 Yo, it's let's chat. It's time to talk about street epistemology My name is Aaron Wells Jr. and I'm gonna talk to you about how to talk to anyone We're gonna go over a video of mine today. It's night time. Let's try to do this so that I can get a good night's sleep How about that? Yeah, we're gonna have a good night's sleep. Well, there's nothing that can stop us with that Anyway, uh, what we're gonna be talking about is a chat that I had with a friend of mine named Shannon He's a guy that I met over at the Ark Museum. Oh check out this layup. By the way, isn't this nice? anyway, I had a conversation with this guy he is a pastor and he came with a bunch of other pastors and We ended up talking about their belief in God and what led them to their beliefs And I only had my standard questions of did you use a reliable method or not? I think this is a great way to show that you could really have these conversations with anyone regardless of their stature in a congregation pastors or you know What do you call it pew warmers? like all of which can Have really helpful conversations with Essie and I thought this guy really appreciated our talk at the end of the day So let's go through this. It's about nine minutes long and I think it's gonna be a fun one Shannon Yeah, and I normally don't touch jokes like that It's an equal opportunity sort of situation I feel like He is referring to the group of pastors that I was doing interviews with just before he sat down I think I did maybe about four in a row and as a result. I'm a little bit, you know I'm more of a live wire in these kinds of talks than I normally am because I've just gone through these motions so many times and dealt with the same arguments so many times that I'm Also, I'm this table is being surrounded by people. So I'm a lot more nervous than I normally would be and not only nervous but also just willing to just move forward past Things that I would normally have more patience with if this was like a situation where I was Setting up at a park and I just had fewer people coming up to me at a time I actually did like 30 talks 35 talks That one day and I was really tired by the end of it So you might notice that I answer my I answer his questions a lot faster than I normally do and I do appreciate a pregnant pause or two Today I'm Shannon Shannon Okay, I told people I grew up in Georgia living for Turkey something being a redneck to the building What's up? You're an atheist right? What do you mean by atheists? I can tell you if I meet that definition Okay, so like I said, I am I that's a spitfire response so he said so you're an Atheist and I instead of me being like yes or no Because you know people ask that question when they're trying to set you up for a flowchart, right? I ask instead What do you mean by an atheist and I'll let you know if I fit that definition or not? That is such a better way of dealing with that question rather than having to deal with an argument of semantics Ahead of time and and what I mean by that is like I don't want to get into definitions I just want to know what he means when he says atheists and I'll let him know if I meet that definition If he thought atheists had wings, I'd be like, well, I don't have wings and I Concerned myself an atheist if you want to talk an atheist as wings or someone who thinks they have wings go talk to them You're talking to me right now. Let's keep the full conversation focused on the two of us, right? And that's the whole point of it like I'm willing to work with any definition. He gives me Because it's only us at the table but on that same note, I'll also let him know if his definitions towards me irrelevant or not and That requires me listening to what he has to say as far as what he's defining his words as and then Him listening to me as I let him know whether or not those are a relevant match or not That sort of back-and-forth just keeps the conversation focused on the two of us keeps us both open and allows things to move forward in a smooth like fashion Okay That's not my death that's not my So what is your death? I don't have enough evidence to believe in a guy. So again He opens up the door now for me to explain what I mean when I say a theist and I tell him what that means It's not so much. I'd like a disbelief that of any God. It's that or how to put it It's not me saying I think there's no God It's me saying I don't believe there's no God or I don't have enough evidence to support that belief and I think If you get your definition of what atheists is from mostly theists, you're gonna get the straw man version where it's the the strong The the absurd I want to say absurdly But the unrational claim that there is no supernatural being which I don't believe there's any proof for either like I'm and What I'm supporting is just hey come up with a better reason to believe in a God and I'll believe in a God Until then I'm not gonna believe because I don't have a good reason and I like believing in things for good reasons That's basically it. That's it in a nutshell I'm thinking about I'm gonna think about Better ways of answering that but hey, you know, that's what we're here to do So my idea agnostic is a statement about knowledge and I don't know if a God exists But I also don't believe in a God because I don't know if that God is real enough I'm looking for better evidence to be with my God. My position isn't that there's no God Just not sure if there's a God my position is I'd like better evidence or a better method to get to that conclusion So would you totally fine if there is a God and I just don't have that way to get to them That seems like it's a problem between me and I so you say you lean it you lean that there is no God Oh, look what he's doing. You see what he's doing now So like I just gave that really really nice definition right agnostic means I don't know Atheist means I don't believe But he's still despite the fact that I just said hey I don't believe and a God doesn't mean that I know there's no God It just means that I don't have enough evidence to come to that conclusion He's still saying but you lean that there's no God. I'm like, dude. I don't lean either