SmokeySaintPolemics‬ Tesseract God’s nature, timelessness, eternal plan, relation to dimensions

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(01:38):
None. Voice is right.
We're breaking through the noise, cutting lights, the
truth. No time for toys.
From the airway to the store, wetake control.

(02:02):
The story must be sold. But no chains can hold, No Fear
can bind. We speak the really the faith
behind a culture, a rebel tune the signal's strong.
We're breaking through GOD TV radio, the breaking show GOD TV

(02:37):
radio something, someone like this through the static hear the
battle cry, question everything and then.

(03:04):
We're standing 41 point one. No chains can hold, No Fear can
bind. We speak the real faith behind

(03:28):
all. We're breaking through God.
TV Radio The Breaking show. Tux of venom weaving lies

(04:04):
spinning webs beneath blood red skies to seek the crown.
The hearts of stone betrayers kneel on a self for throne.
No mercy waits, no truth to save.
Their twisted words dig their own grave.
Flames rise high, the judgement calls the liars, and fire

(04:30):
crumbles and falls In the fires of hell they scream.
Annihilation tears their dream. No escape from the molten fire.
They're so Sebastian to save us.Their final land.

(05:01):
Falsehoods caught in a world of pain, Their silver tongues now
bound in chains. The abistions claims their
fates. No lights can flee.
It's burning hate the truth theymuch now with their souls.
Please rise high, the judgement calls the liars.

(05:26):
Fire crumbles and fires and firecrumbles and fires.
In the fires of hell. They scream annihilation tears
their dreams. No escape from the molten fire
fire. Screams echo through the endless

(06:00):
night. No savior comes to grant them
light. Their words went sharp now turn
to dust, betrayed by lies. There bones compos up in the
interim. Annihilation.

(06:46):
No escape from the mountain.

(07:24):
Well, hello ladies and gentlemen, my name is Brett
Keene from GOD TV Radio. I hope you're all having a
wonderful day. Let's put Smokey on the big
screen along with Prophet Daniel.
What's going on guys? Are you ready for some awesome
questions and what do you guys been up to?
Hey, how are you, Brad? Nice seeing you for the second

(07:46):
time of the day. How are you Smokey?
What'd you guys think of that intro?
Is that me that? Was good.
I liked it. It was good.
Oh yeah, the songs were pretty good.
I'm going to share this on Discord just real quick to let
everyone know that remind them because you tell them, you know,

(08:09):
days before and you know, life happens, they forget.
So I'm going to pop it in here real quick.
I hear you. They might be looking for the
butt cream I keep hearing about.Yeah, that's yeah.
They've been playing some very, very cringy antics over there in
the Free Grace universe. I the way their brains work
really does just shock the heck out of me.

(08:31):
So. Well, well, he's doing that with
Discord Prophet Daniel. How do you feel about your
conversation earlier with Brother Maverick?
It seemed like it was a good discussion.
Yeah, I had the same feeling. It was a good discussion.
What did you feel about it? I thought it was enjoyable.

(08:53):
It was what I expected. Everybody was going to talk, be
respectful and cool, and there was going to be a little bit of
intensity. So do you think now I'm ready to
debate David Wood? Yeah, we'll, we'll have to.
We'll have to work on it. But I think there's some

(09:14):
potential for sure. So sorry, what did you say?
I said there's definitely some potential, but David?
Would it's a. Different kind of animal, so I
don't know how he'd make me nervous.
I see you have a debate coming up on Standing for Truths.
Channel Daniel against praise. I am.

(09:38):
It's definitely about the lowesthanging fruit you can possibly
reach on the Christian tree. So you're definitely starting at
the bottom rung. I wanted to let you know you're
kind of, you know, if you've ever played RPGs, you know,
before you get to the boss, you have all the little gremlins and
goblins and stuff. Praise is like one of them.
So it's just, you know, the quick slashes.
And it's unfortunate too, because I'm Christian, but
praise is such an incompetent nonce.

(09:59):
I think that it's just going to be a ridiculous blow out.
You'll probably show him quite afew things and that just like
how Spider, probably one of the dumbest atheists I've ever come
across, managed to completely own praise, I am as well and
wreck him. So best of luck to that.
Kind of, I guess that's your your premier debut on the
Standing for Truth Channel, if I'm not mistaken.
I think that's your first debateover there, isn't it?

(10:21):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Cool.
OK. Well, best of luck to you.
Yeah. Thank you.
I'm basically looking for any opportunity to to put myself out
there, so I'll take everything that comes my way.
That's where I was at six years ago where I would just basically
show up and debate absolutely anything, including veganism.

(10:42):
I got some following from anti vegans there for hot men, even
though I wasn't really in the mode to be necessarily anti
vegan. You know, everyone can choose
their own diets for themselves, but I got thrown into some of
those debates. Even got a bit of a following
just off of the anti vegan crowd.
Someday I'll tell you about Smokey's fully vegan pig farm
and that'll. Be.

(11:04):
That'll be an interesting thing.They, they didn't want to talk
to me after that much at all. So.
Right. Well, where do we go from here,
Brett? You know, just waiting for you
to post the link and giving you guys an app.
Yeah, we're good. Yep, I posted it up so if
anyone's out there they should be popping in.
I guess the best way to start a a video or show like this is to

(11:27):
basically have you guys define God's attributes, or at least
how you interpret them, such as omniscience, omnipresence, all
that for the audience or people who will hear it down the road.
OK, sure. Do you want me to start or?
You know, I'm sure. OK so just so everyone's aware

(11:49):
of kind of my operational perspective is going to be from
around about 30 plus years of study of Christian theology and
multi faith theology, usually with a fixation on logic and
philosophy and also an understanding of church history,

(12:09):
biblical hermeneutics, philosophical interpretation,
metaethics, metaphysics in termsof regards to God's relationship
to reality. I spent a lot of time looking
into this because I am one of those people who these type of
things are left in the milieu ofconfusion or being unanswered in
my mind was problematic. So I dedicated a lot of time not

(12:32):
to what I would say a specific conventional structured type of
study, but to learn specificallywhat I felt was essential enough
to justify my epistemology, thatI was coming to correct beliefs,
and when it comes to the nature of God, just to begin from
there. So you guys know I'm operating

(12:52):
from a Mullinist perspective. Most people are familiar with
Calvinism, Arminianism, maybe some people even open theism.
I am none of those. I am a Mullinist, which is a
mildly different category. It lines a little bit closer to
Armenianism and some people would argue is compatible with

(13:16):
Arminianism and their viewpoint of the preservation of the
existence of mankind's free will.
So in terms of God's sovereigntyfrom this perspective that I'm
operating from or God's attributes, I would take of
course the understanding that Heis all of those things that you
typically hear of the Omni's omnipresent, omniscient,

(13:41):
omniscient, all knowing, and of course omnipotent, all powerful.
However, the way that many people define these terms is
philosophically inept most of the time.
These terms are usually adopted into the realm of absolute
logical absurdity, and that's not the thing we're talking

(14:02):
about when we mean all powerful or all knowing.
Particularly all powerful is theone that is most abused to.
Generally, every apologetic is just fine with the general kind
of absolutist idea of all knowing, but different versions
of the faith will take that to mean different things.
And just to give you an example,a Calvinist believes that

(14:24):
generally, and this, you know, there's brands of Calvinism, but
in general a Calvinist will believe that the universe is
very deterministic. This means that there is only
one possible reality, therefore making that reality basically a
necessary reality or an essential reality.
It's the only reality that possibly can be.
So the idea of God having middleknowledge where he could know

(14:47):
other possible realities is an incoherent factor in their
theology. They don't have a place for
middle knowledge in their viewpoint.
And this is how a Calvinist would approach these things.
Very different from me because aCalvinist would be much more
hyper deterministic in terms of their view, even fatalistic in
some regards. So I do adopt all of the

(15:08):
traditional Omni qualities, but they would need clarification.
They're not the general low thinking, low IQ absolutism type
of definitions that people tend to give.
Everyone's free will, and I do believe this includes God, is
tied to their nature. We as human beings cannot make

(15:30):
decisions that are outside of our nature.
As an example, I can't walk outside and simply decide to
sprout wings, fly, and take on the nature of a bird.
There's a limit of range and scope into my free will
exercises that are limited by mynature.
God is the same way. Since God is good, the standard
of good, that which is good, allof his actions that flow, must

(15:52):
necessarily be good. This is him acting within the
range of his nature. And I can take this from a
different angle, where essentially whatever God would
do would be good anyway, becausehe's the only objective standard
that exists. So anyone arguing from any side
point about that would argue purely from the subjective
framework. And it's a completely fallacious

(16:13):
argument where you start. It's actually nonsensical.
I'm surprised so many people entertain it by attempting to
use subjective cultural norms and morality to attack the
existence of God. Anyway, I'm sidetracking a bit.
So to basically nail it down, I accept all of the Omni qualities
with the exception that I wouldn't allow low thinking, non

(16:34):
theological minds to come up with the definitions.
I would use actual theological biblically backed definitions.
So. I'll yield that very good your
thoughts, prophet Daniel, how would you describe the
attributes of God? Hey, yeah, thank you for the

(16:58):
overview of Smokey. I mean, the way I would define
these qualities of God, omniscience, omnipotence and
omnibenevolent as a human being.I think God has a relationship

(17:19):
with me and God has introduced to me with these qualities and
those qualities are to provide me or equip me with the
understanding of how God would operate with me in this
relationship and outside of thisrelationship.

(17:41):
God is much more beyond my comprehension.
And what would that entail in IShis overarching creation in
which I find myself as a elementor a creature.
But God is so much more than he would obviously communicate to

(18:05):
me. So what whatever he would
communicate to me would apply tome.
But whatever He had, he hasn't really communicated to me is
where I would not. I would not be able to
comprehend Him, right? So when he communicates to me
his qualities of omniscience, the way I would understand that

(18:27):
is God knows things or about things that exist.
God is aware of everything that exists.
Basically, God knows everything.Things that we as human beings
still cannot see, for example, or cannot perceive, or have not
means, have not developed the means into knowing things

(18:51):
because they exist. God already knows them, and he's
not in any way prevented from knowing things that exist out
there. So that's how I would understand
omniscience. I would not necessarily
understand omniscience to mean all future possibilities or all

(19:11):
future actualities, for example.So I would not necessarily
understand omniscience to include a future, although God
does. God does inform me about some of
the future things that he would go on to do, but I would not
necessarily understand omniscience to mean everything

(19:32):
that I would do in the future, that God is already aware of
those actualities. So I would not necessarily argue
omniscience to include that knowledge and omnipotence is I
would understand again as omnipotence to be like God is
capable of controlling everything that would have a

(20:01):
relationship with me kind of thing.
Like how would I say this is anyaspect?
Which would go on to bring aboutsome sort of some form of
determinism in human human life.God is in control of it.
So even though human beings havefree will, God is ultimately in

(20:28):
charge of allowing certain outcomes to occur.
The determinism right there being God has the capability in
his omnipotency to cause a divine intervention like the
miracles for example, God intervened during Moses exodus

(20:55):
upsetting matters for Pharaoh and God also intervenes with his
heaven's forces to alter the course of the battles.
So God is an omnipotent God, butthat does not mean that out of
my own free will and volition I'm prevented normally prevented

(21:20):
at doing certain things unless God makes this divine
intervention to to stop my volition.
Right, So that's how I would understand omnipotence of
Almighty God. And Omni benevolence is again,

(21:41):
it's not like a, a permanent thing or a permanent promise.
Omni benevolence is of course, God has given me this life.
He's been benevolent to me, which I enjoy like where I'm
nourished, cherished, even though I maybe not really

(22:02):
thanking God enough, but God just does it out of his own
grace that he gives or bestows life.
And the the determinism right there would be that as I

(22:23):
understand from the theology in the Quran is if I am becoming
aware of the truth to a degree that I'm satisfied in knowing
the truth, but I elect to disbelieve in the truth, then
God would seize his benevolence towards me.

(22:44):
So these are the qualities of God, the three essential
qualities, the oh, God qualitiesthat this is how I relate to
them. And yeah, so that's my take.
We got a couple of different attributes as well.
I'm sure you both have probably heard it.

(23:06):
The timelessness, eternity existing outside of time and
space, not bound by linear progression, immutability,
unchanging an essence or character, and one last one,
goodness, often described as thevery source of moral perfection
and love. Is this your views?

(23:27):
Fine with that. Yeah, I mean, again, I think the
way we I understand this is God is for sure timeless.
I mean, there's no question about that.
I mean, you God is not captured in in the in the linear
progression of time, His being is not captured there.

(23:51):
But the way I would, I would, I would say is God does interact
in time, although he is not bound by it, He does perform in
time and he's performed a numberof different things.
He's created lots of things and us and also has a dynamic

(24:11):
relationship with us in which hesort of interacts with us in a
dynamic way. So God does interact in time
that does not curtail his timelessness.
And yeah, that's my understanding of his
timelessness. I guess I could.

(24:37):
Kind of springboard off of that,and I'm actually glad to hear
you say that. But Daniel, it's kind of a
little bit of a meeting of the mindset right away in terms of
God's being completely detached or separate from any idea of
chronology, certainly linear chronology or any other type of.
Potentially higher. Dimensional chronology.

(24:59):
He is time less. This is this is essentially even
for God to be philosophically coherent for the universe to
even be in existence at all. I believe this is basically an
essential proof to the existenceof God.
However, and this is where againto focus on the idea where like

(25:21):
what exactly is his function We in in terms of how his thoughts,
function, actions, things like that.
There are classical theology takes where like say for
instance tomistic philosophy andtheology is the idea that God is
basically pure action. He just.
Is action we see Because when you have the idea that the

(25:45):
divine is free of any kind of chronology, then the action
itself is eternal. So there was no point in time
where God had not decided to create creation because he's
timeless. So there's no progression of

(26:09):
thought. There is the mind of God in its
seemingly incredible complexity that is able to pull together
all facts of all possible realities of all possible times
and coalesce it together in singularity.
Now, we can't imagine how this could possibly function.

(26:29):
Our brains, the way that we relate to reality is very
linear. It's progressive, you know, and
to even attempt to wrap our brains around the type of
thinking that God would be having doesn't mean it's not
true. Our inability to grasp in full
aspects of his nature is to be expected for a transcendental

(26:52):
entity. Anyone that would claim that
they have a God that is perfectly definable and
describable and logical at by the level of finite 3
dimensional logic and classical mechanics, I'm going to think
you have a fake God. You have a God that's made of
something. You have a God that's inside
reality, not outside reality. This is why the Christian God

(27:16):
claimed despite the squawking ofall the atheists.
And this is again, I don't want to get down this road, but I'd
love to do a stream even sometimes talk about why the
Pascals wager is one of the bestarguments if the atheists were
ever actually honest about how other religions compared to
Christianity in terms of what the God claim actually is.
Our God claim makes sense. OK, We're talking about an

(27:38):
entity that is a source of all reality, all facts, all truths,
all laws of logic, laws of physics, the function of the
universe. All these transcendental
constants that permeate our reality cannot be constants of
their own all in singularity. They all have to be grounded
somewhere because they all mesh with each other, They all fit

(27:59):
together together with each other.
And to adopt the idea that you have a plurality of constants
out there that just so happened at near random to come together
to be coherent, a rally is, is awild speculation, far more wild
than the speculation that there is a God that grounds and
reasons all facts and transcendentals.

(28:20):
It's also why I think the tag argument is generally powerful.
It's not particularly convincingbecause people suppress the
knowledge and their unrighteousness, so they don't
always come to terms with it. But I do think it's, it's
coherent if anyone's being objective and rational and
honest that they will go up on to that.
So God cannot have any type of chronology to him.

(28:41):
And it doesn't matter if you don't like it because you can't
wrap your brain around it. It's just how it is.
So when we are defining God or talking about God, we should be
cautious that we're not doing anything.
We're attaching any kind of chronology to him.
We do not want to do anything where we are taking part of
creation and saying God is just like that.

(29:04):
It's blasphemy in Islam. It's a reprobate blasphemy.
It's the unforgivable sin calledshirk.
Once you compare and equivocate part of Allah's creation along
with him, it's over for you. You're going to go to hell where
Allah does horrible things with your nether regions apparently.
Or something. If you believe the hadith,
that's that's up to you. But in any case, you have to be

(29:26):
conscientious that we were describing God.
There are going to be certain components of Him that we can
only reference analogically. At best, you can only say God's
kind of like this. He's kind of like this thing,
but he's kind of like this idea.We cannot correlate a direct one
to one ratio because God himselfby nature is transcendental.
And to think you're going to drag him down to our level and

(29:49):
make him perfectly easily understandable and definable in
his transcendental nature with our finite minds and finite
limitations, that's absurdity. That's a fool's errand.
So the thought of yield. Yeah.
I mean, I kind of see some of the rationale that you just laid

(30:12):
out have got some problems, especially with the decisions
that you attribute to God has been has always been timeless.
And that really takes away the ability of God to articulate a
new a new thing or a new idea, for example, because those

(30:35):
articulations are basically prompted or requested by an
agent who's who's human in this case, for example.
So human pleads to God, brings new matters to the attention of
God, beseeches God. So for God to have decided
those, made those decisions in atimeless fashion, and then

(31:02):
manifest them through the instantiation of of His
timelessness decision into a speech.
Kind. Of builds the fatality model or
the the Calvinistic model again in making those ideas of God or

(31:25):
decisions of God as portent of determinism, which basically
caused the actualities with these people beings with free
will to to imitate. Towards.
Towards complying towards those decisions that were previously

(31:45):
made already with God. So it it does gravitate towards
a Calvinistic, federalistic, deterministic model eventually,
because if God cannot speak anew, then God is not free or
say dynamic, which limits in a way his omnipotence.

(32:07):
The the premise that God should know these things in a timeless
fashion and should have made those decisions in a timeless
fashion kind of backfires on God's omnipotence not to have a
dynamic volition with his beingswho are capable of free will.
Otherwise, the real capability of free will is sort of

(32:30):
diminished if God has made timeless decisions in favor of
those agents who have or possessthis free will, for example.
So it's kind of kind of the rational that you were trying to
bring with the with the premise that our limitations, we can
never understand God and we should not insist in

(32:50):
understanding or comprehending God.
I do understand when I laid out my own premise that in relation
to how God speaks to us, we fathom or comprehend him in that
lens. But outside of it, we don't
really know the capability, the full capabilities, or the full
suit of capabilities of AlmightyGod.

(33:11):
We can only make sense of Him inthe way He communicates to us in
and in the way that He's communicated to us.
Like. We see in also in the Bible, we
see God gives promises and makescovenant and calls them as
everlasting. But we also see God kind of

(33:31):
dynamic gives a dynamic or issues a dynamic response upon
the disobedience of these agentswho are manipulating the free
will that as an award that God has given them to be obedient
out of liberty, right? So when they manipulated and
become malevolent, God dynamically reproduce them and

(33:54):
it has new words like like disciplining them, abandoning
them. So which is which is contrary to
some of the words that he had. He had.
He gave them as in the form of promises before real.
Quick to nail it down, are you saying that God is like offering
the choices of his agents or or are you not saying that I'm not,

(34:18):
I'm not quite gathering it. Sorry, what did you say?
Or are you? Saying God is offering the
choices of the agents that he creates or I'm not saying.
Or. Are you saying that my position
has to say that? Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, Yeah. That's.
What I'm saying OK. OK.
That I think is a little bit of a category error, but I want to

(34:42):
let you finish before I answer it.
I just wanted to clarify if you weren't saying that this was, I
just want to make sure you weren't putting your position or
you were saying this was what myposition entails.
So I just want to make sure. So go ahead, OK.
So the reason why I'm saying that is when God has this
timeless decisions being made already, they are necessarily

(35:03):
true and they have, once they are pronounced, they become
predictions and a necessary outcome will ensue because God's
decisions that's forgone in timelessness have to necessarily
be realized in in reality. So it makes God a deterministic

(35:27):
God who at the same time is in this dilemma whether he has
really given absolute free will to his agent or is pretty much
dictating that free will to perform a set of or a series of
actions in a linear time frame for which he has already made

(35:49):
decisions in the past or before time.
So timeless speech is not essential to divine will and
agency. It may be a misappropriation of
a necessary trade of the divine agency.
I don't necessarily see decisions made in a timeless,

(36:13):
timeless way as an as essential to the divine will, an agency,
and in my opinion, that really does not define God's nature as
as justified through his attributes because they inhibit
his omnipotence to have a dynamic coalition with the

(36:36):
agents of free will. So is.
Essentially what I'm getting from this is that if you cannot
experience emotions like a human, you can't experience
emotions. Is that kind of what I'm getting
from this? Cause like, let me put it this

(36:56):
way, Let me put it a different way.
Let me, let me start back. Let me let me backtrack a little
bit, let's say. So there's two.
Possible realities, one where Moses talks to the rock and one
where Moses strikes the rock. There's two possible realities.
God wants him to do one thing and there's two possible

(37:17):
realities. Moses is either going to listen
or he's not going to listen. Now before that event has ever
happened in reality, could you agree that God could have chosen
what he would have done with either one of Moses decisions?
I, I, I would say the actualities were not decided by

(37:38):
God. The actuality, the God was aware
in his omniscience of the probabilities and striking the
rock twice would have been like,that's a probability that Moses
could do. He could strike it once, twice,
or thrice for example. I'm not.
I'm not talking about a God thatdeals in probabilities.

(38:00):
My my God is on omniscient. He does know everything, but he
also. Along the lines.
Of middle knowledge. Middle knowledge means God knows
all possible realities, not. And.
Actually, I I might even argue this would be a completely
different thing. It's not really germane to what

(38:20):
we're talking about. I would argue that God possibly
even knows all impossible realities.
But anyway, nonetheless God, Godis fully aware of the spectrum
and range and scope of the creation that he made and the
ranges and possibilities all there is and has decisions pre
made depending upon whatever hisfree will agents choose to do
from the beginning. And this is more of the

(38:41):
Molanistic perspective, because the way you're unpacking it,
you're actually going backwards.You're actually making God
required to act upon knowledge as if it's necessary.
Instead of starting back at the beginning and saying of all
possible realities that emerge, God have could have chosen what
He wanted to do, whatever each one of His free will agents

(39:01):
chose to do. So and.
What it sounds like is maybe there isn't quite a clarity in
terms of an understanding of thedifference between, say, hard
determinism and soft determinism.
And to clarify that for anyone in the audience that isn't
understanding, you should know about this, especially if you're
going to go out and you're goingto attempt to tackle Calvinists

(39:22):
or fatalists or determinists. This is something you need to be
very intimately aware of about God's reality and and his
creation. Hold on.
I'm so sorry, guys. 2 seconds. I will be right back. 2 seconds.
Take your time all. Right.
No. Problem.
All right, I guess I'll throw a question at you while we're

(39:45):
waiting and all that, and I'll repeat it to Smokey.
Do you assert that God himself has beliefs?
God himself. Has beliefs?
Well, I would say so. I would say so I would say yes.

(40:12):
OK, I'm so sorry. I don't know if you heard
Smokey, but I had thrown out a question because I had no idea.
If I Yeah, I'm sorry. So one thing.
Yeah. So just to get back to it, we're
talking about Moses and these two possible realities that
emerge. I want to go and reframe it.
I want to talk about actually one particular example with

(40:32):
Joseph and his brother. So you know, Joseph was sold
into slavery, so. Joseph.
Joseph is decided to be hated byhis brothers.
Part of this, we understand, is instigated by a dream that he
has, which he decides to go and share with his brothers.
His brothers get extremely jealous and they decide, well,
we hate Joseph. He's getting all the attention
from his father. We don't like him.

(40:52):
So they're going to take Joseph and they're going to basically
capture him and sell him into slavery.
Now, God knew this was going to happen.
I was really aware that this wasan event that was going to
happen. We also know that God is all
powerful and that He could have chosen to stop it.
Now what is the simple fact of the matter is that while God
knew what was going to happen and could have stopped it, He

(41:13):
didn't. Now this does not mean He
authored the decision of the people.
He did not believe He authored the decision of the brothers to
do this. He didn't reach in their hearts,
reprogram their minds and make them want to do this.
This was a manifestation of their own selfish desires and,
and hatred towards their brotherand and just jealous envy,

(41:34):
covetousness really of the position amongst amongst their
father and really kind of being the favorite.
This was just a manifestation oftheir their disgust, their their
general hatred and evil that wasin their hearts directed toward
their brother. God didn't author this.
It exists and this is what we see in the past and we see later
on where it says what you meant and Joseph is talking to his

(41:55):
brothers is what you meant for evil.
God had meant for good. Now the determinist, the
fatalist will look at that passage like the Calvinist and
they'll say, oh, God made the brothers do this.
God intentionally made the brothers do this.
God pre programmed their brains.He could have changed things a

(42:17):
certain way, but he didn't and he made sure and absolutely that
his brothers wouldn't want to dothis.
However, the Molanist or even the compatiblist or the soft
determinist, which again, this is another brand of Calvinism,
which if you guys are going to argue with Calvinism, you should
know this, which is the soft determinism, which is basically
more of what I presented that God did not author the decision,

(42:39):
the evil of their hearts. It just was there and he just
didn't do anything to stop it, you know, and in doing so
basically allowed that to be hiswill that manifested.
That does not mean that God determined it.
That does not mean that God created a necessary reality
where that had to happen. It was an event that occurred,

(42:59):
and this could have happened anyother number of ways that didn't
have to go exactly the way this story did with the brothers
developing this hatred in their heart.
Maybe the brothers had chosen differently and maybe there was
a different plan or some other way to go about where the
salvation of the people would have emerged.
We don't know. But this is what the decisions
of the free will agents chose todo.
And God operated within that dynamic of the free will agent

(43:23):
choices to bring about His will or the best possible ends based
upon the conclusions of the freewill agents based upon their
actions. So you can see God operating,
and I believe this is seen clearly in Scripture, how God
operates with reality. This is his good pleasure.
This is his exercise of sovereignty is to actually work

(43:45):
with reality instead of simply micromanaging it like some sort
of little model that he set up that's pre programmed to operate
in a specific way. In this regard, reality is
organic. It's alive, it's valuable
because it's full of expressionsof free will.

(44:07):
The thing that makes our our expression towards God in terms
of worship and faith so incredibly value is partially
because we could have chosen otherwise.
In a reality where we don't havethe option to disobey God, our
choices to obey God are really just.

(44:29):
I mean, who cares? You know, you're just a robot.
I mean, what is that relationship?
I mean, what it what good is it to have, you know, a Stepford
wife, some automaton that you program like how organic and
real is that relationship? Is that fulfilling?
No. And God's good pleasure was to
have fulfilling relationships with his creation.
And this requires free will agency.

(44:49):
And that also means that when the agent decides to exercise
their free will, you don't show up and stop them doing it
because it's not exactly dead onthe bullseye, which by the way,
that's what all sin is. Only God makes decisions
perfectly. Everything we do will be
somewhere outside of the scope cause only God can do it all

(45:10):
perfectly. OK, so if God shows up every
time we're not on bullseye, what's the point of having free
will anyway? He's negating free will.
There is no free will if that's what's happening.
So we need it's important to understand the importance of the
primary feature of reality. The only.

(45:30):
Reason this reality exists, it'steleology is to provide an
environment for a direct, real, meaningful relationship with the
creator. And that needs to be basically
the type of reality that we're in where you can choose to do
the wrong thing because now whenyou choose to do the right

(45:51):
thing, it has value because you didn't have to choose that.
You have a chance for a real, genuine, actual relationship
with God. He's not a spiritual rapist.
And this is my big problem with Calvinism, because I'm sorry,
but I shouldn't say that. I apologize.
No, that's cool. Man, I got it.
He's he's not forcing you into alove relationship.

(46:14):
This is not how any of us recognize love to be one of the
absolute unequivocated force. You know, this is not how any of
us see love. So I don't know how we can adopt
any type of idea of deterministic reality.
And unfortunately, Daniel, no, Idon't agree.

(46:34):
I don't think that my position leads to any type of strict
determinism whatsoever because it doesn't require God authoring
the will of his agents. It just requires him making
decisions prematurely before time of what he would do when
they choose based upon what theychoose.
And that's really all it requires.
And God can know what choice they're going to make and choose

(46:56):
to not act on that knowledge. God is not required to act on
all knowledge that he has at hisdisposal.
That's that's a violation of hisfree will.
Just like if I know yet tomorrow's winning lottery
numbers, I don't have to do anything with that knowledge.
But if I want to, I can go down and buy a ticket and be a

(47:17):
lottery. But I'm not a lottery winner
just by knowing what the lotterynumbers are.
So all you ever thought, hey. Thank you.
I mean, you laid out the story of Joseph in a very, very
agreeable manner. I mean, I totally agree with the
whole narrative that you broughtabout in the storyline of

(47:39):
Joseph. But the sort of conclusions that
you draw, I believe, are where the problem is.
Because when you say the decisions have been made already
in a timeless fashion because God knew exactly what would
happen. And but you also go on to say,

(48:01):
oh, it need not have happened ina particular way because the
agents with free will could haveacted in slightly different way
and the outcomes could slightly be different.
But God knew all those possibilities beforehand 'cause
he's omniscient. And I would, I have a
categorical argument here for you to deal with.
How can I mean, given that God is free will, God has his will

(48:27):
and it's free will basically, and agents also have received
the gift of free will. So agents do exercise the gift
of free will. And how could God Almighty who
provided agents with this free will?

(48:48):
Sort of. Hijack their free will in
knowing the the actualities of what these agents would go on to
determine utilizing their free will.
So it's kind of like a argument which is at the crossroads here.
So free will by nature entails that the choice that the agent

(49:15):
would go on to determine is cannot be known unless and until
the agent comes up with that, with that decision.
Categorically false. That's categorically false.
So how? Why would?
You say it's. It's false because what you're.
What you're saying is that whatever the choice is, is
necessary. That's not you're working
backwards. The the eventuality of the

(49:37):
choice does not dictate the choice.
You're saying What you're basically saying is that the
conclusion dictates the 'cause. That's asinine.
That's philosophically incoherent.
You're saying the, the, the conclusion or the effect it
causes the cause. It's, it's nonsensical.
This is not how things operate. There's there's no, there's no

(50:00):
connection between the two. The one is the antecedent.
You're not, you know, you can't affirm, you know, the precedent
with the antecedent. You know, you're, you're
basically trying to, to make it,you know, justify itself.
And that's just not how it works.
What the conclusion of the thingdoesn't mean that the decision
was necessary. It could have been either way.

(50:22):
And even if God knows which one it is, he's not required to act
upon it to make sure it's one orthe other.
He can allow it to the consequence of the free will
agent and the environment set up.
He's not required to act upon itlike and I I need some sort of
argument that shows that if that's really what you're
presenting. I kind of I.

(50:44):
Kind of didn't didn't really getwhat you what you just concluded
out of my out of my explanation.Basically, you are the one who's
telling me that God has made these decisions in timeless way,
right. And can you can you go into the
nitty gritty of these decisions that God has made in the story

(51:05):
of Joseph, for example, what sort of decisions did he make
Well? Well, again, well, let me put it
this way. We can track this back any
number of ways, but the point isthat you don't.
You're not in taking the story of Joseph.
You're not required to take somesort of fatalistic idea that
Joseph was forced into this situation, that this was a
necessary reality. That's not what it is.

