Hey everybody tonight. We're debating whether or not there is evidence for reincarnation and we are starting right now With Siddharth and Arjuna. Thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours All right, so I'm a junior today We're gonna be just arguing that there is evidence for reincarnation. This is different from proof for reincarnation So there's a lot of scientific theories which we have evidence for but don't have proof for The evidence for reincarnation is in the form of children who spontaneously remember past lives there are also cases of Memories of past life that come from hypnosis these a lot of them turn out to be garbage often It's found that the person when rehypnotized and asked where the information came from Read it in a book earlier or something but some hypnosis cases are stronger the researchers Jim Tucker and Dr. Ian Stevenson, which have looked into this research preferred to take the children We spontaneously remember past lives because these have a higher rate of quality evidence behind them when investigated The evidence for these cases obviously if it was just memories and that nothing more to it Then we would just attribute it to the fanciful imaginations of children or their suggestibility But when we have corroborating evidence, then that's no longer the best explanation So there's three categories of the evidence the first is Memories which can be verified to contain accurate information Which the children could not have acquired through ordinary means So in a couple minutes, so Darth is going to give a few examples of this kind of evidence with specific cases the second category of evidence is birthmarks which corresponds to wounds on the body of the deceased individual Whose life matches the description that the child gives and the third category is Behaviors and emotions which match this deceased individual So when all of these things line up, it's a convergence of evidence which makes reincarnation the best explanation So, you know, if it was just for example in some cases they find I think there's my I don't know The exact numbers there's a number of cases where they find a bullet The person died by a gunshot and there's a bullet entry and exit wound and there's a corresponding birthmark To the entry and the exit wound and the entry and exit wounds are different from one another in ways Which match what the wounds would be like on the deceased individual and the chances of having to matching birthmarks like that I hope maybe Siddharth has the numbers ready. I haven't pulled them up. It's astronomically unlikely and And And then you combine that with you know, for example that the children might display something which psychologists call Traumatic play where they act out something that you know relates to their previous life Or they they might have emotions and thoughts about people from that previous life Which are the ones you'd expect that person to have And that that's another thing that matches up and then of course the memories, you know Knowing details about a person's life Which only that person could have known or which the child would have had no way of acquiring and many of these cases the researchers had to do Extensive digging of stuff that was not available on the internet in order to corroborate this information Which is not something these child or even the fam the parents of the child could have done and then lastly Siddharth is going to be giving some evidence from I'll let him explain that one because I haven't thought it medium ships it's some evidence from medium ship So he can explain the evidence there but the way that relates is it shows the ability of This of consciousness to exist separate from the body and for an individual to continue exist you know with an intact personality after departing their physical body and This is a kind of evidence, you know, it makes the plausibility of reincarnation and adds to the case So now I'll hand it over to Siddharth to go into the evidence Thank you. Thank you Arjun for the brief intro which you shared So There are two kinds of evidence which we will discuss today the first is the is the evidence relating to Children who could recall their previous life Before we go deep into the evidence and give you some numbers I want to just I want you to imagine a case imagine you are a parent and You you have a say a two or three-year-old child and he or she comes up to you and tells you the daddy You know, I'm you know, I remember my past life and this is where I used to be This is used to be my name of my wife That's used to my name of my father. This is where I used to live This is whom I used to play with that's what I used to sell That's where I used to work when you hear so many different data points used to you think you know Maybe, you know first time you say the kids say something you may think hey Maybe this is just you know, the kids like to imagine stuff joking, you know but when the kids start giving such so much information day after day after day and It's just not information but also behavior If the kids starts acting hey as as an adult if the kids starts Asking for things which only adult ask and you wish to have sharp warning Maybe, you know, there is something more to it then then then just the imagination of the child And this is exactly which happened in the cases of Reports submitted by dr. Ian Stevenson Dr. Ian Stevenson was a chair of Department of Psychology at University of Virginia and In in 70s and 60s 70s and 80s he went to You know various countries looking for such cases being reported by locals in media or other places and tracking them down and checking them rigorously whether You know, are there any cases where kids have reported their previous lives because he had heard about that This has been the case and he found a lot of them and he did and he recorded them in you know nauseating detail So in about 30 to 40 years of research dr. Ian Stevenson along with his Friends and associates dr. Jim Tucker dr. Brian Gray son Adunas to Virginia and other scholars in other parts of the world. They all together collected 2,500 cases of children who could record who could recall the previous life and these cases were Were the ones in which the previous personality had been found So Go back to the imagine case that your kid is telling you these details and you go to that place and you see hey these details match When you hear that such details have matched For a kid who is two or three year old whom you're not given any Computer or internet to search for is a 70s and 80s. Remember, there's no iphone or ipads at that time So you seem to wonder, you know, what is an explanation for it? You know, how come a three year old kid is able to behave is able to share such unique information To which the kid has no the excess to apart from the reason that it has to be in a case of reincarnation So You know, many people can make the claim maybe the parents they want to make money of their kid and they schooled their kid as a two or three year old to say these things So to counter that I'm going to discuss a very special category of those 2500 cases What is the special category? These are the cases of children Whose statements were recorded by a third party Before they went to see and and or find the previous personality This means there was no chance for Uh, you know the parent to go and get the information and mix up the matter And the case in which i'm discussing the previous personality lived miles away And there had no there had to be no contact between those families before the third party recorded everything down So let me explain one more time The kid says a few things about his past life a third person comes and records it down on a piece of paper Prince said or shares it and keeps it safe Then they go and look out for that person in their locality They find it and and the qualities and the and the details match There are out of the 2500 cases. There are 33 such cases These have been recorded by a professor Jim Tucker in a 2005 paper You can look up online the cases of reincarnation type with recorded with written records so One such case which i'm going to discuss right now a two such cases i'm going to discuss right now The first case is sujit Sujit was born in a in a coastal town of Sri Lanka Sri Lanka is a country south of india a small small country Compared to india, you know and there There was this boy named sujit who at the age of two years old He started to talk about his previous life. He's starting telling his family members. Hey, don't call me sujit. Call me sami. That's my name and he started Fearing trucks whenever he would hear the name truck or hear about the noise of the truck. He would run away and hide And He started telling his you know friends at two something between two and three years old He started telling his friends and his family members that he used to have a wife named Maggie He used to often quarrel with Maggie And he lived in a town called Gorkana which was something like 100 kilometers from where they were living He used to work on trains and he used to make and sell you know Local liquor like he used to distill liquor himself in his previous lifetime and he used to sell that for which he was famous And he also shared that he died being hit by a truck So a local monk who was a buddhish monk who was staying nearby He came to know about this kid saying these things So usually, you know local monks in this area is like our teachers and also in some sense you know Head of the family he recorded all these details and then he himself went on a journey to verify these details Not also this boy at two or three year old He used to sometimes ask his parents for the liquor known as a rock which he used to produce You can't imagine a three-year-old kid asking for liquor, you know, he is too strange. There were no TVs there, you know And he used to ask So this case was verified in an amazing manner by this monk who went on to to do this research to Look off his person and he indeed find a person named sami who had died being hit by a truck And then later dr. Ian stevenson He went and he interviewed all the people involved in this case and record all the detail and presented This detailed report in 1975 paper A book called cases of reincarnation type volume three cases from Sri Lanka Next case is the case of kumkum She's a girl who at the age of three year old could tell things from his past life And in her case it was one of kumkum's aunt who recorded all the details on a paper and kept it safe before You know and Kept it safely before them going and finding or the person on the other side Now kumkum was born in a higher caste, you know, India. They have different cast lower caste higher caste So he was born in a higher caste and she was narrating the details of a person whom by the details you could tell belonged to a lower caste and her father didn't even want to Discover or put any effort in finding that person because it meant this repute for the family So her father the whole time tried to hush away the incident In fact, she used she used to testize her for sharing the details Only because her aunt was very friendly. She could, you know, take those details from her So You know, she shared where she lived. She also shared the name of her son She shared how she died. She shared which place she used to live. She shared that In her house, there was an iron safe for which she had a snake whom she used to feed milk She also shared that the snake had a part of its tail missing So you also shared that she used to fast on these specific days And later, you know, when the previous person was found those details again matched in an amazing manner So these are two such cases where there's a written record Another type of link on the two cases is as my friend Arjun shared where birthmarks have matched like amazing cases or case of First a boy named Chennai who is from thailand This boy shared that That where he used to live and he also shared that how he died because somebody shot him Gunpoint on his head and he showed that he has his birthmark because of that shot He showed exactly to have a birthmark here and here and When those details were a little bit checked, um, you know, and the previous person was found whose name used to be Whose name used to be I kind of and I ignore where the name used to be Uh, this case was recorded by professor halilson from who's from iceland. So not from dr. Stevenson But another person. So, uh, the name person used to be buakai So he could remember that how buakai had died So these is another case where, you know, you have a strong you can say a written record because it's a record of birthmark So these are two such cases another type of evidence Which I would like to share today in favor of reincarnation is the case of mediumship I'm not sure how many of you know mediums mediums are like, you know people with some extraordinary capabilities That you can go and share with them the names of people who have passed them in your life And they can share with you some details regarding that person Now there hasn't always been claimed that there's sometimes I call reading or, you know, people try to cheat You know being a medium They will they will say things which are common like, you know, your brother used to be very loving to you I'm sure you I'm your brother used to love you a lot But these details are you know, it can be easily be cheated with So there's always this case, uh, that you know the mediumships have been You know a topic of concern But mediumship if proven can give an evidence that consciousness can live beyond the the death of the human body So a bunch of researchers at vendington research center, sorry windbridge research center in in us they Drill out a set of experiment. What's the experiment? They had these three people The person who was giving reading the medium the person who is being read the sitter and an experimenter who is evaluating They had all these three people blind to each other. That means it's called quintuple blind or, you know, more than double blind system so the the reader the the sorry the the medium Had no idea whom he was giving reading for except the name which was given to him The the person who asked for the reading He got back two sets of reading one which came from the medium and second were decoy readings from another person And the reader was asked to rate That if either of those readings matched the person whom he had asked about And then the experimenter was asked to judge evaluate this evidence Without knowing whether the he was rating. He was judging it for a decoy reading or the correct reading Such a system ensured there was no case of fraud and they found Six in in 67 percent of the cases the medium was able to give share unique information about the previous personality or this carnate person So such research has been replicated in by a group of researchers in Paris too so this research uh, this uh, uh, you know in in topical reincarnation and consciousness beyond death has been repeated by multiple labs throughout the world It is just not one researcher or two scholars, but a a big branch of psychology studies. This is known as branch of parapsychology So let's summarize again Dr. Ian Stevenson has done this research since 1970s has recorded more than 2,500 cases along with his team This research has been replicated a number of times. We're talking of cases in which there is a written record of children um, telling things about their past life and Those being recorded and then checked by a third neutral party And then I also presented some evidence from dr. Julie wishes WRC team which have made this more than double blind system to verify medium research So this is it from my side You got it. Thank you very much Senator and Arjuna and with that want to let you know folks if it's your first time here at modern day debate We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics And we want you to feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from We are glad you are here and also want to let you know about this big juicy debate Coming up on the bottom right of your screen apostate prophet returns To debate steward on atheism versus christianity. You don't want to miss it So hit that subscribe button as that's going to be a big one next weekend And with that we'll kick it over to t-jump and g-man. Thanks for being here the floor is all yours Yeah, thanks. Thanks to arth and arjuna for coming. Thanks for james for hosting and g-man for being my partner strange turn events that is Yeah, so as far as I know, there's no evidence of reincarnation past lives or medium ship ever working in any case ever There's lots of cases of very flawed studies That don't in any way indicate what they're supposed to indicate and they've been shown to be flawed because they've been replicated by skeptics like james randy And his compatriots who showed that the similar psychic phenomenon can be replicated by cold reading hot reading psychological manipulation Dissociative identity disorder. There's all kinds of things that's really it's just it's all human psychology And there's no evidence of it really doing anything if kids really could reincarnate and remember past lives and they would have skills like Drive cars remember where the they parked the locations of the city's that kind of stuff They would do far better than kids of the same age who didn't reincarnate with information So if reincarnation was a thing then you'd expect the reincarnated kids to have new skills That they didn't use to make more money to be more successful, etc. It doesn't happen um All the cases of even the third party cases don't work because the third party recordings aren't the origin Origination of the events like obviously This kid who the monk recorded having a past life experience had been doing this stuff with his parents before So most likely it's his parents who told him the stuff It already knew the stories and just denied it and lied about it and the monk went and checked it later Oh, yeah, I looked it right. So it was more likely a lie and that's a far better explanation than actual reincarnation What would be evidence of an actual reincarnation would be like I said If you could have the kids gain new skills and those new skills Could then be used to accomplish something in the world that are far higher rate than kids who don't claim to reincarnate The fundamental explanation of all reincarnation is the fact that it happens to most kids most kids have false memories And so they claim oh, I had this false memory of a princess or a dragon or a king or whatever And the vast vast majority of them are just completely fabricated and we're obviously fabricated but some of them Kind of resemble people in the world and some of them are kind of accurate representations in some big way And so it's just a gambler's foul.  Some of them will be accurate same with birthmarks So none of that is particularly Magical at all. It's just if you have a large enough sample size some will be accurate That's all it is Most of them are definitely fraud or the parents taught them things or where they heard things from neighbors or other towns folk and then internalized it as false memories themselves all of it's explained psychologically As far as I know, there isn't any actual evidence of reincarnation whatsoever. I'll hand it over to gman All right, uh, and again, uh, I'd like to thank james for having me on today. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yep Okay, cool. Yes. I I agree with t-jump. There is no scientific evidence from For a uh for a reincarnation. In fact, the only way an argument can be made Is through faith and if they make an argument through faith Their argument through faith has to make logical rational sense Uh t-jump brought up an excellent point when he said that if the souls were really, you know Went from one body to another. Let's see a human to another human Then not only would they have to have new skills They would have to have the skills of the person that went into their bodies. For example I don't see uh, for example, uh, julia caesar dying and having to go through our educational system again And learning how to count to three or whatever, you know, I mean learning how to do math Learning how to do, you know, uh, things like that. He would already have these skills He would be even better warrior than what he was when when when he when he was a senior when he was a caesar So if you're going to take it on faith because there is no scientific evidence for it Your your claim has to make logical sense Um, it is kind of silly when you actually think about the whole reincarnation. Um idea to begin with because again A soul has to has to leave a body to enter another body Uh, the idea of a of a human dying and then having to become a dog for some reason or a human being dying and having to become grass Uh, I heard the gentleman talk about this before we started the show The idea of a human being losing their soul and going into a body of a, you know, fish or something like that I think is kind of ridiculous In order for that to make sense You have to have something demonstrable and something empirical to be able to prove that and until they do it There's no good reason to believe it now. I do have one explanation from the from the christian worldview regarding People in their reoccurring dreams As you know, uh, christians believe in jesus christ We believe in god, but we also believe in demons too and we believe that demons who have always existed Well now has always existed. They are created beings that live outside of time and space or whatever And they are able to communicate to people and tell people about things that happen in the past And these things can happen while you're asleep Okay, uh, I use first timothy For one where it says that that demons have the ability to teach people things to tell people things to whisper into their ears Jesus rebuked, uh, peter when peter said that, you know, that that he would die for him They would protect him and says get the behind me saying, you know what I mean? So demons have the ability to talk to people the bible talks about how the how a demon energized, um uh energize and control Judas is scary You know what I mean? Now that's not the same thing as you know as it is in reincarnation But it's proof that demon can talk to you and the demon can control you and the demon can get you to think Certain things that are not your own thoughts. All right. So totally agree with t jump on this Uh, the main point that I think we we need to take out of this is if They're going to argue that reincarnation is true It's got to make rational and logical sense You got to do better than you went to bed and you woke up, you know I mean and and you dreamed about this person therefore reincarnation is true got to do better than that today I'll I'll close there. We will jump into open conversation and want to let you know folks Our guests are linked to the description So if you want to hear more from them, you certainly can with that gentleman. Thanks so much to the floor Is all yours for open dialogue Uh, all right, I've got some push back on some of those points So I I didn't see much substantial arguments from either of our Opposing interlocutors today. So it has to make sense I haven't seen any logical contradiction pointed out in our work. Uh, it's it's ridiculous. Okay. Well, that's just an opinion Souls becoming dogs is ridiculous. Yeah Demons planted the memories there I really don't think you want to go down that road because if demons can plant memories That make us think we live before and all this sort of stuff then That opens us wide to last thursdayism. How do I know demons than plant my memories of everything prior to last thursday? Uh t jump let's mention that there's uh, cold readings which can match the type of evidence we've got There was no studies given. Uh, the evidence we presented has not been addressed in any details. There's just been Uh, assertions made that there's counter evidence. I want to know what this evidence is Um, most of them are definitely fraud. So let's see one of the cases we presented demonstrated to be fraud Yeah, me or t jump Yeah, I can start. So first thing, uh, I don't need to show a logical contradiction in your position to show it's flawed Like there's no logical contradiction with, uh, magical pixie leprechauns. That doesn't mean it's not a flawed idea Uh, secondly, I don't need to individually address each of your examples because I mean, I didn't have them beforehand So I don't have time to like just google them and try to find individual examples But you can because this is rejected by the scientific community So the better explanation is the things I listed which are Psychological misinformation and the opportunity for the parents to like explain this to their kids and lie about it The fact that it was recorded by a monk doesn't mean that the parents didn't do it before the monk came Like it doesn't it doesn't make any sense. Like oh the monk came and then this kid started to experience past life Memories and then the monk wrote it down and the parents had literally no involvement yet. No, no, it's unplausible It's far more plausible. So yeah, the parents just manipulate the kid into doing this or that the kid Heard it from other people So yeah, that's a far better explanation than reincarnation Also, the fact that you self teach the kid normal stuff in school is a good indication It was false if the kid actually did experience reincarnation as g-man said and I can't believe I'm agreeing with g-man Yeah, they would already know math They would already know basic languages like if the kid was reincarnated from like a different country and could speak the language That'd be great great example. I forgot to mention that one But as we know that's most likely false because their parents mostly teach them the new languages with their kids So there's no actual evidence of reincarnation being true Um None of the things you presented are the best explanation the best explanation is the one that we have lots and lots of examples of Which is psychological manipulation Not to mention I can't believe I'm saying this I need to get you a dvrs for this one the burden of proof is on the one making the claim And I have no problem meeting any of the burdens, you know meeting my burden at all But if you make a claim and you're saying that somebody had a dream and this is proof of reincarnation That that is only you not on me Yeah Regarding the skills point, uh, so That the people who remember past lives are are you know, they're outliers It's not normal and almost all of them are cases of people who dried in a really traumatic way So it's as if they're being given the opportunity to resolve, you know Some unresolved stuff from that past life or the trauma just is so powerful that it just carries over into the next life As far as skills carrying over it Well, often we do find people who are born as child podages and people are born with varying degrees of skills in this life Reincarnation is a suitable explanation of that There there are cases where people like, you know There's one one one case where the person went into the military And they weren't supposedly in the military in their past life We do see some carry over but you start in a new body you have a new brain that brain needs training You you still have to learn motor skills that the brain gives us access to our cognitive abilities within this life It's consciousness, you know, it comes from the soul But the brain is what gives us access to our cognitive faculties in this life and body Okay, I think I think once again, I would like to add something I think teacher got the question wrong. We're not trying to debate here What skills one can learn or what skills would be carrying over when somebody's reincarnated We have to just show enough evidence to make a case that that that there is enough evidence for reincarnation Now what does reincarnation mean and and and what skills should be carried forward? You know, tomorrow you can say a person who's reincarnated. He should know everything in his past life We didn't claim that the debate is not title as reincarnation mean everybody knows What they know in their past life. No, we didn't claim that we said is there evidence that somebody has reincarnated? Yes, there is evidence No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You have evidence that you had a dream. That's what you asked me. We do have to give him a chance to finish, man. Let me finish. I'm not saying that somebody had a dream. I'm not talking about a dream. We're talking about kids who are sharing information with their parents and then some of that, you know, in some cases, which I shared, there's a third party just coming and recording it. And we're not just asking one or two details which you can throw around. Hey, he was just saying this thing. Now, in the case which I shared, Sujit, he shared the name of his father, his wife, the name of his kids, the place where he lived, the business he used to do. In fact, he used to show behavior of how to make distant alcohol at home as a small kid, which people were surprised that he's a small kid. How does he know that stuff? And why is he interested in that stuff? And you should act as an adult. You can find all those details, inquiry details in the work done by, you know, Ian Stevenson there.  This is actually not doing the hard work and, you know, trying to argue against it. You know, hey, whatever I'm saying is fraud. And then, you know, I don't need to prove anything at all. Well, you take the case, take case by case, how much detail is there? And what's the motive behind parents frothing it? These are poor people in Sri Lanka. They didn't get a penny from the investigators, not from the monk. What is the motive behind 2,500 cases who are trying to talk about the previous life? So first thing is, is it possible that the parents could teach a kid all of that without having to reincarnation? Not at 3, not at 3 year old kid. Sorry. The answer is yes. Yes, it is possible to do that. We have 3 year old kids in China playing violin, which is significantly more complicated than making alcohol. So yes, we can absolutely have kids who are taught this information by their parents without any problem whatsoever, which is a more plausible explanation. The motive doesn't matter. Like the motive could be fame, the motive could be they believe it. And so psychological self-fulfilling prophecy, the motive could be religious beliefs, there could be lots of motives. The motives are irrelevant to the fact that there's a more, what? There's also the issue of when the soul is leaving one body that's going to another and they're retaining all these dots in their memories. When the soul is going into another body, it retains everything that it's learned throughout its life, regardless of how much trauma it's been through, or how many different things it's been through, it retains everything. If anything, it's like a super soldier. Well, because you're saying that this person's soul left their body and they went into another person's body. If that is true, they retain all of their memories and all of their thoughts. If they don't, wait a minute, hold on a minute. Because if they don't, then why are they having dreams about their past life? Okay, why are they remembering they knew how to do things from their past life? That doesn't make any rational logical sense whatsoever. If a soul is retaining their mind and they're going to live inside of another body, then they're going to retain the information that they had in the previous life. And we don't see that. We don't see that. Now we don't even see it in the science fiction. Anyway, I'll let you guys go, okay? I'm sorry. There's multiple different metaphysical views. So you can choose one metaphysical view and say, if this metaphysical view were true, then we would expect to say the things you just described. So that just means that metaphysical view isn't true. And we have other views where all that carries over are subtle impressions and in extraordinary circumstances, some memories carry over. You have presuppositions, that's what you have. You don't have any actual empirical data to be able to suggest that this is reincarnation. How do you know that is reincarnation and not somebody just dreaming or ideas being planted into their minds why they're dreaming, while they're dreaming? Okay, by the demons? Listen to me, listen to me. You're going to have to be about the demons I can talk about karma and how people go into this and I'll have my laugh later. Laugh all you want. But my point, the point I'm getting at is this. You're telling everybody that your evidence for reincarnation is somebody having a dream. No dream. Your whole existence, your whole argument is, reincarnation exists because I had a dream. So by dream, he just means a psychological phenomenon. So a memory, something like that. So any psychological phenomenon that is interpreted to be a memory. But I kind of agree with his broad point here is that simply psychological phenomenon of I remember X isn't actually evidence that it's true. So you would need something more than that, like a skill. Like if someone could build an engine, like if a three-year-old could build an engine with literally no prior training, we could have like their entire life recorded to know they had no prior training. That would be good evidence. Okay, so would that be good evidence? If somebody could, as a three-year-old, do some amazing skill, would that be evidence for reincarnation? If we could show that their parents didn't teach them it and we could have like their entire life recorded before that to know their parents didn't teach them that. How does the human soul get transferred into a brain of grass? Please understand, the evidence would be that we have to record a child from what is born till three-year-old and record everything on YouTube or maybe on camera and if the kid is able to perform, show some prodigious behavior which he was not taught by their parents, then that would be enough evidence for it. Is that correct? How does the human soul get recycled into grass?  How does that work? Well, I wanted to- Where's the evidence for that? But where's the evidence for that? Where's the evidence that the human soul goes to a dog or a cat? Let me answer the question first. So yes, I think that would be evidence. I think you would need to be able to falsify the hypothesis that the parents taught them this. And if you can't falsify that hypothesis, it's always a better explanation. And so if there is ever a time in the kid's life where their parents and they weren't being recorded and their parents could have taught them this, then yeah, that kind of falsifies your hypothesis because that's always going to be more plausible than reincarnation until we actually have some empirical evidence of reincarnation. Yes, yes, yes. Now, there are cases of child prodigies who have shown exemplary behavior, but since they were not aware of PGM before this debate, none of them tried and they're not trying to prove their child to be a case of reincarnation. None of them recorded the videos of their kid while going up from zero to three year old. So we don't have such evidence. But we do have a case which I shared today of Kumkum Verma. Now, as I shared, in the case of Kumkum Verma, her parents didn't even want her daughter to visit themselves included the previous person. It was only her aunt who visited the previous person. Why? Because they were from a hair cast and the person she was talking to the whole time was for a lower cast. So there was a negative incentive for the parent to teach their kid about something who's from a lower cast family.  I mean, you can't really have an example here in the Western world because there's no cast system. But in India, the cast system is pretty heavy, which means that the lower cast are considered untouchables, not given a respect. And she was born in a hair cast family, but she was revealing stuff for which her father used to punish her. So there is negative incentive in part of her parents to so-called fraud her daughter into this knowledge. What's the evidence? No, what's the motive for her father to teach that? Well, there could be lots of them on her. So again, psychologically... Give me one, give me one. Religious reasons to want to have reincarnation for some value emotion, want to have significance. Wait, wait, wait, so let me address here. So again, there are people who believe the world is flat just because they want to feel special. So the family just might want to feel special and that would be a motivational self. So there's literally infinitely many psychological motivations that could exist. None of this is special. The fact that you have one possible counter motivation doesn't in any way eliminate the possibility of many more positive motivations. So unless you can actually read the entire psychology of the individual to know for a fact that there is more negative emotional connotation than positive, which you can't, then you can't use that as an argument that there is actually some kind of psychological deterrent for this because there might not be. That might just be an apparent thing that's brought up in order to try and present evidence when it's not. It's just the psychological features aren't evidence. And why is there a need for a person to relearn math and English and how to read and everything if they're reincarnated? I'm not talking about somebody from the ancient Greek world or anything like that. You got an American that dies and goes into an American body. Whether he be a man or a woman or whatever, right? Why is it that they have to relearn math? They have to relearn how to read and write. They have to relearn science. They have to relearn all of these different things. Why can't they retain that information? Why don't somebody get the brain injury? Do they often need to relearn things? Well, we're talking about somebody who's dead and we're talking about their mind being transferred into another person's body. If their mind is being... Hold on a minute, hold on a minute. A mind is not physical, all right? If the person's mind is going into another body, you need to hear this, okay? Then that means they retain everything that they learned in that first life. If they retained everything in that first life and they're living in another body, they should be able to remember all those things. Why don't they remember those things? If your argument's true, then brain injury shouldn't require somebody to relearn things when they recover. Brain and the mind is not the same thing.  The mind is not. You go from one body to a new body, you get a new brain.  Memories also not physical, hold on a minute. Memories are also not physical, okay? If you die, okay? So then why can a brain injury cause people to lose memory? We're not talking about a physical body going into a physical body. We're talking about someone's soul. Let's do some definitions here just so that we're not being intellectually dishonest here, okay? The soul is the, and you can tell me if you agree with this, that it is the immaterial aspect or the essence of a human being. Do you believe that that's what a soul is? You're not talking to T-Jump now. I'm a Christian. I actually do believe a soul exists. So we answer the question, okay? Is a soul the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being? Yes or no? Sure, that's one way you could say it. What is the definition of a mind? A mind is the thing that does the experiencing and thinking, observing. Right. The mind also is what retains all of these memories and everything. They mean you both can agree with that. So if you got a person's soul and it has a mind and they're conscious and they're going into another body, you know what I mean? Then they should be able to retain all that information. This is important now. If they don't have a mind, okay? If a person loses the ability to remember all these things, then where is your claim about them going to sleep and having dreams about their past life? It's a contradiction in terms. T-Jump was correct in his opening statement. I don't think you understand the way my counter to your argument based on brain injuries derails your whole point.  It's like, well, okay, we're talking about the mind. But a person who suffers a brain injury loses the ability to recall memories. They can lose the ability to perform certain actions. They can need to learn motor skills from scratch. And if this is just what happens with the same body with a slight brain injury, then why would we not have to learn things over again in a new body? See, here's the thing. I don't have a problem with your brain. I don't have a problem with your brain injury argument. But if you're going to make the brain injury argument, then you've got to stop talking about how they had these dreams and they remember everything. Again, we're talking about the serial soul. You've got to connect those two ideas. Hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. One second. One second. Hold on a second. G-Man, hold on a second I'm talking. Is it G-Man, if you're able to pull the mouthpiece just a little bit further away from your mouth, just because it is. I apologize. I'm doing that now. I'm doing that now. Bring it down along your chin line so it gets less. Yeah. So we said that the soul is immaterial. It's definitely, if you can pull it away even further. Okay, doing that now. Is that better? That's better if you talk it that way. Okay, so I'll talk a little bit lower now. Okay. Thank you. So if the soul is the immaterial aspect of the essence of a human being, it's not material. It is immaterial.  Okay, we're talking about the mind. The mind is the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and the experiences to think and to feel the faculty of consciousness and thought. That is what a mind is according to the dictionary. Okay? If that is being transferred into someone else's own body, they should be able to retain all of the life experiences like you guys claim that they have, which is why people are able to dream and remember all of these things. You take that away. That person doesn't have the ability to do those things and you're refuting your own argument. And partly, there's something that is using a lot of false religions. My ears are bleeding. So, Jim, you said that several times, their response was perfectly legitimate. The fact that you can be reincarnated doesn't necessarily entail that you're incarnated with all possible memories. The fact that you assume that's the case doesn't make it true. So your assumption about souls returning all memories isn't actually evidence. It is possible to have reincarnation with partial memories, but Arjuna's refutation actually refutes his own position in a way because if your brain can damage your memories, then it should also damage your past memories too. So there's no reason to think that your memories of language or math are in any way different than your language of past traumas or whatever. And so, unless Arjuna can present some feature of the brain that can actually do this beyond just physical stuff. But that's not my argumentation, though. Hold on a minute, hold on a minute, hold on a minute. It's my argument and I know what I'm doing with it. I do want to give Tom a chance to respond to Arjuna as well, though. So, unless Arjuna can show that there's some mechanism by which these souls can actually retain memories other than physical stuff, then there isn't any reason to believe that is the case. And since we do have nothing but physical stuff evidenced, then it seems more plausible to think that his argument that physical damage can damage the brain would also apply to memories of the past, which would then invalidate his argument just as it does G-man's argument. But that's not my argument, though. See, I'm arguing from the Christian worldview. I'm not arguing from the worldview of materialism. Okay, I'm arguing from a totally different argument, from a totally different perspective, all right? The bottom line is at the end of the day, me and the re-incarnation is Siddharth and Arjuna. We both agree that souls exist. I have no issue with that, okay? We both have an understanding that when our souls leave our bodies, our consciousness goes with that. We both agree with that. But we also agree that our souls retain our memories and our thoughts, okay? If that is not the case, okay, and they're saying that, okay, you got a soul that's filled with trauma and is injured, which is not possible, because there's no way for those two to even measure how a soul could be injured mentally or anything like that, to go into another person's body. You know what I mean? The argument still doesn't make any sense. You know what I mean? So I'm going to ask my question again, okay? If you're saying that a soul leaves a human body, and we're going to keep using a human, because if we use another animal, it just ain't going to make no sense at all. You know what I mean?  Where they remember going to the bathroom one time in their life, or they remember going to the store in their life. No, no, they don't remember blaming bits and pieces. They remember emotionally deep-cutting events. It's the depth of the, as though Sanskrit were to samskara. So impressions, subtle impressions are carried over. The deeper the impression, the more likely it is to be carried over. So it's only these really deep impressions from trauma, which we tend to see being carried over. It's only those cases where we have cases for reincarnation. Like I said, you're trying to pigeon-cold the metaphysics here. So you've got your metaphysics. Your metaphysics don't work for reincarnation. Fine. We're offering a different metaphysics.  That's not my claim that yours. You think that it would be the same mind going from one body to the next. It would also be the same mind going from the uninjured brain to the injured brain.  I can actually go and read to you what you believe about karma and what you believe about reincarnation. It's not a brand new brain. Because if it's a brand new brain, then you don't have the memories of your past life. It is a contradiction in terms. And then I don't want to spend too much time on this. On T-Jump's point, the reason why it's not a problem is because on my understanding, the brain is what gives us access to cognitive abilities. So we do get cases of people remembering things which they previously didn't remember in near-death experiences. So you can hear so many stories of people having near-death experiences where they remembered details from their childhood. They remembered being born. They remembered the first time their father was excited with them. They remember emotionally important events. And these were things that they had no memory of ordinarily. And they only remember them when they're having a life-review in a near-death experience. So we have that as evidence that things that people couldn't remember can be remembered in a non-physical state. Of course, I don't know if Siddhartha has any specific examples where some of those memories are corroborated. But the point is just to show a principle on how it could be possible in a possible meta-physics. What we're arguing for today is evidence for reincarnation, not an entire ontology. We're improving every detail of it. So we have cases. G-Man keeps calling it dreams. We're not talking about dreams. We're talking about, like, in the case of Kum Kum Verma, she remembered it. It's not like somebody saying, I remember, you know, I was killed in New York in the streets. It's like, OK, well, there's 50 people called killed in New York in the streets every month, right? I'm just making this number up. So obviously, if we find a person who somewhat matches a vague statement like that, then it's like, well, they're just imagining things. And they've given a vague enough story in order for us to corroborate it. But Kum Kum Verma described that she remembered that in her previous life, she worked with a hemp. She was describing the fact that her son's name in the life, the fact that he worked with a hammer, her grandson's name, the town her father had lived in, personal details such as having an iron safe at home, a sword hanging near the cot where she slept, and a pet snake that she said milk milk to. Those are really precise details. And we also have them showing special abilities in the form of when they're taken to the place where they allegedly lived in the past life. Once they're in that town, they can walk all the way through the town down the back alleys and find their old home. They can walk into the house and walk all the way around the house and say, that was the bedroom. Oh, they've renovated. They put a wall here. They can call out all these details, which the parents didn't know any of these details. How could the parents have trained the child to know how to navigate that city? How did you know the parents don't know any of those details? Well, they've never been to that town before. How do you know that? Because of the record kept by the neutral persons who was walking along them and finding the persons. Now you can say, how do we know that's correct? Again, we're questioning all these 2,500 cases, all fraud.  You said there were 25 of these third-party cases, right? Well, there are 33 cases, which are third-party cases by the 2,500 cases recorded by Stevenson's team. Right. So there are 33 cases where some third party met a family at some point.  Like, they met the family and there's this kid who has this story. So when the third party meets the family, the kid already has the story. Yeah. So how does the third party not know that the family already was at the city, already brought their kid there, already taught them all this stuff to say about the house? But they haven't yet, nobody, when they go and find that person, previous person, their family, they have not yet heard about the kid. They have not heard about the family and they have not heard about the case. They're hearing for the first time from the third party. We have to take somebody's, you know, or they're saying, and that's how it goes in court.  Can you say that one more time? I wasn't following your order. So the third party meets the family. Yeah. And then the party goes on an investigation and finds and discovers the previous personality which the kid was talking about, discovers it, and then brings the kid and the family to meet the previous person who they were talking about. Yeah. And then Arjuna mentioned that they could walk through the cities and find their home and all that stuff. So yeah. Question was, was how do we know that the parents hadn't already taught this to the kid before the investigation started?  This person is Maggie.  This is a three-year-old kid and you have to act like you're meeting them for the first time. And when we meet them, you know, we're going to walk through the streets. And here on the other side, that family, you have to act as if you have never met before. You know, that's a lot of acting happening for no money to be earned for proving the religious belief to a third person who nobody cares about.  It's everything is possible in Tijam's imaginary world. But you know, this is just talking about practical stuff here. Well, again, all religions start with like no reward. People are just making stuff up for no reason and they don't get any reward. So that's not surprising at all. But so why would that explanation be less plausible than reincarnation? Well, because whenever, you know, you find evidence for say somebody has stolen something and a person comes and says, you know, I have seen this person steal 500 rupees from that corner of the house. And he was wearing these, these pairs of shoes and these pair of cloth. And he did it at this time. And, you know, you go and later find out 500 rupees are missing and the other person is getting the same piece of cloth and shoes. He went and came in that car. You know, that's how you do court cases. You know, in a court, you consider the amount of evidence which is in the favor of person, not lying, but trying to say things truly.  This is the kid who used to recount these things right from his birth and he's doing that for a long time. And we don't know whom he's talking about. Who she's talking about. And he's giving these many details about the clearest person. We don't know what's happening and a person comes and records it and goes and finds that person and then takes the kid later there and verifies everything in front of the kid. And they all align just to make a show for reincarnation or proving the religious belief to their own family members. They're all doing this as a show but they're not earning a penny. They're all doing it as a show. You know, I'm not sure what the kid is getting from all this stuff. Well, like all religions. But so in a court case, testimony is never accepted as evidence of anything that lacks in empirical basis. So miracles, magic, mythical creatures, the paranormal, supernatural UFOs. No amount of testimony is ever going to be evidence of any of those things because it lacks precedent to use the court case terminology. So in a court case, using your own example, everything you just said would be thrown out of a court case. This isn't evidence of anything because you don't have actually anything beyond psychological phenomenon in people which can all be explained by the parents taught it to them. So I don't see how the structure of your argument follows here. Like in the court case, this all gets thrown out. Why is this better normal? Reincarnate, because there's no evidence of anything beyond physical stuff in the brain. That's the integration that's the evidence. No, so like there's no prior evidence, no precedent, no past examples of anything outside of physical stuff in the brain to use as a basis to make your argument in a court case. And so that would not be, you would have to actually establish that before you could say someone had testimony, therefore there is this extra physical thing. Because you're saying that it has never been any evidence for reincarnation. We can never produce any evidence for reincarnation. Is that what you're saying? No, so like because there's no evidence of a non-physical part of the brain, it's supernatural. That's why would this be considered supernatural? Well, that's something, why is it supernatural? How do you define supernatural? It's just a categorization of saying something that doesn't have an empirical basis yet. So there's no empirical basis yet. That's not what supernatural means though. Supernatural is something that science can't really explain. It's more about the court case labels. This is more about the court case label. It's not about actually the ontology here. So how would a court case determine testimony would or would not count as evidence for a phenomenon? It would be if that phenomenon has an empirical basis prior to this event, then it would count as evidence. If it doesn't, then it would not count as evidence. Part of your objection is an accusation of lying because there's a lot of people involved here that are saying we know this person hasn't been to this village before. We know that they weren't told these things.  Then we can do that to anything. How do we know Arthur Eddington actually recorded what he said he recorded and provided evidence for general theory of relativity? Maybe he just wrote it down because it was more exciting to tell people that's what he reported. Because there is an empirical basis for all that stuff. So testimony is reasonable to believe if there's an empirical basis. It's not if there's no empirical basis. That's having a different scale of evidence for things that you already believe in than for things you don't already believe in. I'll say this about the testimonies that people give, you know, their stories about reincarnation. As long as what they're saying makes logical and rational sense, then I would be okay with it. You keep saying that you think it's illogical, but you haven't shown us any way in which it is illogical. I think we have. But I will grant you that if you, I'm being serious, but I will grant you to share something that makes logical sense. I will be willing to accept what you have to say. But basically what you're presenting is, and I'll correct myself from earlier, you're saying that these people are having flashbacks or dreams or whatever regarding them having an emotionally during an emotional important event or whatever, right? This is what you're saying that they're having, right? And you're saying that this is proof of reincarnation. I'm telling you from the Christian, I don't know about the atheist world view, but from the Christian world view, those ideas can be planted in their heads by demons. And this is what Christians actually believe. So I don't know where you're getting that from. Sorry, say that again? If demons can plant memories, then how do I know demons haven't planted my memories of everything prior to last Thursday? I never said they didn't. I never said that. And it depends and it depends on what the memories are. Because we have a Bible for that to tell us what kind of things it would plant into your mind. So all the people that remember seeing Jesus resurrected, maybe demons just planted their memories of seeing Jesus resurrected. That would be a really good argument, sir. We didn't have secular and non-secular evidence for the resurrection. No, no. All of them, the secular and the non-secular, all had their memories lined up with demons. I'm sorry, sir. An atheist lawyer doing an investigation. You don't want to have that discussion with me. Are you sure you know that? Your epistemology doesn't even allow me to know that last week existed. And you want me to believe that Jesus was resurrected. Yes, it does. I'm just telling you we're focusing on these emotionally important events that they supposedly remembered. Okay? And then that's it. It's like little bits and pieces that they remember. I'm telling you that those ideas could have been planted into their heads. Now, you can sit there and laugh at it and think it's funny all you want, but it's a better explanation that you tell me that somebody went to bed and they remember what happened in Julius Caesar's bathroom or whatever when he slipped and fell and hit his head when none of us were there to verify it to see anything like that happens and then you calling it reincarnation. No, it could be a demon that was there that could easily put that into somebody's head to try to push the idea of reincarnation. I know it's funny that you, now refuse what you're saying right now. But you admit that a demon could have planted not a better explanation here. Demon is not a better explanation here. But to clarify... I'm arguing from a... Hold on a minute. I'm arguing from a Christian perspective. I'm not arguing from an atheist perspective.  Anyway, you admit that a demon could have planted all my memories of everything prior to the last series that I think basically destroys your argument. Let's move on. No, it doesn't, but I'll agree to disagree. I'll agree to disagree. Let's go back to jump. You were saying jump that, you know, in case of art, I think you were saying there's an empirical basis to it. Can you explain that? What do you mean by that? Things that have a past empirical basis, like things that have already been shown to not be imaginary that exists. You can say, I saw a dog. That would be reasonable to believe. Anybody's to believe your testimony that you saw a dog because there's past evidence, empirical evidence that shows dogs aren't just a figment of your imagination. But if you said, I saw a unicorn that wouldn't be evidence because we have no evidence that unicorns exist outside of someone's imagination, so their imaginary testimony would not be a sufficient basis to conclude they are. So until you have some... What do you mean by that? What do you mean by that? There's an empirical basis for somebody seeing a dog in the past. Can you explain that? What do you mean by that? So we have their DNA, their phylogeny, the taxonomy, what they're allergic to, how to train them, the physical genetic makeup, their bone structure, their fur skins. We have actual physical empirical data that they exist outside of our imagination. So there is stuff that exists outside of our imagination that shows they exist. So you mean to say, as long as they have a... as long as they have a physical body, it's not... I think empirical is the wrong word to be put there. As long as they have physical body, then you're ready to believe that they exist. Otherwise, they don't exist. It's not about physical body. Because you just said phylogeny, DNA, those are also physical body. Yeah, because those are things we... We only have examples of physical stuff that exist. We have no evidence of non-physical stuff. But if someone casts... If we had Harry Potter as a real thing and people could cast spells, and we knew they could cast spells, and we had a big past history of people casting spells. And then someone said, I saw Voldemort cast a spell and kill somebody. That would work too, because it has a past empirical basis. So it's not about necessarily, it doesn't require physical stuff. It's just that's the only stuff we actually have for past evidence of existing right now. So here we're using empirical in a sense, something which happened in the past a number of times, and demonstrated to not be imaginary in the past. Well, okay, and then how... So how would you establish... Let's say the case of casting a spell. I think that's much closer to our example. So how would you establish in the case of casting a spell that has an empirical basis to it? We've successfully made novel testable predictions in the past. So that means that somebody casts a spell, and before casting a spell, they tell, you know, when I cast a spell, and if that happens, here you go. That this pillar went down. That means the casting of spell work. Is that correct? Yeah, yeah. If you could do that consistently in a large enough basis, yes, that would definitely count. Well, I mean, well, again, large enough to be a very odd number. Even if somebody could do it a few times, that's pretty good for me, but I'm not sure what number you're looking for. It's the number thousand, a million, then you accept it. It depends on the cases. Like if you said, I could generate a gold brick every single time, and you do it 30 times in a row in any condition everywhere across the world, and other people can reproduce it, that's good enough. So if you could give a methodology to... Got it, got it. So in your case, what you're saying is that as long as we can show that reincarnation can be, you know, in some sense, repeated in an experimental setting where a person says, hey, I'm going to reincarnate as this person, and then he's able to do that. And that happens consistently a few times, and is recorded, you know, recorded before and after something like that, then you accept that. A novel prediction. So that would be an example of a novel prediction, but any kind of novel predictions would count. So now, in the case of reincarnation, it's a little difficult because as my friend just shared, usually it's a case of reincarnation where somebody can remember the past life, is the case where people have some trauma.   So it's very difficult. But there has been a couple of cases of reincarnation recorded by Ian Stevenson, specifically this case. I'm trying to remember, it's from Alaska. I'll find you the names later.  And he also told what, you know, what his features would be, and what he would do, you know, that when he takes birth as a son, he will remember his past life, and he will tell you about this. And he did that, and there's a, you know, a good record for that. But again, in case of reincarnation, it's difficult in some sense to record testimony, because as we go forward in the modern world, there's technology, there's social media, and it's becoming more and more difficult to maintain privacy, which is important in order to make the case, in order to make a strong case, because you can always look up things online, and you can always make a case, you know, this person may have looked up the details of the other person online, or this parent may have looked up a case of the other person online. But we do have a good case to be made in the case of mediumship. That's why I shared that evidence also in the beginning, where let me repeat the experiments that I've again, quickly in 30 seconds, that you have a medium, you have a sitter, and you have an experimenter. He tells the name of a person who has deceased in his life, it's just a name itself, but the sitter doesn't know who he's giving the name to. The medium comes to know about the name only, and he or she gives a reading. Now that reading is duplicated by some third party, third party, like some other person, and it's changed up with other bunch of stuff, and those two readings are given to one, the original one coming from the medium, and the second, the decoy one coming from the medium, and it's also given to the sitter to rate whether any of them meet the details of the previous personality he was asking about. And these details are not just details like, you know, he was a happy guy or a slow guy, very concrete, quantitative details. And Wienberg Research Center led by Dr. Julia has followed research on this, and they did this experiment with a bunch of 33 mediums, they did 60 cases each time, and they repeated the experiment number of times, number of other people also repeated the experiment, and in each of these cases, they found significant evidence that the mediums were able to share details of the previous personality or the disconnate person, you know, much more significantly than the baseline. So in this case, you have an experiment setup. Well, then they should have won the James Randy Challenge $1 million, but they didn't probably fake. What is the James Randy Challenge? The James Randy Challenge is an offer for a million dollars for anybody who can demonstrate any kind of reincarnation, supernatural, anything, and they'll give you a million dollars. So if that had actually worked, they would have won a million dollars. So it's not the post has changed. Previously the post was to make a case, an empirical case. Now you're saying the case is that we win James Randy Challenge $1 million. You can make up a story that sounds nice, but there's nothing to actually verify it. It failed every single scientific test. I tell stories and you tell facts. That's correct. This is a published paper done by researchers where they controlled it and other researchers said they used good method. The fact that it hasn't run some prize from the Randy organization, that's like an argument from authority. If it were true, then they would have received a million dollars from this organization. That's fair. So I didn't literally mean it had to win that specific challenge. The argument here is that if it did discover some entirely new ontology, you would have won a Nobel Prize. You would have had extremely well anointed by all kinds of scientists. It fails because it just can't do that. Can't be replicated. Doesn't work. All those subsequent tests fail. It has never been shown to the case. It has been updated by another group of researchers from Paris. I can give you the name of the scholars too. Now the question is, now we are going in a different realm. So the first argument was can we make an empirical case of the presented data? Now you're saying I haven't changed anything. I haven't changed anything. Now you're saying it should convince everybody or majority of scientists. That's what you're saying. You can't convince them you don't have an empirical basis. The fact that you make up a story isn't an empirical basis. They repeat it. I can give you the name of the scholars. So tell the experts in the field convince the experts win an Nobel Prize and they'll be like, yep, you're right. Your argument is a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific paradigms and how people operate according to a paradigm and their skepticism is far higher towards things that don't fit the paradigm. One day the paradigm shifts. It was rejected so badly that the person who proposed it ended up with mental illness because of how badly they were treated. Now it's widely accepted, but it didn't cotton on very quickly. That's because a religious dogma doesn't exist now. So now if you present it and you can demonstrate it, you win. No one cares. That stigma doesn't exist. People didn't stop being religious just because they gave up religion. People are just religious about different things. Have a look at the left in America right now. They're just as religious without religion. I think it's a traumatized soul. That's all I want to know. There's no conspiracy or bias in science. If you had demonstrated it, they wouldn't reject it on bias. So that's just a, what is it? Paranoia? Well, conspiracy theory in science. No, it's just your information is bad. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a dialectical response to what you said. What exactly is a traumatized mind when somebody's not alive no more? The trauma leaves an impression on the soul. Just like anything leaves an impression on the soul. The trauma is just a... Show how. That's what the evidence of people who remember past lives and have birthmarks. No, that's the claim. That's the claim. Prove that it's soul. Prove that it's soul. What would evidence look like? Prove that souls can be traumatized to the point that they lose all of their memories when they're dead and they're transferring from one body to another. And better yet, because I know... Me and T-Jump hasn't talked about this yet.  Do you have any evidence for that? We're not claiming to have evidence for that. We're just saying there's some amount of evidence for reincarnation. We've given very specific examples. We're not... So you never heard of a testimony of somebody having a dream about sniffing another dog's heart? Yeah, there are people who remember past lives as animals that is there. But we're not making a case for that today. We're not claiming to have strong evidence for that. We're claiming to have evidence for reincarnation. So how do you know that a soul can be traumatized? We're both... So how do you know that a soul can be traumatized to the point that they lose all of their memories? We as Christians, we believe that when a person dies, all of their memories, everything that they are, goes and stands before Almighty God. Yeah, well, that's your belief. We're talking about evidence here today. I understand that. Where is your evidence? That's what I want to know. The evidence is the cases we presented of people who have memories and accuracy in birth marks and behaviors and emotions which match a previous life. No. Those things are presupposed as being in previous lives. There's no proof that they came from previous lives. We're not claiming... Okay, so where's the evidence then? Where is it? So when you have somebody who remembers the past life of somebody who died with a bullet wound, they have emotions that match the person. They have a grudge with somebody who owed the money. They have a grudge with the... In one case, the person tried to kill when they were young, the person who killed them in the previous life. The emotions match the previous life. If I can be honest, I had a dream... And they know detailed information about this life that they couldn't have known otherwise. This is the kind of evidence... I had a dream that I went into the black lion to form Voltron. It doesn't mean that I was part of the Voltron Force. Or I lived the life of a person that was part of the Voltron Force. It doesn't mean that I... Because I had a dream that I was Freddie Krueger that one day, in the past life, I was Robert England going for the role of a nightmare. You're strawmaning the evidence. Can you respond to the actual evidence that we're presenting? You're not presenting any evidence. You're making a claim. That's what you're doing. There's nothing for me to reply to. There's no proof of reincarnation. You need to submit it. It's a faith-based claim that these people are having these dreams. You believe that they're sharing their emotionally important events that happened in the past life and you're calling it reincarnation. You know what I'm calling it? I'm calling it a bad observation. A bad explanation for what they're talking about. You have actual evidence that can be measured. That can be shown over and over and over again that would prove that reincarnation is actually true. I'm not following GMet here. You're not supposed to follow me. This is a theist-to-theist discussion here. I'm just trying to ask him to give me the evidence there. I don't want you answering for him. I want him to answer himself. I want him to answer. James, I want him to answer my question. I just want him to answer my question. I'd like to comment here. I would like for him to answer the question and not you. How about we, given that the question was directed toward Arjuna, why don't we give Arjuna a chance to respond first and then Tom, if you want to add to that, you're welcome to. All right, so G-Man is just flat-shoremaning our evidence repeatedly over and over again. He's almost not even worth replying to. I found the numbers that I mentioned to my opening. Steve and Stevenson did his research. He broke up a human body into 160 equal-sized coolwares with a grid so that he could give statistical probabilities to the chances of the birthmarks corresponding to wounds on the body of the deceased individual. So the chance of having a single birthmark corresponding to a wound on the previous individual is one in 160. When you have a bullet entry and exit wound, it becomes one in 160 times one in 160, so the chances become one in 25,000. And we're not just talking about going all over the globe and finding any one person who has any bullet wounds which correspond to this individual. We're talking about someone who has emotions and memories which correspond to details of an individual who's already been identified. So we've already narrowed it down at this point. Okay, so one of those numbers are absolutely wrong. The 160 times 160 is false. We're talking that a bullet entry wound could then exit at any of the other 160 locations in the body which is obviously false. If you have a bullet entry wound at your head, it's not going to exit at your toe. So the stats there are just obviously false. You wouldn't times 160 by 160 there. But, I mean, yes, what you guys... I'm with the bullet, but we're talking about the birthmark. The birthmark can be literally anywhere. No, no, no. Remember, there's a bullet entry wound and a bullet exit wound. So if the bullet entry wound matches, there would be a one in 160 chance. And then if the bullet exit wound matches, you set the number to calculate that would just be another times 160, but that would be false because you wouldn't have the bullet wound... The bullet wound couldn't exit at any of the other points in the body. There's a specific amount that they could potentially exit from and so it wouldn't actually be 160 times 160. The math there would just be wrong. But I do want to say that, yes, what you guys are presenting would be evidence if it could be corroborated absolutely, that if you could show that kids gained information that couldn't have been gained in any other way that would count as evidence. The problem is that all the information you present can be gained in other ways that are far simpler. Well, there are simpler, but if the person, the family goes by, they're far simpler. It was a kid who was not more than three years old. It was simpler if the kid is asked to identify persons of other family. They're far simpler if the kid was not asked to show the emotions. So for all these different reasons, whether it be behavior, the persons, the location, the distances, and the image leading up to it, we are asking the three-year-old kid to be as smart as an adult. Even as an adult, I would fail to exactly replicate what we would have been asked by a three-year-old kid because I had lived that life in the past myself. So, going back to the point, I presented you another set of evidence which has been done in the experimental lab. And you pointed that you would accept an evidence only when it is accepted by whenever it can win the Nobel Prize. If that's your standard of how research should be done, then practically every paper which is published, if it's a Nobel paper, they all have to win Nobel Prizes. I guess we should start a Nobel Prize committee with an extraordinary claim. No, that's not the only thing required is that you have to get the consensus of experts in the field to accept your work. The people who are qualified to assess whether or not what you're saying is true have to say, yes, it's true. And that has not occurred. Who are experts in the field of reincarnation? The scientists are experts. The people who publish in fields regarding psychology, neurology, biology, any scientific field that shows this is not a thing. So could this be explained by psychology? Yes. Could it be explained by fraud? Yes. They would all have to look at the information and you have to publish in those fields and be like, yeah, these are not better explained by these other things. You mentioned that it would be easier if you made the kids not have adult level skills. Again, there are Asian kids who can play violin better than most adults. This is not a terribly hard thing to explain. But yeah, so you would need to actually convince the experts of actual science that this is a real thing and not just... Well, as you whisper, you said psychology. So in the field of psychology, this is already an established understanding that whether it be out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, or a mediumship, it's something which they accept as something which they can't explain. They don't claim that it's all fraud. That's not the opinion of the majority understanding. Right, absolutely. It's totally true. Just like... Wait, wait, wait, wait. I didn't finish. I didn't finish.  That's not the opinion. So in psychology, it can be explained as being a known psychological feature. We don't know exactly which psychological feature, but psychological features can explain every single one of the points of data. Just like a UFO can be explained by lots of different things. It can be explained by a plane. Did we know for sure it was a plane? No. So all of the features you explained are known psychological phenomenon. Do we know particularly which exact phenomenon occurred in that case? No. That's why it's considered unknown. So none of the consensus in psychology does not agree that near-death experiences or reincarnation actually occur. They explain that, well, we don't know exactly what's going on there, just like we don't know the origin of life. But yeah, the consensus is it's natural. Well, the consensus is that there is no current understanding, but can we say that it's unnatural? Well, we cannot say because we can never rule out all the natural causes. So given the definition which you give it to supernatural, that creates a problem. You're saying since everything is natural, there can never be any supernatural, so a case can never be made for a supernatural case. And that's what you're saying indirectly. You're saying that because the psychologists are saying that we don't have a natural explanation for it, and since in the past we haven't ever used a non-natural explanation for anything, that means in the future, we don't need to use any non-natural explanation for it. That means, you know, in the future we may be able to provide an explanation for it. So forget about all this evidence. No, it just requires that you present novel testable predictions like every novel thing admitted into any scientific field. So if you could read the novel testable predictions, which you said can't be done for reincarnation because like all things that it can't be done for, it's probably just imaginary and not real. That's why I bought the case of I bought the case of medianship because that has been done in experimental lab and it's novel predictable predictions there. Okay, so demonstrate it to the consensus of field and psychology and actual science then they accept it. It's published in the field of psychology. Publish doesn't mean accepted by the consensus. Publish means published. So there's lots of things that are published that are not accepted by the consensus. What is the criteria for you to accept something? The scholars who are publishing who are psychologists themselves who are belonging to different schools in different parts of the world and they're publishing it regularly and they're doing this experiment regularly. I'm asking you, what is the problem with the experimental setup? You don't have a problem. I'm asking you are the scholars... No, I explain this. So the criteria is you have to convince the other experts in the field who are qualified to assess your study. Like I am not qualified to assess your study. I can't read the study and know what's right or wrong with it. The experts in the field can. You need to convince them. If you convince them, then I'll accept it.  It's not going to convince me that your study is perfect. They accept it. No, they don't. They accept it's a published paper. It is not convinced anybody. The majority of the consensus of experts says it's a complete bunk. Show me that. Who says that? Mediumship research done by Winbuck Research Center is bunk. Show me that. The conclusion is bunk. No, no. Show me that. What is that? Yes, there's an interview I have with several different psychologists on this topic. What are they saying? That is bunk. That there's no such evidence of any such thing of reincarnation. Nothing experiences all junk. I just said mediumship experiment conducted by Winbuck Research Center by Julia Bechel. All research done in the field is bunk. All of it. I didn't say all. I said experiments of mediumship done in experimental lab. Blind settings. I covered that. If all of it is junk and none of it convinces the consensus, that means every single individual example does not convince the consensus. In the case of the scholars, they are omniscient. They know everything they are talking about. I'm pulling up an interview with a scholar who is saying everything is bunk and I take it for granted. That's not how it works. The people who are experts in the field are experts in the field, yes. They are up to date on all the most recent research in the field. They are aware of the research done in the field and show, yeah, this doesn't work. The fields of science have become so huge that in this modern day you really can't claim that a psychologist knows everything or everything else. That was the case. When you go to a doctor in a hospital and you are showing them some ailment, they say, go to an expert. They can also say, I'm not an expert in this field, I'm an expert in this field. You go to this specific field in the field. So to call an expert in the field of psychologists who are saying that all the other experiences on the out-of-body experience are all false, they are all corrupt and I'm an authority and I know what all the evidence, all the research is happening in this field and it's all bunk. That's it, that's my statement I understand. Science is not such a field where you have consensus on everything on each and every topic. These are fields of science which are currently developing. People are trying to understand it. They are trying to understand why mediums are able to produce such findings. They are trying to understand why was this experimental result why we had this result in the experiment. So instead of being close-minded, hey, everything is bunk, everything non-natural is bunk but being open and trying to understand why this happened, how this happened and trying to understand it better that's how the scientists are moving forward but they're not like close-minded and just saying hey an expert says it's fault everything else is corrupt everything else to be thrown out. So I agree with most of what you said that the problem is that we know a better explanation for that which is psychological priming which is why James Randi can replicate all the results by being just a fake magician but he hasn't done anything towards this reincarnation research to my knowledge. All of it can be replicated by those things. He hired two of his students to go in and fake the mediumship and psychic stuff in front of the scientists to prove the point that they can be faked in front of scientists in the same way that is done by the studies. So the study that Siddharth has quoted that one couldn't be faked. Yes, okay. Literally any study can be faked. So you can find methodological flaws in these studies. Okay, tell me what's the point. I have to look at the study. Again, you need to ask the people who are experts in the field who are qualified to do this. You need to convince them. Maybe we can do this again and we can go into the actual studies. We'd actually email James with the cases we were planning on presenting in hopes that you guys could have an opportunity to prepare them. I'm still going to give you the same answer. You need to convince the experts in the field who are qualified to evaluate this and replicate the studies. So I've got two responses to that. One is I've got two quotes here that are very sensitive from experts in the field. So the Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed one of Dr. N. Stevenson's books in 1975 and stated that in regard to reincarnation, he has painstakingly and unemotionally collected a detailed series of cases in which the evidence is difficult to explain on any other grounds. An additional, Carl Sagan, the late astronomer was very skeptical of non-mainstream work but wrote, there are three claims in the parapsychology field that opinion deserves serious study. But the third being that young children sometimes report details of a previous life which upon checking turn out to be accurate in which they could not have known in any other way than reincarnation. And the other point is I can present a plausible hypothesis that religious people aren't the only people who are religious. Scientists also have views which they like to believe which they hold strongly, which they're skeptical about evidence against which they hold different standards when viewing evidence against their views so this isn't a conspiracy theory. This is just human nature. People tend to conformation bias group think their careers are also dependent on them towing party lines. If somebody comes out and says they don't believe in evolution they can lose their job at a university for example but there's a lot on the line if you can argue for what people want you to argue for you get promotions, you get grants and so on there's so many factors at play so I'm not saying that I need to prove this I just need to say this is a plausible hypothesis and then the debate becomes let's look at the actual evidence. So it's not a plausible hypothesis. You can say that but you have to demonstrate. I did. Everything you said is more plausibly explained by their parents psychologically manipulated them and the studies were manipulated. What I'm saying is a plausible hypothesis is that scientists can have some degree of bias or there's pressures on them which cause them to say certain things or have certain opinions but that's not a plausible explanation. So again if there's a better explanation because if there's a better explanation for literally all of the data points you said which is very obvious and known to everyone by everything like oh look there's a print in the snow is it a horse? Yeah it's a horse. So if there's a more plausible explanation which has a ton of backing evidence that already exists then it's plausible to reject it not based on bias but based on yeah we have past evidence that this is the better explanation. But the way we answer that is by looking at the actual evidence. The hypothesis that scientists can be wrong for sociological reasons or psychological reasons is a plausible hypothesis. This is never a good argument. All I'm doing I'm just using it in a dialectical sense in order to respond to you saying we need to meet a certain goal post that you set. I'm saying we don't need to meet that goal post we just need to look at the actual evidence of the case we're presenting. If your hypothesis is true then we should be able to find errors with the cases we presented flaws in the methodology you know fraud problems with the evidence we should be able to find that if your hypothesis is true. If we don't find any errors with the evidence we're presenting then and you just want to say oh but you haven't convinced the scientific consensus then I then my hypothesis that my positive that the hypothesis scientific consensus can be subject to groups psychological biases and psychological. So if I provide you a paper in quantum mechanics and you can't find this one does that mean it's right? No you're not qualified to assess the paper. You need to give the paper to the people who are qualified to assess the paper and convince them what we what we do on the stage means nothing we don't matter you need to convince the experts in the field and if you can't do that that's a good reason to conclude you're wrong not bias on the experts you're just wrong. So quantum physics is a very different thing from you know memories and you know the controls on how those memories are recorded and how the data is collected to see if those memories correspond to a previous personality who existed. So if you want to say that we need to you need to be an expert in order to critique the research then you need to demonstrate that the subject matter is unintelligible to regular people. So can you demonstrate quantum physics you can very easily demonstrate that quantum physics is unintelligible to a lay person can you demonstrate that the research of Dr. Ian Stevenson is unintelligible. What matters is can you assess the data and know enough about the background information of how studies are done and how to make them reliable and how p-testing is done or p-statistic is done and how to make them reliable you don't know that you don't know that I don't know that it's very complicated to know the methodology to make sure a study is actually rigorous and works you aren't qualified to do that I'm not scientists are you need to make them do the work you need to convince the experts whether or not you can understand it makes no difference you need to be able to know all the background information to make a reliable study and to be able to repeat it you and me don't have that I'm going to take that one Siddharth G-man do you have any thoughts as well I said everything I'm going to say T-Jump pretty much dominated the thing so I mean it's all good they haven't answered none of my questions so I'm just waiting for them to deal with what I said Surely we're going to Q&A but we'll give you a chance to respond Siddharth Thank you So T-Jump is making a point that you know in order to accept any evidence we need to convince the majority of an opinion in regards to evidence that's how we can say in some sense scientific contributions are made that first of all there's a group of people who make an extraordinary order claim and it's accepted by a bunch of researchers and all the time if that holds more value or more explanation than the current paradigm and that new paradigm starts holding its base and all the time it spreads over and it becomes in a majority opinion Now let's see can a non-natural explanation really become the majority opinion let's see in the case of in the past in the 17th century when the scholars were coming together and they were saying that the earth is the one which is moving around the sun not the other way the Christian rulers who were the Christian priests at that time they're objecting it and anybody who made a claim against such a statement was shot down So is it possible that we can see a similar behavior right now because in some sense the scientists come in the cheek with this experiment with this data because in any case any non-natural explanation comes around and our non-natural paradigm starts getting hold that would destroy the current scientific paradigm So is there some sociological basis to scientists not accepting such an experiment which has done such a formal manner and so many cases such as in such a formal manner do they have any sociological bias to not accept such an evidence yes there's a strong case to be made so do I see that in future a majority of scientists accepting this evidence I don't I don't expect it because currently as I've pointed out there's a huge sociological bias amongst the scientists to not accept anything non-natural and because they have that motive I don't see that a majority of scientists accepting such a position but the open-minded scientists as I've pointed out are interested in studying this and they're open to this idea of knowing this but I'm sorry to say most of the scientists are not in an open-minded case so they have a bias there and because of that I don't expect them to accept these set of experiments all are done in an amazing manner all the evidence presented for reincarnation which has been thoroughly documented in 2500 cases and continues to be documented further with that we will jump into the Q&A also want to let you know folks several things one in particular we are going to start doing panels in particular 6 to 8 people on the show at a time and so if you happen to love debating or if you have a channel that you want to get greater exposure in other words more awareness that people would hear about it just like I can say tonight all of our guests are linked in the description so if you want to check out other links you certainly can I want to let you know about these panels they're coming soon and so I want to let you know I'm going to post shortly the link for how you can sign up for those panels sometimes we'll have panels on politics sometimes we'll have panels on religion and atheism topics and it will probably be two or three topics at a time and basically you could say it's a great opportunity for newcomers who want to get on the show for the first time just to say kind of a test in terms of whether or not it's a good fit so that's something to keep in mind as well so with that thanks so much for your question Lover Man Cowboy says so under reincarnation do you keep the same personality traits so like if you defend child abusers when reincarnated would you still defend child abusers like after you're reincarnated and brought back so general mentality and attitudes are carried over it's all the subtle things about a person so if somebody's you know got some kind of addiction in one life you know like an alcoholic as a good chance of being an alcoholic in the next life and a saintly person will carry their saintly qualities with them into the next life but you know the sort of skills that you build on top of that you will need to recover back again so if you have an attitude for success then you're likely to succeed in the next life but you're still going to have to build up your success from scratch you got it and thanks so much very much for this question dragnoc sylvis says can g-man summarize his opponent's arguments g-man what do you think sidarth and arjuna would say if you were going to give a gist type of summary i cannot answer that question i have a contract video against them legal stuff and i don't want nothing to do with the individual save this one coming in from indigo butterfly 2007 says g-man looking cute in his fit what is fit what does that mean g-man i don't know indigo butterfly strikes again saying hey g-man what was their main argument and evidence also thanks again for let's see the money in ipod love you i have a contract video against indigo too so i can't really say anything about it next up displace gaver any contracts displace gaver says is knowledge imprinted on the soul or is it stored in the brain if soul how does this function work well you get there's subtle and gross so on the gross level you get lots of things stored there and then on the subtle level you get the more subtle aspect stored there so a degree of knowledge is stored in the brain but then of course with near-death experience there's a lot of that you come back i mean you get like what is it eban alexander who had like completely destroyed and came back and had full cognitive functions so i think more what it is is that the physical brain is an instantiation of it like a gross thing that's formed so the subtle energy forms the gross do you want to comment on that Siddharth well according to the Vedas which we didn't bring in the model what they present is that there is a soul which has a covering of subtle body and then there's a covering of gross body and the soul is a source of all the initiation it gives all the energy and the subtle body provides the programs and then the gross body provides further instances as i was just pointing out so once the gross body is destroyed according to the Vedas the subtle body can again regenerate the parts of the gross body if need be but that only happens in special cases where there are cases but the point being that the subtle body is storing very you can say high level paradigms or high level programming codes there whereas the gross body is storing something very day to day information and data and stuff like that in some cases when as we saw when there is trauma somehow the subtle body is also able to collect data from the gross and use that initiation and again begin from that place again it's a complex subject matter I mean you are inviting to study there is a book called Patanjali Yoga Sutras which discusses in detail and if you are interested in that subject I highly recommend that also another book is Srimad Bahamatham you can find that on the website called Vedabase.com and you can read up there Kando 3 discusses body subtle body and gross body so Vedabase.com Srimad Bhagavatam that's the book thank you very much we are going to jump into this next question which is from I'm Sao Wee Wilson says are those REV's headphones who is REV I don't know who he is and I don't know what he is talking about to be perfectly honest to hell with REV alright next one snake was right thanks for your question says if you don't retain memories or identity how is the soul still you also explain the mechanisms involved if you can well the simplest way of defining you would be a continuous first person experience so if it's the same you that's having the experience in this life and in the next life then it would be you whatever else is carried over is not so important the soul is said to have an identity a spiritual identity which is covered over none of these identities that we have in any of these bodies is actually who we really are it's just a dressing that we put on so the fact that we lose a dressing and take on a different one you know if I get into one out of one car and into a different vehicle I haven't changed who I am I've just changed the vehicles you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from snake was right says if you don't retain memories or identity how is the soul still no we got that one sorry MO thanks for your super chat which was deleted do not attack the guest attack the arguments folks troll toll says pay the troll toll to get the boys soul that sounds weird is that one of your buddies Tom next up the next one by the the biologist bum thanks for your question says what happens when the sun burns out in five billion years and life on earth is extinct where do our souls go then you want to ask this yeah so explained that there's a certain realm known as maha Vishnu and that's not around the souls go for like a sleep like you know a period of our dormant period our dormancy for next 1313 billion years and sorry no eight billion years and then they come back and they're giving another body and the cycle starts again you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from nick james says g-man are you being a miso theist to a god who does reincarnations of the souls hashtag g-man the miso theist I don't understand the question yeah what is a miso theist g-man I have no idea okay I have no idea next up get stanfield says given the fact there is no clear cut definition of life nor consciousness at the moment do the proponents of reincarnation think it's possible to quote unquote come back as algae or a virus why or why not you want to come into that um we don't have a you know a common understanding of life or consciousness but we do have an underlying understanding of life and consciousness we talk about life you are alive I'm alive are you alive I think you are alive so you know um based on that common understanding we can talk about you know coming back also because if somebody is alive he can recall things about his life he can recall who he is he can tell where does he live who are his family members what does he do and if somebody if a kid is born and at a young age he's able to recall things like this then we can use the word coming back so I don't see any problem with that and I agree we should look into this topic of what is life what is consciousness these are good questions and I'm glad we're thinking about those questions you got it revenues radio says if reincarnation is true then you might be able to beat dragnacht in a future life um Tom do you have some sort of beef with dragnacht alright Farron Salas says for the sake of the debate the idea of a quote unquote soul is granted but we can substantiate that we even have but we can't substantiate that we even have souls just a friendly PSA we can hear your candy Gina I found it what Mr. Theism is it's the hatred of God actually I got the answer to the question I was asked earlier my indigo she was asking me about and I just want to show her this I know she doesn't have none of it so I'm just going to show her this real quick rephrase their argument alright let's keep your personal squabbles out of this let's go ahead to Arthur Arjuna if you want to respond while g-man shows off the Benjamins yeah something she doesn't have I was asking Mr. Theism you were saying oh sorry yeah I found the definition of Mr. Theism it's the hatred of God or hatred of gods was that last one a question that sounded like a comment yeah more of a comment agreed if you want to respond you can I want to one thing in regards to the point we made earlier about being Mr. Theism I think as a practitioner of Krishna consciousness or Hare Krishna I'm not opposed to Christianity or other religions I feel that g-man doesn't really understand the principles which we were speaking from and he feels that in some sense we are against his principles or his Theism but as such we have the opinion that there is one God and he has many names and he comes in different parts of the world so can I respond to that can I respond to that so I don't have any hatred for g-man all of us and I think he has to have a little broader outlook towards what we're trying to present here I would like to respond to that you said that were you a Hindu? I practice Hare Krishna it's not a Hinduism I don't believe that you believe in only one God I believe that you believe in multiple gods I don't believe in multiple gods at least I can say what I believe in or you want to be having authority on that too this one coming in from somewhere don't worry I'll have something to say about it later don't worry about it and I'll see you in the parking lot afterwards I got a YouTube channel and I had to bump this garbage Georgetown today Juicy Don, Volman says g-man wouldn't Jesus have been considered reincarnated since he became a different version of his past self after the resurrection no it's not even close to what happened that's my answer for that that's just dumb that's just dumb that's not even remotely close to what it is okay root facts podcast says g-man only speaks for his version of Christianity what is my version of Christianity that's what I like to know everybody like to know what my version of Christianity is I keep hearing that but I don't know what it is it's just about everybody has sound doctrine leaves it displace gamer says even James next up displace gamer says g-man made great points on how God doesn't exist you know your audience is just phenomenal James I get dumber every time I come on this show and talk to your audience your audience is just so dumb that's not even funny anyway let's continue well to be fair not g-man there are a lot of people that are actually not you could say g-man haters and there are also even people in the audience who are I saw cheering you on g-man so you can't paint with such broad brush strokes yeah yeah I'm talking about the people that are leaving the comments obviously the people that are leaving asking me about this that and the other their laws you got it, Larry Dore's Muslim stepdad says if it's not serious I don't even want to hear it wait is that is Larry Dore like one of your friends I don't even want to hear it if it's not serious if they think I have nothing to say about the debate I'm not even answering I'm just going to troll them hold on it needs to be very serious g-man just let me read this and you can let me know if you think it's serious this one coming in from Larry Dore's Muslim stepdad says don't make me spank you like your sister g-man sorry g-man we know that you didn't spank anybody okay they also said g-man not paying attention is why he got beat I gotta say g-man I've never had a debater I hate to give you your third degree here ganging up on you I've never had a debater who in the live chat of his own debate said the debate is boring I think but well we'll give you a chance to respond g-man yeah basically it was one person talking and I would just sit here listening and I would listen to the same old actually can I get about three minutes to respond to this if you don't mind yeah I'm used to debating against atheists to the two people who were debating if you would have just said you know that sciences can't explain everything you would have killed this guy I don't know why you guys didn't say that to him you guys should have said that there are other ways of going about proving that things are true and you guys kept going with the science so you know if I was on your side that he would have abandoned that science not since a long time ago the moment I would have brought up scientism or whatever so the bottom line is is that well I do actually hate atheists and honestly I wouldn't have been talking as long as you guys would have been I just wouldn't I would have pre-stopped him that's what I would have did and then it had been over this one coming in from Stanley Williams by the way folks in all seriousness g-man are you still interested in a debate with I could have sworn I actually had a fellow I want to debate with t-jump I want to debate with t-jump or whether or not God exists that's what I want I want to debate with him whether or not God exists and I want him to try that scientism nonsense with me I would love to do that set that up for next week please Stanley Williams 19,000 K says can g-man steel man as opponents arguments no he cannot can g-man do what? steel man in other words represent Arjuna and Siddharth's arguments yes I can but I'm not going to do it I have a girlfriend but she's in Canada why is it g-man what if we we give you just like a few even if it's in a few sentences no I can do it but I'm not going to do it that's my answer general Zonfer says under reincarnation if you were a closeted man with bad fashion habits Steven Steen would you come back as out, proud and stylish next up thanks for your show I was the only one that took that one seriously Chris Gavin says I'm sorry Arjuna are you saying that your current self isn't your real self and that you used to be someone else who also wasn't you I don't know man and I don't think that it's that absurd of a concept I mean the fact that we are these bodies is really the absurd thing as funny as funny sometimes somebody is giving a Hare Krishna lecture and there's like some people who are overweight there and they hear oh you're not the body and they're quite relieved so the idea that we have a spiritual identity which is far greater than the one we have in this life is better my kids are waiting to go to the beach you got it Ann we only have several more questions we're going to cruise through these Stanley Williams 19 K says g-man was the resurrection not reincarnation no the resurrection is not reincarnation reincarnation is when when one person dies and their soul goes to be in another body that's reincarnation that was the resurrection it gets confused a lot the Hebrew it's like do that a lot it's a matter of false religions use reincarnation all the time so no it was a resurrection he rose from the dead it's not reincarnation not even close Magellan from Singapore says g-man can you roll back the toxic attitude g-man do you think you were toxic do I think I'm toxic that you were tonight I think that I'm dope that's what I think I am based in dope build someone taught me what a sad boy is my students taught me what a sad boy is in class the other day we'll come back to that Aaron the savage sister says question for the panel is a contract viable if it's legally if it's not binding in any state or country I like to answer that question provided that the answer this question do atheists exist that's all I want to know do they exist yes or no yes and are they interested in little kids and do we have evidence for that ooh that's what we need to worry about right there not as much as Catholics and Christians well this is one dude named scientist Sam let's say this debate has been civil while it was civil for a while oh please don't oh no no no stop stop I just don't want to get our first strike we don't have to go there okay this one coming in from Karag Nightwolf we'll talk about we'll use groups of that later all right Karag Nightwolf says I'd rather reincarnation be true than Christianity I don't know who answers God don't surprise me it's pretty consistent with Scripture anybody who doesn't believe in Jesus is eventually going to believe that anyway so don't figure Me and a friend are working on an academic paper where we argue that reincarnation is a better form of purgatory and theology than the idea that you know and then in journalism where after this body that's it wrong or that you know the Christian universalism which we can't make sense of because where you know if you're not perfect after you leave this body where you're going to go you're just going to go straight to heaven you're going to go to another kind of purgatory anyway anyway David Anthony you need to listen to that one because that was directed towards you anyway then all of G-man's enemies out there and bubble gum guns as G-man I'm a polytheist would you want to debate me no next you heard it correct night wolf says we got that one buddy from the outside chat says can G-man give an example of an analogy what do you even finish a G-man I'm trying to have fun no I want my answers to them it's going to be no and it's going to be something weird so no alright Magellan says oh goodness says G-man needs to be booted he's just getting worse now G-man came in about two maybe one or two questions ago and G-man I would love for James to give me a million dollars James boot me man give me a million bucks give me a million bucks is that the new cool way of saying booted means giving a million bucks yeah it means you pay me that's what it means you pay me means I should get booted I totally agree with you I definitely will take that payment that really is like the slang no I'm serious that is the new slang go to the hood you'll hear all about it man booted means you gotta pay me is it like sad boy it's like brand new it's hot off the press have you guys heard about what sad boy is okay sad boy that is an interesting thing you know it's sad boy is sad boy means oh yeah sad boy he be busting a rhyme like crazy man you gotta hear this new diss track sad boy made about miss parker man all kinds of wonderful adjectives are going to be used about her okay last one thanks for your question buddy from the outside chat says g-man did you thank Rev for the headset I'm sure you did g-man's always polite and also thank you Rev thank you revelation news for these headsets man thank you thank you thank you thank you anyways let's go that's any of buddies of the outside anyway thank you buddy for reminding me for giving permission for rev for these and thank you Rev I mean thank you you got it and thank you very much we got to let these guys go as what time is it they're in sirth and Arjuna what time is it in each of your locations Michigan you're here in Michigan sirth yeah 1130 ESD and Arjuna where are you it's 3 30 p.m. in Oakland New Zealand can I say one more thing James if you don't mind earlier I asked some questions and I said I didn't know that's called trolling because I know what you guys are going to try to do that with later it's trolling so I just want to let you know that I know what a misotheist is I guess I can explain what these people's argument was but I'm not going to do it because you guys don't care if I can do it or not I care a misotheist is someone that hates God an anti-theist like yourself is somebody that hates religion but you qualify for misotheism and anti-theism you got it I'm referring to t-jump by the way not the other people in here t-jumps the only atheists in the room so you got it juicy to say the least and also want to say folks our guests are linked in the description our vision here is to provide a neutral platform so that everybody has their chance to make their case on a level playing field so I want to encourage you hey can I promote my youtube channel please can I promote my youtube channel thank you everybody is here I want everybody to go and subscribe to gtv I got the dopest dish track in the world that I'm uploading tomorrow and it is directed to where it says Jezebel named Miss Parker you got it check it out yo this woman is going to get own school and everything else in the book alright the feuds never end so yes that is linked in the description down below with that we are going to I'll be back in a moment with updates on upcoming debates this one we just finalized today at the bottom right of your screen folks human rights versus Sharia law which should we have Muslim versus atheist it's going to be a massive one that's later this month so hey folks hit that subscribe button if you haven't already and with that I will be back in just a moment to let you know about other upcoming debates and I forgot to mention our guests aren't just linked here Siddharth and Arjuna and Tom and G-man are also linked in the description box for the podcast so you can check out their links there as well and I'll be right back in just a moment thanks so much G-man Tom Siddharth and Arjuna it's been a true pleasure thank you everybody thank you Jim thank you G-man yeah no problem we'll be back in just a moment