way Am I talking to this guy? Let's let the video talk for him but no he's he's still trying to get back to the flowchart of Of his understanding because I know that me saying hey There's no God is an unrational position because I don't have any evidence for that but he's saying that there is a God and He doesn't have the rational position for that either or the rational evidence for it most more than likely I've seen this video. I mean it but instead of him dismiss or instead of him saying like Instead of him challenging his own position of like hey I actually don't have enough evidence to support that God exists Maybe the absolute confidence of a half that this God exists isn't necessarily a rational position for me to hold He's instead going to attack my position my proposed my supposed position that I don't that I believe there's no God and then Once he shows that my that position is unreliable He is going to purport that he's right by default and and present the fact that a God does exist It's a very standard play Particularly by presuppositionalists particularly by preachers and you got to watch out for that So don't fall into that flow chart Understand that what your position is if you are an agnostic atheist I don't know if a God exists there might be a God But I don't have enough evidence to come to that conclusion I don't believe that and so I'm at a position where I don't know is the best answer to have better information If you're saying and God does exist I'd love to hear it because I want to know things that are true and we can work together on that end To figure out if that's true that your informations came from reliable source or not or through a reliable methodology I would love to know that but for now I don't think there's a more important question than whether or not a God exists I'm gonna Assess any information that's given to me with a really high standard of evidence and if it doesn't meet that evidence that standard I'm fine with I don't know is a better answer until I have something that does meet that because there's nothing more important to me Then whether or not a God exists or not and I think I Think that kind of intellectual honesty is what's gonna make us look better at the end of the day as agnostic atheists then Agnostic or then Gnostic theists or even Gnostic atheists, so Just watch out for the flowcharts. Know what your position is and try to answer honestly with an and a willingness to know true things I'm sorry. You lean that there is no God. No, I'm not saying that at all I literally have no idea if there's a God Okay, it's literally the point one side says there's a God the other side said there is no God It's like this on my head and it can only be one option My best answer is I don't know okay Cuz that kind of negates my next question Yeah, yeah, that's exactly why I'm saying that someone if you came to me and said I'm an atheist I'm 100% confident that there's no God I would have just as many questions for you as I would for now literally every other person My next question is asking one of your own questions. You've been asking people I'm curious how you would answer it What you're asking people what reliable test you have to prove that there is a God What will have a test would it take to prove to you that there's a God? What real life? Let's see. I don't know what the answer for this in the video is but let's see What reliable test would it take for me to believe that there is a God? So Yeah, for me and God is a very incredible thing or the the concept that a God exists is like a really extraordinary thing I would need a really extraordinary set of data or a test something that's at least reliable something that can be you know Repeatable something that could be Tested on my own part tested by people who know like a subject matter How do I put this? If we're talking about as God if that's as incredible as the Bible That's gonna be really really rough because that's gonna take more than just like a lab, you know exam, but We can work our way towards there and if this is a guy that wants me to know about him Oh man, then let's let's reassess some data because right now. I'm I am not confident that The character that is reported in this book is The character that is or a character or a God that wants to have contact with me on a regular basis so Yeah, we would need to just outline some ideas of like What God we're talking about that'd be great And then what are some characteristics of this God that we can actually measure? So that way when we do a test we can know Oh, it was in fact from this God that we were talking about and not from some other God that was trying to play a prank on us or It basically we need to have tests that are falsifiable repeatable and ideally reliable So like if I know if we can like nail it down to just like hey I'm only a God can do these things and this is what it will look like when he does it This will look like if he doesn't do it like that's a great test and if we had something like that that'd be great That's a great start at least Um, I hope we could get something like that in the future, but if we don't hey, you know what? I don't know is a pretty good answer until then and it's not saying that that God doesn't exist It's just saying Uh, maybe we need a better way of measuring them and right now. We don't have a God detector and that's that's probably the most It sounds silly, but it's the most unfortunate True things like hey, we don't have a reliable God detector right now But once we do then it's just like dude just push that button and see if it lights up. Oh, there's a God Okay, great. I changed my mind. You have a reliable God detector until then We're just talking to each other and doing the best that we can and all that talking for me at least right now All the books that we write all the anecdotes of people saying they died and went to heaven That's just people talking and I'm going to need more than that for me my standard of evidence And for me a God is a lot more extraordinary than Um Other things that I could Persuade people about through just talking and with a book like I could say I went to Egypt for the