want to work on that. Maybe I don't even.
• 2:42:48
  Know what really mean by like redundancy?
• 2:42:51
  Like, I mean, because it's not like it, it's I, I mean, it's
• 2:42:54
  not like he's making, you know, decisions that are all going to
• 2:42:59
  actualize, you know, like when we make a decision, you know,
• 2:43:04
  towards something, you know, aside from a mental process, a
• 2:43:07
  decision that follows action like we're doing.
• 2:43:09
  So that's what actualizes like, and we know we have that
• 2:43:14
  decision to know one path or the other and that knowledge doesn't
• 2:43:19
  somehow dictated which one I've chosen to do, you know, like
• 2:43:25
  it's just, I'm just not understanding like this
• 2:43:27
  connection, like I'm just not it.
• 2:43:29
  It just all seems kind of red herring a little bit to me in
• 2:43:32
  terms of, you know, connecting God's relationship with reality.
• 2:43:36
  Like knowing what's going to happen doesn't mean you made it
• 2:43:40
  happen. Like, I mean, I could know
• 2:43:43
  there's a cornado in Kansas the tomorrow doesn't mean I made it
• 2:43:48
  happen, you know what I mean? When I hear your.
• 2:43:53
  Word, Daniel. Redundancy.
• 2:43:55
  I imagine a programmer hitting his keys and then eventually
• 2:43:59
  just holds down one of the buttons and just lets it
• 2:44:02
  redundantly go on and on and on and on forever.
• 2:44:06
  So I'm, I'm not exactly sure where you're getting it on that
• 2:44:08
  either, but if you guys are wanting to wrap it up, I do have
• 2:44:12
  the final thing for you if you're getting tired.
• 2:44:16
  Oh, it's fine, we can. Wrap up.
• 2:44:17
  It's OK. I wanted to spend a little time
• 2:44:19
  with the missus anyway, so. So what do you guys think?
• 2:44:22
  Next Friday, 7:00 PM. Like this?
• 2:44:25
  Get into. Some more topics Friday, maybe
• 2:44:31
  an hour. Later, Brett, give me a little
• 2:44:32
  more time on Friday, like 6. Your time would probably be
• 2:44:36
  fine. OK, you want me to go 6 central,
• 2:44:39
  huh? What did you set it?
• 2:44:43
  For the wait, what did you set it for this last time?
• 2:44:45
  What did what did you set it for on your time zone?
• 2:44:47
  7:00 PM. Central.
• 2:44:50
  OK, if you could set it for 8 your time, set it for 8 your
• 2:44:53
  time, I would. I would be fine with that.
• 2:44:56
  Not to be a bitchy little girl, but remember I didn't ask you
• 2:44:59
  what was the best time for you. That's why I do it.
• 2:45:02
  No, that was no. That was and this was fine.
• 2:45:04
  I didn't have an issue with this either.
• 2:45:06
  So that and Friday's fine. I don't have an issue with
• 2:45:08
  Friday. That's fine. 6:00 for me would
• 2:45:11
  be grass best and that's Pacific Standard Time.
• 2:45:14
  Sounds like you're 8:00, so that would be fine for me.
• 2:45:17
  I have no problem with that. I'm going to show you guys a
• 2:45:20
  small collection of statistics that I have discovered.
• 2:45:24
  Some of these I have already discovered quite a while back,
• 2:45:27
  but it still seems to hold today.
• 2:45:29
  Here we go. I'm going to put it on the
• 2:45:31
  screen and I'd like you guys opinion on it.
• 2:45:48
  You guys can be heard the thing that.
• 2:45:51
  Yeah. No, I was just, I was reading
• 2:45:53
  it. Yeah.
• 2:45:55
  Yeah. Well, when you adopt A worldview
• 2:46:03
  that is pure relative subjectivism, that you can write
• 2:46:09
  your own meaning, value, teleology, moral set, it really
• 2:46:17
  does allow open license to every vice of depravity known to man
• 2:46:24
  under the sun, basically doing whatever's right in your own
• 2:46:27
  eyes. So I'm not, I'm not surprised by
• 2:46:30
  this considering you know, from my viewpoint, the propensity of
• 2:46:35
  the human to want to gravitate towards fleshly satiation
• 2:46:40
  without the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
• 2:46:43
  This is what I would expect to see.
• 2:46:46
  Those that abandoned any attempt of servitude or link to the
• 2:46:50
  spirit will be slaves to the flesh.
• 2:46:52
  So yeah, would you guys? Prefer I keep it up on the
• 2:46:57
  screen while you guys are talking or what do you want me
• 2:47:00
  to do? I think, I think you.
• 2:47:03
  Just showed the product of of general subjective moral
• 2:47:07
  relativism. I think that is essentially what
• 2:47:09
  it pretty much always filters down into the worst of.
• 2:47:13
  Human vices and. Appetites is what will filter
• 2:47:16
  out into the mix and be licensed.
• 2:47:18
  After all, what good does an atheist have to present that
• 2:47:21
  someone should stop doing drugs? You know, look at Wild Heart.
• 2:47:24
  Wild Heart's an atheist with a whole bunch of atheist friends.
• 2:47:27
  Oddly enough that a single one of them have been able to
• 2:47:29
  convince him to stop drinking himself to death.
• 2:47:31
  I wonder why that is. Because they don't have an
• 2:47:33
  argument. They don't have a justification.
• 2:47:35
  Every atheist is responsible to their own sense of value, and
• 2:47:40
  the only thing that they possibly have to argue with at
• 2:47:42
  any point in time is if you're harming someone else.
• 2:47:45
  But even that becomes a Gray area as to what is actually
• 2:47:48
  harming and what is actually is enough harm to invalidate
• 2:47:52
  someone's expression of free will.
• 2:47:53
  And everyone has a different idea of that as well.
• 2:47:55
  So that's all subjective and relative as well, and there is
• 2:47:58
  no justification to tell someone to not just completely end
• 2:48:03
  themselves and their own way possible because they're allowed
• 2:48:06
  to create their own moral set, their own set of values as to
• 2:48:09
  what they prioritize and who from another subjective opinion
• 2:48:13
  based set is ever going to be able to argue to the contrary.
• 2:48:16
  You know, what is the highest and best good for you might not
• 2:48:19
  be the highest and best good for the drug dealer on the corner.
• 2:48:22
  And you're kind of approaching it with a sense of arrogance
• 2:48:24
  saying otherwise if you have nothing to operate from than
• 2:48:27
  your own subjective relativistic viewpoint.
• 2:48:29
  So yeah, atheism's a mess and it has no mechanism inside it to
• 2:48:34
  help itself improve. None at all.
• 2:48:36
  Just a black hole. Just a meaningless cluster of
• 2:48:41
  nothingness, denialism and nihilism.
• 2:48:46
  What do you think, Daniel? Some of my good.
• 2:48:53
  Friends are atheists here in town and I I do see atheists to
• 2:49:03
  be genuinely agnostic, meaning not knowing kind of premise, but
• 2:49:09
  they would assert outwardly in a position to religious people as
• 2:49:13
  being atheistic. But internally when I've had a
• 2:49:19
  pretty involved discussions, I've found out that they are
• 2:49:24
  inherently agnostic. Not knowing is their premise,
• 2:49:28
  but in opposition to people of religion, they would take an
• 2:49:32
  extreme, extreme view of opposing them.
• 2:49:37
  And so they would go on to declare atheism.
• 2:49:40
  And my personal experience has been that atheists, I mean,
• 2:49:46
  there's bad apples everywhere, There's people of religion are
• 2:49:49
  bad too, but there's also good individuals among atheists.
• 2:49:54
  And I just cannot, not that I would end up disappointing my
• 2:49:59
  friends who are atheists, but I genuinely feel there's good
• 2:50:02
  people among atheists and some of them are far better people
• 2:50:07
  than some of the bad people in religion.
• 2:50:10
  So it's basically people's relative understanding of
• 2:50:16
  ethics, morality, which can still function in a pretty
• 2:50:22
  decent way, not necessarily linked to God.
• 2:50:28
  I, I'm not of the premise that a man has to be obedient to God in
• 2:50:35
  order to be a good person on, on on earth in, in his life.
• 2:50:40
  I think a human being can be a very, very good person, even not
• 2:50:43
  knowing God, because the volition of doing good and bad
• 2:50:47
  is inherent within human being. And it's the basically the
• 2:50:51
  choices that human makes from this, from the internal
• 2:50:56
  mechanism of guidance that God has made a part of human
• 2:51:01
  software. I I, I, I would say human
• 2:51:04
  conscience. So the conscience that human has
• 2:51:07
  received as a faculty from Almighty God operates
• 2:51:11
  independently of Almighty God, and humans can end up doing good
• 2:51:15
  and bad. All sorts of people do good and
• 2:51:18
  bad. People of religion do a lot of
• 2:51:20
  great amount of sin and harm to other people, but there's
• 2:51:25
  atheists who also can do a lot of good to people.
• 2:51:29
  So all of these possibilities exist and this is the design of
• 2:51:32
  God, the teleology of God. But I would I would agree with
• 2:51:37
  the premise that God lays out himself, which is to do good, is
• 2:51:42
  to basically start acknowledging the truth.
• 2:51:46
  So if an atheist is in denial, and if it goes on to assert
• 2:51:49
  atheism is the right atheism has evidence or atheism is the right
• 2:51:55
  way for human beings, then that would necessarily require
• 2:51:59
  evidence out of him. Because if if there's a position
• 2:52:03
  of assertion that atheism is the right way of the world view,
• 2:52:08
  then they would require to shoulder the burden of proof to
• 2:52:13
  to to substantiate the position of why atheism would be.
• 2:52:16
  That would be the default position of the world of human
• 2:52:22
  beings. I, I, I, I, I think that's when
• 2:52:26
  the bad enters an atheist, as far as atheist would go, an
• 2:52:31
  atheist would go like, I don't know, that would still be a
• 2:52:35
  closer position to being just not entirely just, but closer to
• 2:52:39
  being just rather than asserting that there is no God.
• 2:52:44
  So, but as far as things goes, I think atheists can really
• 2:52:49
  functionally be good people and people of religion no matter
• 2:52:56
  what religion can functionally be really evil people at the
• 2:52:59
  same time. So their, their faith would
• 2:53:03
  necessarily be void, but they would, they themselves would be
• 2:53:08
  believing, but they're according to God's judgement, their faith
• 2:53:11
  would still be void. But yeah, all these
• 2:53:14
  possibilities exist in human, human spectrum because humans
• 2:53:20
  understand things slightly differently and not we don't
• 2:53:24
  have, we are not a homogeneous body having a homogeneous group,
• 2:53:27
  having homogeneous set of beliefs and ideas.
• 2:53:33
  So we are all a little different in a way.
• 2:53:36
  So that's just my opinion. I I can understand that, and I
• 2:53:41
  actually don't doubt your claim on that an assertion, even
• 2:53:44
  though I have a very negative outlook of atheists.
• 2:53:47
  I believe that if atheists are standing in the proximity of
• 2:53:50
  Smokey or myself, they'll be the nicest cupcakes you ever meet.
• 2:53:55
  But get them behind a computer where they don't think they're
• 2:53:58
  accountable for their actions and behaviors, just as they
• 2:54:01
  don't believe there's a God. You start seeing the cracks, you
• 2:54:04
  start seeing, seeing something kind of some decay there, you
• 2:54:08
  know what I mean? I don't think I like the idea
• 2:54:13
  that people that are able to do good things are good people.
• 2:54:18
  I don't. And I don't like the idea that
• 2:54:22
  someone would possibly be defined by maybe the worst thing
• 2:54:25
  they did in their life. Like the idea that, you know,
• 2:54:28
  someone when they were in their 20s was part of a gang and they
• 2:54:31
  killed someone and then they paid their time and they got out
• 2:54:34
  and they spent the rest of their life speaking against being in
• 2:54:37
  gangs, using their story as a testimony.
• 2:54:40
  I don't think they should somehow be condemned and defined
• 2:54:43
  by that one thing they did that led them down the path that
• 2:54:47
  ultimately led to highest and greater good.
• 2:54:49
  So I guess I'm not Daniel. I'm not, I don't agree.
• 2:54:53
  And I don't think I really understand necessarily even the
• 2:54:55
  premise 'cause I, I don't think that really anyone's good if
• 2:55:00
  we're talking about the standard to God.
• 2:55:02
  But in terms of good, in the sense of someone sanctified,
• 2:55:07
  yeah. I mean, an atheist would never
• 2:55:09
  qualify. And an atheist generally cannot
• 2:55:12
  escape having any justification. Every justification he has
• 2:55:17
  generally has to have something of self-service selfishness tied
• 2:55:22
  behind it because there's really no intrinsic motivation
• 2:55:27
  ultimately to do anything for someone else.
• 2:55:29
  So like even in the instance, and this is where I think this
• 2:55:33
  is where I have a problem with what you're presenting, because
• 2:55:35
  you present it like all the goodness is just in the action.
• 2:55:39
  You know, that the motivation, the spirit behind it or the
• 2:55:41
  heart of it really doesn't have any, any power.
• 2:55:44
  And that's certainly not how Christianity works only.
• 2:55:46
  Only deeds done in faith are good deeds.
• 2:55:49
  And to give you an example, Abraham sacrificing Isaac or
• 2:55:53
  going up to sacrifice Isaac, if God hadn't told him to do that
• 2:55:56
  and he just took his son up on the mountain to scare the crap
• 2:55:59
  out of him, you know, or something, that wouldn't have
• 2:56:01
  been a good thing to do. But because he was following the
• 2:56:05
  command of God, it was a good thing to do.
• 2:56:07
  Well, what's the difference? It's the same action.
• 2:56:09
  Well, one's done in faith and 1 isn't.
• 2:56:11
  So an atheist in a, in, in a, in a, a soup kitchen handing out
• 2:56:16
  soup to the homeless might be doing that for a purely selfish
• 2:56:20
  motivation. In fact, it's hard to believe
• 2:56:22
  that they'd construct anything other than that because they
• 2:56:24
  want to be perceived as a good person with their friends or,
• 2:56:28
  oh, look what I do, or, or they just want to feel good about
• 2:56:31
  themselves, that they're a good person, that they're better than
• 2:56:34
  their friends or something of the like.
• 2:56:36
  Because the motivation can't be in the spirit as to some sort of
• 2:56:40
  service to the holy God of a sense of self sacrifice and
• 2:56:43
  worship to the one who saved and and offers salvation.
• 2:56:46
  It can't be anything like that. So it can't be in any pleasing
• 2:56:50
  in its core. See, like the goodness of the
• 2:56:53
  world, the goodness of reality is more than just the actions
• 2:56:57
  themselves. A broken clock can be right
• 2:56:59
  twice a day. A horrible person is capable of
• 2:57:02
  doing good things from time to time.
• 2:57:04
  You can interact with one of your atheist friends and he's
• 2:57:07
  the nicest guy in the world and you guys have a great time
• 2:57:11
  together and you enjoy your camaraderie ship.
• 2:57:14
  And you get every impression that he's a moral good person.
• 2:57:17
  And he volunteers and he helps people, you know, at the the
• 2:57:20
  soup kitchen and he does all this volunteer work and stuff.
• 2:57:23
  And he also beats the living Christ out of his wife every
• 2:57:26
  Wednesday when he gets drunk. Is he a good person?
• 2:57:31
  Because he did some good things. You know, this is not how we
• 2:57:35
  judge morality more goodness. If we look at someone who went
• 2:57:40
  out and founded 10,000 orphanages and saved a million
• 2:57:46
  kids from being homeless and impoverished and starved.
• 2:57:52
  We don't look at the one that he picked up and kidnapped and
• 2:57:56
  brutally graped and murdered and say oh let that one go because
• 2:58:01
  he helped so many of the others. We this is not how we judge
• 2:58:05
  morality, this is not how we judge goodness.
• 2:58:09
  And the goodness of a person, the person that makes them good
• 2:58:12
  to me is their commitment to Christ.
• 2:58:15
  And in that commitment to Christ are going to be the things that
• 2:58:18
  necessary follow. Which is good because Christ
• 2:58:21
  taught us to be self sacrificing, benevolent, to love
• 2:58:25
  our neighbor as we love ourselves.
• 2:58:26
  The Golden Rule, the commanding of humility, benevolence,
• 2:58:32
  kindness, generosity, goodwill, good faith towards men, all of
• 2:58:36
  these things that ultimately, if they were practiced, would make
• 2:58:40
  the world a much better place, you know?
• 2:58:43
  But people don't follow the teachings of Christ.
• 2:58:45
  And if a Christian claims to be a Christian and they're not
• 2:58:48
  following the teachings of Christ, they're not a Christian.
• 2:58:51
  Christian is defined as someone who follows the teachings of
• 2:58:55
  Christ. That's what it means.
• 2:58:56
  It's definitional. If they're not doing it then
• 2:58:59
  they're not a Christian and it doesn't matter if they claim.
• 2:59:01
  If I claim to be Scottish but I'm not from Scotland and I
• 2:59:04
  don't know what haggis is, guess what?
• 2:59:06
  I'm a fucking liar. And a Christian who claims to be
• 2:59:09
  a Christian and doesn't follow the teachings of Christ is a
• 2:59:12
  fucking liar. Daniel I.
• 2:59:16
  I understand that you said that you've taken a break and you've
• 2:59:19
  been away from YouTube for a while.
• 2:59:21
  I think that I, I think that I don't even have to put any
• 2:59:25
  effort into convincing you whatsoever how cruel some of
• 2:59:28
  these non believers can be. I think I'll just give it some
• 2:59:31
  time and after you have a few of them pull their pecker out on
• 2:59:35
  your camera or your screen and ruin your shows and call you the
• 2:59:38
  N word, they'll do. That yeah, then you'll.
• 2:59:42
  Then you'll I think that you'll be more understanding of where
• 2:59:46
  me and smoke is coming from. I know it's hard.
• 2:59:48
  I used to have this glory image of people too, where it's like I
• 2:59:52
  think everybody's got some good in them and all that.
• 2:59:55
  And I used to even be bothered by the concept of hell.
• 2:59:58
  Now I can imagine and be just fine with it that some people
• 3:00:03
  are going to lose their soul and simply be non existent.
• 3:00:07
  Yeah, it's just the experience, you know, you get there.
• 3:00:12
  Well, I had a great. Time, guys.
• 3:00:13
  Have a wonderful day. This was so much fun.
• 3:00:16
  I had a really great time. I'm glad you set this up, Brett.
• 3:00:18
  This was really good. And yeah, I'm happy to do it
• 3:00:21
  again sometime. This was awesome.
• 3:00:22
  Yeah, Brett. Let us know when when you will
• 3:00:25
  sort of set it up. Well, this kind of, really.
• 3:00:29
  Depends. On you.
• 3:00:30
  Guys, there's AI used to just open my rooms to everybody and
• 3:00:34
  all that kind of stuff, but there's I, I select a few.
• 3:00:38
  I've got my favorite Smokey's one of them and I'm really,
• 3:00:41
  really digging you as well there, Daniel.
• 3:00:43
  I like being able to have these deep conversations.
• 3:00:46
  I don't like sitting in rooms or people are just all day.
• 3:00:50
  I I like to actually learn things as well as be able to
• 3:00:54
  participate in a conversation. You want to enjoy this.
• 3:00:57
  I mean, I really enjoy talking to Smokey today with you and
• 3:01:01
  this is fantastic. This is mutual learning and it's
• 3:01:07
  we are not focusing on preaching so much.
• 3:01:09
  It's, it's learning is what we are focused on.
• 3:01:12
  So it's it's pretty good. So what do you guys say?
• 3:01:15
  I start something at 6:00 PM Central.
• 3:01:18
  I'll have it scheduled for Friday.
• 3:01:20
  Sound good? That's fine.
• 3:01:22
  Yeah, I'm good with that. Yeah, sure.
• 3:01:24
  Absolutely if I see either. One of you going live and you've
• 3:01:27
  got an interesting topic and you know the wife isn't wanting to
• 3:01:31
  use me for something. I'll be more than happy to jump
• 3:01:34
  into you guys as shows. I won't go into detail.
• 3:01:39
  Sure. Cool.
• 3:01:40
  So do send me an e-mail about this, like when you're setting
• 3:01:43
  up the stream next. So I I kind of keep that in my
• 3:01:46
  mind about the time and everything.
• 3:01:48
  So thank you. Thank you, Smokey, and thank
• 3:01:50
  you, Brad. God bless you both.
• 3:01:51
  Yeah, and you'll. Remember, guy, remember, Oh,
• 3:01:55
  sorry being you'll remember people if you go to people's
• 3:01:59
  YouTube channel and click on the live section.
• 3:02:01
  And I always schedule things way in advance, so you'll always see
• 3:02:05
  the notifications for that, OK? Cool, gotcha.
• 3:02:08
  Awesome. Thank you.
• 3:02:09
  Have a fun time. Appreciate it, Daniel.
• 3:02:10
  Thank you for being here. All right.
• 3:02:13
  God bless you all. Cool all.
• 3:02:16
  Right, I guess. GOD TV radio the breaking show
• 3:02:37
  Come join the relevant anything intelligent.
• 3:02:52
  GOD TV Radio, The Prayer. Keen Show.