Good evening everybody tonight. We're going to be debating do demons exist and 10 minutes on the floor over to you justice Thanks for being here. Thank you Ryan. Thank you to job Thank you everyone for coming to out to see the debate tonight Thanks to modern today debate in general for the platform and to James specifically for creating it for us Tonight we're going to be talking about Do demons exist or evidence for the existence of the demonic? First of all, I'd like to say the reasons why I Would like to have this debate and the number one reason is that I would like there to be a Record on the internet sort of for people who might otherwise miss the the notice that there are there are such a thing as demonic entities and that can influence your life and that there is a way to Get help if you're in such a such circumstance where Demonic influence is involved in you know interacting with your life. So for me, that's it's an evangelical sort of outreach opportunity to tell people about it. So Why would I be the one to tell people about it? I'm my name is Justice Walker and I've been a Missionary in Russia for over 20 years. I was originally born and raised in the United States but have been overseas in this particular mission field for for quite a long time and Inadvertently completely without my desiring it. I fell into a Ministry of helping people become relieved from demonic influences that they're having in their in their lives people who would come to our church And people who wouldn't weren't even members of our church would often years ago begin to come to us for help with unexplained phenomenons in their homes that we could then help with and Over the course of the last 20 years. I've been pretty to some 20 some exorcisms and I have seen the both the horror and the terror of demonic influence on people's lives and the peace and Release and relief that people can gain when those demonic influences are expelled Before I get into my evidence. I I'd like to Really quick because last time the debate that I did this there was a lot of people in the chats that said, oh, you know He makes his living charges people in fact We never advertise any kind of Exorcism kind of like service people who have an issue are looking for answers and they come to the church for that So that's that's the first thing and second I never neither, you know for my pastoral services or if I do what I call cleaning never take any money for that That's definitely a pro day. Oh Kind of a service that we do to help people out so that the motive is always simply to give people Release and relief from the oppression and the terror that they are involved in so the The evidence for the demonic first we're gonna go to historic evidence second. We're going to go to What I would consider objective evidence or other as other testimony and the third will be my own personal Experiences and a go to so historic evidence is that Belief in the demonic Historically is the most widespread belief among all cultures and all Societies throughout all time. There is less belief in a higher deity throughout that it throughout all all Nations and cultures and times then there is in the demonic the demonic has had more belief by all cultures and all times than the Then even a higher deity. So again, this is a of course to jump will jump on it and say Pun intended will jump on it and say that This is a argument from history or from popularity and that is to some extent true But you have to take in consideration that if this is a universally held belief by all peoples in all times It may need something more than just hand waving to to dismiss it the second set of evidence is that in modern times we do have evidence of exorcisms and The demonic to things that I'd like to a note is there's a very good exorcist his name is Father Martin Carlos Who has been doing exorcisms for over 20 years is documented a large? variety of his experiences and I would refer anyone to his podcast to get both an entertaining and informative introduction into that world also there is a professor of psychology and his book is Demonic foes where he looks at the the the instances of demonic oppression and demonic possession of people particularly through the lens of psychology, so Defining where there are actual psychological issues and where there actually are something that's not explained by psychology And that is definitely more than that And we can get into some more of these types of people as the debate Goes on the third set of evidence is my own personal experiences Where as I said, I kind of fell into helping what I call clean apartments or clean houses From the demonic influences and this happened because I ended up when I was a young missionary living in an apartment in a city that had a what we would call a house spirit or house demon and Having suffered some affliction from that We figured out how to expel the demon and that was where my career started and ever since then I've like I said had about 20 different experiences with Expelling demons from dwellings and why demons would like to you know, indwell houses or bodies We can get into that in the back and forth but in short that is my Watercooler presentation. I don't know where I'm on my time because I'm blind and can't see the clock But but that is more or less three and a half minutes Yeah, so I'll just see the rest of my time there and kick it over to jump And then we can get into the question of the back and forth. All right. Well, thank you so much justice for your opening I just want to remind everybody hanging out in the live chat that we are a friendly neutral space here at modern-day debate We host debates on science politics religion and we hope that you all feel welcome Hanging out in the live chat or just listening in on our podcast forum Which all of these will be uploaded to our podcast within 24 hours of us having them along with our guests Linked in the description for podcasts and our YouTube video. So with that, I'll hand it over you to jump You have 10 minutes on the floor And starting now There's no evidence of demons existing all the evidence is to the contrary the reason scientific method Exists is in order to differentiate imagination from reality and the fact that Demons have never been able to make any novel predictions Indicates that they are imaginary not real just like magic crystal woo Leprechauns fairies unicorns energies karma Reiki Chiropractic all fake all no evidence to indicate them and the way we can do this because it'll make novel predictions You need to make novel predictions about the future and confirm them and novel testable confirm them in peer-reviewed Studies in order to show that they're real demons have not done that just like fairies and leprechauns have not done that and failed every time The reason people believe in exorcisms the same reason people believe that's Magic rabbits foot gives you luck or putting a horseshoe above your house interest gives you luck Our painting blood on your door protects you from evil spirits.  And so if it happens to have a positive impact Even though it's the exact same percent chance of it happening As random chance Then you'll believe it because it you like it not because the evidence actually indicates it You'll believe it has evidence even though it's the same as random chance So there's no evidence of demons just like there's no evidence of Reiki. He leans or chiropractic working All right. Well, thank you so much T jump for your opening statement We will put it into an open-floor discussion. Just gonna remind everybody in the live chat We will be doing a Q&A at the end of this So if you have questions for either of our speakers get them in now So they'll be asked nice and early with that. I'll kick it over you justice to respond to some of what you just heard All right. So first of all, I'm really glad that are interested that To jump right up chiropractor II because this is one of the go-to things that the lovely supporters of science Like to or the so-called supporters of science like to go to I just challenge, you know the thousand whatever how many viewers ten thousand viewers that will view this debate on YouTube Among you who have gone to chiropractors and gotten some real serious help from them To a test of the contrary chiropractor II actually does work and like Exorcisms it is something that can be tested to by the experience of those who have Gone through the gone through the experience, but my direct question to to jump would be what is your Standard of evidence. It was interesting that I listened to a debate Reasonable testable predictions with Okay, so so the question for me then is I listened to debate recently with Matt Dill honey where he said that if they Found a wooden boat on Doesn't that was bad epistemology. I don't want to hear what Matt Dill honey had to say it's not it Was not interesting. So if you All right, so if you found a wooden boat on merit Mount Ararat that was dated back back to 6,000 years ago Would that be decent evidence that there was such a thing as Noah's Ark and that those things as a global flood? Maybe I don't really know much about the story So like if the Bible predicted that there would be a boat of a particular size and shape on this mountain that dated To whatever year or whatever and that was confirmed and found later than yes, that would be good evidence so if we make a prediction that Such things like how spirits exists and they have particular sorts of phenomena Associated with them and that after doing an exorcism that these phenomena would then go away and provide Relief to the people that are suffering from the phenomena. Isn't that a predictable testable predictable theory that can then be verified? Only if it's novel. So only if it's things we don't already explain by like every other means Right, so if a house cleaner like myself who's aware of Things like depression things like post Like people dealing with grief things like gas leaks things like carbon monoxide. If it's all those things Yeah, exorcism solving gas leaks great evidence. I love it. No, no, we are excluding those t-jump Pay attention. Don't type on your phone. Listen. We are Much as I want. I don't need to listen to you. I could already debunk you You were listing these things because why? Because you said if we can exclude other things that we can explain and so I'm saying yes No, I said a novel novel normal What I was saying was you need to provide novel by novel. What do you mean? No novel means new just means things that aren't already explained by everything else So like if right, you're saying that there's a phenomenon like no no that parts irrelevant that parts totally relevant So novel predictions means you need to predict a phenomenon that isn't already explained by other things So like if we know plates falling over already know who does that the wind can do that just fine If we know about gas leaks gas leaks are caused by pipes If we know poisoning poisoning is caused by lead poisoning or the water Or if it's a psychological phenomenon like depression which can be solved by psychosomatic kinds of induction talking about ideas crystals Chiropractic for example placebo effect does absolutely