weekend and I'd be like, yeah, that's okay. That's pretty that's pretty incredible for just the weekend That's pretty incredible. But you know people can do that. That's possible But if you're saying a God exists and there's a bunch of people who wrote about it and a bunch of people who said that And said they went to heaven for a weekend or something like that. I'd be like, no, dude I don't believe that you're gonna need a lot more evidence than that Anyway, that's a bit of a ramble I wonder if I answer that In just a miracle and basically I'm just saying hey Uh, it'd be nice to have three things. Uh, it'd be nice to have a test that we could do It'd be nice if that test knew what it had like a frame of reference of knowing what it looked like when I was writing wrong It'd be nice if we knew what specific God we were talking about and like what characters was that specific God we could actually test In a reliable and repeatable way Where we know what it would look like if we were wrong And if that was the case at least then I'd be a lot more inclined to increase my confidence On that God existing if the test showed that to be the case Then where I'm at right now where I'm just like, hey, I don't know either way. That's basically it Okay, if it's a God that wanted to have in contact with me That was like all powerful all knowing all loving all good that God knows exactly what it takes to convince me And the best thing that I can do is just be open to that And I think one of the best ways to do is be willing to like have a conversation with people who do believe Not try to shut them down Not try to come out with my own authority on top of that Not try to have apologetics for everything they say but willing to be open and work together with them on a model to like Get into where they see it and see if you can rely on And I guess my method and I'm with James, you know as far as There is not one Thing sorry about that. You know, we can look at a lot of things individually And they like I believe the change creation proves as a creator And look at the symbiotic relationships within creation. All right, so How would I answer? How would I respond to the answer that I gave him? I think I'm fine with it it started off as the Dillahunty-esque approach of well if your God's all knowing he should know what it takes for me for him For me to believe in him and while I can understand The sentiment as far as like a persuasive way of talking to someone as a means to say like, hey This is really where I'm at right now not so much Here are some other guys words that I'm throwing in here So I don't have to answer the question or really think about what you just asked me um I'm saying hey if your God's really all knowing The best one He would know what to do for me to be convinced But I am on my what I can do on my side is at least be open to that evidence and have conversations With people where I'm trying not to give bias questions and just try to have an honest dialogue And that's honestly what I am trying to do in this conversation as well So those two things combined that Dillahunty-ism and the tyronism Throwing together really make uh what I feel a thoughtful comment. So a good job past tyron The response though that I got back from Shannon is basically an argument from creation. It's like, hey So I understand what you're saying but checked out all these things that are created that proves that there's a God Things that are created prove that are a God. I'm looking around at things that are created. Therefore um a God exists and This is gonna lead into because I already know where I'm going to go with this if I if I hear that word is The breakdown of the argument from creation. So let's let's talk about that real quick argument From creation how to break it down Breakdown All right. So how do you break down the argument creation? Tends to be the case that people say creation without understanding A frame of reference of what something that's not created looks like if they don't have a frame of reference for what creation is and isn't How can they make a claim? So like if I don't know what creation Doesn't look like like that's that's gonna be a complicated sentence. Let's back this up If I don't have a frame of reference for what creation is or isn't I don't really have a strong ground to claim that everything's a creation You know and his argument is that everything's a creation And I'll verify that most likely So The the steps breaking down the argument creation is one get them to verify what they mean by creation Or at least verify if everything's a creation because if everything's a creation Then ask them what is in a creation could you give me an example of something that's not a creation? Because now we have examples of things that they claim are creations But if they don't know what something that isn't a creation looks like then they don't really have a frame of reference for what A lack something that isn't created looks like so I can ask them. Hey is empty space also creation. Yes Is like a black vacuum also creation. Yes uh, it was like Like just and like empty nothingness is nothing also creation. They're like, yes. Yes. Okay. So like everything's creation Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So is there any example of something that's not created? I don't know what that would look like. Okay. So if we don't know what something that's not a creation looks like how can we make the A claim with really high confidence that anything's a creation if we don't have that frame of reference It's really important to know what something looks like. So like for example, I'm going to break this down to like this Hey, I know this is a fork. It's a dirty fork But if I didn't know what a fork didn't look like or if I if I said hey I know this is a fork. I know this is a fork Um, I know this is a fork By the way, I don't know what things that aren't forks look like Would you believe me if I told you if I pointed at something randomly in my house and said that's also a fork too Those four things these are all forks No, because I don't have a frame of reference for what fork looks like and in the same way this guy's saying everything's creation By the way, I don't have an example of what something that's not a creation looks like and I couldn't even come up with an example If I had to like think of one It's important to have frame of references and the lack of a frame of reference for someone who's using the argument for creation Is how you highlight Why that's not a good argument to purport that a god exists So the steps that i'm going to do here Oh, sorry did that again is one have them make them commit to Don't commit to that then that's great because now they have a firm reference. We can move forward So this isn't like so much a flowchart. It's just i'm verifying how silly they're being with this argument step one and then step two um highlight the lack of a frame of reference highlight No frame Of reference they need to have a frame of reference So one make them commit to that everything's being created and if not Great because now they have a firm of reference and now they have probably a more reliable claim go on from there See what see what they have to say But if they do say hey everything is created Literally everything Then highlight that they don't have a frame of reference for that and then move on to the next argument. They're having also Um, don't waste time on this if there aren't resting their confidence on here I'm only attacking the argument for creation because it's the first thing that he gave me But there's likely a bunch of other arguments that he has afterwards But you know in the short time span of this conversation I just went with it because like I said, I'm not being as patient as I normally am. Anyway, here we go and the precise mathematics Of the you know cosmos how we can perfectly How we can perfectly you know predict, you know where the planets is that's about to be Can you look at all those things together along with the archeological evidence the historical evidence prophetic evidence of the bible They put all those things together that leads us to believe that it was the god of the past I could see you obviously so does this that makes sense so you I'm seeing you out here, you know, oh, he's got some momentum evidence. My only question would be um I agree that creation That says sarah lean requires a career My question is how do you recognize something as a creation rather than something that just Or something that's not a creation the analogy uses, you know Basically so I'm just he gave me a bunch of um partial uh Evidences for his belief, but I'm not going to play that game of musical chairs with him I'm going to focus on the main one that he gave me which was the argument from creation So that statement that I made is just to refocus the conversation on that main thing that he brought up in the conversation Which was the argument of creation. Let's see how he handles it My opinion all life forms are creation. Are you saying like all pieces of dirt the sky all life forms are creations See how I'm he's he said all life forms, but now we need to know if he's also referring to non-life forms as well Inorganic material organic material. Are they all creations? Well, I like Light and the animals people fair creation, but then planets God created all that also so there's all creations all creations. Yeah, it is all space tracking God is just possible for it. All right Now we have made him commit or at least explain his commitment to this argument He thinks everything is creation empty space planets people plants everything Everything is a creation now. It's a question of whether or not he has a frame of reference for what something that's not created looks like So my question would be like, how do you recognize a creation? Like, what's the method that you're using to recognize something as a creation? I guess mine's for the sense of his like just the fact that it is here the design behind it That would be proof that it exists and that's a good point So what this fallacy is is the uh, it's called the conflation fallacy conflation fallacy And I'm not calling it a conflation fallacy in the conversation But basically what I'm saying is he's equating existence With Well, I can't type today really can't type today. Oh my gosh With creation He's saying these two things are the same thing anything that exists must be created whereas It's possible for things to exist without necessarily for it to be created If you have the model where there are some things that are created and some things that aren't created At least you would have a frame of reference for it Um To say that everything's a creation and to back that up by saying well things exist only proves that things exist It doesn't prove that they're also a creation You have to take an extra leap to say it exists and it was also created And the fact that something exists is not necessarily proof that it was created you can claim it But you can't demonstrate that yet or at least he hasn't yet. So again Don't fall into that hole of well, there's a tree outside. Therefore there's god is like no, there's a tree outside That shows that there's a tree outside How did you get to the the idea that it was created by god? Show me that that's what we need to figure out because i'm open to it if you can show it to me But just saying it exists. Therefore it's created isn't enough Which is kind of pretty sure I had a chance, but it is what I'm looking for is proof of it It is kind of you know, it's it's kind of the argument of Prove to me that a painting had a paint right right right because the term painter or painted painting necessarily implies that it was painted because we require a painter Correct, totally fine, but when I look at say like Uh This rock is a creation What are we doing in our heads to determine that that is a creation? I don't have it. I don't want you asking. I just don't have a suitable answer Can I give you what I think should please do and I'm about to explain probably the thing that I'm thinking right now But basically I'm asking like what's the mechanics that you're using to figure out if something's a creation or not Because the mechanics for determining if something exists is by looking at it or observing