 you have to unmute me. Can't hear you Sterling. Okay you got it. So ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate. It is going to be a lot of fun. So first welcome, whether you be Christian, Atheist, or one of the many strange creatures in between, we hope you feel welcome here as we are a neutral channel. We have no positions. We are just here to host the debaters as they make their cases. And if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up. For example, this Saturday between Team Skeptic and Flat Earth Aussie, a Flat Earth debate, which should be a lot of fun and want to let you know folks, for today is a fairly flexible debate where it's going to be a flexible 10 minute opening from each side followed by open discussion for about 60 minutes. Also, if you have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat and just to make it a little easier for me to make sure I get every question in the list for the Q&A at the end. If you tag me with at modern debate, it makes it easier for me to make sure I get every single question in the list. Also, Super Chat is an option in which case you have not only the ability to ask a question, you can also make a comment toward one of the speakers to which they would of course get the chance to respond to. And we ask that you be your regular friendly selves for that. So we are very excited folks. We're going to kick it over to Darth Dawkins first. And for Darth Dawkins, we want to let you know folks, he is back. We are very excited to have him. He's got a 10 minute opening statement. And Darth Dawkins, welcome back to modern day debate. We are thrilled to have you. Yeah, my opening statement is simple, short and sweet. The God of the Bible, the God who created the heavens, the earth has revealed himself through a natural revelation and special revelation. All facts indicate God either individually or collectively, and God has revealed himself through the course of human history to various individuals. And it has been sovereignly and providentially recorded, and that revelation is self authenticating and attestant. If one denies that, or if one simply does not accept the presentation of God's self disclosure and revelation, that will be either be an explicit or an implicit counter claim, which my opponent will have to defend. There will be no further evidentiary support or rational justification given other than my opening statement, that the revelation of God and natural revelation and special revelation is necessary and sufficient to conclude that God exists. And the non acceptance of it is not neutrality. It is an implicit counter claim. And I'm done. You got it. Thanks so much for that. We will now kick it over to Redventure as he'll do his, this is a flexible opening statement, as I had mentioned. So for Redventure, the floor is all yours. You can use as many of those 10 minutes as you'd like for your opening. Thanks for being here. Yeah, thanks for having me. First of all, I'm an atheist who believes no gods exist, right? So that's the position I'm going to be coming from today. I have several arguments that I use to justify this. So in the case of the Christian God or in the case of most the monotheist gods, several of these four will fit forward here. So things like the logical problem of evil, the incoherence of the Trinity in the Christian case, the evidential problem of evil, divine hiddenness are just a few. But that's not good enough for someone who believes no gods exist. I have to go a little step further. And so what I like to look at is interventionism from gods. So oftentimes you'll hear things like a storm or hurricane or something like that was sent by a God. And when saying that, what that implies, or at least to me, is that God's behavior is such that he behaves as if they doesn't exist or other gods, right? And so there's two parts to that. You know, hurricanes and storms and stuff, they happen when the conditions are right for him there. So God's, you know, if God of any sort interventionist, a polytheist God, anything like that wants to do those things, their behavior in such that, you know, they don't exist, right? We have other means and methods to do there. And another one I like to use a little another fun one is what I call the Sims fire argument. So in the Sims in the game, one of the most common kind of mean things to do is to set a fire in a room with your sins in there when you want to kill them. And then you go to build mode, delete the doors, they can't get out and they burn to death. So we don't see anything like that that would be different from what we see naturally occurring and stuff. So interventionism can't be there. So if they're here, if gods exist, they behave in such a way that it don't exist. And so if we want to get from that point, now we get to like the deist interpretation of God. You know, at that point, we have Occam's razor, right? We don't have to multiply your assumptions any further. And I'm sure Darth is going to push that the metaphysical necessity of things like, you know, Aquinas is by ways and stuff's argument from contingency prime mover stuff fits God. But under Aquinas's understanding of divine hiddenness, which I hope Darth will provide some evidence for what he believes or not divine hiddenness, divine simplicity, it can't be the Christian God, you know, it can't be almost any kind of deist God. And the best fit for those arguments is actually what I use the term metaverse just to differentiate from saying universe. If I say universe, people go like, they'll think the local space time. So like in stuff in physics. And so when I say that, I just say metaverse to split it apart. So it's, I mean, it's all the criteria for the prime mover. It doesn't have to be there. Even beyond that, that assumes an argument that infinite regress isn't a thing. I'm not going to defend infinitism tonight. It's a complicated argument. I don't think we're ever going to get to it. But it's just a point that I don't need to accept the metaphysical necessity. I can accept infinite regress either way. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change my view. Let's see, beyond that, the second thing I want to touch on. So Darth has kind of said, you know, fuck it, we're not going to do, he's not complied any other evidence. So he meant, so I want to get into it here, explain kind of what I want to try to hold Darth to in this discussion. You know, be out open upfront with it. So he says natural and special revelation are all you need to know God. But from my understanding of Darth is that Darth denies evolution. I'm not sure if he's a young earth creationist, hopefully he'll answer that afterwards. But those are two things were in his worldview, he denies God's revelation. So I would like to know if he can deny those things, you know, those facts that if, you know, so I'll go back to my thing before I was an atheist, I was a Catholic. And so we believe book of nature, book of scripture. So we take natural revelation and reinterpret our interpretation of scripture, right? So Darth, Darth doesn't seem to hold to that. So I want to know how Darth distinguishes between what the natural facts point to like evolution, old earth, if he's a young earth or I don't know, for sure. But yeah, that's one way. And another one. Darth also likes to argue, and I'm sure that's going to come up. He likes to bring up Hume's problem of induction, and the uniformity of nature. So I'll open up and met right here that I assume those things, right? I don't have a justification that's circular or anything like that, or a justification that can satisfy that. So I assume those when I go out and do those things. My question is, because Darth believes in miracles, that God does miracles, God can change things, how he can, how he doesn't run into a contradiction in trying to use God to justify induction in the uniformity of nature. If he can perform miracles and do the, you know, change them from day to day. To me, that means that, that means that, you know, God can't justify those things. So he has a contradiction in his thing that falls apart in a coherent justification. So, and that wraps up kind of the key points I want to touch. We'll see where the discussion goes. You got it. Thanks so much, Red, for that opening. We will now jump into the open conversation. So gentlemen, we are thrilled to have both of you here. I'm sure this is going to be a lot of fun. Let's just jump right into it. The floor is yours. Okay. You said you reject the natural and special revelation for God. Your position is there is no Creator God. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. That position is a universal negative. Okay. How do you establish any universal? I don't believe universals exist. Okay. If you do not believe any universals exist, then you cannot speak coherently about an array of particulars. You can't talk about dogs. You can't talk about cats. No, I can. Those are classes of things. No, you're wrong. Right. So I would be either some form of anomalous, at the very least, a conceptualist. Right. So I'll just talk about conceptualism. Some of the anomalous stuff is a little wordy, a little high-minded to get into. So conceptualism is that universals don't exist outside our thinking mind and our perception of things. Right. So yeah, I deny universals exist outside of that. So there are no coherent and intelligible universal statements. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying universals don't exist though, right? They exist inside our mind, conceptualism, their concepts. Right. Are any propositional positions that entail a universal? Do they have a truth value of true? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, they can do that. Exceptualism, it's not hard. Okay. So your position is a universal negative. How are you able to establish an account for any universal? Again, I'm a conceptualist or some form of anomalous, but conceptualism I'll take for the argument's sake here. Right? They're concepts. You're making a universal negative. And I think in mine, you're making a universal negative. No, you're wrong on what this is here. Your atheism is not a universal negative. What do you mean by universal negative? If we're talking about universals in particulars. The position, the affirmation that God exists is a universal negative. The proposition that God does not exist is also a universal negative. Are you aware of that? I'm a conceptualist. I've told you as much, right? So there's no, so let me ask you then. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I don't know what that, what you just mean. I'm not getting a clear answer. I just explained what a conceptualist is, you fucking moron. All right. Do you accept, do you accept that the proposition that God exists and the proposition that God does not exist, they're both declarations of the actuality of a universal negative. So walk me through this. Let me hear what you think these things are. Okay. That was a question. When somebody makes a universal negative, it can be a positive statement that denies its negation, or it can just be an outright negation of a positive. So if one asserts that God exists, that is a universal negative which entails the denial of the negation of God that a not God world does not exist. Likewise, a not that doesn't follow. Excuse me. No, it necessarily follows. Okay. Now, both the assertion of God's existence and the assertion that God does not exist, both of these propositional positions of punitive actuality are universal negatives. Okay. Are we clear on that? I still haven't heard the explanation for the universal negatives or what you think that is. A universal negative is a statement that either God exists or God does not exist. Both of those propositions are universal negatives. I've explained it several times. I mean, no, you're just asserting what they are. So let's explain a universal negative. If I assert positively, God exists, that is the negation of a not God world. It's a universal negative. If I assert God does not exist, that also is a universal negative. Okay. It's not very complicated. All right. Now, do you accept that? Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with that, but I don't see how that goes against anything you said about. So you're moving to a different issue on universal instead of universals in particular. Your position is a propositionally a declaration of an actual universal negative. Okay. That's what your position is. It's a universal negative. My position is a punitive actual universal negative. So we're both making universal negatives. What I would like to know from you is in your frame of reference, how are you able to attest an account for that universal negative or any universal negative? So just that the class doesn't exist? Is that what you're looking at? I'm waiting for you to demonstrate your universal negative. How are you able to know that anything is universal, including that there is no ultimate absolute Creator God? Well, I listed a whole bunch of arguments. I can go through them. Which argument do you want to challenge or what argument do you want to go down? I'll fill in the blank. There is no ultimate absolute Creator God because? I said that beforehand. So in the prime mover arguments, God doesn't fit. The best explanation for those for the metaphysical necessity. In those situations, wouldn't be a God. Or at least the God is described by Christians. Maybe you can come up if you're a pantheist or something like that. Are you reasoning abductively? What's the question beyond this? Are you asserting God does not exist through an abductive reasoning process? I have multiple different reasons. Deductive, abductive, and inductive. Different ones. Are you making an abductive reasoning that God does not exist? In that particular case? I'm waiting. I mean, in that particular case, I don't know if that count is abductive. Might be. I have to go back through and look at. No, I just, I need to know a simple answer. Are you making an abductive argument? May I finish please? Are you making an abductive argument that no absolute ultimate eternal Creator God exists? I said, I've made, in my intro, I made, there's deductive arguments. There's abductive arguments and there's inductive arguments that I'm using. I'm using all three to make it. Just trying to go. So what, what's the question that you have after this? What's the next step? What's the next step? Okay, so when you, you put forth your last argument, was it abductive? Yes. Okay, now that's a fallacy because that's an inference to the best explanation. A best explanation is not necessarily true. It's a simplistic evaluation. May I finish please? All right, go ahead. Abductive reasoning doesn't get you to a logically necessary conclusion. Okay, it's a sort of probabilistic evaluation. So when we're talking about God or not, all right, well, let's go back. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me explain. Come back, Darth. Come back. All right. I'm not going to let you run away here. All right. So that portion, all right, so I was talking about first a deductive argument, right? So the prime mover arguments, any things you go through there, and I'm explaining probably not clearly enough as, you know, getting into this big discussion. No, you're not making yourself clear. All right. But so I'm taking a, the deductive argument. So if you think like Aquinas is five ways, right? And I'm saying under Aquinas's understanding of simplicity, which you haven't answered yet. You know, I brought up in my opening there, what your idea is on divine simplicity. But under that view, it can't be enough. I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting for you to give me an answer to fill in the blank. No, absolutely. So come back, come back, come back. I will come back, come back, come back. Come back. You're ignoring what I'm saying. All right, stop. Knock it off, you guys. Knock it off. You guys before we get out of control. Thank you, James. We'll just take a couple of minutes for each person. So originally Darth was saying something and then read you had said, I'm going to like, let me bring you back. And Darth was surprisingly actually like letting you lead the conversation. And then Darth, you started to jump in a little bit. So if you're willing to grant him this point where red was going to go back to a certain thing he had in mind, then I promise we'll come right back to you, Darth. But let's just hear what that question was from red or the statement. And I promise Darth will come right back to you. I just don't want to spiral out. I'm waiting for my question to be answered. That wasn't answered. I promise we'll come right back to that question. Darth, we'll come right back to that question. You know, I'll bulldoze over you if I have to, but I gave a list of arguments in the beginning. So deductive, so the abductive argument I made when talking about the metaverse over, you know, God and stuff, that was on top of a deductive argument towards a metaphysical necessity, right? So when I'm making that argument, I had already granted that in that case, right? I'm just saying that under the divine simplicity, you know, in those arguments, it can't be God. You know, it can't be the Christian God. It can't be any God. And to make it work, I proposed earlier in my opening statement, this metaverse concept that meets all the requirements and doesn't have any of the problems that a God has. So let me, so when we talk about unactualized, actual, what's the phrase, unactualized, actualizer or something like that, anyways, he has no potentiality. So let me ask you, before God created the universe, has he actualized the, what do you want to say, the property or whatever of being a creator before that? Logically prior to creation? No. All right. So he has potentiality still. And so he fails the divine simplicity that's required for the prime mover argument. And so that's why I'm inserting. I'm not making, I'm not making, I didn't make a prime mover argument. You made a big mistake. You seem to be under the illusion that I'm drawing from Aquinas. I'm not, I've never even read Aquinas's works. I'm familiar with them. All right. Well, so then you have no, so what's your argument for a metaphysical necessity? What I would, I'd like, well, I've answered your question. Now, you have made a universal negative that there is no ultimate creator God. I want you to tell me how you know that no ultimate creator God exists. What is it that is ultimate that does exist that would negate God as ultimate? So I'd like to point out to chat here that he hadn't listened to a thing I said and he goes right back to his script, right? He's not going to engage here. So let me ask you this. I answered your question. I answered your question in good faith. No, you didn't. I, I answered your question in good faith. Now I'm waiting for you. So what is your, would you, would you not over talk me please? All right. Now I ask you to show me that no ultimate absolute creator God exists. The only way that you could do that is to show me what is ultimate that is not God. Do you know what is ultimate and absolute and eternal whose properties, whose properties and attributes or I should say which, which properties and attributes collectively would negate an absolute creator God? Do you know what's ultimate? So we'll go back to this, the, the prime, no, I'm getting, I'm answering your question. I explained it once already for chat and then you kind of just ignored it and are asking the question over and over again, right? And ignoring my questions. So in the prime over arguments, especially in Aquinas, it requires a certain simplicity that God fails and you even admit it. You know, God has, you know, before God creates the universe, he hasn't actualized being a creator yet. So at that point he has potentiality and therefore is not simple. It cannot be the metaphysical necessity, the prime mover, right? So you've given that up. I don't see how any of that follows. I'm still waiting for you to tell me. What do you mean it was so I'm still waiting for you to show me the only way that you can show me. So how do, no, no, no, no, how does that not follow? So explain to me why you don't think that follows. I'm still waiting for you to show me the only way for you to demonstrate your universal negative is to present deductively what is absolute and ultimate that is not God. What is that? I've said it multiple times, chat has heard it, right? And so I want to continue on this. I didn't hear what is ultimate. What is it that is ultimate and absolute and what institutes and prescribes all possibility and impossibility that is not God? What is that? Well, so we'll get ignore the possibility impossibility thing. We'll get that question down there. Going further, because that's not important to this question. I didn't ask you what's possible and impossible. I said, what is the ultimate in reality? Will fact institute, so hey, Jack, did you just hear that? He ignored what I said, turned it into something I didn't say. Now, I didn't ask you a question about possibility or impossibility. I simply pointed out, so I wasn't talking about possibility and possibility darts, so quit trying to twist my words. Would you please, would you please mute as Mike? Okay, let's go back to, we have two questions. Each of you have a question, hold on, I'm talking right now, is if you guys each have your own question, what we can do is let's just take turns. And in the event that someone didn't hear something, if you just, I don't think Darth is being, maybe his connection went out or something, I don't think he's like trolling you by saying he didn't hear what the answer was. So I don't know if his connection or what, but so even given the circumstances, if each of you would like to just take a minute to answer the other questions. So we'll start with Darth, and then we'll go over to Red. So, Darth, you have 60 seconds to answer his question, and then we'll do the same with Red. Okay, so whatever characteristics or properties or attributes that you bring up, right, they're going to have to be derivative and subject to what is ultimate, and you conclude that God does not possess this. Now, since the concept of God would be that which institutes all possibility and impossibility, the only way that you can demonstrate that there is no God is not to appeal to certain characteristics that are out there through lines of logic. You're going to have to show me and defend what is it that is ultimate and absolute that is not God as a concrete universal to show that God does not exist. In order to falsify A, you have to