nothing to benefit the Bobby but makes people feel good because they're being touched and having lots of Interactive oxytocin release from being with the doctor, but literally we can do the MRI say yep completely failed did nothing These kinds of things were the phenomenon in the case of chiropractic where people feel better But literally nothing changed about their body because we know oxytocin was released Just like the woo religious healers who are Say they can grow people's legs back or make them see or make them here. It's all fake We can prove it's fake We can do the examinations of their body and show nothing changed But they had a giant release of oxytocin dopamine which caused them to feel like something changed because of priming So that's already fully explained. So it has to be something we don't already explain Like if you can levitate a chair, that'd be great if you could I don't know kill somebody that'd be great Great evidence start killing people with ghosts and stuff phenomenal evidence Sure sure yeah, so the question that I would have is you know, what is the Explanation for for instance someone being healed from hepatitis a or hepatitis b or AIDS or impotency After after prayer for instance all things that I've experienced No, I've it's called a delusion. I have Delusion no, it's you know people that I have Personally prayed for and seen these exact healings like AIDS hepatitis a hepatitis b That's a little bit off the topic. We're talking about demons. So to come back to the the topic is You know if we see that someone is dealing with a entity in their home that is causing a lot of oppression a lot of of Yeah, I'll pray demonic oppression and then we can exclude things like of course gas leaks carbon monoxide poisoning depression and still we have the phenomena And then we say okay our prediction is that this is demonic our prediction is that we will go and do the Exorcism and then that relieves the problem. The issue goes away. Isn't that a prediction that is verifiable It's not novel. So it's pretty I can predict and verify that the Sun will rise tomorrow That's the novel part is the key fact. So diseases have a spontaneous remission rate. Pretty much all these is even HIV as Several cases of spontaneous remission where it just can't Reproduce in the body and so it's been cured of a person. There's a guy in Australia that happened to so what you need to show Is that you can implement this and have the results be higher than that a random chance of what happens everywhere else in the world For people who don't undergo your your methodology of whatever you're doing So again, I was not here to Defend the you know faith healing claims. I have my own, you know theology of that However, I was just saying that in my own personal experience What do you think the chances of are of someone praying for someone with hepatitis a another person with hepatitis B? another person with AIDS another person with impotency another person with various diseases and seeing those things You know healed and what is the chance of all those happening with one person? I think it's pretty extremely high pretty low You see that we said happen all the time with people who are deluded people who are deluded and believe in religious faith healings We'll pray over people and believe they are healed. They're wrong. They're wrong objectively, but they believe they're healed In many cases I'm not talking about yeah, I'm not talking about literally just let me finish. Let me finish So you are wrong. That's you are wrong in every one of those cases. You are deluded. You were missed. You were misceived. It didn't happen But there are some cases where it does happen very rarely spontaneous remission does the care But mostly you're wrong. There are lots of people who claim to have the exact same experiences you do They're wrong.  It's fully explained It's a well-known phenomenon what you would need is to take those experiences and to actually have qualified medical doctors who are not Well, like well-known people who know how to publish papers Not your personal doctor not people in your community actual published Stanford Princeton professors do an analysis that is publicly peer-reviewable It can be confirmed by other doctors and other doctors can do the tests Show that this person has a disease or whatever whatever phenomenon in particular you want to talk about and then you do your methodology of whatever it is the exorcism or whatever and Then they go back and show it's healed and you have to do this about a hundred to a thousand times And then we can show that if your and then we have to have a control group There's a control group that we don't do the the experiment to we don't do the exorcism They have all the same symptoms all the same Diseases or problems or whatever we don't do exorcisms to them We do do exorcisms to your group and your group will have to have a higher number of people who are cured or whatever Symptoms relieved you're trying to argue for and if your group has a higher number of Cured people then the control group then you have evidence We've done this study many because I didn't again because we did not Yeah, because we did not I wasn't preparing for a you know healing debate if if healing actually So I'm using healing because it's easier for me to understand what healing is than what an exorcism is And so I'm replacing the healing Example just for the exorcism, but the same thing I'm saying is that you know I'm totally willing to defend that there are studies that have been done that have actually shown that faith healing does Work that prayer does have in fact, however, I'm not going to be fitting that today because I'm not prepared for that I would simply say to the audience that In my own personal experience not, you know, I know a guy We've had situations in multiple situations where absolutely a difference where we had a Diagnosis from a doctor Russia is not a third world country. We actually have you know decent medicine here Where you have hepatitis a hepatitis b AIDS and then after prayer we go back and get the tests done again and the person is is healed You would disagree the Russia has decent medicine. I would I would Know that was more of a joke. It's not not relevant. So again, you can give me a look at the mortality comparison with the United States and Yeah, America's even more garbage hundred percent agree with you on that one But you need to give me a Princeton Stanford professor to actually verifiably publish a paper Go do the studies publish this in a paper on a number a group of people more than one You need like a hundred people you're doing the exorcism for and a hundred people All right, and we would have a demon you're not doing the exorcism for and then you need to show that your exorcisms have a higher rate of curing whatever ailments or effects in the house or whatever Granger in the non the control group you need to do this. This is what I would like to refer you and the audience to the studies done by Dr. Richard Gallagher, which he Published in his book for popular consumption called demonic foes, but he also has scientific papers done on the subject differentiating between demonic possession and Psychological oppression and other known psychological phenomena. So that work to a degree has been done It has not used a very to That's He is debunked. So yes, he is 100% bunked, you know, he did not afford a can he did not have a control group He did not show any actual data. It was not peer-reviewable. There's nothing in his work That is in any way verifiable scientifically. There are no peer-reviewed papers. He's presented. He's complete debunked It's just what he is doing is the exact same thing that a crack does when they publish a book and say I'll look at all my cool findings that aren't peer-reviewed and you can't check them I'm great That's not a peer-reviewed paper. Give me a peer-reviewed paper that we can test and repeat with real professors that are not quacks and Every time let's try to fail 100% failure rate for all all prayer healing all Mystical forces have always failed this test at a hundred percent rate of failure Yeah, I would refer the audience to Dr. Regelerger's book and to judge for yourself if it's all quackery or if it's actually has some foundation in in reality So I would refer the audience to the kids. I guess in the way I would for the artist the consensus in the experts of every single academic field related to the topic that Completely say it's a joke. They can just check that on their own Yep So so that is of course, you know the the the surprise here and this is something that I always find interesting talking with You know strict materialists is that the the surprising thing that's something that we're claiming as a supernatural phenomena is not explainable or you know Subjectable to a scientific method of the scientific process is is not surprising in a worldview where you Understand that there are things we call supernatural forces the very Supernatural I'm not quite sure what you were saying. The very concept of a supernatural force means that it is outside of nature and so the the idea that we would be able to subject it to a natural System of inquiry like we can gravity or electromagnetism or any let's just a stupid argument The other natural force does this is a little bit absurd This is an excuse that quacks use that is completely irrelevant science doesn't care things are natural or supernatural or ubernatural or spiritual We don't care the same method works for literally anything spiritual non spiritual supernatural Magic pixie farting dust we don't care it works for literally anything at literally every level in the universe out of the universe Magic levels physics levels particles natural non natural doesn't make a difference this method works for literally everything You need to differentiate Imagination from reality the way you do that as you say here is an object I believe it exists doesn't matter if it's a ghost or a spirit or a reiki crystal And you say this thing will have an effect in the world It has an effect in the world and if we change it in some way It'll have a different effect independent and dependent variables So you have an independent variable you have a dependent variable if it changes and I'll rate higher than chance you have evidence It's very simple. It makes no difference whether the thing is spiritual or non spiritual This is an excuse and I use they can't provide evidence And I would agree and I would agree with you that that is important in the world to differentiate between reality and Imagination I would totally support that of course And in your original statement of what is evidence you said that it has to make, you know novel predictions and and when we say that we are making our predictions with saying that these demonic entities are giving these particular kinds of phenomena and that we can predict that by doing an exorcism we can relieve the suffering of those who are suffering or Get rid of the phenomena the physical phenomena that are being presented that would fit into your definition of evidence Especially that's the part where I think we say that it's then it's novel that we're this is the whole up I think this is other things once I can Not a part literally not know what novel means has nothing to do with excluded other things literally not what novel means So the the point of novel is that it has to be something we don't already know We don't already see if you predict the Sun's gonna rise tomorrow and say the Sun will rise tomorrow Therefore the flying spaghetti monster exists. Do you think that's good evidence of the flying spaghetti monster? Of course not why? Because Because we have an explanation for why the Sun Rises it's not a novel prediction Forget that say we didn't say we just we've seen it happen a billion times right every day the Sun rises Somebody predicting the Sun will rise tomorrow is like great. Good job. We can all predict that because we've seen it a million times You're made up hypothesis Doesn't tell us anything because we've already seen because of it because of the because of the intervention because we can make an intervention We can have a dependent independent variable. I mean I understand that that's for it. I was just we've seen it before Predicting something we've already seen a million times isn't evidence. We don't care We don't if you predict the Sun will rise tomorrow. No one cares This is the problem if you predict you have this special methodology that will heal people or that will Exercise demons or something and then this will have some kind of Here's my prediction here's my prediction Someone comes to me and says we have something that we think is unexplainable. It's supernatural it is a Thing that's causing us terror fear oppression, whatever we go in and say, okay. Is it carbon monoxide? Is it gas leak? Is it? Death death, I don't know. So that parts that part of the flaw in your methodology that part literally is irrelevant We don't care about exclusion. We don't care. But so here's the point of course Anyone who's doing really don't stop a scientific approach to anything stop It's blue you just finish your last point. So you never exclude you never exclude That's not a part of science. It's a quack methodology. That's irrelevant to science. So here's the here's the important part We have seen so you you make a prediction you say somebody's having a negative side effect in their house or psychologically or whatever I'm gonna do an exorcism and they're gonna be cured of this psychological effect or phenomenon or whatever and We see this happen a million times we see it happen for Reiki we see it happen for Religious healings we see it happen for leprechaun exorcisms. We see it happen for unicorns.  Oh, that's a known Delusion hallucination human misconception fallacy bias every single time. This is the Sun rising tomorrow you have your personal experiences and because your brain is extremely biased to Selectively pick the ones that make you feel good about your ideology You're gonna find things that fit that make you believe your hypothesis is true It's called confirmation bias you find the ones that hit that myth that hit and ignore the misses So in order to filter that out in order for it to be real evidence order for it to be novel You need to have a control group. You need to have an experiment group You need to have a published paper that shows you can have a control group and do this multiple times Hundred people do the exorcism Something is changed in a positive way at a higher rates than the control group You need to publish this paper and we need to be able to repeat it We need to be have people in Princeton and Stanford and and Georgia Tech do the experiment have the same results independent of you Don't interrupt. No, this this is important. So this is the key here You need to be able to do this. I Will you know? Take the cue from the moderator the the interesting thing here is that you know, you will exclude Anything that doesn't fit your particular, you know this particular scientific paradigm and again as I say before nothing I can make I can make a novel prediction that people who are suffering from demonic oppression that we can identify as demonic oppression will receive a freeing from that oppression by An exorcism and that's not a prediction. That is not novel. It is just literally explain this to you Understand what you said pay attention Literally understand.  No, you didn't and I literally understand How you like to interrupt people and over talk people because you just lie that's you lied about what I said No, okay, I didn't lie I didn't lie You said I don't want to put you I don't want to put you interesting things Hold on a second. Please see my time. Let's let the interesting thing using you've missed, you know, misrepresenting We'll let him clarify just right quick so that we do have that clarity and then we'll try this one more time So as I said Novel something we have not seen before Something we have seen before Quacks saying they will have some cure all for somebody and seeing the positive result That's the Sun rising that is not novel There is no case where you can have your personal experience or your personal anecdotes ever be novel They can never be novel. They will never qualify as novel what novel means is you need to do a peer reviewed study Give me a hundred people who are 200 people who are affected by the the demons or whatever Do your exorcism on a hundred don't do it on a different hundred have peer review from Stanford and Princeton Be able to confirm to the same test and confirm that your methodology works If you can do that it's novel your personal experience is never novel ever nothing You say is novel because literally millions of people around the world have done the exact same thing for raking for leprechauns for demons for spirits We've heard this before this is not novel good.  No, no, no, no, no, wait, wait, no What do you like about you need to stop it like you like about because you said Talking stop talking What you lied about was when you said it's novel Here's your quack experience and I literally said quack experience Doesn't count as novel because millions of people in the world have all had the same quack experience to be novel You need novel predictions with a peer reviewed study control group So I want to give you a chance to respond to that uninterrupted for a minute So go ahead there justice or at least a minute. All right. So you've heard you everyone's heard t-jumps little tirade I did not say anything that he was lying or that I lied about his position in any way to Disagree with your opponent is not the same thing as to say that he is is to lie about his position Now you've heard it from t-jump everyone in the chat Everyone who's viewing this debate that t-jump does not believe that any of you can have a novel experience That your experience of life I never said that a novel Also t-jump likes to derail these debates by going into ad hominems and Claiming that people lie. I'm not lying About you lied when you understood my words. That was the lie I never said you lied about my position you lied when you said you understood my words. So I was correct I understand what you said and I have agreed that is not a lie. That is simply a Disagreement now t-jump has said that you know if I don't have Evidence that is up to his level standards of Investigation or whatever that if I don't have these peer reviewed papers if I don't have Princeton or somebody's particular thing That that's so that's it. There's no evidence for anything And then I'm wasting his time. I would not want to waste his time So if we want to you know jump into the Q&A, that's fine Because I don't have peer reviewed papers What I have is my own experiences and the experiences of the people that have been helped And also the experiences of many other exorcists who I know we can talk about those but again with this particular opponent that would be Unprofitable so you know up to the So what I'll do is I'm gonna throw out a prompt here and see if I can get you guys to maybe No, I'm not quite done yet. So Chance to respond, but yeah, I do think it would be be fruitful to move into a new Topic after we wrap this one up. So just as was partially right there when he said that we require peer review Yeah, you have to be able to have Stanford and Princeton review it They then specifically don't he don't have to specifically get Stanford to review it But peer review the way it works is you present presents a magnanimous of you So So you have to present a paper that people can peer review like Stanford like Princeton and then you have to have someone who's Actually qualified in the field do the peer review not quacks the reason that your personal experience I didn't say all personal experience doesn't count. That's that's not true Personal experience doesn't count if it's not novel Everything just as just mentioned his personal experience the personal experience of the people he's helped and the personal experience of the exorcists He knows none of that is novel. That's the exact same thing all Quacks have water dousing quacks have that chiropractic quacks have that Flat earth or quacks have that all quacks have those things. That's like saying. Oh, look the sun rises tomorrow Therefore my theory is right everybody on the planet has that data point Everybody can use that to predict something they can say the sun will rise tomorrow Therefore magic farting pixie leprechauns is that evidence of magic fixie leprechauns? No, because that data point you're using is the exact same for everybody else and everybody else has it Which means it's not Novel if you present something that everyone else has and it's been proven to be garbage for everybody else you claiming to have it now is Also garbage In order to show that what you have is somehow significantly different than the dousers or the reiki healers or the chiropractors Or the voodoo witch doctors who all have personal experience and personal experience of people to help them personal experience of co-conspirators or co-co-practices or whatever is to do a peer-reviewed study That we can verify at stanford. That's what we need you your personal experience. You're right It's completely a waste of time your friend's personal experience complete waste of time Other extra personal experience complete waste of time. We don't care The reason we don't accept those in scientific papers is because it's the same garbage That has been presented for everywhere in the world for every silly idea everywhere in the world has been debunked So you need to go up your game if you want people to take you seriously You need to take those personal experiences Do a peer-reviewed study present a methodology other people can replicate in stanford have them do it Then you got your evidence Again, what you've just heard is t-jump going through a litany of Circumstances or a litany of experiences that people have had That he says that he claims he's debunked or have been debunked But I would say are actually evidence of the opposite. So if you have people who who can confirm that they have had these experiences and that the Prediction is that doing an exorcism of their property of themselves gives relief I would submit that that is at least tangential evidence of Of the demonic and the fact that we have so many of these experiences is exactly part of the the body of evidence So I would for my response would be we have tens of thousands of testably confirmed novel predictions that prove Humans have fallacies biases illusions delusions misconceptions hallucinations that explain literally Everything in his body of evidence and everything in the reiki body of everything in the chiropractic body of evidence And everything in the flatter of body of evidence. We know they don't work We these are proven things that have already passed peer review and have been confirmed a million times everywhere in the world We know here's how the human brain fails consistently and he's saying Well, the fact that the human brain fails consistently. We're just going to use those failures as evidence Well, that is a waste of everyone's time That's why science does not take a whack seriously because you're using the things that we know don't work As the whole foundation of your ideology if you take your ideology seriously You should stop using the things we know are broken and start using the things we know actually work Except for the the difference is I do know The things that work. So that's exactly what I'm saying is that We I personally not someone not my friend not my friend's friend not not something me personally Use a methodology that does work And that is That is exactly what I'm saying. Um, there is one point of agreement that we have In your previous litany of of quackery is that I do agree with you that the flatter of people are kind of crazy But um We can agree on that sure but so what I'm going back to Well, I didn't I didn't want to pick up on that thing you said where you use you said you use a methodology that you know works The problem with that is The the point of the debate is does your method work? That's the thing we're trying to figure out So you just saying you know it works You don't know what we're trying to what we're trying to figure out is we're saying The the point that I made is isn't does justice walkers Method of exorcism work. That's not what the debate is about the debate was Is there evidence of the demonic and I say there's historic evidence I say there is evidence from other exorcist Exorcist because because your methodology today, right, right? That's and I say that I might evidence And I and I say that my own method works Of course, of course, I can't prove to you here Other than just me saying it There's an important point here. There's an important point here that I wanted to go down. So Your evidence one of your evidences was that you have this method that can relieve symptoms Which is like so there's demons or whatever and you have a method of exorcism and that relieve symptoms and that's evidence, right? Yes and so so part of The topic of the debate is does your method work? That's one of the one of the things that we don't know. That's one of the unknowns. That's one of the Dependent variables and so when we need to use an independent And there is no pure Princeton paper That says that justice walkers methodology work. So I and so that's you know, that's that is my own That's why I said in my opening statement. That's an anecdotal Evidence is my own personal. I know is my personal experience But it is it is an experience. That's why when you said the sentence When I said the sentence, we need a methodology that works and you responded Well, I have a methodology that works. It's my own that's circular reasoning That's why we need to use an external source to verify your method, which is the peer review control group Test group I would affirm it. Yeah And you could do this you like you don't you don't need you don't need me You don't need Princeton to do this you can publish a paper to do this You can just get 200 people with Demonic possessions that you've confirmed get them all with your friends. You don't need to do it yourself Do the exorcism on a hundred don't do it on a different hundred record the results Provide a method that other people can repeat this experiment So like Princeton can do the exorcisms on the hundred and not on another hundred and get results That's all you need and you have real evidence of the demonic and you win a million dollars from the james randy foundation Just do the actual thing the method that is verifiably Succeeded for thousands of years that have been proven to the scientific method use that To show that this is real Win a million dollars Sounds like a good plan. I might just do that Please I will concede the debate if you do if you are like you win demons are real I would love that give me magic. That would be awesome When you win, I will concede the debate All right, uh, does that have to be that's you know, Moscow state university work for you or is that have to be Princeton? Probably I don't know. I don't really know about like what what are qualified or not But yeah, so like if you put it published in a peer review journal, it'll be repeated In multiple countries in multiple cities all it just has to be peer-reviewable and by accredited universities So, yeah, if you can publish it in all right So if I could produce if I could if I could give you a paper from the Moscow state university where they studied 500, uh examples of demonic possession and they came to the conclusion that The phenomena that they were observing was not at all explainable by psychological Uh situations that they did study exorcisms and that they came to the conclusion that exorcisms worked You would accept that Well, so you just proved that they're quacks. So anytime somebody says it can't be explained by Psychological phenomenon they're a quack that a hundred percent proves you're a quack In science, there's this thing called the problem of undetermination It's a fact of philosophy a fact of science every data point can be explained by infinitely many hypotheses always and forever You can never exclude Use exclusionary things to say it can't be that you can never do that anybody who does that's a quack They don't know science and so if you're met if your school does that they're quacks They're not real and you need to find a real university All right, so you've heard it here people Moscow state university not a real university If Taking taking into consideration the current environment, uh, in the in the west, I would imagine that that would be a predictable No, no, no, I didn't say anything. I didn't say anything about Moscow. I said in your paper predictable phenomena If your paper specifically says they excluded it can't be psychological phenomenon Um, then they're quacks now I doubt it says that in any paper because anyone who's actually an accredited university won't say that They'll try to mitigate with cover abilities or whatever, but they will never say that. That's not a thing That's only a thing quacks say only quacks try to exclude It can't be this only quacks So if either they didn't say that and you misrepresented the paper or they did say that and they're quacks Those are the two possibilities Yeah, possibly I don't understand the methodology. I'd have to say that. Um, but the uh, I did Read the paper in russian and the paper does Say that they did exclude Psychological factors. So if that's a sign of quackery, there you go. Um, you heard it here. I don't know debate Correct. If they if they think they can exclude psychological factors, they're quacks Uh, the laws of physics are not governed by immaterial things like the laws of logic Laws of logic one, they are immaterial things. They're abstract objects. They don't govern anything They described the way reality works. I'm heck-a-muted and the audience is coming at me. Sorry guys You didn't hear the question. So they're gonna they're gonna come at me and be like, what what would uh, What would a debate be if I didn't mute myself at least once it's it's obs I'll tell you this is the second time remember because you're muted at the beginning and they just didn't know it Oh, yeah, that's right. That is true. Uh, they didn't know that uh angel quiles says for five dollars If the material world is governed by immaterial things such as the laws of logic Could you then grant there are immaterial entities beyond that? So, uh, the universe is not governed by the laws of logic. The laws of logic describe the way nature works Nature is governed by the laws of physics and the laws of logic simply describe the laws of physics So if there is some magic laws of magic logic that magically govern things sure that would be great heavens There isn't any logic and math are human constructed languages The very first sentence in the staff of encyclopedia philosophy on classical logic Logic and math and formal languages that can bias of something something system of language blah blah blah semantics and something but so To answer this question if those magic governing laws existed that would be great evidence. They don't Laws of logic don't govern anything they describe Yeah, I would uh, just respond to that in that I would agree again with with t-jump on this math and logic are descriptive of the universe not Not not that they govern the universe in a in a way However, uh, the christian bible does say that first the spiritual to the physical and the spiritual does Have an influence on the physical because it did precede it. So that would be my core response All right, did you have anything to say in response to their t-jump to keep it going or did you want to move on to the next one? Magic potatoes pre-existent for the universe therefore magic potatoes govern the universe All right, I'll make sure I keep my hand on my pre-yamp button here everybody I won't put myself on mute again. So I don't get in trouble See, uh, the real thing was I got a text from my wife saying, uh, did you take your drink out of the freezer? And I was like, oh, oh no anyways You all know what that can turn into right all right 60 second skeptic says what's a demon physically made of? Because if demons themselves have no physical properties, how do we differentiate it from imagination and placebo? Yeah that demons have as the as the bible says Paul says in crentians that there are different matters of different things. So humans have one Set of things that they're made of human bodies angelic bodies or demonic bodies have another set of things that they're made of We by definition say that a demon or angel is a supernatural Entity therefore that is above nature or not not having a natural Uh body So you can imagine it as a parallel universe or however you want that can can at times interact with ours But it is they're not made of material substance. So it would be um A different substance spiritual spiritual substance Any thoughts over there to jump uh, but we just heard or you want to move on Well, so the question was what physical material or demons made of they're not made of physical material That would be a contradiction if you were saying they're made of physical material, that'd be great evidence But they're not secondly how would a not a thing non made of physical material Interact with the universe Well, there's lots of ways it could interact with the universe and it could be and the third question was How could we test it? You could test it by making novel predictions. So there could be a non physical spiritual demon Who could interact with the universe and we could test it by making novel predictions like if there's a demon and I uh, I pray to the demon and the demon will shave off all of the hair from James's head and then James comes off bald on camera. That would be phenomenal evidence even though we couldn't physically test for the demon You're muted No, it's okay. I was just uh trying to uh alert the masses to close that bathroom door I was just making a racket. So anyways space miner does a peer review require Uh, what does a peer review require that the peer? Uh, whom reviews have a peer review of their peer review to be considered a proper peer review A peer review is just opening the door for other people to be able to test it. So peer review is making a methodology and Paper that other people can reproduce like Princeton or Stanford the fact that Princeton or Stanford particularly reviews It doesn't make a difference. That's irrelevant. The point is that you published a paper that can then be replicated by other people all over the world Any thoughts over there justice I you know the the whole concept of peer review is simply to Check with your peers like in the area of physics or the area of chemistry That you're actually doing the work and you're presenting your Data so that it can give duplicatable results And I would say that you know If I did a peer review paper and my peers other experts reviewed it I think they would say that yeah, they can get the same results That's not peer review peer review is that literally anybody anywhere in the world who disagrees with you can get with the same results People who agree with you is that's just again quacks doing quacks stuff What we need is people who disagree with you The reason the way science works is yeah The scientist publishes a paper and everyone else hates him all of the other scientists hate him and want to prove Him wrong and want to prove them right But they get the same results And they don't like it. Well, that's peer review peer review is not people you agree with getting the same results Now people in the same field t-jump, you know, you don't get um medical doctors peer reviewing Uh astrophysicist papers because you have to have the same language You have to have the understanding the fundamentals. So peer means that your peers in your field who may disagree with you That does not they know Actually is the reason the the paper is published is so anybody can replicate the data Sure peer review is yeah, confirmations are going to be who are experts who can confirm it correctly But what you need is to show that anybody who's an expert in science can confirm it Who isn't one of the quack people if one of the non quack we're not Except for we're dealing with a we're dealing with a non This is a not a strictly scientific question We're dealing with the question that is by definition non scientific What does that even mean? So the scientific question is is it real or imaginary? That's all that scientific question means. Is it real or imaginary? So if you're not asking that question, then you're just admitting it's imaginary No, the scientific question is Is this thing real in the sense of having a material explanation? No, literally no science does not say that at all again That's a quack statement that only quacks say scientists say is it real or imaginary? That's all we care about if you want to posit a supernatural being that has no physical explanation We can test it the exact same way science does not care only quacks Say science is limited to the material realm No response there or did you want to carry on justice? Yeah, we can just go on All right, let's have our next one elusive viper glad you made it out to the debate It was nice hanging out with you on stream the other day How can justice demonstrate that exorcisms are banishing demons not pixies or interfering with professor x's mind control I'm I'm you know, technically I couldn't I could not demonstrate that I mean it could be pixies or leprechauns or professor's x's mind control Although because you know my particular worldview says that these particular phenomena align with what we believe in or we believe are demonic entities that would that aligns with my if if you know, I was a Mohammedan exorcist, I would say it would probably be gins because that would send some seem to align with that Descriptive language that they're using So you can use different descriptors I particularly believe that the biblical account of what demons are and and their phenomenology is Is better has more predictive power and the ancients agreed that too one of the Reasons why ancient Christianity Gained Widespread acceptance in the Roman times was because of their success Higher success rate with exorcism than the pagans. So I mean that's simply it's just about having a better predictive power All right, you must have some thoughts over there to jump A little reaction. So, uh, yeah, what do you think about? Um, the quacks in the christian religion claims to have more successful quackery than the quacks in the The pagan religions therefore the the quackery was more successful in the christian religion Any response to their justice or I just want to carry on? No, I just uh, you know insults our arguments. All right bitter truth Uh, psychoanalysis has evolved a concept of depression that deals with ideas about Uh intro jacks rather than conceiving them as concrete toxins or demons justice. Do you agree? I have no idea about intro jacks. So I wouldn't be able to uh to comment on that All right, uh Did did you have any context you might be able to add to this uh t jump to uh Maybe make something out of bitter truths super chat. He did send in a $10 super chat So I do want to honor bitter truth So he said psychoanalysis has evolved a concept of depression that deals with ideas about intro jacks Rather than conceiving of them as concrete toxins or demons So I think he's saying that Um prior to psychology there were many Things that were thought to be like people who were epileptic or people who had ADHD were thought to have be possessed by demons The field of psychology and neurology have replaced those and say no, these are not demons These are actual physical phenomena in the brain replacing the the demon idea and now it's treated with medicine not with uh quackery and I think he's implying that Because many of these things were falsely attributed to demons pretty much anything we attribute demons It's pretty much falsely attributed to demons and it's probably just an unknown psychological phenomenon Which is a very good argument inductively Yeah, I don't know what the the person we ask the question meant by the question because I don't quite understand the question Um, if that's what he meant if he wants to because of the $10 super chat If he wants to clarify that that is what he meant that I can respond to that But I don't see any point in less Um, unless that's exactly what was meant by it Oh, okay. I was gonna ask if you uh in the spirit of debate if you could uh, you know, uh interact with t jump What t jump just expressed there, but uh, we can carry on if uh, if you want to Yeah, what t jump. Yeah. Yeah, what t jump said, I'll just respond to what t jump said But if they if the person who asked the original question wants to clarify that's fine, too But what t jump said is that is why modern exorcists all first go to psychologists first try to figure out get Having a person who says i'm having voices in my head. I'm having Oppression i'm having these Uh malicious things that are happening to me. We say, okay, go get, you know Uh scientific help go get the help from a psychologist from a psychotherapist go get the help from a doctor We use what we call the reese house principle, which is exhaust all Uh venues all options of getting help in The mainstream before we say, okay, this is something that is um, that is Above and beyond uh that and you know that could be quackery like t jump has said quite a few times Quackery no, I actually think it's a good principle to use. Um, so people who have for instance like turrets That was brought to me one time for exorcism. It's like, you know what? Um No, this this person needs other help What was the principle called? We call it the reese howl's principle after reese howl's interest reese howl's intercessor Uh It's not I can't find like the principle name anywhere. Is there like a more common name for it something? Uh, that's what that's what we know it by Well, yeah, if you want to take a moment to look that up, uh, yeah, we can carry on at bitter truth did confirm in the uh The live chat there that that t jump was clarifying his correct point there. So it seems like uh Uh, we did get to interact with the question Properly, which is nice. So retro video for five dollars canadian. Oh, canada. Hello my fellow canadian If we have two rooms one empty room with nothing in it and one room one with only a demon in it How do we tell the difference between the two rooms? Uh, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference without the demon interacting phenomenologically with the rooms one thing he's asking like how There should be some ways doing that right the demon would do something like If you were there it would Pull your hair would knock over a dish or something. It would what would it do There's the question. What would the demon be doing in the room? That would different the the demons in general are looking for bodies. They are disembodied spirits They're so they're looking for places to occupy and they're always trying to upgrade their occupation Um, and the most common way they do that is through fear Through gaining access to people through fear. So In my experience and experience of other exorcists the Lower grade demons the great demons that are actually very weak are the ones that end up inhabiting homes or houses That's no good commentary on my own abilities But uh, they will then phenomenologically cause fear through breaking things or making strange noises or causing temperature changes like drastic temperature changes causing smells And that then freak people out get people to look for help On the dark side of the force That then it gives the demon access to an upgraded dwelling which would be a human body Is what they're generally after I didn't fart it was a demon. I was gonna say you say it before I do Exactly what I'm gonna tell my wife the next time Indeed, you might have a lot of demons in your house to jump when she wakes up all of a sudden in the middle of the night It's like Ryan. What did you do? Anyway? Let's carry on fact junior role Uh, says whoa t jump hair. He do be style and So back junior role. Thank you. Please send me money. Yeah. Yeah. I think uh, junior role's coming on to you there So, uh, looks like the bad guys that's element behave yourself in the lunch Hacking the headlines. Thank you for your super chat five dollars Oh, man, we good. That's we hit a silly moment guys Now we're we're gonna have to try to pull back out into the debate mode, right? All right, so justice have you documented any of your healings with film footage Certified medical documents, etc. If you haven't why not? Um not film like, uh, never never Uh, never had any film evidence of it because mainly the the kinds of healings that I've had aren't ones that would be that you would see on a film Um, again, uh, specific specific specific specific specific ones that I have personally dealt with have been um cancer which t-jump will sell a remission. Um, hepatitis a hepatitis b HIV A case of impotency a case of sterility and these were all medically documented ahead of time that these people had diagnosis is and then afterwards were also diagnosed medically as having remissed of course, um, but that that is the the evidence of the healing Any thoughts over there t-jump before we move on? Oh, he was correct spontaneous remission is a fully known explanation of all those things That just happens to happen a lot when you pray for them people It does it's called confirmation bias. It happens a lot when people pray for it and expect it to work and they accept the hits and ignore the misses All right, well, let's try to carry on Uh, so uh matters now That's where we are going to be having our after show sends in a two dollar super chat And I don't usually talk too much about other platforms that I participate in actually ever Beyond the music that I put on modern day debate But we had a really chill conversation with uh, james coons the owner of modern day debate over on matters now Uh, it was a lot of fun So, uh, if you're kind of curious about where james stands and all the debates that we're having on the platform You can definitely go check that out at some point Uh asks, uh, so I assume uh osean you're on the matters now account asks justice, what was the title of this paper on demons? the uh, the russian title was About I have to remember the remember the exact title, but it was in in russian. It was the differentiation between psychological effect and Demonic possession or something to that effect. Um, I can look it up. Uh, I need to I can find it for you I didn't Get it prepped for this debate because I assumed that james would not accept. Um, something that was He couldn't peer review in english, of course. Um, so which is fair enough like but uh, I was just asking that in case of the, uh Uh, if you would accept that as a as a peer review thing So well, I need to actually do the experiments or peer review at reading the papers isn't anything I have to like do the experiment right Problem with doing the experiment is you actually have to believe right so that would be One of the prerequisites to the experiment No, no methodology actually reality required. Oh, yeah. Well, yeah If if I if I say that if I say that you have to have to do some experiment say with some chemicals You have to have this amount of temperature This amount of time this amount of stirring, you know to get this result Then you would say, oh, yeah, that's of course. That's necessary and if somebody did a different temperature different amount of stirring You know a different amount of time then you would say that's not the experiment wasn't done correctly And if I say you have to actually have a thing called faith for this thing to work then That kind of puts you into a hard place of doing the experiment. Well, no the problem with that is It's logical what you said there that it would be considered one of the dependent variables or the independent variables That's required to do the experiment problem is is that we know that that's one of the fallacies used in every quack methodology and so using like I mentioned before if you're using the same quackery that's been debunked A million times before as quackery one of which would be requiring faith Or anything to happen Then you need to stop using the garbage methodologies and go to the ones that work Right the cool that the response that I would give to that is again if We have quack doctors that hurt people Does not in any way debunk the fact that real medicine actually works Sure, but I don't think that is relevant to what I said So like we've proven that every methodology like millions of people have said you need to believe for it to work That's a very common thing in quackery quackery. It's extremely common argument And every time we test it fails 100% fails every time no matter what if we have people who believe doing the experiment We're watching them fails every time so we know it's quackery and people say that and so if you're taking that as a requirement for your method to be verified And I'll put I will put the uh, the name of the study on demonology in the moscow state university In the debate later, I'll find it and put come back and put it under the video. Um, and also I will give you a Uh pure viewed paper on the effect efficacy of prayer for healing Which I wasn't prepared for for this debate because that's not wasn't the topic But I'm sure you'll find fault with those No, give it to the press. I don't have no interest.  Give it to Princeton get them to repeat it and if they say it works I'll be like yep, you're right. You went All right, our next one coming in from joshua woodwind. Thank you so much for your soup chat I thought putin in russia makes it public Uh, it makes the public do the russian orthodox church So putin is not like g or kim jong where christianity is illegal yeah, um putin has had kind of a Power to ambiguous relationship with uh, non orthodox religions, um ever since 2008 2016. He enacted the anti missionary laws 2017 They made joho's witnesses illegal So, uh, it's not exactly like we have 100% freedom of religion in russia, but most denominations of christianity And other religions aren't exactly persecuted. They're just frowned upon So no, you don't have to be a russian orthodox. Um, it's just kind of Better if you were Seriously ban joho's witnesses Yes, that is that is hilarious. I find that hilarious. It's it's really sad. Um, yes, true, but they're kind of annoying and this the well The reason was because of their anti their anti establishment anti government views like they would not allow people to um work on the To vote or even like hold government positions Some joho's witnesses will claim that you can't even work at the post office Also, not allowing to give blood transfusions for children. Uh, kids were dying Um, and so these are the reasons why the joho's witnesses were banned. Yeah, that last one was actually a pretty good reason Agreed All right, let's carry on from there Uh, and yeah, osian if you're hanging out and you want to uh tag for the after show that would be uh, Fantastic of you, buddy. Uh, joshua woodwin asks, uh, actually, sorry, that's the second one from joshua woodwin Oh, let's pop on up first super chat from trevor. Uh, ca. Thank you so much for your First interaction on the channel here if non physical factors are a pseudo science Are you claiming any exotic participants to or precipitants to the big bang can also be dismissed? Very sincere Who's he asked very science? Oh my goodness. I was gonna say I might have to get my glasses out for this here Let me just blow this up. I'm gonna read this again everybody and not try to butcher it As we so famously sometimes do if non physical factors are pseudo science Are you claiming any exotic for or precipitants to the big bang? It can also be dismissed very also physical so like Longland fields are physical Strings are physical like they're also the things that pre exist to the big bang are also physical So I don't I think I imagine what he's implying is saying that any non physical thing If I'm saying any non physical thing is pseudoscience Uh, then non physical things that are positive before the universe would be pseudoscience There just aren't any like all of the physicists in string theory all the physicists and physics are physicalists they're they believe all that there is is physical things So strings are quantum fields all physical That's all physical stuff before the universe space time being immersion from physical stuff Like I think he's confusing that the big bang being the beginning of all physical all natural things which no one in physics says All right any thoughts over there justice sir I think again that the problem with Materialists is the presupposition that all things that we could possibly interact with have a material nature and that the Presupposition that I Operate under and I do admit that it's a presupposition Is that there are non spiritual are non physical entities non material entities that can interact with the material world Just as the material world can have an effect on the spiritual world the spiritual can't have an effect on the material world But they are not made of the same substance So again, that's not a presupposition anybody in science has It's only quacks who say that scientists have that presupposition because their quackery can't be confirmed Again, uh t-jump likes to throw it on the insults And that's not an argument that is a presupposition of science and it is a presupposition of faith So they're really not those aren't equal grounds So I've proven literally by giving methodologies of power to verify the supernatural Which definitively proves that it's not a presupposition. There's no supernatural Like here's a way we could verify the supernatural that definitely proves that I'm not excluding the supernatural because I just gave you a way To show it exists Okay, uh any other thoughts or justice or would you like to Move on to the next. Yeah, I'd like to respond real quick to uh something in the chat. Is that okay? Just real fast absolutely Um, this is something that came up in the other debate and I should have addressed it in my opening Someone is saying in the chat wise justice is head shaking Um, and there are some people will say like oh, he's got a demon his head is shaking. I have congenital nystagmus, um, which is Issue with my eyesight. And so uh because of that my head shakes to stabilize what I see And so it has nothing to do with Me being insane at least at least that's not evidence of my insanity. Um, or demons. Uh, it's just congenital nystagmus Unknown unknown thing. You're just cringing really hard at what I say. You disagree so badly. You just have to shake. No the entire time I have an uncle that has the same condition. So uh every time I'm talking to him. I'm like, you know, when I was a kid I was like, he's so disagreeable Let's carry on Joshua Woodwin does following logic and reason prove to you Yet the new atheism today is why the west is failing and old atheism welcomed Nazi Germany, so viet Stalin benito Italy, uh, mao china. What proof do you need? What was the question? Does following logic and reason prove to you yet the new atheism today is why the west is failing the old atheism welcomed The x-list of uh, you know, Nazi Germany, so viet Stalin, etc. It doesn't seem like a coherent question like So none of those were actually atheist movements. Those were all political movements Um, and all of those political movements are of governments that are trying to impose ideologies on people the new atheist movements Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, the uk are all people who are voluntarily choosing to adopt atheism So all of the dictatorships are where there are Dictators forcing people are forcing an ideology on people Um, whereas all of the new atheists are voluntarily Adopting atheism because it's just a better ideology and better societies. And so comparing the two It doesn't make sense to say new atheism is why the west is failing It's it's a product of the success of the west and why it's we're doing better than ever I don't know what he's talking about, but um the You can't criticize atheism in regards to like Hitler, Stalin, Mao because they're dictators and dictators of religious groups are Also bad. So the dictator part is the bad part of nothing to do with atheism anything the dictators do are bad because they're dictators Yeah, I would say in a quick response to that is that I always find it humorous that atheists will Hand wave and dismiss any societal experiments that were based on an atheistic worldview as oh, that's not, you know, real atheism that's not this and that and not deal with the real issue of the old atheism dismissing the old religions and Inventing having to invent ideologies to replace them that were horrific and the new atheism doing the exact same thing and that outside of the Theistic worldview structure system You can't build societies and the societies that are being built on those structures are By definition being more or less and less successful and in fact are Failing and the definition that I would use would be a biological definition because that is fundamental to the success of any society if your ideology And the methods that you're using moves your society to have a non-replaceable birth rate Sorry, your ideology your way of doing things is By definition prudent, you know headed for failure No, that's actually cherry picking So if we have a longer life expectancy better quality of life, that's what that's what you were that's what you were doing Right cherry picking. Um, no But these these ones don't I don't like these dictators. So they're not not the evidence of atheist societies No, so they're not atheist societies. They're Marxist social societies like there are lots of atheist societies like japan who don't do those things and The difference there is that you say here is a society by dictators Who do lots of bad things including banning religion None of which was based on atheism. Nothing they did was based on atheism. There's no Part of like doctrine of atheism that says they must implement when what was it? forget the the new kinds of Uh crop growing strategy that's still on try that killed millions of people None of that is supported by atheism a Marxism not supported by atheism Socialism not supported by atheism the genocide is not supported by atheism. Atheism doesn't support any of that.  You can't base anything on atheism. It literally makes no sense What we can say is that the difference here is that here is a societies run by dictators Who are trying to force people to be a certain way? Doesn't matter if it's atheists or theists. It's irrelevant. All dictatorship is bad And here are the societies today that are mostly atheists. None of them are doing that. They are simply choosing By virtue of themselves to become atheists majority atheist countries That's the difference that matters the people in countries where people choose to become atheists are the best in the world at everything and Except for replacing themselves biologically. I don't know why that man. That is literally doesn't matter It's like this is not a credit. It doesn't matter It matters because if you can't if you can't prolong your society That literally doesn't matter.  It was great.    Does it need to continue? No Does its continuance make it better or worse? No The ability to continue a society does not add to the quality of the society You can prolong societies that are godawful for very long periods of times. You live in russia. You should know that um The so the the idea that there's a criterion that requires you to progress the society for longer Is just irrelevant. It's just irrelevant to quality of life or happiness or the betterment of the society It's just a stupid thing religious nut jobs say because they want to force women to have more children against their consent That is Absolutely just uh, just again an insult without without foundation The if you have a car and one car and in and a car Is a good car It's one of the main things that makes it good. Is it, you know, can ask a million miles as opposed to a hundred thousand miles Uh, society can project itself into the future biologically is a fundamental prerequisite to saying that it's a good society um So if you can't extend All of the other all of the other virtues that a society may have Are fundamentally dependent on its ability to project itself into the future Just like if you have a washing machine a good washing machine does 5 000 cycles A bad washing machine does a lot less same thing here with societies Um, and you leave it up to the people in We're watching this to say oh, yeah, you could have a great society if everyone suicides Oh, no, that's that's not a great Only an idiot society that ended So only an idiot thinks that because they have everyone in the society who thinks that Not pretty are you done? Are you done now? Good idea wasting wasting my time.  That's again, which wants to force people to make have babies That's the consequence of this belief system.  Does that make it better? No Societies can end after any duration and if the quality of the lives of the people in those societies was Amazing then that was a good society forcing it to last longer is just irrelevant.  It's not determined based off of the amount of years you live Can people want more? Yes. That's great Does it matter to the quality of life of a person that they live a billion years?  I think that's completely Absolutely absurd. The other thing that's absurd is that t-jump keeps pushing this idea of forcing people to live longer I'm not saying about forcing people to live longer or forcing people to have babies. It's a question of Your framework your world view your ideology. Does it predispose you to extend the society or not? It's not about force. It's not about coercion. It's about what happens In a society that has a proper You know world view basis for actually extending itself into the future All right, any any response there? Do you jump if you want to carry on if you value the longevity of a society? And there's a society of people who don't want to Produce a birth rate higher than that reproduce higher than that to Refill the population If you start to force them Rape them to make more kids that will that will prolong the society So the implication of his argument even though he doesn't realize it because he hasn't thought very much about this field of economics And societal impact is forcing people by raping them to have more kids To increase the longevity of a society is a good thing That's that's a necessary consequence of his audience saying that that that the the the biological mandate is the only thing By which we major our society's success rate. That's that's of course And of course, you say that I if I would say that you know all raping is good if that's absolutely Absolutely insane, of course. No one's saying that That's literally that's a literally logical necessity of your argument. So your argument is absolutely Absolutely progresses for longer. Absolutely not. Okay. So let's just explain how he does that to be considered To to be considered successful a society has to Produce itself into the future just like a species to be considered successful has to move forward into the future It doesn't mean that any method of moving forward into the future is Justified or is ethical or is Equitable equatable to success, but it does need to produce itself into the future to be successful That's that's literally stupid. So if a society of people raping Does produce that feature then it's a higher level of being a successful society than one that has lower birth rates That's the consequence of your argument. So a society with rape Better than one with low birth rates. That's the that's a consequence of what you're saying. Absolutely not because oh So a society it does not need to be able to reproduce to be a good society Society a society must Extend itself in the future to be considered a society in the future It does not mean that a society that exclusively uses rape as a method of extension Is a good society jengus con biologically was successful because like what 30 percent of People in east Asia or the central Asia at the moment can trace their, you know, DNA back to him It doesn't mean that that was right or that was good Biologically, he was more successful. Is biological success the only thing that we measure when we're measuring the success of a society? Of course not, but it is a prerequisite No, it's not it's literally irrelevant Literally, so they could have been like a perfect society that only lasted a hundred years where everybody was happy And they didn't reproduce that society was objectively better than every other one like gang has gone even though his lasted longer You just it's just a dumb argument because you haven't thought very much about socioeconomic policy And insults on arguments I explained why you were wrong and then added an insult. That's how insults work So I I hear you're wrong.  It's the conclusion All right We have more questions coming in and if you have a question in the live stream I see that we have still quite an active audience watching our live right now Hit that like button and you know, definitely once the debate wraps up share this out in those spaces You like to have these discussions and let them know that they're happening here Uh, but yeah in the meantime, we're going to keep rolling through our super chats We're getting near the end. Uh, so, uh, you know, if you will guys keep pouring them in we'll keep the conversation rolling We got probably what about another 30 minutes? Before we would like to wrap up, but if we wrap up a little sooner, that's okay So it's all dependent on the super chats here. So let's carry on Uh, to do to do hackling the headlines Where are the metal the medical documents? Can we see them? Yeah, I mean, I could probably find those and get this to you. I don't make a collection of Those things but I know the people so I mean that is definitely, you know, they've got their test results. They went home Um, so but I mean, I don't have them like in a file But it could be it could be it could be gotten to All right. Okay. Yeah from there If one impure of you make all those documents public put it in the paper and be Pretty good important step Any thoughts over there justice, sir Yeah, I mean, uh in retrospect that you're right. I mean, that would probably be a really good idea to have those collected I just never uh thought of it. Um, but yeah All right, uh, let's carry on Josh well woodwind says smug atheists need to debate more andrew wilson's Everyone if andrew was rude then hold your idols to the same standards No, andrew was not an orthodox christian meek mild and gentle so any thoughts about, uh Um, we we we'd hosted andrew over debate con. So they're they're saying smug atheists need to debate more people like andrew wilson Uh, if andrew was rude then hold your idols to the same standards. So I think they're saying that People on both sides should do their best to not be rude I don't think that's what they're saying. I'm thinking what they're saying is is if someone criticizes A particular Ideology for being rude that you should also criticize their ideology for being rude. I'm okay with rudeness. I think rudeness is great I'm hyper polite. I'm canadian. Yeah, I I think that uh andrew made made a pretty good Some pretty good points, uh against matt. I think he did it in a very unchristian way Well, let's uh, yeah, well, let's try not to talk about other debaters. I mean, I know the question was directly about, uh It was about that. I'm only answering. Uh, what was the topic? Basically, uh, answered. I don't know. So I was answering. Yeah, that's okay. Uh, so yeah, we'll try to carry on from there But uh, what was the topic on that one? Uh, the topic of that question the topic on that one was Uh, the debate was is psychocumenism good for society? Yeah, the actual question. Yeah, sorry the actual debate. Yeah Sorry, I was uh, I was there for that. I'm still the still in recovery mode or something. I guess from I'm kidding everyone. All right. So trevor say says defending that scientists agree on a point that hasn't been proven uh physical participants to the universe Is appealing to authority Bless you. What was the question again? Defending that scientists agree on a point that hasn't been proven is appealing to authority No, it's not so a couple things there one appeals to authority or only fallacious if they're not real authority stand for psychopathy philosophy on fallacies number nine Um, secondly, it hasn't appeals to authority have nothing to do with whether or not something's been proven That's literally irrelevant Uh, in every way Secondly our thirdly quantum fields which have been confirmed through the casimir effect are Proven we have proven them. We know they exist. That's why the consensus is base time is emergent So all of that question is just a basic. I don't know anything about physics Tell me you don't know anything about physics without telling me you don't know anything about physics I the only thing I would say is that grudgingly I'd have to agree with uh, t jump on this one The appeal to the appeal to authority fallacy is Often misused. It's actually not the appeal to authority fallacy. Sometimes it's the appeal to authority appeal to authority fallacy All right. Well, let's see here Trey trevor c says Sorry, we just read that one actually we'll carry on. Thank you so much for that trevor Issa could be here. Uh, yeah, thanks for hanging out in the live chat there issa and I Like I said in the live chat, it was a pleasure meeting you in texas and hopefully you join us for a little discussion after this I'd like to hang out with you some more Issa asks, please share more about demons at both. Thank you So he just uh, he's just looking for more. He just he he feels like maybe there was something we didn't get to unpack You know what issa what I can do for you is maybe As since uh, that's a pretty loose question I can go into my chat gpt list that I pulled up earlier. That's right. I use chat dpt Um, and I'll see if I can find something here Uh, let's see. How might advancements in science and technology influence our understanding of the supernatural including the existence of demons Let's roll out and discover it. We could discover it. That'd be great So again, that would presuppose the physical nature of Uh demons that they could be discovered as opposed to all the phenomenologically observed Um, that's the same thing. I think the the questioner is asking for Uh ghost stories or demon stories, uh, which you know, I'm happy to provide maybe at the uh in the after show All right, well, let's carry on there Uh, let's see we can get some more that are a little bit. Um, uh, a little bit more specific there. Uh, yeah, issa Sorry about that. We didn't get too much out of that. But yeah Uh, maybe we'll get to talk a little bit more of it later. Joshua would win lunatic and quack or cinnamon synonyms Also, those prestigious colleges are all garbage today.  Um, yeah I will I will just ask that uh not to come directly at the super chatters there Uh, and just try to I do understand it but uh, yeah, just because we do appreciate our super chatters there and uh, Teejub makes it a habit to uh, he's going to have to send in more super chats though to defend yourself. They're joshua. Sorry But uh, Teejub makes it his personal habit to text and insult Both the debaters and the viewers. All right. All right. Um, so that's People in general Do insult people in general Alex comes in with his next one here says can faith heal an amputee? And yes, um does uh, not that i'm not that i've seen not that i'm aware of. Um, can yes All right, any thoughts over there Teejub? We just move on Um, I was like asking can a rock heal an amputee. I've never seen it happen But there's no logical contradiction in it Let's carry on. Ted O'Neill. Thank you. This will be our final super chat unless we have any more pop in but we We've gone for a pretty decent amount of time So, uh, you know, uh, if nobody else has any other questions, we'll end off here Ted O'Neill asks have larger families not had a greater success rate Is the atheistic worldly view affecting the success of having siblings and childbirth in society So again, this is a dumbass religious argument that only dumbasses make Whether or not you have siblings whether or not you have more kids Isn't a measure of quality of life Literally not you could have no kids and have an amazing life You have one kid have an amazing life whether or not the society makes enough kids to reproduce the society Is a dumbass republican talking point that is just literally irrelevant to whether a society is good Whether people's lives are good. You just don't need it. It's just an arbitrary statistic based on pragmatism Because republicans and religious people are obsessed with making women have children even if they don't want them All righty Uh, any thoughts or just yeah, sorry going to the into the into the literature. Um and see that The people who are from moderately large families. So from four to six children Usually have the most predictable Good outcomes for life. Um, both psychologically and economically Um, so there is literature on that. It's not just a dumbass talking point. Like no, it's false likes to likes quality of life as single kids single kids have the best to Um likes to say but so I'd encourage everyone to go look it up themselves. Again, uh Biologically putting yourself into the future is a prerequisite for the species and prerequisite for any decent society It's not the only thing you could have a horrible society that does survive into the future But if you want to have a successful society, it does have to Push itself into the future. Um in some way. So that's that's the definition of a successful society As one one of the definitions one of the fundamental definitions All right Yes, so sorry I just found it research consistently finds that only children tend to perform better academically and emotionally than multiple siblings illusion theory can help explain the only child's education advantage um and more time with the parents um more time to develop with friends uh more money can go to their education and uh hobbies So yeah single single children do better have better quality of lives than large I'd encourage the people who are watching this debate to look and do it themselves Um, don't take too jump's word for it. Um, he likes to insults and um read things from google So we do have one more super duke before you do your your your closing there and your wrap-up Sounds like you're trying to do a wrap-up there justice I will give you both one minute to close and i'm sorry andre I missed that very first super chat from you. Thank you so much for that first super chat And i'm sorry that you sent in a second one to clarify, but I it did get you brother I'm so sorry. So uh andre p asks t jump. What about historic militant atheists?  They're militant politicians and political ideologies that they're promoting They had nothing to do with atheism and literally irrelevant They just wanted people to obey their political systems. And so they wanted to take away opposing ideologies, which included religion like like what justice was saying about, um, Putin taking away Uh Jehovah's Witnesses because they didn't agree with his political system It's literally the same thing is what Hitler Mao and Pol Pot did literally the same thing It has nothing to do with promoting atheism. It's getting rid of dissidents Yeah, I think that the uh The observing or the the interested observer will Take into consideration Lenin Uh, a well known figure in the 20th century Who wrote 20 some volumes of work? Um and consistently Goes back to atheism as a fundamental for replacing the christian ideologies of the nations that he was Uh, you know inflicting communism on with an ideology that was consistent with atheism And so it's definitely not just oh, you know, it was communist. It was an atheist Atheism is the vacuum into which communism marxism Fascism whatever ism else that you have is then poured Um, so yes, is it directly atheism? No, but it's the prerequisite That's little this stupidest argument ever if you have an empty pot You can pour anything into it like christianity or judaism or islam empty pots are literally empty So claiming that oh, well they poured in a different thing. I didn't like instead of the garbage I do like is just hypocritical All right, let's move into and i'm gonna pass it back over to you t jump one minute on the clock to give your closing statement Okay, i'm done good next Thank you t jump one minute on the clock. They're just this closing statement So as I said in the beginning, I want to do this debate to give a reference point for people who might be suffering from uh, demonic oppression or Different demonic influences. I'd like you to consider the fact that there is that Historical argument which I gave There is quite a bit of evidence from modern exorcists who have been helping people and I have my own anecdotal evidence Which I provided or was able to reference to If you are dealing with feelings of depression anxiety or other more serious influences That cannot be explained that you might think have to do with demonic I would really really really encourage everyone to get psychological Help to get to help from a medical institution But if they persist know that you may have be dealing with something greater something more powerful than What the medicine or what the institution? Of modern medicine can explain and you may need help so seek help Christ can help you Christ gives freedom from the demonic And so be free know the truth and be free The gaps argument love it with that.  So if you like what you're hearing from either of them Definitely check out the links in the description We are going to be doing an after show over at matters now So you can come check that out in the meantime.