it or do some sort of test to figure out Its location and stuff like that We have tests to figure out if things are existing or things are created Um or if things have design or if things are complex but it's not just as Um immediate as just confirming that it exists You have to do an additional step along with that and by that I mean like if something's complex It exists and it's not simple. I know what simple looks like. I know what not simple looks like This is definitely not simple. Therefore. It's complex like there's a steps in my there's steps in that Mental thinking process where you can categorize something just beyond whether or not it exists or not to determine whether or not It's complex same thing with design I can look at something that was designed or something that was not designed to compare the two and be like This looks like something that is designed because I know what things that aren't designed look like I have that frame of reference and now I know that this is something that was designed same thing with creation It exists, but I also have to consider whether it was a creation or not a creation Maybe it just came to existence. Maybe it developed to some other process that wasn't necessarily propagated by a creator and That falls into the umbrella of not created So I have a frame of reference for what things that are created look like and what some things that aren't created look like and I can look at something that exists and see if it fits one of those two categories But the most important thing is that I have that frame of reference to determine Which of those boxes that it goes into and I only do that through informed Mental processes that have a frame of reference if I don't have that frame of reference I can't come to that conclusion with a high degree of confidence and sometimes maybe I don't know is the best answer Which is where I'm at at least on the god question. So let's see how I answer it Please correct one of us if I'm like wrong Because I like to get feedback on this and let me know how appealing it is here. We tend to recognize creations by comparing the things that are not hard design by things that are not designed if I went to A distant planet But if I went to a distant planet and we went there and there was this weird rock formation It looked like a perfect cylinder straight up I wouldn't know based on its surroundings if that was a creation by an alien species or not because I don't have a Frame of reference of what looks like it's been designed on that planet But in america I can look at this temple and say well, I know what temples are I know the store I can buy those from I know this period but things I can look at a tree that's artificially You know bushes are like in shape of a dog and they're like that's clearly not something that I would see in nature I'm comparing this something that I know is designed to something that I know it's not just like I have a frame of reference There and because I have that criteria. I'm able to recognize when I'm wrong I would have verified when I'm right I can test it I can have other people verify and get the same conclusions to me Seems like it's a reliable. I determine if something's created If we live in the model where literally everything is created What are we comparing against that to determine that that's actual creation and if not with everything is created We don't have that thing that's not created to compare it to and if that's the case How are we justified at saying that everything's a creation if we can't recognize if something's been created? I don't I know what you're asking. I just Could you please think about that? You have one of my cards Yeah, and I'm not forcing him to answer at this moment. I just I'm hoping he thinks about this a little bit more Yes, I got one of your cards If you if you literally put some thought into that I know you put it up and if you have an answer I had enough of frank I know what you're asking. I just don't have the words to put it into an answer If you want to take some time with that and get back to me, I would be happy to get back to you Other than you know, I don't say I can argue that this is not a creation Yeah, I would need an example if you showed me an example of something that was not a creation Then I'd be like, okay now at least now you have a frame of reference So that's what I'm saying is Okay, so check this out. I think I know what's coming up Um, I'm saying I don't have We don't have evidence to claim that something is a creation if we don't have a frame of reference And I think he's going to try to do a quick shifting of the burden of the proof to try to get around that point Let's see. We don't have anything that it's not a creation because of that. How do you confirm that something is a creation? That's how do you how do you confirm that it isn't? Oh, you see what he did there. He says how do you how? Did you confirm that it isn't? I'm going to highlight that isn't a creation. Okay, so Again My point isn't that it's not a creation My point is that we don't have a frame of reference to decide either way And you're not right by default if my answer is I don't know either way So like if we don't have a frame of reference to determine if something's a creation or not If you come to the table and say it's all a creation You have to prove that and in the event that you can't it doesn't mean that I think that it's not a creation Like I'm not looking at this. I'm not looking at a mountain outside and saying Oh, that is clearly not made or created by God My argument is we don't have a frame of reference for that because I need to know what something that looks like I need to know what something that I need to know what something that was created by God looks like I need to know what something that isn't created by God looks like in order for me to be justified in saying Anything's created by God or anything's not created by God because I don't have that frame of reference right now And he's claiming that everything is created by God and doesn't have the frame of reference to make that our uh That statement because he doesn't know what the opposite looks like and so By me saying hey, I don't think we have a frame of reference. He's like, well, how do you know that it's not? That's not my argument and it's a subtle shifting of the burden of proof to help him not have to think about his position And the critical mindset that he needs to think about it in so I'm not going to take that bait What I should do in this point is address. Hey Uh, you're not right by default and my position isn't that there isn't a creation might or these things aren't creations My position is that we don't have a frame of reference And we should have a frame of reference before we start making You know assertions that things are creation or aren't a creation. Let's just get a frame of reference. It's really simple Why don't we do that first? Anyway, uh, let's see what happens So like it's not so much proving the negative because I can't prove something Not true like I can't prove the negative of something what I'm looking for is reasons to believe that it is true And if you're saying something is a creation, I'm waiting for evidence to demonstrate that you're not right by default until you can demonstrate it to be Hmm Looking back at this I probably would have answered that differently because I understand what I understand the nature when I'm trying to say the gist of it. It's like, um, I can't prove the negative, right? Like, uh, I feel like that's a little bit more of an obscure term What I'm basically saying is I'm not out here to try to tell people That they're wrong or why they're wrong My argument is let's just have a frame of reference for what we're talking about and if it's good Then I'll believe it because now we have, uh, uh informed point of view to come to conclusions on But until then my positions, I don't know like that coin flip my positions. Hey, I don't know I don't know if this coins heads heads or tails. I can't see the heads. I can't see the tails Let's let's wait until we have better evidence before we come to a conclusion um And then I said you're not right by default and that's also true like anyone who makes the claim of it is this without The informed perspective of knowing what this even looks like or what They what a falsified position would look like Um, they're not justified in saying that and if I say hey, I don't know what the answer myself But that doesn't make you right by default. We both have to work together to try to come to a better assessment And so I probably could have answered that a little bit better. I think um The answer at the first half was a little obscure, but then I went to the you're not right by default It's fine in the moment. I'm not gonna. Hey, I'm not gonna. Hey on myself. You did good by past tyrone. Keep it up And done yes, I do oh no, it's frank. Oh my gosh Oh, I know what you're asking. I just can't frank. I'll give you a better answer Frank or two Frank listen, listen, you're excited guy and I don't want to talk to you But I'm not going to talk to you if you don't have your sunglasses on Straight up He's a character Back and talk about what was going on in this conversation I um, I ended up talking to Shannon by email a little bit after this conversation had taken place um I probably wouldn't have contacted him by email or had that conversation with email afterwards because Uh, I'm not good over text. I'm not really good And for the most part he just gave me a wall of text And then it was like really really bad arguments And so I try to say hey, you know what these these arguments aren't very good And I try to piecemeal them one at a time and show them why and then I was followed up by another wall of text And I'm like, I don't have time to I don't have time for this So I stopped emailing him and that's as much as that went so but I would say this um In the moment in that conversation. I think he had a lot of time to think about the stuff that he was talking about And if he was around another person that knew how to do s.c. Or at least was willing to let him think about these answers. Honestly, we he would have had had um much easier time comprehending A better way to answer the questions that he was presented with today and maybe potentially appreciate A standard of evidence that would have made a more compelling argument for the god that he believed in Or at least had that informed perspective that at least give him an appreciation for having a frame of reference And use that to hopefully be the first person to say hey, I actually figured out god exists I have a frame of reference for it. Would you like to hear that because I'd love to hear that so Yeah, um the whole point of this is showing how you Can talk to anyone about anything because I want more people to be able to do this. I don't want this just to be How many people how many people on youtube do this? It's like the number of people like on my fingers. There's there's there's so many This is so this is such an easy thing to do. I just wish more people um got into uh See as a hobby. It's really good for people Who may be good at arguing may be good at debating but one another option And potentially a more powerful option to get the people that you're talking to to consider why they came to a conclusion and think about it in a really nuanced way with The level of critical thought that allows them to come to better conclusions and better methodologies And rise our overall standard of evidence for the things that we appreciate to be true Um, that's it. Thank you guys so much for coming to this. Um study session with me I'll see you guys later. I post videos on my channel at least once a week Check them out. Um, I'll probably double up these videos or at least start putting them out on my patreon A little bit earlier, but the whole point of this is not to lock away any videos I want people to see as much of the media as I can so Here's there's no paywall or anything like that But I I will keep my youtube channel to about one channel per week But I'll speed putting these up on my patreon account check it out if you want to there's no payment required I'm doing this as a hobby because I love it. So I hope you love it too one day. See you. Have a good one. Bye