defend not A. So my question to you is, what is it that is ultimate and absolute, and the ground of all possibility and impossibility that's not God? What is it? All right, so the metaphysical necessity I stated in my opening statement, I stated several times, is this concept of a metaverse. It means all the criteria that are laid out by the prime mover arguments, right? Something that God does not, right? So as I stated before, and I asked you and you agree to this, that before God created the universe, God hadn't actualized being a creator. Therefore, God still has potentiality and is not simple enough to satisfy the properties of the metaphysical necessity laid out by those arguments. Now, if you want to drop those arguments and go to some other kind of argument in favor of some sort of metaphysical necessity, so probably like the quam, I imagine we can get into that. But you're going to have to give up these. So the metaverse is what is ultimate and absolute that is your negator for God? Oh, I don't even have to talk about that as a negator for God, right? So I point out that God doesn't satisfy the metaphysical necessity, the properties that you want. You're not understanding, okay? In order to falsify what is ultimate, you have to put on the table what is ultimate that is it, that is its negator. So that's not necessarily true. No, no, it is necessarily true, it follows from the laws of logic. In order to falsify A, you have to present not A. In order to falsify God, you have to present what is ultimate that is not God. Is your ultimate that is not God that falsifies God? Is it the metaverse? No, that's so hold on, that is wrong. So through logic and stuff, I just have to point out that your premises are false. They're not true, right? To falsify your claims right through logic. So trying to say you're not you're not addressing my question. You keep on evading it. I want to know is the metaverse what you're appealing to, which is ultimate, and is in itself a negation of God being ultimate? So yes, for sake of this argument, yes, because okay, no, hold on. I said so you first hold on to get past, you know, any metaphysical necessity, you still have to demonstrate that infinite regress is impossible. And I've seen no good arguments to support that. But I'm not willing, hold on a second, there's a why we're while we're waiting for him to come back to the microphone. He just went on record saying that the metaverse let's wait until he's not even here to hear this. So let's just wait a second. I promise we'll I'll give you a shot to make your case. But do want to remind you folks that the speaker's links, including darts, are in the description a little bit delayed on that. So thanks for your patience. Yeah. And sorry about that. No problem. Yeah, the other rooms be noisy. So now you can't you cannot appeal to various strains of logic, because whatever you're appealing to is going to have to derive from what is ultimate. Now, you know, that's wrong. Okay, well, then here's what you're not understanding. Okay, no, so hold on, let me give you a little logic 101 here. But so the laws of logic that you tried to hold to and craft your argument through our axioms of the system, whether or not they're true here. So we have different forms of logic that change those so you don't know what is the laws of logic or universal. So hold on. Let me get here quick. Don't get here. Let me explain this to you, right? You know, this whole time you've been dodging and evading almost all my I have not been dodging and evaded. I've asked that I just haven't given you the answers you wanted from the YouTube audience clearly see it. Okay, we'll let them be the judges later, but let me continue here. All right, I will. So the axioms of logic, right? So, you know, principle of identity, principle of non-contradiction, principle of excluded metal. There are other logics that don't use those. Are you asserting that those are true? I'm not saying anything about the truth of them. They're the axioms of the system of logic and how we use them. So we can change them and address different things, right? So we have logics that do away with the law of excluded metal. Yeah, you just listen, I know, hold on. You're just giving me rhetoric. No, no, this isn't rhetoric. This is explaining. Duncan, it's just to explain to the audience as well, like what his argument is, and then I promise we'll give you a chance to respond. Yeah, so anyway, so we have logics that do away with the principle of excluded metal. So if your argument's going to hold hands on those classical principles, laws of logic, whatever you want to say, are set in stone, everything else there, and we can't do that here, but we have logics that do away with it. So we have multivariate logics, fuzzy logics and stuff like that that do away with the law of excluded metal. And then we get into dialectetic pair consistent logics that at the very least weaken, if not, in some cases, get rid of the law of non-contradiction, right? So going from this here, so let me ask you this. Using logic, let's say we're starting a country, all right? And in the Constitution, we write all landowners can vote. And then in another line in the Constitution, we say no women can vote. Let's say somewhere in the future that a woman acquires land, right? So using the classical laws of logic, can you resolve that? What's the conclusion? Can she vote or can she not vote? Well, I don't consider any of those reasonings coherent and intelligible because you haven't demonstrated that the ultimate that they derive from actually exists. So those reasonings that you have put forth, you putidly put forth that they derive from the, why did you put it, the multiverse? No, I never said multiverse and none of this, none of this is a derivation. We don't need any of that to- What was the name? I said metaverse. Okay, the metaverse. Thank you. Do all of these reasonings and thinking and thoughts, whatever, do all of these derive and depend on the ultimate of the metaverse? These are axioms of logic, right? It's no depending on any of this stuff. Nope, nope, nope. They don't depend. They're axioms, right? We can change them. So if you would answer my question, don't go run away from the question. All right, guys, hold on a second. Yeah, thank you. You got to step in, James, because this is turning into a fuster, fuster like the previous interlocutors. He's acting like a child. Okay. Dude, I'm steamrolling your shitty argument, your shitty script. So can we go back to the question? Because that's- I hate to mute both of you, but you guys, I just spent a long day. So what we're going to do is, we're going to give you each a couple of minutes to go back and forth. So do me a favor, hang with me. We're jumping right back into it. So would one of you be willing to defer to the other and letting them ask their next question? Well, my question is still outstanding. All of these principles that he's putting forth, unless he wants to advocate that they're ultimate and non-derivational, then they are putatively derived from his metaverse. So what I want to know is, has he given us an argument that what is ultimate and absolute is the metaverse? Have you established that so that you can derive possibilities and impossibilities such as various systems of logic? Because various systems of logic will be within the domain of possibilities. Possibilities and impossibilities will be instituted and sustained by what is ultimate in your model of reality, which you stated is the metaverse. Have you given us an argument for the necessary existence of the metaverse? Yes, I've already gone through this, through the prime mover argument and explaining how God can't accomplish it. God falls apart and you've agreed to that. No, I'm talking about the metaverse. Yes, and part of the argument to get there, to what satisfies the properties and everything for the prime mover in those arguments. What metaverse? I'm waiting for you to defend that there is a metaverse and that it's absolute, eternal, and ultimate. And by the way, is this metaverse a concrete one or an abstract one? It'd be concrete, so don't go down that argument. Okay, then if it's a concrete one, then you can make no distinctions. Any appeal to distinctions of the concrete one of the metaverse would be illusory. They wouldn't exist if it is a concrete one. Were you aware of that? I mean, it's your script. I mean, you don't want to follow on and listen to what I'm saying. You're going to run your script wherever you want to go. So can we get back? Do you know what a concrete one is in philosophy? Explain it to me. I want to see you explain it to me. If something is a concrete one, first of all, it's not an abstraction. Okay. So it's an actuality that is not an abstraction, like for example, a set of particulars where we speak of it with one term or token, that would be an abstraction. So you said that the metaverse, which provides for possibilities and various systems of logic and axioms. So hold on. I never said any of that about the metaverse, right? We were talking about a metaphysical necessity where metaverse. So quit trying. Hold on. Hold on. You're over talking me. I'd like to finish. You told me that the metaverse is a concrete one. Therefore, by definition of a concrete one, there cannot be concrete particulars. Therefore, you cannot talk about the actuality of particulars or actual distinctions when you refer to the concrete one. So it's got a concrete one. So what is God? Nope. It's got a concrete one. The God of the Bible is His oneness and His manyness have equal ultimacy. And we know this because He has revealed that through self-disclosure, through special revelation. Your metaverse that you told me about is that it's a concrete one. Now, since it's a concrete one, you cannot invoke any actual particulars. I'd like to finish. Since your metaverse that you're using as an ultimate, as the Defeater for God as the ultimate, your concrete one has no distinctions or particulars in it. Therefore, all of your invoking of particulars and distinctions do not exist because your metaverse is all that there is ultimately. And there are no distinctions. So come back to that. You cut out a bit. I missed the part of what your answer is to what God is. Okay. I said God is what is ultimate. Your metaverse is that No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, hold on. Hold on. Come back. Come back. I asked you if God was a concrete one, right? Don't just say God is ultimate. You need to chill out. I'll be glad to answer you, but you need to act like an adult. You haven't answered me once. You've gone under your script. You need to act like an adult. I'm acting like an adult here. I'm not letting you run away from my stuff. No, you are not. You're being argumentative. Hold on a second. Don't give me the fault of you guys. I'm conducting myself properly here, James. Darth, you have to just chill out. Okay. You haven't listened to me once. What we were going to do is And then you argued a bunch of things. I said that I didn't say it. What we are going to do is I'm perfectly calm. I'm not the one who's being rude here, James. Hold on, Darth. I'm going to, we're going to get back on track. So what we're going to do is I think that red you would ask Darth, I think it was if God is an ultimate or