But tear away when I'm boiling And don't you start Excellent everybody bada bing bada boom. We are here. We are live. We have iron raw versus perspective philosophy is Christianity Versus atheism which has the evidence to start us off perspective philosophy. The floor is all yours Hello, thank you for having us on. I've actually been anticipating this debate Um for about two days now I've been planning it. So Hopefully I can explicate a decent position here. So I do have a power point which I'm going to share So christianity or atheism which has more evidence. So in order to start this I think that we need to explain what is evidence and why do we want it? So I take evidence to be the means in which we justify a proposition as true or false I take truth to be accordance with reality. That means to be real I take falsely to be discordance with reality not real A proposition is a statement capable of truth value. For example, it's raining outside A belief is a purpose is affirming a proposition to be true For example, it is raining outside. It is not raining outside is true We want evidence to justify a proposition so that we can have knowledge I take knowledge to be a true justified belief free of relevant falsehood In other words, you understand reality We desire knowledge as true just two beliefs are essential for all moral judgments. For example I would be happy if I like chocolate cake is a moral judgment Which I would like to know is either true or false so I can decide whether I should actually get chocolate cake on it Great So one is evidence and how does it indicate truth value? Evidence is demonstrable justification of any given proposition's truth value I take a justification to be the act of demonstrating the correspondence and coherence of propositional content with reality For example, the proposition it is raining outside would require the evidence of it raining The evidence of it raining would require the demonstration of the of the existence or non existence of rain outside So you would go and look outside and you would see whether there is actually rain Or whether it you know, whether it is raining or whether it isn't raining That would be the justification there So there are three types of evidence as I'm going to argue. There is empirical evidence, which is observed experience There is rational evidence, which is logical Augmentation and then there is transcendental evidence as I've called it, which is observable logic This could also just be referred to as something that's a priori synthetic Which is basically what I'm referring to. I will also argue really that transcendental evidence is Basically where we get the other two okay So examples of this would be, uh, for example, empirical evidence for it raining outside would be the observed rainfall Logical evidence would be if the proposition is B is true If A then B, A then B, modus ponens and transcendental evidence would be something like Pythagorean theorem where it's observable logic So in a right angle triangle, the square of a hypotenuse side is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides And as you can see, you can observe this And you can work it out through a a priori theorem So you can work out why it is necessarily true and then demonstrate its truth in reality okay, so Let's begin with Christianity versus atheism roughly. What is Christianity? Christianity is the affirmation of the teachings of Jesus Christ I'll be defining the Catholic conception of Christianity defined by the niacin creed Catholicism believes the belief in one god comprised of three persons the father the son the holy spirit Who create and sustain all being so in other words? We have one god which creates all being is all loving all powerful omnipotent and omnipresent So christianity is a form of theism. Theos is god ism to practice What is atheism? Atheism is the belief that god does not exist A meaning without theos meaning god So it is a disbelief in god because belief implies the affirmation of a truth value It is the affirmation that god does not exist So how does this relate to agnosticism? So agnosticism is the belief that so the belief that one cannot or does not hold knowledge of god's existence coming from agnostic the greek agnostic A Gnosis meaning without knowledge The agnostic rejects the justification for the proposition god exists And the proposition god does not exist as both imply knowledge of god's existence Knowledge of not a implies knowledge of a for example Sorry knowledge of the negation of a implies the knowledge of a So for example, if I know the proposition not a it is of the negation of a it is not raining outside is true Then I know the proposition a it is raining outside is false. And so I have noses. I have knowledge and so an agnostic Can't be an atheist So if aran has a belief in x he therefore affirms x is true If he affirms x is true He must affirms it He must affirm that it accords with reality if he affirms that it accords with reality He believes he holds a true belief belief implies the truth of a proposition Then to deny the truth of a proposition is to lack a belief. Okay, so if I deny the existence of god I lack the belief in god fair enough to affirm the proposition is to to affirm a proposition However is to hold the belief for example, if I affirm the proposition that god does not exist I hope I hold that belief is true atheism is the belief that god does not exist aran is an atheist therefore aran affirms the proposition that god does not exist And since he is affirming that that proposition is true Then or even capable of truth It can't he can't be an agnostic since he would hold that he has knowledge of god So what are my arguments for christianity? So I'm going to present the argument for sufficient reasons. So for every fact f In existence there must be a sufficient reason for its existence All contingent objects do not contain the reason for their own existence And so contingent of contingent objects form an infinite regress which cannot be established as a fact in itself So basically the cause of the regress or the cause of causation will never be actually found within the Existent objects and so it can never actually be shown to be the case So since the chain of reason so for the chain of reason to be established and necessary being must exist Or a self-caused being must exist the chain of reason is established and necessary being exists From this we can argue for divine simplicity So a being which is divinely simple is a necessary being which is only caused by itself A being which is only caused by itself could not be caused by parts which pre-exist a unified whole A god which does not have parts which pre-exist his wholeness God is a being god does not have parts which pre-exist at his wholeness a being which is absolutely non-composite is simple God is absolutely simple. So if god is absolutely simple He doesn't contain any parts if he doesn't contain any parts then there is nothing outside of him that causes him simple as that so How does this lead to omnibenevolence omnipotence and omnipresence essentially um actually how much time have i got left? You still have two and a half minutes Okay, so i'll i'll run through this quick So the argument for omnibenevolence is that a perfectly simple being would not have any separation between its existence and its essence God is a perfectly simple being when a being desires something it really desires its own completion since desire implies a lack So you want something external or something to Establish yourself or unify yourself. You actually have to want something outside of yourself A being which desires something other than itself lacks perfection God is perfect god only so god only desires himself a necessary being contains all existence The good of all existence is goodness itself and therefore god is good or is the good The argument for omnipotence would be the power of a being is relative to what creates the power of a being is relative to What it creates and sustains The first and last cause of all being creates and sustains everything god creates and sustains everything god is all powerful I mean these are very basic and would actually be defended and i'm happy to do that So the argument for omnipresence is very relatively the same Uh, a perfectly simple being must contain all its existence Any if any effect of a perfectly simple being contains its existence from From the perfect any effect of the perfectly simple being contains its existence from the perfectly simple being A contingent being is an effect all contingent beings gain their existence from that perfectly simple being and therefore all All contingent beings are contained within god Why a necessary being requires mind and this is really brief Because I think there is a whole metaphysical argument that would have to be established here So if idealism is true, then all contingent objects are limitations of a mind idealism is true All objects are content are limitations of a mind a necessary being would contain all its limitations a necessary being must have a mind So that's very brief and finally i'd like to point out that aran ra likes to call himself 30 seconds A method a lot methodological naturalist meaning that he takes that we can only gain knowledge through uh affirming something to uh affirming a cause is natural So if we have to gain knowledge of something it has to be necessarily knowledge of nature, right? Um, and he affirms that god is supernatural So he has the choice he can either affirm that we can gain non-natural truths through methodological naturalism Truths are falsity that is or he can affirm that god That his non-belief in god is gained through another source or is an act of faith which he defines as meaning Uh, which he defines as to believe without evidence. So that would be Uh me done and uh, thank you All right. Well, thank you so much perspective philosophy for your Introductory statement there and I want to remind everybody I'm sure you can see it there on the screen that we have our crowdfund posted And the link to that description is uh, sorry the link to that is in the description Along with tickets to our live in person debate So if you didn't know we're going to be doing a live in person debate in houston, texas september 16th aran's going to be there You don't want to miss it. It's going to be a lot of fun I think once again, we're seeing double because I have the aran promo on the screen. So Check out those tickets everybody And 100 of everything that we get and in excess is going to be going towards the debate con four That's coming up here. So, uh Yeah, don't don't miss out on that and we're going to kick it over to aran for up to 10 minutes For his introductory statement. So aran the floor is all yours Thank you Not surprisingly we get the same old argument that we always get from the philosophers Trying to define god into existence through a number of circular assumptions You set out a premise that god god must be All-knowing and so you declare that god is all-knowing and that god is all good And we're going to we're going to ignore All of the evil the disproportionate evil that has compiled atop that god We're just going to pretend that it's all good. Why because it serves the argument And we're going to say that we have transcendental evidence which doesn't exist And then we're going to claim that we have empirical evidence which we've never listed Because there is none for this god and then I would encourage all the philosophers if you're going to if you're going to discuss somebody's position Have an idea what it is first Because I don't like to call myself a methodological naturalist. That's that's not a thing that I do And I the argument that I make is that if you can't if if if if a suggestion or a declaration cannot be Is one is not indicated by evidence It's rather by assumption And it cannot be indicated or if indicated verified or falsified meaning that there's no way to know whether it's true or false Then it logically cannot contribute to the sum of human understanding. It's just it's just baseless speculation There's no way to know whether it's true or not. Then we don't get to call it knowledge And so that's why he's arguing for you know the methodological argument Which is is not even a problem for my position If there was a god there would be ways of knowing that and he failed to present any evidence of this He just wanted to do a number of logical fallacies the circular reason followed by the commonly done Shifting of the burden of proof wherein you always want to take the negative claim and turn it into a positive one So he wants to misrepresent atheism as being a positive claim that there is no god Now while I do positively claim that there is no god I spent most of my life Were at least 15 years there of as an agnostic atheist He says it's not possible to be agnostic and atheist even though an agnostic is somebody by definition Who says that god's nature is both unknown and unknowable and that was certainly my position Like I've often said that they an agnostic is someone well an atheist is someone who does not believe there's a god And an agnostic is someone who doesn't know that they're atheist That's the way that comes down There's no it all Throughout history. We've had way too many people theologians and politicians are like who have been way too interested in the question Do you believe in god? Yes equals theist No equals atheist That's it. That's all nobody cares whether you also have a belief that god does not exist unless You're a philosopher trying to define god into existence for a sheer lack of evidence So arguing whether there is evidence for atheism. That's that's also absurd because how can you have eight? How can you have evidence for I don't believe you? So you have an assertion That there's this magic imaginary being there's a magic invisible man whatever it is and You your your evidence for that is that you can rationalize circular assumptions about it But you haven't given any evidence for it and then to make it worse Not only is there new Evidence of this god, but then you want to further hamper yourself by isolating that to christianity So now you have to suggest now you not only have to defend theism which is already a lost cause, but you want to you want to Burden yourself even further with that with going into all of the theology all the baggage That goes along with christianity and shall we include biblical literalism in that? I know a lot of people don't but let's be real We know that genesis is a compilation of fables that did not happen We know for certain everybody can tell prove That the global flood of Noah's art never happened the tower of battle never happened And if it did happen it would prove that god was a dick But fortunately that didn't happen We know even evangelical christians and and traditional Catholics and or russian orthodox christians admit that adam and eve are genetically impossible They did not happen So if you're arguing for christianity You have to accept that and maybe you don't go for biblical liberalism But if the only evidence that you haven't very often It is is the bible Then what you have is a compilation of fables that we know are not true And that's it and that's all There is nothing else So you're asking me to provide evidence for Not believing you because you failed to produce any evidence to indicate that anything you believe is true There's a number of problems with it. So yep. Yep, all of the religions together combined Let's just not isolate christianity because I don't know what it is I've had this debate a number of times exact same debate and it's always that a a muslim wants to argue Which has more evidence in islam versus atheism christians want to do christianity versus atheism Nobody accepts that. Hey, you know what? There's other religions besides my particular cult There's just like they conveniently forget all of the others Let's just like try to put it in a little binary spectrum which doesn't exist right so You want to argue all of this additional baggage for christianity that We know doesn't happen. Let's let's look at jesus for example. This is a guy who thought that Well, for one thing he was a first century faith healer And self-proclaimed exorcist So this is a guy running the same exact kind of scam operation as as many frauds are still running today The guy thought that diseases that he pretended to cure were being caused by demons Right, so this is not the guy you want to get medical advice from This is this is just another scam artist assuming that he was real at all Which you know i'm i'm i will try to assume for the moment though I'm convinced that if we had a time machine and somebody who a guide who spoke aramaic I don't think you would find the jesus you're looking for and if you found one guy That was the basis for most of the legends of christianity You wouldn't recognize him as jesus and if you were to grab that guy And it was the guy that most of these legends were based on if you brought him forward in time He wouldn't recognize christianity.  This this is kind of important Now I realized that in early versions of christianity much like with early versions of islam They didn't have the spiritual aspect that both of these religions have since adopted It was originally that you simply would not die that your body would revive and you would come back to life again You know your physical form But at some point it was decided that uh, no, we were talking about a spiritual existence now And so there was this there was this imagined, uh, mind body dualism where you All life is supposedly animated by some kind of a transcendental transcendental spirit But we know now that there is absolutely no support for mind body dualism Neither in neuroscience nor even in philosophy I've interviewed at least a half a dozen neuroscientists on this including neurosurgeons and also i've i've also interviewed Neuro philosophers patricius churchland and daniel denett for a couple of examples It's not just That the evidence isn't there precisely where it would be if there was any truth to this at all It's that there is evidence against The mind body dualism now if you put all the religions together They can't combined they can't show that there's a there there that there is a supernatural At all and let's let's not forget that you know supernatural equals magic, you know magical miracles miraculous magic They are the same thing. You've got in the bible. You've got uh blessings and curses Which are just positive or negative aspects of magical enchantments. You've got necromancy. You've got water bending You know all kinds of magical spells even the usable wand You know in a in a healing spell to cure leprosy and among other things So we don't have any truth to the unsupported assertion and atheism Is just acknowledging That you haven't proved your assertion now some of us will have learned enough to say it's not just that i That i don't have enough evidence to believe that there's a god. So when i'm a monastic atheist We come to the point where we realize that no, this is not even possible god is not even a possibility Not just are all of the scriptures of every religion false And the scriptures of christianity particularly false No justification for any of it rife with contradictions atrocities absurdities and inconsistencies and all of that The idea behind this debate was that we were supposed to have evidence Which was the evidence so the evidence that i had Such as i've just listed i've got evidence for for evolution I've got evidence for the formation of all of these other religions I've got evidence for uh comparative mythology where christianity got some of these ideas like for example the heaven and hell thing Where uh judaism was based primarily on zoroastrianism But christians also reached past judaism for the notion of heaven and hell that they adopted from zoroastrianism We have a whole lot from comparative mythology and so on We have understanding of evolution for cosmology for a number of things And the evidence that was presented for the god belief Is that you believe the god belief because you believe it And it was a claim of empirical evidence, but there was none ever listed So there's not one actual fact that christianity nor any other religion can propose that can present That is something that is verifiably true that we can both show is actually true And that supports your position nothing whatever at all, but atheism has all that All right. Well, thank you so much.  You are ruining this show You have to bark all the way through Come on camera. You're humiliating me Oh, no What did I say about showing showing a snake on camera? You can't show your snake and now now you're showing off your bird Anyways, let's uh, let's kick it open into an open discussion everybody Thank you so much for your opening statement aran And I do want to remind everybody uh that our speakers are going to be linked in the description So if you're like what you're hearing from either of our guests tonight You can check them out in the link below now if you don't have time to be in Texas for the conference that's happening here In what 14 days You know, and you don't have the time to give to the crowd fund. You don't have the money You know, have you ever looked at the like button thought it's trying to take me home? I think that's what's happening to me right now, but as a married man, I can't do it So why don't you smash it for me instead? I'd appreciate it. Let's kick into open discussion everybody Oh as aran raw stands up to remove. I think the bird Excellent. Well, we will we will continue into the open discussion. I'll kick it over perspective philosophy Once aran gets back But yeah, this is let this be a lesson to everybody. Uh, you know, if you take your bird out on stream It could get a little a little tough sometimes, right? The bird's not the problem the dog is a problem now It's no problem. It's it's created. It's created an area for us to have fun So, uh, let's kick it open discussion over you perspective to kick us off Yeah, so, um, just as a quick response, uh, so I'm not asking you to provide Evidence for not believing in what I believe I'm asking for you to provide evidence for what you believe I do and you believe that a god doesn't exist. So I would like you to provide evidence for that Yeah, I did Uh, you didn't but we'll get I gave I gave not only my understanding I gave not only the evidence for all of the scriptures that are wrong And then also for comparative mythology comparing all of these other religions and seeing how these different states have That's evidence against specific religions one being christianity But that hasn't got any relevance necessarily to whether atheism is true. For example, I could be a deist Or I did Be allowed to continue I did give you the evidence from comparative mythology to see where all of these myths came from I've had the good fortune of talking to a number of biblical scholars and theologians from around the world I've seen taking courses on comparative The histories of comparative world religions and so forth to see how these myths have developed To understand where they they have the concept of the soul come from all of that I've seen the the fraudulence and fallacies and and frauds Of of all these religious beliefs all of which count as facts in evidence against the claim that there is a god Without there being any evidence for a god Now you see see that's it. You're right there and saying it's against the claim or specific claims Of evidence of and let's be frank a specific interpretation of religious scripture Uh, so that would have to be specific I don't I don't just aim at christianity. I've got arguments against christianity, but if I just If I just look at the fact that there's no support at all proof It does there's no support for the soul There's no there is no all right just one second guys No Nobody can hear us right now just because we're talking over each other So what we're going to do is we'll kick it into a cross examination period because it seems like we need to clear up some mud As far as what uh, what the others are thinking about the others position. So, uh, what I'm going to do is I'm going to hand it over to perspective philosophy 15 seconds to ask are in a question and then up to them in a dancer. So, uh, we'll kick it over you perspective To say something is true Does that mean does not mean that it's true It also does not mean that I have to prove it false It means it is that the burden of proof is still on you To show the truth of your claim and if you can't then we go back to hitchhens raiser Where what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, but as I said it's not just that You don't have any evidence For for for god for the supernatural for anything for christianity in particular It's not just that you lack all of these things It's that I have evidence against a lot of these specific claims And especially against you know scripture and and various interpretations of the supernatural You you have to be able to show some substance. So I have vaccine evidence against supernatural claims and you have Nothing to support supernatural claims. All right. What I'm going to do is I'm going to Let pp repeat his question just because I did have it on mute just when you started to answer it So I'm going to let you tell our audience what your question was and then let you ask another question. So go ahead Okay, so yeah quickly my question was how does the What was it? It was how does the presence of a conflicting mythos and the development and progression of various mythos Um undermine the concept of a god Simplicity or in general for example a deistic god. How does any of this mythos or perhaps contradictions in this mythos or? relations to it Have any relevance to the the non-existence of god simplicita which atheism would have to provide All right 15 seconds to ask that next question. Okay. Well one atheism doesn't have to provide You've already answered it. You've already answered anyway. You've already tried answer. Okay. The I said I'd be happy to answer I don't have to answer but I can and I already have but I will repeat or paraphrase if you like I'm okay. So the fact that we're not talking about polytheism The fact that we're not talking about heathism We're not talking about multiple different gods that exist in different parts of the world And that all may be deceptive. We're talking about a concept of a god that is one god that is supposed to be Truthful now it's been it's given many different versions and all these different religions and they're all violently conflicting with each other And as I noted when I was eight years old I pointed out have you noticed that the jews and the christians and the muslims are all based on the same god and yet They've been at war with each other each since their inception Which implies a fundamental communication error and they're all claiming absolute truth Even when they all differ from each other to the point that you have got thousands of different denominations within each religion So that it becomes absurd Especially with the way that will kill each other over any slight discrepancy and there's no way to show any truth of it That's it. And that's why it all it all becomes down to authoritarian dictates Is what some guy tells you to believe you have to believe exactly what he said because he said so and not for any other reason Without question reservation or reason you believe what you're told because the authority told you to And if you deviate from that well then heresy blasphemy and apostasy are all capital crimes Where at different points of history you could be murdered because you didn't believe what you were told to believe Exactly the way you were told to believe it and all of this are facts and evidence against the truth of the god claim God does not ever intercede. He doesn't do anything It's always people trying to represent god whenever you have either noticed that that god can create planets and viruses And everything that humans can't make but he can't make humans anything humans can make He can't make a box or a boat or a book or a building because he needs us to do his work for him because We're doing a cross examination. So, uh, you know, I don't want to cut you off right in the middle of a good thought But uh, uh, we're gonna give 15 seconds over to pee pee to ask another Question and then we'll give you up to a minute to uh answer the question And we're gonna do that. I think we'll do up to five questions here. So, uh, let's make them good ones okay, right so You didn't answer that question, but that's fine.  No, no just one second there I don't have to place anybody on mute. Just uh, let's let him ask his question. Okay So, well, don't don't don't have him tell me that I didn't answer when I did I did directly answer the question right, okay, so Can so you say that you can prove that god doesn't exist Or that any god doesn't exist Given that you are an atheist, which means without god. I never said any such thing So you don't believe that you can so do you believe That no, I don't ever said any such thing. I'm too much representing my why do you believe this in general always misrepresent the atheist Do you believe that every religious argument? Have you noticed this just based on another false assumption? Just one second around we don't ask this question Do you believe that god in any form doesn't exist?  So I placed you on the mute. So you have to hit the unmute Oh, there we go. You're back. Excellent. Okay So when did you mute me? Was it at the end of the answer? It was the whole thing again. It was the whole thing Right, right when he was asking the question just just at the very second that I said I'm just placed. Oh, that's why he says I didn't answer because he asked the question and you hit mute when I answer Okay, that's that's what's going on. Okay And his question was that that I that he he misrepresented me again because every religious argument is always a false assertion It's always a false assumption. It's always it's never based on actual factual data It's always a misperception some way So he says that I think that I can prove god Despite the fact that I've said that it is logically impossible to prove something like a god because a god has If if it were true that it would have infinite magic powers to keep itself hidden Logically there you couldn't be you couldn't disprove such a thing But then likewise you can't prove that godzilla doesn't exist And neither does that mean that godzilla does exist Which is often the argument if you can't prove that it doesn't exist then somehow it means that it does shut up All right back to you perspective Um, I mean, I don't know why you think you can't disprove the existence of a god. For example, it could be logical I did just explain why do we need to go back over that for you? No, you said no No, I get that you what you're saying is that essentially you're making an argument Essentially the divine hiddenness that an in an omnipotent being could hide itself I mean you just make an argument that an omnipotent being couldn't exist Right, so that you just have to show that there is a logical contradiction within the existence of that being so and you can absolutely Okay, so would you like something like so I'm just wondering so I'm just wondering What is your your proof for the proposition? God does not exist already stated and now will be repeated in order to The science is all about what is supported and what is not supported so Empty unsupported assertions have zero credence just like claims that have been proven false So when you assert something and you cannot show the truth of it Then Hitchens razor applies you've made an empty assertion. I I don't have to give it credit I don't have to prove it wrong. Lincoln's maxim Hitchens razor.  It's not incumbent upon me You have to show the truth of the statement you made You it's one thing to say that you believe something You can believe anything you want to and nobody's even gonna challenge you on it You don't have to defend it as long as you admit that it is just a belief But once you state that it is a fact Well, now you have to show that it is a fact Now the burden of proof is on you Well what you do absolutely have to defend the belief because the belief is to affirm something is true But that that's separate of the point two more questions the The point that I'm making here is that my proposition which I have to defend which I have defended with the principle of sufficient reason Is that that you did God does exist the proposition you have to defend is that a god doesn't exist Now you're saying that no you said I am rejecting it Hitchens razor. You're rejecting my proposition Which I don't think was sufficient Because you didn't provide any evidence that's your argument That's your idea is the argument for present the argument from sufficient reason But that's that's irrelevant The that's that's my argument and that would be why my argument was wrong fallacious Whatever if it is your argument would be to defend a god does not it does not exist Right, which I did make no you attacked my argument make an argument and I didn't just do that No, you said it was impossible to do that. Right. So I also said I also gave reasons why we know that The god of the bible is if we're talking about the bible god That one definitely doesn't exist because we know that all these books and all these stories in the bible They're definitely not true. Even if flames of the soul. We know that there is We know that there is no We have we have facts and evidence against the soul as well So I did provide all of these and you're pretending now that I didn't While you are also pretending that you presented evidence, which you did not Okay, so Right, I'm gonna say this I'm gonna say this right There is arguments against christianity islam judaism Whatever religion specifically that you may like Whatever they would be specific arguments against propositions which affirm their truth I'm asking you to provide evidence for the proposition that you're affirming which is that god does not exist And the proposition that I'm affirming is that you did not just to be clear That means you have to show that it is either logically and coherent empirically impossible or transcendentally Impossible. So I'm just wondering how you are going to do that. Yeah. Well, I did start I gave it gave a short list, but you didn't understand any of those So let me just continue on because it's a very long list If you'd like a logical argument then when we say that that god exists outside of this reality Well, then that's fine. That just logically means he does not exist in reality That's one way we could argue for it I did already tell you that we have a bunch of empty assertions which have all proven to be false And that's a problem when you're claiming for evidence and the you don't actually have a single fact in evidence That's a problem. Especially when you want to argue. Is there more facts in evidence for christianity than there is for Not christianity Right, so you haven't presented any And there's not one thing that we can both verify to be true and is also supportive of your position But I did list a whole bunch of things that you ignored that you that you denied But I did list a whole bunch of things that are contradicting your claim It's not just the lack of evidence for your position. It's the evidence against your position There were any trial that we make on on psychic phenomenon anything we do we do about an exorcist or or NDE's even those things collapse even and faith healers and all of that Everything comes up, but kiss. That's it. And then we have the claims of Scripture, for example, all of which have been proven to be wrong All of it fails. We have lots of facts and evidence against your various claims Where did you ever come up with any any give me? A fact in evidence supporting your position Okay, so You did actually mention one thing there, which I can say is an argument at least against a conception of God Which is God could not exist outside of reality. So I'm assuming that's because you're seeing reality as existence So you're saying God it would form a contradiction. God can't exist outside of existence But that wouldn't resolve whether God is existence. So like a pantheistic view Um or a pantheistic view, which I would actually assert or whether God is uh exists within Existence itself, maybe God is nature So you would still have the same you still have the same problem. Okay. Well, actually you still have the same I would like to quickly uh quickly say that When we consider Proving a negative it's not enough to give arguments against the evidence for the positive So for example, if I was to say it's so for example, if I was to say it's raining outside And you want to say actually louis the way in which you've said it's raining outside is wrong because you've relied upon Let's say a reflection in a window or you've relied upon a video camera footage or whatever And you show the issues with the way i'm collecting data. You show why my evidence might not be correct It doesn't prove that it's not raining outside. It proves that What it would do is for Calling the question my evidence for my proposition But that wouldn't prove the negative proposition I'm asking you to prove the negative proposition Right. So what proof do you have for the non-existence of God? Well, I didn't realize that we were Proving anything. I thought that the debate if you look at the bottom of the screen. It says which has more evidence, right?  In support of christianity All right, and we'll call that your first question there of cross examination. We'll kick it over to pp Yeah, that's absolutely fine. Thank you. So, um, I have given arguments Um, you've given arguments not evidence Why is it the religious believers do not understand that arguments are not evidence? I wouldn't you figure that out Give me a fact a thing we can both show to be true That is positively indicative of and or exclusively concordant with your position over any other Give me that one up to one answer that Evidence can be transcendental meaning it could be observable necessity So you can actually show something to be logically necessary to the case We do not do you do that would be that would be like pie That would be like the Pythagorean theorem, but you rejected transcendental evidence before But the argument I gave is what's called the argument from sufficient reason. So that for every fact that exists everything No, I did provide the You did the you did the question begging So I'm supposed to answer out religion. I'm pretty sure you asked me a question and I'm supposed to answer it Uh, so for every fact in existence, there must be a sufficient reason for its existence For every being which exists every contingent being do not contain their own the reason for their own existence So contingent reasons form an infinite regress which cannot be as established as a fact in itself Since the cause of that fact is outside of the chain of reasons, so There must be a necessary being which contains which is self-caused the chain of reasons a circular reasoning fallacy That's not a reason a circular argument routing back to the assumed conclusion. You're trying to find your god Literally argues from the point of necessity that it's basically right because there's no necessity for god God is not necessary. God is imaginary necessity, but there's there is no where is there a necessity For god, I've just explained how that's a necessary being must exist Or I've just explained you just did a circular argument that I've heard a thousand times That does not you've heard it a thousand times you should on that You you did a lot you did a logical fallacy called question begging, which is ubiquitous in all religions not just christianity And I it's embarrassing that they all have this thing where they're going to assume that there's a god because there's a god because They believe there's a god because there must be a god so there needs to be a god So you assume that there's a god, but there's no necessity for that There isn't where is there a necessity for a god? Must there be a first cause What first cause Like so for example, must there be a first reason which explains everything Or like explains or begins the chain of reasons which can then explain the next thing which can explain the next thing Which can explain the next thing if you were to trace it back So if I was to look at this let's say this kind of cork I could give a reason for its existence Do you believe that there would be a reason that every being which exists has a reason for its existence Depends on what you mean by a reason if it's predetermined purpose, then no Not pre the cause and effect Cause and effect fine. Yes cause and effect will be fine. Okay, so we're going cosmological argument So are we talking about a big bang big crunch situation or something like a reversing polarity of physics or some other kind of observation It can go any physical To a number of cosmologists about this I don't know why it always comes back to the basis of the universe because it's completely irrelevant But the universe is eternal. It was never created So there is no need for a first cause argument and if there was as I've argued many times Everything that was ever attributed to the supernatural Has always turned out to be not magic not supernatural It was once thought that comets were omens that volcanoes were gods tornadoes were gods all these different things were gods That that epilepsy was that was a demonic possession and all of that and every time we were not satisfied with those stupid bullshit lies Every time we we strive to find the real answer It turned out to be a revelation of whole new fields of study previously unimagined and vastly more complex than the simplistic notions That we came up in our superstitious primitive state likewise if we were to ever find An explanation for a beginning if there was a beginning or an eternity if there was an eternity whatever it is for the universe It will again Be a field of study that is vastly more complex than any notion of god and would render our current beliefs in god to be just as Silly as every other study has already rendered god to be I mean i'm i'm happy to i'm happy to accept that our beliefs in god are Like come like our knowledge of god versus for example god's knowledge of himself would be Absolutely sort of a perfect mind knows itself. It would have absolute knowledge of everything So like So like obviously a field which studied So a field which studied the mind of god in this respect would be yeah It'd be far superior But it would dwarf everything we had if it was genuinely gaining gaining a greater truth claims fair enough But that doesn't explain for one like the Eternality of the universe is something that you'd have to establish. I mean that's that's fine I mean it actually does seem that everything like the eternity of time as a four-dimensional block Sure, but that I mean only in respect to the Actual existence of the universe like the problem is is that all of these laws As we perceive them seem to come into existence at the point of the big bang to say that it is it's eternal We'll have no evidence for or against because we can't actually go prior To the big bang we only get to the point in which there is like the inflationary event And at that point it all breaks down and you know We can look forward on the light cone and we can look back on the light cone But you know either way what we're doing is establishing a relation between cause and effect And the whole point of the principle of sufficient reason is to say that every You know and this is why it's superior to a normal cosmological argument Is to say that anything that exists whether it's eternal or not eternal must have a reason to exist Like the the eternality of a thing would be determined by having uh by being self Caused so you'd have to say that the universe is self-caused now Do you have do you have evidence to say that the universe is self-caused and therefore? God does not exist That which was uh never created which always existed which is eternal that did not have a beginning Did not have a beginning did not have a cause to begin So we know the first law of thermodynamics that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed And we know that in every model of cosmogony in which the how there wouldn't which there is a singularity that singularity is itself eternal I've talked to a number of cosmologists about this leading cosmologists and they say that That material energy is eternal and so is universal wave function and all of this and that there are models in which the universe is Just perpetual in both directions eternal. So that's the only evidence I have I don't deal with cosmogony I don't deal with astrophysics. I I teach evolution You know, that's that's what I study. I don't I don't actually care How or whether the universe had a beginning because no matter what that answer is It doesn't change the fact that we are evolving apes And that all the scriptures of every religion including christianity are man made mythology with no Truth in them. I mean not even the existence of god would change either of these facts If god existed christianity would still be a false religion Right fair enough, but atheism would be false and so christianity at least provides an apes Atheism is not the positive claim that you misrepresented it to be Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Yes. It is. And it's not misrepresentation. Yes equals theist. No equals atheist. That's it. That's all There's never there's never a scenario. Do you believe in god? No The atheist is do you believe that god does not exist? No, or are you affirming that god does not exist? No, the question as I said that everybody's you have to believe that god does not exist If you do not believe in god, then you're threatened with a fate literally comes in the afterlife All right, you guys are muted. He can both of you on the stream. So Backed over to our end. Well, the iron wrap up and then back to you people atheism ending in an m Was defined in the in the 1600s and again to the 1700s by uh baron dolbrock and mathias knudson both of whom Described that atheism is a lack of belief in god And then they both made up different words for people who also hold a belief that god does not exist So atheism is not the same thing as atheos by the way Atheos would apply to you as a christian more than to me What is okay The point that is being expressed here is that one it definitely does Require a belief in Doesn't and I can provide proof of that. It's a proposition. You can provide proposition It's not a projection of belief It's a denial of belief and this was a belief this was in webster's 1828 dictionary long before huxley invented his word agnostic It was already commonly defined that atheism was a lack of belief A denial of okay, I will ask you I will ask you the I'll ask you the question Do you believe a god does not exist? I am in the subset of people who have atheists who do not believe in a god Who fall into the category of strong atheists who also have the belief that god does not exist I do because i've spent a quarter of a century Arguing with people like yourself who only provide evidence that the god claim our law lies Every one of them frauds falsehoods fallacies. That is all you have Now you've already exhibited a number of fallacies and you have not exist Exhibited any evidence whatsoever you've given arguments instead of evidence Which is a common fallacy that all believers always do. I don't know why Why can't you produce a fact? This is the debate. Is there more evidence? I gave you a list of evidence for atheism You gave me a whiteboard still blank for christianity You don't think so one so you don't think that an acilogistic argument is evidence No, and evidence is a body of facts that are positively Which means objectively verifiable data Positively indicative of and or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other That's it. That's what evidence is So for example, if a mathematician if a mathematician was to try and give evidence for a proposition Let's say that four was a multiple of two And they would rely upon let's say a logical proof For that so they would divide four by two and it would Come back as two so it wouldn't have a remainder so it would prove that it was a multiple of two Would that be evidence or not in mathematics? Maybe I don't know. I don't deal with mathematics I also know that historians use a different definition than scientists do but in science The definition I gave is the one we use The point that's being made here is that if evidence can be logical and not only Empirical through observation and a transcendental Then a transcendental that I did give you a transcendental argument, which is observable logic You gave me a circular argument How is it circular?  Are we done? No because it's like the whole point is to say like about contingent beings So like for example then So a contingent so a contingent being would be something which has to have a cause for its existence Can you so so your point is contingent on human imagination? You're saying that the universe does not have to have a cause for its existence If if there was a cause it wouldn't be a god It certainly wouldn't be the christian god As I said, even if they god existed it would not be there can be a cause so there could be a cause for the universe There could be if the universe had a cause, but I don't think the universe is contingent then Why would the universe? I don't I said I don't I don't think the universe had a beginning Right, but there wouldn't be a cause So so if there's no beginning then there's no cause And if there was a cause it still wouldn't be a god and if there was a god It wouldn't be the christian the worst the worst point is even if the universe was absolutely self-caused You wouldn't be able to argue against pantheism because all I could say I'm not arguing against pantheism But pantheism isn't atheism, so you wouldn't be able to put forward your argument Why not whole point because it can't be is not is not classical theology It's not a personal god for sure. It's not a magical anthropomorphic immortal, but it's still a god No, it's not because it's not a magical anthropomorphic immortal It is a being which is not a being. Oh, what do you mean? It's not being It's not Do you understand what pantheism is I thought so. Yes. You you as einstein put it He believes in stenosis god which can be revealed in the mathematics of nature in the operations of the natural world So he's not art. He's not he's not worshiping a being But spinos is not from the christian. No, that's not an atheist. We should regard him as an atheist Spinoza is not an atheist. That's that's what einstein said was it? I think it's wrong your perspective I don't know what to tell you like einstein's wrong like spinos is not okay All right, so i'm only going on pantheism what darwin what excuse me what einstein said About spinosa's god how einstein described it when he said that he was an atheist from the christian perspective Spinoza's the doctrine for spinosa is to identify god as an absolute substance So it's a kind of like a cosmism. It's not an atheism. It's uh, it's basically to identify that which is Everything is god So you've defined god out of existence No, everything is god than nothing is god So we have to have the unity of something that is god and then we have to be able to distinguish that from that Which is not god I'm look i'm not a pantheist But i'm saying if if you were to adopt a pantheistic position It would still be a god Which means it wouldn't be atheism which means it would be god because it would be evidence against you and it would only pantheist I know of is apart from spinosa himself is einstein einstein's description contradicts what you just said So i'm not going to argue from outside of somebody else's perspective. I'm not going to argue for pantheism You're supposed to present evidence for christianity. I one i've presented evidence for atheism Which is a ridiculous notion because I shouldn't have to I the atheism is should the I don't I don't believe you Atheism is the statement that you have failed to justify your argument And I've maintained that you have still failed to justify your argument So you should in in the position of producing evidence for christianity You should not be arguing for spinosa's god because that's not christianity And if spinosa's god existed that was still justified my atheism because it's not a god It's not a magical anthropomorphic immortal. So defend christianity. Give me Evidence something we can both show to be true That is indicative of your position What like the one spinosa's god is still god like that like it's it's just a different way of conceiving of god Okay, so it's a god isn't it all right? We just know it is a god That's what you said a moment ago. Everything is god. So there's no way to distinguish I mean pantheism pantheism We would all this god No, because like Yes, but only because spinosa is arguing from the point of divine simplicity, which I referenced earlier Which inspired liveness, which is that everything can be boiled down to an existence Which is absolutely one with itself as a single united being. So that's why it's an absolute substance So you wouldn't be god in himself You would be you would be an aspect or a part or a limited condition a contingent being within god So you wouldn't be god, but god would contain you. He would be the set which contains so we don't have a definition of god Which is no, but that's no, I mean, you're not understanding spinosa. That's fine. I was just explaining spinosa You're you're arguing now for for deism for pantheism, whatever, but you're not I'm not I'm just saying no no no I'm arguing that you didn't provide evidence Again for your position. You've only provided evidence against mine atheism that the that he claims that theists make Are unjustified. I did not provide it. Yes, I did in fact I presented quite a lot That that all of your country all of your various scriptures contradict each other They've all been proven to be false that there's no evidence of the supernatural despite all these different claims that faith healers fail that Exorcisms fail all these different practices of the different claims of belief for different religions all fail The specifically christian beliefs or claims fail that the logical arguments that the If we want to go past the evidence you want to go to a logical argument So then you want to say that that god is infinitely good while he also created a hell so he can punish people indefinitely mercilessly Absolute cruelty and infinite mercy supposedly another logical contradiction because he loves us But he's going to judge us not for whether we're good or bad But over whether we believe impossible claims from questionable sources on insufficient evidence. Yeah I presented lots of facts For atheism being the position that chris that that that theism has failed to make its claim That's what atheism is. No, it's not but yes, it is. I'm on the board of directors for american atheists I probably know what my position is a little bit better than you I'm gonna guess that I know my design a little bit better design. Okay, but okay Let's try to get back to the the christianity uh as the theism versus atheist arguments So, uh, you know if we can get into some of the talk about scripture or uh, you know, the tenets of christianity As it pertains to evidence Yeah, for whatever reason you have to believe In order to be in order to be saved you and so because so god the christian god created this hell For people to go to the problem of evil Are you wanting to go down the problem of evil because that's a specific I'm happy to engage in the problem of evil wherever you'd like to Since you won't provide evidence for christianity I mean, I have I mean that was the arguments from sufficient the argument of sufficient reason The only argument you gave me was that it could bottom out with an absolutely necessary being which was the universe itself Well, that wasn't the only option that I gave which is I gave but there is no True To yours or any other religion nothing any religion you didn't give that it didn't show that You just asserted it you just asserted it you didn't show it you just said it Okay, all the contradictions that I just listed for all the different religions And none of them can show that they're any more right that they have any that they've got anything any more accurate than every other religion Christianity says oh, well, we're the only ones that do things exactly like the bhakti hit bhakti hindu do Exactly like the Sikhs do So exactly like Zoroastrians do I'm more exactly like some pagans do that doesn't well. I have a personal relationship with my god I know I'm more I know a pagan a few miles from here who met his god in person That's really the Egyptian cat-headed goddess vast. She appeared in his house fills and physically manifest How are you gonna argue with that? Probably need anti-psychotics, but like that look like that. I would agree with you about all the christians and their experiences too There are people that yeah No, there are christians that also need anti-psychotics, but like like look like the the way that I'm approaching this is purely logical necessity in terms of the If you haven't presented any You gave the circular or did you get in the cosmological argument Then the only necessity is that you need there to be an argument because you need to do everything You have a reason for its existence does everything require to all facts require a reason for their existence No If it's never been created it was never caused it I mean if it was never if it never had an origin that it didn't need an origin story It would have it would be self it would have it would contain And then it wouldn't be orange in existence, but god is that would be necessary imagination. I'll be a man made god in his own image But look that would be a necessary being right now We are the necessary being for god if you can argue that there is a necessary being which is not god And explain why it's not god And and why I wouldn't fit the definition of a god. Okay. What is the definition? Or argue that a god is necessarily impossible That's how do we say whether something is possible or not Do you know because we can't say that anything is possible because we know that there are many things that are not possible It's not possible that monkeys would form a contradiction The cow cannot jump over the moon for example in order to say whether something is possible There has to be a precedent or a parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such possibility exists You don't even have that No, I mean possibility is determined like there is two kinds as those uh logical possibility in terms of whether something is coherent or contradictory, so you'd be like is it itself or not itself? right like infinite and then for the guy who created help and then and then in terms of empirical Empirical possibility It's really just a sort of development upon logical possibility Which affirms one identity and then applies the laws of logic upon it So you say it's something extrinsically as observable phenomenon You give a definition then you say is that definition coherent with the other normativity that exists in reality So whether it's a coherence this stance or or a correspondence stance. That's that's that's so how is god Like a contradiction or incoherent. Why is he impossible? Like give me the evidence For your I did just do that not against in your failure to produce a precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon Or if you that's an evidence No, let's let's take a look at your position. Let's just make sure I understand you So you've just discarded all of scripture, right? So like at least the old testament, right? You've you've you've forsaken adam and eve the tower battle the exodus No, it's God in scripture. It's just irrelevant for this debate. That's Typical have you have you decided that these things are not true, right? We don't have to defend the scripture because all of it's false No, the point is we know that adam and eve are adam and eve are genetically impossible Do you accept one? I'm a catholic and we don't take Like almost the the catholic church does not take genesis to be literal, right? Nobody I've never met any catholic that takes it literally I met a catholic when I asked her what if there was any moment in history that she could change with a time machine What would she do the the moment that she wanted to change out of all history?  What can I say? Very good very good, but I need to establish just because you're catholic doesn't mean you accept evolution doesn't mean that your creation is There are both out there, which is why I'm asking you I accept evolution I accept I accept physics as it's presented by the expert you accept that adam and eve is just fable Not even a kernel truth to that Like well, I think that the truth would be spiritual. That's the whole point. So it's not necessarily historic. What does that mean? So spiritual will be like indicating an aspect of existence Either like it could be a moral truth. It could be a metaphysical truth You take you take the adam and eve or the the the genesis fable as or what is it the garden of eden fable as metaphorical? Yes, well allegorical like but like I think that it reveals something real about us It reveals something real about reality So for example the relationship between god and the world for example It shows that the for example god made the world and it was good that there is That the the goodness of the world is directly related to a being which precedes it that its existence is necessarily Tied up into the being which is good, which is why it's reflected. So if god is good, then it is good Okay, so so you say god made the world So we we have a number of scientific theories that would work in the absence of god for various things I mean like a planetary accretion theory and and Different aspects of a biogenesis a whole bunch of different studies that come that make up that The theory of evolution for example, I mean that doesn't that doesn't go against like an uh, uh, spiritual reflection upon that did No, but I mean you're saying if god made the world like god I said the mechanism itself is could be finely directed. I said clarify there I said that these these these uh processes operate with or without god Um, well one, I don't believe that you could establish mechanism without Uh, a god, um, how would you establish mechanism with a god? So I would say that the mechanism requires essentially a logical relation between identities and that what you're looking at is essentially um, a necessary Identity relation between two existent beings, right? So so covalent bonds require a an in intelligence to devise though that that they couldn't just happen The way that things when we talk about something happening I would say that it relates to a movement and that motion is directed towards an end So I'd say that the way that you the way that you have to understand it is that the the it's the the reason like an identity Contains a relationship To itself and it is moving because it is a trying to obtain itself Like that's the whole point of like an instability in an identity Otherwise the the identity would be perfectly stable be unchanging. So like the otherwise the basically there would be no causal chain causation is essentially a logical chain relating events Uh through time that's that's all causation is so the the trade that the trade of of electrons in in different colvin bonds are diffusion of new boils gas law gravity these sorts of things that They all need a mind to keep all of them working because they wouldn't work unless there was a reality can't be Do you think that reality can be described without a mind? Because I mean if you believe that then you must believe that you that you can't have logical that that there is not Ideas in the world right like that there isn't why would I believe something that I know not to be true that you know You know not to be true Okay, so you know that I don't hold that position that you just falsely accused me of Oh, no, I'm not. I'm I'm not. I'm asking you whether you did hold that position. That's I'm not accusing I wouldn't accuse you of that level of sophistication. Yeah, we we do have ideas within our minds But these ideas within our minds did not pre exist our minds And they are not the reason that gravity works or why covalent bonds happen, etc So natural processes work with or without god So in a world without a god natural processes continue to work You want to suggest that there is a god required for something And it's not just for something it's for christianity So you have to believe That this this first century faith either clearly never understood But the fuck he was talking about about anything ever Who didn't know when things were in season who didn't know what the smallest seeds was who had no divine knowledge at all You have to believe in this cult leader In violation of the first commandment In order to be saved from the damnation that he's threatening against you Give me a fact that supports that so One like in what a fact that supports like the argument for like What are you here to debate for you? Is there more evidence for I've given you lots and lots of Gave you an argument for the goodness of gods In relation, I mean you didn't talk about what goodness is and I'm gonna have to talk about that You'd ignored the problem of evil. You said we could talk about that later if you want to Okay, we'll move on to that in just two seconds just quickly in terms of metaphysics Are you you're a physicalist or a materialist, right? Oh, what does a materialist mean that means somebody to it accepts that material reality exists, which we both accept I think right we do you accept that material reality exists No, a materialist is it depends on how you define material That's that's the whole point like materialism is a specific metaphor. So we both do we both accept that the material world exists Yes, I believe in material. Yeah, okay And so you want to posit an alternate universe a supernatural magical level universe on top of that And if I don't make that same assumption that you do then you shift the burden approved to turn my lack of belief into a positive belief by accusing me of Physicalism that was when really when really you have the belief in magic, which you cannot justify And that's why you need to turn it into my belief because the Christianity hates nothing more than the burden approved So let me get let me get this straight. Let me get this straight You believe that all of those professors and universities and by the way, there's a lot of them You all talk about materialism and physicalism are in fact Simply by physicalism. There's multiple definitions deluded or something and they are being brainwashed by they're deluded by Theists in order to defend something which does not need to be defended about if we're talking about philosophical naturalism or meta or Methodological naturalism. There's a difference When I get accused of naturalism, I get I'm accused of believing that naturalism is all there is What is that? It's a shifting of the burden approved You believe in magic? I don't So you don't you don't want the burden approved to show that there's evidence of magic So you push the burden of proof on me by making it into my belief in naturalism I mean the reason that I become a materialist When really you're the one with the belief in magic You need to justify that the reason I described you as a methodological methodological naturalist And I'm sorry if you're not as I was I must have misunderstood you Methodological in your in your in your video falsifying god with tyla tyla vella In which you described yourself as a methodological naturalist. I must have just misunderstood. I'm sorry It's a logical naturalism process that science has to use because it's the reason I explained earlier You have to be able to show whether something is true or false in order If you're going to add to the sum of human information Otherwise, if you just got bear if you just got baseless speculation and we can't know that if it's true or false Then it has no value in epistemology Right. I'm I mean like that. I'm only just making that point like I'm sorry if you're not but that's fair enough in terms of in in terms of materialism materialism is actually like a metaphysical doctrine which argues that the uh, that reality can be basically reduced to a set of Principles which define matter. So that so for example, let's say what is it charge mass? And what is it? It's charge mass and uh come on with the um The third one. So the basically all truth can be reduced to these can be reduced to these principles. That's the doctrine of physicalism and materialism. It's all reducible to a doctrine. I accept that the physical universe Well, I accept that the physical universe exists that doesn't make us that we both accept that a physical universe exists You want to posit a a magical supernatural alternative universe on top of that? Which I do not assume I think it's okay And for the reason that I do not assume that that I am falsely accused of having a belief in not magic Rather than not believing in magic No, that's not the the issue the issue is is whether there is something external Whether everything is reducible to the so I don't need to prove that there's not magic You need to show that there is magic. Look for example materialism come from they essentially like if we look at the Foundation of materialism in let's say the 16th century, right? Like or like the 15th century I'm I'm I'm trying to work that out Okay, so just I don't assume magic. So I have a I don't believe in magic It's not that I have a belief in not magic. It's that I don't have a belief that there is magic So right you do assume assume You explain the fact supporting magic and then we'll specify When you verify that magic exists when you give evidence that magic exists Then you can identify a certain type of magic being god and then when you verify that that exists Well, now we can identify which type of god and then you can start getting into christianity okay He has a question that might lead me to the right direction. Do you believe numbers exist on paper? So so quantities exist the concept of quantities exist Right, so like but there is a so like let's talk about like mathematics, right? Does is mathematics you're not ever going to get to supporting christianity. Are you? I've already defined arguments in relation to christian I'm trying to work out whether you never presented Do you want to just let's just let's just move on to the problem of evil because I don't even think you would understand what you do I don't think it matters. I don't think you're going to provide evidence of christianity. Are you? No, I'm happy to I'm happy to move on to the problem of evil. I mean, that's Christianity evidence for christianity. I've already given the argument for sufficient you gave an argument Not evidence and you're not ever going to give so I guess we're done No, the whole point has no evidence for christianity. I have evidence for atheism the reasons I've already given twice Including the fact that we don't have souls Which is a big problem If you because if there's no if there's no soul so there's no afterlife and God becomes moot at that point at least the christian version of god and he's arguing for christianity What is a soul without evidence? What is the soul? Mind body dualism the independent the idea every religion as I define religion is the the faith-based belief system That a supernatural essence of self somehow survives the death of the physical body to continue on in some other form That could be in reincarnation doesn't have to be mind body dualism Like I mean catholics believe that they'll be physically reincarnated you get hicks theory of replication Which is what I've read before when I said that the earliest versions of christianity You all thought that your bodies were going to be reanimated, which oddly enough is what in the catholic church still says that There'll be the physical the Quran still says that too Muslims why you're saying that there is Why are you seeing the wajulists? Why monists? So why are you saying wajulists? Why monists as I like the catholic church is an indifferentest doctrine as I explained Earlier pp explain what he was saying there. I think yeah the original concept of christianity You know you christian stuff that they were going to rehab the reanimated bodies But now the popular belief is that you have these supernatural invisible souls that are going to rise out of your physical body in this end Into into a supernatural heaven. That's the common belief now It's not the common belief It's not necessarily the common belief look but actually there's plenty of christians who believe in physical resurrection Actually, there's loads of them. All right. It depends on where you sit in terms of that You think you can give evidence It depends on what you understand the soul to be right for example The christian understands the soul to be the final cause of the body which means it's the uniting principle of the being Which means it is literally the principle which unites the organism through time So it's not it's not something separate from the existence of the organism It's in fact embodied In the organism the truth of the principle is the actual reality of that Being so like the idea that you would be that there is a dualism There's actually for most for most catholics is nonsense It's absolute nonsense in terms of and that's what the largest christian organization in the world But you would consider us Right the the the platonic notion that there is a spirit For example that's separate from the body. That's that's form of exaggerated realism was more popular In the catholic church actually around the time in the early church When you're saying that when we used to make yeah And like the first century then it became more like in terms of augustin It became a kind of more likely to be a dualism And then you you know, you moved on to uh Yes, I know because I was raised as a Mormon and I was told many times as a child that I had to take Care of my body because when it was buried I couldn't be cremated or anything like that because And the end day the judgment day whatever the same thing the muslims believe the mormons believe that they were all going to come creeping out of their graves Like oh, you're you're raised as a mormon So if that's the case if we can't be Incremented because we have to have our bodies in order for them to come crawling out of the graves Then what happened to the people that were eaten by sharks? And so here's the problem when people I mean it's tried don't get there's this There's this logical problem there. Well now they come up with this spiritual aspect And that's why the popular belief now. No, I mean that's that you're gonna have a reanimated body, but let's okay I mean, no, no, no, that's that's just crazy, right? Like let's be let's be frank. Like I'm sorry you were raised a mormon Like that's what many muslims teach. That's what christianity taught right like look I'm very sorry that you're raised a moment, but again. I'm very sorry that there are not just about mormons I'm talking about the undead saints doing the doing the thriller in downtown judia just like it says in the gospels Look, I used to believe this I like I'm not saying like I think in terms of I had to I had to correct your misdefinition of atheism at the beginning of this So why don't you explain to me what it is that what what christianity is? So we can figure out who is a christian who is not and what it is that you think you can provide evidence for Because you're running out of time you need to provide One one I've provided evidence to I did actually tell you No, you did not I have No, you use arguments Logical fallacy circular reasoning you haven't produced a fact Despite being directly challenged to do so numerous times. We're gonna let perspective Express this thoughts here. I hope you're all having fun I know it's a very lively discussion that we're having this evening So if you're enjoying yourself hit that like button, won't you? We got about 10 minutes left of open discussion. We're going to go into that Q&A So let's keep it rolling. We're gonna let perspective respond to some of the stuff that aren't just brought up there Oh, right. So one arguments can be evidence if it is a deductive argument for something provides the necessity of something's Truth, so for example, if I was to argue different I bachelor's Different definitions than you One second, let me finish if for example, if I was to argue If for example, if someone was to ask is a bachelor an unmarried man and then I was to present a syllogistic argument Demonstrating the necessity of a bachelor being an unmarried man. That would be evidence for a bachelor being an unmarried man Do you understand that that that so like an argument is the fact would be the death? I mean the definition itself would be the fact so that would it would fit my definition You would have a fact we can both show to be true that being the definition of the word And that would be the fact in evidence to be true. It adheres to the my definition Can you have a fact without evidence? What can you have a fact without evidence? Yes If the same fact is would be true in both, uh, mutually exclusive conditions, then it is just a fact It doesn't become evidence until it indicates one or eliminates another Wait, so wait a minute. You can have a fact. So what do you what do you think a fact is? A fact is a point of objectively verifiable data as I told you before So I would say that a fact is a thing known or proved to be true Which is exactly what I just said in different words So if a fact is a thing which is known or proven to be true But both of us then just it's not just a claim How is it how can a fact exist without we can both verify how can a fact exist without evidence? I a fact Evidence is a body of facts. Something could be true. Something could be true. On that perspective. You just asked the question Right, right evidence is made of facts So you can have a fact that does not indicate one position or eliminate another and in which case it's just a fact I just explained this but I'll be happy to go over it again Fact doesn't become evidence until it points to one or just misses the other one I think we're talking past each other in some respects because I think what you're taking to be a fact Is literally just something being true I think that's exactly what you just defined a fact to be. I was more specific But I'm happy to say it's your general term because we did just say the same thing Even though you don't understand that no, you said the reason that I'm saying that I think that there is this I'm not so See I'm not understanding. I was trying to be nice for saying. I think we're talking past each other You know, whatever we are I understand why we are I said a fact is something that is objectively verifiable and you said a fact is something that's known to be true Those two statements both mean the same thing There's a difference between something being verifiable and something being verified Known to be true. So You know this thing to be verified. I can verify it again. And now I know it to be true to yes We I can look it up if you say that this is the definition of a bachelor for example I can Pick out my dictionary. Look it up and like oh, well, look at that. It's a fact. It's it That's how it's defined. There we go a fact and look if a fact is a thing which is Like a fact You're seeing is something which is which it can be verified. That's what you said Right, not something which is verified. It is objectively verifiable data. It's either not a dispute because we've both taken it Because we both can't be just object. Do you understand that it can't be just objectively verifiable data because Like in principle, that's almost anything explaining that I said we it doesn't it's either not a dispute because we both take it for Let's say for A hypothetical reason we both accept. Okay in light of this possibility. We'll take that as a fact It can be a hypothetical or it's so it's not a dispute or it's indisputable because we can verify or as you put it It's known to be true. We're both saying the same thing If you are saying the same the only the only difference is That where you say that something is known to be true I'm saying it has to be known to be true by both of us And if it's only known to one of us the other one can look it up I agree and the way that look the way you would prove a fact is with evidence with justification Now you don't prove a fact with evidence The fact comes the evidence if it's indicative of one position or eliminates another If a fact is a truth And What we can show to be true. How do you how do you know the truth? I just why do you ask questions right after they've been answered? The truth is what the facts are what we can show to be true. Do you understand that? So look does that matches exactly what you just said? No, it doesn't the difference is is I'm saying a fact is something which is verified and you're saying it's known to be true I said the truth is what the facts are How's that not the same thing? We can't say that something is the truth if we don't know that it's the truth, right? Because if we can't show the truth of it if we don't know that it's true Because that in itself would be a lie to say something is true when we don't know How do we show something is are we in meanals paradox? Right, how do we know the truth of something without knowing it's true? I did just give you a number of that's meanals paradox and I would say that would be a posh We're not we're not a partial. I gave you a couple of hypotheticals If you give me a word that I've never heard and you say this is what it means and I don't know that it's known But it's only known by you. Okay. Let's give it up. I see that it's known now. It's known by me too, right Let's let's give an example. Let's try and work this out. So let's say it's a fact that it's that okay So for something to be a fact it would have to be known to be true Let's say that fact is that it's raining outside Right, so the proposition it is raining outside is true And it is a fact In order to establish that fact, we've had to give evidence, right? Would you agree? Yes in that context sure Then it becomes a claim and now you need evidence of the claim Okay, so how could evidence be a fact if facts require evidence? Because the reason I have repeatedly explained to you evidence is a body of facts So how if evidence is a body? Okay I'm happy to say that facts can be used as evidence once they've been proven to be true But you're going to have a problem if all facts require other facts Like how do you gain at the bottom of this? Something which is true like where does the truth like lie? What's that? Is it just a are you going to say it's a brute fact? Maybe or are you going to say that it is uh That it's uh like a necessary truth or What like what's it going to be it's going to have to be some sort of like necessary truth, right? Like it's going to have to be self-evident No So one thing if you tell me that it's raining outside It's at least possible to be raining outside. It's rained outside before So there's that If you want to tell me that that god is spitting on things or pissing on things whatever the case may be That's a big difference, right? Yeah. Well, I'm going to need some some evidence for this god claim You know, then it then it becomes uh, carl sagan's thing about you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence And you're saying that you're only arguing for something as trivial as whether it's raining outside I'm I'm saying that your your your god claim is a whole lot more extraordinary than that We have the natural world we both accept The natural processes evolution and so forth would exist in a universe without a god Just as uh in your hypothetical universe in which magic is real Why do you say that necessity of god? Why do you think you can say that? Like why do you think that you can see that in so for example if I was to like let's say I was to see your universe is the one where magic is real because things can exist without a natural record So that wouldn't make any sense Don't believe in magic, but like this is the so you do you don't believe in blessings Or curses. I knew you I knew you're going to how do you interpret these things? positive and negative magical enchantments That's what blessings and curses are whenever somebody I have a They don't realize it, but they're telling me to have a magically enchanted day The supernatural equals the magical magical miracles miraculous magic. It's the same thing When uh when a vip is murdered we call it an assassination when a boat is really expensive We call it a yacht when a god does magic we call it a miracle I'm just gonna ask We'll try and make this easy. So how there's a definition for magic. That's just that's called that root. Why not? All right, so it's essentially the same as the definition of miracle I've already I've already compared a bunch of different dictionaries for the definitions of miracle and and magic You can't you can't just say that the definition of miracle is the same as the definition of magic You have to give us the definitions and shows that the same one if I could complete the sentence I did in my book do a comparison a bunch of different dictionaries and then go outside of the dictionaries To give other commentary from other sources that also show that the consistency that a miracle is essentially magic They are the supernatural if you believe in the the miracle's magic Both is the evocation of supernatural powers or entities to control or forecast natural events in ways that are inexplicable by science Because they defy the laws of physics They don't have to you can have a miracle you can have an explanation of miracles, which is Necessarily natural and in fact like for example in public miracle it would be It's just that you're using the humane definition of a miracle, which is not necessary You're taking a miracle that is that which is so now we have to redefine what a miracle is you redefine what atheism is You redefine what christianity i'm not redefining it. I mean this is a debate I mean this is like whether like the miracles are the events how we describe the events and When we give them the term is essentially what so for example someone might say like a train like stops Let's say every time there's going to be a train like a train is going to hit a child right and every time Right without fail the child steps on the track the train stops Every time that happens it could have a natural explanation Right, which would mean it's not a miracle But what we're describing is the event and the occurrence So it would be Except that it wouldn't be by definition No, because that's what the definition is coming from an attempt to define the phenomena Which we are according to websters a miracle is literally a wonderful thing But appropriately in theology an event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things the deviation from the known laws of nature A supernatural event miracles can be wrought only By almighty power Same dictionary says that magic is the art or science of putting into action the power of spirits or the science of producing Wonderful effects by the aid of superhuman beings or departed spirits Sorcery enchantment and so forth I've got a half a dozen other dictionaries that we could source if we really want to take this route But I think you're running out of time to give evidence for christianity, which you haven't given evidence You you couldn't even give evidence against you couldn't give it I did spend a good 20 minutes explaining evidence against the various claims of different religions and specifically those of christianity All that you've said is that it's magic that other religions exist I could be a perennialist. I said that all of the claims are contradicting I will just say look all right, we're gonna move into Q&A guys Describe any contradiction. We'll let pp wrap up and we'll move to q&a there You didn't describe a single contradiction and not only I did one of them was when I said that god was eternally merciful But he's going to punish us forever mercilessly That's a contradiction I know it came in a long list of contradictions. I'm surprised you missed it. There were so many of them All right To q&a guys, sorry pb to to be clear to demonstrate a contradiction You have to provide an argument evidence of that contradiction. You can't just assert it to be the case I did just do that. Do I need to repeat it again? How many times do I have to repeat things for you? All right, let's move into the q&a guys because it looks like we may have hit the wall I think everybody has the wall when it comes to having a conversation and we may have just gotten there So let's move into the q&a and see if we can stir the pot on some conversation here We are going to have to keep the super chat always my best part of any debate Well, we're going to have to keep the super chats. I think to one minute apiece on the responses if i'm correct about the The time that we have here out of respect for our speakers So definitely hit the like button and once again our speakers are both going to be linked in the description But most importantly the most important thing to remind you is our live in person event that's coming up. It's going to be epic That's september 16th in texas. So right now we have a crowdfund for that. The goal is to get 1500 You know, we're only at five percent right now. So You know, if you guys can give us some support that'd be awesome If you want to buy tickets to the event those are in our description as well Let's get into the super chats everybody and thank you so much for being here and we appreciate our speakers for this lively exchange Manga fan dam five dollars I often hear christians say the empty tomb is evidence of the resurrection Couldn't it also be evidence that jesus never existed in the first place one minute on the clock? Yeah, I mean like obviously like just contextually within the story like No matter how you interpret the story for it to be an empty tomb in relation to what's going on Would be in reference to the fact that the story has coherence, right? So it's a part of the narrative So you can't really go oh well that part of the narrative disproves the rest of the narrative because it only has meaning in the narcissistic whole So like no matter how no no no matter how you uh It's evidently just said evidence against him never existing Like the whole point of what i'm saying is that no matter how you interpret the gospels The narrativistic structure means that it would only have reference if If you like for example if you say jesus never existed and there'll be no reason to call it jesus's tomb You know reason to say that this tomb would have any relevance But there would be any evidence or have significance towards the existence of jesus regardless of how you interpret it So like clearly All right. Well, there are a number of other alternative explanations. I like one that bob price gave where he was talking about how I mean, it's an interesting the way that bob price wrote about matthias Uh, I can't remember the name now Josephus I forget his his jewish name, but it sounds very much like joseph vera mathea joseph mara matthias when you read Josephus and there's this passage where he takes his friends down off the crosses And you read that a comparison with luke it looks like they're telling the same story from two different perspectives At least the way that that price presents it and I thought that was interesting So when there is a tomb that is empty, is it because josephus or joseph vera mathea Took somebody down and either it didn't go where it was supposed to or in the in the roman tradition They didn't take people down at all and this is just confusing one story with another You know events that never actually happened concordantly or any number of other explanations So that the fact that there's a tomb that doesn't have this jesus character in it Doesn't indicate that there was a jesus character I just I just want to point out that like no matter how we look at it like in terms of what you're talking about there Is like interprets hermeneutics Um, how you interpret like for example, as I said before I could be a perennialist Which means I could see that there is truth in all these different religions and yet affirm christianity to be more true not because the stories are Not because the stories are Necessarily talking about the same like talking about the same Uh specific narrative because all the narratives are describing the same spiritual truth in different ways I'm gonna ask you a question that you will not answer And The reason that you won't answer it is because I I'm not sure what the reason is that you want to answer Because relievers never do you can't you can't say that then man But you you you will give me an answer that you think you can't pre me answer It's so bad faith But you won't you won't give me the answer that that's that's real for you if I ask you why you believe in christianity I will try to concoct an argument that you think will convince me But I believe in christianity because of an argument that I read in the science of logic by haigle Where he establishes a trinity the trinitarian necessity of god so that there is a necessary being and that necessary being takes a trinitarian form uh Reflecting universality particularity and individuality which map directly on to the father the son and the holy spirit That's why I'm a christian. All right. I want to inject right here guys And I don't believe that per minute, but would you please find some way to get that? Why did you even ask like to read that argument? Yeah, yeah check out the haigle science of logic. I suggest checking out the lasso logic because it's more sort of friendly and then uh, if you go to It is I mean I can send you specifically if you'd like that um I would yeah Yeah, I'll just send you but it's uh, it's on it's it once you go. I'll just send you it. It's on the Um, but it's on the absolute syllogism, but you go through the quality of syllogism the quantity of syllogism and then uh On to uh on the I'll be happy to appreciate it. Yeah, all right. What I was gonna What I was going to say there fellas is I don't mind you guys, uh, you know Getting a little bit deeper on these questions. That's fine But we do have just a little bit over 30 questions. So if we do want to get through them, I'm going to set a one minute timer Um, so that we can I'll let this guy quit interrupting and holding everything up Yes Let's it's all good. I like I said, I don't mind you guys do whatever you want to do you play it how you want to But I'll let you know when we get to that minute and then you can you can dig your own grave from there All right, so the buff guy Mr. Buff guy from canada for 6.99 says I like the way you responded right the buff guy All right, is this james? All right perspective agnostics can be atheists Atheism pertains only to belief Gnosticism pertains to knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive Response Well, I technically know Unfortunately when huxley made up his word he didn't he didn't follow the etymology correctly He was trying to Counter some of people that he found annoying in his day Gnosticism it doesn't mean that Gnosticism is a word that is that is a name of a religious group and so It doesn't work the juxtaposition the way that he implied it But I mean gnostics. I mean I'll actually based off the whole point of gnosis like though It's a revelation to knowledge though, right the gnostics so like the like it's it's uh, it's sort of like almost a mini cult based off What seems to be sort of a combination of various philosophers Especially inspired by Plato From what I remember with the gnostics James Lindsay unfortunately Tries to accuse Hegel of being one any absolute he isn't in case anyone's wondering but the um, the reason I would basically say that um 10 seconds that agnosticism is Incompatible with atheism is that if atheism is a belief that god does not exist then accept it that the uh that any um that any belief Is to affirm the truth of a proposition if you'd affirm the truth of a proposition That means that you either cannot do have knowledge of it. Uh, because you have to say that it is true or that it essentially Uh, that you can't hold it to be true. Which means you you would have knowledge of that last time there But you can keep going if you'd like No, it's okay. It's okay All right definition of atheism that I use is the one as I said it was established in the 1700 1600s by uh, Matthias Knudsen and uh, I mean atheism Atheism was established in terms of a doctrine in the pre-socratic era Except that no it wasn't atheism was described by the father of atheism, which was barren dolbrock in 1770 And Matthias Knudsen his predecessor both of them defund atheism as a lack of belief in gods And it was popularly defined that way in the common usage before huxley Through huxley and beyond huxley such that every atheist organization today Uses the definition that atheism is one thing a lack of belief in gods only philosophers Would use the the definition that atheism is a positive belief that there is no god Why is it something to argue about? No philosophers are the most pedantic and Precise people you'll ever the most pedantic and precise people you'll ever meet on earth Yep, just just for the just for the sake of it if we're defining something a certain way In relation to other terms. There's a reason um Check it out. I will let our one out here Any final thoughts on that are and you want to move on? I didn't hear the last bit I just to check it out. Oh, yeah, and I said I did check it out I had an argument with a with a self-styled philosopher on this very point when I brought up that before huxley invented this word We already had this definition that said it was a disbelief in god and the guy said well Ah, but that but disbelief in philosophy means that a belief in the knot might yeah, but this is webster's dictionary We can look up disbelief and it says a refute the refusal to assent belief or the denial of belief A rejection of belief not the rejection of the claim Which is why stanford gives the poly semas definition says that both definitions are correct But that the the definition that atheism is a positive belief that there is no god Is a philosophical definition not the mainstream definition That was the previous one and the consistent one by in use of all uh by all atheist organizations All right, this next one coming in from pointless poppy for you perspective philosophy What do we know about the 500 jesus appeared to? like uh I Sorry, what was that? What do I know about the 500? Yes, so the 500 witnesses of jesus, so that would be uh What do we know? Oh, sorry? I gotta scroll back up I'll give you the exact wording that they had there and thanks for being here again pointless poppy And hanging out in our live chat. So uh for dollar 99. What do we know about the 500 jesus appeared to? I Don't know why you're exactly asking like About that like what do we know of them like Like I think they're saying like, you know, do we know the individuals or? Uh, the individual 500 do we they do have the like birth certificates? I don't know. It seems kind of silly on the the point there, but yeah, you can answer that however It's kind of like when when donald prump says that many people say this And it really means that only he believes that nobody ever actually said that I mean look we're gonna agree that on donald trump. I think he's a wanga, right? Like if that helps, right? Like I think the guy's an absolute rat like if that helps, but I just I I don't know how to answer it because I don't know what's being asked like I get it that It's like are you asking for the names and they're like Like are you saying like how would we know it like? Or how would we know like specific information of it? Are you saying like? In terms of how we interpret The relationship Theologically I like I don't I don't know like are you I'm sorry. I just don't know how to answer it. I'm sorry That's no problem at all. Let's move on I think the question is asking for this. There is a claim That there were 500 witnesses, but we don't have affidavits or names for any of these 500 Yeah, that's what I'm saying like are you saying like are you asking like How would we attempt to prove like a historical fact in relation to these witnesses? Exactly Well, I think that If that's the claim if that's the claim that's fine if that's what it's asking And I think there's two things to I think there is like obviously you just used You'd have to go through contemporary historical methodology Like in terms of biblical scholarship and historical methodology, which is It's going to be difficult I guess and but not necessarily and principally impossible Um, if we don't have evidence that doesn't mean that the didn't exist. It just means we don't have evidence in terms of the In in terms of the theological significance And how we interpret that I think that can be a separate question anyway um, because there were references Really like, uh, what is the like what is being proposed here? What is it evidence of? Why is it evidence? Is it legitimate evidence these are like different questions? Um, and you might say yes, you might say no, it's illegitimate evidence. It's not legitimate evidence And I think that like is it historical evidence? Is it is it referencing a specific relation to To the narrative structure itself? Uh, I don't think that I think that's the kind of conversation That could also be built around it. So so yeah, I I don't know what to tell you other than like The way you gain knowledge of it is either through like history or philosophy, right? Like All right, let's move on from there Yeah, actually a friend of mine had made a funny point about the old testament speaking of the donald trump thing which was Egypt's not sending their finest. Anyways, I I I got a good little chuckle out of that Anyways, michael the canadian atheist for five dollars Can we please for the love of humanity get some evidence for christianity? Please present your case Yeah, I mean I already did I mean I presented the case that I'm so I'm arguing from the principle of sufficient reason that there must be a necessary being I argued that from the point of divine simplicity that a necessary being would be absolutely simple And then from the point of simplicity that it would be omnibenevolent omniscient and omniscient Um, I would also I would also make an argument for the trinity if you like Um, it's a bit more convoluted. It's a little bit harder to express because it relates to um like essentially, uh logical structure. Um, I can try and express it if you like, um And yeah, I mean that's and I'll argue that's necessarily true about all beings including A divinely simple one. Um, so it's kind of like why augustin's uh day trinitate argues for this, uh try try you in relationship and with all beings in the same way that Hegel does Um, so yeah, I mean I have presented arguments for christianity Um, yeah, but they asked for evidence All right, we're just gonna uh, yeah, if you want to close this out 15 seconds there just uh on that thought Okay, yeah, so like evidence is essentially demonstrable justification and an argument is essentially a justification So so yeah, like in order to gain a fact you actually need to provide evidence for it You can't just essentially go oh look a fact. Um, that so yeah, um You know, I don't bump into facts in the street Um, but you know, like I might bump into things that actually exist big truths So, yeah, there's a distinction there. All right, I do bump into facts in the streets And I can verify that for things that I say if I call for evidence or something I can show that it's definitely a fact I don't know why you won't 15 seconds there perspective to uh, close out on that thought or do you want to move on it's it's all right Don't worry about it man. All right big bad mama coming in for five dollars. Thanks for being here big bad mama Pp studies show what that about four in ten u.s. Atheists 43 percent half college degrees compared with 27 of the general public why the disparity Uh, I think in contemporary society I think actually I was watching an inspiring philosophies debate with our and raw actually like recently I thought that was a really good debate. Uh, and I think I think inspiring philosophy is actually a really great Channel, you should definitely check them out if you haven't already um, and one of the studies like sociological studies that he referenced was that in terms of the actually when you when you actually, um Go into the sociological studies There's no evidence to say like for example in trinzic religiosity has a negative indication for intelligence or educational outcomes Uh, you didn't know that maybe we're having you didn't show that in the debate Should have said you should have said that to michael during the debate But the the I hadn't read the study. I didn't know he was going to change the debate We were supposed to argue about whether christianity was dangerous He said in trinic religiosity, which means it no longer matters what denomination it is if you don't act on it But then it's still just as dangerous if you act on it Which means look in trinic religiosity is dangerous in the same sense that having a gun in the house is dangerous If nobody touches it then you can claim that it's not dangerous. But what if somebody touches it? No, I don't think that's what he was saying at all. Actually, I think he even counted your point of saying I looked up the study on intrinsic religiosity that showed that even that Redu it reduces a child's ability to distinguish facts from fiction. So even that is dangerous So it doesn't matter, but that wasn't the debate we were having All right, this question was for pp. So we'll let him close it out So yeah, like one I do actually I'll give my I would give michael the way and absolutely I think I think you did great. But the the the point of what I was referencing was that In relation to the sociological studies what you can see is that people who typically Go against the norm are more likely to be critical thinkers So in general whether it's a theist or an atheistic norm the people who aren't part of the mold are more likely to be critical thinkers and since the majority of people in Like that's why the trend is reversed in other cultures. So you can see that not everyone Like the united states might be one example, but it's not the only one and that trend doesn't necessarily apply globally All right, better truth coming in. Can you prove of god's existence? Not by saying by your interpretation, but show us the facts which can be supported by modern science Uh, I mean like the way that like when you say supported by modern science I think you have to remember that modern science is itself supported by epistemological and metaphysical argumentation in order to justify it as essentially a A means of gaining truth about the world otherwise it would be essentially like moot, right? So by asking like so when you talk about let's say like logical necessities of being in terms of metaphysics You can show something is true of all being. Uh, whether it's in terms of a physical modality biological historical Attempt a way of looking at it mathematical whatever. Um, so the the point Is that I gave a metaphysical argument for the existence of a necessary being um, which explains for example the relationship of reasons of identities to each other in terms of Uh, logical inference right where it's like everything requires a reason and how this would relate to another object If it does not contain its own reason So this was basic. This is the foundation for things like causation which you would see in science So if you do reject this sort of logical relationship this a priori structure actually existing in reality Then you are going to reject science So the the position here isn't an anti scientific position The position that i'm alluding to is actually a position which was brought around to defend Scientific claims not go against them And you've got to remember that libelets who put this argument forward For example, the first person who put this argument forward was very engaged in uh in scientific, uh endeavors of each time All right. That was a little bit more than 15 seconds, but I want to let you wrap up your point. That's all right Jesse burris for five dollars perspective, uh, philosophy How is any argument based on supernatural occurrences logical? If we can't even confirm anything supernatural is even possible Uh, why would you think that you couldn't confirm something as supernatural is impossible like for example? Like they you can you can you can show that nature is unable to account for itself. For example, which poses Essentially a reason which exists external to nature And you could gain that from reason from effect to cause so like the whole point of a cosmological argument as put forth by Someone like thomas equinas or the principle of sufficient reason That's put forth by someone like libnets is to show that there is a logical necessity which nature conforms to Uh, which allows for us to account for scientific truths and all other truths And that when we get down to the bottom of it We actually have to posit a supernatural cause for it to make sense And I would argue that is uh a god and even when we talk supernatural I think it's important to represent to say that this is something that is greater than nature not necessarily absolutely Uh, uh torn away from it. Um, and I suggest checking out a pan pan the pan enthusiastic conception of god. So so yeah As some have noted in the comments. Yeah, that was a god of the gaps argument Nature has not been unable to account for itself But that is the argument that whatever if you don't know the explanation the scientific explanation Well, then you assume magic. He assumed god I mean, it's actually logical inference. The whole thing is actually a logical inference in towards a necessary being It's it's a real logical inference to imagine the magic invisible man Right, I mean like you didn't sure why the principle of sufficient reason was wrong and why a necessary being wouldn't be god and I was so why it wouldn't be necessary You were nor you didn't know what it was supposed to be a god If there was a necessary being you should have shown that it was a that it would be a I mean, I did I'd have a bad perspective necessary being You just made a circular argument wherein you assumed that there was a necessary being to explain the thing that didn't need an explanation The best that you did was essentially assert that this necessary being could be like a spinoza like spinoza's conception god Should be a necessary being you fail to make your point you fail to make your case No, you said you said the well that perspective closes one out Like you either a reject the principle of sufficient reason Or b accept the principle of sufficient reason and provide An argument against the exist an argument against the necessary being being god Well, you didn't do either so a necessary being first You but I did and then then you tried to argue that it could be Spinoza's conception of god. I did not I said then say that wasn't matter You you fail to make you fail to to show that there isn't a necessary being I simply pointed out that whether there was one or not It wouldn't be your god because you failed that part two You were supposed to be arguing for christianity instead. You started arguing for theism You started trying to use this other argument Would you fail I was arguing against atheism argument? I argued against atheism I argued against atheism which you didn't define correctly And so what you were supposed to be able to do is you're using the correct definition You're supposed to be arguing for christianity. You were supposed to be presenting evidence Look, even even if right even if you believe that I didn't define it correctly You've accepted that you're you yourself for a strong quote unquote strong atheist and so it applied to you anyway So I don't know. Yeah, you didn't define it correctly So it does the burden of proof by giving the evidence but you didn't meet the burden of proof and I did take your position I did provide several facts and evidence for atheism We are so confident in that if you're so confident in that why why is your argument against me a logical fallacy Didn't define a logical fallacy is an argument an erroneous argument and arguments are not evidence I know that you want to redefine arguments for as evidence, but even if that were the case Okay, give evidence. Let's leave it up and then we'll hand it over to you. Still are not evidence Give evidence about an argument. Give an evidence without presenting an argument prove something's true without an argument Go on I can name a fact. What would you like? What what fact and evidence would you like? I gave I went through a list of how we know from from various scientists and so forth that Adam and Eve are genetically impossible The scriptures are all wrong that there's no support for mind-body dualism that there's no support for anything supernatural at all That we have evidence against the supernatural that everything that was ever attributed to the supernatural has been found to be something else All of these claims have been proven to be false. How many more facts do I need? How are the proven nothing you gave a surrogate argument by your own assumptions who are proven with arguments They were proven with arguments because arguments are evidence that I was able to show You only gave arguments with no facts All right, this has been a lively super chat. Let's let perspective philosophy where this was for him And the next one is for aran. We're gonna let perspective close out on this one If a fact is something which is proven to be true You had to prove it somehow so there had to be evidence for that fact Which is why you are stumped by saying that wait a minute If you if if facts are evidence, how do I gain evidence for facts? And you and you and you built yourself into a country into a contradiction. I didn't there's no What if I'm on there if I give you facts that are inconsistent with your belief which I did I gave several And you could try to argue it you can try to argue that any of those are not facts But you know that I can show that they are And then you can't all you did was put in arguments and the arguments require your assumptions You have to agree with your assumptions before you can make the argument Any thoughts over their perspective or do you want to move on? Is it is there any point? Is I don't think there's any point like I'd like look I'm happy Look, I'm happy. I'm happy to say look. I think that arguments supply the basis of evidence Oh, I agree with you. I agree with you. You have to have something more than that You have to have arguments that present Facts and explain how these facts are contradicting this other position or supporting yours.  This is why it ends up in this like look You're always going to need and this is the whole thing. You're always going to need a relationship in which you can see something It's either necessarily true Right, which means it's true by definition. It's self-evident or it is Well, actually, no, that's that you're gonna have to say it's true That's self-evidently true because otherwise you're gonna have to go. Hey, how do I prove this fact? Oh, I prove it with another fact and how do I prove that fact? I prove it with another fact And this is the whole point of the principle of sufficient reason To prove a fact you need to prove it with another fact to prove another fact You need to prove another fact There is a sufficient reason I can do that and you go all the way down to the point in which there is a necessary Induble aspect of existence It like that's the whole point of the principle of sufficient reason to establish that and more importantly You failed to establish that even if you were to have established that it still wouldn't be your god And even if you could have established that it was your god, it wouldn't be the christian god You know, you know like regardless. I'm I'm I'm thoroughly enjoying this. I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Well, I'm glad you're enjoying it I was gonna say it's been a lot of fun.  So, uh, let's move on polarity ten dollars aren't agnostic here Despite disagreeing most religions agree that supernatural or beyond exists Maybe multidimensional Does this Then have better evidence than say the jesus claim. Hail satan. They say at the end What is the number of people who believe something make it true? Does that mean that Hinduism is true and Protestant Christianity is false? No, but you could say that there are corroborating arguments in religion So for example, Hindu metaphysics is is actually really interesting I suggest checking that out if you like in terms of monistic claims of Hinduism Like I've often said if I wasn't a christian, I'd probably be a Hindu I agree. I went that route myself. I read his divine grace. I see Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada I read the science of self-realization. I've been to the ice con temple a number of times I really explored that avenue But Hinduism I think is really really interesting. I think I'm glad they have and and I think that there is a lot of parallel with Christianity And I think that in same with uh, I think I mean Buddhism as an offshoot. I also think that like a Zen Buddhism Um, for example, I think that in terms of the relationship to the trinity I think you can see that is what is it? Uh, The relationship with like brahman the trine was it brahman. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, basically. Yeah So yeah, like yeah, so I mean, I'm happy to like I think that there is a definite relation there I mean, um Yeah, I mean, I'm happy to I'm happy to really say that Um, I think there's some advantages and disadvantages of one religion over another But this isn't obviously Hindu versus Christianity But I think that I think there are great arguments for example in the golden age of Islam I think uh, there are a lot of great, um, Islamic intellectuals then I think there's uh, I think even in Relation to like for example, you go about ancient Greece. They're not talking about a christian god But they're talking about other gods. So there's a lot of great arguments. So yeah All right, and that question was for our and so did you have 15 seconds on closing thoughts on that or do you want to move on? Did we not already answer that all right, let's move on then bitter truth coming in who needs to prove The one can't see or the one who think the god exists Who needs to prove that one? All right I think yeah, they just had a typo that one can't see or that one Who thinks the god exists perspective philosophy? I don't know what that means. I think that's it Who needs to make the uh evident and evidentiary claim the one who can't perceive the truth or the one who is claiming there is the truth I mean, I would agree that for the proposition that a god exists that yeah I do need to give evidence for that I just think that you also need to give evidence for the negation of that the negative proposition Which is essentially that a god doesn't exist and that's why if because if you're saying that you could not Uh, essentially have a truth in that matter Then you couldn't affirm a belief you couldn't actually have a belief that one is correct or incorrect um Because a belief is an affirmation of truth. So if you don't believe you can't have truth The reason I came to the position right I'm sorry if you don't believe that you can't so it's okay if you don't believe that you can't have belief Then uh, or rather truth then I don't think it makes sense to say that you believe or disbelieve Yeah, for the longest time as I said, I was an agnostic atheist I didn't have a belief that there was a god But I didn't know enough To feel that I could believe that there is not a god and more recently of having seen the the infinite failure of christian apologetics and the rampant dishonesty 15 seconds Necessary in all religious apologetics I I finally come to the conclusion that yeah that if they can't if they can't speak about this rationally or honestly Then there's there's sufficient reason when everything that they have as a religious argument is all frauds falsehoods and fallacies because every one of them are And if you and if people don't accuse me in the chat of of making assertions, I can back everything up Let's explore any one of these things I can Well, let's move that's that's how I came to the controller done it in the debate Yeah, well, let's move into polarity has another question Our perspective philosophy with your contingency argument You're defining god into existent as a conscious a conscious agent If even if true, how does this prove christianity? Yeah, I mean that's that's a valid criticism Like you could say that like how does liveness's principle of sufficient reason prove the existence of a divine mind? And not necessarily an unconscious Necessary being um I mean, I'm happy to argue for idealism if you want to get into the sort of nitty-gritty of like why idealism is true Because that essentially found so if everything is essentially fundamentally an idea And uh, the unity of an uh, the unity of the idea of ideas is a mind Well, then obviously the that which is the necessarily united, uh, the unity of existence would be a mind, right? Which is why I actually put in the slides idealism is true and I made that argument just like Briefly, I didn't think we're going to get metaphysical with it But if you would like to see his talk metaphysics, I'm more than happy to Idealism is by far the most superior position absolute idealism by hagel Materialism has been absolutely debunked. I mean ripped apart uh philosophically um So materialism physicalism absolute joke maybe check out analytic idealism by Bernardo Castro, that's pretty cool, too But my my personal favorite time there hagelian absolute idealism All right, those are some interesting claims that I intend to compare the I tend to discuss those with some philosophers I know who I know have to disagree with you by virtue of their atheism You're showing off your bird again on the camera there and claim that uh, that physicalism and I know what you mean by that Being uh disproved. Uh, I know that's false But had I known that you were an idealist I would have refused this debate because all religion is a matter of Some degree of reality denial and with idealism. That's just denying a whole the whole of reality Absolutely all in total. Oh, is that so? What is what is absolute and there's no what is absolute idealism and what is absolute idealism and why is it Why is it a denying reality? well At least according to the idealists that I've had the misfortune of having to argue with some of these people who profess themselves be great philosophers, but can't defend themselves against philosophers Where they argue basically that everything is entirely imaginary I don't think everything is entirely imaginary. The matrix keeps coming up in comparisons. They all think they're fucking neo No, I wouldn't I wouldn't argue for the matrix and also it's worth noting that the matrix was put forward by a guy called Buryar who was it was like he's kind of like it's more of like an existential thesis, but yeah Yeah, all right, let's move on to our next one and for anybody who's listening to the podcast There's literally a bird on arans hand right now is on his shoulders. So my jokes are not misplaced. I'll have you know All right, so Next one coming in here. Oh, I gotta scroll up a little bit again All right, big thang flan wayne. You know, I had to say your name like that Assertions without evidence are a bong water. Don't drink. Well, I'll answer that I knew somebody who did that because that's all fine here where I live and It sounds absolutely disgusting I've known someone drink bong water. It'd be fair. Like yeah, I've known it's like a No Sorry big thing flying rain. Well, let's not expand too much on that but that nasty nasty. Don't do it Big big thang flan wayne coming in again. I need perspective philosophy to define steel man and Then steel man atheism um, okay, so I would I would say to present the strongest interpretation of an argument from which you would Uh, you know, I'd say I think that's fair enough um Then uh opposition, you know Steel man of atheism. Um, I mean atheism isn't necessarily an argument, but like obviously it is a conclusion um, so You can't really steal man atheism. I'd say the greatest. I'm sure if you want to know what I think is the best argument for atheism, um I I don't think the argument for theism there's No specific argument that I find convincing at all for atheism specifically in terms of arguments For a I think the best quote-unquote atheistic doctrine You could put forward would be I don't know maybe uh 10 seconds I think maybe's a you have a doctrine in I don't believe you you haven't made your case All right, do you want to move on from there fellas? It looks like we might have hit a wall there So let's move on from there. Robert Wells coming in from for 1999 perspective philosophy How do your arguments support only Christianity and not any other possible god such as the great juju at the bottom of the sea Um, I mean like the whole point of it being a net like for example, all of my arguments that I've just presented would uh be applicable to Well somewhat applicable to basically every conception of an Abrahamic god um Because it's a necessary being Uh, but something that is just a contingent being an existence something like Zeus Uh, something which is not perfect and not it does not contain the reason for its own existence Would be unapplicable for the argument of sufficient reason. How do we determine whether something is perfect? Um, it would be whether it contains it's the reason for its own existence So if it has vanity jealousy vengeanc