All Episodes

August 11, 2025 • 142 mins
In this stream I join the Whatever Podcast to debate against determinism and advocate for the existence of Free Will. Make sure to check it out and let me know what you think. God bless Looking for a private community of men to grow and prosper with? Join the Logos Academy 🔥 Sign up today and get part 2 streams, exclusive content, fitness accountability group for men, and private Think Tanks on news or philosophical/theological topics 2-3 times a month. As I add more courses, lectures, and resources, the price will rise—but your rate will stay locked for life when you join now. 👉 https://www.skool.com/logosacademy/about?ref=2bdaf35e8dc7496b97d172e5131457e6 Superchat Here https://streamlabs.com/churchoftheeternallogos Donochat Me: https://dono.chat/dono/dph Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH8JwgaHCkhdfERVkGbLl2g/join Buy ALP Nicotine Pouches Here! : https://alnk.to/6IHoDGl If you would like to support my work please become a website member! There are 3 different types of memberships to choose from! https://davidpatrickharry.com/register/ Support COTEL with Crypto! Bitcoin: 3QNWpM2qLGfaZ2nUXNDRnwV21UUiaBKVsy Ethereum: 0x0b87E0494117C0adbC45F9F2c099489079d6F7Da Litecoin: MKATh5kwTdiZnPE5Ehr88Yg4KW99Zf7k8d If you enjoy this production, feel compelled, or appreciate my other videos, please support me through my website memberships (www.davidpatrickharry.com) or donate directly by PayPal or crypto! Any contribution would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Logos Subscription Membership: http://davidpatrickharry.com/register/ Venmo: @cotel - https://account.venmo.com/u/cotel PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/eternallogos Donations: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com/donate/ PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/eternallogos Website: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/dpharry Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/COTEL Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ChurchoftheEterna... GAB: https://gab.com/dpharry Telegram: https://t.me/eternallogos Minds: https://www.minds.com/Dpharry Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/W10R... DLive: https://dlive.tv/The_Eternal_Logos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dpharry/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/_dpharry

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-logos-podcast--4760780/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Oh load of pose me with U.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
The hell eight.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
City, but the the whole sc Welcome to a debate
edition of the Whatever podcast. We're coming to live from
Santa Barbara, California. I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
A few quick announcements before the show begins. This podcast
is viewer supported heavy YouTube demonetization, so please consider donating

(00:31):
through stream labs instead of soup chatting, as YouTube takes
a brutal thirty percent cut. Thatstream labs dot com slash
whatever link is in the description. We prioritize messages that
are made via stream labs. To read a message is
ninety nine dollars and up. And if you want to ask,
you can ask a question or make a statement. We're
going to read those in batches at various breaks throughout

(00:53):
the debate. There's not going to be any instant tts now.
If you want to just tip and have one hundred
percent of your contribution and go towards us, no platform, fees,
no cut, you can via vemo or cash app that's
whatever pod on both link is in the description, or
also live on Twitch right now, pull up another tab,
go to Twitch dot tv slash whatever drop us a
follow in a prime sub if you have one, and

(01:14):
then quick disclaimer, the views expressed by the guests do
not necessarily reflect the views of the whatever channel. Without
further ado, I'm going to introduce our two guests. I'm
joined today by doctor David Patrick Harry. He has a
PhD in Religious studies from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California.
He's a Traditionalist and Eastern Orthodox Christian. He is also

(01:39):
an online educator. Also joining us today is Zena. She's
a senior at USC pursuing a sociology degree. She is
a leftist. She does social and philosophical commentary and is
a content creator and was recently featured on a Jubilee
episode debating Jordan Peterson. She's the Jordan Peterson Slayer. So

(02:03):
there you have it, folks. The topic today is free
will and determinism. You'll each have up to a ten
minute opening statement, and then the rest of the show
is going to be open conversation. We're gonna have two
three breaks for messages from the audience. Patrick, you're gonna
go first. Go ahead, all.

Speaker 4 (02:24):
Right, Brian, thanks for having me, Xena, thanks for being
here for the debate. To begin. Obviously, I'm going to
be affirming the existence of free will, and determinism is
self refuting ideology. Every paradigm has a metaphysics, and epistemology
and an ethics two of those legs. Determinism is already
going to lose. If all beliefs are conditioned based on

(02:48):
you know, nature versus nurture, they're neurological, your brain's determined,
you're conditioned by social patterns. Well, then all knowledge claims
are then beliefs. And if that's the case, then you
can actually not make a universal knowledge claim. The same
thing as if you're debating an argument for relativism. Claiming
that relativism that there is no truth as a truth

(03:08):
statement is counterfactual and contradicts itself, can't go anywhere. That's
a self defeating argument, especially within a debate that is
premised on logic, reason and all these different things. So,
and for my opening statement, I put together a quick
little logical syllogism that demonstrates that moral responsibility is inconceivable

(03:30):
with deterministic framework. And I look forward going back and
forth with Zena in regards to social justice, racism, slavery, reparations,
all these different things actually depend upon moral responsibility and
people actually having responsibility on their right or wrong choices,
good and bad, these types of things. But there isn't

(03:51):
an objective standard with a deterministic framework, and so they
basically have, you know, compatibilism, something like Daniel Dennet's argument,
which is really just semantic argument that's using freedom in
a new context. And that's again I'm not going to
play that game, but for just a quick opening syllogism,
and so anybody watching, if this opening statement maybe feels

(04:11):
like it's a little bit over your head, that's all right.
We'll get into the nitty gritty as the debate moves forward.
But if moral responsibility, rational deliberation, and love are real,
which the majority of people presume that they are, and determinism,
compatibilism or scnarian behaviorism render them illusions, then determinism, compatibilism

(04:34):
or behaviorism or self refuting worldviews because they depend on
the very realities that they deny. And so I have
seven principles. Essentially, they're different apologetic arguments to deconstruct determinism.
The first one would be obviously the moral responsibility argument
that if determinism is true, no one can actually be
held morally responsible for anything. Number two, and this is

(04:58):
the irony of actually being in a debate that even
though you're arguing in favor of determinism, you're again the
debate is premised upon that you're going to persuade somebody
to adopt determinism, which then undermines the central premise of determinism.
So argument from rationality, it's a self refutation. If determinism

(05:18):
is true, then all knowledge are beliefs. Therefore determinism itself
is a belief amongst all beliefs, all beliefs are equal,
and on that basis, determinism is not rationally justified. It's
only due to prior states. And then a third one,
the phenomenological argument against determinism is that no determinists actually
lives as if determinism is real. They live as if

(05:40):
they are free. And so I'm interested to hear what
Xena thinks about voting and how voting works or democratic
structures work within an deterministic worldview. Choosing a career debating
is premised on the idea that we actually have free
will and promises making promises. If she makes promises, to
her friends, regret, guilt, any sort of delib These are

(06:00):
going to again be inconsistencies with a deterministic worldview argument
from counterfactual possibility. All decisions presupposed modal freedom. So when
evaluating alternative possibilities, determinists rely on what could have been,
for example, if they go to court. Yet in their worldview,
there is never what could have been, because everything's already determined.
And then I assume what's going to pop up is

(06:22):
that determinists like to use a neuroscientific argument that's really
built upon Benjamin Libbet's findings. It's really from the nineteen eighties.
In the field of neuroscience has actually moved beyond this.
So it's a minority opinion, the idea that neuroscience has
actually proven that your brain is determined or your thoughts
are determined. This is not the universal opinion of the field.
It's actually a minority opinion. And so Libbett himself actually

(06:45):
says that his research did not prove this. And the
premise of the research is that they were asking people
to kind of lift their finger do different things, and
then they were measuring what is called resting potentials, and
therefore insinuating that the is already determined before the action occurs.
And so I reference everybody to go look up David

(07:05):
Schruger's twenty twelve article. It's titled RP as neural noise,
RP meaning resting potential. And so the majority of the
field believes that whatever was happening is just neural noise.
And actually the premise that neural science has highlighted that
everything is deterministic, that is not a majority consensus creativity

(07:27):
and novelty. So if you're determinists, you're going to have
to reject human agency in regards to poetry, art, invention,
moral heroism. These things break away from any sort of
predictive causal mechanism that they would argue for. And then
the last one is the problem of infinite regress. So
if you go back to Aristotle, you know the unmoved mover.

(07:49):
This was something that was dealt with in classical Greek philosophy,
and so obviously I'm coming at it as an Eastern
Orthodox Christian and so we believe in the Amago day
Genesis one twenty six. Because of that, I myself am
also in a sense an unmoved mover that I can
be an uncaused cause within myself as a person, usually
utilizing my free will. So those seven points, I'm sure

(08:12):
we'll probably rehash those and come back, all seven of
which are essentially logical death shops to determinism. And then
the last thing, I just wanted to highlight six points
and why determinism is actually not a dominant perspective within
academia generally speaking. And so determinism was very popular toward
the end of the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century,
so you have people like Marx and Freud. But into

(08:37):
the twentieth century, multiple turns have occurred in various fields
that have essentially rendered determinism as nonsense. First one is
quantum mechanics, so the Heisenberg uncertainty principle contradicts Laplacian determinism.
Laplace's demon is a common sort of thought experiment determinists used. Well. Again,
quantum mechanics itself has already refuted that that's the universe

(08:59):
that we live in. So in regards to physics, physics
has already refuted determinism. In regards to mathematics, chaos theory
in the nineteen sixties also refuted determinism, because it demonstrated
that an attempt to actually show that deterministic systems are
completely determined, it demonstrated that actually they're unpredictable, and there
is no deterministics full system that we've discovered yet. Number

(09:22):
three is mathematical logic. So Kirt Girdle's incompleteness theorems demonstrates
that there are limits to what can be proven, and
no complex system can prove its own consistency. That would
also be the case for determinism. You presuppose determinism to
prove determinism. That is a contradiction the cognitive revolution linguistics
nom Chomsky has already refuted the idea that we are

(09:43):
determined language actuization, so that was another turn in the
twentieth century, again refuting determinism. And then number five philosophy
of mind. So epiphenomenalism is typically the way that determinists
would argue for their philosophy of mind, but emergentism is
now the dominant. The I'm more of a highlomorphic Aristotilian.

(10:05):
I'm in that camp more so than even the emergentism camp.
But it shows that mental states cannot be explained by
conditioning alone and then the self referential collapse. This is
essentially the logical basis that all of this debates going
to Hinge on is that one cannot rationally affirm determinism.
Since belief in determinism is due to prior states, then

(10:26):
it too is a non rational belief that cannot be
rationally or universally justified. And so that is my opening statement.

Speaker 3 (10:32):
All right, thank you, Zeno, go ahead.

Speaker 4 (10:35):
Hi.

Speaker 1 (10:35):
So, yeah, I just wanted to clear up like a
couple of things about my framework. And like what I
mean when I said that I'm a determinist. I don't
mean that like everything in the universe must have some
specified cause, that everything is predictable. Instead that in any circumstance,
any event is either caused or uncaused, and when we
look at the self specifically, we're going to see that,
like when we look at any like thought that we have,

(10:57):
any want that we have, and thus any action that
we have going to result in some kind of external cause. Right, So,
essentially what I'm saying is that free will is the
ability to have done differently or to have chosen differently
in any certain instance in history, or if we were
like to rewind the clock to like, you know, ten
minutes ago when we sat down here, you could have

(11:19):
just risen your hand, right, But we know that that
could not have happened metaphysically, right, because you didn't. And
if we hold all if we hold all events constant,
and all variables constant, and all like the environment constant,
in that moment, you did not raise your hand because
there was no cause right for that to occur. And
if and if you do something randomly, that would mean

(11:39):
that by definition, it has no cause. So it's either
that any event is cause or uncaused, and that cause
when we push back the chain of causal like causality,
is going to result in something that is either like
your brain or your nurture and environmental no environmentally sorry.
People who kind of study just like the way that
we've evolved as human beings have kind of found that

(12:01):
this idea of free will is a feeling that we have.
It's a sense that comes kind of like after the fact,
when it comes like action, where we feel like we
have some agency because we have developed the ability to
create a conjunction between this idea of like the past,
the present, and the future. So you know, as we evolved,
the organisms that were able to say, hold on, wait
a minute, yesterday I did this, and today I want

(12:21):
to do that. They're able to strive for different goals
achieve more. And that's kind of just going to be
like reminiscent of like an intelligence and things of that sort.
So essentially, it's just that if you there's nothing that
internally right is uniquely kind of causing your actions or
your thoughts. Instead, your thoughts prompt your actions, but your

(12:43):
thoughts have some cause that are either due to some
type of biology or some type of nurture. This is
kind of like the whole field of psychology, the nature
and nurture debate. And then yeah, there are many different
angles we can take this from. It's pretty simple, so.

Speaker 3 (12:57):
Yeah, okay, if you guys wanted to just get into it,
it's open conversation.

Speaker 4 (13:03):
So yeah, So, in regards to your claim that free
will is basically some type of feeling that we have,
would you agree that you are parroting like epiphenomenalism.

Speaker 1 (13:14):
Sorry, what type of phenomenalism.

Speaker 4 (13:16):
Epiphenomenalism is essentially that consciousness is something that is a
byproduct of neural synapses brain activity, and it's not an
emergent property, right, So emergentism is kind of the state
of neuroscience right now. And determinism was really couched in epiphenomenalism,
so it's an epiphenomenon of brain activity. It's a sense

(13:38):
that you're free, but it's not actually your free.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
But I think there's a distinction between consciousness and of
itself and free will. I think that free will is
an illusion. Correct, We're still a little bit kind of
murky on like the nature of consciousness and of itself.
But I do believe that free will is a feeling
rather than something that is true, something that you can locate,
et cetera. I think that instead it's kind of like
our conception of like these processes and like the ways

(14:02):
that we interact with the world.

Speaker 4 (14:04):
So you're arguing that the only thing that exists is materialism, right,
like the material world, the material world, right.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
I don't think I have to posit that to make
my claim, not necessarily, I'm simple.

Speaker 4 (14:16):
Well, I'm asking what is your claim?

Speaker 3 (14:18):
Do you?

Speaker 1 (14:18):
Are you a materialist? I don't think I have to click.
I haven't completely refined like my ideas on kind of
like materialism versus idealism. I would probably be a materialist,
but I don't think I have to that entails this conversation,
or it's necessary for the conversation.

Speaker 4 (14:32):
Well, the idea is, if you're assuming materialism or any
sort of epiphenomenal understanding of free will as some type
of experience that's not rooted in actual consciousness or human agency,
it's a circular argument because you're appealing to materialism your
brain to come up with the universal truth statement that
everything is determined.

Speaker 1 (14:50):
Hold on, I'm not appealing to the brain.

Speaker 4 (14:51):
I'm saying that, like, how do you come to your
knowledge claim?

Speaker 1 (14:54):
Okay, so I'm saying that our brain interacts with our environment, right,
and that is what creates our wants and desire and
those two things, like for example, I don't No, that's
not that's that's how like people make decisions. Right. That's
so Compatiblism is the idea that free will is when
you act in accordance with your wants.

Speaker 4 (15:13):
Yes, that are shaped by the external environment. Yeah, and
then yeah, that's exactly what.

Speaker 1 (15:17):
You just said. Yeah. And then determined determinists also say, right,
that we are also shaped by our wants but free
will does not mean that you act in accordance with
with your will. It means that you would have some
agency in the moment to do whatever you want. And
in regards to like compatibilism versus determinism, we actually agree
on the same facts of reality. We just define free
will differently. So yeah, compatibist would also say, yeah, your

(15:38):
product of your environment and your biology, just as a determinist.

Speaker 4 (15:42):
Yeah, they just changed the semantic word of freedom and
they say that you're making choices amongst condition responses.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
That's what compatibilek awesome. So so there's but there's a difference.

Speaker 4 (15:51):
There in like, yeah, that's why.

Speaker 1 (15:53):
We determined free will.

Speaker 4 (15:54):
So let's get into alogy. How do you so are
you making you believe an objective truth?

Speaker 1 (16:00):
That there is objective truth? I would say that, like,
we can't make claims onto reality as it absolutely is.
I think that like our kind of is that what
you're doing right now? On do we make assumptions every day,
right that like the world around us exists so we
can do things like science, right and psychology. Yeah, it's
an assumption right that everyone like acts pet today we

(16:21):
don't really know what the world exists outside what it
looks like outside of a human body. We know that like,
for example, ants don't see the same things as us,
neither do like insects. Like even the color schemes that
we seem are different than animals. We know that, like, objectively,
the world does not look the way that we see it, right,
but we assume that it exists to interact with it
for ease, et cetera. That's how scientists come to conclusions.

(16:42):
There are baseline assumptions. Right to engage with any of
these practices.

Speaker 4 (16:45):
Yeah, but science is also appealing to the laws of logic,
the law of identity, and all these different things. I
asked you a simple rely on assumptions. Yeah, no, they're
not assumptions. So you don't believe that two plus we.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
Rely on this, rely on this something can answer your question,
because yeah, I don't want it to be a debate
where like you're gonna interrupt me and we can't have
like fruit concessions if we.

Speaker 3 (17:05):
Can, Yeah, I just allow people to finish there.

Speaker 1 (17:06):
Sure, Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, So relying on the assumption
that everything around us exists and things of that nature, Yeah,
I completely agree that that there is some truth that
we can find, but you must agree upon reality as
the basis, right.

Speaker 4 (17:21):
So regarding objective truths, I want to just hammer down
what exactly your epistemology.

Speaker 1 (17:26):
Is my epistemology. Yeah, So, I mean I think that
in general, I don't think we can say that something
is objectively true because I don't think we can like
truly like see reality as it truly is, because we
already know that our faculties, experience, our senses are set
in some way that we know other animals already don't have, right,
So so we only have we only can only trust

(17:47):
like the human experience and like what like patterns that
we recognize across the human mind, but we don't exactly
know what it could look like outside of a human
faculty of like perception. Do you understand what that means?

Speaker 4 (17:58):
Yeah, which means that you just refuted yourself to make it.
You're making universal claims right now, Yes, you are. You're
making universal We're not.

Speaker 1 (18:06):
We're not having Okay, you just said you just missed it.
Now you're now you're cutting me off.

Speaker 4 (18:10):
So why don't you why don't you stop and just
relax for a second, because what you did is you
just fundamentally contradicted yourself by saying that all we do
is we have experiences of our environment. We really can't
make universal truth claims. And then you're coming here to
actually make a universal truth claim by saying free will
doesn't exist, or free will is just an experience, or
free will's epi phenomenal, and therefore you've already undermined your

(18:30):
own episteological foundation and leads to the inability to have
any sort of rational inquiry.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
For any for any conversation that you have. Usually we
have some like you know, subliminal assumption that relies like
within the like the conversation. For example, if I'm just like,
if I like, let's say I love the Hunger Games,
and I'm like, Catnus is like the best, you know,
she's the best ever, she is the best huntress ever.
Whatever we you would be, you could be like, oh,
you're making a universal truth claim. Oh no, but actually

(18:57):
in the conversation.

Speaker 4 (18:58):
That's what is entailed that difference.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, right, that's a preference, but it's a statement. It
assumes that she's a personal difference right in that conference, Right,
So in that conversation, there's an assumption made that we're
presuming that, you know, we're making the presumption that these
people you know, exist in some sense, like some sense
I guess of being like fictional characters. Right, But there's
an assumption there that that you're making. So I think

(19:21):
the most correct way to say that would be like
assuming or like knowing that she is a fictional character.
Catus is like the best huntress ever. Right. But like
whenever we're in a conversation, whether it be metaphysical, whether
it be philosophical, political, there are some underlying assumptions made
to make any claim. If the underlying assumption with this
claim that I'm making is that free will is an illusion, right, So.

Speaker 4 (19:40):
But that's a universal claim.

Speaker 1 (19:42):
No, it's not, No, it's not. What is a universal claim?

Speaker 4 (19:48):
A universal claim is when you make a factor or
a truth claim that is universal.

Speaker 1 (19:51):
Yeah. No, so so it would also mean it is
do you see that's synonymous with absolute claims? You know,
do they see there's like a distinction between absolute claims
and universal claims.

Speaker 4 (20:04):
Those would be the same thing. An absolute claim would
be universal.

Speaker 1 (20:07):
Right, So I would make a claim if you want
to make it synonymous with like something that just like
has to be true. I think that we don't know
that anything has to be true unless we like presume
that this reality as we you know, live in it
is true. Do you understand that? Yeah?

Speaker 4 (20:22):
But you just again, like you said, there's no point
in a debate, because there's no point in the debate.
Your premise, your premise, the worldview. Every paradigm has premises
and presuppositions built into it. This is called presuppositionalism. And
so your presuppositions are contradict the ability to make the
claims that you're making. That scientists do this, like, no scientist, No,

(20:43):
it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
Scientists. You don't have a worldview that allows science. Yes, yes,
I do. You don't scientists acknowledge this? Yeah they don't.

Speaker 4 (20:50):
I'm very aware.

Speaker 1 (20:51):
I actually do you know what like the law of
causality is?

Speaker 4 (20:54):
Oh yeah, I know what the law do you? You
tell me.

Speaker 1 (20:57):
You're the one that's bringing it up, right, You're the one.

Speaker 4 (20:59):
That has it written down her paper here so she
can look down and read the definition.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
Okay, it is here.

Speaker 4 (21:03):
But yeah, people, you have not these these are just
these are out for your world views different. I don't
have definitions written anyway.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
The law causality essentially says that every event has some cause.

Speaker 3 (21:15):
Right.

Speaker 1 (21:15):
If it's not, it doesn't have a cause, it's random. Right.
And we make all these claims assuming that we can
make some type of like like statements on reality, presuming
that it exists. Right, scientists must presume that reality exists
to to make you know, the claims that they do. So,
like you know the circuss of this debate. Debate, I'm
going to presume that reality exists, and therefore I'm going

(21:35):
to make the claim that, like any event is either
cause or uncost. Does that make sense to you.

Speaker 4 (21:41):
Yeah, but it's still you have no epistemological foundation to
make it actismology.

Speaker 1 (21:46):
Do you know what you're You're a senior.

Speaker 4 (21:49):
I exactly know exactly what epistemology is.

Speaker 1 (21:52):
So it's it's the study of knowledge what we can't
exactly right exactly even in that that gives us a
framework for knowledge, right, it is the framework.

Speaker 4 (21:59):
That I'm saying that you can't make universal knowledge claims
within that.

Speaker 1 (22:02):
Param making a universe versonal knowledge claims. Does free will exist?

Speaker 4 (22:06):
No? Okay, then that is a claim that reality exists
at no point right now, in the future, in the past,
free will has existed, correct.

Speaker 1 (22:17):
No, it has or hasn't. It doesn't, it doesn't exist.

Speaker 4 (22:20):
Okay, that is called a universal truth claim. So you
just made a universal truth claim. You just contradicted the
fundamental premisees.

Speaker 1 (22:26):
So that claim, that claim exists under overlying the foundation
this idea that reality exists. Right. But that's an assumption, right,
So we make based on assumptions that you exist exist.
Who present an assumption? Yeah, it's just like you can
do this every day. No, No, it's not because I
believe you can say that you know that you're not,
like you know, a brain and a that right now, right,

(22:48):
and I don't think that you are, right. I choose
to believe that you're not because all the evidence I have,
like navigating in this world right, points to the fact
that we all exist, that we're all agents, right, et cetera. Right,
So I make this person asumption. But it's a very
very testable presumption. And it's almost back like gravity is
also a theory, but I believe in gravity because it's testable, right,
So things that's because something as an assumption does not

(23:09):
mean that we can't use it or that it's not
justifiable in any way.

Speaker 4 (23:12):
Yeah, yeah, it does actually mean that you believe in gravity.

Speaker 1 (23:17):
Gravity.

Speaker 4 (23:18):
That's that's a non sector. It's a it's a really
dumb argument that so.

Speaker 1 (23:22):
What Okay, so you understand theories can like hold the.

Speaker 4 (23:24):
Theories can actually be built on logical basis.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
Yes, and here is this one.

Speaker 4 (23:28):
Okay, so where do you so, how do the laws
of logic exist because.

Speaker 1 (23:33):
These are non physical things?

Speaker 4 (23:34):
Yeah, yeah, I'm curious what your cosmology is. Because if
you believe in the Big Bang, if you believe in
the Big Bang and you believe in material evolution ever since,
then then you can't appeal to things like the what
are called philosophical transcendentals. You can't appeal to the laws
of logic. You can't appeal the number theory. You can't
appeal to all these different things because they're non physical
and they're universal and they're unchanging. You can't have let

(23:55):
me finish, let me finish. You can't have non changing,
non physical things and entirely materialist universe.

Speaker 1 (24:04):
This is and this is a known things, any ideas
like a non changing thing.

Speaker 4 (24:08):
That's my point, that's exactly my point. Do you understand
what do you think my argument is? Because it doesn't
be like that free.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
Will exists and that we're some like we are causal
agents with.

Speaker 4 (24:17):
Exactly without free will, there is no reasons. Rationality depends
upon the ability to choose between things, right.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
So I think that human beings can like develop rationality
and pattern recognition, but the cause for that is determined. Right.
You can, like someone can like learn and like like
learn to like read patterns or learn like to make
connections to things, but the causes for that person to
get you know, get to that point of neuroplastic plasticity
is determined, That's what I'm saying. So you can have

(24:44):
a want, you can have a desire, you can act
on that desire. You can be like forced against acting
on your desire, but those desires are things that you
don't choose, That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (24:53):
Yeah, And and my point is that if that's the case,
then being here and trying to persuade people to your world.

Speaker 1 (24:58):
You have make atension with the actual view.

Speaker 4 (25:01):
Though, because I've laid out I laid out multiple points
about how your paradigm finished. You just talk.

Speaker 1 (25:07):
Let me know. I didn't get to finish. You can
speak what I think it.

Speaker 3 (25:11):
Was her turn to talk. Let her finish and then
go ahead, David or sorry.

Speaker 1 (25:14):
Patrick mis Okay. Yeah, So my view is that which
you haven't attacked whatsoever, is that wants right are are
not coming from this individual. Instead, we can like find
some type of cause, right, that that extends outside the person,
that terminates outside the person. Right, Do you have an
argument against them?

Speaker 4 (25:33):
Yeah? Actually, multiple neuroscience experiments has demonstrated that again, dealing
with Levett and dealing with these resting potentials has shown
that people can actually prevent a series of a cascade
effect uh from the actions occurring, which demonstrates a sense
of agency. This is why you are not in step
with the contemporary neuroscience or not in step in contemporary psychology.

(25:54):
You referred to a psychology earlier. Those fields did not
uphold a deterministic worldview. No, they do not know, they
do not, and so no one's saying that.

Speaker 1 (26:02):
For example, like we can have someone a lot of
people in poverty that are born into poverty and persist
in that cycle, and you can have a couple people
rise out of that poverty by some mechanisms, right, people
can act. That's in ways that seemed to be unpredicted.
But we're saying that that reason that they did choose, choose,
or did not act in the way that most people
did is also determined. For example, let's say you know,

(26:24):
you're born into poverty, but you you know, had an
IQ of like one thirty, right, so you're just like
smarter than the average person. You're able to able to
excel at school better than other people, and thus you know,
you somehow became a millionaire. We're saying that the reason
that you were able to rise about of that position
is not because you just pulled yourself out out of
your both bootstraps, but because your IQ was higher than
the average person and that predicted success. That's what we're saying.

Speaker 4 (26:47):
Okay, but still I'm not arguing that external conditions don't
affect people's lives and have influence in people. Of course
it does.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
I'm saying that's what makes a person do.

Speaker 4 (26:58):
Yeah, I'm saying it it's not. And then there's multiple
let me finish, and there's multiple examples. And so even
like the entire ascetic tradition of monasticism and people actually
renouncing and struggling against passions would actually insinuate that agency,
free will and human agency exist and that they're not
totally dependent on external factors that are determining what they
do here or there and demonstrates and this is where

(27:21):
the latest research in neuroscience actually is, like, tell me
what experiments in neuroscience validate, because I'm literally looked at
all the.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
Ras higher nature and nurture debate. If like the cause
of someone's action does not come from their nurture, it
comes from their from their nature, right, so it could
this could be biology. This could be like, for example,
we can look at like Phineas Gage I believe his
name is. He had like some type of pull that
like went through his eye, through his prefrontal cortex. I
think it was around his amigdala and it caused him

(27:52):
right to act erratically, and it caused him to act impulsively,
and he was doing things that we consider bad. The
reason why is because there's something in the brain right
that controls your impulses, that controls your social ability, et cetera. Right,
and and so it kind of comes down to the
end these things that you are, you inherit right biologically
sometimes though like it also comes from things like socialization.

(28:13):
If you're in a household that is abusive. You can
end up finding yourself acting in ways that are socially uncohesive,
in ways that we don't want. So I'm saying that
even if someone does rise against what we call their
biology or their socialization, the result or the reason always
comes from either one or the other, the biology or
So why is the abuse bad? Because I personally don't

(28:36):
think that it's okay to So.

Speaker 4 (28:37):
It's just a personal belief. It's just your preference that
abuse I think.

Speaker 1 (28:40):
I think that. So are we going to switch to
the morality debate or do you want to.

Speaker 4 (28:42):
Stand that it's all the same thing. No, it's not, Yes,
it is it all again, there's only three legs to
world views.

Speaker 1 (28:47):
This is okay, it doesn't matter. Okay, then going to morality.

Speaker 4 (28:50):
I don't want to go into morality that we are
we all know this is a free will debate exactly well,
morality entails free will. What are you talking about?

Speaker 1 (28:58):
You don't have to talk about?

Speaker 4 (28:59):
Yes you do?

Speaker 2 (29:00):
You do?

Speaker 1 (29:00):
You do not need to talk yes you do. This
is like you can do purelycience like about it.

Speaker 4 (29:05):
You're not. You can't come to our debate determinism and
then and then refuse to even engage with morality and
ethical discussions.

Speaker 1 (29:11):
Okay, can I ask you a question? Feel like I
haven't been able to what causes people to act the way.

Speaker 4 (29:16):
That they do. It's a series of factors. They have
their own human agency again, nurture and any proof. When
you let me freaking talk, I mean, I say one
sins and you're already cutting me off.

Speaker 3 (29:27):
Finish if you can go so.

Speaker 4 (29:29):
Again, there's multiple factors that contribute to the way that
people exist in the world. Human agency, uh again, nature
and nurture. All these things are included. It's not one
or the other. And the idea that we have to
just restrict our are our defense to just one particular one,
that's ridiculous. That's not That's not how the world works.
It's both. And there's multiple factors that contribute that shape

(29:51):
to a human person. Their parents, trauma, environment, genetics, all
these things are included. But that doesn't deny that people
have human agency and free will. So if free will
doesn't exist, you cannot make any moral claim because nobody
is morally responsible, nobody is ethically responsible. And this would
be clue.

Speaker 1 (30:08):
This would be true for the history of injustices. This
would be true for the patriarchy we want to keep.

Speaker 4 (30:13):
Can I Can I finish a thought? That would be
true for patriarchy, that'd be true for s a that
would be true, for reparations, that'd be true for slavery.
All these things entail that there is some type of
moral arbiter that differentiates between good and bad. Your worldview
does not allow that to even occur.

Speaker 1 (30:30):
What is this human agency?

Speaker 4 (30:31):
Like?

Speaker 1 (30:31):
Can you just define it for me? I'm clueless?

Speaker 2 (30:33):
What is that?

Speaker 4 (30:34):
Yeah? For me as a Christian, it's being made in
the image of God Genesis one, twenty six, all right, So.

Speaker 1 (30:38):
It's being every human has this human agency. It means
you're made in the image of God, correct, and God
gives you this human.

Speaker 4 (30:44):
Agency correct, being made in the image of God.

Speaker 1 (30:46):
Yes, all right, So if every person gets this human
agency that they're given at birth, essentially, right. So what
makes some people's human agency act differently than other people's.

Speaker 4 (30:57):
We just said there's a whole contributing list of factors,
all right.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
So the other factors you labeled were had to do
with nature and nurture, the biology and the environment. You right,
So if these two things that we agreed already are
fixed right, Are biology fixed? Yes, they are. You don't
control the biology that your environment changes. Do you control
the biology that you inherit?

Speaker 4 (31:15):
Well, yeah, that's yeah. Biology. Biology is fixed. Okay, your
environment is not fixed because you can change environments. So
that was the dumb argument that was adumbr.

Speaker 3 (31:25):
Let each other finish, go ahead, finish.

Speaker 4 (31:27):
That was a dumb argument because biology, Yeah, but you
were talking about nature and nurture and so environments can
actually change.

Speaker 1 (31:33):
Okay, so you don't. Your biology is fixed? Right, So
so what would make someone want to change their environment?

Speaker 4 (31:41):
Just like, give me an example, they want new scenery?

Speaker 1 (31:45):
Why would they want new scenery?

Speaker 4 (31:46):
You tell me, you have to ask them, You have
to ask them.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
Okay, Right, So if we were look at the reason
why someone has a preference for new scenery, you can
look at things like just like what they're like kind
of exposed to at a young age, for example, like
if they grip around beaches, maybe they would like beaches.
Or it could just be like the things that they've
been shown like through TV, media, etceter. All this stimuli. However,
at this young age where all these core beliefs are
being like kind of taught to you and instilled in you.

(32:09):
You don't control any of that, right, Your preferences are
made at this like a younger age. We see this
idea of core beliefs come up a lot in psychology,
where like your deepest beliefs about society and yourself who
you are, This illusion of free will and the self
comes about a lot of times when you're younger. Right,
So even now when you have the agency now to
change environment, which you don't really have that agency when
you're like two years old, Let's say you're like twenty

(32:31):
and you can move that preference that we're talking about
to change scenery or to fly to Paris comes from determined, right,
like circumstances, That's what we're saying. And any given event
we keep asking why why you wanted this thing or
why you did this thing? It is either coming from
like some some internal like some nurture, right something like
that has been like experienced, or from someone's biology. That's

(32:52):
what we're saying. And once again, this human agency, you
haven't explained in any regard how this thing like if
it's once of it first of all, if it's given
to you from God, how is it yours?

Speaker 4 (33:03):
Like?

Speaker 1 (33:03):
How did you choose your human agency number one and
number two, how it interacts with your biology. If biology
affects your human agency, we know that that's fixed. That's
already out of your control once again, So it comes
down to.

Speaker 4 (33:13):
It doesn't mean that again that but that's a non sequitor.
There's a logical non sequitor to say just because your
biology is determined that limits or curtails all human agency.

Speaker 1 (33:21):
That makes no sense. What is human agency?

Speaker 4 (33:24):
It's it's your ability to have free will, the ability
to make decisions, rational deliberation, moral responsibility.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
These types of things actually insinuate free will. Begging the
question and defining free will free will. Agency is a
that's not begging the questions. No, it's not agency. Human agency,
agency and free will mean the same thing.

Speaker 4 (33:42):
Can you give it exactly?

Speaker 1 (33:43):
My point is human agency is human agency. No, that's
not what I'm saying, And you're not explaining human agency.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
We have that.

Speaker 4 (33:50):
Okay, I'll make an easy argument here. You cannot have
rational deliberation, you cannot have moral responsibility without human agency
and free will, and therefore let me finish. And therefore
you can actually not have a universal epistemology or make
universal truth claims. You cannot make moral and ethical truth claims,
which is the point, and that's why you're already shying

(34:10):
away from getting in any type of moral ethical debate
because you have no leg to stand on in regards
to deliberating and differentiating why you know, white people did
this in history, why this is bad and this is
in just you have no basis to actually define those.

Speaker 1 (34:24):
Okay, so once again, you still have not proven why
it exists. You're saying, if it doesn't exist, then this exactly.

Speaker 4 (34:30):
No, that's actually that's actually logical.

Speaker 1 (34:31):
It's no, it's not. Yes, it is. Anyone can can
like go ahead and like you can't have knowledge without it,
So you cannot have knowledge. You cannot sit here and
make knowledge. Would be a reason would be some type
of evidence or proof that something existed.

Speaker 4 (34:43):
To the exclusion not being opposite.

Speaker 1 (34:45):
Nope, yes it is. So to give a reason for
something would be oh, yeah, human agency exists because we
can look at this and this proves it.

Speaker 4 (34:53):
Or okay, neuroscience the arguments that people reach a threshold
they're able to stop those I.

Speaker 1 (34:58):
Didn't get to finish, thank you, So okay, anyway, so
when we look at human when we look at human agency.
You have said that the outcome would be blank. We
can talk about moral responsibility. I would love to do that,
but human agency has still not been evidenced by you.
You're saying that neuroscientists have found right that I don't
actually know how you're neuroscience. We can actual talk about
your neuroscience climate to the.

Speaker 4 (35:19):
Exclusion of the opposite. These are using laws of logic, right,
So if free will doesn't exist, you can't have knowledge claims.
If you can't have knowledge claims, then for if there
is knowledge, therefore free will exists, that is a and
again I can just use easy syllogisms. Do you have
a syllogism for determinism? I have a logical syllogism that
actually I do, actually I do okay in relation to God.

(35:43):
But I do want to touch on this neuroscience point.
How do you think that neuros neuroscience entails or like
free will? Because there's been multiple, multiple experiments. This is
again getting back to David Shuger's Night twenty twelve article.
Rp as neural noise have demonstrated that when these neurological
effects reach the cascade point that a determinist would say, Okay,
now they have to do the action. We have multiple

(36:05):
experiments to show that people can choose not to and
the fact that they can choose not to do it
demonstrates that have some type of agency against the deterministic
framework of of the brain and neurological processes that you
would argue determinists are.

Speaker 1 (36:19):
Not saying that you are bound by like your inherited.

Speaker 4 (36:22):
It depends on who you're talking about and you're making
a generalized plan. Okay, so that w't tell you determinists then,
because actually what many.

Speaker 1 (36:28):
Determinists do this is debate and you forgive me like
some type of like refutation. It's like tailored to me
and like, well you have heart right, so you've multiple
they blanket like like statement and it replies to like determinists.

Speaker 4 (36:42):
Well, that just demonstrates even agency you asked me to
demonstrate him an agency. Multiple neuroscience arguments do that. You
just asked me to demonstrate the agency. Neuroscience arguments have
done that. This, like Andrew Wilson debate tactic is so older.
Simon Wilson debate tactic. But what are you talking about?

Speaker 1 (37:00):
Back to what I was saying, so in regards to
like determinism and of itself, not all determinists have to
entail that, like I don't think any determinists entail that,
like you can't act differently than like in some way
like your biology predicts. That's not true.

Speaker 4 (37:12):
And also actually there's someone would do.

Speaker 1 (37:14):
Well, that's not mean you're I didn't say that anyway.
Did I say something that do or did I say zen?
You're bringing in an argument it should be a refutation
against my point.

Speaker 4 (37:22):
I'm saying generally regards to their argument. You're talking about determinism.
You're talking about determinism. I said determinism generally speaking. All right, Okay,
so keep up, you're like three steps behind.

Speaker 1 (37:32):
Okay, So when we when we talk about when someone
acts against any type of like biological stimuli, there's still
a reason for that that is going to like bottom
out and nurture. So that what you just brought up
is not a refutation against the term.

Speaker 4 (37:45):
It is the entire field of neuroscience. This is why
they they believe that there's human agency. This is why
the philosophy of mine is adopted emergentism and believes that
human agency is an irreducible.

Speaker 1 (37:54):
Fact, someone choosing that's so, you're saying that's not the case.
I'm saying that. No, no, no, no the philosophy line,
you're saying, that's not the case.

Speaker 4 (38:02):
The majority of philosophers in the philosophy mind do not
believe that human agency is irreducible.

Speaker 1 (38:07):
Fact. I think that if they mean it no no,
no about that, no nof we talk about a field,
they mean in the compatibleist sense, that might be true.
I think that a lot of our scientists and a
lot of philosophers are like compatibilists, but I don't believe
that they believe they are not. No, most I know
for a fact, Actually most philosophers are not. Don't believe
in libertarian free will. That's been like, it's no, it's
not yes, yes, no does Okay, this is.

Speaker 4 (38:29):
You're just making shut up right now, because this is
not even the case of academic I actually I actually
write academic papers. I actually write books and stuff, so
I actually deal in these circles, and I deal with
philosophers not because it be that hard.

Speaker 1 (38:43):
Ad hominem already. Wow, so we're off to the right.
Called me the our word earlier, the R word what Yeah, yeah, retard.

Speaker 4 (38:53):
The R word.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
I don't know if that's my god, Oh my gosh.

Speaker 4 (38:57):
You guys did your did your fiefees heard?

Speaker 1 (39:00):
I didn't say it was hurt. Well, it sounds like it.
It sounds like you were hurt when I ad hominem.
Do you well?

Speaker 4 (39:05):
My point is that it's a logical fallacy. Demonstrate demonstrates
the infutility of your arguments.

Speaker 1 (39:10):
I don't even want to count how many times you've
done that, but it's fine anyway, we can get fine.
Times I've said an ad hominem? Yes, how many? Tell me?
How many times? Have I tell me how many? We're
talking about?

Speaker 4 (39:23):
Talk about exactly?

Speaker 1 (39:24):
Okay, So again, if someone acting against any type of
biological stimuli does not entail free will, that means that
the cause still bottoms out somewhere in like socialization or nurture.
That's not like like like determinists don't say that like
biology is the end all be all that that makes
your your actions.

Speaker 4 (39:41):
So yeah, I know that, and you have the environment
in a serial stimuli that's part of the world, like someone.
But the contrary again, it's necessary of the contrary logical
argument here. If there is no human agency. You cannot
have true rational deliberation.

Speaker 1 (39:56):
That's a fact. What do you mean at true rational
deliberation by the way.

Speaker 4 (40:00):
Being able to choose amongst different things and come to
true knowledge claims.

Speaker 1 (40:03):
Yeah, so you're not gonna be the sole agent in
like the things that you choose in like the pref
and the credences that you have and the beliefs that
you have. That's correct. However, people can speak and have
discussions and someone else, you know, like using like their
language right to sway your opinion. That happens all the time. So, yes,
debates can still happen.

Speaker 4 (40:19):
So you believe that you're going to persuade people with
a deterministic worldview with your deterministic argument, it's a fact
of it's not a fact. It's not a fact. Okay,
let's get into logic. So two plus two equals four.

Speaker 1 (40:32):
Would you agree? Yeah?

Speaker 4 (40:34):
Is that always true?

Speaker 1 (40:36):
What do you mean by always?

Speaker 4 (40:38):
It passed present in the future? Is it a universal depends?

Speaker 1 (40:41):
Like there's like an entire like like debate over like
whether we've like found math or it's always existed, like
for example, if there was no one to see it
like in the cosmos and we had two particles like
just like rolling around each other. Did they were they?
Does that mean too?

Speaker 2 (40:56):
Like?

Speaker 1 (40:56):
Is does that still exist? Does maths will exist in
that context? I think that math is probab something that
we like observe and that we've kind of come to use,
like like in a utility sense. But I don't think
that any Like I think there probably needs to be
someone they're counting for, like it's for there to be
one or two or three things. I think it's like
there's some utility in math, So I don't necessarily think
it's like something that you can quantify in this way
of always existing. I think it's something that we kind

(41:18):
of constructed.

Speaker 4 (41:19):
So you're saying numbers are only dependent upon the things
in the world.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
I mean, if there's no things in the world together,
there's no number of things.

Speaker 4 (41:27):
Yeah, that makes no sense. Math numbers are universal. Yeah,
numbers pre existing. Logic pre exists creation. That's why creation
is ordered in a logical way.

Speaker 1 (41:36):
Okay, I would probably disagree.

Speaker 4 (41:38):
So creation is not ordered in a logical way.

Speaker 1 (41:40):
Okay. Do you believe in the laws of logic? I
think that laws of logic are like we use them
like utility wise, right to come to conclusions into like
you know, you know, so they could be they could
be false in the future.

Speaker 4 (41:50):
I'm saying, I'm asking you a question, Okay, I'm asking
could they be false in the future. That's what you're
they say.

Speaker 1 (41:56):
If things, if the laws of physics state constant, probably not.

Speaker 4 (42:00):
No, So you think that you are are universal that
if the laws I mean physics stay the same, then
the laws of logic.

Speaker 1 (42:07):
For example, if you make a system like and and
like whatever conditions that precede the system continue exists, it
will continue to stay true. However, to say that like
numbers and mathemway that we have like imagined, it has
always existed, Probably not. It's just a system. For example, today,
I could say that, like I don't know, like two
plus two equals five, and if everyone starts to kind

(42:28):
of agree with those terms or whatever, we can make
that a system that works.

Speaker 4 (42:32):
But I just don't think that, like, how would that
work because all of everything we build, engineering, geometry, all
this stuff is based on actually numbers mean things. Again,
they're built on that knowledgical principles. So to make my point,
is you claiming that if we make two plus two
equal five that somehow we can make that work.

Speaker 1 (42:47):
Actually, I mean you can't logic and men in the
semantic sense. But like, either way, two plus two equaling
four exists because it has some meaning that we gave it.

Speaker 4 (42:57):
No, it has it's not we didn't give it meaning
that we discovered the laws of logic, we discovered mathematics.
These things are universals and they're non physical.

Speaker 1 (43:04):
Yeah, this is just going to be like I don't
think it's like an actual tangible thing. I think most
things that we see as things are candible. I think
it's an ideological system. I think it works. I think
it's it's it's for pattern recognition, et cetera. But I
don't think that we can in any way kind of
like say that like this system existed before humans.

Speaker 4 (43:21):
Right, And that's an entirely incoherent worldview. Again, this is
what the people that use presuppositional apologetics or even presuppositional philosophy.
This is the this is what's called you know, the
postmodern turn is realizing that the modernist project is ended
and the history of metaphysics that I just.

Speaker 1 (43:40):
Would really love to talk about free will.

Speaker 4 (43:43):
Free will is tied with all this stuff.

Speaker 1 (43:44):
What are you talking? This is like you pivoting and
going down this rabbit hole. So this it gets to
actual This is.

Speaker 4 (43:50):
All about free will. You cannot have rational deliberation, objective truth,
and moral responsibility without free will.

Speaker 1 (43:55):
That's what we're talking about every single day. That's what
we're talking about. But this reality that we live in exists.

Speaker 4 (44:00):
Okay, that's great that your your whole thing is a
belief based on your assumption.

Speaker 1 (44:04):
We've heard it every wonder one of the things must
be true. Love to hear about you only saying that
things are true because you don't like the opposite, and
that I'm not. I'm saying that you're saying, dude.

Speaker 4 (44:15):
The opposite can't exist if the if you're right, there
aren't objective truth.

Speaker 1 (44:20):
Mhm. In all of your arguments, you have not given
any actual proof for evidence.

Speaker 4 (44:28):
Everybody watching this debate, he's familiar with logic and philosophy,
knows knows exactly what's going on, and shout out to
all you guys, God bless you all.

Speaker 1 (44:35):
He continues to interrupt me and I just what what
about this?

Speaker 3 (44:38):
Do you want to pose him some questions? Do you
want to do internal critique?

Speaker 1 (44:42):
I'm trying to do that. I'm trying to get to
say that, like, what proof of evidence you have of
human agency? And we've given me this neuroscience argument that
I've already debunked, and you'll continue to say it over
again but again, how can you prove that human agency
exists without referencing? Because the outcome of the latter, I
don't like what evidence do you?

Speaker 4 (45:00):
I've never said I never said human agents. I never
said it was a preference.

Speaker 1 (45:05):
Let me finish.

Speaker 4 (45:06):
Just shut your mouth and let me finish. Thank you
about time. So the idea is I'm using logic to
demonstrate that the opposite if your worldview is true, that
we cannot actually have universal truth claims.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
We can't have more evidence. Are you gonna let me finish?
Do you have evidence? That's what logic is.

Speaker 4 (45:26):
Do you understand what a debate is premised on.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
Logic is not evidence. The laws of logic are not God.

Speaker 3 (45:33):
Just if you can please let each other finish.

Speaker 4 (45:36):
You know, the laws of logic are not evidence. That's
what the entire mathematics is built upon. So mathematics is
an evidence. Logic is an evidence. Philosophy can't be evidence.
The only thing that is evidence is if I just
have a preference that I assume based on my external environment,
and then I can come to some type of claim,
that's wonderful. That's that's a really really strong argument. My

(45:58):
argument is that if free will doesn't exist, there is
no objective truth claim and there is no moral responsibility.
And even in your world, I know that you act
and move in the world as if those things are true.
My point is, your paradigm, the presuppositional paradigm, the lens
in which we look at reality through your presuppositional paradigm,

(46:18):
does not actually allow for objective truth and moral responsibility,
and therefore, by definition can't be true based on logical premises.
Logical premises are the argument that I may have.

Speaker 1 (46:29):
Turned back the clock five minutes ago when I don't know,
you're probably raising your voice or something like that. Problem
if we could have done if we could have done that,
could you have chosen differently? If everything was the same,
there's no interference, no different cause coming in. Could you
have stood up and gone to the bathroom?

Speaker 4 (46:46):
Yeah I can. I'm a free agent. Yeah, I can
make choices. Why again, for me, I'm going to appeal
back to a theological system in which we're made in
the image of God and then utilize that premise to say,
if that is true, therefore we can have objective truth.
Therefore we can have more responsibility. Therefore we can have
a totalizing metaphysics that deals with being itself in unity.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
So because you were made in the image of God,
you have free will? Is that that's your kind of
your well fundamentally, yeah, okay, So being made in the
image of God means that you have free will? Okay.
So and this this like again, it's kind of like
the same idea of like a soul, like this idea
of like the agency thing. This is what where people
say that like it's given to you by God and
then people are kind of like, you know, thus can

(47:29):
kind of live with it, et cetera. The soul, Like
do you agree that there's some type of soul?

Speaker 4 (47:33):
Of course, I'm Orthodox Christian? Do you are you familiar
with the Eastern Orthodox?

Speaker 1 (47:37):
Anyway? Any matter, if that's true, is everyone sol different?
Like like let's say I'm born, Do I have a
different soul from someone else that prompts me to do
different things? Or is everyone sold the same?

Speaker 4 (47:47):
So I believe in Aristotilian, a form of Ariskytilian hylomorphism.
Are you familiar with what that is?

Speaker 1 (47:53):
Nope?

Speaker 4 (47:53):
Okay, so highlo morphism. These have to do with theories,
and there's actually this theory is becoming it's utilized more
and more frequently in the philosophy of mind, and hylomorphism
argues that soul actually gives form to the body, and
so form is dependent upon the existence of soul. And
that's exactly what we, as Orthodox Christians would believe, is

(48:13):
that the soul is actually what's giving rise to the body.
And so our anthropology as a human being is soul,
body and noose, noos being the eyes of the soul,
the eyes of the heart. So be your noetic faculty,
your mind imagination these types.

Speaker 1 (48:26):
Is everyone's soul. Does everyone warm with a different kind
of soul?

Speaker 2 (48:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (48:28):
Everybody has their own soul.

Speaker 1 (48:29):
Yet, okay, And God gives it to them, of course.
And your soul act causes you to act differently than
other people. Your soul allows you to have free agency.

Speaker 4 (48:38):
It does. Again, the used cause is trying to put
it into a sort of deterministic framework, and you're going
already already caught it.

Speaker 1 (48:44):
Okay, No, it's not a caught thing. You just don't
like the wording of the same thing. Right. But again,
so if everyone's soul can like, if everyone's soul is different, what.

Speaker 4 (48:53):
Does that mean everybody is a unique person, meaning that
they act differently. Right, they can act differently or they
could act similarly people, or they could act the same.

Speaker 1 (49:03):
So everyone has a different soul and this soul, like
is what makes is also entailed like this agency or whatever,
but this agency, everyone's agency is different. Everyone's soul is different.
So essentially the soul can prompt different actions and different
outcomes in different people. Correct, Yeah, okay, If your soul
is given to you from God and it can prompt
different actions within you than other people, this means that

(49:25):
there's something entailed in the soul that you were given
by God that is causing you to act differently than
other people, meaning that you're not the arbor.

Speaker 4 (49:32):
No, that's a non sequitor. That actually is not a
logical follower. Well, because you keep falling victim to non sequiturs,
and so just because God gave you a soul or
even God foreos the end of history does not actually
entail determinism. It does.

Speaker 1 (49:47):
No, it does not.

Speaker 4 (49:49):
So how okay? So you understand that God is outside
space and time, right, and so the difference is actually
watching the choices that we've already made is not the
same thing as making us make the choice even have
to do you when you go to a restaurant and
there's only certain items on the menu, are you determined
to choose something? Or is actually there's a set of opportunities.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
To make choice on opportunities. It's not opportunities are choosing conicians? No, Right,
when we talk about omniscians, right, if God does not
need to be seeing everything in linear time to know
what will always happen, right, you just look at like
just like the story of like anyone in the Bible,
like Noah from Noah's Arc, he already knew everything that

(50:28):
was going to happen. And thus Noah could not have
acted outside of God's No, no, he could.

Speaker 4 (50:32):
He could have chose not to listen to God's the
That's the whole point of being a Christian. If that
we're aligning our will with God's will, God's the whole
point of being you that he would not listen like
act in accordance with God?

Speaker 1 (50:42):
Correct? God knew that Noah would not act in accordance
with God.

Speaker 4 (50:45):
God as outside space and time, knew that Noah would
make the choice. But Noah making the choice is not dependent.
God didn't force him to make the choice. Okay, again,
those are two. That's a category. That's a logical category.

Speaker 1 (50:56):
The argument, that's a category. I didn't make the error
that you're trying to that's a you said that.

Speaker 4 (51:01):
It omniscience demands determinism.

Speaker 1 (51:03):
So again, if God knew that, he doesn't have to
be looking at this from like a linear perspective of time.
But if he always knew he's omnipotent, omnipresent, whatever, if
you always knew what Noah could do, by definition, Noah
could not do what God did not know he would do.
Aka God, God knew he had There was some path
that everyone's going to have. God knew what their future

(51:25):
would hold, what their present would hold, their past would hold, whatever.
There's some future that exists, existed for Noah, and he
could not have acted out of accordance with it because
God already knew it.

Speaker 4 (51:36):
But God knowing does not entail causation of him causing
the person to choose this.

Speaker 1 (51:40):
I'm saying that he couldn't have acted differently. I think causation.

Speaker 4 (51:44):
Again, it's a category because God is can you do
something that God does not know you will do? God,
he's outside space and time, so he's already looking at
history as a finished completion, completed thing. He knows the
choices I'm going to make before I've made him. But
that doesn't mean that I did not have free will
to make my choice.

Speaker 1 (52:00):
And you do something that God does not know you
will do?

Speaker 4 (52:03):
No, because God's already outside space and time. But again
that doesn't in a sail cau. That's not called on necessity.

Speaker 1 (52:09):
I just raised my hand. God knew I was going
to raise my hand. Could I have not riisen my hand?

Speaker 4 (52:17):
You? Yeah, you could have, and then God would have
known that that's what you were going to not know,
it's not because that's a that's a category. Or you
could have chose not to not raise your hand, and
God would have known that's what you already chose. No,
exactly your own premise. You just contradicted yourself. Yes, you
did pass a present, and you just contradicted Thank you.
I could not have riisen my hand, or you could

(52:38):
have or could not have God, being outside space and
time would already I didn't though, right. So if we
look that means that I couldn't have right.

Speaker 1 (52:46):
So if we if we look at like what God knows,
If God knows some like events are going to happen,
you cannot do whatever he want. For example, if God knows,
let's say tomorrow, God knows that I'm going to pick
a blue shirt, that means that tomorrow I cannot pick
a pink shirt because but.

Speaker 4 (53:02):
You're putting the cart before the horse, because God only
knows it because he's outside space and time, and for him,
you've already made the decision.

Speaker 1 (53:08):
No, he doesn't already know it, just he knows it
because he knows it.

Speaker 4 (53:10):
Because he knows it because he's outside space and time,
the actions already happened for him, the action.

Speaker 1 (53:18):
God has already seen the action.

Speaker 3 (53:19):
Guys, one in the time, one in a time, Go ahead, Okay.

Speaker 1 (53:22):
I think that you're thinking of God in some type
of like human perspective and that someone has to know
things by having seen them play out or in some way.
He already knows that thing because he has all he's
all knowledge ure not because he's sitting at the end
of the finish line and looking back and replay clips.

Speaker 4 (53:37):
That's my worldview, So why don't you debate me instead
of just this general concept that's exactly what we as
Orthodox Christians under one we as Orthodox Christians, that's exactly
how we believe it to be. Is that God is
not a causal necessity for every decision I make, I
have free agency. I have free will. And God being
outside space and time being the beginning of the Alpha,

(53:57):
the beginning of creation and the meaning of creation, the Omega,
He has already seen the choices that we make.

Speaker 1 (54:03):
That doesn't That doesn't mean that I'm I'm.

Speaker 4 (54:06):
Not anthropomorphizing God because that's not that's not something that
humans can actually, that's not something that humans can actually do.
So the idea that that's an anthropomorphization of God is
ridiculous because that's not even how we understand me to be.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
Omnipotent and omniscient. What did those two things mean?

Speaker 4 (54:24):
Omni powerful okay, and all knowing.

Speaker 1 (54:26):
All knowing? Right, So where in that definition does it
say that God knows everything, not because he's all knowing,
but because he's able to sit like at the end
of time and just know all the events because he
just he can see them all, Like, I don't think
that that's like it's it's not because of some chronological order,
but because all knowledge is bestowed to him, right, So
that that doesn't He is the source of knowledge exactly.

(54:48):
He's the source of knowledge, and he knows all things
that will exist. So it's not because he's like he
was able to like watch you know, in his head
like how everything was he can do this. It was
not because he watched it washed in his head like
all of history play out and then he knew, Okay,
she's gonna do this. It's because he knows, right.

Speaker 4 (55:05):
So it's like, what's the difference, exactly.

Speaker 1 (55:07):
Right, Because you're saying that if you didn't raise your hand,
right God, you.

Speaker 4 (55:11):
Could have done either one. Yeah no, and God would
have known right. True, you could have done either one.

Speaker 1 (55:17):
Okay, So I'm saying that we couldn't have done it
either one because God knew I was going to do
that one thing. There's no multiple realities of reality, God knowing.

Speaker 4 (55:24):
That's again, that's a non logical non sequitor. Just because
he knows what we choose does not mean that our
choice is totally dependent. He forces us to.

Speaker 1 (55:32):
Choose, and you do what God does not know you
will do.

Speaker 4 (55:35):
God already knows the decision I make before I've made it.
He knows the decisions I'm going to make in ten
years from now. I haven't even made them yet. And
that's part of the judgment, that's part of the life
of a Christian. Is God made humanity in the amago
day so that we can participate in these categories that
animals do not have.

Speaker 1 (55:51):
So for us that would include.

Speaker 4 (55:53):
Love, logic, reason, truth, mercy, compassion, honor, glory. These are
called uncreated inner Jeesus of God. And these are the
things in which differentiate us from the animal kingdom and
differentiate us from operating purely based on instincts or in
a deterministic way that's framed through nature and nurture. Why
don't you let me finish something so you can actually
argue what I'm talking about?

Speaker 1 (56:14):
So what we're in a debate.

Speaker 4 (56:17):
We're in a debate, guys, God forgets God forgive me.
I said something more than two minutes.

Speaker 1 (56:22):
Oh my God, Jesus Christ, I wonder if y'all anyway,
So again, the decision that you've made God before you
ever made them. God knew you were going to make them. Correct,
before you even made the decision to like come here today,
God knew you were going to do that. Yes, that's
for prob God knew you were going to do that.
You could have not not come here.

Speaker 4 (56:42):
No, because I've already made the choice. From God's perspective,
he's outside space and time. I've already made the choice.

Speaker 1 (56:47):
That means that you could not have decided not to
come because God knew before you came that you were
going to come here.

Speaker 4 (56:53):
No, God's knowledge is not does not determine my choices. Okay,
he knows my choice because they do, so it does definition.
That's it doesn't make any sense that you knew.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
Them before you chose them, that he doesn't know them
because you chose them. He knows them because I chose them. Yes,
so you said earlier that it's because he knew them
before you chose them. So that was a contradict. Yes,
but I still have free will and causal agency. That's
the idea of let me finish, really, she says a question.

Speaker 4 (57:21):
So that's the whole premise of a Christian worldviewing regard
to repentance, more responsibility, objective truth, and so without those things.
So it's like you're arguing that the Christian paradigm somehow
doesn't allow for free will because God's omnipotent and omniscient.
And I'm saying that that does not make any sense
at all, because the entire paradigm is built upon the
idea that we have causal agency made in the image

(57:43):
of God.

Speaker 1 (57:44):
That's the entire worldview of her. I love that this
is live streamed and also going to be on YouTube,
so we can just rewind to the point where you
said that God knows things before you make the decision
comes that no, no, no, Then I want to be
able to speak because I've let you. Okay, so you
we know, you know that God knows the things that

(58:04):
you were going to do before that you do them, right,
And then you said that God only knows these things
because you did them. So that is complete contradiction right in.
What I'm saying is that contradiction.

Speaker 4 (58:15):
His knowledge does not determine question. His knowledge does not
determine the choices I make.

Speaker 1 (58:20):
You're not answered.

Speaker 4 (58:21):
So just because he knows the choices I make, is
not determine what choices.

Speaker 1 (58:25):
I actually choose. You're not answering my question. Your question
is it that God knows things before you before? Does
God know the decisions that you make before you make them,
or does God know them because you make them?

Speaker 4 (58:40):
Both essentially, because again he's outside space and time. This
is a non twemporal form of knowledge using we're using
You're using temporal frameworks to talk about God's omniscience, and
that makes no sense. The point is we actually can
make free will choices. God knows the choices we're gonna make,
and that doesn't determine what.

Speaker 1 (59:00):
The choices that we make contradiction in those.

Speaker 4 (59:02):
No, it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (59:03):
No, it doesn't God. So you positive that God knows
things that you're going to do before you do them,
then that means that if God knows something you're going
to do before you do it, he doesn't. I never
said anything about forcing. I said that if God knows
the things that you're going to do before that you
do them, you cannot do anything other thing that He
knows that you're going to do.

Speaker 4 (59:22):
That would entail a sense of force that God can
force you finish. That would entail a sense of force
or a deterministic worldview that you cannot choose to do
the opposite. And I'm saying that's not the case. That's
not what we believe. That's not God is outside space
and time, so he knows all the decisions that we've made.
We are inside space and time. So God is outside

(59:43):
space and time.

Speaker 3 (59:44):
Let him finish.

Speaker 4 (59:45):
Therefore, at the end of history, he can already see
the choices we make. And that is a present reality
for God right now. So you keep referring back to
temporal a temporal metaphor in regards to his omniscience, and
that somehow we cannot make good choice because God already
knows that that's the choice we're gonna make. And again
that is a logical non sequitor because he's outside the

(01:00:07):
temporal categories that you're using.

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
So God knows or doesn't know things you do before
you do them.

Speaker 4 (01:00:13):
Yeah, he knows.

Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
Okay, that doesn't mean that he forces me, so see
see see Okay, So God knows things that you're going
to do before you do them. Therefore you cannot do
the things that He does not know that you're going
to do. Right? Is that true or just a true
or false for that one?

Speaker 4 (01:00:29):
Say it again?

Speaker 1 (01:00:30):
Can you do things that God does not know you're
going to do.

Speaker 4 (01:00:34):
No, he would already know that the choices I made,
because he's already seen the end of my life. He's
already seen the choices I make. I living that out
and choosing those as I go, And that's what I'm
going to be culpable for. But the endpoint has already occurred.
History has already ended. God is at the end of it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:48):
Oh wait, perfect, So there is an endpoint of history.
And there are some events in history that are going
to occur no matter what, even if you don't know
them now.

Speaker 4 (01:00:55):
Yeah, like the second Coming of Christ.

Speaker 3 (01:00:57):
Perfect.

Speaker 1 (01:00:58):
So, so God knows what your life is going to
look like. There's some trajectory, there are some events that
are going to happen, correct in your life? Just yes
or no? Yeah, okay, So can you do anything other
than those events?

Speaker 4 (01:01:09):
Yeah, there's still you still have. You still have moral
you still have moral freedom, You still have you still
have Just see that free will, that you still.

Speaker 1 (01:01:17):
Have free will. That was a contradiction.

Speaker 4 (01:01:18):
No, it's not. Just because God knows the things you're
gonna choose doesn't mean that you can't have a variety
of choices. When you make the choice, you have options
you have rational deliberation, we can have moral responsibility.

Speaker 1 (01:01:29):
I think I think I've done enough on that topic.
I think that Okay, let's get into ethics and morality.

Speaker 4 (01:01:34):
Let's get no, it's now my turn to ask questions,
right really.

Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
Quick though, Let's let some chats come, okay, and then
I'm happy to get into something else. So we have
Chef Dill Pickles zena if there are two rocks and
no people are around to call it two? Are there
still two rocks?

Speaker 1 (01:01:51):
Yeah? Bio use of language right now, Yeah, there are
still two rocks.

Speaker 3 (01:01:54):
Okay, and then we have let's see, we have another
chat coming through Chef Till Pickles. Thank you very much
for this sup chat. Guys, if you want to get
super chat in stream labs, dot com, slash whatever, if
you want to get a message in Charlie Kirk DPUSA. Okay,
hey Zina, you said this about me? Definitely Charlie Kirk
egregious lower region of his face. Do you think body

(01:02:18):
shaming is okay? What if I called you a muffin?

Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
Also?

Speaker 3 (01:02:21):
What is a woman?

Speaker 1 (01:02:23):
Yeah? So I called Charlie Kirk ugly. I think that
in my worldview, if you are like a really shitty person.
I'm gonna call you weird looking. I think that's okay.
And then a woman is someone who identifies with you know,
the traits that are associated usually tend to be associated
with the female sex, but not all females associate with

(01:02:46):
this social category.

Speaker 3 (01:02:48):
So yeah, okay, do you want to bite on that
or I would just be curious.

Speaker 4 (01:02:52):
I mean, again, when we start getting into the trans issues,
I mean, determinism and the ability to choose and express
oneself certainly is going to play a big factor there.
I'm curious how she feels, like, do are children determined?
Is it by their parents? Is it their nurture? Is
it their environment that is going to cause them to
then eventually be castrated potentially before puberty or they have

(01:03:12):
to go on these hormone blockers? Like is a transperson
actually choosing to transition? Are they determined to transition? How
does that work?

Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
Yeah? So that's actually like a super an interesting question
in psychology and sociology, like what makes it so that
people kind of are trans And a lot of times
I think that studies, I think it's inconclusive on whether
this is like something like biological or although we see
that people's brains, Like, for example, men who tend to
be queer tend to have brains chemistry that is similar

(01:03:40):
to women's, and so I think it is also true
of like trans women, like their brain makeup is similar
to women's. So it could possibly be something biological and
then also sociologically just kind of like you know, like
what you're kind of I guess, like what you kind
of gravitate towards socially, the kind of friends you want
to make, All these type of things just influence the
things that you like, like and then that's going to

(01:04:00):
influence influence like the traits that you want to express,
if you like dresses or not whatever. So yeah, it's
just going to be a mix of biology and sociology
like anything else in regards to the human condition.

Speaker 3 (01:04:13):
So all right, we have another chat here from Chef
Dell Pickles. When God sees our action beforehand, he sees
it simultaneously during the action and afterwards. Space time is
theorized to be the fourth dimension, completely consistent with the
gentleman thank you, Yeah, any response there?

Speaker 1 (01:04:31):
So, yeah, I mean I'm going off of the notion
again that God is seeing our action or not even
that he's seeing our action, but he just knows our action.
Doesn't happen. It doesn't matter like how he's interacting with it,
but just that he knows our action, and he knows
our actions even from the start of time. So even
given that he transcends time, there is some like actions
that we are going to take that exist, right, and

(01:04:53):
there is some future clearly that you believe in that
that exists. And if such things exist, that needs that
there are some fixed actions, right that you're going to
take in your life, regardless of whether you know it
or not. So the way that God perceives these actions,
it doesn't matter if you agree that there is some future,
some endpoint and that of your life and God knows

(01:05:13):
all these actions. There are some actions that you were
going to take that exists fundamentally.

Speaker 3 (01:05:17):
So all right, and we have one more chat. Did
you want to respond to any of that or okay,
we have Jordan Peterson Kermit the Frog voice on it.
What do you think about white people? Maybe I should
have you read it?

Speaker 1 (01:05:34):
No, no, no, go ahead? So what do you this
is for you?

Speaker 3 (01:05:36):
Zena? I guess what do you think of white people?
Do you think white people have? Culture? Is sis a slur?
And then you, I guess you, was this a TikTok
of yours? Every here? I'll pull it up again. Every
woman has felt innate frustration and fatigue for men at
least a million times. Maybe this is is that something
you said?

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
I don't know what that. I don't know what that's referencing. Okay,
but what do I think of white people? I think
white people are people. Fun fact, do you think white
people have culture?

Speaker 2 (01:06:06):
Do you?

Speaker 1 (01:06:06):
I mean, Kelly Clarkson exists. Yeah, like I got down
to some white culture. I get down to some of
y'all stuff, you know, And then what was the other
one is?

Speaker 3 (01:06:19):
I'll pull it up one more time. Isis a slur?

Speaker 4 (01:06:24):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:06:24):
I don't think so, not colloquially.

Speaker 4 (01:06:27):
Okay, easy questions, Patrick, You wanted to get into it?
Sounded like yes, yeah, so I would wanting to shift
the conversation in regards to ethics and morality and how
exactly Xena comes to any sort of differentiation between right
and wrong. From my understanding, you're big in regards to

(01:06:49):
racial injustices through history, slavery, these types of things. Are
you in favor of reparations?

Speaker 3 (01:06:55):
Real quick?

Speaker 4 (01:06:56):
I'm just curious.

Speaker 1 (01:06:57):
Yeah, I think there's probably some mechanism that we can
use to come about and.

Speaker 4 (01:07:00):
Within a deterministic worldview and claiming that there's a culture
that is has a chattel slavery and that they are
conditioned through the nurturing process, through the environment that they're in,
and they have normalized this as a social construction, which
you agreed earlier about two plus two equals five could
be a social construction. How exactly, then, are you saying

(01:07:21):
that why people should be guilty for something because guilty
would entail more responsibility and something that there's an objective justice,
a level of justice that needs to be equated.

Speaker 1 (01:07:29):
Yeah, so never once did I use the term guilty,
but you know, okay, yeah, but you said that, how
are you saying that they're going to they should feel guilty?
Which I didn't say.

Speaker 4 (01:07:37):
I didn't say you did. I did, so I didn't
say she did.

Speaker 1 (01:07:41):
But anyway, so regardless, I think that in regards to
like reparations, I think that there are some just like
values that I think that in society like are just
should should be held, and that we think that humans
are valuable, that no human on the basis of like
skin color is is lesser than another human human being,
and thus when are some injustices that are like predicated

(01:08:01):
on the basis of race, we should seek to kind
of eliminate those type of things, those type of structures.
But regardless, in regards to reparations, I think that it's
not something that we need to focus on, like feeling guilty.
It's more so just like valuing equality and valuing just
like equality of opportunities specifically, it's something that needs to

(01:08:22):
be done just like structurally. And then so yeah, I
don't think guilt is a part of the.

Speaker 4 (01:08:27):
So why would why would white people in twenty twenty
five have to pay reparations to the black community in
twenty twenty five for something that neither of those communities
have been a part of.

Speaker 1 (01:08:39):
So it's first of all, the system that we're talking
about is not like it's a generational So it's not
saying that like white people out of their pockets need
to be paying black people in any sense that they
would have to be something that's like governmentally funded, et cetera.

Speaker 4 (01:08:51):
Because it's tax payer money.

Speaker 1 (01:08:53):
Yeah, sort of, but it doesn't have to be specifically
from taxpayers.

Speaker 4 (01:08:55):
Well, how does the government I mean, the.

Speaker 1 (01:08:57):
Government gets money, majority of it is from but there
are a bunch of like different like they're different, sorry,
a bunch of different departments that we have that are
funded in different ways, et cetera. But regardless, right, this
is something that that like was sanctioned by the government
where we had just like slavery legalized, and we also
just had Jim Crow laws in an era where black
people were economically subjugated, And thus I think it should

(01:09:18):
be something that like the government kind of goes to
like fix.

Speaker 4 (01:09:23):
Right, But let's say, like twenty twenty five America, we
don't have chattel slavery, correct, Yeah, but we have like
very so so, but why would that Why would twenty
twenty five be superior to any example? I guess we
could even go to Libya right now because they have
opened slave markets. But why would one be superior to
the other in your deterministic worldview? Because superior, well one

(01:09:44):
do you not appeal.

Speaker 1 (01:09:45):
To one being better than the other, like one society
being better?

Speaker 4 (01:09:49):
Yeah, So a time and history in which slavery was normalized,
would you say that that is equal to a period
in history right now where it's not?

Speaker 1 (01:09:57):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (01:09:57):
Or is it better.

Speaker 1 (01:09:58):
I would say that, like when we talk about morality,
guess you'reactingly asking about my moral framework. I see it
as like society like collectivizes upon different views at a
lot of times throughout history tend to coincide, and we
haven't been able to prove any truth aptness right absolutely
of like moral claims, but there are like, but there

(01:10:19):
are tenets that we tend to value over time. So
like tenants that I think are valuable are things like again,
equality of opportunity. You know, I'm pretty anti bigotry and
things of that of that sort, and in that using
that framework, I would say that something in a society
where we you know, un alive people based on race,
or we subjecate people based on the race, that isn't okay,

(01:10:41):
And so why why is it not okay? Yeah, so
this is gonna be like a moral subjectivist view. Okay.

Speaker 4 (01:10:47):
So there, So it's just your own personal preference.

Speaker 1 (01:10:49):
Yeah, I think that's what moral claims are.

Speaker 4 (01:10:52):
So it's all okay. So then if it's your moral
personal preference, me having a different moral personal preference were
equal equal standing.

Speaker 1 (01:11:00):
Yeah, So it's it's not even something that's like to
be like debating on base of equality. It's more so
just like one, I think that moral claims are spread
based on like, you know, how favorable they are. And
if one and I think that we should we should
be making certain moral claims less favorable because of their
output and their effect. And I'm the attempt of the
moral sub subjectives is to move someone's credence or belief

(01:11:21):
towards their own for for whatever do reasons. So it's
like it's not about the equality of certain like moral
frameworks or moral takes. More just that like they all
exist and their expressions of usually like resentment or like likability.
That's like kind of like what a moral attitude is?

Speaker 4 (01:11:42):
Okay, So why why would for example, the World Cup
in Abi Dhabi got criticism because they were using slave
labor to build their city. Now incredibly uh successful economically
that that society low crime, low theft, low murder by
a lot of metro that we would analyze, we would say, wow,
that seems like the utility. If we're just going to

(01:12:04):
make a utilitarian argument, that seems pretty effective. But at
the same time, you would agree that slavery is wrong.
I would agree too. I'm a Christian so I'm not
in favor of that. But my point is, within your worldview,
I don't see how you can delineate between the two,
because if you're just going on utilitarian consequences, it'd be
very easy to find civilizations that do things that you
would find it hold on abhorrent and that utilitarian that

(01:12:25):
it's actually very very successful for their society, and maybe
that they're more successful than other societies that don't do
those things.

Speaker 1 (01:12:31):
Yeah, I'm not a utilitarian. So again, if I was
a utilitarian, I think I wouldn't hold the same values
that I do now then in like equality of opportunity,
of respect, et cetera. So again, this is going to
be something where it's like a society is not successful
in my view and a lot of Americans view if
they do not, you know, promote, you know, the equality,
opportunity and safety of all individuals.

Speaker 4 (01:12:52):
And why is that important? Because that I feel like
what I'm hearing is that you're getting back to a
sort of moral worth of individuals. I agree with, yeah, right,
But I'm just trying to figure out how you how
do you come in your worldview, how do you come
to the moral worth of individuals?

Speaker 1 (01:13:04):
I can tell you have come to these feelings in
these opinions. But I'm telling you that like, moral claims
in my view are not truth apt. I mean that
you can't like in any way, they're not provable, they're
not testable, right, And we've observed this like again, like
like through science and evolution. Evolution kind of shows us
that like people who kind of tended to respect other
people and like other people and work together with other

(01:13:25):
people tend to tended to survive more and and and
and that that that biology, that chemistry of having like
mirror neurons and like you know, just like social ability
tended to become more of a prevalent factor in human biology.
So I think that's how we can explain where moral
claims derived from. But are they truth apt? No, That's
what I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (01:13:42):
Okay, So would you since you debase morality and ethics
from truth claims, uh, in which I fair enough. At
least you're being consistent. I appreciate that, uh, because my
criticism for your worldview that now that you've actually justified
or argued that you you're moral subjectivists. Therefore there there
are no universal moral claims. Okay, fair enough now I

(01:14:02):
can understand your point of view and where you're coming from.
My next question would have to do with in a
world like that, And I would assume maybe you're a
fan of like somebody like Michelle Fuco that with theories
of like power, knowledge and stuff like that. Wohilch, are
you going to argue that the only thing that actually,
like really exists in the world is power?

Speaker 1 (01:14:20):
What do you mean by really exist?

Speaker 4 (01:14:22):
Like what is the arbiter of like civilizations? Like if
we're not coming down to universal truth claims and we're
not coming down to universal moral claims. Typically, the postmodern
turn again values subjective experience in the construction of your
own identity. But somebody within the FUC tradition would argue

(01:14:42):
that it's about power dynamics, and that power dynamics, And
my point to you would be, if that's the case,
I'm fairly confident that you're anti patriarchy.

Speaker 1 (01:14:51):
But men have a monopoly on power.

Speaker 4 (01:14:53):
And so if we exist in a deterministic worldview where
there is no objective truth and there is no objective morality,
how exactly do you get a around the fact that
if every man on this planet decided that we're going
to subjugate women, which again God forbid. But if we
decided to, you have no say in the matter because
we have physical we have a monopoly on violence.

Speaker 1 (01:15:10):
Yeah. So again, like when we talk about like someone
like Fuco would probably say that, like power is what
drives like the differentiations between systems and like change over
time socially, et cetera. Right, but they're not saying this
is some type of like Again, they don't make like
a moral like there's no moral no like claim on Yeah,
they're relatively scriptive. Yeah, so I think that this is
a strictive fact that like men currently we live under

(01:15:32):
a patriarchy. Well that's really loud outside, I'll just wait
a little bit. But yeah, Like, I think we can
make the descriptive claim that like things like power and
like and empower and balance drive like change in society
without saying that thus, like whatever structure we're in is
like good or or making some type of like moral

(01:15:54):
truth claim on whatever structure existent. Right Therefore, So so
I would say that, like we should promot values like
social cohesion, like respect, like equality, because I think it's
good to value people and like and that that's an
a moment determined.

Speaker 2 (01:16:11):
This is a.

Speaker 1 (01:16:11):
Descriptive framework, right, So I'm not gonna be able to
grant any objective moral truth to these claims. I don't
think anyone can do that, even though no matter how
hard you try, I don't think that's possible. But we
can say in a society, okay, we care about people,
we care about people's quality of life. Let's make a
society that like maximizes that. And I think that's what
that's what we've done in society like throughout time. If

(01:16:32):
we want like society with the most power, you're gonna
get like authoritarian fascism. If you want to society it's
most egalitarian, you might see something more close to like
communism or something like that. But I'm saying we should
put certain values at our at our foundation, or we
do put certain values at our foundation, and that is
what builds up the society. The question is what values
we put at that foundation. And that's just the question now,

(01:16:54):
rather than if it's like objectively good.

Speaker 4 (01:16:55):
And in my estimation, I would prefer a society that
uses logic and uses is rational deliberation and uses the
pursuit for objective claims to make that differentiation on what
values we should actually pursue as a civilization, as a culture.
And so with my well, but you're determinism, you can't
do that. And so my point with the example of
if all men decided to team up against women, even

(01:17:19):
using Foco's understanding of power in the in the transient
restructuring of society and again power dynamic institutions essentially is
what he's focused on. You can't you yourself just agreed
that you can't make a value claim against that. You
can only have your own personal preference.

Speaker 1 (01:17:36):
Yeah. Well, if you look at something like an objective
moral claim, I don't even really know what that means,
because it would mean like something that is just true
because it's true. There's no evidence for it. This thing
is just true. I could tell you right now that
like Pokemon is like oversees the world and it like
Pokemon just exists in the cosmos and they oversee this
world and that's just an objective truth. Why because it

(01:17:56):
is because if not, I wouldn't like that world or whatever.
But that doesn't mean that that's an objective like truth claim. Right,
an objective truth claim just is true. And to say
something like that doesn't even make comprehensible sense to me.
So I just don't I don't think that we can
make moral claims. But that doesn't mean that we can,
like we can't strive towards certain societies because we value
certain things.

Speaker 4 (01:18:16):
So yeah, but how do we come to collective orientation
towards values if everybody has if it is a moral subjectivist,
like if everybody adopted your moral we have.

Speaker 1 (01:18:25):
Philosophical conversations like this one, and we provide, like, you
know what, we have reasons that like might people resonate
with for example, like hey, like one reason might be like, hey,
like you don't like it when people do bad things
to you that hurts, or you don't like seeing other
people get hurt. You know, we should stop hurting people.
Or Hey, this is what's happening in so and so
country and we don't like that, let's stop doing this.

(01:18:45):
So it's again it's going to be believe, it's going
to be like like create and shifting. It's going to
be like discussion that moves kind of like social order
and what changes it. So it's just kind of the
persuasion of rhetoric.

Speaker 4 (01:18:57):
So we come to we come to a table collective,
say the example like this, and thence through rhetoric we
persuade each other excily.

Speaker 1 (01:19:05):
That is what's happened over history.

Speaker 4 (01:19:06):
Yes, I would disagree. I would argue that there's actually
axioms and premises and logical foundations for why we should
choose certain things. I mean, I understand this is the
fundamental contradiction between our worldviews, and that's why it keeps
coming back to things like logic and things like objectivity.
And again I understand that within your worldview, you can't
have those things.

Speaker 1 (01:19:27):
And you're saying, we don't need those things.

Speaker 4 (01:19:29):
We can make quote unquote claims about the world based
on our assumptions of the environment and how they stimulate
us in our innate biology and how that affects us.
And then you're agreeing that you can't make universal moral
claims either. So you're a moral subjectivist, and so you're
basically in a point in which the only thing that
really exists in the world is power, and in that game,

(01:19:49):
the things that you advocate against, be it slavery, be
it reparations. I mean, if people in power decided not to,
you can't actually make an argument of why it's wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:19:58):
So people in power like white people when they enslaved
black people, they said like, hey, you shouldn't have rights.
But things still changed even though there was a power
dynamic there. So I'm not saying that the only thing
that exists is power. I never ever said that. Actually,
all it says that you cannot there's no way to
prove by definition objective truths or objective moral claims because
in their definition they don't require evidence. They just exist.

(01:20:21):
They adjust our moral they just are true. That that
doesn't that's not conceivable in every in any circumstance, when
we have some type of like premise, we either just
assume it, like we assume that like for example, again,
like I've said before, reality exists, right, we assume that
to make tangible discussions, make tangible claims, test hypotheseses, whatever.
But beyond that, like if I want to say, you know,

(01:20:43):
we should we should all like I don't know, I'm
trying to give some example, like slavery should become a thing. Again,
the people don't say that as like some absolute truth.
They give reasons why, and it persuades people or it doesn't.
I'm saying that we need to push certain ideas and
beliefs that you know, you know, promote happiness and goodness
because I think most people would enjoy that. I think
it would be the best, the most optimal society when

(01:21:05):
we found when we value fundamentally, you know, equality of
opportunity and ind And so how.

Speaker 4 (01:21:10):
Could somebody be if free will doesn't exist, how could
they be persuaded to adopt a different opinion?

Speaker 1 (01:21:15):
Like, because we don't have free will right now? However,
I can have this discussion with you. And if we have,
like you know, for example, let's say we both value individuals.
But then you're like, I want slavery or something, I
could say, well, hey, you know, if you value people,
here's what would happen under slavery. Then I could move
your credence and move your belief into believing what I
believe is that we shouldn't have slavery. Right, So you

(01:21:36):
can still move people's you know, beliefs to your and.

Speaker 4 (01:21:39):
Your opinion and your worldview. Does that insinuate that people
can make choices between two different things.

Speaker 1 (01:21:45):
It wouldn't be a choice between two different things. It
would be like your brain processing one belief over another
belief and depending on again your biology, your brain chemistry,
and like your socialization, you would pick one or over
the other. However, if we introduce better stimuli or more
stimuli that like promotes to one belief, you're more likely
to believe that. And that's how we get like, for example,
better people in society.

Speaker 4 (01:22:05):
If I'm determined or my my innate biology in my
environment determines me to choose the opposite of that, aren't
we both on equal footing? What do you mean by
equal food of finnying that any claim that you make
or any claim that I make, they're essentially equal claims.
There's no one that can be superior to the other
because due to the mechanisms of how I came to
my decision, it's really just a belief that I've acquired

(01:22:26):
or what you're the word you're using assumption because of
the environment and the biology nature virtus nurture. And if
that's the case, well then I don't understand again the
premise of the debate, the premise of coming here and
persuading people, because the people that watch this and choose the.

Speaker 1 (01:22:41):
Opposite of you, they're no worse or better than you.
It's the same.

Speaker 4 (01:22:45):
I mean, it's equal.

Speaker 1 (01:22:46):
It's just deterministic. I think it's funny needing to like,
you know, say that like like one belief in this
metric is like like yours is better than mine. I
think it's just that, like in society, I think that
all we can do, like at least what I've seen
is take a descriptive lens and look at the history
of society and look at the brain and just look
at like with that people act. I think that we
have not seen any proof that these things are inherently

(01:23:08):
better or worse whatever. That doesn't mean that we can't
promote different ideas because of what the outcome would be.
For example, if you value human beings, which most human
beings do, some such system would result. The question is
not whether people value human beings. I think a lot
of people, especially now, really do value human beings. Most
of the time. The argument for slavery was just like, oh,

(01:23:29):
they're not human, therefore we can do blank, not saying
that no one has ever not value human beings when
many a time they have something like neurologically that is
actually a disorder or whatever whatever the thing is. So
what I'm saying to you is that whatever system is
going to come about, depending on what simuli we introduce
and how we kind of gauge people who tend to
have that bad brain going on, who tend to have

(01:23:49):
like less miror neurons, things like people who are like
really bad psychopaths or whatever it might be. So it's
not like a bearing on my claim. It's just like
I think, I'm just describing how how reality exists. Okay,
I understand that that's what you feel like you're doing.

Speaker 4 (01:24:04):
My point is, I just don't see how your argument
against somebody who would assume the opposite. So let's say me,
for example, or anybody watching the stream, how we get
to a point in which we can justify one over
the other. And so what you were saying, and I
was listening to your response, the follow up I'd really
like to hear is like your anthropology, do you kind

(01:24:26):
of view humans as mechanisms based on the nature and
the environment and then the biology in which that they have.
Are they a mechanism? Is that how you would describe it?

Speaker 1 (01:24:36):
You can call a human a mechanism or whatever you
really want to. I feel like that you describe it
doesn't really matter if you define a mechanism as something
that operates off of like in puts an output and
puts an outputs. I mean, you can define it that way.
But regardless what we have seen, what psychology has proven,
why we have the nature nurture debate is because people
are composed of nature and nurture. And that is the

(01:24:58):
claim that I'm making. So the way that you caudify
it doesn't really matter to me.

Speaker 4 (01:25:01):
So my question then, if we are mechanisms, I'm curious,
can I grape a typewriter? I mean, that is a
mechanism that's purely based on inputs and outputs. And if
we are mechanisms, then I don't even see how you
could argue against grape, which, again, as I'm a Christian,
I believe we have free will and that violates somebody's.

Speaker 1 (01:25:18):
Volition and consent.

Speaker 4 (01:25:19):
So that's wrong, yeah, in that sense, But from your worldview,
I don't even see how you could say that grape
is wrong because it's the mechanism. The man doing it
was determined, and the woman receiving it, she was determined
to kind of be in that situation no matter how
she feels about it.

Speaker 1 (01:25:33):
So yeah, so really quickly, so we don't think that
grape is wrong, right, just because like the person.

Speaker 4 (01:25:40):
I think part of you say we who do you
mean exactly?

Speaker 1 (01:25:42):
I mean, I guess you can just say, like, in general,
I think we take it from a societal like lens,
Like even if the person like didn't know what they
were doing, we would still didn't know what they were doing.
We would still like kind of have a problem with it.
But I think one of the biggest, the biggest reasons
why grape is wrong is because someone is negatively affected
and they didn't want such thing to happen to them,
et cetera. Right, I think grape is wrong because I

(01:26:04):
value people, and I value human beings and their well
being and their safety. Right. So even so when someone
grapes someone, we oh great, okay, sorry, So when someone
essays someone, I would say that, like we said that
those actions we don't like those actions. They're bad because
they kind of like violate someone's ability to kind of
just like freely exist and kind of just like exist

(01:26:26):
like with their body, body autonomy and things of that nature.
But the solution is not to say like, uh like
like oh like like I think we should say boo,
that is bad. But the solution is to rehabilitate that person,
find out whatever cause cause them to do that and
exterminate that cause. So that's kind of the way I
would take something like grape or what if the cause
is biological. Yeah, so that's why we have like meds

(01:26:48):
and pharmacy, Like we have things that like we can
pinpoint what part of the brain is causing the problem
and provide a solution.

Speaker 4 (01:26:55):
So another question, there is an argument regarding this is
specifically regarding like Daniel Dinnett and his compatibilism regarding like
what kind of the issue that we're talking about regarding
moral responsibility and things like this, And it's called the
manipulation and reductio ad absurdim argument. And so suppose there's
a woman named Alice and that a neuroscientist engineers her

(01:27:17):
so that due to all mechanisms that she is programmed
to commit a murder, and she, through compatibilism, again Daniel
Dinnet's terms, uses her freedom to choose based on those things.
So there's not an exterior compelling her, an exterior reason
or cause compelling her to commit the murder. And then
she commits the murder. Is she responsible or is she

(01:27:40):
not responsible? For your perspective, So.

Speaker 1 (01:27:42):
Yeah, I think this idea of moral responsibility comes from
this idea that we are these isolated causal agents, which
again I disagree with. I think that when we look
at like when people do bad things, we need to
look at just like you explained, the mechanisms and the
foundation that caused them to act in the way that
they did. So in that sense, I think that this
idea of fault and blame comes from this idea that
we just everyone has this kind of like set state

(01:28:04):
of like they know things that they should and shouldn't
do and whatever they're operating off of the same you know, basis.
So instead I would say that like that person, I
think I wouldn't even reference moral responsibility, and I think,
how can we make it so we we figure out
what caused you to do such thing and stop it? Right?

Speaker 4 (01:28:20):
So it's like it I understand, But it's just using
my thought experiment. Let's say Alice committed the murder. In
your worldview is she would you find her guilty responsible
or would you say she's not guilty or responsible because
she was programmed through neuroscience, say like a neurallink elon
musk neurallink or something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:28:40):
Yeah, again, what if you want to go from my
framework and yeah, That's what I want to know, is
like in leg framework, how would you lea Alice? Yeah,
so legality works in a way where it should prioritize
rehabilitation and fixing whatever. Again, cause caused the output. Right,
So for example, if it's her engineering, you said it
was engineering, that kind of sounds like a lot like biology.
If it was her biology, something that she was encoded with,

(01:29:02):
we fixed that, right, We give her the drugs that
she needs, and then we take her to somewhere where
she can no longer hurt people. Right, that is the output.
So it's not it doesn't. My legal framework does not
have to do with like dishing things out because you
deserve it. It's dishing things out, that's what they're going
to fix the products.

Speaker 4 (01:29:16):
I just want to know if she's culpable, Like in
your worldview, is Alice culpable for the murder because the
neural science engineered her to do it?

Speaker 3 (01:29:24):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:29:24):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (01:29:24):
Or no? So she's not culpable. No, I don't, Well,
that would violate compatibilism because in that highpathetical, in that highpothetical,
she is not compelled by external factors, and she's only
conditioned by her internal internal response in her biology and
therefore within a compatibilistic framework.

Speaker 1 (01:29:41):
I'm not a compatilist. So you're earlier. You're arguing for compatibilism. No,
I wasn't that, this was I was. I'm a determinist.
So it's a difference between determinism exactly.

Speaker 4 (01:29:50):
Well, compatibilism is a form of determinism, so maybe you
can call it determinists. Yeah, it's a subart whatever, it's
a subarte. But once again, a determinist would say that
she is culpable. I would say she's not because as
a hard determinist, not a compabilist, I would say that
even your biology is one of these causes that you
are not in control off you don't author and campatalists
agree with that, but they just define free will different.

(01:30:10):
So like Sam Harris, then who's a hard determinist would
you argue that people who So, for example, Sam Harris
is famous for being very anti Islam, and he's okay
if like all Muslims were, for your position, rehabilitated or
like a cancer extracted from a tumor from the world
because of the consequences. He argues that the program of Islam,
look again, using a metaphor of a computer or something

(01:30:32):
like that, that that software needs to be eradicated.

Speaker 1 (01:30:35):
So is that also Europeian? I think that people who
practice Islam.

Speaker 4 (01:30:40):
It's not just about Islam, it's in general. I'm just
saying that for Sam Harris in particular, that's an issue
that he uses his hard determinism and talks about Islam
as a cancer, as a tumor in regard to like
our global society, his hard determinism, because he sounds like,
what I'm hearing is that you're kind of parroting the
hard determinism of Sam Harris. Yeah, so, and that's so

(01:31:01):
that's my point is he would argue that we just
need to hold on, let me finish, and I'll let
you go. That he would argue that we need to
eradicate that group of people or rehabilitate them because the
software is cancerous.

Speaker 1 (01:31:13):
That's his argument. So I would definitely say that. So
I don't know what parts of Islam he's entailing our cancerost.
I don't take that position. I wouldn't, but I would
say that if any group of people, regardless anyone who
is committing just like violent crimes or things that we
would seem as socially unacceptable. Right, we would isolate the cause, right,

(01:31:33):
which is always going to terminate in their biology or
their socialization, and we would extract the causes. It's usually
going to entail again, rehabilitation. So I've given you my
answer for that. It's usually going to be a reabilitation
and then kind of just like removing this person from
a place where they can do that again.

Speaker 4 (01:31:47):
Right, And that's where when you kept saying rehabilitation, that's
where in my head it kind of keynoted Sam Harris
because that's kind of that's the rhetoric his argument for Well,
that's the kind of the rhetoric he uses in one
of his books on free will. I remember is years ago.
But yeah, that's the way that he tries to get
around again the moral culpability and stuff regarding his worldview
because he does recognize that he can't actually justify morality

(01:32:09):
or truth in his worldview, and so he has to
develop different systems to try to justify those things.

Speaker 1 (01:32:14):
Yeah. Cool, I mean, I just think that rehabilitation is
just the most just even just like a logical way
of kind of a brow.

Speaker 4 (01:32:20):
How would you like what is in your worldview and
an ideal circumstance, what is rehabilitation? Because you're what you
would identify as the ideal rehabilitation, I could argue as
like something is negative. For example, I'm not in favor
of like the LGBTQ movement as a traditional Christian, and
so I could see potentially in a thought experiment where
you would say, I need to be rehabilitated because of

(01:32:43):
my thoughts and my feelings towards a particular community.

Speaker 1 (01:32:46):
How would you go about doing that if you want
to like harm people on the basis don't want to
harm anybody, Okay, okay, no worries. Yeah, so everyone has
like the ability to think what they want and feel
what they want. But right, if our goals in society
are to create a society that promotes well being, anti
discrimination and things of that nature, and you have some

(01:33:06):
type of like unwarranted belief against a group of people,
I would say that you probably need to be exposed
information that would cause you to no longer hold that belief.
I think that's just kind of the same thing that
would apply. I think that people should be just like
we shouldn't judge someone for something that for an unwarranted reason,
unless they are like harming people or doing something that

(01:33:26):
we would deem unjust. Other than that, like, I just
don't see a reason.

Speaker 4 (01:33:29):
Why we would, right, I wouldn't be in favor of
harming people. But the idea that I have a moral
objective structure that I believe that, for example, sexuality, there's
certain things that are godly, divinely intended in certain ways,
and that there are transgressions. That's just my worldview. So
I'm not arguing for you. I'm just saying that. So
for me, it's like it's not about wanting to hurt

(01:33:50):
anybody or again violate their free will. But let's say
in a thought experiment, and it's kind of already occurring
in American culture, that the persuasiveness if everything is the world,
if we adopt your worldview, and everything is just assumptions,
and that it's all rhetoric and we're just trying to
persuade people so that they're innate. Biology actually clings on
to it and then deterministically moves in the right direction.
We're seeing right now, I mean in twenty twenty five

(01:34:12):
that the support for Pride, support for LGBTQ seems to
be diminishing. And I mean the White House, so like
Pride parades, I mean general that I don't know. Again,
you're a leftist, so I assume that some of the
cultures are the circles that you swim in are a
little bit different. But in the circles that I swim in,
it certainly seems like And anybody watching this in the chat,

(01:34:33):
let us know if you agree or disagree, seems like
the support for the LGBTQ movement in general has really
diminished from the last five to ten years.

Speaker 1 (01:34:41):
So I don't know how if you have like some
type of like population census on that, I would say
it like the government is moving towards like a path
that I would say it probably isn't great, But I mean, yeah,
I don't think that this is going to have any
bearing on my descriptive explanation on how societies change. I
would say that, like from my worldview, someone who values
people and it's non discrimination and values just like the

(01:35:05):
well being of humanity. Yeah, I would say it's wrong
to just like to just tape people for being kind
of the way that they are and that is in
a way that's not hurting people. So I mean again,
I don't see how this is.

Speaker 4 (01:35:17):
Like, Well, my point is, what if this persuasion continues, continues,
continues until maybe it's ninety five percent of the opinion.

Speaker 1 (01:35:24):
This is the thought experience.

Speaker 4 (01:35:24):
I'm not saying that it is like that exactly, just
based to you and your subjective experience, and in a sense,
be us who would disagree with your perspective.

Speaker 1 (01:35:36):
We would essentially win the culture war.

Speaker 4 (01:35:39):
And there's nothing that you could really argue, like, there's
nothing you can argue against it other than that, Hey,
this is my preference, these are my friends.

Speaker 1 (01:35:45):
We should do this.

Speaker 4 (01:35:46):
But if other people are being persuaded in the opposite direction,
it just seems like you kind of lose.

Speaker 1 (01:35:50):
What you're describing here is what's happened throughout history. We
have different dominances of power, of thought, of belief. Sometimes
the drive of power and wonder is founded in things
like Christianity and some objective morality. Other times people being
like I don't like how I'm being treated, You don't
like how you're being treated, Let's fight against it. You
don't have to entail some objective morality to want some

(01:36:11):
cultural change. You just need some unified goal. And if
our my unified goal is equal protection, equality, equality of opportunity,
general well being of humanity, and I get a bunch
of people to agree with me that that is an
important thing, then we then we win.

Speaker 4 (01:36:26):
Right, So the true opposite as well.

Speaker 1 (01:36:28):
So yeah, exactly, So I don't want the opposite to happen.
I can't. I can express how much I hate that idea,
but I can't entail some objective moral truth because that's
quite literally, it's it's improvable. In that objective moral truth
would would not have evidence. It would just be truth,
and it would and if it was so objectively true,
it would seem obvious to us because it would be true.

Speaker 2 (01:36:48):
Right.

Speaker 4 (01:36:49):
So again, and I would say, for at least the
circles that I swim in, it is very objectively obvious
in regards to some of the yeah, the sexual transgressions
and things that are going on in that community. For us,
we would think that that's quite obvious and quite explicit.
So for us, just the observation is.

Speaker 1 (01:37:05):
I mean, yeah, that's how like you can construct a
reality based on some belief that, well, that's what yours is.
You think that's exactly what you're explaining though as well
here too, where.

Speaker 4 (01:37:14):
I'm just adopting yours and doing an internal critique in
regards to.

Speaker 1 (01:37:17):
I don't think this is a critique. This is an
explaining of like a.

Speaker 4 (01:37:19):
World that people watching it understand.

Speaker 1 (01:37:21):
So sure, we think anyone who's well versus philosophy will
will know what cognitism non cognitism is whatever. But again,
so someone in your view, if you just objectively believe
that God is true, then everything that he says must
be true, and you will go on and live in
that reality regardless of that. If there's evidence for it
or or evidence for the opposite, you're going to go
on living in that reality. I am someone who values science,

(01:37:43):
who values probability. Okay, sure that values kind of a
pattern recognition, et cetera. I'm also someone who you know,
values other people.

Speaker 4 (01:37:54):
Here, you think if you're Christian, you can't believe in science.

Speaker 1 (01:37:56):
Never said that.

Speaker 4 (01:37:57):
No, I'm just asking I'm not saying that's what you said.
I'm not asking for clarity.

Speaker 1 (01:38:00):
Yeah, I'm telling you that I'm saying that I value
science is just something that I value, not saying making
any bearing on Christianity.

Speaker 4 (01:38:06):
And is the scientific method? Can it prove the scientific method?
Can what prove the scientific method? Can using science measuring
and averaging prove the scientific method itself? Or is it
an a priori presupposition of how we're using induction?

Speaker 1 (01:38:22):
Yeah? Yeah, so it's something that we assume to be
true based on kind of like how we navigate the
world and how we see the world. Right, so science
is based upon the assumption, right that reality exists in
some measurable way. I think that that's a pretty fair
assumption to make, And that's the assumption that you kind
of come into debates with, which is kind of what
we were wrestling with earlier.

Speaker 4 (01:38:40):
Right, No, I agree with that. I just think that
without Again, this is where I would perform if this
was getting into a much larger debate in regard to
philosophical transcendentals or using the transcendental argument for God, I
would appeal to a coherency theory that my paradigm is
actually much more coherent and allows for things like science

(01:39:00):
and objective truth and morality to be justified.

Speaker 1 (01:39:02):
And that's how again, using the laws of logic.

Speaker 4 (01:39:05):
I know that you argued earlier that logic isn't a
methodology to prove, but it is, and that's what I
would use to justify that belief in God is actually
a superior worldview because you don't have to presuppose things
like the laws of logic or like the law of
non contradiction, the law of identity. Like science is working
based on the presupposition that tomorrow will still be the

(01:39:27):
same as today, but that is built on a logical
presupposition that science itself can't prove.

Speaker 1 (01:39:33):
So logic and like so logic and reality are something
tangible existing outside of this human experience. Are all positions
we make to believe in science. But that presupposition is
simply because we don't have any information that deems the opposite.
So I don't think we need to fall into some
alternate conclusion because it makes things easier, because okay, then

(01:39:54):
I don't have to make an assumption. We make that
assumption because it's it makes the most sense because we
don't have any of the opposite. So it's more so
making sure that we're the most air tight in our
descriptions of how things are and how we pattern recognize,
et cetera. But it's just kind of making the way
that we kind of pursue information seeking the most air tight.

(01:40:14):
So I mean, I don't have a problem with those assumptions.
I think it's pretty fair to make the assumption that, yeah,
reality is real, that tomorrow will be tomorrow, that is
the foundation of science.

Speaker 4 (01:40:23):
I completely agree, right, Okay, I mean that pretty much
answers some of the foundational objections that I had regarding
your worldview. And I think that my presentation has come
across in regards to the lack of objective epistemology, the
lack of moral responsibility. That and you've granted that you're

(01:40:46):
a moral subjectivist, so my point still stands. So you've
adopted a position that coincides with a deterministic worldview that
doesn't allow you to justify those things. And fair enough,
that's where I granted you. At least you're being consistent
in regards to the ethical and moral component you being
as subjectivist is at least consistent with your deterministic framework.

Speaker 1 (01:41:03):
Well, yeah, I think that in regards to kind of
like just like the whole assumptions thing, if you believe
in science as someone who is non religious, you are
making this assumption as well that like reality exists objectively,
that things that have patterns, that things have causes, et cetera.
And it's a pretty sound assumption to make, especially when
we don't have evidence, proval evidence of the latter. So yeah,

(01:41:27):
I think that that what I'm saying makes a lot
of coherent sense. Say, thing with morality, we haven't been
able to find some truth in moral claims. That's it's
it's just non it's non testable. Although we do see
that evolutionarily, it makes sense why we value other people.
We value human beings. We we value people people being okay,
like well being over non well being, et cetera. So

(01:41:49):
I think we have a lot of explanations for why
we feel these things. But I think that a lot
of times emotivism comes to recognize that moral claims and
attitudes do come from again this feeling right that sometimes
you can point to it in the brain, socialization, et cetera.
So yeah, I think that kind of sums up what.

Speaker 4 (01:42:07):
I've Okay, you have any counter questions for me in
regards to my worldview, Yeah, I just think.

Speaker 1 (01:42:13):
I think if we kind of I don't know if
we want to go back into this, but the agency
thing I do still just have like a really big
issue with it. With this knowing that there is some
set future and then also saying that we can act
out of accordance with it seems to be incoherent to me. Well,
it's a category.

Speaker 4 (01:42:32):
I mean, my argument that just be a category are
in regards to God. And so that's the whole point
of sin. So we can choose right and wrong decisions.
Some of us choose bad decisions and those consequences follow.
And God Christ, being the incarnate God, has a perfect heart.
That heart is the heart that all of us are
going to be judged upon. And my agency to choose

(01:42:54):
right or wrong does not diminish God's omniscience, and God's
omniscience does not my ability to make a free will
choice right here, right now. And so again, predictability is
not proof of determinism, and it's just probability under limited
circumstances is essentially what you're And that's where my point
with the restaurant earlier. It's like, just because there's limited

(01:43:16):
opportunities to choose on a particular menu, doesn't mean that
I'm determined for any one particular meal that I choose.

Speaker 1 (01:43:22):
Okay, So once again I just want to kind of
like get it straight from here. Do you believe there
is some future that exists, like there is a future
that exists obviously, right, Okay, So again, if there are
some future in some events that exist in those in
that future, then those events must happen and you cannot
do any events that would contradict that event. So say again,
if there I don't know what the hold on. I

(01:43:43):
don't know what the future is. And we know that
God again still exists outside of time, but we do
know that he knows what this future is. Right, We're
sitting at this point of the present where we cannot
kind of like like actually perceive of that, but we
know that it exists. If we presume that God exists,
the question is, can you do anything that is not
in heild in that future that God knows exists? Just yes?

Speaker 4 (01:44:02):
Or now can I do anything in the future that
God knows exists? No?

Speaker 1 (01:44:07):
Can you do anything like in this set future that
God knows exists.

Speaker 4 (01:44:11):
That but he's already at the endpoint of history, so
it's already happened.

Speaker 1 (01:44:14):
Right, That's fine, Right, So it's already happened. These events
are going to happen whatever, But in these events that
are going to happen? Can you do anything other than
the events that are going to happen?

Speaker 4 (01:44:22):
If I made a different choice at that point, then
it would have been the Again, God would already known
what choices already make. So again, this is a category
era because the choices I make in temporal space and
time are not determined by God's omniscience of knowing which decisions.

Speaker 1 (01:44:38):
I change that because he knows, is why?

Speaker 4 (01:44:41):
Like, well, you keep asking, insinuating, let me finish. You
keep asking if I can choose to do something different?

Speaker 2 (01:44:48):
Though?

Speaker 4 (01:44:48):
Is that not what you were asking me?

Speaker 1 (01:44:49):
I'm not done yet, but that is exactly what you're
asking me. See, I thought we weren't supposed to beak
cutting people off. Okay, so see okay anyway anyway, believe
it's if okay anyway, So if there is some set
future that you know is going to exit, it's a
simple question. If there is some set future that we

(01:45:10):
know exists, can you do anything that is not in
those events of the future, Just a yes or.

Speaker 4 (01:45:15):
No again the premise of the questions or no. No,
that's not I'm not going to fall into your your dialectic.

Speaker 1 (01:45:21):
It's not.

Speaker 4 (01:45:22):
We'll let me respond. I get to respond however I
want no, Oh, I don't. You can be bad faith
if you How is that bad faith? Even what bad
faith means.

Speaker 1 (01:45:30):
It's when you're arguing like like discuously.

Speaker 4 (01:45:33):
And I'm disingenuous by saying that God's omniscience doesn't entail.

Speaker 1 (01:45:37):
You're disinsinuous by not answering the clear yes or no question.

Speaker 4 (01:45:41):
I can make free will to choy uh. Free will
choices that God knows what choices I already made. I
can choose different choices in that particular period.

Speaker 1 (01:45:52):
So free will entails that they're in some event there
is a choice that that you can make other other
than another choice. Right, there's not some like Lenny, even
though we're already entailing that God knows some like events
are going to happen in the future. Right, but you're
you're presuming that you can pick something other than whatever
is going to happen. So tomorrow, if God knows, Let's

(01:46:13):
just assume God knows that tomorrow, even though he's this
outside of time, he does still know that tomorrow you're
going to pick a blue shirt. That means that you
cannot pick any other shirt. But the blue shirt, just
yes or no.

Speaker 4 (01:46:23):
No, it's because God knows I chose the blue shirt,
because in his perspective of being outside temporal space and time,
that's the shirt that I chose.

Speaker 1 (01:46:31):
Okay, so you couldn't have pick a red red shirt.
Then you could not have picked a redshirt because he
knows that you're gonna pick blue shirt. She you can't.

Speaker 4 (01:46:36):
Knowledge doesn't determine my choice. I'm not saying that that's
the insinuation of your playing. I'm saying that it's already known.
So it's already going to happen that way, right.

Speaker 1 (01:46:47):
It's known by God, But I still choose it in
the present moment. If God knows today right or even
before you came here, that you were going to come here, sure, right,
that means that you are going to come here inevitably.

Speaker 4 (01:47:00):
He knows that that was the decision I was going
to make, and he knows outside space and time that
I've already made that decision.

Speaker 1 (01:47:05):
You couldn't have not come here.

Speaker 4 (01:47:06):
I could have chosen yeah, and he would have known
that that was the choice that I made. Because he's
outside space and time, he's already at the end of history.

Speaker 1 (01:47:12):
He knows that that was the choice that I made.
That is a contradict. No, it's not, No, it's not.

Speaker 4 (01:47:16):
Again, the super chatter highlighted people watching know that that
this is kind of a rhetic to your level argument.

Speaker 1 (01:47:22):
I don't think I'm going to use.

Speaker 4 (01:47:23):
And you realize that I'm not a Calvinist, right, I
don't think so. I don't believe not theological determinism.

Speaker 1 (01:47:28):
I'm not going to use the people watching to determine
who is correct or in correct in debates. Well you should,
because you don't have an art. You don't have an art,
projective truth, psychology, neurobiology, and many other sectors of all
the things that I've appealed, So not really, they also
entail the same fact that every first of all, that
one that when we make a choice right, it is

(01:47:49):
a product of circumstances that we don't have control over.
And also even if we we previous presuppose some like
Christian God that exists, if he knows in any regard
what will happen, then you cannot do what he does
not know will happen. That that's a fact.

Speaker 4 (01:48:05):
But what his knowledge is based on our ability to
have free will.

Speaker 1 (01:48:09):
It's it's really just a yes or no question, though
it's going anywhere. This is there was multiple contradictions there,
but anyway, Oh yeah, we'll name them. What are the contradictions? Yeah,
tell me the saying that God knows what you're going
to do before you do it. That but also he
only knows things that you know that you're going to
do because he's seen it before.

Speaker 4 (01:48:28):
So yeah, that's he's outside space and time.

Speaker 1 (01:48:31):
That's a category, right, So it's not a category. Yes,
it is if you if God knows you're going to
do some set things, you can't do the things that
he does not know you're going to do. That's essentially
the problem with your argument. It's that's not a problem.
It's no, that's not it. That's not a problem. Even
if you're not aware in the moment that you're going
to do something, you were always going to do that
said thing, that's that's no.

Speaker 4 (01:48:49):
Because you always have choice, but God, being outside based,
choose between a rational deliberation choice between multiple objects.

Speaker 1 (01:48:58):
There's two choice between the red and the abilities. One
is definitely going to happen. One you feel like you
have a choice, it's going to happen. But this one
was always going to happen. No, that means you don't
have a choice. No, that's not.

Speaker 4 (01:49:09):
But again that's that's you've already structured it, and that's
not having structured it. That's that's not how Christians believe
that choice works. The structure that you just drew on
your paper different things. That's the point is that you
just said, because God knows the choice you're gonna make,
you cannot make any You basically have no free will.

(01:49:30):
You cannot make delineation between two things.

Speaker 1 (01:49:32):
I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (01:49:33):
No Christian, both Orthodox Catholic Protestant, believes that to be
the case, because the paradigm is not based on that presupposition.
The framework that you laid out is not the framework
that we agree to, is not the framework that we believe.

Speaker 1 (01:49:46):
Christians don't believe that to be true, because it would
would mean that there's a contradiction in their logic. That's
they want to categorize it.

Speaker 4 (01:49:53):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:49:53):
So let's say you have a choice between a blue
shirt and a red shirt tomorrow. God knows you're gonna
pick red. You're going to pick He knows this. He's
always known it. Even when Adam and Eve were frolicking
in the gardens. He knew you were going to pick
this red shirt on this day, and you're like, hmm,
blue are red? You're going to pick red, and you
were always going to pick red. There's no option.

Speaker 4 (01:50:13):
I thought it was blue. Now it's changed. No blue
shirt earlier.

Speaker 1 (01:50:18):
Yeah, well, you know, examples can change anyway.

Speaker 4 (01:50:22):
So your argument is essentially the same type of reddit
to your atheist argument that would say, well, if God
is the creator?

Speaker 1 (01:50:28):
Who created God? And it's like, well, that's a category.

Speaker 4 (01:50:32):
It's it's the it's the same level of the sums.

Speaker 1 (01:50:36):
I think that a lot of Christians also have come
to see the problem with this idea.

Speaker 4 (01:50:41):
Yes, they have more and more young men and women
are becoming Christian than you.

Speaker 1 (01:50:45):
Haven't answered the contradiction. You've just keep it's not a contradiction. No,
it's not. Yes, there is that. The super chatter already
recognized its correct. So it's right, that's not what I said.
He that's not what I said either? Is that what
I said? I said some type of evidence?

Speaker 4 (01:51:00):
I don't know, because other people watching this are realizing
what's going on, and you and you're.

Speaker 1 (01:51:04):
That watch this tend to lean conservative, so of course
they're going to agree with your framework, and I don't
think I'm going to like kind of capitulate to them
to to to Arbert like who is correct, especially when
this argument is very so straightforward and and it just
is going to be in the realm of like metaphysical possibility.
It's metaphysically impossible for you to pick blue if God
already knows and has always known and always will know

(01:51:25):
that you will pick red. That is is a fact.
I rest my case.

Speaker 4 (01:51:29):
Again, say no, that it's fine. It's just it's just
not consistent with our worldview. And then again, h yeah,
exactly with our worldview, because that would entail again that
we have no choice. There is no objective truth, there
is no moral responsibility.

Speaker 1 (01:51:41):
I mean that there's voice, and that's scary, I understand,
But it is true. You choose to be here. I
did choose to.

Speaker 4 (01:51:47):
Oh, you can't choose.

Speaker 1 (01:51:48):
You can't choose those under like a compatibilist understanding. Yeah,
I did choose to be Okay, But I mean, did
I have control over the desire to be here?

Speaker 3 (01:51:56):
No?

Speaker 4 (01:51:56):
I didn't, Okay, So yeah, anyway, well, I hope this
was convincing for the audience because you guys had no
choice in the matter.

Speaker 3 (01:52:04):
We uh will take a break for some chats we
have chef Dill Pickles. He writes, Xena said that axioms
are his preference and then almost immediately said we should
do what most people want. Absolutely cognitively dissonant.

Speaker 1 (01:52:20):
Yeah, so never said that we should do what most
people want. Definitely didn't appeal to numbers that over time
we generally do like powers held by the majority, and
we tend to structure society based on what like the
majority wants. And then also axioms are preferences. No, didn't
say that.

Speaker 3 (01:52:38):
There's the message again, in case you wanted to address
anything else.

Speaker 4 (01:52:41):
Sir, it's probably in reference to you saying two plus
two could be five if we all agreed to it.

Speaker 1 (01:52:46):
Yeah. So if we labeled like what we conceive as
like four as five, and we just said semantically now
like that's now five.

Speaker 4 (01:52:53):
If you're just changing semantics, that again, that's not getting
at the heart of it. Okay, that is mathematics objective
and universal. That was the point that was being made.

Speaker 1 (01:53:00):
Yeah, so it's like gonna be one of the oldest
philosophical debates. Did we discover math or did we create
math whatever. I mean. I think that like for someone
to say that like math as a system exists, it's
probably going to entail like utility to some degree. So
like it's something that like you're like like actually constructing,
for example, to divide ten by two to come to five.
Like there's some type of like process of system there

(01:53:21):
that requires humans whoever, like the physical objects being there.
For example, if they're like five meteors in the sky,
those meteors are there. So I mean, it's just a
very big philosophical rabbit hole. It doesn't negate anything I've said.

Speaker 3 (01:53:36):
We have another chat here, chef deal Pickles Zena, please
explain why we should not eliminate first degree on the
living and simply replace it with second degree on a
living good.

Speaker 1 (01:53:48):
Point. Yeah, so I under my legal framework, right, if
someone is like, like if what I would want or
I think what is most coherent? If someone has unalive someone, right,
instead of looking at it in this way that we do,
would say, okay, like what causes person to unalive someone?
It was it intentional? If it was if it was intentional, right,
we look at the cause for that thing. Let's say

(01:54:09):
that they're a psychopath, and we would rehabilitate them. If
this person did not mean to unalive someone, we would
take we would just kind of like figure out what
caused them to do such thing. If it was like
nothing at all, like a total something that they like,
there's no circumstances that we can rehabilitate. I think we
would just see it as like someone who like, for example,

(01:54:29):
if someone broke the law, like we can still have
laws under the system where like we can we can
deter them from doing such law and put them in
jail specifically because they broke the law and as a
symbol of why you shouldn't do it again. So I
think I think that again, like not only rehabiltabilitation, but
deterrent should be one of like the pedestals of our
law and our governance.

Speaker 3 (01:54:45):
So yeah, all right, somebody's stream labs is not working. Apparently,
I don't know. Uh oh, here we go, Chef Tille
Dylan stream labs is down. H xena. What does it
functionally mean to be outside of space time? I can't
tell if you're genuinely or disingenuously missing that detail.

Speaker 1 (01:55:08):
Yeah, so it means that you're not bound by time, right,
even still regardless of God knowing something before or after
or during. If something he is said to have no sorry,
if something is said to be something that he knows,
it means that it will happen because he's got So
I'm not saying that like he must know this thing
before you did it, even though you kind of agreed

(01:55:30):
to that. I'm saying that God in whatever sense, knows
that something is going to happen, and thus it will
happen that way. That was That's all my argument is
unless you.

Speaker 4 (01:55:39):
Agree, and for you that means determinism, right, that's like
a yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:55:42):
I mean if you want to take it to TB, well,
that's what you're trying to use it as.

Speaker 4 (01:55:45):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:55:46):
It proves that like in any circumstance, something was always
going to happen.

Speaker 4 (01:55:50):
Yes, well, something's always going to happen. But the reason
why you're bringing that up is trying to insinuate that
even in my worldview believing in God, it's determined. That's
the that's the premise of what you're trying to present.
And again shout out to Chef Dyllan because he's highlighting
that that it's a category ra Nope, Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:56:08):
God knowing something means that it will always happen that way.
It is true, so you can't do the opposite of that.

Speaker 4 (01:56:14):
Is that true, It doesn't mean the determinism.

Speaker 1 (01:56:16):
Okay, whatever you want.

Speaker 3 (01:56:17):
Okay, all right, we have about twenty twenty five minutes left,
So while we do closing statements and then the rest
of the show for what time we do have remaining,
will open it up to some audience questions. We'll do
we'll lower the read or TTS threshold. We'll put it
to uh, we'll do sixty nine sixty nine dollar TTS
because we don't have too much time. So Xena, you

(01:56:40):
go first with your closing statement. Then Patrick you will
go after.

Speaker 1 (01:56:44):
Go ahead, okay, yeah, so my my closing same. It
is gonna be pretty similar to my opening statement. I
think I'll just focus more on kind of the God
aspect though, of how you can take determinism. Essentially, I'm
going to just restate my argument God knows you know
how the world will exist and what events will take place,

(01:57:05):
regardless of time. Events are going to happen in the
way that He knows that they will happen, and thus
you cannot act out of accordance with what God knows right,
So it doesn't matter like if if we're talking about
this in like a circumstance of time or not. If
God says that blank thing is going to happen a
certain way or a blank thing is it always will be.

(01:57:25):
So thus, if God says you will pick up this cup,
You're gonna pick it up, right, that's going to happen.
So that was Therefore this concludes that like God knowing
every action that we're going to take and every thought
that we're going to have, or every thought that we
do have, regardless of like the fact that he is
outside of time, we cannot do anything that he does

(01:57:47):
not know. And thus there are some set actions that
we will take throughout life that He has always known
or going to exist that way, and thus we cannot
act differently. There's just this feeling or illusion of choice.
That's always been my argument. I think that as well.
If I want to get back, I want to get
back into this neuroscience idea. Patrick was trying to make

(01:58:07):
some type of claim that neuroscienists have seen that sometimes
people act differently to like biologically the way that we
note like study it in the brain. Well, yeah, like
we're always going to find the reason for that differentiation
and action, like differentiating from their biology to be something
that exists in like the social realm or the environmental realm,
like some social stimuli causes people to act differently than

(01:58:30):
we might assume they will based on their biology or
their brain chemistry. So yeah, it's either that any event
is caused or uncaused. If it's caused, we'll ask well,
first of all, if it's uncaused, it'll be random, so
you don't have control over it. If an event is caused,
we ask why. And when you continue to ask why
why you prefer waffles over toast, it's going to result

(01:58:52):
in something like because my mom made them for me,
or because my taste was just in a way where
it releases more dopamine in my brain. There's always some
explanation and it just resides outside of this idea of
the eye. So that's been my argument.

Speaker 3 (01:59:04):
Yeah, all right, go ahead.

Speaker 4 (01:59:08):
As I was presenting in the opening argument is seven
points logically refute determinism, the first one being more responsibility argument.
So if determinism is true, no one can be held
morally responsible because they were determined to do so based
on nature. And nurture, as we've already talked about. And
she's conceded that she's a moral subjectivist, so therefore she

(01:59:30):
really can't make universal moral claims or ethical claims about
people thinks historical events.

Speaker 1 (01:59:35):
She can use rhetoric.

Speaker 4 (01:59:36):
She can state her preference, which she stated multiple times today,
but that does not justify and that is not a
strong argument within a formal debate to actually present why
something is true or false. Second one is that if
determinism is true, then all knowledge are beliefs, including the
belief in determinism. And if that's the case, then determinism
is not founded on rational inquiry or rational deliberation, and

(02:00:00):
therefore itself cannot be rationally justified. So therefore, set point
number two, if determinism is true, we can't have objective knowledge.
Point number three is that no determinists actually operates in
the world, as if they're a determinist, determinism would violate
the idea of voting. Again, I'm not the biggest advocate

(02:00:23):
of democracy myself, but democracy's premised upon the idea of
free will and that you can make delineations between things
and choose. But she would argue that you're really just
conditioned to choose whoever your political person that you want
to support. Is fourth argument is that from the counterfactual
possibility is that all decisions presuppose modal freedom. And so

(02:00:47):
even though she has a sort of semi compatiblist, she
says she's a determinist, but then she appeals to compatibilism
in regards to her ability to choose and be here today.
This it still insinuates what's called modal freedom, and so
it's still even within a compatibleist framework, we have to
evaluate alternative possibilities.

Speaker 1 (02:01:08):
And this is true within legal structures.

Speaker 4 (02:01:10):
So like our entire legal institution is built upon that
there could be something or it could have been the opposite.
In her worldview, there is no opposite because everything was determined.
Number five the neuroscience misinterpretation argument regarding Benjamin Labette and
this research has kind of been followed up more recently
with John John Dylan Haynes arguing again that these resting

(02:01:30):
potentials demonstrate that the brain is deterministic and that things
fire before every action we do, and then that's been
disproven again. I recommend everybody to go up look a paper.
It's from twenty twelve by David Suger. It's called RP
as neural noise and highlights that now the kind of
operating standard within neuroscience is that these neuronal firings before

(02:01:53):
actions are actually just neural noise and they're not deterministic
structures in regards to behavior. Number six creativity and novelty argument,
so again that you can't have art, poetry and vention,
all these things.

Speaker 1 (02:02:05):
Moral heroism.

Speaker 4 (02:02:07):
So again I'm surprised she didn't bring up more arguments
regarding biology or evolution and evolutionary constraints in regards to
our biology. But you know, art poetry, moral heroism, people
who actually self sacrifice themselves and kill themselves. This is
a defiance against again this ideal of like survival of

(02:02:27):
the fittest and that we do everything for personal survival.
And then number six or number seven is the problem
of infinite regress. And I think this is a pretty
strong logical argument against determinism, is that there has to
be an unmoved mover. I mean this was Aristotle figured
this stuff out in classical Greek philosophy, and so determinism
relies on an infinite causal chain. Well, where does the

(02:02:51):
causal chain begin. It typically begins with the Big Bang.
That's why I brought up cosmology, which she wasn't really
wanting to get into. And so free will allows for
an uncaused cause within a person again being made in
the image of God. The Amago day Genesis one twenty
six allows me to be my own on uncaused cause
within the world through the utilization of my free will.

(02:03:12):
And as I said in the opening statement, you know
the twentieth century, this is why determinism has really kind
of fallen to the wayside, is because quantum mechanics, the
Heidsberg uncertainty principles demonstrated that Laplacian determinat determinism again lap
Lacey's demon which is a thought experiment, that's not how

(02:03:33):
the universe actually works. And this is more consistent with
a theological worldview because I believe in miracles, right, so
I don't believe in a determinatistic system. I'm not a
DS either. So God's intervention into the world is a
real occurring fact. And I would appeal also to number
two chaos theory, which also mathematically demonstrates the same thing

(02:03:53):
that we live in an undetermined or indeterminate world, and
that is consistent with my worldview as God created creation,
and that miracles in his agency can actually still affect
the world, while me, being made in the image of God,
can still have free will. Kurt girdles in completeness theory, again,
trying to prove determinism based on determinism is impossible. This

(02:04:14):
is kind of what this general problem is why logical
positivism failed in the early twentieth century, and so the
cognitive revolution as well. Scnarian behaviorism was overthrown in the
fifties and sixties, and this was done by again linguistic work.
I'm not the biggest Noam Chomsky fan, but Chomsky's work
and regarding linguistics and language acquisition shows again that we

(02:04:37):
do have human agency in human free will and that
these aren't deterministic mechanisms. The philosophy of mind, as I said,
typically the majority of the field adopts an emergentism, the
idea that we actually have a mind. Now. Their emergentism
argues that the collective firing of neurons is so complex
that we have an emergent property right. So water molecules,

(02:04:59):
you can have a molecule of H two O. But
until you have multiple molecules, you don't have what's called wetness.
That's an emergent property. And so I'm not an emergentist.
I don't believe in emergentism, as I said earlier. I'm
more of a hylromorphic in the Aristotelian tradition, in the
Christian tradition. But emergentism is kind of the dominant stance
within philosophy of mind right now, and persons from that

(02:05:22):
perspective are not are not reducible to just physical components.
Human agency is not irreducible. We are we actually have agency.
And this is again even part of the emergentis uh
school within philosophy of mind. And then self referential collapse.
This is the logical argument again. She argued that logic

(02:05:42):
is not a way to prove something, which is just ridiculous.
I mean, nobody believes that that's that's that's ridiculous. Well,
you earlier, you're claiming that I wasn't proving something, and
I said, I'm using the laws of logic to show that, Uh,
the opposite of what I'm saying demonstrates that there can
no be there cannot be universal not there canno be
objective truth, and there cannot be moral responsibility, and so

(02:06:03):
one cannot rationally affirm determinism. And even determinists will agree
with this. Since belief in determinism is due to prior states,
then it too is a non rational belief.

Speaker 1 (02:06:17):
And then she agreed that that's.

Speaker 4 (02:06:18):
All it is. It's a preference, it's assumption on her
part due to nature and nurture, and so it's just
a subjective opinion. That's all she really came here with.
And therefore her goal is to persuade you through hopefully
you're innate biology, clings on to something she said, through
these deterministic mechanisms of cause causation, and that you then

(02:06:39):
will adopt and parrot her worldview and maybe it'll become
more popular. But she can't make a claim that it's
subjectively true or it's superior to mine, because she doesn't
have a basis. Determinism undercuts the necessary categories that it
depends upon four objective truth claims and moral responsibility claims,
So from that perspective, essentially determinism can't be true. Because

(02:07:05):
we're coming here to have a debate. Assuming that we're
coming to a truer answer, a truer response to the
things that occurred today and her worldview.

Speaker 1 (02:07:12):
That's not possible.

Speaker 4 (02:07:14):
So I feel very confident that the people watching and
hopefully people looking into these questions and maybe you're wrestling
with the concepts of determinism and free will, these are
things that people move through in their own personal journeys
towards fuller understanding, philosophical inquiry, theological inquiry, and that essentially
they're going to realize that I do believe that things

(02:07:35):
are true. I do believe that people have moral responsibility,
and if that's not the case, then everything is haphazard
and it's full of chaos. And as I said, mathematics
and physics, mathematical logic has determined that we do not
even exist in a deterministic universe. That mechanism that really
developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth century is no longer
in favor. So that's pretty much summarizes my argument.

Speaker 3 (02:07:59):
All Right, we have a couple chats here. We have
By the way, guys, we've lowered the tts. We're going
to do tts here at the tail end of the show.
Sixty nine dollars tts. But we do have our favorite
trucker here who's sent in a soup chat hol loong Nate,
Thank you for the soup chat.

Speaker 1 (02:08:14):
Man.

Speaker 3 (02:08:15):
God doesn't determine your choices. He can see the infinite
outcomes of your choices from Nate. Thank you man. Appreciate it.
Are you in the middle of a route right now?
Thank you man, appreciate the soup chat. All right, let
me let the chats come through. We have Chaw one
moment one moment guys. By the way, guys like the

(02:08:36):
video if you enjoyed the stream we have chaw.

Speaker 2 (02:08:39):
Chaw XD donated sixty nine dollars.

Speaker 3 (02:08:42):
Thanks man.

Speaker 2 (02:08:42):
If Reddit Atheism and Moral Subjectivism was a person, she'd
be predetermined to go on whatever incoherent Lisburg and make
a category eras I'm doing it. Also, I didn't choose
to send this.

Speaker 3 (02:08:57):
Any response there to Chaw.

Speaker 1 (02:08:59):
I don't know there's anything intelligible to respond to that with,
but yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:09:04):
Okay, yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:09:06):
Charlie KIRKDP USA donated sixty nine dollars zes Diseina. Do
you think black people can be racist towards white people?
Do you think women can be sexist towards men? Why
do you wear a cross.

Speaker 3 (02:09:31):
Uh, there's quite a few there.

Speaker 1 (02:09:34):
Okay, go for it. So yeah, there's just gonna be
like kind of like semantic questions. If you believe that
like sexism is kind of like something that entails like
a power structure, then no, women would not be like
able to be sexist to men. If you believe that
it's just like having like a distaste for men, then yeah,
like a women could be sexist vice versus vice versa

(02:09:56):
two for the race question, and then also regards to
like sociology, Yeah, it's just like it's going to be
like definitional in how we define these things.

Speaker 3 (02:10:05):
So, well, what about your own definition definition of racism
and sexism?

Speaker 1 (02:10:11):
Yeah, yeah, so I think that in sociology, it's most
meaningful to look at just like like what's meaningful about
racism is like being powered that it entailed. And thus
when we look at like racism as a system that
has like outputs and inputs, et cetera, we're gonna like
see it as like like the dominant race kind of
just like perpetuating the system of racial hierarchy. And in
this racial hierarchy that we've seen throughout history, it's been

(02:10:35):
white people holding this power dynamic being at the top
of it, et cetera.

Speaker 4 (02:10:40):
So what about South Africa that would be flipped right,
so white people are the minorities still is there is
there a physical not much structural racism against the white
people in South Africa?

Speaker 1 (02:10:49):
Actually no, so right in in South Africa, even though
they were the minority, like like in regards to like numbers. Wise,
sure it was still colonized by white people and taken
over by white people for them to have, like black
people being part of the working class for them to enjoy,
So it wouldn't be some type of like systemic rate.

Speaker 4 (02:11:05):
So you just said it was the majority versus the minority.

Speaker 1 (02:11:08):
Yeah, so a majority in holding power power entailed structure,
but do they don't?

Speaker 4 (02:11:12):
But white people don't hold the majority of power now
and South I.

Speaker 1 (02:11:15):
Don't know too much about like South African politics right now,
but even in general, like unless you're gonna see like
some type of like systemically like racist policies happening in
South Africa, which don't see any evidence for. Yeah, it's
just like a it's another community, just like many in
Africa and other communities that was exploitated or sorry, Yeah,
exploited by European European colonizers, and can I ask you

(02:11:39):
a question about voting.

Speaker 4 (02:11:41):
I'm really genuinely curious in your worldview, like are you
in favor of democracy, like what kind of political or
are you Marxist? Like what kind of political orientation? And
then separately, what are your thoughts on like can you vote?
Like in your determinist framework, do you have agency to vote?

Speaker 1 (02:11:55):
Yeah? So again I don't. I think you're just one.
You're making a lot of pre suppositions in the question
of the voting. But regardless, yeah, I really like marx
I don't give myself like too much of a label
in regards to like what kind of like left as
I am, but I would say leftism. And then also
in regards to voting, it's going to be the same.
I'm not positing any like structure. I'm defining describing reality

(02:12:18):
as how it is. So when we look at just
like people and how they vote, if they're exposed to
more ideas that say, hey, we don't like this minority
group of people, they're going to vote negatively. We still
give people the right to vote, but the what we
should be doing in society, I would say, is is
kind of looking at the simuli that are around people
and what are causing them to think certain things, and
having some basis of like we want equality, we want justice,

(02:12:39):
we want equality opportunity. We should kind of promote such
things and promote such education that explains how we can
get there, and people would vote accordingly. So it's just
kind of about again, like I mean, all of like
what I would want for voting is going to entail
what system I would like us to live in, what
values I have. Again, it's going to be a quality
of opportunity, well being of humans. So again I don't

(02:13:02):
see the problem.

Speaker 3 (02:13:04):
And he was also asking why do you wear a cross?
I guess he's asking if you're a Christian or.

Speaker 1 (02:13:09):
Yeah, I like I like it. I think it just
looks cute. And then I'm agnostic.

Speaker 3 (02:13:14):
So okay, we have hold on. We have Chef Till Pickles,
Thank you man.

Speaker 2 (02:13:19):
Chef Bill Pickles donated sixty nine dollars. Zeene, thank you
for admitting that you were racist against white people. What's
a disgusting bigot?

Speaker 1 (02:13:30):
Didn't I say I loved Kelly Clarkson.

Speaker 4 (02:13:31):
I don't know what that means. Well, even insinuating that's
white culture is kind of disingenuous. Well, I'm not saying
it's racist, but it's certainly disingenuous when we look at
the history of you know, European cultures, Byzantium, Western civilization,
all these different things.

Speaker 1 (02:13:46):
When I said that that was only all that I
didn't I didn't say that.

Speaker 4 (02:13:49):
I mean, I'm just saying because to choose that when
somebody's asking about white culture is just I mean, it
just seems disingenuous. It's kind of mocking it.

Speaker 1 (02:13:57):
I didn't know it was mocking. I actually like Kelly
clarks Okay, maybe, okay, that's just the way that I
took it.

Speaker 4 (02:14:02):
Okay, go ahead.

Speaker 1 (02:14:03):
It's kind of sensitive, isn't it.

Speaker 4 (02:14:05):
That's sensitive. Yeah, it is disingenuous to a quite white culture.
With Kelly Clarkson, I mean that it's it's kind of
low low IQ and loved here.

Speaker 1 (02:14:13):
How is Kelly Clarkson low IQ?

Speaker 4 (02:14:16):
That's white culture? Kelly Clarkson is white culture, is it not?
She's a white person that plays music, but culture, No,
she is not. She is not a cultural phenomenon in
regards to culture and like capital ce culture, like Western
civilization culture, Christian culture, Western culture, American culture.

Speaker 1 (02:14:35):
Culture culture, what's what's are you the arbiter of what culture?

Speaker 2 (02:14:37):
Well?

Speaker 4 (02:14:38):
Usually again religion, politics, again, all these different presuppositional frameworks
are going to define what culture is.

Speaker 1 (02:14:43):
And somebody studying sociology, which should be yes it, I'll
inform you that yes, it does music and it has
to do with a sacred the kind of things that
you like, perhap, absolute, et cetera. Kelly clarkson being like
a white artist and America. American culture is something that's
kind of tricky to define because it's really influenced by
a lot of my own't norrity communities, but especially in America.
Someone who a lot of white people in America would

(02:15:05):
really enjoy, I would say that the actually is like
related to like white culture and the things that the
people in this country, white people in this country enjoy,
but so to other people.

Speaker 3 (02:15:15):
But yeah, all right, we have retro think you.

Speaker 2 (02:15:18):
Man retro donated sixty nine dollars Zeema. You know that
DPH showed up to the debate today, So did he
have a choice.

Speaker 1 (02:15:29):
No, and you didn't have the choice to make that
comment either. Wow.

Speaker 4 (02:15:34):
Determinism Okay, pretty hard logic. There guys harder to defeat that.

Speaker 3 (02:15:40):
I'm just gonna read these instead of doing them as
tts is. Thank you retro for the message.

Speaker 2 (02:15:44):
To people running dollars, Zeema, can you please delineate good
from bad actions? Why aren't they simply actions?

Speaker 1 (02:15:53):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (02:15:53):
To morals?

Speaker 1 (02:15:55):
Yeah, So again, like the position I'm taking is that
moral claims don't are not truth apt and thus there's
not any absolutely like fundamentally like unless you can again
give some like you couldn't give some evidence for it,
because moral claims would just be that our objective would
just be true, evidently, like they would just be true,

(02:16:17):
and clearly I don't think that that we've like found
that to be the case. So instead I would say that, like,
there are things that we call good and bad, but
they're based on like a conception of it or like
a feeling towards it. So something being good and bad
is one when someone's talking about something, it's going to
be different compared to when someone's talking about another thing.
Or types of people that are talking about morality are
gonna be having different takes on what's good and bad.

(02:16:39):
Someone like Patrick would probably have like many different ideas
of what is good and he would totally be that
it's totally good, and I would have different beliefs on
what is totally good and totally bad. Obviously, he says
that there is some objective morality, yet we don't agree
that that is evidently true. There's a problem there. So again, yeah,
good is going to be something that is like contextual.

Speaker 3 (02:17:01):
All right, we have justin Henley justin thank you very
much for your message. Zena, you're internally critiquing Christianity. God
is omnipotent, but you claim he cannot create free will.
Your critique fails. Logic counter if no objective truth exists
is logic dot dot.

Speaker 1 (02:17:21):
Okay, So, first of all, the internal critique was saying
that free will cannot exist, and that it's incoherent that
God says that free will exists and also says that
he knows all things and how they will exist and
how they will be, and there is some set future
that that is going to exist. So that the critique
was that saying that free will can exist in that

(02:17:43):
type of framework is a contradiction. There's a contradiction in
those places. And then I can't remember the last thing
that was said.

Speaker 3 (02:17:49):
He was saying he said God is omnipotent, but you
claim he cannot create free will, your critique fails. Logic
counter if no objective truth exists, is logic and that
was perhaps he ran out of characters.

Speaker 1 (02:18:04):
I guess I'll just say it's probably like alluding to
like like how logic works. Yeah. Again, once again, all scientists,
a lot of them are not Christian, A lot of
them don't believe in objective morality, and and so do
I think the rest of us as well, agree that
there is some reality. Right, And once we agree that
there is some reality that exists outside of ourselves, we
then can pattern it. We can then you know, test it.

(02:18:25):
We can look for causes, et cetera, and and and
kind of that's that's that's what happens. And then we
can create structures and frameworks, and we can dissect things
through logic, Like logic is a system of governing and
and making claims and et cetera to move people's credences,
et cetera. And we can do that once we accept
you know, basic claims like we all exist, reality exists,

(02:18:46):
et cetera. So yeah, again, no problem there. This has
been a fact of philosophy and science for years.

Speaker 3 (02:18:53):
All right, we have chef Dill Pickles thinking, Man, would
you believe me if I said I wasn't racist simply
because I like Lil Wayne's music.

Speaker 1 (02:19:03):
I don't even I don't even know what to say
about one. Lil Wayne is good though.

Speaker 3 (02:19:07):
Okay, a couple quick messages here at the ends. Guys,
if you enjoyed the stream, hit the like video. Please. Also,
if you guys are watching over there on Twitch or
you're just watching on YouTube, if you can open up
another tab, go to Twitch, dot tv, slash whatever, drop
us a follow and a Prime sub if you have one.
If you have Amazon Prime, you can link link it
to your Twitch. It's a quick, freezy way to support

(02:19:29):
the show. Also, we have a really fantastic community Discord,
dot gg, slash whatever. We post our stream schedule so
you can get advanced notice of when we're kind of
doing a debate or something else. You can also buy
some merch shopped at whatever dot com. And yeah, guys,
thank you guys for tuning in like the video. Please

(02:19:50):
let me just double check make sure see if we
have any other chats coming in. Doesn't look like it, Okay,
let me see if there's anything else we need to
go over one second.

Speaker 2 (02:20:01):
Guys.

Speaker 3 (02:20:03):
Patrick is going to be joining us tomorrow for our
Dating Talk panel. Look, it's going to be live at
five pm Pacific. We have a really fantastic panel lined
up for you, guys, so be sure to tune in
five pm Pacific tomorrow Sunday Dating Talk Panel. Got some
interesting guests for that, and let me see if there's

(02:20:25):
anything else. I do want to thank both of you
very much YEP for joining me today for the debate.
It was great to have both of you very interesting
debate and yeah, thank you guys so much. And let
me just double check. Don't want to screw anybody over
if anybody sent in a last minute message. Let's see here. No,

(02:20:46):
we are all good, okay, cool cool? Let me just
check all right, guys, well in the chat. O seven's
in the chat? Please did you have oh? Okay? I
thought you were gesturing like one more thing? Okay in
the chat, guys, O seven's in the chat like the
video on your way out? Please? Oh sevens in the
chats and guys, tune in tomorrow five pm Pacific Dating

(02:21:08):
Talk fantastic panel. Patrick's gonna be there. It's gonna be fantastic,
so we'll see you guys tomorrow
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!

24/7 News: The Latest

24/7 News: The Latest

The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.