something to that effect. He said, he said, I said, I said, God is he is his oneness and his manyness have equal ultimacy. Okay. The God of the Bible has revealed that he is one God, one being, one essence and within his oneness and his essence, there are three persons, okay, which there's a plurality within his oneness, his oneness and his diversity have equal ultimacy. Now, you do not accept that exist. Now, any, okay, good. Okay. Well, then the, then the, okay. So then if the, if the trinity is incoherent, is it because you reject the notion of the one and the many? Do you reject the trinitarian doctrine of the one and the many that God's oneness and manyness have equal ultimacy? Do you reject that nothing can possess oneness and manyness and equal ultimacy? Nothing. I don't know. I don't know anything about nothing, right? Okay. So you're not even understanding, you're not even understanding the concept now. Okay. Do you, I want to know is, are you sticking with the, the metaverse that got, that is everything? Is that a concrete one? So this is just going to be an interrogation from this point. I want to know if your metaverse is a concrete one. I don't know. Honestly, I don't know, but it fits. Well, wait a minute. So a few minutes ago, you were absolute that the metaverse was a concrete one. Now you don't know. I want to go on to the next part of your script art. Let's keep going. So you, so you don't, so you don't, you don't know whether the metaverse is a concrete one or not a concrete one. So let's go back to what I said in my opening statement. Nope. Darth be quiet. I'm going to talk right over you. I don't care what you think. So hold on. Moderators, please step in. So the opening. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on guys. Hold on. So if I understand right. So Darth, you were asking a question of red and you were referring to something that was previously said in the conversation earlier. And so let's give red a chance to kind of clarify what you are in congruent. Hold on a second. Is the metaverse a concrete one or not a concrete one? Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. We've got that question. We'll let red respond now. So in my opening statement, when I brought this idea up, I also brought out that I haven't ruled out infinite regress. Now arguing for infinities. Not answering my question. Okay. I'm getting to it. All right. You're trying to pigeonhole me to where you want to go, but I'm not going to let you do it. Okay. Go ahead. So in my opening, I said, I haven't ruled out the infinite regress, right? But the arguments for infinities are pretty tough, hard to explain sometimes, especially when in discussion with you. So it's not something I was willing to defend. And so for Seika argument, I would accept infinite regress doesn't exist, right? So it could be, but it doesn't change whether or not you're not addressing my question. I'm getting to it, Darth. I've already, everything you've just said now, I've heard this all before. I want an answer to my question. Okay, Darth, we're going to let him go. So we'll give him a chance here. But before we hear more from you, let's give him a chance to finish attempting to answer the question. Alrighty. So when I'm making the argument for the metaverse, right, it's trying to explain something that would fit the metaphysical necessity and the properties and stuff from those arguments, right? And so when arguing for the existence of the metaverse, part of the argument is that God in those arguments can't have any potentiality. And you agreed God at one point had potentiality, right? So God fails to be the metaphysical necessity to those arguments, right? And so I proposed like a metaverse, right? That fits in between this. So where the universe is and stuff like that, if there is more than one, who knows, we don't know that stuff. But that fits all the criterias and sustains the universe and stuff there, but it's not a creator, right? It's not creating anything. It's not anything that's doing. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Okay, let's, how about this, what we could do? It'll be like, we'll have, hold on, yeah, I'm getting there. So what we're going to do is once Red feels that he has answered it, he can just say, you know, ready and which time it means that he is done giving all the details of his answer. And he's saying, okay, Darth, what's your time? Have I asked the question, James? I have no idea, Darth. We're going to go over to we're going to go over to Red now. So we do have to give him a chance to respond if you is the metaverse a concrete one. Gotcha. It is unimportant to the questions that we were dealing with when you brought up critical to it. No, it's not. You evaded because the attribute, the attribute or attributes of the metaverse will dictate what is coherent. Now, the mistake that you're making is that you think that there are certain logical principles that are higher than everything else. I never said that. Hey, hold on, come back. You're trying to put that in my mouth. I didn't say that. I said there were axioms and we can change the axioms, right? And so that's how we got on this metaverse stuff and the your concrete answer is a metaverse ultimate. Again, I've already explained that through the arguments and stuff and fitting through there. We already got that. So let's come back to the logic stuff that you ran from. Darth, let's go back. I've answered it countless times. Let's go back. I've explained the metaphysical necessity and why the metaverse fits there. I've already gone through the argument why God fails, right? You agree. What we can do is God has potentiality. So God is not simple. So God cannot be the metaphysical necessity in those arguments. No, but this is the argument. You got blown the fuck out. So let's go on to the logic stuff that you're running from. James, you promised me you were going to get me a serious interlocutor. So I have a serious interlocutor. I blew the shit out of your argument. Here we go. Okay, Darth. What we're going to do is we're going to give you guys, we're going to give, we're going to give, all right, Darth, they can't hear you, Darth. I'm sorry, but so listen. Yeah, I promise you, I will call you out. Darth, how do you Yeah, Darth. I told you, Darth. Okay, Darth, hold on. We're on this. It's like we're all friends here. How do you might know how to unmute yourself? You know, you know, Darth, stop. Listen, I'm being very here. Okay. Thank you, Darth. This is like a game for you, Darth. Darth. Okay, Darth. Darth. How are you unmuting yourself? Is this a sort of trick? Do you have some sort of, it's, it's, it's not, it's, Darth, if you just give me like eight seconds to explain, we can keep the conversation going. Why are you getting so mad? Just, it's okay. No, I'm not. Okay, we're going to kick it over to red. Is he's trying to bring in a new argument or question? So I know, Darth, that you've asked a question and you didn't feel like it's answered. But one thing we do need to do is we need to kind of do a favor and, and also, you promised Darth, we have to let red run his argument as well. So I want to hear an answer. I promise what we do, Darth, is we can go back to your question. And then, you know, but that's after red gets to ask kids. Okay, I know, I think I've heard this story before. Okay, so we're going to do this. Yeah. Yeah. Darth. I wonder why that is. Darth? Okay, so go ahead, red. Thanks for your patience. Yeah, so the stuff he was getting away from was, I was saying, these logical principles are axioms. We can change them in a different thing. And there's just ways of ordering the thought, right? It doesn't matter whatever is ultimate or what any of these other arguments he wants to run and hide behind, right? But he also wants ultimate. So it does matter. Do you know why? You know why it matters, right? Because what is ultimate? What is ultimate? Well, let me do our character. He just said, he just said, it doesn't matter. It's ultimate. Well, it does matter. Darth, can we let him ask a question? We want to give him a chance to ask questions. How about what he did we get getting to answer my question? You've done this five years in a row. Listen, Darth, it's simply like this is like Skyler. So like, sometimes people ask a question. And it's not the way that, you know, maybe we want to yes or no or something like that, but we can't, I can't like hold them down and like force them to say yes or no. Do you address my question, James? This is, he gave in what he thought was an answer to your question. Do you think it was an answer to my question, James? I'm not Darth. I'm not going to have you drag me into your debate. I'm not going to take sides. So yeah, well, you're the moderator, James, which is exactly why I won't take sides. So what we're going to do is we're going to let Red ask a question. We can come back to your question. No, I'm still waiting for my question to be answered. We can come back to that after. We'll come back to that after. Okay, Red, go ahead and ask a question. You're terrible. You're absolutely terrible. Okay, got you. Duly noted. Thank you. All right, go ahead, Red. Yeah. All right. So the, what I was getting at is when I said the ultimate doesn't matter. Any other other stuff, anything doesn't matter is when we were talking about logic and the axioms, the principles that undergrade the different logics, right? So in having this discussion, now, if he wants to push me to a point where I say, well, the laws of logic are universal and all this other stuff, they're axioms, they're a way of organizing our thoughts, they're a way of dealing with that deduction. So part of the question I brought to his answer or had him try to answer was, so let's take the classical principles of logic, identity, non-contradiction, law of excluding metal and all the stuff that goes with that stuff. And I proposed a situation where in starting a new country in our Constitution, we write the first line. Please don't repeat yourself. I already heard you. No, I want to bring it back to here because you didn't answer. You ran into a different direction already. You're trying to redirect. It's, I'm trying to bring this point up because of the stuff you're trying to make when we're talking about logic. Simple question. Does everything that you're saying now derive from the ultimate? Darth, let's let him ask his question. Axiom, we got back to you, right? They're things you can take as the base of our system. Assumptions, if you will, presuppositions, if you want to say that way as a presuppo. Are these things that you're asserting, are they real? He's just going to try to drive back to the script. So I'm going to keep going on what I'm saying, James. He can keep chatting here. Let me get to the point I was making. He's going to try to help. I'm going to keep making the points. So the question I was asking, we have to give him a chance to make his point. So in his hypothetical, right? Because this is a show, because part of Darth's thing is a lot of the time. I want you to tell me about your... Darth. Darth. So anyways, under the classical laws of logic, identity, not contradiction, law of excluded metal. We have a situation. We write a constitution, right? In one line, all property owners can vote. And the second line, women can vote. Sometime in the future, a woman acquires property. Can she vote? Use logic to solve that classical logic with those laws. Can you do that, Darth? Can she vote or can she not? In your worldview, there's no grounds for logic and reason. No, no. We start from... You said, would you not over talk me? Maybe someday you can grow up and act like an adult. Now, in your worldview, you just stated a minute ago, ultimate does not matter. It's not relevant. So no, it's not relevant to logic, right? Okay. To be fair, let's give Darth a chance to finish and then I promise we'll come right back to your question. This is the problem in our conversation. Okay. You want to dodge and evade. I'm not talking to red. So the problem in our interaction here is the same problem I have with all of my interlocutors. Listen, we get it. I'm asking, I'm making a point to red. Red. Okay. You said it doesn't matter. Listen, I already addressed it. I'm speaking to red. Gotcha. Red. So all of these principles that you're invoking, either they derive and depend upon what is ultimate or they do not derive and depend upon what is ultimate. Which is your position, Red? Again, we're talking about logic and James, he avoided the question and the point I was trying to make here to go back to the script. But again, James, he's evading the question. Okay. Hello, pot, right? If you think I'm evading, what the hell are you doing? Okay. So I think that I do remember that last, when I was like kind of zoomed in or anchored in the conversation, red had asked Darth a question and then Darth is answering and then red answered his question. Well, we, I think that I was on, I was defending you. I was saying, hold on red, because red was interjecting a bit. And I said, hold on red, let's let him finish the question. Did red, do you feel like that question? Can you remember for me? I'm so sorry. I've gotten my attention to split. What that particular question was. Yeah. So I was asking him, we give a situation using the classical nozzle logic. Can he tell me the correct answer, whether or not this woman can vote, right? So the first line is in the constitution. Landowners can vote. The second line is women can't vote. Sometime in the future, women can vote. Use the classical laws of logic to solve that problem. Yeah. In your worldview, there's no ground for reason or logic. Now, I answered your question again. Now, these principles and concepts that you're putting forth, either they derive and depend upon what is ultimate or they do not derive and depend upon what is ultimate, which is your position, red? Again, you have been misunderstood. You have misunderstood what I've been saying, right? You don't understand what's going on. I'm telling you, doc, you don't understand that you're evading or he didn't cut you off when you said that he has no foundation for logic in his worldview. So let's just quick let him answer your question. So I'll point out, he didn't answer the question, how he solves that with logic. And so I'm talking about axioms and how we can change those axioms for different forms of logic, right? So they don't matter if there's an ultimate or anything there for those things, right? They're systems region. So we can do this with your math. Hold on. Yes, I'm addressing the question. So we can do this with math as well too. So like one of my favorites is do parallel lines cross and math, right? Do parallel lines cross? Does anybody know? I'm waiting for an answer to my question. I'm getting to it. This is part of the point. I'm making a point, all right? Hold on. Hold on. Dareth, we, it's fine if you at the end of him answering, if you want to say, Hey, you didn't answer the question, which originally I asked this question, but let's just let him hear him. James, did you hear him specifically address my question? Dareth, I'm not going to play. Of course you are because you're a little spine, a little jellyfish. Oh, why do you have to make it personal? Okay, so we've all fabricated the YouTube audience. Wait, no way. We already got that part. You already asked him the question. I will be quiet. I waited an answer to my question. I don't know. So the answer, so the, so what he's trying to pigeonhole this into is that any and all principles and stuff are relying on the ultimate. So when I bring up these different forms of logic, these questions, and in this case, shifting over to math, right? Parallel lines cross and math. Most people probably say no, right? But we have different math, right? And one math parallel lines will cross, right? So non Euclidean math. And what happens there is we change the axioms. I'm not hearing it. So having an ultimate doesn't, an ultimate doesn't matter when we have a set of axioms and can work from that way, right? It's a simple foundation. Do you have a comprehension? Okay, I've answered the question chat. Have I not answered the question? No, no, you bring this up here. Let's see it. Let's see some ones in the chat if you think I answered it. These principles that you are invoking. Okay. Do they derive and depend from what is ultimate? Or do they not? How many times do I have to say no, they're axioms. They're things. Okay. All right. So there's no reason. So there's no reason why these things exist. Are they brute facts? No, I'm not. We can change the axioms of logic to deal with contradictions. Whatever these particulars that you're talking about, do particulars exist in your world? So why are we back to particulars all of a sudden when we're talking about axioms of logic? Every time you talk about logic, reason, things like that you're talking about. Well, your question was whether or not they depend on what's ultimate or not. I've been explaining to it. Okay, hold on. I've already said chat agrees, chat all ones are in there. Are these principles that you are invoking? Okay. Okay. So Darth, I muted you again. I hate to do that, but I had to do it. So what we're going to do basically is if you want to mention at the end that he didn't answer the question, that's totally okay, but let's just let him finish. Okay. So, Red, if you have any last points for that last question? Yeah. So what I was getting at with this point, right? So he wants to pan everything has to go back to the ultimate. And we can take, you know, it's a simple foundationalism and stuff we can take from a set of assumptions, axioms, whatever, properly, basically, whatever you want to do there and get derivative beliefs from, right? And so when I was bringing up math, I'm not feeling, I'm explaining it, right? No, you want all through chat from, you haven't addressed my question. I have. I've addressed it and I'm explaining more before you go on to the next question. Okay. That was my last question. What was my last question to you? The last one, the one that I was answering was one of these principles and I asked you, do these principles? Well, so you evaded and you went over to particulars when I was my last question that I asked you. So the one I was answering before you tried to throw the particulars question was, do these principles rely on some ultimate before that and stuff? And I've been saying the last question was, are these principles, these real things that you're invoking? Are they brute facts or do these real things that you're invoking, do they derive and depend upon what's ultimate? They're axioms, bud, right? I explained this time again and I'm going through that here. Axioms, properly, basic beliefs, whatever you want to say. I have never said brute fact. You're trying to pigeonhole me. You're trying to go down your script. I'm giving you the answer. You don't like it and you want to move on it. I'm not letting you move on. Either these real things that you are invoking, either they are brute facts or they are not brute facts. Are these real things that you are invoking brute facts? I never brought up brute facts once. You're bringing that up. Okay. That's not an answer to my question. Are these real things that you are invoking? Are they brute facts? They have no explanation for why they exist or are they derived and depend on what is ultimate? Neither. Okay. There is no third category, sir. Yeah, there is. I've been explaining that third category the whole time. Do you know what a brute fact is? I know what a brute fact is, but I didn't claim a brute fact. No, you did. Let's go back to what I actually said. Do these things that you are invoking are real? Do they exist in virtue of something that they derive and depend upon, such as an ultimate? Or do these real things that you are talking about, do they exist with no identifiable reason? Neither. There's no third option. Is that again? There's no third option. There is a third option. No, there isn't. Have you ever heard of a law of excluded mental? Okay. Either something is A or is not A. I've been just talking about how we can change and move those. Please do not over talk me. Now, either these real things that you are invoking are ultimate themselves or they're derived from that, that they're ultimate, right? They're derived from an ultimate. Either something ultimate or themselves are ultimate or they are without reason. In other words, there's no reason why these real things. So these real things that you're invoking, either they exist because of a reason or they exist without reason. Which is it? So, you just heard Darth bring up the law of excluded mental. And earlier in this discussion, I mentioned we have logics that do away with the law of excluded mental, right? They're axioms. And we can change the axiom in there. That's why we have fuzzy logic, multi-valued logic, right? I'm not filibustering. This is the answer. You're trying to force me into something that's not what I'm saying because it doesn't fit your script. Okay, Darth. Okay, Darth, like we're going to go to the Q&A shortly. So thank you, Darth. Hey, James, if we want to move on to a different part, a different couple of things to hit. There's a couple of things I brought up. I wanted to hit with Darth that, you know, he hasn't got, we haven't gotten to. So if we go, before we go to the Q&A, if you don't mind me bringing it up. Okay, so Darth is quite triggered right now. Darth, I don't know how you found out how to unmute yourself. It's, so what we're going to do is, Darth, okay, just chill out. Darth, did I just hear what I think? I'm telling you, right? Darth, okay, I just need you to relax. Darth, okay, Darth, seriously, you're the only person that I've ever wanted to give the boot to. Okay, just calm down. Okay, no, you'd like it too much because you're sick. Okay, just relax. Darth, I just, Darth, no. Okay, so what we're going to do is go into Q&A shortly. So do you mind if I ask some of those things and at least we're not doing anything? Oh, yes, we are. Okay, no, we're not. Darth, why are you always so uptight? It's like you had a bad day or something. Okay, so let's just hear from the question. Let's hear the question from Red. Then we can go to Q&A. No, there's not. Darth, you can interrupt him every time. Darth, you have to let other people talk. Seriously. Okay, here we go. We're going to kick it over to Red. Go ahead, Red. All right, so there's a couple of points in my opening statement that I wanted Darth to address that we haven't gotten to yet. It won't be answered. What's the let me just lay it out here for the chat and kind of lay out where- No, no, it will not be answered. I don't care if you answer, Darth. All right, I just want to have it laid out here in the mind so it's not ignored, right? Everybody's going to get lost into all the fun we had in the middle. Yeah, Red. Yeah, you promised me you were going to have an adult game. So I don't know if anybody heard anything. So how far back do I got to go? Like four seconds. Four seconds. All right, so Darth mentions natural revelation in his argument and his support for his system, right? And so part of that in his view, and I've heard him argue elsewhere, that God justifies induction, right? So that solves the problem of induction and stuff like that. But he believes in miracles. How does he rectify that? How does he square that circle there? But even if it does, even if God does justify induction and the uniform and the HN and all that stuff, why does Darth deny things like evolution, right? So the question that would come out of that, you know, his denial of evolution in the natural revelation is how he determines what is and what isn't the natural revelation, right? That way he's going to deny evolution, right? Because the natural revelation says, hey, evolution's a thing. This is how God did it, right? As a former Catholic, I had no problem with evolution. So those are the kind of two things dealing with this natural revelation point. Are you done? Oh, I'm done. Okay. I'm going to repeat the same question you did not address. Are the things that you are invoking that are real? Are they brute facts? Do they exist without any reason, ultimately? Either. No, it's either it's either they exist with reason, or they do not have a reason, ultimately. No, it's the false dilemma. What is the third option? So you changed it from reasons of the button either, right? They're axioms. What is the third option? They're axioms, they're assumptions, they're things of presupposition. Are axioms real? What do you mean by real? Do the axioms exist? No, axioms we take are, well, depends on what... Is what you are invoking real? The laws of logic? No. They're axioms to a system of deduction. Are axioms real? I mean, the axioms we take as true might be real, so they take things like... Are the truth claims that you are presenting to me now, are they real? The truth claims? Are you making any truth claims? So are you saying they're true? Or what? Are you making any truth claims? Sure. Are you making any truth claims? Sure. Are these truth claims, these things that you're invoking are real? Either they are brute facts, they exist, they're real, but they exist for no reason, or they exist in virtue of what is ultimate. Now, you said it's neither. What's the third option that these real things exist? So now you're moving the discussion around in a couple of different terms, right? So when we were talking about like the laws of logic, the principles of logic... I want an answer to the question. The third option. So truth has to be a real object that exists in reality. What is the third option? Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, because now we've got to do making truth claims and whether or not and then you're calling truth claims a real. I want to use two bodies to know he's running out and flying. No, no, no. Listen, let me ask you a question to clarify. I'm waiting for you. I'm waiting for answer. So is it true that Superman can fly? Okay. Is it true that Superman can fly? Is that real? Superman is not real. But is it true that Superman can fly? There is no Superman. Superman is imaginary. He doesn't exist. Now... But it's still true that in the world constructed for Superman, Superman can fly, right? Even if that truth is not a real object in reality. Superman, Superman does not exist. Superman is not real. Now, are you... But the truth that Superman can fly is true, right? Are you putting forth to me, are you the propositions that you are sorting? Are they fiction or non-fiction? Well, in the Superman thing, yeah, it's fiction. But is it true that Superman can fly? Answer the question. Is it true that Superman can fly? You do not know how to have an adult conversation. I do, right? I'm trying to put the question in order because you're trying to ask him. You promised me, James. You promised me, you were... Okay, so we will let Red have this last word with an answer and then we will go into the Q&A. You broke your promise. He wanted to get... When he started saying truth claims are real, like as if truth in anything there exists. So any and all truth exists, right? And so I brought up, can Superman fly, right? Is that true? It's true that Superman can fly, right? The point of that is that not all truth is necessarily real in reality here, right? I mean, this is going to go into like modalities in possible worlds and stuff, right? And worlds that don't actually exist. So you're putting forth fiction... But then we can say two things about him. Are you putting forth fiction? Oh my god. He doesn't understand the argument. No. So I want to know... He doesn't understand the argument. Are the things that you are invoking, are they real? Okay. Are they real? What do you mean by real? That they exist. I mean, they exist, but they don't exist in real. Okay. Now, these things that you are invoking that they exist without reference to God, are they brute facts or not brute facts? They're axioms. Are they brute facts or not brute facts? They're axioms. They're neither. Are they brute facts or not brute facts? They're axioms. They're neither. Are they brute facts or not brute facts? They're axioms. They're neither. We're going to go into the Q&A. Are your axioms... Hold on. Are your axioms... Thanks so much. Darth, when we have to go into the Q&A, we have to go into the Q&A. Hey, here's my question. Are his axioms... This is a legitimate question. I'm responding here. You've been extremely rude. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. And you've been very rude to me. When you can have a conversation like an adult, Darth, we can talk about it. You broke your promise to me, James. Listen, you broke your promise to everybody. You broke your promise to the whole planet. All right. Here we go. You broke your promise to me. Listen, you broke the most promises, Darth. Here we go. No. Okay. Now you're lying, James. Thanks so much, Darth. James, James, now you're lying to the youth of the audience. You said that you were going to be reasonable. You said you were going to be reasonable. You know, I am being reasonable and I'm not going to be... Darth? Okay. Thank you. You know what, James? Hey, James. Darth. Don't ask me to be... Darth. Okay. Darth. Listen. What the heck? Okay. That's all right. That's who it makes it easier on me. We still not trying to brag folks, but we've still never actually booted anybody. Nobody's more tolerant than modern native bait. Believe me. Okay. People love to talk about being tolerant, but we put up with Darth. Okay. So next up. Oh, Darth. No hard feelings, but Darth, come on, man. You have to seriously. Sometimes it's a little bit too much. So we'll ask as many as we can that are relevant, beware, Rad, that Darth may pop back into the Zoom window and start criticizing me. That happens sometimes. Okay. All right. I'm ready for it. I had a lot of fun tonight, James. Always fun. Always fun with Darth. Okay. Oh my goodness. We survived it. Let's see. I'm almost there. Duncan atheism. Thanks for your super chat from, I'm sorry, Wilson, who said, James, I just hope you properly screened Duncan Donuts, Duncan atheisms, or Darth, Darth Dawkins opponent this time, because nobody wants to see another cry session on discord. I didn't know that. Okay. Stephen team. Thanks for your super chat is said. I'm sold. Congrats, Darth on the win. Mathura J. Disco. Thanks for your super chat. Who said the only revelation is Darth is a, I'm not going to bad mouth them all is around, but thanks for that super chat, Mathura J. Movie theory. Thanks for your super chat. Said excited to see the butthurt atheists blame the moderator for their side losing. LOL. Watch folks. I guarantee it'll happen. Michael, our production was wrong. Sorry. I get Michael and movie theory confused. Movie theory. I am officially removing your wrench because you are just so rude. We are, we're very fair. We're very tolerant. The only rule that we have hard and fast is we'll never have hate speech here. I'm usually very patient. So I'm not going to, I'm not censoring movie theory, but having the wrench is a privilege. Movie theory. You're fired. Okay. I'm sorry, Wilson. Thanks for your super chat. Who said James stop over talking Darth when Darth isn't speaking. Thanks for that. Michael Dresden. Thanks for your super chat. Got a critic here. Red said, oh, Red is already struggling. He's our neighborhood troll in case you hadn't known. But if you want to respond, you can if you don't want to, that's totally. Well, in terms of when it was in the debate, we'll see where we're at. But I don't know what it's in reference to, but. I think he was just saying that for being a troll. He's, he trolls all the time. Maynard, same things for your super chat says is over talking Darth a universal negative. Thanks for your super chat from Mothra J disco. Let's see again. Pretty hard on Darth, but it's like car Carol Snow. Thanks for your super chat. Didn't see a question, but if you have one fired into the old chat and I'll read it for you. Andrew Milne. Thanks for your super chat. Who says, has anybody seen my daddy? It's been eight years. Okay. Thank you for that. You boss for a J disco. Thanks for your super chat. Who said universal truth in Darth. All right. I don't want to be too hard on him when he's gone. T yoga. Thanks for your super chat. Who says hail. What is this? I owe a Wimbledon who fed Yamir and freed Burry. Must see a, I'm behind on my pop culture. I have no idea. But the cat. Thanks for your super chat. Who said DD. Can you choose thoughts before you think of them? Well, maybe he'll pop back into the zoom window and tell me I am the worst moderator ever. And answer your question. Sorry. He's not here. Movie theory. Here we go. Says MDD pandering to atheists again. I don't think so. I think that this time it's like, I agree. I would, to be fair, it's true that both sides were, you know, red had a comment about Darth earlier on. That was rude, but Darth continuously interrupted, which is kind of like, it's like, we'll let some, you know, we'll let some like aggression fly. But eventually it's like, okay, seriously, I'm just going to have to mute you if you do it too much. Next up, the story of a failed dentist. Thanks for your super chat. Who said Darth stop running from, who's Jack angstreech? Oh, it's someone on his troll list that's been on there for a while. I imagine I made the troll list tonight though. Gotcha. Zeno's Carthage. Thanks for your super chat. Who says, why does DD keep interrupting everyone? Blaster master 80. Thanks for your super chat. Who said, does Darth think he is an honest interlocutor? Brian Stevens. Thanks for your super chat. Can't believe we had Darth rage quit twice in a row now. Brian Stevens said the ultimate nature of reality. James's alpha. Very kind of you. Very funny, funny guy. Club. Thanks for your super chat. Who said, DD, I don't understand how you plan to convince any atheists by following this script. It's non effective every time. Try having an actual convo. Steven Stain. Thanks for your super chat. Who said James is just an alpha living in a beta verse. Which is good. The undead Christian. Thanks for your super chat. Who said, Red, you talk about a metaverse, but do you think it existed prior to the Big Bang? If so, you can prove it or can you prove it? And are numbers finite and do they change? There's like four huge philosophical questions there. So we'll let you do one at a time. The first one. So the argument for the metaverse comes from prime mover arguments, right? And so part of the argument in favor of that over God is that God doesn't satisfy the properties necessary for the metaphysical necessity, right? So it's, that would be the deductive, first the deductive proof to a metaphysical necessity and the abductive one, if you want to say that, for the metaverse over God. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate your, oh, that's right. There are a number of questions. So the other one was if so, can you prove it? So that would be the justification right there with being through that argument, right? Good, gotcha. But even then I said that it doesn't really matter because I don't think you can rule out infinitism yet, like infinite regress. So I just took it in this debate for sake of argument that there's a metaphysical necessity that terminates an infinite regress, right? I wasn't going to make the other argument. It doesn't really matter either way, but. Gotcha. Thanks so much. And next up, appreciate your super chat from, oh wait. So the last question from the undead Christian was, are numbers finite and do they change? I don't know what time I had, right? I'm not, like I said, I don't know everything in detail. I'm not super well versed in everything, but I know enough to defeat Darth, his argument. Thanks for your super chat from, Tioga says this must have been early in the debate. I said, James hasn't giggled once in this debate. Sad. Gotcha. Well, there was plenty of giggling. I just can't help it. It is so funny. Sometimes I just, I can't help but laugh because it's just seeing people get so fired up and it's like, why are you getting this way? Next up, Kolob, thanks for your super chat. Or as he sometimes likes to be called, Caleb said, from a Christian, please stop with the script. And then stupid horror energy strikes again. Thanks for your super chat. She says all natural numbers cannot be finite. I'm sorry, Wilson. Thanks for your super chat. Who said, James, you better not be giggling. So help me, James. There is no giggling. Darth is offended by giggling. Darth is a super, super, serial? I don't understand. And then they said EMK. The super serial is, I think, a South Park reference to the episode with El Gore, the man bear pig. I'm super serial, guys. Oh, gosh. Okay. Brandon Ardeline, thanks for your super chat. Who said, does DD ever plan to debate and present actual evidence? Or at the minimum, an argument? Let's see. It's because it's kind of hard on Darth. I don't want to be too hard on him. I know that I've been admittedly hard on him, but I know I'm kind of like, I want to forgive and forget. Life's too short to have your heart bound up in anger or resentment. So it's like, Darth, I bet you're watching. I hope you know. I love ya. Hope you're doing well. Ches Elliott, thanks for your super chat, said, Darth, evidence that God is, oh, okay. So they're kind of, this is a little bit like the Descartes evil demon argument. So they said, Darth, do you have evidence that God is not either like, what if God is evil and trying to trick us? Like, is that a possibility? That's an interesting question. Let's see. Sterling's our producer tonight. Sterling, do you want to play the role of like, is there a way out? I mean, because we don't have a Christian to answer this and I hate just like, not having at least someone attempt to answer it. Do you want to answer this question? All you'll have to do is unmute yourself on, you'll have to unmute yourself on OBS, where you have your, there you go. So the question was, is there evidence that God is not evil in tricking us and saying that he's loving? Right, so well, if you took it from like a Thomas perspective, ultimately God is just pure actuality, right? So if you take it from that perspective, like to be evil is just a probation of the good. So to even be like evil and have evil intention and things like that, it would have to be a probation of the good and therefore God couldn't be evil. Like our characterization of evil involves lacking in some way. So and since God is by definition doesn't lack in any way, he couldn't be evil. So I'll just mute that and go on my way. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate you filling in for Darth and thanks so much for your super chat from Genius Tracks who says, Darth, your script is not working. I'm like summarizing because it's a lot more detailed. Let's see. And your, let's see. This is just ripping into darts. So let's see for the, James, the channel's been awesome. Thanks for your, that nice ending to that super chat. Appreciate it, Genius Tracks. I feel, I just, I'm like, yeah, I know, you know, like let's refrain from like indulging in some sort of vengeance. So I know that that super chat wasn't meant to be vengeance, but I don't want to throw Darth under the bus anymore than I have already thrown him under. But Caleb, thanks for your super chat who said you seriously need some new donuts, Duncan. MK, thanks for your super chat. Tag me and James. I'll moderate this. Oh, MK, are you the one that used to, that Darth used to say is the worst moderator too? We have something in common, friend. Okay, so let's see. Locan16, thanks for your super chat. Who said, can't stop D-D-L-O-L. Fat, Fatphotog, thanks for your super chat. Who said, this deserves my hard earned money, 10 out of 10 Duncan, Darth Dawkins rage quit. MeleeTime, thanks for your super chat. Who said, Darth wants serious, but ignores people from Tom's. I don't know, maybe they mean Tom Jump, I don't know. Tom Jump, if you're out there listening, we love you buddy, hope you're doing well. We might have Tom on for a provocative debate, folks. I have to like, Tom's idea, I gotta give him credit for this. We might have him on to debate whether or not deep platforming or actually debating super controversial views. So for example, like a week ago, we had some, like, I mean, you guys obviously know I'm not alt, alt R, we'll say that. So I'm not that way though. And we've platformed people like that though, that are like arguably N-E-O, and a word that rhymes with the game Yahtzee. We have had those debates with those types of people because we figured, hey, if the arguments against them are good, which we believe they are, then the opposition will prevail against those, how do I say this? I don't know, twisted views. And so Tom may debate somebody on whether like, hey, should we just pretend those people don't exist, or should we go to battle and debate them? And so that should be a lot of fun because I know that some people have different opinions on that. So next up, so anyway, like I said, Tom's idea, a really interesting one, Brandon Nardley, and thanks so much for your super chat, said if he doesn't answer my question, then I can't proceed with my script. Okay, I think I know who that is. Okay, Caleb, thanks for your super chat says, Duncan, why are you the only one permitted to interrupt? To be fair, I have to give credit. Duncan did let Red interrupt a little bit. And like I said, a little bit is fine. That's why for a while it was like, you guys would do it a little bit back and forth. And I'm like, ah, not a big deal. It wasn't until it got out of the control that we stepped in. I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your super chat. Well, I couldn't let him go and run from stuff to go back to his script and ignore what was said. And to start changing things around. So I had to hold him firm. Gotcha. I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your super chat. I've said you better hide that smile behind your mic, James. That's honestly no joke. A lot of times when you see me do this, where I put the mic up to my face, it's because I'm hiding like a smile or containing laughter. But I also do it a lot when I'm not. Because that way I figure you guys don't know if you're doing a false positive, if you're guessing that I'm doing it. But I just do this. You could say I do a type two error, where I like, there's nothing there. I'm not laughing, but I put it here just because that way you guys won't know. I don't know. I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your super chat. Kevin Gulfu, thanks for your super chat. Said James is showing, quote, I'm done with this energy and honestly, it couldn't be hotter. Gosh, Kevin. Okay, SJ Thomas and thanks for your super chat. Said, Red, why do we value truth and reason if we're accidents? Why should we even trust our own decisions if our minds haven't been instructed divinely? Oh boy, that's a long one. And you know, what is she looking at as accident? Just as like, how is she using accident in that? I mean, I imagine it's because, you know, no plan, no direction or anything, but there, but just because there is no apparent direction or aim in our evolution, for example, doesn't mean we can't trust the things we have. I mean, but those are, that's another topic or debate maybe to get into. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your super chat from our dear friend. Oh, hold on one second. I had the page reload on me. Thanks for your super chat. We're going to catch up here. We got, oh, this one's a good one. General Ball Zach, real name. Thanks for your super chat. Who said, stop being a spineless little jellyfish, James, fun debate chat is mostly with red. I'm sorry, Wilson. Thanks for your super chat. Who said, don't make DD any angrier. He'll beat. Okay. I'm not going to read that one. Let's see. S.J. Thomason. Okay. We got that one caught up. Andrew, just the great things for your super chat. Saw you deleted it. If you have a question, fire it into the old live chat. Tag me and I'll ask it for you. Stupid or energy says, does DD Darth realize, let's see, his God in the Christian rural view would be a brute fact. Is that, well, I mean, you might differ. I don't know. I can't speak for Darth. Well, I mean, if Darth actually made, if Darth actually made arguments, I mean, hold on, it would be just because he's not here. We're going to keep on moving. Well, no, I'll just say, I'll just say, like, if he made like an argument towards a metaphysical necessity, which is arguments, hinges on, it wouldn't be a brute fact. God, yeah. And I suppose Christians might disagree with that or not with that per se, but they might have different views on whether or not God would be a brute fact. So I don't know if I want to make you defend that, Sterling. I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your super chat said, what's the difference between this debate and DD talking to his, let's see. I don't know what that means. It seems like it's a naughty joke. Supreme Leader Kim, thanks for your super chat who said, to read a or not a, what is the third option? So that depends on what you're using with certain logics and certain questions, right? Right? So there's multi-variate logics and fuzzy logics and stuff like that, where you can have an indeterminate value that comes to, right? And that was part of the big point I was making about the axioms and that we can change them, right? So he wants to push those like universals, parts of the universe, and all this other stuff. I'm like, we change the axioms, we have different logic, we can get rid of this, you know, excluded metal and stuff like that and use a different logical system. And in some cases, like the hypothetical with the constitution I brought up, we, like classical logic, if you use those classical principles, there's included in principle of non-contradiction is the principle of explosion, which contradiction you can lead to either answer, right? So she can vote, she can't vote. So we have logics that deal, and they're called dialectetic, paraconsistent logics that can deal with that problem. To some extent, right? Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat from our dearest friend. Appreciate it, stupid horror energy. She's sassy, she says, Supergirl exists and I am she. Thanks for that. John Rapp, thanks for your super chat. He says, Superman is as real as God. He's in a book too. So Sterling, would you ever be up for a debate? Because I mean, I guess, I don't want to read, let's see, I'm trying to, well, how about this? Sterling, if you want to play the role of Darth Dawkins, John Rapp's super chat, because I don't want to read super chats off against the Christian worldview that aren't, that we're not going to allow an answer to. So Sterling is our producer. He's philosophically adept, to say the least. John Rapp, what would you say to the super, or Sterling, what would you say to the super chat? Superman is as real as God. He's in a book too. Well, I mean, so the Christian obviously thinks that God has a referent, right? Like that there is something which it means to be God, like his essence as in his existence, that whole definition thing. So no, that's not true. And also just kind of defend, to defend, to defend Darth Dawkins a little bit when he was talking about, you know, he, what he meant to say was that Superman doesn't have a referent. So like if he doesn't have a referent, like all our definitions about Superman are para consistent. We can like just make up any definition about Superman and it's going to be consistent. Just to defend him like a little bit. Yeah, that's fair. No problem. Let's see, P Barnes, thanks for your super chat. He said, well done James. Don't take his crap. We love Darth. I take a lot of his crap on a spineless jellyfish, but sometimes it's like, ah, Darth, you know, can't go forever with this. Andrew Kiss the Great, thanks for your super chat. John Rapp, thanks for your super chat. He said, Red Venture, well done. You are the ultimate. Stupid or energy, thanks for your super chat. Said Red, let's see. If you're willing to give this the most charitable attempt, I'll read it in Red. So Stupid or Energy said Red, how do you think Darth thinks God justifies his beliefs? So I mean, if you want to try to speculate, you can. He never explains it, right? And so the big problem and the one I wanted to get to that he was never going to ever address, but thank you for letting me stay in there at the end before comments. He just asserts it, right? At that point, he just asserts it, right? But he also believes in miracles, right? And miracles would violate, you know, things like uniformity of nature. You know, God can change it from, you know, yesterday to the day. And so God can't justify induction. And that's part of his argument. And so he has a contradiction and his argument becomes incoherent. And that's what I wanted to get to, but he was never going to do that. He was going to hold me to his script. Asha, spacebar apologetics. Thanks for your super chat. Who said, was DD's argument a form of the column? Not quite. Hunter Bailey, thanks for your super chat. Who said, no resurrection, no Christianity. Thanks. I'm sorry. Wilson for your super chat as well. Who said, ever heard of Dr. Sefiroth? Ask Jesus is Lord, the YouTuber. Okay. Thank you. Andre has the great thanks for your super chat. Who said, we were worried about Red, but he did well. Cheers. You got a fan out there, Red. Thank you. Frank's 92. Thanks for your super chat. Who said, good job, James. Thanks for your kind words. It's always busy with Darth. We hope you're well, Darth. We know you're listening. I know you're at home and you're watching. Okay. Thank you for your super chat, stupid horror energy. You said Nephilim free. Let's see. Oh, okay. She's debating with Nephilim free in the live chat. She said, your question ignores the fact that brains can take exorative inputs. It's equivalent to a layman learning that atoms are mostly empty space and then telling people to stop sitting on chairs. Thanks for your super chat. Stupid horror energy again, who says no good is deprivation of evil. I think that's in response to you, Sterling. Let's see. That's not true. That's like a Schopenhauerian view, but it's like really, it's really poorly defended. Like it'd be really hard to argue, right? Because then anything that was negative would have negative value. Ultimately, you would lead to the conclusion that you should probably kill yourself. But yeah, that's bad. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your super chat. Philip, who said, hey, Red, I know that you said the laws of logic are axioms, but can you justify them pragmatically or provide some other weak form of justification? Um, I don't even try to justify them. Really? Right. I can assume on presupposition, it doesn't matter whether or not I justify them. I mean, we would like to under principal sufficient reason, but I can take them, just like when I take induction. So for inductive reasoning, I just assume that at that point, I don't have a justification, and that's part of the problem, of that's human problem induction, and that's part of what Darth's argument hinges on. Gotcha. And thanks. Caleb for your super chat who said, please no more DA, not watching next time. I don't think DA is ever going to come back. Tell us an overlander who thinks your super chat said, Red's son is the best Superman. IL, thanks for your super chat as well, said Red, you understand what did, um, Red, you understand what Darth meant by concrete one. Do you, or I think they're saying, do you understand what Darth meant by concrete one? What Darth was getting at, I don't, I'll tell you ahead, no. In terms of what it is elsewhere, a little bit. You know, like I said, I'm not super in deep in a lot of this stuff. I know, I know enough to get in trouble. Let's just say that enough to, you know, dismantle Darth's argument. Thanks so much. Subtracted for your super chat. Oh, Sterling. They're coming at you, Sterling. Oh, yes. Get ready. Okay. They said, hey, Sterling. Yeah. If, if God isn't universally definitional, how can God's nature be uniformed and concretely ultimate? Wait, okay. I never said that God isn't uniform, uniformly definitional. I gave a definition of God. Universally definitional. I gave a definition. God's essence is in his existence. So I don't know if he's like equating my, I think that he was making a mistake that, when I was talking about Superman, right? Because Superman has a, because it's a fictional character, it's like unicorn, you could define it as any way you want to. But God doesn't, isn't like that. He has a referent. Gotcha. With that, that is all for tonight, folks. Thanks so much. Appreciate all of your questions. It's always fun. I'm waiting for Dars to pop back in the Zoom chat any second. Yeah, go ahead. Yes. Well, I mean, if you, yeah, well, if you can turn your, I mean, are we still alive? Yeah, we are. If you can unmute yourselves, unmute yourself, that way people can hear the question that you have Sterling. And then we will give a rat a chance to answer, and then we'll wrap up. So my question is, is when you were referring to, when you basically were saying that God doesn't fit the justification for, well, the conclusion, basically, of being absolutely simple, how do you address like palmistic types of, you know, active potencies and things like that? And the Cambridge changes argument that's brought up when we talk about divinely simple things. It's been a long while since I've been, I've looked at them, so I'd have to look at them again, reacquaint myself with them to have an answer. Up time ahead, I don't have anything big there and stuff. But I mean, and like part of my thing, arguing for the metaphysical necessity, I don't think infinite regress is out of the question either. Right. So one argument I couldn't make against metaphysical necessities, I take the infinitism position. Right. Yeah, that's one way, that's one way I could address it off the top there. Okay, fair enough. Gotcha. Thanks so much, everybody. It's always fun. Soon enough, now, those of you who can hear Sterling, he has been the voice that you've been hearing in the background, our producer. He is actually, you've seen him already in these vegan debates we've had recently. We're probably going to have a vegan debate this weekend. It's a possibility, it might be Friday, by the way, Sterling. We got to like find the exact time, I'm figuring that out. But soon enough, Sterling is actually going to be arguing or debating whether things such as whether or not God exists, it's going to be really fun because that's more of his wheelhouse. So that's going to be really fun. And he's very good with veganism in terms of, like he's well read on those topics, but it's going to be even better when we get to those philosophy of religion topics. So I want to say, folks, thanks so much. We hope you feel welcome. I know that Darth left and that Darth and I got into it. But I want to say, we really do hope you just have gentleness and love for Darth. I really do actually like Darth. Sometimes we butt heads a little bit. And we say, you let everybody down. But I really do want to say, hope you're welcome, whether you're a Christian, atheist, no matter where you're from, no matter what walk of life, we do welcome you. And so thanks so much, folks. It's always fun. I want to say thanks so much to our guest, Darth, who is no longer with us. And then also read. Thanks so much for being with us. Yeah, thanks for having me. I'll be hanging out on my stream for a little bit. If anybody wants to talk some more in chat, I may open up Discord or whatever to talk about. Yeah. And I've linked both of these guys in the description. I'm also going to link Sterling, who's our producer, who has saved the day, because like you've probably noticed in the last couple of weeks, my internet just hasn't been able to hold it up. So Sterling was kind enough to help us out today. And so thanks so much. We will see you. Let's see. I think tomorrow we don't have a debate, which is surprising. First Wednesday in a while, we haven't had one. We will have one. Lord willing, we're thinking Thursday, we'll have a debate Friday as well. And then I think Saturday, Sunday even, at least Saturday. So thanks so much. We'll hopefully see you then, folks. Have a great night. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable.