Hey everybody tonight we are debating does science lead to Krishna and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic night. Tonight we are debating, as mentioned, does science lead to Krishna and it's going to be a fun one. Want to let you know up front though folks, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more juicy, controversial debates coming up. For example, at the bottom right of your screen folks, we have, I'm amazed, we have nine days left. I looked at the Kickstarter today, we have nine days left. Basically the goal right now is, at the bottom right of your screen you will see inspiring philosophy and Dr. Michael Schermer will be debating whether or not Christianity is dangerous on January 8th, which is the Kickstarter for this event is closing in nine days. You might be wondering, well what's the Kickstarter? Well, for this unique debate, what we are learning is that as we grow as a channel we want to have bigger speakers. However, oftentimes these speakers have bigger honorariums that we want to send to the speakers to have them come on the show. Now the trick is, sometimes these are a little bit bigger than we are able to risk at modern day debate and so what we have done for this is if you would like to watch this epic debate live, all you have to do is pledge three dollars at the Kickstarter folks. So I'm showing you on the screen right now, the Kickstarter is linked in the description for this video and as mentioned it's only three bucks to watch it live and that actually helps make sure it actually happens because we have to meet our goal for the actual debate to happen. The debate will be posted afterward for the whole world to see, however as mentioned if not enough people jump into the Kickstarter and joining us, the debate won't happen at all and so it's absolutely essential. Highly encourage you folks, if you think, you know, three bucks, it's like the price of a cup of coffee. If you think that that would be worth it, you're like, yeah okay, like three bucks for two hours of entertainment, it'd be worth it. I'd highly consider you to go to that link in the description for our Kickstarter and if you don't have a Kickstarter account, you're like, I don't want to make a Kickstarter. James, for three dollars, like for three dollars a waste of time, I don't want to make an account. Got good news, you can bypass the creating an account all together by signing into Kickstarter with your Facebook account. Alright, very excited, what we're going to do for tonight, want to let you know a few things up front before the debate officially starts. First, all of our guests are linked in the description, that's at the very top of the description box. You can click on the links of all of our guests, we are thrilled to have them and so there's plenty more where this came from tonight. Also want to let you know for the format, it's going to be flexible. So about 15 minutes for each team to make their case, how they divide up their time is up to them and then after that we'll have open discussion for about 16 minutes and then Q&A for about 30 minutes. So if you happen to have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat, if you tag me with at modern day debate, makes it easier for me to get every question in that list. Also Super Chat is an option, so if you'd like, you can fire a Super Chat in and it basically gives you not only the ability to ask a question but to make a comment toward one of the speakers that they of course would get a chance to respond to. So with that, very excited to get into this, want to welcome our guest. So we will start going left to right, want to say thanks so much Siddharth and Noah for joining us, we're thrilled to have you with us. If you can let people know what they can expect to find at the links in the description, we're very glad to have you guys here. The first link under my name is a link to our website which has the book on which I will be speaking about my research and a link to a scholarly paper and if anybody wants to hear more about our work. And the second link is to our YouTube channel which under Noah's name which links to our videos which discuss our research. Absolutely, thanks so much. We really are happy to have you guys here and we're also happy to have T-Jump and Jim Majors back again. Thrilled to have you gentlemen. Can you let people know what they can expect to find at your links in the description? You can find, I don't know what link he has but probably some videos. Awesome, thank you very much. All right, that's an epic opening and with that, yes, their links both Tom and Jim's are in the description as well. So with that folks, very excited to get the ball rolling. I forgot to ask, forgive me folks. If we already covered this in the email, I forgot. Which team would like to go first? The pros, I believe. Absolutely, that makes the affirmative usually goes first. So the floor is all yours to Darth and Noah, thanks so much. Thank you. So our claim is, as the title of the video says, science leads to Krishna. So as our premise, it's important that we establish first what exactly we're talking about with the piranhas. Because the piranhas are going to be our main source of knowledge that we're drawing from and the main thing we're discussing as far as what are our source of knowledge. So in the piranhas, if you know some people might know about the piranhas, some people might not, but the piranhas are a wide body of knowledge that deal with very many different topics. But mainly, and specifically, they're specifically meant to deal with things that human beings can not perceive through their blunt senses. The purpose of the piranhas is to help us get insight into what is beyond our three-dimensional sensory world. So that is what the piranhas are. And so our claim is, as I said, science leads to Krishna. And our evidence to support that, which we'll get into in detail. And there's a little bit of a logical chain that we have to follow to explain things clearly. But basically, the piranic dates have shown too by our research to line up profoundly with modern scientific dates of some very significant events and showing a really striking convergence between modern science, the truth of modern science and the truth of the piranhas. So the main three data points that we'd like to discuss and we'll get more into detail, Siddha will take over and he'll give more detail on these events, but the age of the universe is described by modern science, maybe some of you know, as 13.801 billion years. Now the piranhas describe the age of the universe at 13.819 billion years. So that's a 0.1% difference. So that is a very interesting discovery there. Secondly, we have the age of the solar system or the age of the sun at 4.567 billion years for modern science. And according to the piranhas, we have 4.563 billion years. So again, a 0.1% difference, which anybody would have to admit if you look at the numbers, it's quite astounded. And third, we have the date of Earth's greatest mass extinction, which according to modern science, took place 251.9 million years ago. And piranhas say that that event took place 251.2 million years ago, so that's a 0.3% difference. Again, insignificant and definitely something that should catch somebody's attention who is looking into these dates. So it's according to modern science, what we're getting at with all of this is that because of the accuracy of these dates, there should be sufficient credence lended to the piranhas to reinvestigate them and to reinvestigate the standard perception of the piranhas, which came about by British, oppressive British invasion of India that the piranhas are all mythology, but that there should be a reconsiderance of that label of that categorization of the piranhas and that we should reinvestigate the processes given in the piranhas, which offer solutions to things like world peace, harmony in the world and a deeper understanding of ourselves and how to attain a higher level of happiness. And most interestingly, of course, how to realize spiritual truths, most importantly, how to realize if God actually exists and who that is and what that means. And so the credence should be earned by these findings. So that's our general case there. And so it's gonna break it down a little bit for us here, the exact how those dates come about. Thank you, Noah. So before I begin, I would like to share my screen which seems to be disabled. Can you allow me to share my screen? It says it's disabled, host disabled participants screen sharing. Gotcha. Let's see. Let me work on that, guys. We just renewed our Zoom account. And so it'll take me one second while I look for our, sorry about that, guys, while I look for that, I wanna mention folks that all of our guests are linked in the description. I've just got a quick remember how it is that I enable advanced sharing options, all participants. All right, should be good to go. Thanks for your patience. Okay. So before I begin, on, okay, let's see if we can check it works. Okay. Okay. So thank you, guys. I really appreciate James for putting us here and tolerating us. And thank you, John, tolerating us one more time. So before I begin, I want to share a quick story, you know, how I got to this research. I'm particularly, you know, interested in data sciences, computer scientists by training. And I was, you know, trained in Sanskrit too, thanks to my upbringing in India. So while studying these Puranas, which I came to know after coming to US, so somehow in India, I'd never heard about them, never studied them. And that's thanks to Britishers. They came and gave us our gifts. One of the gifts was that they told us these Puranas are myths. There's no need to spend any time on studying them. So I was studying the Puranas and I found there are a number of dates which are given in the Puranas seem to coordinate with modern science. And that was my initial, you know, hint. And then from that point onwards, I just took all my training in data science and went straight into it. And day after day, month after month, I found amazing things. And that's why I wrote my book and wrote scholarly papers on this topic. So I'm gonna give you a brief background so you can appreciate how the Puranic chronology works. So first of all, before we jump into chronology, what does Puranas say? As my friend said, their intention is to give us knowledge about the world which is beyond our sensory perception. According to the Puranas, there are 14 different worlds. In these 14 different worlds, we are the middle level and there's seven levels above and seven levels below. And in each of these levels, time goes at different speeds, at different pace. I guess that's modern science mix of that, that there are gonna be regions where time goes at different pace. So based upon how the time goes at different pace, the person on the top must brum up, for him the time goes the slowest. And a day on his planet is tremendously long compared to a day on, say, the middle level planet or a region, the Buroka or Burmandala. So time is moving at different speeds, a different level. So these are the different units, as you can see in the table, which are accepted by all scholars uniformly across the board currently. If you look up on Wikipedia, these are the time units which you will find on Wikipedia or any popular article. What are the units? Satu, Yuga, Treeta, Yuga, Advaapar, Yuga, Kali Yuga. These are the first basic units and then they make the other units. Now how does it work? Let me show the diagram. Not this one, okay. So a Kali Yuga is the smallest one. Then Treeta Yuga, then Dvaapar and Satu Yuga. They combine to make a Chatur Yuga. A 71 of the Chatur Yugas make a Manvantra and 14 of the Manvantras make a Kalva. That's it. No more right, tough words. I know Jim is already feeling, is very tough stuff. I can see a cool thing on his head, but it's not that tough. Believe me, those are the only tough concepts. So Satu Yuga, Treeta Yuga, Dvaapar Yuga, Kali Yuga. They combine and they make a Chatur Yuga. 71 of Chatur Yugas make a Manvantra. 14 of the Manvantras make a Kalva. And there's one final unit there called Manvantra Samdya, which is a transition period between each of the Manvantras. So these time units are known to scholars. You can look up online. That's their conversion factors into million years. I personally did some research and found out that Shridhaswamy, a 13th century sage who wrote commentary on the Puranas, he talked about multiplying these numbers by a factor of two. In his commentary on Vishnu Puranas, can do one chapter three, text number seven. I published a paper on this in European Journal of Science and Theology, going to talk about in detail how he talks about this conversion factor. Then I also found out there was another time unit which was missing Prathisandhi, the last one on the table. And that's a unit which comes in between consecutive Kalpas. So the final table comes out to be, these are the solar years and the rightmost line and then the left one, these are the Puranic time units. So once we have these table down, then we can go and look into dates for significant events in the history of the earth, solar system and universe, based on the Puranic accounts. So the Puranas explain that currently we are in the seventh Manvantra, known as Vyapaswata Manvantra. And there was a Prahlaya or a mass extinction in the Chakshusha Manvantra. We are currently 28th, in the 28th Chatur Yuga, that means 27th have passed and we are the 28th. In the 28th Chatur Yuga, we are almost at the beginning of the Kali Yuga. On the left side, you see how a table, so somebody who liked, they can go ahead and calculate using these numbers. When you add these, so a stepping back, the Prahlaya happened or the mass extinction happened in the last Chatur Yuga of the previous Manvantra. So by using this diagram, you can get that it has been 241 million years since the beginning of this Manvantra. Then there's a Manvantra Sandhya. And then you have to add years or million years from the last Chatur Yuga, because the Prahlaya started two million years into the first Chatur Yuga. Again, the references for all these are available in my scholarly paper, which can be seen on our site. When you add these up, the date comes out to be 251.2 million years. According to the Puranas, this is the biggest Prahlaya on Bhumandala. Bhumandala is again the level at which our earth is situated. So Bhumandala according to the Puranas is a higher dimensional ground which is around us, surrounding the earth. And earth is a small part of it. So the biggest Prahlaya and the biggest mass extinction on Bhumandala happened 251.2 million years ago. According to paleontologists, the biggest mass extinction which occurred, which was second on earth, is 251.9 million years ago. And of course, it took scientists a lot of time to reach this value. And it is not speculation. It's not that they have multiple radiative techniques by which they have got this date. So this is pretty strong date done by MIT researchers. The date, the Puranic date differs that 0.3 percent of scientific date. Next, the beginning of the origin of the solar system. So as I was saying telling you earlier that Brahma, he's in the topmost level. And for him, time goes very slowly. So slowly, that his date is equal to a Kalpa and a Kalpa is 8.64 billion years. So according to the Puranas, and all the Puranas agree on this point, that at the end of the night of Brahma, he begins the creation of the solar system or the creation of the sun. And if we take the previous chart, as I was explaining to you, we have the seventh Manvantra. That means six Manvantras have passed in the current day of Brahma. And there's a Prathisandhi here, which is another time unit. I know there are many strange and new words. Thank you for trying to understand this. It's a tough concept. So if we add these numbers, the value comes out to be 4.562 billion years. This is the date for origin of the sun according to the Puranas. Now what do the scientists say? The scientists state that, they've been working very hard on this problem and their current opinion is that the sun was born 4.567 billion years ago. This dating is based on dating of multiple radioactive techniques. So again, this is pretty strong. Astrophysicists accept this date. They have consensus amongst them. And of course, there is more dates in the Puranas too. We're here discussing three main data points because the Puranas also give an exact date for when the sun would break, when the sun will become a red giant and later when it would turn into a calendaring nebulae. It discusses that too, but in this debate, I'm not giving details on that dating or the calculation of that date. Finally, we're going to talk about date for origin of the universe. So the first one was mass extinction for which the date from the Puranas is 251.2 for the origin of the sun. The date is 4.562 billion years. And now we're going to talk about the date for the big bang or the origin of the universe. So as I was saying telling you earlier, Kalpa is a day of Brahma. We currently halfway into it. According to the Puranas, there was an elemental disintegration and reconstruction at the end of the previous day of Brahma. So currently we are here in the middle of the first day of Brahma in this second Prarada. Prarada means this second 50 years. He lived for 100 years. So this is the first day in his 50 years. And... Oh, sorry. He lived for 100 years, but currently he is in this 51st year, first day. So it's a long birthday for him. And in this day, he has already spent... In this 50 years, he has already gone through one night and we are halfway to the first day of Brahma. So six malanthras have passed before that there was a Kalpa and there is also two prathisandis. When you add these numbers, it comes out to be 13.819 billion solar years. Again, this is cutting-edge Puranic research and you won't find much material, much discussion on this topic online. Because this is something people have ignored for the longest times to British imperialism in India. However, if you look into the references which I've provided in my paper and the book, you should be able to follow this step by step. Finally, what do the scientists say about this? So scientists have been working with this problem for the longest and their current opinion is that the universe is 13.801 billion years old. The difference is 0.1 percent. So we have three different dating techniques, three very sophisticated problems and for all these problems, Puranas have given a data much, much before scientists came. We talk about novel testable predictions. Puranas have these for the longest. The Puranic studies have been claiming for the longest that Puranas are a reliable source of knowledge. And they have 30 seconds. So they have given novel testable predictions and finally in 2018, 2020, we are finally coming, model size is finally coming to accept what Puranas are saying about these dates. Somebody may say maybe they guessed it. The probability of guessing these dates is equal to somebody meaning 30 loggies in a row. Is it possible? Yeah, it's possible. But is it realistic? I'm not sure. Thank you very much. We will kick it over to our atheist guests who will be giving their opening statement before we go into the open discussion portion. So Tom Jump and Jim Majors, glad to have you back. And the floor is all yours. Awesome. I'll jump in and start. So what he mentioned at the end there was that if someone guessed all of these was correct, that would be equivalent to winning 30 loggies in a row. Now that would be correct if these guesses were just exactly the number of guesses. I think they made three predictions there. So if you guessed these three things and nothing else, then that would be correct. But if you make a billion guesses and you just happen to get these three right, well, that's actually really not that improbable. That's pretty probable actually. So the way to assess if the piranhas are actually reliable source of knowledge to indicate Krishna would be to see if it has other failures. Like how many other failures does it guess wrong? So I'm going to be really interested to find out what exactly the piranhas say about history prior to the extinctions he mentioned and after what happened at the Ordinary Earth. Are there other people in these stories, human beings that exist prior to 200,000 years ago? Because if so, then the piranhas probably got every single one of those wrong up until this point, which means it made about a billion wrong guesses and it happened to get some dates right. Well, that's nice. But that doesn't actually indicate Krishna. That indicates somebody made a bunch of guesses and got a few right and a whole bunch of them wrong. And so that would show he doesn't actually have evidence to indicate Krishna. Secondly, I'd like to ask him about that consensus he mentioned. He mentioned that there is this consensus of these dates that were accepted by all scholars, except his dates seem to be a little different than the ones accepted by all scholars for some reason. Like those don't seem to be the same. It seems like his are off by a factor of two, if I remember correctly. So it'll be strange to see that why his numbers disagree with the consensus of scholars of every other field as far as I can tell and somehow they're off by a factor of two. And why those, his numbers fit while the others don't. And when everyone else says their numbers fit and his don't, I don't get it. But we'll find that out during the custom answer. I'll go over to Jim. Sorry. Yeah, I agree with everything. Everything teach on set. It's the only thing that I really agreed with from the other side's opening statement was that there at the very end where you said that he wasn't sure if it was realistic or not. And I had to agree completely. I'm not sure that it is realistic at all. This is one of many attempts to smuggle in another highly mythologized, irrationally conceived leap of faith under the skirt of a rational conclusion that our universe seems to have a beginning. And in this case, they believe that is Indeed's cyclic. They also believe that it was created. They believe that it is eternal. But is it eternal or is it created? Can't be both. And the, whether you have a 0.1% difference, a 0.2% difference or a 0.01% difference in the estimates of what you claim to be the consensus if that Indeed was the consensus, which it's not. But even if it was, and all scholars accepted it, it's still off. So if you're saying that science got it wrong and the Vedic literature has it right or the Quranists have it right, then you're saying that one must be wrong. But you've told us your beliefs explained your religion, but there was no rationalization of the theistic beliefs. All you did was rationalize ancient astronomical observations at best. Mathematics, that's about it. But as far as the theism behind Krishna, the creation of the universe and its cyclic nature or things like, I'm assuming you probably believe in reincarnation and karma and things like that, rationalizing that with the expanding population of the world. There's really not much left to say. I think we should just get to open discussion. Thank you very much. We will jump into open discussion with a couple of quick points. One, our guests are linked in the description and right below those links is the link to our Kickstarter. Want to say Kickstarter says, the rules are, I can't say the name of a person who pledges. So I'll just say their name starts with a J. Just saw you join the Kickstarter. So thank you so much friend for doing that. And with that, we will jump into open conversation for about an hour. First of all, a small primer on probability. If the probability of something is 10 raised to the power minus 170, which means winning 30 lotteries. And if you make a billion guesses, the probability gets reduced by 10 raised to the power minus 9. The probability still stays 10 raised to the power minus 160. So even if somebody were to make a billion guesses and still and get the dates right for these three points, the claim still holds. Point number two, Jim made a point. That this is not really amazing. Jim made a very interesting point. He said, you know, this is not really amazing that how come an ancient culture got this got this astrological findings, right? Many ancient cultures have this astronomical findings. They got something, right? Maybe they also got these people. Every culture has got something, right? Maybe these punarists also got something, right? First of all, fossils or skeletons don't hang in the sky. Two, dating the universe is not an astrological problem. It's a cosmological problem, completely different field. Just to give you an education on that. Just let me finish up one, then you can counter it. Sure, I said astronomical, not astrological. Well, you said astronomical, yeah. So astronomical and cosmological completely different fields. You can see a star for a million years or observe any stars in the planets. You can never guess a date for the origin of the universe. Completely different scientific problem. How do you think we got those dates? Well, I want to say something about the billion guesses thing too. That doesn't really stand to reason if you look at the... Well, first of all, there's only one... There's only...  They all give the same information. You look in major universities where manuscripts are given. And that was in 1880, in the 1900s. And those books all give the same verses. Now, the idea that, yeah, there's a missed time unit that hasn't been noticed by other scholars. And that another factor to the... Well, basically, yeah, there's Shri Ar Swamy who was widely accepted as an authority on the piranhas by all Hindu or piranic scholars. And this statement that we found from him where he mentions the factor of two, it's an obscure statement that not many people have found. So we found the statement... By Hindu or piranic scholars. Well, what about scholars of the field of cosmology? Well, they don't study the piranhas, do they? Why not? Are you saying none of them? Well, because they... I would answer for it. And that's a very interesting phenomenon which happened in the 15th century. You know what I'm talking about? Renaissance. There was a big... Renaissance, 15th century. So because of that, the British... There was a divide between religion and science and that was not there in India. But when British imperialists, when they came to India, they took their biblical training to impose on Indians that their scriptures, their textbooks, or whatever the books they're reading are trash, are myths. So they ignored it. So since 18th century, they have not been studied in a thorough manner. And we are bringing it back. It's a cutting edge research. It's new stuff. And I'm publishing papers too on the same topic. Here are the papers. So why should we expect cosmologists to study the piranhas and why should we expect religious scholars to study cosmology? Why should we expect that to be something that would have happened by now? Well, studying to study whatever works. So if this actually worked, they'd study it. So we can conclude it probably doesn't work. Right. Well, why would you expect Hindu and Piranhas scholars to study cosmology? That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying, why would you expect Piranhas scholars to study cosmology? And why would you expect cosmologists to study piranhas? Because cosmologists are exclusive to each other. One question at a time, please. And a few things. Yeah, let me go for a sec. So cosmologists would study whatever works because scientists don't care what they're doing. Whatever works is what they study. So if they're not studying, it means it probably doesn't work or hasn't been shown to work. You said that your stats disagree with the majority of experts.  You found this extra variable that no one else knew about because no one was studying the text and so they couldn't find it or something like that. That doesn't matter. No one else found it. So none of the other experts found this. You somehow did. Claiming that they're all just ignorant of this magical document that you found is rather strange, especially since you're saying some other well-respected priest guy. I don't want to forget the term exactly. He found it first. How old is he? Where does he live? When did he find this? He is a 13th century Puranic scholar. Shri Darswamy. 13th century you said? Yes. So this has been known for 700 years. Yes. And then one of the first English commentators in the Puranas, he, Etchage Wilson, he's an Oxford professor at Sanskrit. He wrote a commentary in English. He translated the first Puranas into English, Vishnu Puranas. He came across Shri Darsamy's commentary. And he said, this must be a mistake for him. And he ignored it. Well, I don't care what he said. So I'll care about what the majority of scholars say. So if this has been known for 700 years and the majority of scholars haven't noticed it, I'm probably going to go with them. No, they noticed it. They noticed it. They noticed it. But they said this can't be right. They rejected his opinion. It is his Sanskrit. It is available. It is his opinion. It's available. So the majority of scholars rejected his opinion for 700 years. And you're saying it's the correct opinion. No, no, no. Not for 700 years. For 700 years it was known. Since last 150 years, when modern science, you know, coming from western world, the English translations, in the English translation, it is ignored. In the Sanskrit translation, it is there for 700 years. It's available there. Okay. So the majority of scholars reject this. You accept this. I'm going to go with the majority of scholars. But so the only reason that your numbers fit is because of this new thing that none of the experts accept that you found that no one else knew about. Okay. Well, I'm happy to grant that. We can just grant that and say, all right, fine. I'll let you have that one. And then let's move on to, well, what happened before the extinction you talked about? Were there human beings in the piranhas? Did the piranhas mention human beings prior to 200,000 years ago? I mean, that's a wonderful question. But I hate to call you out here, Tom, but that's a little bit of a red herring. You haven't actually addressed the significance of the date in of itself. So we will get into that whenever you want later on. But first, let's talk about the potential significance of these days. Well, I just did. So I said, you got them wrong. Well, so I just did that. You got them wrong. You have a new one. How long does the universe last? A call book. Study? How long does the universe last before it's destroyed? Or it's... You need much for the solar system. The universe. The universe is... According to the piranhas, it's going to go for $333 trillion. No, that's just the matter of it. But the universe, where it's recreated, where it has the Perlea, I believe, at the end... No, it's $3333 trillion. I can show the calculation. Yes, I understand. It's not $4.32 billion? I think I understand what your question is. You have an issue with the cyclic nature of time that's described in the prongs. Because that... Right, right. Because what you're describing isn't the cycle. The cycle is $4.32 billion years, followed by an equal $4.32 billion years of where it's at rest, where the matter is at rest, and unmanifested. Okay, I'll show you the screen for that. You're talking about the cycle for the solar system, and I'll show you that in a second, in our slides. Okay, so you're claiming that there are cycles of the solar system within the universe within those $333 trillion years? Yes, yes. Okay, that is not in corroboration with modern science at all. What do you mean, a sign dies? Modern science, there are people who hold to the universe expanding and retracting big, big bounce theory, things like that. But none of them talk about the systems inside of the galaxies, the solar system, teeny tiny solar systems, having that same process. Nothing about our astronomical observations indicate that. Okay, I'll ask a couple of questions. Have you heard a lot... I'm sure people talk about this all the time, especially the atheist scientists who talk about how we are all made of stars? Yes, we are. What is an atheist scientist? Well, I'm saying people like to like, you know, say that we are just stars, we just matter. You know, so something that's a famous claim. That's just a side comment. Anyways, stars are matter. We are matter. I mean... Yeah, we matter. Okay, so then a star when it dies, it creates heavier metals. Sure, yes. It also releases a lot of hydrogen clouds. After some time, they come back together and it creates next sun. And another solar system. Well, it creates bunches of suns. It doesn't... It's not one sun that blows up and creates one sun. It's bunches of suns. Yeah, I'm not saying... When did I claim that it creates the same sun? I never said that. You said the solar system has a cyclic nature to it, right? Yes, cyclic means... We are skipping this. So Jim made the point. I mean, I guess first you can finish your point. Now I can... Cyclic means it's recreated. It's destroyed and it's recreated in some way. Either it is unborn or it's retracted or it's dematerialized or something. But the fact is, is that it goes back into a state of non-being and it is created again. That's what cyclic means. So according to the Pudanas, cyclic nature is not that. Cyclic nature is that it destroys and then after some time, Brahma initiates another solar system using the previous material. It is not saying that the same solar system is created again. Okay, but a sun is not created by a destroyed star. Another sun is created. It is. When a solar system is destroyed, okay, let me share some references. As a solar system is destroyed, the material which comes out of it, it becomes the material for the next solar system. That's how the solar system is formed. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. Technically part of it does. So after a supernova, the particles get sprayed over everywhere and those particles get absorbed into the other. Sure, yeah. I mean, things are blown in all different directions and some things will be caught by the gravitational field of other existing solar systems. But another sun isn't going to be born from the matter, especially not like an equal representation or anything like that. It's right. It's combined with lots and lots of other matter that had nothing to do with the solar system that makes the star. Exactly. Well, you have no connection with that. Right, so what you're saying that somehow solar systems are cyclic, just because some particles from some sun are part of the new solar system? Okay, the issue of semantics here, I might be wrong about that, but you're considering cyclic to mean a re-creation of the same exact thing.  And then every time you come over here, I'll make you something, maybe a brownie cake, maybe a different type of cake, but it's cyclic in the sense that it's always happening whenever you come over here, but it's not the same thing. It doesn't even have to be the same materials. That's fine. No, it can only be considered cyclic and pardon the bluntness of it, but if you take my feces and make me a brownie cake out of that, and I don't want that, but they have- Don't worry. I'm not going to make you one of those. Even if you beg me on your knees, I don't care how much you ask me. I won't make you one of those, but I don't- Nothing against you or anything. I'll make you a real brownie cake, but I can't promise that. I'm sorry. So yeah, so you're claiming it's cyclic, but the cyclic, the age of the sun, the age of the solar system changes all the time. And it's not- The sun isn't going to go into supernova for a very long time, so your dates for the cyclic solar system seem to be completely wrong. Just the sun expanding isn't isn't a cyclic solar system. And the cyclic cycles that you're describing happen in all different kinds of times. There's no pattern to them. They're just completely random, essentially. Yeah, that's a good point. And that's what the Puranas say. The Puranas say time goes at different pace and in the cycles have a different, what do you call, measurement for different solar systems. According to the Puranas, it depends on the size of the Brahma. A Brahma who has capacity to handle a particular size, he has four kids. Somebody, there's Brahmas which have 100 heads. And according to the Puranas, their solar systems are much more bigger. So they're not saying that all these solar systems have the same time. They are saying- So you're saying that each- We're just talking about the, sorry. So you're saying that each of the trillions and trillions of solar system will have these heads somewhere hidden in them? No, what I'm saying is that you asked me that do they have same time. I said they don't have same light cycle of the sun. That's all- Right, and there's trillions of solar systems everywhere and they all have different times, right? Different cycles. Not this one. It depends on the size of the person who's in charge of it. It depends on the person. But I don't think you can understand that. In order for it to be a solar system, it has to have the solar part. You have to have a sun, a central star. I mean, you can't get that from the matter of a destroyed solar system no matter how hard you try. I think you can ask Tom jump. He can help you understand, sorry. He's being extremely vague and it just means that some particles from some sun get formed into some other sun. That's a cycle. So it's extremely vague meaning of what cyclic means. So you're saying that there's- So in this top one solar system, it's actually parts of many, but it doesn't create another one. It just is just matter that contributes to the creation of another one that has not been demonstrated to be done at the hands of some other solar system. Intentional thinking being. Yeah. All he's saying is that some particles get put into some other particles of some other solar system and they're going to call that a cycle. So that's- I mean, of what it is, it's just a misunderstanding of cosmology. And I'm not a cosmologist myself. He was like, I don't pretend to understand all of it, but I know that that's a wrong way of looking at it. But astronomy and cosmology side. Jim, Jim, he's saying the same thing you are. He agrees with you completely. Jim, Jim, sorry, Jim. I believe from Christian being rational. Jim, Jim, he's agreeing with everything you're saying. He's just calling that a cycle. So yeah, he understands what you're saying. He's just calling that a cycle. Yeah. I said, I think it's a little bit of an issue of semantics. I mean, it sounds to me like what you guys are talking about is recycling. Maybe we can just throw out that word. We're talking about something that is repeating, is a repeated event. I mean, we can use whatever language we want to describe it, but it's a repeated event that solar systems are created and destroyed. Right. Okay. So I wanted to go on to this point. I don't think that's my cosmological language. Okay. Yeah. He's not a cosmologist either. So he doesn't need to. It's fine. So you're saying that each of these solar systems is governed by some person, some mind of some kind, and that mind determines how old the universe is going to be, or the solar system? Well, what I'm saying is that two things. The Putanas, which are ancient texts, written in Sanskrit, at least 30,000 year old, have these data points. Which were written in Sanskrit long ago, and which have these dates for the sun and the universe. Now, if somebody is able to set a number and give it to us beforehand, like he said, I don't know reach at this place at this time beforehand. And he knows, so it seems that those personalities are like cosmic choreographers. So they are setting up the laws in such a manner, such system in such a manner that what they're saying is coming to true in 2018. They have given dates for age of the sun, beginning with the original universe, and they have come to be stunningly in agreement in modern science. This is called novel testable predictions, given in the Putanas. Okay, but you didn't answer my question. You didn't answer my question. So you said that there are people, there are minds controlling each of the solar systems, and that governs how old they're going to be. Is that correct? Well, I'm saying, I said, they are setting up the physical laws and the systems in such a way that they set the lifetime of those solar systems. So you're saying every single solar system is governed by a mind of some kind? Yeah, two physical laws. Okay, do you have any evidence for any minds prior to humans? Well, let's again try not to do the red herring thing, and let's talk about the... It's not a red herring. This is my argument. So my argument is, is that you got some guesses right. That's nice. How many did you get right? Well, if you're saying that they're guesses, you have to demonstrate that logically. That's what I'm doing. Because if you look at the actual dates, they're pretty much the most significant dates you can think of in cosmological history, the origin of the universe, the origin of the solar system, and these mass extinctions. I don't know if you can think of anything that would be more significant, but the fact that the piranhas got those right might be worth considering significant and then because of that, to give a little bit more credence to the piranhas, then what the imperious, the British imperialists have given, of turning it just into pure mythology. Okay, I'm sorry. Yes, that's what I'm doing. So what I'm doing is I'm saying, okay, let's say you got those dates right. That's great. Let's see what gets the other things right. Well, do they get right the age of humans? Does it say there are humans prior to 200,000 years ago? Yes or no? No. What? Because I've... We literally went over this. They talk about divine beings on Bhumandala. So there are minds. There are subjects. There are kings. There are castles. There are all these things prior to 200,000 years ago. Well, one thing. Not on earth. Okay, so there are minds and humans and things outside of past 200,000 years ago, right? Not on earth. Not on earth. But yes. So yes, yes, there are, which has zero evidence anywhere. You won't find archaeological evidence for it. Okay. So it got things wrong. So it says there are minds prior to 200,000 years ago. You got it wrong. I think they froze. Oh, sorry. Sorry, you're going to cut out there. Yeah. Yeah, can you go and jump? Sorry. Yeah, yeah. So it says there are all these kingdoms and things and there are these people and there are subjects and servants and all of these things are occurring prior to 200,000 years ago when there were no humans or anything. Because as I stated in the beginning, the premise here is that the Puranas as we can demonstrate through what the Puranas say themselves are meant to give knowledge of what is beyond human perception. So. Except for the cases that you want. Well, no, but even those cases are not directly as we found by, you know, having to see Shri Araswamy's Factor of Two. We found that it's actually not, it's not a direct statement that you look into the Puranas and it says, hey, the universe is 13.819 billion years old. No, it's the books are not textbooks. If you want a textbook on science, you should go to school. If you want to know something deeper about yourself and about reality and about God and about, you know, higher realms, then you should go to the Puranas and just coincidentally or incidentally, the Puranas also happen to have specific dates that coordinate with significant, the most significant dates in cosmological history. So you're contradicting yourself. You just said. What is that? Well, I mean, you're saying that science is wrong because you admit yourself that there's a discrepancy on these dates. So I mean, even if that were the consensus, like I said in my opening statement there, you're saying that science is wrong. So there, right? That might have to be correct. What did I say? I said science is wrong. I didn't mean to say that if I said that. No, no, no, that is what you're saying. If there's a point, even a 0.1% discrepancy and what you claim is a consensus, then you're saying that science is wrong. Well, science has always been aiming for more and more accuracy and to... But they're not accurate. Well, they haven't been. And why would they all of a sudden be 100% accurate now? Did they don't claim that they're 100% accurate? It's not because of the Vedic literature. I can tell you that. They're estimates, that science gives estimations on these things. So you're saying the Vedic literature is more accurate. But the number of things in literature isn't an estimate. Correct. So science is wrong. That, no. I was saying science is not wrong in their estimation. Okay. It's not a zero or a one case. It's not a black or a white. Okay, but by estimation, you're wrong. Their shades are gray. There's not like a black knowledge for ignorance and there is the correct truth. The science is trying to approach absolute truth with every iteration. So it's not wrong. It is close to truth. So Jim's question is, is your piranhas more accurate than today's science? Are the piranhas more accurate than science? Yes. That's our claim. And the reason that's our claim, and that's a no one testable prediction for future or dungeon. Sure, it absolutely is. Okay. So why aren't scientists using this literature if, I mean, you don't think that there's any scientist that has noticed this and thought, Hey, maybe I should, maybe I should use this. Why is there nobody but piranic and Hindu scholars talking about this? Very good point. In 1900s, early 1900s, Alfred Wagner proposed the idea of quantum drift. At first, he was ridiculed. He was thrown out of the conferences. It took us between 40 years to be him to be accepted by the consensus of the, you know, that field. So, you know, I wrote in the paper, paper was scholarly accepted just recently. I'm going to write more papers, and with your blessings, with your support, we'll push it more harder. And we thank James for giving us a floor so more people can know about it. I mean, scholarly papers that are put before peer review that are testable and can be provable, they don't have difficulty because they can be repeated. I mean, these usually pass the peer review process very quickly. That's fine. So they're publishing papers. And if they get them, if you guys get them published and you convince the consensus, that is great evidence. I'm happy to admit that as evidence. But as far as I can tell, you haven't. And since this has been known about for quite some time. You haven't done it yet. So it doesn't count as evidence yet. Okay, so basically, if you were around at the time of Wagner and nobody else had accepted them except for him, even if he gave you sufficient evidence to show you that there was a continental drift, you would not accept it until there was consensus among scientists. So as far as I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the fallacy of appeal to popularity. Unless something actually is accepted by everybody, then I won't accept it. No, so that's just a basic misunderstanding of basic philosophy. So in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, section of fallacies number 10 is the ad-popular fallacy. And it specifically says trusting the consensus of, or the popularity of just random people and not an actual authority. So trusting the consensus in science is actually one of the examples which is not an ad-popular and not an appeal to authority fallacy because it's an actual authority. So if Wagner gave me evidence of quantum drift or whatever, I would say, I have no idea what this is. I'm not a quantum physicist. Tell them. And if you can convince those guys, the expert consensus, then I'll be like, yep, I grant your evidence. But I'm going to let the experts evaluate it because that's the correct way to assess evidence. Well, thank you for correcting my ad-popular mistake there. But in that case, Wagner will just take that case a little farther, you would give credence to his idea based off of the evidence that he gives, but reserve completely taking in total what he's saying until he gets further peer review. That seems reasonable. But to take an automatically negative approach that, well, until I see every scientist gives a consensus on this that I'm not going to accept it, I think that's fallacious to be perfectly honest because there's many, many things that are not accepted by all scientists but which are challenged by scientists but which are still used in the scientific world. And what? So as far as I know, these are consensus that are relatively new as far as scientific discoveries go. And the prionic and Vedic literature are so old, you would think that these dates would have been established earlier and we would have no problem with the history of cosmology as we know it, especially in Hindu culture. I mean, yeah. Well, in that point, if you have watched Carl Sagan's show, he talked about it in his show in the 1980s. Cosmos? He, he's not him and also not other cosmologists took to studying it horribly. I'm on the first. I'm from the 1980s. I'm much younger than the universe. I'm much younger than the history of humanity. Yeah.  And he talked about how the Vedas seem to have a close date. But again, since he's not a Sanskrit scholar, he could not look into it. Thanks to data science and thanks to my knowledge of Sanskrit, I do combine the two things together. And this is new research. It's coming at research. Coming straight to you. I agree with those dates, the Carl Sagan dates. I agree with the dates that I look up in the academic journals, but you seem to not agree with those. Your dates are different than Carl Sagan dates. Yes, my dates are different. And I've introduced two things that are shared in the slides. I add a factor of two and add a new time unit called Pratisamdi. For both of them, I give references. Pratisamdi is in Vayu Purana and Brahmanda Purana. And factor of two comes from Shridhar Swami. There's not a lot which I'm adding by the way. And these two factors added up show the age of the universe to be within 0.1% of modern scientific date. They show date for the origin of the sun to be within 0.08%. They show date for the greatest mass extinction to be within 0.3%. And they talk about the evolution of the sun into a giant sun, like a red giant. We talk about a date for the sun's final destruction. It is all discussed in my book. And they talk about so many more dates. And then I have about a dozen data points in my book which I suggest people can read. The link is below in the YouTube description. But look, you just tried to explain to everybody in your opening statement how you came to this conclusion. And you yourself said several times that you know this is a difficult concept to comprehend. And apparently this is a recent concept as far as the history of the literature goes. So I mean, I just don't understand how this is supposed to be some sort of hidden knowledge that you claim is so easy to find. You come to these dates. But I can speak for the hundreds of people who have seen this already that we have no idea what you were talking about or how you came to that number. No idea. I can go over again. And that's my job as a scholar. That's my job to educate people in new concepts. And if you're interested in knowledge, that's where you come here to this channel. More than a date, it's all about knowledge. And we are here to reveal knowledge. Why is it so difficult? Why do we have to go over a second time? And probably a third, because I have a strong feeling I won't understand the second time either. Yeah, I mean that's again going back to the premise is that's because that's not the piranhas are not textbooks of cosmology. The piranhas are meant to give us an understanding of that which we cannot perceive with our senses, which is our self, our soul, our relationship with God, higher realities, that's still the purpose of the piranhas is. So of course it's going to be, it's not going to be a thing that's just very straightforward explained in there. It comes as a incidental consequence of taking a look at the timelines in the lifetimes and okay, the universe has created that story is there and then if you connect that to the other lifetimes and then you look at it, then you can see how the calculation comes out. And just to say one thing about you actually looking at the calculations themselves and being such hard work, really it's not rocket science. I mean, I'm not the brightest pan in the box and it's not that hard for me to figure it out. So I think honestly if anybody spends, especially somebody like you guys who are obviously working on intellectual platform can within probably 20 minutes or less figure out these calculations and show and see how what we're doing is completely consistent with chronic chronology and that we're not adding anything in that isn't there already. Okay, so the stuff that it's meant to express like the theological aspect of it, is any of that testable?  Yeah, so what that's, how that's testable is through, it's not through the scientific method. So if you want to test, if you want to put God under a microscope or you want to achieve some spiritual understanding through modern scientific instruments or test tubes, it's not going to happen. It happens through development of the spiritual senses. It happens through purification of the mind and processes are given in the piranhas by which one can achieve that purification of mind and that involvement of, if that's a word, of the senses and to achieve a higher understanding of these higher topics. So yes, it is testable. It is provable to oneself but not in the sense of how modern science does things. The idea is, is that there is things that can be experienced that can be true, that cannot necessarily be shown, they cannot be understood simply through empirical analysis. I'll just give you a really basic example, like a pizza, for example. Let's say I make you a pizza from normal ingredients, if that's okay. And I give you the pizza and you can, you can try to experience the pizza. You can smell the pizza, you can touch the pizza, you can try to listen to the pizza, but really the pizza, to actually understand what I've created for you on the level that I want you to understand it, what it was made for is for you to taste it. So when you eat that pizza, then you understand by experience what the pizza is all about, at least what its intention was for. And in the same way, God, the soul is something that is learned through experience. Again, not something that you put under a microscope or in a test tube. And have you yourself achieved this higher state? Yeah. I would say that anybody who's done, followed the practices given in the piranhas, to some extent or another, it's just like any discipline. There's different degrees of realization that are given to different degrees of intensity of practitioners. I can't say- And what has that done for you personally? What has it done for me personally? Yeah, like achieving that higher state. Well, what have you been able to accomplish with that higher state? That's a really great question. Well, I would love to answer that question. And I think we should talk about it. I feel honored that you'd want to ask me that question. And I think it's a great opportunity to speak about that. But I still want to make sure that we've covered the initial claim, the warrant, and the impact that we're trying to establish here. And after we get through with that, then let's talk a little bit about what that experience is like and what that means for somebody who actually is willing to take it seriously and apply it themselves. Well, I just want to jump in. I don't think anybody can really truly understand like if it is, you know, as you say it is, until they actually experience it for themselves. But just to get a little bit of understanding, like kind of want to see what the end result of achieving that higher state would be. Well, let me just repeat again, if you don't mind, the case here. The case is that science leads to Krishna. Science leads to Krishna is supported by the evidence that we've shown in the piranhas of them lining up with scientific dating. That efficient and wonderful, compelled to, if they desire to understand things like God or they wish to invoke peace and harmony in the world, they should be willing to apply themselves to the processes given in the piranhas so that they can, you know, test and see if those things actually give the results which are claimed in the piranhas themselves. So that's the case. I'm not making any other case than that. And, you know, take it or leave it. So yeah, I wanted to jump in real quick. So I think that, yes, the dates in the piranhas are the most accurate of any religious texts I've ever seen. So I grant that for certain. I don't think that your numbers are accurate. I think those are very strange that you've manipulated the data and then you've ambiguated the texts in the piranhas to make them fit events in history, which they may or may not. They're just, they're ambiguity fallacies. You can make them fit tons and tons of different dates and different events. And so you've picked the most significant ones and assigned those to the dates, which is pretty easy. That's most religions do that. So I don't see, from the texts that I have read in the piranhas, they don't seem to explicitly state the son of the earth has this exact date. It seems to be a generalization about lots of different things that could apply to anything, the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, anything that could hit the earth could do these. So there's lots of things they could apply to, your specific dates, which I don't see agreeing with the general understanding of the piranhas' dates, which is, again, yours is different from a factor of two. So I think those dates are really nice. I think your dates are strange. But again, it seems like you're cherry picking. You've cherry picked a few dozen dates that are really nice. And even if they're every single date and none of the dates are wrong, they still got everything else wrong. So saying that you mentioned this a few times that the piranhas are not meant to be taken as literal descriptions of history, except for these 12 examples that you have cherry picked because these are the ones that you think count for a god. Now, if all of the piranhas were a historical account, that would be great evidence. You had hundreds and hundreds of examples of historical facts that all lined up with history. That would be great evidence. Cherry picking a dozen or so while everything else fails and saying, well, everything else is just really, it's not really supposed to be taken literally, is just seems to be cherry picking just like what religious people do in Christianity or Islam where they say, these dates are really nice. These fit really well, but these things are supposed to be taken like not so literally. They're not for you. Global flood, no, that was more figurative. It's like a logo flood kind of thing. So as far as I can tell, I don't see how this is great evidence. It's like, no, I'll grant great dates in Hinduism better than any other religion. So you're one up on Christianity and Islam, grant you that, but you're still like a million steps behind science in pretty much every field. Multiple things. You first claim that I'm using an ambiguous method for coming up with these dates. And if you want to argue that, we'll have to write a counter paper in his scholarly peer review journal where you show where I'm using ambiguity because I quote Sanskrit verses and I make up a case based on other people's previous research on this topic. Two, these dates are not amazing compared to other religious texts. These dates are amazing compared to any other modern textbook on cosmology, astrology, or paleontology. In paleontology, the topic of mass extinction has only discovered in 1980s, thanks to physicists. The date for age of the sun is something, 4.567 is something which is only 2018. We have come to know. And age of the universe is 13.819. I guess if you call cosmology as a religion, then we can say that, yes, amongst all the religions of cosmology, astrophysics, and paleontology, the Puranas are the best texts on religious, on the best religious texts on these values. I guess we can say that. I guess you call science as religion. Well, wait, wait, just to clarify what I meant. I'll listen to you. I'll listen to you. I won't count all the points. Like then you can come and see. Well, you misrepresented my point there. So my point was that if we look at a history textbook, there's thousands of facts that are correct. If we look at the Puranas, there's 12 facts that are correct. So that's the difference. I'm coming to that. I'm coming to that. One point at a time. I'm just, I'm taking a statement at a time. I'll give you a time. You can answer me or take out time. Next, you mentioned that if Puranas were literal history, that'd be great. The Puranas, as I said earlier, we said in the beginning of the premise that Puranas are describing a history of the subtle world or the history of the world, which is high dimensional, which we don't have an access to. So it is wrong to say those dates or those whatever descriptions are given there, they are wrong compared to modern science. Again, I'll go back to the first one, which you mentioned right in the beginning, that if Puranas make billion claims and of them are 12 are correct, then we have to ignore these 12 data points. No, if the probability of few events is 10 raised to the power minus 170, and you have a billion such events that reduces the probability to one out of 10 raised to the power 160, that is a basic course on probability. Okay, why is it that zero scholarly papers in any of those fields cite the Puranas? Which scholarly fields? Cosmology, I think is what he's talking about. Cosmology, paleontology. Any of them. That's very good, and it's a good observation because usually cosmologists, astrophysicists, and paleontologists are not trained in Sanskrit. To read the Puranas, they will read Sanskrit. I'm sure in the future. You can translate it. In the future, they will read Sanskrit. Yes, I'll just say that. It says, do you have to read Sanskrit in order to be able to understand it? Of course. You can't understand it by reading it in English? No, English translations you can read, but English translations are usually what you call summarized versions. They are interestingly giving words by words, word by word, because I like to read each word, understand the translation of each word by word. That's something done by Prabhupada. If you, for Bhagat Purana, I consulted the translation given by A.C. Bhakti Dhanthaswamy Prabhupada, because he gives word by word translation for each Sanskrit word. So I recommend, if you want to read a Purana, I would recommend reading Bhagat Purana by Shri Prabhupada, because he does that job. I would take his translation. But you translate it in order for us to understand it. Sorry? But you translate it, right? Like, for me, not be able to understand it. I would translate for other people. That's what I did in my paper. I would give Sanskrit verses and translations in my paper. And that's how you just call the paper. You give only Sanskrit. You don't take other people's translations. Okay, okay. So are you saying that you can't understand it unless you read certain translations, right? No, no. What I'm saying is that most translations, first of all, most of the Puranas, there is no translation available. There is no translation available. There is no translation available for Vishnu Purana and for Bhagat Purana. And for Vishnu Purana and other Puranas, there is no word by word translation available. That's the only translation I like to use, word by word translation. So that we can see if each word has been correctly translated, has been correctly represented. So that means there's, what do you mean there's no word by word translation? How did they translate it if not word by word? Yeah, I mean, there's a demonstrating the definition of each word. That's what it means. What translated word. Yeah, you actually show the definition of each word, the synonym English word and the Sanskrit word, not just the whole verse.  That's the point. So you can honestly check if the person who is doing the job is not putting words in the mouth of the Sanskrit text. So if I sent the Sanskrit text to any of these different Sanskrit translator, as I just found, are they going to come up with the same answer you did? Definitely. Give it to them. That's what peer review means. That they have other scholars that look at it and they study whether I'm honestly translating the text, whether I'm honestly presenting the evidence and whether they pass it or they say, oh, go back and do some revisions. What board did you submit to for your peer review process? I submitted the, the whole, the paper has the, the Sanskrit verses, the translations, the analysis and the dates for the morning science. And who reviewed it? Where did you submit your paper? European Journal of Science and Theology. Well, what? I'm sorry. One more time. European Journal of Science and Theology. In my link below the YouTube, I have a link to the paper also. You can read the paper itself if you want to read. Is that an academic journal? Yeah, it is. It's a genuine journal. I didn't, I just still didn't hear it. I'm, what was it? European Journal of Science and Theology. Okay. You guys are really fun by the way. Thanks for talking to us. Yeah, thanks for coming on. Appreciate it. Thank you. It's such a blast. I like your suits. I'm learning from James. He mentioned in one of the last debates that it looks nice to have a blazer on. I think I'm going to be in James on this one. Listening to James. Your style. Hey, you already complimented them, Tom. You can't take it back. You look pretty cool, man. Tom doesn't know that you guys can hear me. Yes, I normally come on with no pants. The pantless is the best. Okay. Okay, I'll write that down in my notes right here. For sure. I taught Tom that. But yes. So yeah, I think I've gone through all of the points that I thought were interesting. I think I represented my conclusion pretty well at the end. So I'm good to go to the Q&A if you guys are. If you guys want to have any more, bring up a conclusion or whatever, that'd be fine. I just have to have one question back to the universe. Do you believe that the universe was created or do you believe that it's eternal? The universe is not eternal. But the cyclic mate, I guess we don't like that word. The repetition of the event of the creation of the universe is an eternally repeated event. So if you ask me a question, was it a universe before our universe? Yes, it was a universe before our universe according to the Pudanus. Right. And eternally before that and after that. Yeah, correct. So it wasn't created. The universe was created. No, it was created as, I suppose, you put ingredients of pizza in the oven. Now, was it made by the oven? No. There's somebody putting the ingredients. I don't think that he's wondering what the universe exists in. Right. I think he's asking which was first. I think he was asking which is first. Brahma or the universe? I didn't get that one. Let me clarify. Okay, go ahead. I was saying that these ingredients were created at some point. You can make as many pizzas as you want with the ingredients. But at some point, you're saying that somebody made the ingredients. Yet at the same time, you're saying that it's eternal. You can't, but I mean that. Can I give the shot? Well, for any event, there can be two causes. There can be material cause and they can be an efficient cause. Like, suppose you have a clay pot. Now, for a clay pot, the material cause is the dirt clay itself. And the efficient cause is the person who's potter, who's making the pot. Now, if you're asking for the universe, is there an efficient cause? Yes. And that is Prakriti or Brahma's, at least not Brahma, but it's Prakriti, which is another agent, another cosmic choreographer. And is there a material cause? There must be a material cause, that's for the scientific study. So I think, let me give you a shot. So I think he's asking, did Brahma create the universe system out of nothing? Or was there like the universe system and Brahma? Or did the universe system exist before Brahma? Which was first? Was it the God who created the universes? Or was there the universes that created the God? Well, as you mentioned earlier that actually we don't discuss this topic at all. According to the Puranic paradigm, God is in a place, in a situation where there is timelessness. So the universe has always been there, but it's eternal. And God somehow gets his agent to get these events to happen at a repeated time. And how do we find out? By, you know, we don't trust the Puranas. The Puranas give date for the age of the universe, date for the original map, the original sun, and date for the same event events. And when you see those dates which are given in the Puranas, when they line up exactly with the agents which are assigned by Krishna to organize the events, and when those dates exactly match, then, you know, any person, layman can maybe have some faith in the Puranas. They are talking about something which is real. So the first time that the universe was created, was there, there were universes that had already happened? Well, I mean, maybe we could get back on the course about the point that we're actually trying to make here. And we could talk about these things too, as they're a great question. But again, it's a little bit of a red herring, because the point we're trying to make here is that- Oh, there's just a question that I was just adding in on the end. It's the last question that we can cover, and we've got to go into the Q&A. Yeah, that could be a topic on the DB8. Yeah, how do you feel about the impact, the case that we're making? Again, I'll repeat the case. The case is, is that because of the precision of the dates that's been found, and profound convergence of science and the Puranas on these dates, that it is reasonable. In fact, it should be done if by anybody who wants to know if there actually is a God, or if they are actually a non-material self, that they should check out the rigorous, and not rigorous, but the systematic process it's given in the Puranas, for one to realize that truth themselves. Do you consider that the consistency? I do want to give, forgive me, Jim, for jumping in, but I do at some point, we do have to give somebody the last word. If we ask them a question, at some point, we've got to give the last word in either direction, but given that you asked them a question, I want to interject and start jumping into the Q&A, because we do have a lot. So with that, I want to say thanks so much, everybody, for your questions. We're jumping right into it, and thanks, guys, for your speeches and discussion. It's been fascinating to listen to a lot of positive feedback in the chat. First question coming in from, you guessed it, Barry Berries, as a poop sticker. Thank you very much, Barry Berries. Next, Barry Berries says, according to my ancient book, we are in the sixth shleem on the eighth shmorp of the seventh fleamizzle. This is scientific proof that my book is true. Gotcha. I don't know if you guys actually care to respond to that. But next up, Andy M. Thank you. Andy M says, but you had to do a bunch of crazy math to make your numbers match with those that agree with science, including time flowing at different rates. How do you reconcile that? Well, one, this isn't an accepted fact that if we were to go in different regions where the gravitational forces are, you know, so different from what we have on earth, then the time may go at a different basis. This is an understandable fact from modern science. It's 1900 since Einstein. In our phones currently, we have to have an adjustment for time within a different speed basis because we get information from satellites. And satellites are way above earth. So the gravitational pull is very different. And also, we also know from Einstein's special relativity and general relativity, that when something is going at a speed closer to light, time again changes. So this is something which is an amazing discovery done by Einstein. The space and time are, you know, mediable. Prior to him, they were thought to have been static quantities. But Einstein proposes and modern science accepts that time and space are mediable. So this is not something, this is not a concept which is against the periodic concept of time moving at different phases. It's not a heretic concept. Got you. Thanks so much. Next question in from Andy M. Oh, got that one. Barry Berry has another question says, if I find an ancient book that correctly predicts the age of the universe down to the second and also claims that T-Jump is God, would you worship him? If you can find a book which has Sanskrit, I'll take it. Why does it need to be Sanskrit? Can't it be in any old language? No. Sure, I need the old, you know, crazy languages. Sure, why not? Next. Thank you very much.  It's like a black and white kind of fallacy there. But anyway, if you found such a book, would you worship Tom Jump if it said to worship Tom Jump? No, and that's not what we're recommending, that's certainly with the pros, either. We're just recommending that the knowledge in there should be reconsidered to such an extent that it would be worth trying the procedures given there for your desired goal. What goal would I get by worshiping Tom Jump? Would that really be something that I would want to, what would be my attainment in that? So I think that that's like super off track there. But anyway, nice try. Gotcha, next. Jumping into, we've got a couple more questions. Michael Dresden with another troll chat skipping. Louis Romero, thanks for your questions. Siddharth, the European Journal of Science and Theology is oriented to the discussion of religious ideas instead of proper scientific research. Is your paper also available in a purely scientific research review or scientific peer review research journal? Well, since my contribution is in the field of science and religion, a pure scientific journal won't be the right venue for such a publication. So I wish that the scientific journals had editors and researchers on board which can review Sanskrit texts. You got it. Hi, Gwen. I promise I will come upstairs and play with you guys soon. Next, Barry Berry, thanks for your question. Says the universe, it's not delivery. It's dijourno. Thank you, Barry Berry. And switching into the standard question, Steven Sorensen asked, can you ask them how a correlation between piranhas and modern science means Krishna is real? I don't think we're claiming that, did we? No, we didn't. I can't explain it. Okay. Piranhas and modern science. Okay, Gwen. He's asking how does, because you want to say the claim that they're making is that they want us to take the piranhas more seriously. There's evidence that the piranhas got some facts right. Therefore, we should take the piranhas more seriously. They're not saying that we should therefore believe Krishna is a god. That's not the conclusion they're making. The conclusion they're making is that we should take the piranhas more seriously. That's the claim, right? Yeah, that's right. I mean, in this debate, that's our particular claim that we're working with right now. But we also can go in that direction if we want to. We can talk about the logical path that it would require to validate the existence of Krishna if we want to do that. Thanks so much. Thanks so much for your question. This one coming in from Just A Walking Fish says, For the pro-Krishna crew, I unfortunately don't know much about your worldview as a scientific field. How does evolution fit within it? We discussed this in my book, chapter 7 and chapter 8, and then I explained that the piranhas are actually giving dates for significant events in the evolutionary history of the Earth also. There is an event which coincides with Cambrian explosion. There is an event which coincides with permanent mass extinction. There's an event which coincides with Tuashtian extinction. So the piranhas are not antithetical to the idea of evolution on Earth. You got it. Thanks so much. And before we move into our other questions, we want to say thanks so much. I can't say your... Because Kickstarter asked me not to say your real names. But your name starts with an F as in Frank. Thanks so much for joining our Kickstarter pledge. We are stoked, you guys. I want to show you really quick. This is just a quick intermission. It starts with an F, but it's not actually Frank. And it's F as in... Oh no, let me get to the right... Well, we'll pull it up in a second. We are thrilled, though, that we're at about 70% folks. So really do appreciate all of your help. And with that, jumping into the next question, PepperTalks says, for the yes side, if they can't be perceived, then how can you confirm they're real? That's because there's something between modern science that there's a theory. And the theory that a model... The model of any high-dimensional physics or string theory and theory, there are pieces of that which are testable and falsifiable. So there are these dates which are given in the pulanas which seem to stunningly match with the modern science. That's how you can test it. You can test the parts of it which are falsifiable. And other parts are unfalsifiable. However, I also make a claim that if you were to study the pulanas and follow the process, then the pulanas themselves, the pulandic stages themselves claim that you can actually test the further claims also. The pulanas don't ask you to have a blind belief in Krishna. They ask you to try the process, and by trying the process, they want you to yourself have an experience of Krishna. So it's not a blind believing Krishna, but it's a having like a scientific mind, the idea of doing the experiment. So the pulanas invite you to do the experiment on your consciousness through sound, which means through chanting of the mantras and particularly reading of the pulanas. Gotcha, thanks so much. And we just, I think Jim's gonna, yep, Jim just came back. So Jim is back just in case anybody's confused. I'll work on rearranging the camera. And Fran Wilson, thanks for your question said, for the yes side, what citations can you give that are not from herriticscience.com? Citations for the paper. In my paper, I talk about, for the pulanic units, I cite scholars, Bingham H. S. Wilson, who was one of the first British or Western scholar of the pulanas, right up to 1980s and 2000. We have about maybe 10 scholars who have studied the pulanas and they have same numbers for this pulonic time units. This introduction of factor of 200, that's my novel contribution. Otherwise practically everything else has been supported by tons of scientists. Rocher, H. H. Wilson, there is, I mean there are many more, it's in the paper, you can read. Gotcha. You got it and thank you, Randolph Richardson. Thanks so much for your huge support and flexibility. Does Ham and Pineapple Pizza disrupt the order of the universe? Are you guys into pineapple on pizza? No, absolutely. Really, is that Noah or is that Jim? No, Jim says yes, Tom says no. Noah and Siddharth, what about you guys? What not, why not, yeah. Wow, open-minded fellows, I appreciate that. But that is all we have for our questions. We're going to be back with a post credit scene in just a moment, you guys. We are very excited about that, as you're seeing on the screen. That is, as I had mentioned, for this Kickstarter, we're determined, we're crazy folks. I don't care if me, Steven Steen, and T-Jump have to go out and do a car wash in January. We're going to hit our goal, believe me. You'll see there, that's a picture from our last car wash over the weekend, very intense. You'll see there, I mean Steven, he always insists on wearing the Speedo every time, nasty guy, and then you'll see Tom in his pirate costume. But anyway, we are excited. Tom, I don't know if you saw that picture yet, but we are excited and want to say thanks so much, folks. We will be back in just a moment with that post credit scene, but want to say our guests are linked in the description. So, Siddharth, Noah, T-Jump, and Jim Majors are all linked in the description. So if you'd like to hear more, you can hear more at those links. And just want to give a huge thank you to our guests. Thank you guys so much for coming on today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, James, and thank you, John, and thank you, Jim. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. A true pleasure. And so with that- James jumping, Jim. That's right. We will be right back in a moment, folks. But as mentioned, thanks so much for your support, you guys. I'm excited. We've got big updates that'll be back within a moment. And with that, be right back. So much. I am pumped, you guys. This always just puts me in a great, great mood. I have a few announcements I want to say. First, I'm, like, overwhelmed with- I just thank you guys so much for being so positive, being supportive. I am pumped for several reasons. One, I'm just overwhelmed with how positive and supportive people have been. Really do appreciate that. That means so much, you guys, in the live chat and everything. Just also, though, super encourage you guys at- basically, during the show, we had several new people pledge to the Kickstarter. And this is just epic, you guys. I am so thrilled as we are- I'm just determined, you guys. We are absolutely- I have no doubt in my mind, we are going to make our goal. So if you want to watch this debate between the legendary heavyweight debater, Dr. Michael Schermer, pictured on your right, and heavyweight debater, Mike Jones, from the YouTube channel, Inspiring Philosophy, they're going to debate whether or not Christianity is dangerous. And it is going to be epic, you guys. You won't want to miss this. We have only nine days left until this thing goes off. In other words, once- in fact, by the- so technically it's 10 days, but the Kickstarter campaign closes the day before. And so I want to encourage you. There's only nine more days to sign up, you guys. It's coming fast. So I want to encourage you to sign up at that Kickstarter link, which is in the description, in which I can throw right now in the live chat as well. If you have not already, want to highly encourage you to sign up for it, you guys. I am so excited as I'm like, we're going to make this goal. It's going to be absolutely epic. So that is, now I'm going to put it at the top of the live chat. And do appreciate your guys' support. Really, seriously, it means a lot. And I was just so pumped as like during the debate, several people signed up, which is cool. You can sign up right now, you guys, as we're hanging out, as I'm going to be here just sharing a few things that I think are cool about this. One, this is going to open up doors, folks. I'm serious. I seriously believe this strategy is going to work because it's like, hey, what makes it more easy and more cool? It's like, if you can see awesome debates, and even if you don't like this one, even if you're like, ah, I'm not really into these debaters as much. In fact, we've gotten like pushed back against, and I think it's inevitable.  And it's like, whatever. Nobody's forcing you to join the Kickstarter, but we're saying, hey, we do want to use this for not just this debate, but if it goes well, which we absolutely believe it will, we want to use this over the summer. Once the restrictions start lifting, we want to start using this for big time debates, folks. We're talking big time speakers like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Sam Cedar, David Pakman. We want to start inviting these new guests that we've never had on before, and we want to start doing it in in-person venues when the restrictions are up, just because we really do believe that makes for a much higher quality debate. I think that you're going to love it, and you can see the best in terms of the most views and the most watch time. Our most popular video, not surprisingly, was in-person. It was IP, the gentleman that you're seeing on your left right here, Mike Jones, in other words. It was Mike Jones against Matt Dillahunty. It's got like 211,000 views I was looking at today. And that was in-person, and it was at the Atheist Experience Studio, which we'd like to go back to. That's the kind of stuff we want to do with these types of Kickstarter events is fund the travel for those types of debates, as well as the speaker fees or the honorariums for our guests. And so, a couple of things I want to mention, though. But first, let me just say hi in the chat. So sorry, guys. I'm just like babbling on and on. But I want to say thanks, Lily Aja. Thanks so much for your support in the chat. Dave Langer said, we had 10 people rocking the Twitch chat. Two, that chat is also growing. That is really cool. I'm pumped to hear that, Dave Langer. We actually, one thing that I have found is a challenge that I got to get your advice on in a second is that I just learned yesterday, Twitch doesn't like it if you simultaneously stream on Twitch and another platform. So I've got to figure out a way to handle that.  Maybe one day a week, we would only do it on Twitch or something. I don't know. But we'll find out. And then next, Blaster Master 80 says, thanks for everything, James. That means a lot. I totally appreciate that Blaster. I seriously appreciate your positivity.  Appreciate that. Seriously, does mean a lot to have positive people here.  It's like, why are you like, like nobody like forces you to hang out here. But I focus on the positive people and I thank the positive people. And so I just want you guys to know you guys make up for and more. You guys make up for the people that are negative. And so Theo Fungi said, you always bring it. Thanks for, I appreciate that Theo Fungi. That means a lot. R-F-F-E-F-C-E says, we want more Hinduism debates. Oh, we can totally do that. Appreciate that. And Slam-R-N, thanks so much for your support. Let's see here. But one thing I really like about Kickstarter, and I hope they still have this feature, because I know that, for example, Twitch, Twitch is no longer going to have the feature where you can sign in with your Facebook. Even though it's really convenient, but they want you to set up your own Twitch account. Kickstarter doesn't make you do that. One thing I love is that Kickstarter is like, want to make your pledge and just sign in through Facebook? And you don't even have to create like a Kickstarter account? You can do that, which is, I think it's awesome. So that's really cool. And again, you guys will never, only if the debate happens would you be charged.  We've never had that, but we would, nobody's credit card would get charged. I guarantee you that. And so interestingly, if we don't meet our target goal, your credit card will also not be charged. So like, even if the debaters were suddenly like, like let's say, it was like no cost at all. And let's say we had no costs, whether it be promotion or whatever else, speaker fees like, is that we, people only get charged on Kickstarter if the campaign meets its goal, which we're, believe me, I'm determined, but I just want you to know that it's like, it's zero risk for you guys, and that's why I like it, is that it's like, we don't want you guys to have to worry about somebody trying to bulk you out of your money. So let's see, Fran Wilson says, will the link for the Kickstarter debate be emailed? Well, actually the way that it works, as I found out yesterday, I can, I message you, if you're, if you sign up to Kickstarter, what I'll do is the day, probably either the day of, or the day before, I've got to figure out how we're going to do this exactly, but I can send you a message through Kickstarter. So you'll want to check your Kickstarter. I think it sends you either a notification through Facebook or Kickstarter itself if you sign in to Kickstarter using your Facebook account. Kickstarter is where I'll send you the message. And let me, let me try to do, let me actually, Fran, if, so what we, I would love to do a test on that. I don't want to like, make someone know. I don't want them to be like, I don't want them to feel what's the word. Hopefully you guys can't hear that screaming. Like my, I'm just staying at my buddies right now. And they have kids, they're, they're awesome kids, but sometimes they, sometimes they're sad and crying. They don't, I don't know, it could be anything, but anyway, I hope they're doing okay. Their parents are up there, so they're okay, but basically the long story short of it is, is if anybody, let's see, Fran Wilson says, please continue to stream. I am 100% and Fran Wilson, can you, if you or anyone you know happens to be a part of the Kickstarter pledging, pledging people, can you let me know if you just received a message on Kickstarter? Because right now on Kickstarter, I can like try to say like, hey, can you see this message? And if, if you sign into Kickstarter, you can let me know if you see the message, because I, that's something I haven't tested before and now is a perfect opportunity. And John W. says, I am 30 and so out of it. Join the club, John. I'm 30, I'm, I'm gonna turn 34 in like five days and it's shocking, it's frightening.  Someone said Pac-Man has been eating a lot of bread lately. I don't get it.  Does he like bread? More power to him. I like bread. But let's see. James Bond says, Matt Dillahunty is a champion. Dillahunty is a very good debater and we are thrilled to have him on. And David Langer says, David Pac-Man versus Jesse Lee Peterson. David Langer, have you seen, I don't know if you knew this, but yeah, they got, they already debated. And it was like, it went pretty, it went pretty, it got pretty, I don't think that Jesse Lee Peterson is a fan of David Pac-Man. That's, I hope that they become friends. But let's see. David Langer says, technically you can be an affiliate on Twitch, but they don't tend to do ding affiliates too much. That is more for partners. Getting to affiliate would be good just to be able to get those subs. That would be rad, David Langer. I appreciate you letting me know that. Maybe we can do it and they won't ever notice. So, Fran Wilson says, oh, we got that already. And then, don't have to watch on Twitch during the debate to give you, okay, David Langer says, people don't have to watch on Twitch during the debate to give you a free Amazon sub. Even if you are not live, people can still sub to you. That's great to know. I appreciate that. GB says, do I get a signed photo if I become a patron? That's funny. You get a signed photo of Danny Tanner signed by me. Okay, that's what you get. Oh, that's funny. Um, Danny Tanner, like, full house? But that's, I mean, I don't know. I thought nobody would ever really want a signed photo of me. But maybe if people wanted that, I don't know why you'd want it. But I'm flattered if you appreciate you humoring me. And then Fran, no, no, no, Fran Wilson, the debate won't be on Twitch. It's going to be on like a website. So modern day debate. I'm talking to a tech person about where we're going to have it like on our own website. And so it's going to be secure because that's a big thing is we want to be big on fairness. What does that mean? It's like, well, if you sign up for the Kickstarter, then we think it's fair that like you've pledged. And so you should get to watch it live.  And it's like, it's okay if they say screw our Kickstarter, but if they're also like watching it live, it's like you kind of screwing us, right? So we do want to keep it so that it is secure. And so we will be giving everybody their personal link through Kickstarter. And that'll go to, like I said, it'll basically be our own little website that has like a video embedded so you can watch it live there. And then possibly we could do it on Zoom. But I think we'll do it on YouTube because we do want to make it look like very sharp and presentable. Let's see. And then so sorry if I'm like slow on the chat. It's moving fast. So do I get a, okay, if we watch, let's see. And then I do, oh, we did open a second batch of early bird questions. So if you want to ask a question for this debate, and basically if you know that you'll want to ask one and you're like, well, even, you know, like, you know, maybe you're like, I don't know what I'll ask. But I mean, I just really am excited about this event. So it's like $15 if you do it early. So I think in the last week, that's when we might say like, hey, if it's the last week leading up to the debate, it might be like 20 bucks a question or I don't know, maybe 24. But in the meantime, I think it's like 15 bucks for the early bird questions. And we're kind of like feeling it out. Maybe we'll do a survey after this whole thing is done and figure out like what you guys thought was like, what were good rewards, what were rewards that just didn't really seem that cool of an idea. And James W. says, soy-based vegan bread. I can, I guess I can share my soy-based vegan bread. That's, you know, maybe. Liliajah says, Twitch is linked here. Appreciate that, Liliajah. And then thanks, Anci Sorvisto says, just pledged, hope this happens. Can't support more though. I appreciate your support at all. Seriously, it does mean a lot. And I hope it's of value to you guys because we were like, I, when I did this, I remember this is like, I don't know, it's had to be like maybe November or October. I was talking to my buddy Andy and I said, what would be like a good enough deal financially that like even the cheapest people in the world and my buddy Andy, he's really cheap, like me. But I was like, what would it, you know, what would be the price that the most frugal person would be like, yeah, I'll do that. And, you know, we know that different people have different circumstances. So I'm not, I don't mean that in an insult to say if you're frugal. But Andy and I were like, yeah, I was like three bucks. I think it's like a pretty, you know, hopefully everybody can handle that. Cup of, a price of a cup of coffee, you know, go into Starbucks. And Tuss Beatbox says, can I get the car wash photo signed by you? That's really funny. You've got a good sense of humor. Tuss, I appreciate, you were like one of the most supportive people at this channel. I just love your positivity. That really does mean a lot. And I think that that influences the culture, guys, is that the more I want to encourage it and I think the more that people see the positivity from other people in the live chat and hopefully I can be positive, thanks R-F-F-E-F-C-E, so thanks for your channel, James. Thank you for hanging out with us. That means a lot. Is that the more that we're positive, I think it influences the culture. I've definitely noticed an uptick and you definitely like more positivity. And so I do appreciate people like you, Tuss, and others who have been super positive, which definitely helps bring it on. So it helps increase it. And Michael, the Canadian atheist said, tonight was fun. Thanks, James. Appreciate that, Michael. That means a lot.  I did, too. It was a blast. And then let's see. Thanks for your super chat. Just flew in from Ben Miller said, just because a few dates can be made to line up is absolutely irrelevant. The fields of science should lead to Hinduism on their own and they don't. Oh, I see. I'm so sorry. They might be behind in the stream. Like they might have just started watching and maybe they like pushed the back button to where it brought them to earlier in the debate. But I still read it. There's just nobody here to answer it. So do appreciate your support that way. Ben Miller. And then let's see here. Where is this little James Bond? Appreciate your kind words. That means a lot. Appreciate it. And then GB says, just a bit of British humor.  Keep up the good work. Oh, did I miss your... I can't remember what I forgot. What did you say earlier? So sorry I'm behind. Oh, you said you need Jesus only $19.99 for a limited time. Oh, I get it. I know this sounds like an infomercial when we're trying to like... I'm talking about the... I'm sorry, guys. Well, it's a combination of two things. One, I'm excited about it. Like I really am. I'm just like, you guys, I've got a dream. Like I'm really... Oh, Fran Wilson. Thanks for letting me know you got a message. That is so encouraging. I'm curious, Fran, if you're willing to share, did you use Facebook to sign up or did you use like normal... I don't know if it makes a difference. I've got to find a friend or use my own Facebook or something and do a pledge and see if it shows that you got a message if you use the Facebook. If you use the Facebook method of bypassing, creating a Kickstarter account, I would think that you'd get a message either way. I think that you... By signing in with Facebook, you kind of have a Kickstarter account. You just don't have to fill in all the details that other people might. But yes, thanks so much. And then let's see. Tussby Box, thanks so much. As I pledged tonight through Kickstarter, not through Facebook, and I didn't get a message. Oh, don't worry, Tussby. That's okay. I only sent it to like one or two people. So that one, don't worry. I appreciate that. And then Slammaren says, only 123 upvotes? Thanks, Slammaren. Weitz is 144. But I might be wrong about that. So John W., thanks for your kind words. I am so simple. I just love you, man. Killer channel. Thanks so much, John W. This seriously means a lot. And thanks Randall for saying hello. Glad you're still here. And thanks for hanging out with us tonight. Adam Elbilius says, can I get a photo of you signing a photo of you? Now that's an idea. That's a funny idea. I'm trying to, it's very meta. And then Dave Langer says, Barry Berry on Twitch once gets affiliate, Barry, oh, they're saying once we get affiliate, he'll have access to emotes. James should do an emote of his face. That would be awesome. And Lilia just says, yep, $3 is pretty much perfect. It's what I'm willing to pay for a lot of memberships to specific channels as well. Here's the trick. I love that it is cheap. And it's also, thanks so much, Barry Berry. And then, yeah, it's like, I can't, you know, here's the thing. I want to keep it at $3. I don't know exactly how it's going to work in the future where when we get to these big debates, so like, I don't know. I mean, maybe you guys don't even think it's worth it and you're like, maybe we shouldn't even do it. We should, because a lot of like YouTubers are happy to debate for like reasonable amounts of money. But it's true that like, you guys aren't even going to believe me, but I'm telling you, I know this from experience. One, a friend of mine reached out to Sam Harris about a debate and Sam Harris, and I'm not trying to be mean or anything. I'm not saying this is unreasonable because these, they're super busy people. When I say reasonable, I mean something that fits our budget. Friend reached out to Sam Harris and Sam Harris said it was $25,000 for him to do a debate. The rumor is Ben Shapiro is $50,000. I don't know if that's true. I'm a little bit like, really? It's like more than I expect, but I know this though. Philosophers, when I was at Mankato State getting my bachelor's in philosophy, a lot of my professors, the University of the Department would hire philosophers to come in and speak. And these weren't just any philosophers. Like these were really good ones. So like Peter Sanger, I mean everybody's heard of Peter Sanger if you're familiar with philosophy, he asked for $20,000. And to his credit, he donated I think maybe all of it to like Oxfam, so it went to a good cause. But it was still $20,000 if you wanted to get him to come speak. We'll never have a debate with Peter Sanger. It's not that I don't like him. That's not that I don't think he's worth it. In fact, I'm kind of like, since they would go to a good cause, I'm kind of tempted. I think that'd be a great idea. Maybe we will. But the point is if we did $20,000 for an honorarium, and that's just the honorarium, so imagine the facility cost, but let's say we just did the $20,000 and someone was kind enough to give us a facility for free. $20,000 divided by three would mean that we would, oh okay, so it's not that unrealistic. We would need 6,667 people to sign up, which we actually have more than that in terms of subscribers. So maybe that's possible. I don't know. I mean I guess it depends on how many people sign up for each of these. Bob, name holder, said, hey James, if you're reading the chat, I want to say thank you for the channel. You make my work days more bearable, and it's nice to have something to talk about. Thanks so much.  I'm super encouraged to hear that. That's just super encouraging and meaningful for me to hear. And Randolph Richardson, I have to give huge credit. Randolph was a really good sport because I asked him if I could switch. Oh, Fran Wilson, thanks for letting me know that you use Facebook and you still got a message through Kickstarter. So let me, Tuss, if you're still out there, I'm curious if I can send you a message. And I would imagine it's the same, but I just want to know because I'm always a little bit, what's the word? What's the word? I'm always wanting to be double-check and just be extra careful. Also, thank you so much for signing up. Your name starts with a B. Appreciate that. And thanks so much for your generous pledge from a person with a name starting with an A. I really appreciate that. And Tuss, I mean, a person who starts with a T and a person who starts with an A, thank you so much for pledging. I really do appreciate it. That means a lot. Basically, I am pumped. That means a lot for your guys' support, seriously. And I was saying Randolph was so flexible. He was so kind. He was so kind that he, oh wow, that's a lot of likes. 166, that's really cool. I'm just so appreciative that you guys are willing to hang out with me, both for fun and also given that it's an infomercial. When I do this at the end, I think Adam said that yesterday or the other day, that was funny. Ed Luckinbill said, James, you had some good ones. I think Tom is undefeated. Keep up the great work. He has made the lockdown so much easier with, or has made the lockdown so much easier with greater entertainment. Thanks so much. I really do appreciate that, Ed. That means a lot. I'm so glad to hear that. That's been like one of the encouraging things, is I got a letter. I wish I knew, but the letters, I have a letter pinned on my desk at my office back in Colorado and I'm in Wisconsin. It was a young man, I think his name is Danny, and he said that this like channel has been like a community forum, especially during the lockdown. I got it back in like October and I was like so encouraged. I was like, wow, that is the nicest thing because I don't know if I still put my P.O. box in the description, but I used to put it, I don't, I think, but that was like the only letter I got which was like super encouraging. Doesn't mean anybody has to send a letter. Your encouragement and positivity in the live chat means a ton. So I just, when people tell me that, whether it be Ed in this case or I think it was Dan, in the other case, it's just really what I wanted, is I always said I want this to feel like a community. You know what I mean? And so let's see. One thing I'm going to try right now is Tuss is like, oh hey, what's up? I'm sending a message right now to Tuss. I mean to someone named whose name starts with a T on Kickstarter. But for real, I really do want to respect your guys' privacy because I'm tempted. A lot of times I want to say like, hey, Benjamin Franklin, thanks so much for signing up for Kickstarter, but I also want to respect your guys' privacy. So let's see. Oh, Richard, Randolph Richardson said it's a good idea though to consider not using Facebook to log into accounts because if you do that, in any case, whether it be Kickstarter or like Twitch or whatever, or eBay, I don't know if eBay lets you, but because the challenge is if your Facebook account gets disrupted or disabled, you won't be able to log into any of those secondary accounts either. That's a good point. I never thought about that. And then John Smith says, apologies, I can't help monetarily, but I would love to. I am in a situation in which doing so might put me at risk. I really appreciate the availability of these debates currently. Thanks so much, John. I totally understand. And that's something I want to say that in some cases, some people are saying, hey, like in my country, I don't think we have Kickstarter. And so I'm really, I'm sorry, whatever the circumstance is that makes it hard right now or to where you're not able to give it the moment. We do want to say we appreciate your support just by being at modernity debate, just by hanging out with you. Hanging out with us here really does mean a lot. And Anci Servisto got your joke there. I can pass the eating task for the next month. That's funny. And then let's see, Fran Wilson says, civility is important if we wish to discuss anything. I agree. And then Dave Langer, that's right. My only fans is $3 a month. That's funny. I desperately want to offer a signed photo of Danny Tanner from Full House signed by me. That would be like the greatest reward ever. So do appreciate that. And then let's see. Oh, wow. Ben Shapiro is like $75,000 for five minutes of him playing the violin. Whoa. So then he probably does cost a ton of money for a debate. Um, Fran Wilson says, I use Facebook. Oh, that's good to know that people get messages then, whether or not they're using Facebook or if they are using the normal way to sign in. Dave Langer says, if you are renting out a venue, they would have to buy tickets. Or is that for free? Is that free for them? Oh, that's a good idea. We could sell tickets if we rent a venue. That makes sense. Once the restrictions, the COVID restrictions are gone, which I think this summer we'll be able to do it. Theo Fungi says, we pay more for boring, repetitive cable channels, $3 for the greatest debates, learning subjects from people that know their stuff, plus the bonus of a great chat box crew bargain. Thanks for that, Theo Fungi. I really do appreciate that. I am so glad to hear that.  I invented those jokes. Berry Berry. Tuss Beatbox says she got her message. That's, I mean, somebody whose name starts with a T said they did. Thanks for that feedback, T. And then, let's see. John Smith says, it means a lot to me how your channel provides a safe space for people who are in difficult situations. I would love to support this channel if I were able to appreciate that. John, seriously, just hearing that really does mean a lot. You have no idea. Like, that's, honestly, it's really special. So Randolph says, today's debate was very interesting. You had all the right people on. Randolph, I don't know if I mentioned, folks, I totally appreciate that Randolph was incredibly flexible today in basically being willing to, so I could see my family and friends while I'm in Wisconsin for this short time because I'm only here for like another week or so. And Randolph was kind enough to basically say, he let me reschedule him for a debate on another day so that I could see family tomorrow. So I do appreciate that big time, Randolph. He says, the work you do running these debates is an important contribution to future progress. You're promoting what I can call the free exchange of ideas. Thank you so much. Randolph, that means a lot. And I appreciate that. Thank you. And Thanlan 101 says, bird is the word. It could not agree more. Thank you. And let's see here. I'm like getting used to scrolling through the live chat. It's like, next, Dan Langer says, did you see the documentary about the first Danny Tanner who didn't work out past the pilot because he was super creepy? You should check it out.  That's hilarious. Let me Google that. Oh my gosh, that's so funny. Danny Tanner episode one. John Posey versus Bob Saget, the very weird version of Full House no one ever saw on Nerd nostalgic. That is so funny. If that's, like, that's just hilarious. John Posey, you're right. On-air pilot, the John Posey. This is funny. Hold on a second. You guys have to hear this. This is important. I'm like, nobody's as big a fan. We're gonna hit, we're gonna get hit with a copyright infringement. There it goes. Now, what have I done? Okay, so basically, I'm a huge Full House fan, though. And I'm gonna watch that episode later.  So, or get to watch it later. So thank you for that. Thank you so much, Larry Letz, who says I'll be supporting the Kickstarter tomorrow. Payment issues tonight. Well, thanks, Larry, for supporting it. I really do appreciate it. I'm pumped for it. And we do. We're really big on reinvesting into the channel. So doing it in terms of promoting this event, we want to make the channel bigger. Because the bigger we are, the bigger subscriber base, if we have 50,000, so it's like, we're not too far. It's like, what? I think it's like 12,000 away. If we had 50,000 people, like that's a lot more people where we could say, hey, we could say, hey everybody, are you, like, are you in? And you know, the more people we have doing these Kickstarter's, the cheaper the price can stay. And so it is like, that is kind of the benefit of promoting these events, is that it can kind of give us an idea of how we can kind of spread the risk. So to speak, or the cost of these bigger honorariums for people. JustJ said, it's nice of you to spend more of your time with us like this.  I wish you all kinds of YouTube success. Thanks, JustJ. I really do appreciate that. I do love doing this. Like, this is something that I started doing, like it was like, I don't know, do you guys remember? I think it was like a month ago. Maybe a month and a half. It was like where I would start doing it just for fun. Usually on a Saturday night, because I don't have to worry about like doing homework or grading or whatever. But I do appreciate this. And so it's been fun to get to do this. Now I'm on break. My life is so much easier. It's insane. The grad school experience is honestly, sometimes it's unbelievable exhausting, but you know what? It's good for me. I like the challenge. I do enjoy it. And like now I'm on vacation kind of. So it's like, it's super nice. I'm like, I'm just kind of like, yeah, I'm not ready to go back yet. But I do like it. I do love it. I do enjoy it. Tuss Beatbox says, do you play any instruments, James? I do not. I seriously, I'm not joking, you guys. I think that I am like the last person in terms of musical ability that you'd ever want to experience. It's really, it's pretty bad. Like I'm not joking. I took a ballroom dance class back in when I was in college and it was like, it was terrible. It's so, so bad. I can't recognize a beat really good. And I know it's like, there is like a, it's almost like a, in the book, Peek by Anders Erickson. He's like the leading expert on like experts. Yeah. And he talks about how a lot of people say that they, they're just musically totally ungifted, but it's like, it's really rare for somebody to not be able to pick up the beat of a song. I think I might really be that. I mean, I'm telling you, I went through a whole dance class and it really, it's hard for me. I'm like, I don't, I just can't recognize it in a song. I really do think there's something, I might be one of those people. I love music though. I like to listen to it. Like I know what I like it to like listen to. But I usually, to be honest, I usually listen to like lectures and debates. Usually lectures or sometimes talk shows like psychology stuff. So I don't know if I like music as much as the average person. I wish I could, because I feel like I'm supposed to. So, Sausageil55523, thanks for your question says, have you spoken live or privately with Noam Chomsky? I haven't, but we would obviously be stoked to have him on. I, especially if it was against Thomas Sowell, that would be like one of the, if anybody has a connection with Thomas Sowell, let me know because that would be epic to have Thomas Sowell on. Like Thomas Sowell against, let's say, Professor David Wolfe. Now we're talking. That would be an epic event. Fran Wilson says, what was the favorite subject in philosophy? Man, okay, so I definitely love philosophy, religion. Kind of the arguments for and against God's existence are really fun. I also, I'd say epistemology was fun. I'm trying to think of some of the issues from epistemology that I liked the most. If anybody, if anybody has ever heard of like this idea of epistemic kind of relativism and the quandary of trying to get out of it, that's like an interesting idea. But I mean, so one thing though I think is interesting too is like the intersection of like philosophy and psychology. So like, for example, can we willfully change our beliefs? And most people, especially in the like, not all, not all, not all, but like most atheists that I run into on the internet at least would say no. But most atheists that I've met at the university like professors would say, well, it depends, which is usually the answer in like any academic field. Is that if you mean to change it like willfully in the moment, like where I just like, I'm going to will for myself to believe the earth is flat. Like, sorry if anybody's a flat earth or I'm a I'm a globy. Is if I said I'm going to will for myself right now, I'm just going to say, I'm just going to purposely believe the earth is flat. I mean, like try really hard. That won't work. But indirectly, could I change my beliefs or at least my probability? I think you can by reading different materials that are you for a flat earth, where you might say like, oh, I thought that this was like this, you know, there are some things that I'm sure you think like this for sure. There's no way the flat earth could explain this.  But there's a, you know, you have a trillion other objections. So you don't automatically become a flat earth or so. But the terms for this would be there's doxastic volunteerism and doxastic involuntarism, doxastic volunteerism, the idea of, or I'm sorry, there's direct and indirect doxastic volunteerism. It's been a while since I've read some of this, but doxastic volunteerism just means can you purposely change your beliefs directly? No, like I can't focus really hard and just willfully change my beliefs. But indirectly, I probably can at least change my probability about things. So like if I give the flat earth like a 1% probability or something, I could read flat earth materials that like might bump it up to a 2% or 3%. And I keep reading the materials over and over and over. Who knows how far it can go. And there's also research, a lot of people don't know this. In psychology, there is research on something called the illusory truth effect. Is that the idea is we know from research that if you read something over and over, it will actually influence your belief to make you believe in that thing more. So even if you were told it's fake, even if you're told this isn't a credible source, if you read it over and over, the research shows that you actually will believe it more. So those are like interesting things for me though. Like I like psychology obviously. So that's like, anyway, a huge long answer to your short question. Thanks for your patience. David Neff, so stoked to have you here. Let's see. Catching up with the chat. Then Fran Wilson says, thanks for the aftershow chat. I really like it. Thank you, Fran. Appreciate that. It's fun to hang out with you guys. And then James W said, have you ever heard of Mr. Batman Sing? I still have PTSD from the last time he was on Smoky's channel. Maybe you can do some therapy for your PhD. That's funny. I wish that was the type of therapy that I did. I don't. But that's, oh, I bet it's great. I would love to hear him singing. David P. Neff, stoked to see you as well. So glad you made it, friend. And then just Jay says, so what's the deal with Darth Dawkins? Are we ever going to get another Florida Man debate? I miss the quote, holy frog in his glorious ribbit. Holy frog in his glorious ribbit. Oh, Florida Man. It's been so long since we've had it. I saw him the other day when I was scrolling through the debate library that we have on the channel and I was like, wow, it's been a while. Darth Dawkins, I don't think he wants to come back. I actually reached out to him today to see if he wants to come back because we're trying to line up a ton of huge debates the first week of 2021. And I would like Darth Dawkins to participate, but I don't think he will. Fran Wilson says, Mina V has a great idea. Include philosophical tutorials, logical thing. Or you mean logical thinking? Um, you mean me provide the tutorials? I would love to. I think a lot of people don't know that like, I don't know, maybe you do. But like, a lot of, not a lot, some of the areas that are debated on this channel, like I studied, like including formally, but also informally, but formally like to the master's level, like I got a master's in philosophy and psychology each. And so I've been in school for a long time. I don't know if I'd recommend it. I like it and I think it'll turn out. But I would just recommend, you know, there are pros and cons.  Look at the positives that you have. It's true that, you know, school also comes with, for some of us. For me, it came with some debt, but that's all right.  And that, I mean, like in the US, I heard a great quote from Elon Musk today. It's like, it's pretty hard to starve in the US. Like if you go after your dreams and things go terribly wrong and you, you end up at a soup kitchen or something, like, at least you went for it. And so yeah, you know, I like, I've enjoyed the risk of school. David P. Neff says, question for you. Are you a young earth creationist? James W. Well, I meant for modern day debate. I'm more agnostic on the origin stuff. I mean, if you pushed me, I'd probably lean toward some older variation of agnosticism. So yeah, I'm like, I'm pretty sure I don't know what the answer is. I think that for me, I would like to be of the mindset such that my, my fear of what other people think would be so strong that I would be willing to believe in anything that I believed was sincerely true. I think a lot of times people, not all, not all, not all. So I'm not trying to throw poop in everybody's face, but I think a lot of times people will like say they believe in a lot of things or don't believe in certain things. Because they think that I think a lot of times their beliefs are governed much more by what they think other people would think is acceptable than they're willing to admit to themselves. And for me, like I was thinking about it earlier today and I was like, I, one thing I like is that you could say it's a correlate of people who believe in strange things or by strange, I just mean statistically like less common things in terms of, you know, it's true there aren't, I don't know, I don't know what the stats are. I think, let's say for example, like Flat Earth, I know it's not the same thing as Young Earth Creation, but when it comes to that, you have to admit that those people, it seems, don't care what other people think regarding their own beliefs, right? So that's a, you could say like a psychological trait that correlates with Flat Earth.  And that trait, not per se Flat Earth belief, but the trait of saying I believe what I believe, I don't care if it seems that people ridicule me, because I think a strong and good trait. But yeah, even though I am, I kind of lean toward, but I lean toward, very strongly toward a globe Earth, but I have to admit that for Flat Earthers, that's something that I appreciate that they're not afraid of people calling them all sorts of things. David P. Neff says, would love to be back on your channel sometime. That'd be fun David, I appreciate that. It was a fun time having you on. I remember, I was just looking at your debate, I think it was Kent Holvend right? I think I was looking at that debate the other day. And Lily Ajah says, James Tinney. I like Destiny a lot. I was thinking about that today, is that Destiny, I'd be willing to go to bat for that guy, because Destiny has always been really helpful with our channel. He's been really supportive and positive. He's never asked for a thing. Destiny is a very generous person to this channel. And so, I was thinking about it today. I don't agree with everything in terms of what Destiny's views are. I don't like have anything that, so like, despite not agreeing with him on everything, I would, I think I'd go to bat for Destiny because I just had really good experiences with him. I don't say that I know everything about him, but the ones I've had have been good. World View Detective says, any debates that change your mind on a given issue? Great question. That's super interesting. Yeah, actually, I think that I've at least been like, because you know, I always think of it as like, your beliefs are all in a spectrum, and so it's not binary. I don't think of it as like, I believe in this or I don't. It's usually like, how much do I believe in this? And it's like, well, maybe I'm at a credence or a probability of like, I give it a 90% probability, like a 0.9 on a scale of zero to one. And I might say, well, I also though, maybe I believe in something at a level of 0.4, and I watch a debate and it bumps me up to like a 0.55, and I was like, yeah, I probably, I think I've had that happen where it's usually like the arguments, it's usually more of, there's just so much out there that you can, that's right, David P. Neff, I remember it was against Mr. Kent Hoven, yeah. There's so much, there's so much that you can learn that it's like, how much should I change my belief on this? Because I haven't studied it that much. And there's, you know, for, beware the old phrase, beware the sound of one hand clapping. It's like, well, there's a rebuttal to this, but the rebuttal to this, how do I know that there's not another rebuttal out there? There's a lot to read. One of the things that going through academia has made me a lot more quiet in terms of what I believe or in terms of, how do I say this? Having noticed how much is published out there in like any domain makes me realize like, oh my gosh, I know so little on this topic. That's what I was going to say. Tussbeatbox says, whether James changed his mind after a debate was actually the first question I asked James ever. Oh, that's funny. But yeah, I mean like, I think I'm like fairly flexible. I try to be pretty open-minded in terms of, you know, what do we mean by open-minded? If open-minded means like willingness to change, there are some beliefs I try to protect and I don't want to change them though. I'll give you an example.   If you said instead that those things on the outside of my behavior, those things are the things that determine how well my life goes, I purposely believe that my outcomes in life are dependent on my own behavior. So this is kind of some practical psychology mixing with philosophy and the reason is psychologically we know that people who believe that their outcomes in life are up to their own behavior, their own work, their own education, whatever, they do way better in virtually every domain, better, more healthy, physically, mentally, they have more successful careers, like virtually everything you can think of goes better for them. And there's one reason, I mean, if you think you have autonomy, you have like control of your environment, we know that's psychologically healthy. And some people might say though, well, but wait a minute, but I believe that our, you know, I don't believe that's true. I think that it is true that the economy or the government or big tech, they, they ultimately control my outcomes. And you might say that's what I think is the truth. And I'm not a strict evidentialist, I would say like, I don't care if that's true, it's not what I'm going to believe. And the reason though, I think is because when you believe your own behavior is responsible for creating your own outcomes, you're more likely to act and actually do your own behaviors that could potentially help your own outcomes. And so there are some beliefs in that case, the belief that I would say my behavior is up to what I do, I firmly believe that I protect that belief, I would not let evidence, I will purposely persuade myself by reading books that suggest that, because I want that belief for its practical utility in terms of my outcomes in life. Lillia just says I feel the same way, destiny has some real spicy takes sometimes, but he's a really solid debater. Yeah, I, oh yeah, and I think destiny's all, I think destiny I feel like is one, I think he's a great debater, no doubt about it. Two, I think his views, like my views are like, if I had to pick anybody, I would say I'd be like a combination of my views, I feel like would be fairly well explained by, if you made this Frankenstein that was a cross between IP and destiny, those two, that's like probably largely my beliefs, but Dave Langer says you don't have to agree with everything someone says, I don't agree with most of what Converse Contender says, but I respect him because he's respectful and makes well thought out arguments. I completely agree, yeah, you don't have to agree with everybody says, and you might as well just let it be that you're going to disagree, and that's okay, because it's like there's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and John W says respect you all, that's nice of you, John, thank you, and same to you. John Desiderio, thank you for your, he says I agree, James, and then let's see, correct me if I'm wrong, says James I like your reason for holding onto that quote belief personally, but I hope that you don't judge others based on that, yeah I know what you mean, I don't, the reason is I've got like a pretty like life I feel like has been pretty good to me, I know that some people go through obviously way worse circumstances, so like there, let's say their mental health or their physical health or whatever it is, could be like absolutely terrible, so I do recognize that, and so that's something that I would say for other people, I don't hold them to the same standard, I like I said it's more about when I think ab