(51:27):
The free will agents chose this and God worked with it to
basically bring out. Had they chose differently, God
would have made different decisions to bring about His
will. See, like just because this
unfolded, just because this is what unfolded doesn't mean it
was the necessary reality. And just because God foresaw it

(51:49):
doesn't mean it was the necessary reality.
Again, he's not required to act,to act in any type of way in
reality to make sure anything happens in any type of way.
If he doesn't want to, he can. He can do that.
He can certainly alter things and do some sorts of dynamic
things, but in general what we see is that that God respects

(52:11):
his relationship dynamic with his reality and that generally
his choices always fall in line with continuing to protect the
primary teleology of reality, which is this meaningful
relationship. This is why God just doesn't
take, you know, good people and snap them out of reality and put
them on a cloud or give every person their own planet and

(52:33):
solve all the wars in the world and do all these things that we
supposedly expect them to do. This is all part of the
essentiality of reality, to be afree will interrelationship
dynamic with the Creator. This is why it is this way.
It does not mean he's in any waydictating the choices of his
agents just because he knows what they're going to do.

(52:55):
It doesn't. That does not require him in any
type of way operating on that knowledge to make sure they
choose one way or the other justbecause he knows what they're
going to do. This it's just non sequitur.
It's not connected. You were saying?
Smokey that we don't get our ownworld.
No endorsements here folks, but Mormons are for the planets.
Well, there's reasons. When the atheist come to you and

(53:17):
say hey, why didn't God during the flood snap all the babies
away and put them all on their own planet.
And there's this crazy crap thatlike T Jump would throw at me
and like, not even understandinghow he completely misunderstands
the entire purpose of reality inthe challenge from the Christian
worldview, it's a completely incoherent challenge.
We're not even talking about really a possible reality here.

(53:41):
We're not talking about a reality where God has any type
of real, genuine, meaningful relate.
Hold on, God, hold on a second. OK, no problem.
Well, I won't. Ask any philosophical questions
whenever he needs to take a break or you take a break.
I'll just simply ask you how youbeen.

(54:03):
Are you feeling all right? Yeah, I'm, I'm.
Feeling all right, I just got uptoo early today, but the but I'm
nothing nothing wrong. I'm I'm I'm all right.
So I just want to understand from you now as I'm talking to
Smokey, I, I just finished the Smokey and I'll, I'll jump back
with you. So I want to call from you,
Brett, Go ahead. How do you think?

(54:25):
How do you think the conversation is going between me
and Smokey here? Where?
Where do you think is? Is the understanding not coming
together between me and Smokey? Well, unfortunately, I Daniel,
it's not really, this wasn't really meant for a debate, but
if you were to get an opinion onthis, it appears as though

(54:46):
you're falling into some of the Calvinist views where you're,
you're kind of taking away the concept of free will.
That's what I'm getting from it.And he's trying to explain
something else. Would you guys mind if I gave an
analogy? And if you want to RIP it apart,
you can, sure. My.
Being that I'm a gamer, my my games are programmed and they're

(55:08):
set up and they're predeterminedon how they're going to work.
But once I grab the controller and my avatar within the
program, I can move it around and I have the framework to be
able to meet the goals. The goals are known.
Everything about it, the levels,the environment, it's all known,
but I have the ability to navigate through it.

(55:31):
That's how I see it. If I if you want to tear it up,
you can. It's it's an interesting.
Analogy. I think in a way, yes you can.
You can do within your decision making of the character.

(55:51):
Just taking the character in thegame as an example, you can do
anything within the scope of what the programmers have set
for you to do. And now you could progress along
with the developer's intended story.
You know that they programmed inthere.
You know, they said that if you,you know, do this, this type of

(56:14):
thing will happen. You'll have a cutscene and
you'll have this interaction. Then you get a chance to do this
quest, and if you choose to do it, you'll get this prize fine.
Programmers also. Allowed it for you to just, I
don't know. I don't know if there's this
feature in Fallout where you canjust sit in the grass and just
do nothing forever. You know, you could turn the

(56:36):
console off, you could self delete, you know, you could, I
don't know, wander into bandit camps non-stop until you know
you're just sick of regeneratingand throw the game in the
corner. You know, there's lots of things
that you can choose to do, none of which even necessarily
require you operating within thescope of what the program is

(56:57):
required, which is to follow thestoryline.
They expect you to, they plan something for you if you're
willing to go along with it, if you're willing to make that
choice. And there will be events that
occur that they pre program thatwill occur, but they're not
forcing you to choose to do that.
You can go fuck around in the desert and just hunt animals or

(57:18):
you know, shoot the wild rat creatures or the evolved
scorpions or whatever the hell it is they have in that game
anymore these days and just do nothing other than that and not
actually do the things that the developers clearly intended you
to do, which was to follow the script because why else would
they have written it? But they're not so rigid as I

(57:38):
think you have to follow the script and they're not going to
program something in there that's going to force you to
follow the script and violate your free will.
I mean, some of them might, but you know, depends on the game.
But anyway, I think it's a good analogy.
I like it. It's fine.
I can use it. I've got a few questions real
quick. Real.
Quick, I do need to clarify something.

(58:00):
He's right. I do play Fallout and usually
the games I play are open world that give you the ability for
free will to do whatever the hell you want.
You do. You're not forced to move
forward like Mario grabbing mushrooms and just trying to get
to the flag. It's not like that.
So very good. Continue on.
Go ahead, Mr. Daniel. So yeah, I.

(58:21):
Just had a few questions in my mind right now to sort of get to
the bottom of what Smokey is saying, because I do know what
Smokey is saying Now. I, I can, I think I can assert
that I know what, what he's telling me about how God's
decisions still are inclusive ofthe agents free will to, to
exercise at his own volition. But I just need some

(58:46):
clarification here. So God, I can, I can imagine God
had timelessly decided to to give some dreams to Joseph.
OK, so you would agree with me. So this decision was for, you

(59:08):
know, timelessness belongs to the timelessness category, for
example. And then the brothers got
jealous of Joseph's potential favour with God and his with his
love from his father and all of that sort of stuff.

(59:29):
So the jealousy of the brothers,was this a decision of God?
I'm just trying to understand. No.
No, because again, he's not the author of their decisions of
what to operate from their epistemology.
What they choose to adopt is their priority, their emotional

(59:49):
set. These are all within their own
decision making processes to decide upon themselves.
They're accountable. For their.
Decisions and how they choose tooperate based upon whether
stimulus and information is given to them.
Falls upon. Them as to what they're going to
do with it. And God's God had a decision

(01:00:09):
regardless of what they chose todo, God had a decision of what
he was going to do. And that alone right there, it
doesn't mean either one of thosedecisions to covet or to not
covet, to be jealous or not jealous was necessarily or
required to happen. Gotchas.
So. So but you do agree that God had

(01:00:31):
in timelessness, decided that hewould give some dreams to
Joseph? Do you?
Sure that's fine? Yeah.
Of course, yeah, I'd have to. OK, so in in.
In that case, my my investigation would be taking
this course that when Abraham like for example, when Abraham
was called by God, obviously, what do you think?

(01:00:58):
I mean, if, why would, if Abraham was like, for example, a
bad guy, not worthy of God's calling and Abraham was just one
of these guys in in town who were like dedicated to idols and
all of that sort of stuff. For example, whom, whom God did

(01:01:20):
not call, you know, call out. So if Abraham had no, had no
volition out of his own to search for God or to look for
God, for example, OK, so the decision of Abraham to be a bad
person obviously was his, just like the brothers of Joseph had

(01:01:43):
their own decision to be feelingjealous of Joseph.
So if Abraham was something likethat whom God could not call,
OK, so the decision that God hadmade earlier to to to like give

(01:02:04):
dreams to Joseph would not have come into fruition, would you
agree? Hypothetical.
The hypothetical Would you agree?
Say that one more time, OK? So given the premise that God
had made a decision in timelessness to give a dream to
Joseph, right? That's a premise.

(01:02:24):
That's fine. But if, if, if Abraham was a bad
person whom God could not call to his service, they're saying
if Abraham. Had chosen to reject or
something. Is that what?
Yeah, the. Hypothetical the hypothetical,
right? So if Abraham was this bad
person whom God could not call and bless him for his seed to

(01:02:45):
become a nation in covenant withAlmighty God, then the timeless
decision to give dreams to Joseph would not have come to
fruition, would not have materialized, correct?
Would you agree? See like.
The way you do this, like what what's happening is you keep

(01:03:06):
reframing it back into determinism.
Like, I know you're not trying to, but like I keep reiterating
this. His.
His. Eternal decisions are based upon
multiple possible realities, notjust one, not just the one
that's gonna happen. And you make it sound like his
only decision he made is only inthe one that actually is gonna

(01:03:28):
happen. What I'm saying is he has the
full set of middle knowledge to know his decision and also the
outcome all the way to eternity of each one of those decisions.
So like he's. Not determining which one is
happening. When you when you say he's made

(01:03:48):
the decision beforehand, you always isolate it to only the
one that happens. That's 'cause you keep reaching
back into this deterministic framework.
You're kind of ignoring what I'msaying, that the eternal
knowledge is that he knows what he'll do in any possible
reality, in any possible set of choices of the scope and range
that he's allowed his creation to have.

(01:04:08):
He knows what he's going to do. He doesn't just know.
What he's going to. Do with the reality that
actually manifests like he knowsall of them.
So when you're talking about eternal knowledge, you don't
want to negate or let out that fact.
Otherwise you're kind of forcingme in this questioning into this
deterministic reality because all you're focusing on is God's

(01:04:32):
knowledge about the one thing that actually happens, not the
middle knowledge of all possiblerealities.
And that's where we're getting our wires crossed here, because
you keep reframing it back into determinism.
I got to look. At.
Something real quick, I don't know what the deal is.
It rained earlier today, but forsome reason every like 10-15

(01:04:52):
minutes I keep getting knocked out of the room.
It's throwing up some kind of air.
I'm having the Internet problem.So if I disappear, continue on,
hopefully the thing will just continue to play even if my ass
gets virtually raptured. Is this is?
This on stream yard Brad or what's it on?
I think that. Yeah, it's stream yards, but I

(01:05:13):
think it's the damn browser. What browser do you 2 use?
Because I typically. Use Chrome usually.
Yeah, same. Same here.
All right, I'm going. To have to start using Chrome
then. I've been using Edge for a long
time. I've always called for stream
yard. I usually don't have problems
with it, so. Sorry.
About that, I'll definitely nexttime I open a show I'll have

(01:05:35):
Chrome and I'll probably even get Firefox just to make sure.
So it's. The the the thing to draw to
Daniel is that that God's God's decisions.
While. Eternal are not somehow set to
be absolutely necessary because he makes decisions based upon

(01:05:56):
all possible realities, and eventhough He knows what reality
will happen, he's not forced to operate on that knowledge or
change anything to make sure a different reality emerges in His
sovereignty. He can leave it to the
manifestation of His free will agents and choose what he's
going to do based upon those decisions, whatever those
decisions may be. Which means he has basically the

(01:06:18):
decision pre made. For anything and is.
Set of all infinite knowledge hehas it all pre made that he is
indeed going to do what he's going to do no matter what
reality emerges. That does not mean the reality
that emerges is necessary. It's just a non second.
It's not. It's not connected.
I, I I. Totally get this better than we

(01:06:41):
had a conversation I think a couple of days ago.
I didn't get this facet of your thoughts that that have been
really made clear to me. Now I do understand where you're
coming from and the sort of premise that you're laying,
laying here for God, that God has the foreknowledge of

(01:07:01):
everything and has made those decisions, but does that does
not necessitate those exact outcomes.
But whatever probabilistic or outcomes do result, God is aware
of those those exact actualitiesthat may unfold through these

(01:07:22):
agents of free will. Is that what you're saying?
Well, no, like no, because. Now it sounds like you're making
it sound like open, which is, which is God doesn't really know
the future. He just kind of guesses.
He just makes intelligent guesses and that's not that's
not what I'm going from. It's not a probabilistic
knowledge like. God has.
The moment I use the. Probability, the word

(01:07:44):
probability, you sort of make a decision that it's, it's, it's
something different. And the way you give me the
impressions of how God makes decisions without using the word
probability, I'm still given to think it's, it's probabilistic
in a way. Like I, I perceive that to be

(01:08:05):
probabilistic in a way, because even though you're articulating
without the use of the word probability or probabilistic,
but still you're telling me the same set of things.
Let's see, let's see. If God knows the probability of
something that's going to happen, is he required to change
it? I'm not saying that he's
required to change it either. That's then it's.

(01:08:26):
Just a non point. It's just a non sequitur.
It's a non point. He is.
He decided before all of creation what he would do with
every decision that his free will agents chose to do it.
It's just that simple. It doesn't mean.
Why would you even? Assert that for example smoking
where they had to choose that. Thing if I may stop you.
Here, if I might stop you here, why do you even feel obliged?

(01:08:52):
Or why do you even think it's fundamental to your faith in
your episteme that you have to come to this premise that God
has decided everything in a timeless way?
Why do you, why do you even subscribe to this view?
Because it's a necessary. Because it is timelessness, I

(01:09:13):
can't attach any chronology to him.
So his there's no progression ofthoughts.
There can't, there can't be a progression of thoughts.
There can't be one thought followed by another thought
followed by another thought. Just like where I used the
example of the tesseract the other day, The box and the box

(01:09:34):
opens and every stage of the boxopening is all happening at one
time. OK, that's the tesseract.
It's all happening at one time. I use this kind of an example.
This is probably a terrible one because this is even way below
where God's at. But imagine that and the idea
that God can have thoughts that have no chronology.
They're just there, they exist, they are part of this thing, the

(01:09:56):
decision. There was never a point in time
because there's no time to God. There's no point in time where
he didn't decide to create reality.
The decision to create reality is an eternal decision.
There's no chronology to it. There's no progress, There's
nowhere like he's sitting up there and you know, just
enjoying eternity, a constant progression of infinite regress

(01:10:17):
and says to himself, hmm, I think I should do something.
I think I'm going to create reality.
This is, I mean, this is not howGod's thinking works unless
you're trying to attach chronology to God.
So he has to be timeless and so does his essence, so do his
nature. And you cannot attach chronology
in any part of him, any section of him, any attribute of him you

(01:10:41):
know, and any type of way you want to dice it.
Because now you have a real whole whole bunch of
philosophical problems, including the infinite regress.
If you have an infinite number of progressive linear God
thoughts before the thought thatleads to our reality, our
reality never exists. Because we never get to.
The point where he makes a decision for our reality to

(01:11:03):
exist because it's infinite previous to us.
So it's, you cannot reasonably attached time to God.
You have to in some way reconcile that these components
of God are timeless. These things that you're
describing, these, these attributes of God that you're
attributing them have to be timeless in terms of how you

(01:11:24):
dissect them. So, and this is just what
necessarily follows that all of God's decisions about reality
were missed were made beforehand.
But that doesn't mean it's decided in a deterministic
fashion that he was somehow required to force things to
happen in such a way for him to ultimately make that decision.
This isn't coherence. There's no connective argument

(01:11:45):
for that. He can allow the free will
agents to choose as they want and already make his decisions
outside of time what he would dobased upon whatever they chose
to do. That doesn't mean that what
manifests is somehow a necessaryreality, in as much so that if I
program a robot and by some complex miracle I extend free

(01:12:06):
will to the robot, and I know what's going to happen if it
goes in the right door. And I know what's going to
happen if it goes in the left door.
If it goes in the right door, itdoesn't mean I made it go in the
right door, because I know what's going to happen when it
goes in the right door. You get what I'm saying?
It's like a mom and a dad, and they know that when they have a

(01:12:28):
child, the child's going to end up having heartbreak one day.
Child to end up going to school,even though the experience
hasn't happened. They simply know that's what's
going to take place. Right?
I'm going to fetch. Myself an iced tea real quick.
Daniel, take your time to respond.
I'll be listening. I'm just going to go in the
kitchen and grab myself a beverage.
Actually, probably an iced tea. Yeah, maybe sparkling water.

(01:12:50):
I'll be right back. Just give me like 2 minutes.
Go ahead, take your time. I'll be listening.
Love to. Hear.
And I do have a question for youguys when he gets back and it'll
probably throw a wrench in the monkey business.
Go ahead. It's all yours.
GAIL, time to rock. So I kind of, I kind of get what

(01:13:14):
Smokey is saying. Trying to explain that if I'm
wrong, I hope he corrects me because he says he can hear.
But there's a difference betweenhaving the knowledge of
something and making something happen.
You get it. It's like, you know what would

(01:13:34):
happen. I mean if.
Yeah, I I totally get the point that God may have knowledge of
all sorts of possibilities, and not just possibilities, but
actualities. For example, even if I grant
that to you, but to the statement that.
God has made. Decisions.

(01:13:57):
Those. Decisions like that's different
from God knowing right omissionsis separate thing from
attributing God to have made decisions that would require
necessary reality, right? Say for example, the robot, if

(01:14:21):
it goes on the right, you know there should be Thunder and
lightning and if it goes on the left, there should be sunshine,
for example. If that's the decision that's
that's happened, that's happenedin a timeless fashion, then God

(01:14:42):
in a way is a deterministic God.He, he's actually influencing
things in his own, in his own way, because he has made those
decisions in a timeless way. You know what I mean?
I think that. That's where you in Smokey are
having your conundrum. You continue to refer to things
like, for instance, the decisionof the robot in the carnival

(01:15:05):
ride and all that is as a necessary thing that has to
happen that the robot necessarily has to go through
one of those type of doors. It's very possible that if it
did go left and it was raining that it may the sun might come
out in a couple minutes. It might be that it gets on the
carnival ride and the carnival ride just simply doesn't work

(01:15:26):
and he goes on to do something different.
God knows all the alternative outcomes that could possibly
happen. I mean, I'm not denying that.
I'm, I'm not denying that, OK? What I'm denying is the
decisions of God. See, suppose, suppose for
example, if Joseph, if God had made the decision of providing

(01:15:47):
dreams to Joseph, and if Joseph was making bad decisions for
himself, then the decision of God to provide Joseph his dreams
would not materialize. Would you agree?
Yeah, I believe that God influenced him through dreams
short, but that's different thanactually making him or forcing

(01:16:08):
him. He could have acted in a way
that was outside of the purview of his dreams.
So therefore. What I'm saying Smokey Brett is
the decision of God that he has made in a timeless way would not
materialize. And if you agree with that, then

(01:16:28):
basically we we have no disagreements like I I'm very
much in line with how how I would say that is God making all
those redundant decisions that could be curtailed by agents of
free will is not even necessary.You know, you know what I mean.

(01:16:48):
I'm coming from that premise forgot to make those decisions
that agents of free will could curtail.
It wasn't even necessary, so there.
So to attribute to God to to make those decisions in a
timeless fashion is basically redundancy.
Well, let me let me throw the wrench at you because I I

(01:17:08):
understand that you have a a different faith and an outlook
and God, even though there seemsto be a lot of stuff we relate
with and identify with. Do you believe that God lives in
the present, the future, and thepast all at the same time?
Think about this. If he's timeless, does he exist
in all areas of linear as well as spatial?

(01:17:33):
OK. God exists in a timeless way,
there is absolutely no doubt about it.
I don't have double thoughts or second thoughts right there, but
what I believe is God has the volition and the potency
omnipotency to perform in a new like as is applied or in a in a

(01:18:01):
dynamic way with us. And he he need not have thought.
He need not have made those decisions in a timeless way.
So not making a decision in a timeless way does not prevent
God in having this dynamic relationship with us.
That's my, that's my position. Do you agree that we have

(01:18:22):
literally three options as theists, as those who believe in
the God with all these attributes, we either have to
believe that everything is predestined, predetermined,
basically determinism, or we suggest or imply that we have
free will, our own agency, or there's a third choice.
Some things are set in stone, but somewhere in the framework

(01:18:45):
we have the ability to choose. Where are you at on that?
The only way I, I do want to point this out for people who
are listening, the only way we can go beyond the three is if
God has the ability to limit hisown powers and attributes.
Does that make sense? Well, where, where do you get

(01:19:06):
that from? Actually, I mean to, I mean, I
understand the three options that he just laid out, but even
to, to curtail it, to say there's no fourth option, where,
where, where do you pull this doctrine from?
Well, I'm saying that. There's only the only way that
there can be 1/4 option or more than that is if God can limit
one of his abilities or more. If he can, is it possible that

(01:19:28):
he could be wrong? In deducing that, well, I'm not
really. Sure, that's really considered
like an attribute, but I think on a philosophical level there,
Well, I'll give you an example of something and hopefully I
don't screw this up because thisis a, this is a tongue twister.
Do you? Do you believe that God actually

(01:19:49):
makes choices or has some kind of thinking process like we do?
Where? Information comes to mind into
his mind and then he acts on it.What it?
What is your view on this? I believe so.
I believe that that's the case. So you believe in our real time

(01:20:15):
as we exist as sentient beings? God can do that.
Do you as a Muslim believe that God has a divine plan or or some
kind of concept of what he's looking for with his optimal
universe? Yeah, he does OK.
Well, it seems like you and I are riding the same way.

(01:20:37):
We're surfing it, brother, Surfing it.
Yeah, I think there's a little niche area here which would sort
of where we need to find compatibility.
And I think Smokey sort of goes like, oh, oh, even if you don't

(01:20:58):
understand this necessarily, obviously because God is.
Beyond our. Comprehension we we need not
understand everything of of his but then goes on to attribute
like timeless decision makings for God and and what's the

(01:21:19):
premise like where do we get this from the Bible timeless
decisions of almighty God well there's.
Well, I can give you an argumentfor each one of the three
categories of God's knowledge asis adopted in Mullen ISM.
However you want to approach it,I could start with necessary
knowledge. Necessary knowledge.

(01:21:40):
So is it is. It, I'm so sorry, is it
modalism? Modalism.
No, no. Not modalism.
Modalism is a heresy that's based upon Arianism or
Unitarianism, no? So what are you?
What are you? MOL.
IN it's from a a Jesuit priest named Molina who basically
created it. It's a general kind of

(01:22:02):
overarching philosophy about God's relationship.
Yeah. Can you please?
Respell that for me. I'm sorry, sorry.
It's Molinism M. OLINISM.
There's a PhD professor who's does a lot of content on Mullen
ISM. His name, I forget his name
right off the top of my head, but his channel is free thinking
Ministries and you can type him in and he has some very, very

(01:22:25):
interesting arguments. And we have a very, very
similar, almost identical take on the solution to the problem
of evil as well. The problem of evil is not much
of a problem for a Molenist. It is for a Calvinist.
It is for a determinist or fatalist, not so much for an
open theist, but the open theistGod is just deaf, blind, dumb,

(01:22:47):
and, you know, incompetent. So and yeah, that's true just
how it is. I don't care if they don't like
that. I say that that is that is what
they describe their God to be. They essentially eliminate,
dilute, or destroy all of his intrinsic attributes.
So I can support all of the three areas of God's knowledge
from Bible, from his own testimony about himself.

(01:23:11):
I can support the more on the stick view biblically in terms
of the three categories. Did you?
I mean. I mean, I was saying something
when you were out and about getting a drink for yourself.
I was saying you were basically alluding to God making a set of
redundant decisions. Is that correct I.
Don't understand what you mean by redundant decisions.

(01:23:35):
OK, God has. Made a number of decisions, but
they don't have to be necessary actualities, right?
That's what he said, right? Correct.
He can. Make this some of his.
Decisions could be just redundant, right?
What's that? Some of his.
Decisions therefore could just be redundant, right?

(01:23:56):
What do you mean redundant? I don't know what you mean
because they. Are not required.
They are not required to become necessary actualities, right?
Yeah, no. His his decision making is based
upon a synergy with the actions of the free will agents so and
there is a core will that he desires to manifest that he does

(01:24:18):
operate within reality to bring about.
But if this is relational, it's not, it's not fatalistic.
This is where we're getting our fingers crossed 'cause it seems
like you're presenting or at least defending a hyper
fatalistic reality, which I'm not surprised at cause
generally, typically I find Islam to be hyper fatalistic.

(01:24:41):
Usually it's like. Oh, it's like.
Calvinism on crack I usually find so like I OK but.
I, I don't, I don't necessarily think that to be the case.
I I'm not in favor of fatalism or Calvinistic ideas that you're
trying to. Well, it seems like you're kind
of. Defending it whenever you're
trying to kind of negate the timeless properties of God's
decision making. You know, I'm I'm only.

(01:25:02):
Trying to understand kind of defending.
The idea that this has to be deterministic or you're
defending A deterministic reality I don't have.
AI don't have a preconceived setof notions here in the in this
particular discussion, I I don'tsubscribe to say, certain
schools of thought within Islam whose ideas of theology or

(01:25:26):
teleology I'm trying to defend. I'm not doing nothing of that.
I'm only trying to understand the full spectrum of
presentation that you're that you're bringing here.
And I see in my own intelligibility or cognition, I
find that's what I'm saying. When I say just because God

(01:25:48):
knows what he will do with each decision of his agent doesn't
mean he made them choose one or the other like you do, I get
that from you. I get it, I get it.
But you can answer my questions without being I'm, I'm sorry to
say this not being like like really judgmental about where

(01:26:09):
I'm, I'm not trying to be. Condescending.
It's just the core point. It doesn't seem to be working
its way into the challenge. Do you get what I'm saying?
Like that's that's where I'm struggling with it.
I I just tried. I just got this point from you
that God does make decisions andnot all those decisions are
meant to be necessarily actualized in reality, so

(01:26:32):
therefore it entails that God does make.
A set of. Decisions that become eventually
redundant because the way he does not necessitate them to
come into actuality or reality, because he has a relational
relationship with the agents of free will and he works through

(01:26:53):
them with them or he works through them.
So this working through them again.
So there is this problem of redundancy that God has to deal
with and OK, he can just, he canjust ignore the redundancy and
there's no problem as such. I'm not, I'm not saying that
he's a problem, but I'm saying that he's an aspect.

(01:27:17):
And the other thing that when you're saying he actually works
through synergy in a, in a relationship with the agents of
free will again, necessitates God to become part of
chronology, which you are tryingto defend him against.
So how do you, how do you see this play together?

(01:27:37):
Do you understand? The essence energy distinction
and like say, Core Orthodoxy, for example.
Have you ever come across that? I might.
Not so you might have to. You might have to appraise me
about about those things. So when God interacts with
reality in any type of way, it'snot the fullness of his essence

(01:27:59):
because the fullness of his essence can't be quantified at
this level. This is what basically in the
Orthodox Church, and I do like this from their particular
perspective. They explain this better usually
then the Catholics tend to who tend to learn more towards to
Mystic divine simplicity. The Orthodox do better, I think,
in terms of delineating the essence energy distinction

(01:28:22):
because God is transcendental byessence, by nature.
So he cannot be in his fullness filtered down into this finite
space of his creation, not in entirely.
It's a violation of his nature. So what manifests here is a
distinction that they notice between the essence and the
energies. And there's a lot of Orthodox

(01:28:44):
thinkers that do a lot on this regard and talking about how
this relates to how God manifests in reality.
So the the mistake here generally is requiring God to
experience things as men experience things in order to
experience anything at all. God can.

(01:29:06):
Experience things as God and then still be just as
meaningful, arguably more so than experiencing them as a man
does. And because we experience things
in linear progression, we expectGod to experience things in
linear progression. But God is timeless, so God
can't experience things in linear progression, so it must

(01:29:27):
be something else. So even when I'm giving you all
of these statements and facts, they're really ultimately
analogous. And at the end of the day, to
fully quantify and fully understand exactly how God's
timeless mind works, well, let'sbe real.
I mean, we're not. I mean, we, the only way to know
that would mean we would have tobe God.

(01:29:48):
The only way to fully know God would have to be God.
So I don't think that's that's within our purview to be able to
even understand. But there are certain things we
can understand about it through the process of like what I just
did, process of logical elimination and definition by
negation. You know, maybe sometimes when

(01:30:09):
it comes to God, and this is generally true throughout all of
church history, when people overreach, when they try to
define God too much, they end upin heresy.
You know, Nestorianism or Valentinianism or Gnosticism or
Nicolaitanism, whatever that was, these things that God

(01:30:30):
hated. Perversity is against his
nature, trying to overreach, trying to define him
philosophically at our level a little bit too much, violating
the clear statements of scripture by demanding that God
be completely understandable anddefinable.
And these are always seen as heresies.
And through the emergence of these heresies, we actually

(01:30:50):
ended up getting a clearer picture of theology and one of
the things that we understood basically in principle and how
we're relating to God, defining God.
There's two primary ideologies that you generally have to abide
by and still be respectful of his nature as a transcendental
enemy. One is analogical predication.
You can't draw any one to one correlation of exactly what God

(01:31:12):
is like to anything in creation 'cause that's a blasphemy.
You can't do that analogical predication.
And the other one is God. Sorry, I just had it on the tip
of my tongue. I was just talking about.
It apologies, you said. Predication.
It's been a long day. Sorry, you said.
Predication. I was, yeah, analogical.

(01:31:33):
Predication was the first one. There was another one.
My brain was white on it and it just slipped out.
I apologize, I was trying to help.
You get the memory back no I. Appreciate it.
Thank you. I had I had them there, but
anyway, the the churches soundedfrom the very beginning that
there's. Necessary.
Constants in terms of how we relate to and understand God.

(01:31:54):
Oh, I'm sorry. And the next principle, the
second principle I was going to talk about, is that in many
instances of defining God's nature or certain attributes to
him, sometimes we only can define it via negation.
What this means is you can't always define exactly what it
is, but you can generally say what it isn't.
And that's what ends up happening with a lot of these

(01:32:16):
overreaching heresies that emerged in church history.
They said not that. They didn't.
Necessarily go along the lines of clearly defining or
delineating beyond what the person was trying to present.
They didn't really even start doing stuff like that until
10:50 with the Filioque and the great church split.
Such a grand disappointment because they violated the very

(01:32:38):
central core ideology of how they generally went about
approaching the nature of God. And it was a complete
catastrophe for the entire Christian world.
But typically, in a sense, we understood that we're referring
to God. We have to be very, very
delicate and gentle or we easilytread into the realms of heresy
by trying to drag God down to our level to be easily

(01:32:58):
understood so. This is all.
Analogous. Everything I'm communicating
here is all ultimately analogousto the grand position that we
are dealing with a transcendental entity.
Daniel, you seem to agree that he has timeless thinking.
So if you have a different modelof the timeless thinking and how

(01:33:19):
that operates that doesn't breakdown into hyper fatalism, I
promise you I'm all ears. Yeah.
So let me just now try to understand a different aspect.
I mean, we have been talking philosophy until this point in
time. I would just want to get into
the Bible and understand some ofthe things I mean.

(01:33:42):
I mean, one more thing is you say something.
Daniel, Daniel, do you need something to drink?
Maybe some coffee or tea? Because you look a little wore
out. It's been a rough day for you as
well. He's got a.
Wrong day. Hey, he, He.
Looks like he's had a hard day. Do you need something to drink,
ma'am? Don't worry about it.
I'm OK. All right.

(01:34:02):
Go ahead. Yeah, so.
You there are two aspects that Iwant to bring to your attention
and get your sort of your thoughts there.
One is you have said a few different times that the God of
the Bible, it's different because his timeless and and God

(01:34:25):
of in Islam it's different. I don't necessarily see that to
be the case, but yeah, I would, I would love to have your
thoughts there based on the philosophy that you were trying
to articulate. But the most important thing,
the first thing that I want to discuss now is how do you

(01:34:47):
understand when the Bible says God is the 1st and the last, the
alpha and the Omega? So how do you understand the
first and the last thing? Well again this to.
ME would be, at best, analogicallanguage.
I don't think the Bible is somehow violating the core

(01:35:08):
intrinsic principle of analogical predication that
pretty much the whole church hasheld to since its inception.
So I do believe that in terms ofthat, it's still analogical.
It's basically what we would call in literary genre to parse
it out. It's what we would call a
mirrorism. Are you familiar with that term

(01:35:29):
mirrorism? OK, so if.
You can spell that for me please.
MERISM. Mirrorism.
OK. And.
Amirism is basically like, I'll give you an example.
Like let's say you lost your keys, right?
And you walk up to me and you'relike, I can't find my keys.

(01:35:53):
I've looked high in love. Now.
You wouldn't think that I would take that to me.
And you looked on the ceiling, and you looked on the floor.
Which if you. Took a real literal take it that
hey I looked high and low. That doesn't mean I only looked
high and only looked low. It means I looked everywhere.
That's a mirrorism. So it's kind of like taking the

(01:36:15):
2 extremes of a thing and using it to communicate the whole.
So when God is saying alpha and Omega, or when he says he
created the heavens and the earth, so the utmost point with
the lowest, most point is meant to connotate everything, all of
reality. This is a mirrorism.

(01:36:36):
It's the same idea here that Godis using basically analogical
statements about his nature, something we can understand
because we only understand things through the process of
linear thinking, linear time. He's going to communicate at
that level. He's going to use an analogy and
he's going to use it in the formof a literary structure known as

(01:36:57):
a mirrorism. This basically communicates that
he is all he is, timeless. He is before everything that
exists. He is after anything that
exists. He is the only absolute of all
of reality, the only essential necessary being.
You're are you basically saying Smokey, that the starting and

(01:37:19):
end point that he gives and his analogy is, is talking about the
the very origin of the universe to the it's presenting an idea.
Of his totality of supremacy andposition.
It's not saying he has a beginning and he has an end,
like he is the beginning and theend, but no more so than when
you say I looked high and I looked low.

(01:37:40):
This is a common turn of phrase and it seems that many times, I
don't know why, but when we interpret Bible, we forget that
language is more than just wordsand definitions.
It's cliches, axioms, idioms, turns of phrases, cultural
understandings. I mean, 1000 years from now, now
someone could dig up a children's book, look at the

(01:38:00):
word butterfly, and thought there were flies made of
butterflying around. They didn't have a cultural
context of how our colloquial language actually works.
They would look at the etymology, they would look at,
you know, just like they mistranslated monogenesse for
the better part of what, 4-5 hundred years, you know,
because. But they but they didn't

(01:38:20):
understand that there were otheruses.
For the word, the only thing they had context well was
basically here, and they ended up parsing the etymology to get
the definition. That is not always how language
works. That's just not a that.
Does happen. By the way, I should tell you
that does happen in religions. It happens a lot.
I really heard an Islamic Sheikhmake that mistake for golden

(01:38:44):
butterflies. He understood literal gold
material made butterflies instead of understanding the
monarch butterflies to be what was.
What does that mean? Right, if you heard someone say
like golden butterflies, you wouldn't generally think
butterflies made out of gold. You would think gold in color.
Maybe they were just color of that, like, you know what I
mean? Like again, this is all about

(01:39:06):
how there is components to cultural communication that you
should understand if you're trying to interpret the
scripture. This is why I despise type of
fundamentalists KJV only those types of nonsense insane
movements. It is theology for the lazy man

(01:39:28):
to take the simplest, easiest way out in the approach to your
faith with the the most minimal amount of effort at critical
thinking or application of intelligence.
It's it's the, it's the lazy man's way out to try and claim
God has to be simple. Theology has to be simple.

(01:39:49):
Sanctification has to be simple.Salvation has to be simple.
Relationship has to be simple. Where is this?
Where is this idea that the mostvaluable things are simple to
achieve and attain? Where is this idea?
Where does this nonsensical virtue come from?

(01:40:11):
I don't get it. And I never will.
I don't. I don't necessarily.
I don't necessarily see the problem with that, to be honest
with you with the insinuation that God is simple.
For example, I would consider God is simple because as a human
being I have limited ability to have a relationship with God,

(01:40:33):
and in that limited ability I see God as a very simple being
to have a relationship with. So I don't necessarily see why
it can't be simple from a human point of view.
God may be far more complex thanhow how much I would perceive of
him, but to me in my relationship with God it can be

(01:40:55):
very simple. I have a creator who gave me
life and I relate to him and I thank Him and that's as simplest
as it could get to me. And I'm comfortable with that.
I, I, I see my relationship withGod being that real simple.
I don't necessarily have a problem with that.
I want to just come back to thisalpha and the other thing, the

(01:41:19):
relationship. Being simple and the deity being
simple, those aren't interconnected.
I don't and I I don't understandthis idea of the the.
I don't really even know what you mean by the entity being
simple, to be completely honest with you.
Look. If.
Because it almost sounds like you're.
Saying like, like you can only relate to God if God's relating
to you as a man. I, I keep getting these types of

(01:41:41):
like kind of entailments or seemingly like prepackaged
somewhere in your statements is kind of this idea that like if
somehow God is not experiencing a relationship the way you do,
then it can't be true or valid. Am I getting this wrong?
Because it's kind of No, I'm notsaying.
I'm not saying it becomes invalid, what I'm saying is
just. Just real quick, I'll I always

(01:42:03):
keep things really fast. I have never in my entire life
heard of a simple relationship, especially when the relationship
involves loyalty, honor, commitment, love, and all these
things starts getting really, really messy as you go.
Go ahead. Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I those those points that it brings to the table are
valid. But I mean, I commend you for

(01:42:25):
that, for bringing those things in, those people out.
There have a simple relationshipwith God those.
Those. Things.
Do complicate things from from its simple relationship and
makes it complex relationship for sure, but I think that
doesn't really take away take away the simplicity of an

(01:42:46):
ignorant person to have a relationship with God.
That's what I'm saying, see, my son can have my my son can
relate to me as a, as his fatherin his simplistic terms and may
not really comprehend the love, the the regard, the care, the
expectation, all of those thingsbecause he has the simplistic

(01:43:07):
conscience or intelligence with which he tries to relate to me.
And that's, that can be kept that simple.
It's your love for. Him with higher complexity and
then he experiences it towards you.
It's basically that's it. So for.
Him. It's simple, right?
Yeah. For him it's I think that.

(01:43:27):
Smokey, what you were with Smokey, what you were talking
about with fundamentalists and how they do things?
When I hang out with people likethat, where I get the view that
they don't want to go any further, do research, I feel
like they're looking for a friend with French benefits or
however they say it. They want to be saved and they
want the cookies, but they don'twant to get to know the person.

(01:43:48):
They don't actually want to be close.
They just want the goodies. Agreed.
Agreed. It does tend to reach into that
what it seems. Yeah, they, they, a lot of
people will adopt things that dojust feel good to believe.
You know, there are people who will adopt things like in the
sense of believing that, you know, their dad loves them when

(01:44:10):
they go, they didn't and abandoned them, but they'll
believe it. You know, they'll even concoct
wild, you know, speculations andarguments to try and believe it.
Some people have crazy hypochondriac, you know, type
symptoms where they believe theyhave cancer and it doesn't
matter if they get 20 different doctors to say that they don't,

(01:44:32):
we'll still say that they have have cancer.
So, you know, they they will still believe it even if they
the doctors say otherwise. So I mean, we do have the
ability to choose our epistemology.
We do have the ability to essentially choose what paths we
want to entertain in terms of our thinking and our methodology

(01:44:53):
of discovering truth as to what we really ultimately want to
adopt. And this is where we see.
Really crazy insane. I would argue extra biblical
dangerous doctrines like 3 grace, hyper grace, O.
SAS, you know. Jehovah's Witness, you know, 7th
Day Adventists, all these radical divergent ideas and all

(01:45:14):
these things that really are just repackaged heresies from
the past. That if most Christians
dedicated time to diligent studyand looking back and really
growing in their faith and learning more, they wouldn't
struggle as much as learning as to what to avoid and what to
keep. Because a lot of this stuff has
been tested and refuted or adopted in the past.

(01:45:37):
And they just don't want to learn and they just don't want
to put any work in. To me, my relationship with God
is absolutely far from simple. And granted, you know what?
There's some people, God bless them, Daniel Mayo, some of you
guys know exactly what I'm talking about there.
Daniel Mayo's a real super special boy and he's getting

(01:46:01):
emotionally manipulated by a bunch of predatory deviants over
there at the pod team. There's nothing really you could
do about it, you know, And he doesn't know any better.
I mean, clearly I and the, I mean, the poor guy, he's really
touched, but his relationship with God is simple, you know, I

(01:46:23):
don't think that Daniel Mayo is accountable to what he believes.
I think Daniel Mayo is in the loving embrace of God because he
is in this world with a minimal equipment set, not much he can
do with it. And I believe that God is
gracious and merciful and that no matter what Daniel believes,
he's flying. I believe Daniel Mayo is covered

(01:46:43):
by. Basically what we would.
Call in Christianity common grace, which is something
everyone has effective by Christwork on the cross and God's plan
of redemption for mankind. So we all have this access to
this common race. So Daniel to his capacity is
just is just fine. His relationship with God is

(01:47:05):
really simple, but I think much more differently.
Daniel thinks much more differently.
Brett, you think much more differently and deeply and the
capacity a relationship we have will be very different and it
doesn't mean that Daniel Mayo's relationship isn't special to
God and I'm not defeating it or demanding it.

(01:47:28):
That type of probably childlike innocence and approach to the
divine probably has its own point of pleasure and joy to God
for his time here on this earth until I believe that he's you
know will have his mind and bodyfully rejuvenated and and
glorified. And I believe Daniel Mayo if

(01:47:49):
anyone over there at those free grace deviant team is saved is
Daniel Mayo that I would bet on and everyone else.
So people like us, we have a certain accountability and the
Bible is clear on this. To whom much is given much will
be required. This is why God doesn't expect
you. To take what you've.
Been given and squander it or waste it on selfish ambitions

(01:48:12):
and I spent a good chunk of my life doing exactly that All
these whatever talents or skillsyou guys see me demonstrate in
these rooms or in these debates or in these interactions, all of
these things that I'm now doing to try and present to the
benefit of the glory of the Kingdom of God was all used for
personal gain and. You know.

(01:48:35):
Constructing and negotiating contracts and closing deals and
transferring portfolios and things of this nature.
This is what I was using my talents that God gave me for
nothing, for really the glory ofhis Kingdom at all.
But now I do. Now I want to take what time I
have left on earth with what I've been given on top of the

(01:48:56):
knowledge and the wisdom that I think I've built to try and
sound out to be a voice of reason.
To give people some good arguments and some good
justifications for what they believe, to help them make the
decision to get onto the right track.
So. And that's why I do.
What I do? And that's why I now exercise
these talents, however intensiveor in depth or good you think

(01:49:20):
they are. I had a choice.
I I'm sure God would have liked me to use these talents
similarly along the line as I have earlier, but I didn't I as
to make Brett to take your analogy of the game, I didn't
stick to the story. I went and did a whole bunch of
side quests and just fucked around.
You know, for the better part of, you know, 20 years all about

(01:49:44):
doing the side quests. Wasn't really sticking to the
main story. Now finally, a little late, but
I feel like I'm finally now getting onto the real teleology,
the real purpose, the real story, the story that God
probably intended. I have a wonderful, beautiful
young wife who is excited to have a family with me.

(01:50:04):
I have a channel where I'm equipping a lot of Saints with
good arguments and good perspectives and encouraging
them and enriching them and evenconverting some that have
thought Christianity was a totalcrock.
And to the glory of God. I do these things.
But only now do I feel like I have finally come to a point of
genuine synergy. But probably what was God's

(01:50:26):
actual will for me to do so? Before.
This point, while God I'm sure would have preferred me to use
my talents differently, He didn't force me.
He let me do it. And now my choice to do so I
think has a lot more meaning andvalue than it ever would have
been had he forced me to just start doing this in my 20s.

(01:50:47):
So it's. Monkey, you shouldn't, you
shouldn't get down on yourself for this.
Sometimes when you do all those side quests and you go
exploring, it really exercises you mentally and physically and
prepares you for the actual war and main story.
So it's a. It's a good thing.

(01:51:08):
Appreciate the solver. Yeah, just.
Continuing if you if you guys don't mind, I was talking about
the alpha and the Omega. The way that I understood that
verse is God puts or inserts himself into the set of the 1st
and the last. So if I.

(01:51:30):
Were to understand that to mean God is the 1st and he's he is
the last like you know. So.
He he he is inserting himself inthis time frame or or sorry, in
this set that basically kicks off the time.
So if I were to understand that verse as OK, God is the time, he

(01:51:55):
himself is the time and he's notreally timeless, but he is
himself the time. How?
How do you understand that? He himself.
Is the time. Based on the. 1st and the last,
he's the alpha and the Omega forexample.
He's in the set. He's not outside of the set, but

(01:52:17):
he's within that set or he is. He is the set for example, right
So. So if.
We were to say time and timelessness are two two
different sets. So the first and the last would
be is indicative of the set thathas time, for example, and God

(01:52:40):
is the first. So he's a time.
And how, how do you understand this to be for God to be himself
the time, rather than being, well, that's fine.
I could take your position on that and that's fine.
I guess I could use that. I guess if I was, if I was
taking kind of your language, your approach to it, then I

(01:53:01):
would say it's kind of similar like this.
The principle of the Kalam argument I'm sure you're kind of
familiar with, which is kind of just basically the idea of the
the first mover. You know, kind of there's an
originating source of first mover that in and of itself
cannot be moved in and of itself.
There's something independent that sets all things in motion.

(01:53:26):
So when you talk about the first, talk about the first
mover, the first thing and, and by nature of it being the first
mover, it must be exactly that. The first mover kind of
necessarily entails. It's timeless, it's non causal.
So there's no chronology to it. There's nothing, there's
nothing. It's not contingent upon

(01:53:48):
anything. There's nothing that is supreme
over it or that limits it essentially, other than its own
nature, of course. So this is something that kind
of necessarily has to be timeless in this regard.
If you're talking about the first or the first of all, the
first mover, the first mover must be unmovable or unmoved.

(01:54:12):
Otherwise, again, you fall into this attaching chronology to God
getting into an infinite regressand all these other
philosophical incoherences. So.
Mr. Daniel, are you reaching towards the concept of
pantheism? I'm just curious.
Almost sounded a. Little like that.
Yeah. I'm curious, yeah.

(01:54:35):
So I'm thinking to to imagine a timelessness.
For example, because God always exists, he's the first.
So would it be fair to imagine timelessness just doesn't exist?
Well before there. Was time, there was
timelessness, now the ideas. That's that's how I look at it

(01:54:59):
as far as beginning and end. I believe that he's talking
about from the moment of construction of the universe and
its laws to the end of it. First, last I started it, I'm
going to finish it kind of deal.I think, well, he and the idea
to me is that he transcends, youknow, the beginning of reality

(01:55:19):
and the end of reality. And she does 'cause he's outside
of it, he's beyond it. And again, anything else
essentially ends up in some way,shape or form directly
correlating time with God. And if, and there's a lot of
problems that emerge once you dothat, once you attribute any
time of chronology, especially linear chronology, to God, not

(01:55:43):
only are you removing his timeless characteristic, but now
you're putting him into an impossible infinite regress,
tied and attached to a physical property of his own creation.
Now, Daniel, you said earlier something really unusual.
It was the first time that Smokey needed to take a break

(01:56:06):
and all that. But I had asked a question, Do
you think that God has beliefs? And you said yes.
Can you explain that a little bit more?
Yeah, I mean. The reason why I would think
that is to be true is. God has.
Invested hopes in in his people and had has believed them to to

(01:56:34):
meet those expectations. And.
Yeah, that would make me sort ofgo down this path in thinking
God held beliefs, you know, God,God holds beliefs.
So that that that's where I thought about it.

(01:56:54):
And I said, yeah, that's possible to for God to have
beliefs. Yeah.
So does that mean? God has faith.
Yeah, in people like he obviously expected some people
to perform in certain way and meet expectations, keep his
covenant. So he believed he had faith in
those people to, to, to abide in, in the covenant.

(01:57:18):
Yeah. Interesting it's such a.
Simple sounding question, but itit's a rabbit hole, ain't it?
Yeah. What's?
What's the what's the Yeah, I mean, I.
Would take the opposite position.
I I would say it it's actually for the Christian God claim from

(01:57:40):
my view that to ask if God has beliefs is actually kind of
incoherent. Cause like you, generally you
only can have a position of belief.
Towards hold. On one second.
Sorry, you can only have a position of belief towards
something. Freaking cats.

(01:58:03):
You can only have belief towardssomething you don't know.
You can only have faith directedtowards something you don't
know. And even.
Well, hold on, before I go down that road, Daniel, what is your
definition of faith? Just just so I know, just so I'm
not saying something assuming. You know, kind of what?
Your definition is what? Well, I I sort.
Of treat the word for what it islike in language.

(01:58:24):
We developed language like humanbeings came up with language and
we have meanings to the words in, in human, not necessarily
from a theological point of view, but we do have meanings
for words in, in day-to-day usage.
So we do have faith in things other than God.

(01:58:47):
We do have faith in our relationships.
And there's there's so much moreto the word faith than just
having faith in the unseen God, for example.
So just using the word for what it is in its own semantics, like
in its own etymological sense ofusage and semantics, you there.

(01:59:11):
There's nothing wrong to say that God did have faith in
Israel to perform some duties and be a loyal to the covenant.
Yeah, I don't, I don't see any necessary problem arising there.
Well, you don't think? It you don't think it kind of
erases the omniscience componentyou know of God, No.

(01:59:35):
I don't I. Don't.
I don't think so. Well.
Like, OK, so try to think of a way to, I'm not, I'm not 100%
sure what your definition of faith really is here, but let me
just try and play a, a kind of hypothetical and see if I can
kind of round it out here a little bit.

(01:59:55):
Do you? How much faith do you need to
come to the conclusion that you have a mother?
How much faith? Do you need?
To come to. That conclusion I'm almost.
Certain like there's not even a requirement like you're just

(02:00:16):
you're. Really.
You're really in a state of knowing, like you don't really
need to jump out on a limb there, you know, to think that,
you know, you don't have a, a mother by all reasonable, you
know, 'cause I'm sure you've seen your mother.
I'm sure you know, all people that exist have a mother.
Like there's just, this is just the nature of reality.
You have basically the most absolute confidence possible

(02:00:40):
that you have a mother. Is that fair?
Yeah, I'm. Fairly certain that I have a
mother, Yeah. So.
When you, when you talk to people, you I'm sure you never
say I believe I have a mom. You just say, oh, I have a mom
and her name is. You don't say I believe I have a

(02:01:00):
mom. Because you have.
You have a knowledge claim. You're not operating in faith or
belief. You're operating on knowledge
now I now that's not now we can go down a rabbit hole of how
that's not really technically true because we're subjective
agents and can only know so muchand with for based upon our our
own subjective reasoning, we might be mistaken.

(02:01:21):
It might be a solipsistic universe where we're all in the
matrix just alluded to the idea,but I don't want to go down that
rabbit hole. I'm just saying in terms of our
ability to have confidence in things, you basically have the
strongest confidence possible that you have a mother and that
doesn't really need any faith. Like that's not something you,
you put under the category of things you believe.

(02:01:42):
You put that under the category of things you know.
So you know, there's a difference.
Now, if God is timeless, he's outside of time, He knows all
and sees all and he's omniscient, then there is
nothing for him to believe in. There's nothing for him to be
questioning about to put faith in.
There's he's an objective agent.He knows and sees all things.

(02:02:03):
So there's nothing that manifests that he's not fully
and completely and absolutely aware of and all the dynamics
they're in. So he doesn't need to, as I can
see, really have as, as you seemto be presenting it, faith and
anything. Now there's we are.
We can't talk about different versions or definitions of
faith. That's fine and maybe go down
that road. But in terms of how I seem like

(02:02:26):
you're presenting it, God as an objective agent, you know,
wouldn't be having faith in anything really, essentially.
I mean, I think it's in the bookof Job.

(02:02:47):
Yeah, it is Job four and five I believe, where it says he does
not even trust, put trust in hisservants talking about like the
angels and with his, you know, servants he charges with error
or sin. So even even the free will

(02:03:08):
agents, you know, of the heavenly realms are not devoid
of free will exercise and possible results therein, just
like the evil rulers, you know, presented at night.
I believe it's Jeremiah or Isaiah that are talked about by
Jesus later on that are are called the Elohim or gods.
But they'll die like men talkingabout, you know, not only the

(02:03:31):
evil supernatural rulers that are observing and ruling in
these places, but also the rulers themselves of the Jewish
tribes that were evil and makingmerchandise of men.
So there is this capacity I see all throughout scripture of the.
Protection. Of the dynamic of free will

(02:03:53):
pretty much across the board. In fact, the entire story of Job
is based around a free will challenge to the one true God in
the halls of heaven. So you know, anyway.
I don't know if that was really.Germane, that was maybe a little
off point, apologies, but I justran.
Hey, Smokey. Just I want to get you back to

(02:04:14):
alpha and the Omega. It's sure, yeah.
There's ideas. Popping in my brain, you know, I
want to have a discussion about that.
So why would it necessarily be inappropriate or philosophically
incoherent to to identify God asthe first so so as the time

(02:04:37):
itself? Because.
That because that means you had a beginning.
Like it sounds like. You're staying the first, the
first. Means you had a beginning.
The first means you had a beginning.
Well, that seems to be. What the way you're putting it?
Because if he's, because if he'snot beyond the first thing, if

(02:04:57):
he's not the first thing, the unmovable first thing, the
unmoved mover, If he's not that,that means there's something
either beyond him that is movinghim, or there's an infinite
regress where we don't even get to the creation of a reality.
If we get. Out of.
Daniel. Daniel let.

(02:05:18):
Me ask you something and this might bring bring us around out
of the out of this unfortunate loop we found herself in.
If an entity exists before the physical universe, before space
and time and and all things nature wise, where would the
beginning and end be within thatconcept?

(02:05:39):
Let's subtract the universe, space and time.
So at what point is God in this?What's happening according to
your your visual here? Well, I'm having at the moment,
I'm having difficulty in imagining timelessness because

(02:06:01):
Daniel. If I could real quick, are you
picturing it kind of like where it's in, it's an infinite set
series backwards. Like in terms of timelessness is
just God in an endless, you know, no.
I think, I think I'm feeling I am comfortable with the position

(02:06:21):
that God is the first. And.
With this statement, I don't necessarily worry about
timelessness, because timelessness just falls out of
the set. It doesn't even belong to the
set. So when God is the first, that's
where everything has its origins.

(02:06:41):
So from there on, God will abide, you know, And for
example, the cosmos will be destroyed, but God will abide.
And the space-time fabric that we are in can be destroyed, but
God will abide. So the time that as we relate to

(02:07:01):
it in our domain of space-time fabric can get destroyed, but
God will still continue to abidebecause God was the 1st and God
is the last, so to speak. He will abide.
And I cannot perceive a timelessness for God because God
is the first God's been there. There's never been a time when

(02:07:25):
there was no time, no time, you know, timelessness kind of
thing. But it's just we as human beings
made out of material find ourselves in into this time,
space, fabric. And we have this idea of time
and chronology, but but to attribute timelessness to God

(02:07:50):
would be something that is not supportive of in the doctrine of
God. Like the doctrine of God
communicates that he belongs to the set.
He's not outside of the set. He's the 1st and he's the last.
And we are like we have come in and relate to this time in our

(02:08:13):
perspective relative to human human lifetime.
We understand time as a materialand space-time thing.
But God is really the 1st and the last.
And we can't really conflate ourour idea of timelessness outside

(02:08:33):
of the time and space and project it to God as a post hoc
rationalizing of timelessness toGod, because God himself.
Does not. Put himself outside of the 1st
and the last thing he's inclusive in the set of the 1st
and the last. Timelessness is necessarily

(02:08:54):
entailed by by spacelessness like it's necessarily entailed
like if God has time and God hasspace and God has made a
material. Like he's it's.
It's inseparable. So you are making problems and
entailments on multiple angles, and again, you're still kind of

(02:09:16):
seemingly trying to attach some type of chronology to God, which
now makes him again subservient to this thing, which is a
progression or a chronology. I'm not really sure what type of
time you're presenting, whether it's linear, geometric, whether
he's able to experience multiplethings at the same time or can

(02:09:38):
only experience things in progression.
I'm not really sure. The model you're defending, so
I'm not entirely sure what able to go at it, but it almost in
some way seems like you're trying to defend the idea that
God is trapped to a sequence or a set.
In terms of. Chronology, which now also
brings an added problem of him now having to be made of

(02:10:01):
something because now he has to have material, he has to have
something to him to experience time, because that's how we
experience time. And you, you, yeah, and you did
say that in your statement as well.
So I know you know that. So there are there are
entailments to this. And you do have the problem.
Like I said, once you're attributing any type of

(02:10:22):
chronology to God, you bring in a package of problems.
That's just one of them. Yeah, I.
Smokey, if I if I come off wrongon this, you guys can feel free
to correct me on this. But when I hear alpha Omega
beginning and I feel like it's an analogy for the constraints
of the universe as it is or how it, its origin and its end.

(02:10:45):
I I don't think that God's actually how do I put this if he
exists within a timeless place outside of nature and all this
and this means he's and some form of dimension or, or higher
point. It could be even simpler than
that, Brett. If he's beyond the first 'cause
and he's after the last event, we get right to his timeless,

(02:11:11):
faceless nature right there. If he truly is the first, which
means he's beyond any causal first in reality, and if he is
indeed the last transcendental beyond what anything else could
persevere or or or extend to, and he's he's the absolute
extremes of all of these things,then he is beyond all of these

(02:11:35):
things. I think it's pretty simple to
me. I mean, even analogously, it
seems to be fairly simple to follow.
And you still get his primary attributes of spaceless,
timeless, all knowing. You know, certainly he's going
to know everything because he's not tied to time.
He's not making probabilistic guesses about the future.
He knows everything. You know how you.

(02:11:58):
Explain that we're at the end, we basically wrap right back
into timelessness ourselves. And so that could kind of be an
argument for why it is that we are able to exist in the state
that we do with God in the afterlife or whatever you guys
want to call it, because entropy, the law of entropy, no

(02:12:18):
longer no longer exists. You know what entropy is,
Daniel? Yeah.
All right. I'm glad I was able to make some
sense. All right, you got any more?
I just. Daniel, if you could, maybe if
you could kind of just take him.I, I don't know, a minute or two
and like walk me through kind oflike how you see your model,

(02:12:42):
like how God kind of, you know, relates to reality, his
decisions towards it based upon what he knows and kind of like,
you know, like do you see him ina progression?
Do you see him as having multiple thoughts and feelings
at the same time since he sees all or like I mean, do you think

(02:13:06):
he can only have one emotion at one time or something like that?
Like give me get just if you could just try and elaborate on
kind of your model like how you kind of see how all this kind of
coalesces. Yeah, OK.
I'll try my best. I don't necessarily superimpose

(02:13:31):
limitations to God in a way thathe has just one unidirectional
emotion or feelings or things ofthat nature.
He's he's beyond my comprehension as to how he or

(02:13:51):
who he is. Basically, we as a as a human
being possessing the free will that I have received as as as a
gift, for example, the way that I would manage my free will is
not necessarily how God would function.
His will is greater than all, for example.

(02:14:13):
So I would not I, I don't claim to be comprehending a lot about
how God goes on to do his business, but I can relate to
him and I can understand how he functions with us through the
words that he communicates to us.
For example, so we have these books of God, the Bible and the

(02:14:36):
Quran, and we have so much material in there.
So through through that material, when I try to read
God, God is like this. I I cannot attribute to God a
timeless dimension of decisions that he has made, some of which

(02:14:59):
could become redundant. And I don't necessarily see God
operating at this level of wastage that he has made N
number of decisions and N minus something number of decisions
would be redundant. I don't necessarily see God
operate in this fashion. I would see God like operate

(02:15:21):
with agents as human beings in amuch more dynamic way that he
can. He can he can have an impromptu
approach in A at a dynamic relationship with us human as
human beings. And I don't necessarily see that
dynamic relationship as being any hurdle to the philosophical

(02:15:45):
coherence of his omniscience or or omnipotence.
In fact, I believe if he, if he weren't dynamic, that would be
impeding into his omnipotence. That's what that's that's how I
would see it. So I, I hope you get you, you're
getting sense of what I'm tryingto say to you.
Smokey, Are you ready for me to throw something out there based

(02:16:09):
upon the conversation we're having right now?
Just one of the questions. I think Okie's pooping or
something. He's probably listening then.
But the the question to go alongwith what you're talking about
there, Daniel, is does God know every possible future or just
the one that happens? I would not.

(02:16:33):
Say, I would not say that I WhatI would say is God knows.
God has determined future, but he has not.
He has not determined the outcomes, the actual outcomes of
the agents of free will like like us, for example.
So God has not determined or what I would do, say in the

(02:16:59):
evening for example, what I would decide in the evening.
He has no decisions there, but He becomes knowledgeable once I
have made my decisions. You know what I mean?
I hear you. It sounds a little bit like
you're going towards compatibilism a little bit.
Compatibilism. So what is compatibilism?

(02:17:22):
Compatibilism. Is it to do with that means?
That God basically set some things in order and some things
are predetermined and set stone is where within the framework
you're still able to make some choices.
Hopefully they articulated that properly.
OK. Yeah, I think, I think yours,

(02:17:48):
well, whatever. I think I've kind of said kind
of everything I need to say on that.
What was your question again, Brett?
Exactly. I, I think I probably answered
it, but just just to kind of make sure I I heard it
correctly. You talk about like God's
knowing what is going to happen or something making it
necessary. Is is that what you asked?
No, this is. Kind of something that you've
scratched during quite a few times when I've heard you.

(02:18:11):
Does God know every possible future are just the one that
happens? Yeah, that's.
Called middle knowledge, that's one of the three categories of
knowledge that the moments talk about.
It's one of the generally easierones to prove, especially
explicitly from scripture. Necessarily.
Well, they're always proof, but.Middle knowledge is easy.

(02:18:32):
To prove from Scripture, there'san example of this when the
Israelites are asking and cryingout to God, they had every
intention to want to flee to Egypt and they were asking God,
you know, hey, what will happen if we flee to Egypt?
What will happen if we stay here?
God communicates very clearly knowing exactly what would

(02:18:55):
happen if they did one or the other.
This is God demonstrating middle.
Knowledge where he. Knows the outcome of possible
realities based upon what they will choose to do.
That's not obligated in any way,shape or form to instigate that
choice or determine that choice,But he does know what the

(02:19:17):
outcomes of either one of the choices are, and he does know
which one they will choose. But again, this is knowledge
that he's not required to act upon.
And again, just when you. Create the free will agent and
you know what it's going to do. It does not mean that you've
dictated what it's going to do. It doesn't mean that that
knowledge is necessarily intrinsically tied to its

(02:19:39):
decision. It just means that you are aware
and knowledgeable of what the outcome of the decision is.
This is, I think at the beginning of the conversation.
This was the error that I thought Daniel was kind of
making, trying to necessarily tie the knowledge of the sense
of now. It's in a realm of determinism
that it now somehow negates the action of the free will agent.

(02:20:00):
That's and that's why I was kindof trying to overcome with it.
But that's the idea of the category moladism of God.
'S middle knowledge. So, and by the way, it
completely defeats that stupid idiot theology of open theism
with the most uncoherent garbageI've ever heard in my entire
life. Because in open theism, God
doesn't know what's going to happen, He just operates based
upon probabilities of wagers. It's absolute nonsense and

(02:20:22):
confident. Dumb blind deaf dumb idiot God.
Yeah, open fee isn't ridiculous.Smokey.
I'd like to ask you something outside of my philosophical
questions. You had said earlier that you
are interested in doing a show based upon the subject matter of
atheist. I'm not sure what it is.
Probably has something to do with them being dumb.
Would you like me to get a show going for you next Friday or do

(02:20:46):
you want to go to channel? I'll think about it.
Well, I'll, I'll, I'll chew it over tonight, then I'll, I'll
shoot you an e-mail. Or something.
All right, sounds good. Daniel, you got any other
thoughts or would you like me tothrow out some more questions?
And you asked, you asked me earlier about the rabbit hole.
What does that mean? You haven't heard the rabbit

(02:21:08):
hole concept before? I, I I.
Have but I I did not really understand what did you mean by
that? In, in, in.
Wonderland. Whenever she goes into the the
weird world and stuff and it just takes her all over the damn
place, things go crazy. OK, that kind of thing.
Alice in Wonderland, a classic. You ready for a question?

(02:21:30):
Yeah, sure. All right.
We are now going to actually be on our 4th question.
Here we go. It's got a.
Half. Hours.
We got to four. That's great.
No, but. It's been a fantastic
conversation. I'm glad if you guys are
interested in stretching it out for other times, it's up to

(02:21:51):
Daniel. He's had a long day.
Well, I mean, but it's totally. I think I think we can.
We can close with this question and no, I mean when I.
When I stretch it out, I mean for other times, like we can
just wait for another day or bring something up every once in
a while. It's all good.
Yeah, sure. Sure, we.
Having this conversation. Wherever in fact, I I, I I

(02:22:14):
wouldn't even mind doing a stream on something like problem
believable or what what I. Would like to do is I would like
to have a different conversationwith Smokey before I come back
to this because I want to understand some of the
entailments of Smokey's philosophy into understanding

(02:22:37):
some some scriptures for examplelike John One and one.
I would want to know how this all fits in there, like if
Smokey's comfortable talking to me about John 1 and one for
example. I don't care.
You know matter. Yeah, we can talk.
About it maybe in the next stream and and and then I will

(02:22:58):
I'll be able to correlate how you kind of tie it up all off
you know what I mean. So I can I can I can better
understand yeah. I can better understand your
epis to me. Yeah.
No, I'm fine with that, yeah. Whatever you want to.
Yeah, throw out whatever and we'll we'll do it.
Yeah, I don't care. Yeah, not now, but.
A different stream, for example?Sure.
Yeah, I'm good. With that, yeah.

(02:23:19):
Yeah. You are, you said.
Smokey that you have a interest in the the evil problem and
stuff that a lot of people I guess like to bring up.
I guess it's not a problem for me.
I. Mean.
Oh, I understand. I.
Understand I I guess I could throw this out for you both so
you can have some fun with it that you aren't.
If God is good, why do bad things like suffering exist?

(02:23:41):
Go. Ahead, Daniel.
You want. To hit it, Daniel, God is good.
Why do suffering exist? So it's.
A classic. Atheist question.
This is the one that makes them have the sad.
So there is two people. Question.
It is the problem, yeah. Yeah, basically.

(02:24:03):
Yeah, that's what it is. But there's there's there's 2
perspectives. 1 is suffering comes from human volition, human
will, and also from God's volition or God's will because
we do have calamities, unprovoked calamities I would
say. For example, even if you take
away the evil human who who might get punished by Almighty

(02:24:27):
God through calamities, so take him away, animals do suffer.
So animals are not evil, they won't be burned down in hell,
but they do suffer from God's actions on planet Earth, for
example. So that if that is a kind of
suffering that you're talking about and you're asking me if
God was compassionate and why does he, why does he bring

(02:24:50):
suffering into innocent animals?How would that, how would I
answer that would be completely different from sufferings that
suffering. Remember that everything from
pushing a little old lady in front of the bus to kicking the
kitten? Go ahead.
So I wouldn't necessarily separate the two.

(02:25:14):
I would separate suffering to human beings who are responsible
creatures like we are responsible in the teleology of
God to conduct well and to to abide by the covenant that God
has with us. A failing which God might mount,
suffering our way through natural calamities.

(02:25:34):
But why would these impact the non human species is where the
debate must be in my opinion. All right, so if if that's what
is the question at hand which the atheists might agree that a
benevolent God need not be subjecting non human or non

(02:25:57):
sentient species into suffering.I would answer that in this
fashion. I might be wrong, but I would
answer that in this fashion thatGod has made the object of
planet earth and the life on this planet as a lesson for

(02:26:21):
humans to draw upon. So there is an instruction in
this organized life to draw out for human beings.
So human beings learn their subservientness to Almighty God,
their their position before the majesty of Almighty God as a as

(02:26:43):
a servant and to learn the humility that God is in charge.
So there is a lesson that we derive out of it because God
ultimately is the one who awardslife and death.
And it's easy for God to avoid, to award life and death, so he
gives life. Which species become protective

(02:27:04):
of and would want to survive, would want to be safe and ensure
their well-being, but at the same time, God can bring death
to them. And this is what God does.
And at this, right at this stage, God's is above our
questioning because God does what he does, and God gives life
and God gives death. And as creatures, we tend to

(02:27:26):
enjoy the gift of life, and there's a larger instruction out
there of death and how God wouldaward us eternal life if we
persevered in His covenant and abided in His covenant.
So there is instruction. God organizes this whole
suffering on planet earth as an instruction to human being.

(02:27:51):
So human being can come to God in humble ways as a subservient
servant. So that's my take.
OK for me I guess I don't want to take a hour answering this,
so I guess I'll just try and boil it down to its lowest

(02:28:11):
common denominator. The allowance of evil is for an
ultimate higher good. So there is a.
Higher good that is available than the good that we perceive
as the good of limiting or neutralizing evil.
There's a higher good than that and the higher good is
protected. So in terms of the reality that

(02:28:34):
we have, there's certain components of it that basically
you could think of would almost be necessary if it was created
by a loving God. And one of kind of those
necessary components is this dynamic of free will, because we
even understand and recognized and are moral programming that

(02:28:58):
the annexation or violation of someone's will is generally, not
always, but generally A moral wrong.
And this flows, of course, I believe, from the nature of God
himself, from the nature of reality, is that we recognize
that it's not loving for us to take our child and chain them in

(02:29:22):
the basement so they never make any dangerous decisions and
endanger themselves or make a decision that you don't approve.
We don't see that as loving. We don't recognize that as
loving, and there's a reason forthat.
We don't recognize forced love or grape as something that is
love. And this, I think, is a

(02:29:44):
reflection of basically God's nature that is programmed into
US of a sense of intrinsic morality.
There's some of these core ideasthat we kind of just understand
basically is a reflection of Godand his nature.
So. To me, when I look at reality, I

(02:30:04):
think about this idea that thereis a higher good beyond simply
the elimination of evil. I look at the idea of the
importance of the free will dynamic, the importance of the
relational dynamic with the creation of the necessity for
God to really, if he is truly loving to create a reality where

(02:30:24):
true love is able to actually manifest, not by force or decree
or determinism or fatalism, but actually exists.
So, and to make an analogy so everyone can kind of get this
into into perspective of what I'm really saying.
If you were to think about reality as a program being

(02:30:45):
created by a programmer, and theprogram has a specific purpose,
just like a calculator as a purpose to calculate numbers and
a calendar has the purpose to calculate time, reality has a
purpose. It has a teleology behind its
creation, and I believe that this teleology, this highest
purpose to it is to have a meaningful deep relationship

(02:31:08):
with the creation. I believe all that is must be
integrated in a way where it protects this primary purpose,
this primary teleology of reality.
So there are going to be certainaspects, certain components of
that reality that necessarily follow.
If the the idea is to create a reality we're a meaningful

(02:31:29):
organic free will relationship can emerge with the creation,
then there's going to be certainnecessary components of that
reality to exist. And this is where we get the
idea that the highest good abovethe mitigation or elimination of
evil is the allowance of the manifestation of the free will
choice of the creation to chooseor do not choose and therefore

(02:31:53):
have an actual meaningful relationship with the Divine.
And those that choose the otherwise are basically just the
ones that are part of the equation that will, if they are,
choose to exercise their free will, they will emerge and
deviate to the other side. But it does not negate the value

(02:32:13):
or eliminate or present any lackof justification for the
allowance of the manifestation of those who want to have that
true, loving, genuine relationship with God.
I am one of those that take the position, and this is even
something that could be discussed a little more in depth
later, that I actually believe that we live in the and I'm.

(02:32:35):
Going to be real careful. With my language here, don't
take a deterministic spin off ofwhat I'm about to say.
We. Live in the minimal scope.
Possible evil. Worlds and what I mean by that,
just to give an example, and I would defend this if anyone
wants to challenge me on this. We look at all the evils in the

(02:32:56):
world and we think to ourselves based upon a limited
perspective, this is as bad as it could possibly get.
That's completely not true. As an example, imagine if, you
know, suddenly we had people like the X-Men or telepaths or
psychics or things like that. People that could make people
see things, hallucinate things, control, people crack through

(02:33:17):
concrete, you know, could fly. Imagine all the incredible extra
scopes of evil mankind would be capable of if we had these extra
ranges and scopes in our nature.So I hold the position that God,
I believe, created basically thereality in scope and range.
Not determinism by choice, but in scope and range of the choice

(02:33:37):
of nature of his created agents to provide for what I think was
the most minimally possible universe, most minimal possible
amount of evil to emerge, while still protecting the free will
dynamic that I do believe. Oh, OK.
Very. Articulate, I myself, I, as you
know, Smokey, I had a issue withthe evil problem and all that

(02:34:00):
for a while there, I recall, butI recall.
I would I. Talked to somebody and
everything and they luckily theywere very patient with me and
they said, I go, why would God create, you know, evil and
suffering and all this kind of stuff?
And he goes, well, if you read the Bible, Brett, he didn't
originally do it that way. They, these people were perfect.

(02:34:24):
They were good. They had everything going for
them and they were given a decision and we're told clearly
and specifically what was going to happen.
And then suddenly I started feeling like my position was
falling. The shit that's that's and I was
like, oh man. So that's what helped me change
some of my views and it really helped me through my problem.

(02:34:46):
Well, good. Awesome.
Praise God. That's great.
Good. All right.
Well, that's about I guess all Ihad on that topic.
If you, I don't know if we're going to wrap it up now or I
mean it was a good talk to you, it's totally up to you.
Guys, I got, you've seen my pageprobably it's like 50 and we're
only like 4. Awesome.

(02:35:07):
Yeah, yeah. I think.
I mean, it's up to you. No, I'm in favor of.
Wrapping it up so I'm. Good with that.
Yeah, we can always, yeah, we can always come back and pick
this up again, you know, let the, you know, questions take on
a slightly different, you know, role or something.
I, I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure.
I'll go back and re listen to your kind of take on that about

(02:35:30):
the, the stance of of evil or something.
But in any case, I, I think I certainly got out what I wanted
to say on a lot of these subjects, I think, and I really
appreciate you coming along and,you know, presenting kind of the
other side and the viewpoint andit kind of even I think
stimulated me getting some of these things out.
And I think this is a really good time.

(02:35:50):
I actually really, really enjoyed it.
I thought this is great, really fruitful.
So. Yes, I'm.
Here, I mean, it's, it's very interesting to learn from where
you're coming and all of the other interfaith within
Christianity. I mean, you seem to have a
plethora of understanding of allof these different branches of
how they relate to these philosophical ideas.

(02:36:11):
So it's good to know. It's good to know and learn from
you. And yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, it's going to be a relationship of learning, I
suppose, at least for me. So yeah.
Well, I'm I'm. Interested to learn your take
too, you know, and even on some of these things, especially the

(02:36:32):
Quran only stuff. And you know, I mean, I'm
curious on some of these other things.
So I mean, because I know here'sthe thing.
I see you've kind of come to, you know, we're all responsible
for our own epistemology and what we choose to believe.
I tend to get real cautious about wandering too far from the
lines of Christian Orthodoxy. Unless I have a.

(02:36:56):
Really good reason to and the reason is because I don't want
to take a position where I'm trying to like.
Elevate my. Understanding or grasp of
knowledge suddenly higher than the entire collective effort of
like, the theological world. Yeah.
Like, to me, it would be a little ridiculous even on its

(02:37:20):
face to like, adopt, say, for instance, Arianism, you know, or
like Jehovah's Witness theology,where Jesus is a created being
and not actually God. Because in 325 AD, pretty much
the entirety of the theological world came together to refute
free heretical, you know, priests or bishops.

(02:37:44):
Arias sent his to supporters andthe entire theological world,
300 plus, you know, bishops and theological leaders came from
all over the world to show up and contend and debate and say
Arianism is bullshit. Now it's for me to look at that
story and think that I'm somehowsupposed to place a bat the

(02:38:06):
loser, You know, the people thatpropagandized their heresy to
the leaders to basically make itsome sort of overarching forced,
you know, narrative. And even to this day, I have
degenerate little idiot atheistsrunning around claiming that
Arianism was some super huge, massive, wide reaching theology
simply because certain propaganda spread it to certain

(02:38:28):
rulers who adopted it in their regions.
You know, and to the idea that that someone's going to look
back in church history and say, I'm going to side with these
three nut jobs that were basically ostracized, you know,
not not excommunicated. I mean, areas stayed a priest
until the day he died, but he was kind of isolated and he

(02:38:49):
didn't really have any teaching position or any respect in the
church. I'm going for someone to come
along and say, Oh, no, that thatguy had it right.
You know, the guy that lost all arguments everywhere and was
completely clowned across the entire theological world and
couldn't get really anyone to agree with them other than two
radical people, you know, that were that were under his study.

(02:39:10):
You know you got. To look at things like that, I
think the the Christian has to look at that stuff with a sense
of intrinsic scrutiny. And you really want to, you
know, to to think the idea that the entire theological world
that came together to write the Nicean Creed was simply devoid
of the Holy Spirit, that they were able, you were able to get

(02:39:31):
300 plus minds come together andcompletely agree on the verbiage
of with all these different prepackaged ideas and
presuppositions and interpretation stuff.
And they can all come together and refute this heretic with a
Nicean creed that delineates thenature of the Trinity.

(02:39:51):
You know, and it's basically as as analogously or close as it
possibly can. I mean, the Bible proves that
the Trinity is personhood via the Granville Sharp rule.
It's pre programmed in the GreekMatthew.
Is it 20? It's 28 or something.
I have to go look it up. Go baptized in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

(02:40:12):
Go look up what the Granville Sharp rule is very specifically
in the Greek. This is communicating personhood
in the text. So.
It's there anyone you know? Jesus said.
He who has, you know, ears to hear, let him hear.
You know, it's it's all there for anyone that wants to see it
and look at it. But we adopt things based upon

(02:40:32):
what we like and what feels good.
And I am trying real hard to notbe one of them.
Real hard. In fact, those people tend to
irritate me. And God forbid I'd be one of
them. I want to adopt what's true.
Yeah. I hear you.
I guess I. Hear you.
I can wrap things up with one last thing for you both.
It won't be a philosophical thing about God's nature, but

(02:40:54):
it'll be more about the nature of atheist.
Would you guys be interested in that real quick?
Can you? Can you just hold on?
Brad, I'll just have to say a word to, to Yeah.
So Smokey, I would be interestedto, if you could, if you could
think about what I said of the redundancy problem that comes

(02:41:16):
with timeless decisions of Almighty God.
And would that impede on him being a perfect God?
I, I want, I want you to think about this and in, in the next
stream, probably talk about it alittle bit, right?
That's fine. I don't really see a redundancy

(02:41:39):
problem, and I don't even reallysee how it's redundant at all
because, you know the choice is based upon whatever actualizes.
So his choice only actualizes based upon what actualizes in
reality. So I don't see any redundancy by
him having an operational knowledge of what he would do in
any possible reality. I don't see any redundancy

(02:42:00):
problem because it's not like I'm not talking about some
multiverse concept where, you know, there's multiple universes
where he's making all these decisions at the same time in
different timelines. That's not, I mean, there's no
redundancy in that regard. It's just he has already decided
what he will do based upon any decision of any free will agent,

(02:42:20):
and it doesn't mean that he dictated what the free will
agent to do to make those decisions.
Right. It would probably just as you
suggest to Smokey to think aboutthat.
You might want to try to think of another way to articulate
this because I think you're trying to make a point, but it
it keeps on, sadly, it keeps on being said over and over, like a

(02:42:43):
repeat at this point. So that both of you might, you
know, want to work on that. Maybe I don't even.
Know what really mean by like redundancy?
Like, I mean, because it's not like it, it's I, I mean, it's
not like he's making, you know, decisions that are all going to
actualize, you know, like when we make a decision, you know,

(02:43:04):
towards something, you know, aside from a mental process, a
decision that follows action like we're doing.
So that's what actualizes like, and we know we have that
decision to know one path or theother and that knowledge doesn't
somehow dictated which one I've chosen to do, you know, like

(02:43:25):
it's just, I'm just not understanding like this
connection, like I'm just not it.
It just all seems kind of red herring a little bit to me in
terms of, you know, connecting God's relationship with reality.
Like knowing what's going to happen doesn't mean you made it
happen. Like, I mean, I could know
there's a cornado in Kansas the tomorrow doesn't mean I made it

(02:43:48):
happen, you know what I mean? When I hear your.
Word, Daniel. Redundancy.
I imagine a programmer hitting his keys and then eventually
just holds down one of the buttons and just lets it
redundantly go on and on and on and on forever.
So I'm, I'm not exactly sure where you're getting it on that

(02:44:08):
either, but if you guys are wanting to wrap it up, I do have
the final thing for you if you're getting tired.
Oh, it's fine, we can. Wrap up.
It's OK. I wanted to spend a little time
with the missus anyway, so. So what do you guys think?
Next Friday, 7:00 PM. Like this?
Get into. Some more topics Friday, maybe

(02:44:31):
an hour. Later, Brett, give me a little
more time on Friday, like 6. Your time would probably be
fine. OK, you want me to go 6 central,
huh? What did you set it?
For the wait, what did you set it for this last time?
What did what did you set it foron your time zone?
7:00 PM. Central.
OK, if you could set it for 8 your time, set it for 8 your

(02:44:53):
time, I would. I would be fine with that.
Not to be a bitchy little girl, but remember I didn't ask you
what was the best time for you. That's why I do it.
No, that was no. That was and this was fine.
I didn't have an issue with thiseither.
So that and Friday's fine. I don't have an issue with
Friday. That's fine. 6:00 for me would
be grass best and that's PacificStandard Time.

(02:45:14):
Sounds like you're 8:00, so thatwould be fine for me.
I have no problem with that. I'm going to show you guys a
small collection of statistics that I have discovered.
Some of these I have already discovered quite a while back,
but it still seems to hold today.
Here we go. I'm going to put it on the
screen and I'd like you guys opinion on it.

(02:45:48):
You guys can be heard the thing that.
Yeah. No, I was just, I was reading
it. Yeah.
Yeah. Well, when you adopt A worldview
that is pure relative subjectivism, that you can write

(02:46:09):
your own meaning, value, teleology, moral set, it really
does allow open license to everyvice of depravity known to man
under the sun, basically doing whatever's right in your own
eyes. So I'm not, I'm not surprised by

(02:46:30):
this considering you know, from my viewpoint, the propensity of
the human to want to gravitate towards fleshly satiation
without the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
This is what I would expect to see.
Those that abandoned any attemptof servitude or link to the

(02:46:50):
spirit will be slaves to the flesh.
So yeah, would you guys? Prefer I keep it up on the
screen while you guys are talking or what do you want me
to do? I think, I think you.
Just showed the product of of general subjective moral
relativism. I think that is essentially what
it pretty much always filters down into the worst of.

(02:47:13):
Human vices and. Appetites is what will filter
out into the mix and be licensed.
After all, what good does an atheist have to present that
someone should stop doing drugs?You know, look at Wild Heart.
Wild Heart's an atheist with a whole bunch of atheist friends.
Oddly enough that a single one of them have been able to
convince him to stop drinking himself to death.
I wonder why that is. Because they don't have an

(02:47:33):
argument. They don't have a justification.
Every atheist is responsible to their own sense of value, and
the only thing that they possibly have to argue with at
any point in time is if you're harming someone else.
But even that becomes a Gray area as to what is actually
harming and what is actually is enough harm to invalidate
someone's expression of free will.
And everyone has a different idea of that as well.

(02:47:55):
So that's all subjective and relative as well, and there is
no justification to tell someoneto not just completely end
themselves and their own way possible because they're allowed
to create their own moral set, their own set of values as to
what they prioritize and who from another subjective opinion
based set is ever going to be able to argue to the contrary.

(02:48:16):
You know, what is the highest and best good for you might not
be the highest and best good forthe drug dealer on the corner.
And you're kind of approaching it with a sense of arrogance
saying otherwise if you have nothing to operate from than
your own subjective relativisticviewpoint.
So yeah, atheism's a mess and ithas no mechanism inside it to
help itself improve. None at all.
Just a black hole. Just a meaningless cluster of

(02:48:41):
nothingness, denialism and nihilism.
What do you think, Daniel? Some of my good.
Friends are atheists here in town and I I do see atheists to

(02:49:03):
be genuinely agnostic, meaning not knowing kind of premise, but
they would assert outwardly in aposition to religious people as
being atheistic. But internally when I've had a
pretty involved discussions, I've found out that they are

(02:49:24):
inherently agnostic. Not knowing is their premise,
but in opposition to people of religion, they would take an
extreme, extreme view of opposing them.
And so they would go on to declare atheism.
And my personal experience has been that atheists, I mean,

(02:49:46):
there's bad apples everywhere, There's people of religion are
bad too, but there's also good individuals among atheists.
And I just cannot, not that I would end up disappointing my
friends who are atheists, but I genuinely feel there's good
people among atheists and some of them are far better people

(02:50:07):
than some of the bad people in religion.
So it's basically people's relative understanding of
ethics, morality, which can still function in a pretty
decent way, not necessarily linked to God.

(02:50:28):
I, I'm not of the premise that aman has to be obedient to God in
order to be a good person on, onon earth in, in his life.
I think a human being can be a very, very good person, even not
knowing God, because the volition of doing good and bad
is inherent within human being. And it's the basically the

(02:50:51):
choices that human makes from this, from the internal
mechanism of guidance that God has made a part of human
software. I I, I, I would say human
conscience. So the conscience that human has
received as a faculty from Almighty God operates
independently of Almighty God, and humans can end up doing good

(02:51:15):
and bad. All sorts of people do good and
bad. People of religion do a lot of
great amount of sin and harm to other people, but there's
atheists who also can do a lot of good to people.
So all of these possibilities exist and this is the design of
God, the teleology of God. But I would I would agree with

(02:51:37):
the premise that God lays out himself, which is to do good, is
to basically start acknowledgingthe truth.
So if an atheist is in denial, and if it goes on to assert
atheism is the right atheism hasevidence or atheism is the right
way for human beings, then that would necessarily require

(02:51:59):
evidence out of him. Because if if there's a position
of assertion that atheism is theright way of the world view,
then they would require to shoulder the burden of proof to
to to substantiate the position of why atheism would be.
That would be the default position of the world of human

(02:52:22):
beings. I, I, I, I, I think that's when
the bad enters an atheist, as far as atheist would go, an
atheist would go like, I don't know, that would still be a
closer position to being just not entirely just, but closer to
being just rather than assertingthat there is no God.

(02:52:44):
So, but as far as things goes, Ithink atheists can really
functionally be good people and people of religion no matter
what religion can functionally be really evil people at the
same time. So their, their faith would
necessarily be void, but they would, they themselves would be

(02:53:08):
believing, but they're accordingto God's judgement, their faith
would still be void. But yeah, all these
possibilities exist in human, human spectrum because humans
understand things slightly differently and not we don't
have, we are not a homogeneous body having a homogeneous group,
having homogeneous set of beliefs and ideas.

(02:53:33):
So we are all a little differentin a way.
So that's just my opinion. I I can understand that, and I
actually don't doubt your claim on that an assertion, even
though I have a very negative outlook of atheists.
I believe that if atheists are standing in the proximity of
Smokey or myself, they'll be thenicest cupcakes you ever meet.

(02:53:55):
But get them behind a computer where they don't think they're
accountable for their actions and behaviors, just as they
don't believe there's a God. You start seeing the cracks, you
start seeing, seeing something kind of some decay there, you
know what I mean? I don't think I like the idea
that people that are able to do good things are good people.

(02:54:18):
I don't. And I don't like the idea that
someone would possibly be defined by maybe the worst thing
they did in their life. Like the idea that, you know,
someone when they were in their 20s was part of a gang and they
killed someone and then they paid their time and they got out
and they spent the rest of theirlife speaking against being in
gangs, using their story as a testimony.

(02:54:40):
I don't think they should somehow be condemned and defined
by that one thing they did that led them down the path that
ultimately led to highest and greater good.
So I guess I'm not Daniel. I'm not, I don't agree.
And I don't think I really understand necessarily even the
premise 'cause I, I don't think that really anyone's good if

(02:55:00):
we're talking about the standardto God.
But in terms of good, in the sense of someone sanctified,
yeah. I mean, an atheist would never
qualify. And an atheist generally cannot
escape having any justification.Every justification he has
generally has to have something of self-service selfishness tied

(02:55:22):
behind it because there's reallyno intrinsic motivation
ultimately to do anything for someone else.
So like even in the instance, and this is where I think this
is where I have a problem with what you're presenting, because
you present it like all the goodness is just in the action.
You know, that the motivation, the spirit behind it or the
heart of it really doesn't have any, any power.

(02:55:44):
And that's certainly not how Christianity works only.
Only deeds done in faith are good deeds.
And to give you an example, Abraham sacrificing Isaac or
going up to sacrifice Isaac, if God hadn't told him to do that
and he just took his son up on the mountain to scare the crap
out of him, you know, or something, that wouldn't have
been a good thing to do. But because he was following the

(02:56:05):
command of God, it was a good thing to do.
Well, what's the difference? It's the same action.
Well, one's done in faith and 1 isn't.
So an atheist in a, in, in a, ina, a soup kitchen handing out
soup to the homeless might be doing that for a purely selfish
motivation. In fact, it's hard to believe
that they'd construct anything other than that because they
want to be perceived as a good person with their friends or,

(02:56:28):
oh, look what I do, or, or they just want to feel good about
themselves, that they're a good person, that they're better than
their friends or something of the like.
Because the motivation can't be in the spirit as to some sort of
service to the holy God of a sense of self sacrifice and
worship to the one who saved andand offers salvation.
It can't be anything like that. So it can't be in any pleasing

(02:56:50):
in its core. See, like the goodness of the
world, the goodness of reality is more than just the actions
themselves. A broken clock can be right
twice a day. A horrible person is capable of
doing good things from time to time.
You can interact with one of your atheist friends and he's
the nicest guy in the world and you guys have a great time

(02:57:11):
together and you enjoy your camaraderie ship.
And you get every impression that he's a moral good person.
And he volunteers and he helps people, you know, at the the
soup kitchen and he does all this volunteer work and stuff.
And he also beats the living Christ out of his wife every
Wednesday when he gets drunk. Is he a good person?
Because he did some good things.You know, this is not how we

(02:57:35):
judge morality more goodness. If we look at someone who went
out and founded 10,000 orphanages and saved a million
kids from being homeless and impoverished and starved.
We don't look at the one that hepicked up and kidnapped and

(02:57:56):
brutally graped and murdered andsay oh let that one go because
he helped so many of the others.We this is not how we judge
morality, this is not how we judge goodness.
And the goodness of a person, the person that makes them good
to me is their commitment to Christ.
And in that commitment to Christare going to be the things that

(02:58:18):
necessary follow. Which is good because Christ
taught us to be self sacrificing, benevolent, to love
our neighbor as we love ourselves.
The Golden Rule, the commanding of humility, benevolence,
kindness, generosity, goodwill, good faith towards men, all of
these things that ultimately, ifthey were practiced, would make

(02:58:40):
the world a much better place, you know?
But people don't follow the teachings of Christ.
And if a Christian claims to be a Christian and they're not
following the teachings of Christ, they're not a Christian.
Christian is defined as someone who follows the teachings of
Christ. That's what it means.
It's definitional. If they're not doing it then
they're not a Christian and it doesn't matter if they claim.

(02:59:01):
If I claim to be Scottish but I'm not from Scotland and I
don't know what haggis is, guesswhat?
I'm a fucking liar. And a Christian who claims to be
a Christian and doesn't follow the teachings of Christ is a
fucking liar. Daniel I.
I understand that you said that you've taken a break and you've
been away from YouTube for a while.

(02:59:21):
I think that I, I think that I don't even have to put any
effort into convincing you whatsoever how cruel some of
these non believers can be. I think I'll just give it some
time and after you have a few ofthem pull their pecker out on
your camera or your screen and ruin your shows and call you the
N word, they'll do. That yeah, then you'll.

(02:59:42):
Then you'll I think that you'll be more understanding of where
me and smoke is coming from. I know it's hard.
I used to have this glory image of people too, where it's like I
think everybody's got some good in them and all that.
And I used to even be bothered by the concept of hell.
Now I can imagine and be just fine with it that some people

(03:00:03):
are going to lose their soul andsimply be non existent.
Yeah, it's just the experience, you know, you get there.
Well, I had a great. Time, guys.
Have a wonderful day. This was so much fun.
I had a really great time. I'm glad you set this up, Brett.
This was really good. And yeah, I'm happy to do it
again sometime. This was awesome.
Yeah, Brett. Let us know when when you will

(03:00:25):
sort of set it up. Well, this kind of, really.
Depends. On you.
Guys, there's AI used to just open my rooms to everybody and
all that kind of stuff, but there's I, I select a few.
I've got my favorite Smokey's one of them and I'm really,
really digging you as well there, Daniel.
I like being able to have these deep conversations.

(03:00:46):
I don't like sitting in rooms orpeople are just all day.
I I like to actually learn things as well as be able to
participate in a conversation. You want to enjoy this.
I mean, I really enjoy talking to Smokey today with you and
this is fantastic. This is mutual learning and it's

(03:01:07):
we are not focusing on preachingso much.
It's, it's learning is what we are focused on.
So it's it's pretty good. So what do you guys say?
I start something at 6:00 PM Central.
I'll have it scheduled for Friday.
Sound good? That's fine.
Yeah, I'm good with that. Yeah, sure.
Absolutely if I see either. One of you going live and you've

(03:01:27):
got an interesting topic and youknow the wife isn't wanting to
use me for something. I'll be more than happy to jump
into you guys as shows. I won't go into detail.
Sure. Cool.
So do send me an e-mail about this, like when you're setting
up the stream next. So I I kind of keep that in my
mind about the time and everything.

(03:01:48):
So thank you. Thank you, Smokey, and thank
you, Brad. God bless you both.
Yeah, and you'll. Remember, guy, remember, Oh,
sorry being you'll remember people if you go to people's
YouTube channel and click on thelive section.
And I always schedule things wayin advance, so you'll always see
the notifications for that, OK? Cool, gotcha.
Awesome. Thank you.

(03:02:09):
Have a fun time. Appreciate it, Daniel.
Thank you for being here. All right.
God bless you all. Cool all.
Right, I guess. GOD TV radio the breaking show

(03:02:37):
Come join the relevant anything intelligent.
GOD TV Radio, The Prayer. Keen Show.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}SmokeySaintPolemics‬ Tesseract God’s nature, timelessness, eternal plan, relation to dimensions

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

SmokeySaintPolemics‬ Tesseract God’s nature, timelessness, eternal plan, relation to dimensions

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce