 Good evening everybody. Welcome to modern day debate. We're going to be debating proof of God this evening and to get us started We have Bryce who has 10 minutes on the floor. So Bryce. Thank you so much for being here and the floor is yours All right First it should be said that although I intend to provide proof for the Existence of God that the requirement for proof in order to believe any fact is itself irrational This worldview would necessitate that all things which are true can be proven and that this proof will be readily accessible to all Who intend to believe further to require proof in order to believe is to cut oneself off from all knowledge Which cannot be proven for example If one were to write a number on a piece of paper and then subsequently burn that piece of paper One who requires proof would inherently be prohibited from ever knowing what was written on the paper since the proof no longer exists Now the first form of proof I offer is possibly the strongest and most tangible proof for the existence of God One could offer despite this many will falsely accused this method of being inherently subjective and so following this There will be other forms of proof offered So first form is visual proof So you and any other man with the requisite faith can literally right now pray to God and receive an answer as soon as you say amen Ask any Christian or simply try this yourself and don't just ask for something stupid or offensive and be surprised at the lack of a Response seriously this works if you can just humble yourself You can see an angel with your own eyes or a healing or see some sort of other miracle I will state that God's willingness in this exercise is necessary and that he probably would be unwilling to give any kind of sign to Someone who would dare to demand that he show himself Other types of evidence would be you know historical evidence We have better historical evidence for Jesus's existence and the testimony contained within the Bible Then we do for a significant portion of history for example There are a myriad of kings and Roman emperors that we have much less existence for the Much less evidence for the existence of such as a single coin and yet hardly what hardly anybody would say that these men did not exist You'll be hard-pressed to find a single historian claiming in any study or journal that Jesus did not exist They may explain his miracles as lies or what have you but not even the Roman persecutors of their time in their ancient writings Did not his existence the supernatural So in my hand is a copy of a report commissioned by a commander of the US Army Operational group on the practical applications of supernatural powers for use in warfare In other words, although you may handwave witchcraft as superstition The military takes it seriously enough to put these practices to use with tangible results such as is the case of Remote viewers being used to locate Russian missile silos during the Cold War I should also mention that this is an internal document and nowhere within does the military claim these practices are not real Or a waste of valuable resources to the contrary. They have been used for decades This may seem like a joke But I can assure you that the folks over at the army intelligence and security command are very serious people a Couple of the acts of source were used and presented by the military within this document include out-of-body Experiences remote viewing and hypnosis another document I have right here is Is a patent for a machine to train men to walk through walls and before this is dismissed as trolling or lunacy Allow me to quote the government website for a patent office According to USPTO gov in order to have a patent issue the patent must be quote able to be used The invention must work and cannot just be a theory and quote as you can see The world is a bit stranger than T jump would have you believe Morality morality cannot exist in the absence of God due to it being immaterial in nature And thus would be render a subjective construct of the mind It cannot be measured or touched and yet it is something most people would agree exists The same goes for truth, which is something that does not physically exist in the way being described But would my opponent be foolish enough to actually say the truth does not exist And if he will I would ask if his opinion that the truth does not exist is itself true to say truth Does not exist is a self-defeating argument since this presumably intended itself to be meant as a true statement There are many things that fall into this category such as consciousness or time in a worldview where all that exists is matter and substance The only aspect of time that can be said to exist would be the present Rendering the past and future as non-existent another proof of God that is revealed when discussing time comes from the passage of time itself Consider a single moment with all objects in the universe remaining as they are with no passage of time Then ask yourself What inside of the universe causes this frozen state of time this instant to pass into the next moment of time and so on in other words There's nothing actually contained within the universe that could cause or allow the passage of time from one moment to the next From this we can determine that this must be a function which operates outside of the universe thus disproving materialism Philosophical we know that there has to be more to the world than material because the laws of physics are immaterial as well As the laws of logic truth time, etc There is no rational materialistic justification for things of this nature existing in reality Outside of them being social constructs, but try telling a physicist his laws do not really exist and see how far that one gets you The very undeniable existence of these immaterial entities would itself be enough to discard a materialistic worldview creation Consider the moment before the universe began before before all matter came into existence Before there was space for this matter to exist. I then asked the audience to ponder What exactly within this state of absolute nothingness could bring about the beginning of everything or anything for that matter? How exactly does nothing cause everything to exist? Some may then suggest that the universe has always existed But this violates the laws of physics and specifically the notion of entropy that is to say that over time all things decay and lose energy This would put a time limit on how long the universe can exist it can exist for and thus disprove the notion that it has always existed and With my remaining time I would like to speak about what one must be what one must do in order to be saved The very question. Yeah, the very question was asked and answered in the following verse of the Bible So this is Acts chapter 16 verse 30 says and brought them out and said sirs What must I do to be saved and they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved in the house That's right. The answer was not to stop sinning or to follow a list of rules Neither did this verse say one must go to church or be a good person The Bible teaches that in order to be saved one must simply believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because as the Bible says in Romans chapter 3 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Now you can see why it would be so important to me to meet you where you stand and offer Proof of the existence of God despite my personal belief that one should never demand proof in order to believe anything because God is indeed real and the one thing you must do to go to heaven is to believe and Yeah, I guess that that's it but All right. Well, thank you so much and tonight we are debating a proof of God everybody So if you haven't already hit the like button welcome to modern day debate We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science politics religion We do hope you feel welcome and we are going to hand it over to tea jump You have ten minutes on the floor to present your opening case So we're debating a proof for God so proof not God ten minutes on the floor So all of the evidence I heard him list were Proven fallacious we debunked every one of those is just demonstrably false like say one plus one equals seven Prove every one of those is false the first one. He said was you can see God pray to us. Okay, God Pure cancer everyone in the world right now Did that work? I'm gonna go with a no. Hey, God. Let's uh Regrow the limbs of all the people who lost limbs Did that work? No, we have some people who lost limbs in the chat in the work. Nope. Hey, God pure Herapalegics, let them walk again Nope Eliminate viruses. Nope Cure hunter. Nope. How about a single case? Which is a ban cancer from children? permanently Pray to God. God, please do this Nope I'm not sure what exactly he thinks you can pray to God to get him to do But I'd be happy to try whatever he thinks and we can we can see it Tell me what to say. Well, we'll see it happen with great novel predictions. I love it So you pray to God and get something to happen That happens at a higher rate than chance or a higher rate than you didn't pray for it That would be phenomenal evidence You can defer to him to what I'm supposed to pray for to get that to happen Some other things he mentioned whereas things he didn't understand about physics like the second law Says that entropy always increases The first law says energy cannot be created or destroyed which invalidates its God So if we're going based off of the laws of physics the first law invalidates his God If we're going off of the second law, it doesn't say anything about energy not existing forever It says that entropy increases. That's it. It doesn't it doesn't say it can't decrease So those are some misunderstanding of physics time time has a beginning time was created by something that wasn't time prior to time called quantum fields because they exist outside of time so Great. I'm glad You degree time began, but that had nothing to do with this conversation. It's just irrelevant It's just like saying hey a table began. That's great. Does that mean that the table was created by God? No See what else did he say oh The very first thing he said was correct. You don't need proof proof is just irrelevant We don't care about proof the only thing you can prove is that you exist cogito agro assume. It's great We just want evidence. We don't we don't need proof. Nobody really demands proof We say proof or really a lot of atheists say proof, but really they just mean evidence We don't really care about proof is just an irrelevant thing that Christians harp on because oh well nothing can be proven It's like yeah, that's great. We don't we don't care. We just want evidence. We don't need proof Let's see what else The Bible he mentioned the Bible like I grant Jesus existed I grant many in the many of the things in the Bible actually did happen Is any of that evidence of miracles or magic or that Jesus was God? No, none of it is just like there are many Factual places in the story of spider-man. Does that mean spider-man was real? No, it doesn't so the fact that there are historical events that are factual the Bible is not evidence that the Bible the mythical claims of the Bible are true Don't remember the rest of the things he said so we'll just conclude there We should as atheists or we should hold the position that has the most evidence the most Evidences that there is no God so we should be atheists conclusion All right, thank you so much t-jump for your introductory statement Just remind everybody once again at the modern-day debate live chat That we are going to be doing Q&A at the end of this so if you have a question for either of our speakers that you see here on screen Get your Q&A and now if you'd like to ask that question early and make sure that it's an early for the super chats And secondly all of our debates are uploaded to podcast within 24 hours of them being hosted So if you're watching this on podcast right now and you're thinking hey I would love to participate in the Q&A and interact with these speakers Make sure you subscribe to the modern-day debate YouTube channel so you can catch these live hit that notification bell as well And we're gonna kick it into our open discussions So Bryce, I'll give you a chance to respond to some of what you just heard and feel free to inject when you need to Let's kick it all right So I discussed prayer and as my first form of proof And I specifically stressed the need for the prayer to both be sincere and for God to be willing to answer you the point That you seem to miss Secondly, you'd seem to mention, you know that bad things happening of stress and cancer children dying people without arms stuff like that But none of that has actually any actual bearing on whether or not God exists in wait So the point there was you said your first evidence was that we could pray to God and stuff would happen And the second thing the sincere part I sincerely want cancer to be cured I sincerely want People who are don't have limbs to have their limbs your girl I sincerely want paraplegics to be healed. So those were some You may sincerely want that but it's not a sincere prayer when you ironically just look up and demand that That was not ironic. That was if there is a God, please cure these things right now That would be phenomenal evidence Genuinely 100% please cure these things those people don't deserve to suffer If you create this world you're to blame for their suffering Please heal these things that is as genuine as it can get does not happen These are 100% genuine pairs if there's a God God, please heal all of the people who you caused to suffer now Genuine nothing happened So what if that didn't work tell me one thing I should say because these are genuine prayers 100% genuine I want evidence. So tell me what I'm supposed to say to get something to happen Well in terms of prayer, there's like I've had many prayers answered almost as soon as the word amen is spoken But I think the difference but different between I think the difference between a prayer like mine a prayer like yours is I'm not praying In order to prove that God exists. I'm praying because I actually want it to happen You're praying it you're praying in order to actually sort of have some sort of evidence I'm praying because I want these to happen. I already explained this. So your first claim was anybody could have evidence Anybody with eyes anybody could make these prayers For something like that like you know for God to cure cancer that might be a sincere desire But that doesn't mean that your prayer sincere Do you 100% sincere prayer? You don't even get an opinion on this 100% sincere prayer And if you deny that you're an idiot. So yes, I genuinely want those people to be healed if there is a God Genuinely want him to heal them. There's a hundred percent genuine And if you don't believe that it's just your own delusion your own cognitive bias won't allow again again your desire for these things to happen I believe that's sincere, but I don't believe you're sincerely praying Not how it works That doesn't make any sense. You don't look up You don't look up and say God if you're real make all cancer go away You're asking God to prove himself to you when he you know, I don't care I've got to prove himself to me. I don't I don't care That's why you're asking. No, I want cancer because I don't want people to suffer I don't care like if he doesn't if he wants to just do it in secret and erase our memories That would be fine too. Please God cure all the people cancer You can make us forget for the sake of the debate and I'll move on to something else I'll do a different example and you can cure all those things and make us forget that and that would be great So yes, this is genuine and this is a thing Christians is a top This is a tactic Christians use to protect their own faith from obvious facts Yes, when atheists pray for these things they are 100% genuine 100% there is no doubt When an atheist prays How does that even make sense? How can an atheist pray to a God? He doesn't accept that doesn't believe that he doesn't believe it So just really either Bryce what we can do is maybe let you respond their tea jump But maybe like I said you'd hold up some papers there in your intro So let's let you jump respond to what you just said and then maybe we can move into some of those exams No, I was fine with what Bryce Bryce's interruption there is perfectly fine So I think the moderator made a mistake don't interrupt moderator, please So Bryce these are 100% genuine prayers and if you don't believe that it's because you are deluded You have cognitive bias that has protected yourself from obvious facts that disprove your belief What we atheists we can pray and say I don't know if there's a God if there is a God I genuinely want you to cure the people who are suffering. I Don't know if there's Is To pray to it you don't need to believe it the Bible specifically says that you must have faith in order to have your answers prayer That debokes what you initially said in your own argument. So if that's your position then well, no, no is wrong So you can't have the most ways is it the case that anyone who can see can get evidence of God by praying Is that the case or not? I said specifically I use the term any man with the requisite faith specifically made a point to say that So only people who already believe can get evidence. Oh, yeah, God's willingness is So it's literally the opposite of evidence, all right, so What's the next one? I prayed to God and he answered my prayer that wouldn't be evidence the confirmation Right, so if he does something that can't be confirmed independent of those who believe then by definition, it's not evidence So even if he does it yes because it's confirmation bias So let me give you an example if you pray for people to get cured of cancer and then they get cured of cancer I can check that I can say hey look he's cured of cancer now I don't believe so if God did that that would then convince me that's that's great evidence And so if he doesn't do anything that can be confirmed by a non-believer then the only things by definition He's doing are things in your imagination So for it to be evidence it has to be verifiable by non-believers that it actually happened So the fact that you think it out for it to be evidence it would simply have to occur. It doesn't have to occur like to everybody It has to occur. No, it has to occur in a way that's verifiable from your delusion your bias By definition. This is why we don't trust personal experience. Like I can say I saw a unicorn I prayed to the Poseidon give me a unicorn and he sent the unicorn How do I know that's real if it just But if if Poseidon was to provide a unicorn, okay, that would be evidence regardless of Poseidon's willing to do it for atheists or not No, no, so like that would not be evidence Because there's a more plausible explanation of the phenomenon that we have lots and lots of evidence for called delusions And confirmation bias and dreams that we that are saved in the wrong part of our memory These things are better explanations. This is why we don't trust our own direct experience And we trust independent sources independent verifiability So if something happened to you that you experienced that would not be evidence You would need something in addition to that to confirm that it was real and not a pigment of your imagination I addressed that by saying that, you know, if you're going to say it's objective I provided other points that would be a little bit more objective Like I understand that if you're talking about your personal experience, that'd be something that'd be easily, you know discredited but It is the strongest form of proof that is possible and I've had it happen before I don't know. Okay. So do you understand delusions? We have lots of evidence delusions exist, right? Yeah, of course And if we have lots of evidence for something that can fully explain a phenomenon and then You think that the phenomenon was caused by something which has essentially no evidence Which one is the better architecture? Let me let me clarify if we see a cliff print in the snow Is it more plausible to say it was done by a horse because horses have tons and tons of past evidence? Or is it more plausible to say it was done by a unicorn? Which one do you think is the better explanation? It depends on what it's actually what's actually true. I mean if it was left I'll engage with your hypothetical if it was actually left by a unicorn That's what you would have to believe because it's true. Now, obviously that's not that's not what you would assume But um, yeah, it is more likely that a horse left the footprint Let's let's say a unicorn actually did do it 100 but we have no evidence of that. Should we believe it? If it's true, you should believe it. Yes I think that's pretty standard Okay, so the way evidence works is We don't know what's true. We need evidence to indicate what's true. There's lots of true things We just don't know right the great number of grains of sand on the earth There's a there's a true number there, right? There is a number that is the accurate number of grains of sand But we don't know what that is So so if I just gave you a list of numbers and you believed it's number x You would have no reason to believe that there's no evidence of that Even if it was true, you would have no way to know because you have no evidence, right? Go on And so you would have no reason to pick that number over a different number It's just a guess, right? There's no reason to believe it Even if it happens to be true because you need evidence As a reason to believe it, right? Yeah, sure. So if you're creating hypothesis, you would go with what's more likely Yeah, but that has no bearing on what actually happened Right and but so if we're asking what are we reasonable to believe The only thing that's reasonable for us to believe is the thing that has the evidence Even if it's not true The only reasonable thing for us to believe is the things that have the evidence. Are you with me? So if there's something that doesn't have any evidence like a unicorn left a footprints in the snow If it didn't leave any evidence to indicate it was a unicorn, we shouldn't believe that Because the footprint not be evidence We know the footprint is the unknown hypothesis So it could be explained by a unicorn could be explained by a horse And since we have evidence of horses, we should think a horse did it because I think we're sort of getting into the weeds talking about unicorns now What? I said, I think we're sort of getting into the weeds here. We're talking about unicorns and I understand you're trying to explain you're trying to explain a principle But I think we're sort of straying off the subject No, I don't think so. So you agree that if there is like a unicorn did something But it's indistinguishable from what a horse does We should only think it was a horse because because like horses, there's tons of evidence horses did this We don't have any evidence of unicorns right now. So even if a unicorn did it We would have no reason to believe that until we had independent evidence of unicorns Like if we discovered a unicorn in the future, we could say, oh, hey, maybe a unicorn made that footprint That would be reasonable But until we discover the unicorn the only reasonable thing for us to believe Is a horse did it because we only have evidence of horses right now I mean, why wouldn't you assume some other animal? I mean, there's there's a lot of I just don't think this is reasonable to engage in this sort of hypothetical because we both acknowledge that It was actually a unicorn that left it and so if to believe anything contrary to that would be a Incorrect worldview Yes, it would be incorrect. You'd be factually wrong But what we're trying to get at here is what makes something reasonable or rational Reasonable. Well, is it rational or is it reasonable if it leads you to a conclusion? That's false Yes, you can be rational And believe something that I think we okay. I think we sort of exhaust at this point I don't really know what to say to that. I mean if it if it leads you to a conclusion that's false. It cannot be rational It's not true Wow, um, it's not very reasonable to believe things that aren't true. Is it oh boy, so suppose suppose like This is you can dream us but how evidence works So evidence doesn't prove something you admitted that you're opening like there's no such thing as proof Do you know why there's no such thing as proof? That wasn't my position What my position is that it's irrational to require proof in order to believe something Right. Why? Because the proof might not exist Sure, and the evidence might not be conclusive. It'll be inconclusive, right? Or yeah, go on So inconclusive evidence means the evidence can point to a lot of different conclusions, right? It depends But yeah, go on. I understand what your point the point you're making Right. So if it points to a lot of different conclusions You would be rational to believe any of those even though most of them are wrong No, I don't think it's rational rational or reasonable to believe something that isn't true No matter how good it sounds Or how likely it is to occur if it's not true. You shouldn't believe it. I think that's pretty standard world view Oh boy, um All right, so so let's say that I understand what you're saying if all of the evidence points to something that isn't true You should you should believe it because you at least have evidence. I don't believe that that I'm just disagreeing with you can grimace, but I just don't agree with that Well, the problem is that literally doesn't make sense like I like that means you don't understand How epistemology works because like You can't just believe true things. It doesn't it's not like it's true. Therefore. I believe it That's not it doesn't work that way. You have to have evidence And evidence isn't proof, right? We know that you can't prove something with evidence evidence just indicates Certain things and there's lots of things that the evidence indicates and so you'd be rational to believe Anything that the evidence would indicate and some of them might be more probable. Some of them might be less probable But that doesn't That's the problem with your world view because the evidence might lead you to a conclusion. That's not true It's so therefore it's not a rational thing to use that sort of thing to believe Well, so the problem is is that that applies to literally all knowledge in any world view ever. I agree Which would include yours Yes, I I literally that's why I said you should not require proof in order to believe in god You should believe it because he exists It literally makes no sense So I don't think you understand how evidence works like literally just Don't understand how evidence works. You can't believe something because it's true. That doesn't work Literally impossible Because you can't know something that is true You have to know the evidence. So if there's no evidence, you can never know it So now do you know what knowledge is? Okay, how about this if I were to tell you something that's true and yeah, I provided no evidence Would it be incorrect to believe me? yes And we just have different world. That's the difference in our paradigm. I just don't I don't agree with you Sure. Sure. Um, the problem is that we can prove I'm right So I can tell you a bunch of random facts. The moon Is 255,000 miles away Do you believe me? I'd have to check So you so even if I told you of true facts, you wouldn't believe me just because it's true Well, all right, you like what are you checking? What is that thing the answer that you gave me? I still wouldn't necessarily believe that that checking when you when you check something When you look say look up the data on a website. What is that? So if I told you a true fact, you wouldn't believe me you need to you need to do something else you check it And you find out so you go to google Whatever check the distance and you read it on nasa or whatever when you read it on nasa. What is that called? We are getting so far away from the original play. It's like I want to talk about proof. No, we're not. I want to talk about these I want to talk about that's great What is it? I'll just answer that question there to jump that you just asked If you know the rephrase say the question again So if I tell you the moon is 255,000 miles away, you don't believe me even if it's true You don't believe me the truth doesn't make you believe. Yeah, I would believe But to know it's true you would have to check and when you check that's called Evidence, right? You're looking for evidence. You're looking to try to confirm it with evidence, right? What depends because when specifically when you start talking about astrology, uh, you get into weird theological astrology astronomy Astronomy same thing same difference. So I don't care about that The the only point here is that when I tell you a true fact You can't just know it because it's true. You have to look for evidence Now the evidence could be wrong, right? Maybe maybe nasa is wrong. Maybe we're in the matrix Who knows and so you could believe this fact and be wrong But if you had the evidence you would believe the evidence because evidence is how you know things Now in my in my worldview, uh, I think that faith is perfectly reasonable to base a belief on so like if I if I have faith In the bible and the bible says something. I'll believe it regardless of how much evidence there is or is not for Specifically different question And so when you ask it so when you ask a question about like how far the moon is way I don't really know that we could actually know the answer to a question like that because you know the ways that you test something like that, you know So so even if it's true, you couldn't know it because you would need evidence and if there's no evidence Even if I don't believe you could I don't believe you could know the answer to something like that because it's not contained within the bible Sure, sure. So if I tell you a fact even if it's true 100 true If you don't have any evidence, there's no reason to believe it No If it depends if if the subject is contained within the bible, then I would be willing to believe right Subjects that are not contained within the bible like distance to the moon I could tell you let's say I say every number one at a time. Just it's one mile away Is anything that's not contained within the bible there's I understood that There's an element of uncertainty which causes me to not really say I would 100 percent believe something like that even if you uh, you know Had a measuring stick and that stretched all the way to the moon because there might be something wrong with the measuring stick That's great. So let's say I have no measuring stick and I just start saying all of the numbers one at a time One to a billion and I say it's this number is away one of those numbers is true, right? Yeah, of course And there's no way you could like if I just told you the true one There's no way for you to tell the difference between the true one and the false one, right? I suppose not So if you believed any of the numbers that would be irrational because you can't tell the difference between the true ones and the false ones Make your point. I'm what you just want me to like like push you along You can continue so you can't believe one of them because you have no evidence Like even one of them is true, but you can't believe the true one just because it's true Well, yeah evidence evidence is you evidence is useful to sort of suggest what might be true But I don't believe you can know it was certainty correct Which means you can't know something because it's true You can only know something if you have Evidence and so if you have evidence of say horses You could believe that they caused the footprint But if you had no evidence of unicorns You couldn't believe they caused the horse the footprints for the same reason you couldn't believe the numbers If you had no evidence if you have no evidence Saying it's one number as opposed to another number is irrational. You have no evidence saying it's a unicorn as opposed to I don't know a bicorn would be irrational because if you have no evidence All of the things you have no evidence for are all equally irrational Like again, I thought we were moving on after that one question, but I we've expended this I want to move on to something Okay, what are the second things that is the second thing that you brought up there Well, uh, this is a report commissioned by a commander Specifically regarding the practical applications of supernatural powers in the military Those were debunked. Oh, yeah The military themselves have posted that it is a waste of resources and never worked. It had a less than chance success rate Well, I could linked in the chat like cia recordings of the of them actually doing and using it and they were gathering intel Like I gave the example they were finding russian missile silos in the cold Yes, that's correct because they have a less than chance success rate. So if I Guessed at random numbers or random locations in russia for missile silos or whatever I would get most of them wrong and I would get some of them right Do you think that's something that like, you know, the military would seriously entertain like you just guessing random coordinates Yes, because if it worked at a higher rate, then well, do you think all right fine? Do you think they would entertain it long enough to actually have it turn out resolves? Yes, they've literally done that on lots and lots of things. Well, can I can I see You're so evidence based. Can I see your evidence that it actually was debunked? Where are you getting that from are you just saying the military themselves? We'll see how you themselves have posted exactly that on many different occasions And so like I have the research saved somewhere don't know where it is though Well, I'm not asking you to specifically pull it up But the reason I question you on that is because I didn't really give the name of the document So I find it hard to believe you actually have a response to it Like I could like, you know, link the document in the chat or or whatever But how could you have a response to something if you don't even know specifically what I'm talking about All well, they did lots of different studies on remote viewing and other psychic phenomenon in the military And all of them were debunked all of them were proven to be unaffected at a great equal to chance And that's why they stopped doing them Well, they're still continuing them to this day Like you could even you could even to this day you have like, you know detectives who Will like pay psychics to try to solve their case or whatever like they believe the military has a military Military just ended all the research because it stopped working in the late 70s Well, this this report I this report came out on June 9 1983 so if they stopped it in the 70s, then you're apparently I'll say this report actually had to be declassified. So So that means most of the information is classified after a certain date. So Yeah, so all of the government documents start classified and then become declassified later So that doesn't mean it's true or it's significant or there's anything important. What I'm saying is they all they stopped doing How would you know if there are lunch menus that are classified documents classified documents doesn't mean it's true No, so what I'm saying is you're saying they stopped doing it. I'm saying it's classified We know that because the documents from long enough ago are declassified Which means that when this stuff is being conducted it is classified Right. So all of the evidence is so how do you know? How do you know? It's it's uh, you know been stopped If it's classified they said they stopped it. So they said they stopped it. They said it didn't work They say a lot of things Right. So all of the evidence is they stopped it and then you can make believe that they didn't stop it Well, no, it would with this report not be evidence. I mean in this report nowhere does it say it doesn't work It says it actually to the contrary it says it does work. It didn't say It gives the practical application like here's what we can use this. I haven't read that paper So I have no idea what that paper. I know what the sea. I don't I'm not interested in it because I've done the research I know what the answer is the sea has literally said none of this has worked None of work never worked at a higher rate than chance. It's a waste of money We've stopped it. So all of them all the papers Lead to this one point in the sea that says no, we stopped this because it's garbage Well, no, they would what they would do is they would have like a random number generator And then they would have like a remote viewer try well not not even try but they would look at the numbers They would report what numbers were being generated and then the accuracy of that was what was allowed them to actually continue um They got rid of all of them all of them did they all stop it was it was 10 digit numbers You can't randomly guess 10 digit numbers over and over and over and over again. It just doesn't work like that Yes, well, the Technically in your worldview you could but the odds of doing so would be so low that it's unreasonable to believe that That's literally what I said. It happens at a rate equivalent to chance So they got it right at the same amount as people guessing. That's what happened. That's why they stopped it I just disagree with that I want to know where you're getting the idea the cia themselves The cia themselves like you can Ask them you send them an email Literally say this. Yep Yeah, they have a public email. You know, there's a lot like that's what they do. I don't really understand Yes, so so they lie. Therefore. Maybe your worldview could be saved if they just don't tell you the truth And maybe they're hiding the truth That's not that's that's not the only document I got here I have a patent for you know a machine to train people how to walk through walls And the thing about that is in order to be issued a patent, it must be demonstrated to actually work No, no, that's not how patents work I quoted I have a patent. I have a patent for a mouse. I never built. You don't need to demonstrate it works Well, that's not what the us dot pto or us pto dot gov says Because if you act patents are for things that haven't been built yet, you can get patents for things that have never been built I didn't say any of them have never had to be built. I said you have to demonstrate that it actually functions No, no, literally those two things are the same thing Okay, I will quote. I will quote to you from the website. All right It says the the product quote must be able to be used the invention must work and cannot just be a theory end quote No, it can those just hold it. I just quoted to you and you can go on You can find you can find patents for what are they called rubo? No, not rubo Um, there's things that uh, the infinite enter machines. There's there's tons and tons of patents for infinite energy machines They have been proven false. They do not work Well, then they wouldn't have been issued the patent according to the patent website because the patent things aren't Accurate they don't care They literally don't check it. They do not check it Quote must be able to be used the invention must work and cannot just be a theory end quote according to us pto dot gov You just proved that wrong That's what the what that's what us pto dot gov says must be required. They're wrong. They are they are incorrect They don't actually check See, this is where we just reach an end pass. Like how do I you're just disagreeing with it But it's like that's what they say just have patents been issued for inventions that are never worked. Yes Patent examiners don't have time or the ability to evaluate the feasibility of every invention They don't check it. They don't read its work ability. They just kind of check the data That's it. They don't test it. They have no idea they they aren't physicists They aren't they don't know if these things work. They just passed it if it meets a certain set of criteria This is very well established very basic Not according to us pto dot gov not according to the patent office themselves according to the patent office themselves According to the patent office themselves according to the u.s. Government according to the us pto They all agree to them. So in terms of the patent office, so here's one You can't trust them because they're wrong. They're lying about this But in terms of the military you have to trust them because they say that they're not engaging in supernatural activity So what is evidence you trust the evidence? So the evidence is that they publish things that don't work like for example There's one here figure one shows an antenna mounted in the center of a rear bumper The signal is shown to radiate out the width of the vehicle then Rearward to the maximum range of about 20 feet the pattern span substantially This is physically impossible and literally does not work patent number 773 patent providing details of the construction of a transceiver But here's the thing you're saying it's literally impossible and cannot work I'm saying that's not true because they were issued the patent and a requirement for the patent to be issued is it must work Do you see the difference? So the patent people aren't physicists. They don't know if it works or not They admit they don't know if it works or not the fact that they give a patent doesn't mean it You don't think there's physicists working at the patent office to verify the claims of the invention You don't believe that I'm pretty sure they literally have entire departments dedicated to verifying the claims of the patent They do not that's what there is according to them. That's what determines whether or not a patent is issued No, it's not they don't have one of those you can email them and ask so debunked That's a lack of evidence. You're saying I have to ask them to find out whether or not they do or don't do I'm telling you they do do it because it's part of their requirements Email them and ask so I've already I already know they don't I already have tons of others. They don't they admit they don't Like you lack the evidence you should probably email them and ask the direct quote from the most credible source in terms of united states patents, which is the patent office is not evidence That they have an actual source to check this and that they actually check the data None of your quote says they actually check If the requirement is that it must work they have to be checked That's how that works if I tell you you have to be six foot to go on a roller coaster Does that mean that everyone on the roller coaster is always six feet tall? No, it means that they're checking they have a they have a device No, they just say it and hopefully they people listen That's how rules work rules are there to try to encourage people to obey the rules It doesn't mean that everyone you're specifically wrong on this because when you go on a roller coaster There's a person hired specifically to check your height compared to the ruler or whatever And do those people let people you can't get on the ride and do they let people through who are less than five feet? Yes, they do they can Yes, they do it's possible, but they'd be breaking their own rules. This is a very simple example Does the fact that there is a rule mean that everyone going through it follows the rule? There's a stoplight. Oh, there's a that's a rule stop light. Does everyone stop? Yeah, but there aren't people at every light checking whether or not people are obeying the Stop and there isn't any at the patent attorney office either That's what their job is. Yes, it is. What do you think they're doing there? You think they just sign off on anybody wants a patent? You think that's what they do? If they don't know it doesn't work. Yes Literally, that's why I gave you examples. How do they determine whether or not something works if they don't have people checking it? All right, the guess We might be circling this one guys. Uh, let's move on, uh, brice You brought up a lot of things in your introduction. So I do want to try to dig into that So I'm going to give you a chance to Uh, to expound on the next thing that you brought up there. I know that uh, we've kind of gone down this one for a while So, uh, let's uh, let's see what else we have here that we can get into And just remind everybody that we are going to do q&a at the end of this So, uh, just stay tuned and we'll get there eventually and take take place in our poll. I just put that in our live chat Okay T-jump, do you believe that uh, morality is either immaterial or a social construct? Which one is Uh, neither Because that's okay. So what would you what would you say this? So undiscovered law of physics You think morality is undiscovered law of physics. How could you make the claim if it hasn't been discovered? If you believe we could be on believe if you believe on making claims based on evidence and you're saying it hasn't been discovered Why do you believe it? Um, because I think that the patterns in moral intuition and moral progress indicate that One second there brice just for our audience and I'm going to give you the floor here Just to explain to them, uh, just how this ties into our topic for this evening proof of god I'll give you a second there to explain He said morality. He believes is non physical and therefore must come from a non physical entity. That was the argument Oh, okay If you agree with that price then we can carry on with the discussion. Uh, not necessarily. Um Morality exists and because it cannot be found in the material world It necessarily means that there must be immaterial things. Uh, and so that's are not literally what I said I disagreed a little bit of it. But yeah, go on Yeah, I think morality is physical the consensus in In the of a philosophers It's physical. Where is it contained like where can we measure it reality? Yes Okay, how do you measure morality? What unit do you use no idea? I haven't discovered it yet Oh, you're saying you must have evidence to believe something But yet you believe something that has nothing to stop it. Can you explain that all the way? The evidence was the patterns and in morally which the moral progress elaborate um, so Morality as a word refers to a certain set of phenomenon that we experience where like you see something bad happening You feel that's bad the word moral refers to the positive Incarnation of that the word immoral refers to the negative incarnation of that um The way in which people feel those things changes us over time and the way it changes is in a consistent pattern Then so we can predict what morality is based off of these patterns And what they could potentially correspond to so for example, we think killing babies is wrong So we know the christian god is immoral if it's based on what people think or feel Wouldn't exist outside of the online No, so we feel heat. Does that mean heat is subjective So where okay, so heat emanates from a source. So where's morality? The fields of physics just like gravity We'll explain that you can't just make that claim. Maybe go ahead hypothesis. So so that is the prediction that is based on the models of intuition in progress So we look at the patterns of more literature more progress. We can tell what this phenomenon is like So like we can say hey we get these feelings that it's wrong to drown babies God drowned babies. Therefore god can't be the ground of morality Um, it's very simple to follow the patterns and see well, what could be the ground of morality Well, it can't be something that drowns babies. It can't be something that mass murders people What doesn't mass worry? Well laws of physics don't there's a pretty okay So if you believe that morality comes from the laws of physics, would morality exist if people did not exist? Yes Okay, how would you determine like explain to me like I find I just find it hard to even contend with this because you're saying That it exists and it comes from something that's undiscovered And so I just can't engage with it because there's nothing there's no substance to your claim Well, so god hasn't been discovered and this unknown law hasn't been discovered. That's true So so the way to engage with it would be to compare Which is a better explanation of the evidence we have in morality well evidence We haven't I don't think it's a reasonable explanation to say that morality emanates from the laws of physics That's a very friends me that I've never even heard that before most people just say it's a social construct No, that's not what most people say. It's actually most people say it's a Moral naturalism is the position that most philosophers hold most experts at most people Well, that's true. So I don't know about I don't know at most most people probably don't eat Most people don't say it's a social construct. They are believe in objective morality too but that's irrelevant, um, so Most philosophers who are experts in the field don't believe it's a social construct They believe in moral realism that it's subjective that exists independent of opinions and it hasn't been proven We haven't solved what objective morality is yet Nowhere does it indicate it comes from god But we're trying to establish well, which hypothesis best fits the evidence And so we look at patterns in morality. What are the things that are moral? What are the things that are immoral and what can so if we haven't if we haven't discovered objective morality Yeah, according to you, would it be reasonable for you to have a moral worldview if we haven't discovered it yet? You mean to have a worldview which thinks morality is oh, no, how could you hold if you're saying, okay? Well, we have not determined what what Objective morality is and yet you have moral beliefs. How do you? Recognize because that's how hypotheses work. So like string theorists think there are strings in the you Is not a belief. It's sort of like a suggestion that you're trying to prove It's not something you you believe because it's I what is a belief what does the word belief mean It's something that you know to be true, but yes, it's closer to an opinion. I don't have the exact Opinions. Yeah, I don't I don't not that but I think I don't care. Yeah, it's the opinion So can you have an opinion on things that don't have evidence? Uh, my original point was that you don't need evidence or to believe anything What if as long as it's true, do you need opinions or do you need something to have evidence to have an opinion? Well in your worldview, yes no Like you you need evidence for a belief to be justice in order to believe something and now you borrow my worldview that you are able to Believe something as long if there's no evidence for you can believe whatever you offer whatever reason you want The question is is it rational or to be rational you need evidence? I have well then i'm saying your belief is irrational by if it's just based on your own worldview So again, I have evidence you have no evidence You're saying there is no evidence for objective morality and yet you have no i'm saying it hasn't been discovered yet There is evidence like the patterns of moral intuition and moral progress which i've mentioned like four times So we look at the patterns of moral intuition and moral progress and we say well, what? Moral intuition and moral progress that are not like things that you can actually measure you cannot test They're not the same. They're not the same within every individual. So what use are they what good art? Because Same direction so so again No, again the fact that people feel things like heat doesn't mean heat is a social construct They can be affected people don't feel heat differently people don't feel heat differently. They do they literally literally do You know that how do you know? How do you know because we get neurologically proved they feel heat differently? Some people aren't able to feel heat because that's how the brain works This is not so you're able there there's some sort of Scientific method that you can use to determine how much somebody is feeling heat. I don't think that exists Some people can't feel it at all Do you would you like? I'm not saying that obviously there's some people who don't have certain feelings But i'm saying how do you measure that feeling what what unit is it like? What are you talking about? We can watch the reaction in an fmri to see if it lights up in a brain Is that going to be the same across every individual? No There you go Which is exactly what I said. It's different for many individuals yet. It refers to something which is objective Independent of what anybody thinks so the fact that we get the information from people doesn't mean it refers to something subjective This is very basic. Yes, but it's relating to something that can be objectively measured the set with uh, right It's referring to something that exists outside of the human mind So the fact that we get information from people doesn't mean it's subjective It could also be and I want to relate this I want to relate this point back to morality You're sort of getting off into this like scientific How focusing on what you said You made a mistake where you thought that because we own that comes from subjective experience Therefore it must be subjective. This is called confusing epistemology for ontology the fact of how we know something The fact that it comes from subjective experience Does I think it's objectively subjective? That's okay wrong Okay, so if everyone were to believe in one moral world, okay, would that become true morality? No, no Okay, how are you? What are you using to just let me try to make a simpler example for you to try to help you understand People see colors differently, right? That's a lot Uh, that's a philosophical argument that is debated. We don't know it. I cannot prove whether or not the colorblind people exist Yeah, what do you do people see colors differently? It depends if you're colorblind or not So the answer would be yes But if you're not colorblind, how would you know that what I'm calling the answer is yes people see colors differently Does that mean colors are subjective and don't objectively exist I heard people make that argument before yes, they say wavelengths exist Okay, let's say we're both looking at something that we both agree How do we know the experience that we both are calling? I don't care about the experience. Do the wavelengths exist. It could therefore be subjective. Do the wavelengths objectively exist Of course Yes, so the fact that information can come subjectively does not mean that the thing we're talking about Is subjective or culturally determined and I could agree with you online, but you aren't relating it back to morality That's why I'm using it now. So you can you have no proof that morality actually haven't been used in analogy Try to help you explain because you don't understand So if something comes in the form of subjective I want to just talk about it directly and explain to me the way in which physics ties into morality because you're not smart enough to understand So if we have information That's what we're getting there. We're getting there. So if information comes into us subjectively That doesn't tell us whether it's a subjective social construct or an objective thing. It could be either It could be either. Okay. I'm telling you explain to me how the morality comes from physics. Just that's all Directly talk about it directly going back to what your argument. You're just your first argument can Uh, something that comes into us through subjective experience be referring to an objective thing that exists in the world Yes, that's right. I was making originally was that if morality does not exist objective Focus on my question. Focus on my question. Stop monologing. Well, no, you're re framing my own beliefs I want to need to correct it You're you're you said this is the point you're made to answer my questions Not monologue your gibberish So my question was can you get information that comes in through subjective experience? You only know about it through subjective experience, but it refers to something objective that exists in the world Of course Yes, so if our information about morality comes in through us through subjective experience Does that mean that it's necessarily subjective or could it also be an objective thing in the world? If it actually exists objectively, then yeah, it would be objective Yes, so so the only point there is how it's your argument was that because it comes in through our subjective experience It must be subjective. That was not that's why I rephrase my argument because that's not what I said and I don't agree with Okay fair So it can be objective the fact that we since it doesn't tell us one way No, I said it is either it is either objective and it exists outside of the human mind Or it is subjectively determined. It is rendered a social construct. It's one or the other That was my belief Sure, agreed So it can be objective. So the question is is well, what is the evidence indicate? We have lots and lots of examples of morality like drowning babies is wrong That's that's a thing we think is moral or immoral to drown babies And we have lots of examples of moral things like helping own people across the street or whatever We're trying to explain. Well, what is the best? We don't know what the best answer is yet We haven't solved it's an unsolved problem. Maybe god it may be god is the grounds of morality Maybe law physics is the grounds of morality How would we establish which one is the better explanation? But we'd look at which one best fits the data God drowned millions of babies. We think drowning babies is immoral. So he doesn't fit the data very well What doesn't drown babies? Well physics doesn't really drown babies Um, what is yet internal and unchanging? How does physics relate to morality explain that literally literally just did that so There's a phenomenon morality and we want to say well, what best fits the data Is it a thing that drowns millions of babies? No, that does not fit the data very well. You're that you're You're not answering the question. How does morality emanate from visits? In what way is there a quake? Is there an equation for that? You prove it in the study? How does how does it happen? Because it's grounded in quantum fields just like everything else So morality comes from quantum fields. Yes Can you explain to me how that works, please or show me? Do you have a single study that would make that claim? Do you have a study that shows morality comes from God? Do you have anything in physics? Morality comes from God? I don't believe you need a study to believe something. That's your worldview I'm asking you to back it up or otherwise within your own worldview your view is irrational No, no, so I just debunked your argument. So here's how we do it. We don't need to study. We don't need to study Wait, stop, stop, stop, stop. Here's how we ration stop. Stop talking. Yes. Yes. Good evidence The evidence is we compare and we look at the Morality we look at the phenomenon of morality and we say like a footprint. It's like a footprint What is the shape of the footprints and by looking at the shape of the footprint? We can eliminate certain animals like if we see something that's like big has three big toes on it We can say not a squirrel. This was not created by a squirrel. We can eliminate squirrel. Squirrel does not fit the footprint Probably a t-rex t-rex fits the footprint. So we can say this is not a squirrel print So we look at the data the phenomenon morality and we say what looks or fits this pattern The pattern is drowning babies is wrong God drowned lots of babies God doesn't fit the pattern. What's gonna make it. I'm gonna make it real simple. What is your evidence that quantum fields? Have any Right now, you're talking about footprints and dinosaurs. Yes to try to help you understand because you are very No, just explain it directly. I just explain it directly That's that's literally what i'm doing, but you had a tiny brain. You didn't understand it. So now i'm trying to explain it No, no, you're not explaining directly. You're using a metaphor. No, no, I explain it directly explain it directly I'll do it again. I'll watch this. Okay The thing which best fits the phenomenon is evidence that thing explains the phenomenon That's a direct. It's almost like you don't understand what i'm asking How does a quantum field have any bearing on moral on objective morality? Okay, so so listen to the words again the thing that best fits the phenomenon Is the best explanation of the phenomenon. What's the phenomenon moral moral intuition to moral progress? That's what morality refers to so what thing could correspond to our moral intuitions and moral progress Our moral intuition moral progress one example is drowning babies is wrong That's an example of our moral intuitions. So we need something that fits that what something that can ground that statement One of the things that could ground that that is unchanging and eternal laws of physics Those are unchanging eternal and they can ground our moral intuitions One thing that can't ground that Is a gauze guy daddy who drowned millions of babies that could not ground that so this this this thing I just said to you is evidence god is not the basis quantum fields is the basis that is what i live in what way in what way okay, so um there are This is why with the analogy because you didn't understand when I literally just explained it to you No, you explained me a promise But you didn't actually even use the word quantum fields until like the very last sentence and then you reached stated the claim Yes, that's how conclusions work. That's oh my god. Um, so Morality is something that doesn't drown babies Quantum fields don't god does so therefore that's evidence morality is grounded in quantum fields not god I'll ask this in a different way when a quantum field, uh, let's say it expands. How does that affect morality? Who knows could be lots of ways Okay, what are you using to determine that? Determine what? That there could be lots of whether or not it could be lots of ways or not at all um, the laws of logic I don't think there's any law of logic that could tie a quantum field to morality I don't think anyone has ever believed that before you said it No, literally it's called moral naturalism. You can google it. It's pretty common That people believe that it comes from quantum fields That's wacky. I've never heard that's two different statements. That's like good Stick with your stick with your first statement. Do people believe nature grounds morality? Yes. Yes, it's called moral naturalism It's one of the most common views in philosophy. Yes, that exists My view is quantum fields. They don't necessarily have a view of which thing in physics. It does Have you ever have you ever said that have you ever said that publicly that you believe that quantum fields have an effect on morality I have a youtube channel And you talk about Philosophers literally academic professional philosopher all of the time. Yes. Okay. That's appeal of authority, which is a logical fallacy No, no, that's saying that I do publicly talk about this Either way, no, no, no, this is me talking about something that experts in the field can talk about with me Showing that this is a very common thing. That's that's all that means to do To show you that this is not just something I just made up Well, you want the fields I made up, but moral naturalism. I did not make up a very common view Okay, so if quantum fields did not exist would morality exist? um, no not in my view Okay I don't I don't even know what to say to this. This is just this is crazy. This is a wacky belief that I haven't even heard before But you haven't even Explained to me the relation between quantum fields and morality. How do they interact with each other? How does one emanate from the other explain that's like asking how does H2o ground water they are literally one in the same there is a quantum No, that's a very different that's a very different claim. No, no, so morality is the quantum field just like h2o is water You sound like a new age guru morality is the quantum field Well, how do you know that a christian says god is morality because i'm literally stealing it from christianity And you think it's silly just so it doesn't apply to your sky daddy Even though it's literally verbatim from your worldview, but okay, um It's not We don't believe wacky stuff like that Like if I believe What is morality what is morality? I believe the universe. Hold on. I believe the universe has a creator I believe the universe has a creator and Stop morality sense. It is something that's created is determined by that What is morality? It's a system of beliefs on determining what is right and wrong in your worldview. What is morality? In my worldview morality is what is right and wrong? It's that's um It's the idea or the idea god's nature Part of god reflection of oh, yeah, that's what you're asking. Yes. Well, I simply I I don't Know how you would sort of relate it back to god, but I believe that it's something that is determined by god He decides what morale what is more on what is not and that's about as far as I would go with that Okay, and I just say the same thing but replace god with quantum fields Yeah, except if if like he Just follow me for a second if god created the universe and he created morality He therefore he's the decider of morality How how then would you tie quantum quantum fields created the universe and quantum fields created morality Where are you getting that from? How good quantum? Wait, hold on. How good quantum fields to create the universe if they exist within the universe They're part of the universe the universe didn't create itself Quantum fields existed before the universe and created the universe. That's the consensus in physics. Okay. Are they matter? Do quantum fields contain matter or substance? I substance isn't determined physics. They're made of energy Okay, is energy something that you would consider part of the universe? Um, it is not the universe is something different No, is energy something you would consider to be part of the universe is something different So like all roses I know it's I know universe is not the is not energy So energy can exist before the universe Energy can exist before the universe because our universe had a beginning and there could be no it could No, no, no, what the? Energy could not create before the universe because then you would just be pushing back to the beginning of the universe What no literally that's not what those words mean So no other matter in physics. I see energy and quantum fields. That would be the universe That's what universe means. It's the totality of everything in existence. Yes Literally no one in physics uses it that way. No, you just don't understand what the word means So there's lots of things outside of the universe the universe refers to our Space time continuum and that's it. You believe there's things outside of the universe. Can you name? Just like quantum fields Other okay, and how do we measure something that's outside of the universe? Can you explain that's no idea? Do we detect it? Do you have any evidence for it? Google the chasmier effect Just go ahead explain. I'm not going to pull up google war in the middle of the debate. Just explain it Chasmier effect is a novel prediction made that shows that quantum fields are real and exist outside of space time It would still be contained within the universe No, the experiment is in the universe that doesn't mean it is energy Well, then we just have different definitions of the universe because I believe that all matter Substance and all things that are created are within the universe. That's what the universe is Okay, then you should probably reevaluate your definition to make it meet physics because they are the ones who actually get to define it not you That's appeal to authority. Okay, if all the if all the physicists believe what I believe that wouldn't make it right No, it would just mean that that's what the word means So if everyone in the world uses it one way and you use it a different way Your way is stupid because you're not communicating with everyone else in the world So if I'm a part of this other group of people in the world We use the word universe to refer to our space time continuum Like all the physicists and you use the word universe to mean something completely different that nobody else knows about except you Um, that means you're not communicating with the rest of us Generally people generally understand the word universe to mean all things in existence. That's generally how the word is used I don't think it's unreasonable field except all of the experts in the field Well, neither of us are expert for having a normal conversation. I am actually an expert in the field I know about quantum Goose early universe inflation. I know about string theory. I know about quantum physics. Yes I'm I'm very well versed in this field and many of the experts have said so so Yes, but I I know the words you do not know the words Okay, I just want to see can you tell me how quantum fields relate to morality? And if you have no evidence for how they relate to each other How can you even make the claim within your own worldview that they have any relation? I just don't understand. So you are making the mistake here that you have to explain like how how one Oh, I'm saying within your worldview. You must have evidence to believe something. I'm saying, what is your evidence? You don't understand what evidence can go two ways. You can go up and down So so evidence you can start with like a composite. You can say Uh chemistry is made of physics Biology is made of chemistry brains are made of biology. So it's like how one builds Yeah, this is what you're asking for you're asking how does quantum fields build morality or something along those lines There's another way to do it. You can look at patterns say if there's a pattern in say Uh, a footprints you can say well, what caused this footprint and you can compare it to other things that are the same shape You're just explaining what evidence says. I'm telling you. What is your evidence? Stop talking. So there are two ways to provide evidence. One is the layer kind like physics Chemistry is made of physics physics is made of quantum fields Etc. Etc. That's the kind you're asking for you're an idiot. That's not what I'm providing I'm asking you for any evidence that quantum fields relate to morality I don't need to provide this evidence. I can provide a different kind of evidence But within your worldview, you need evidence to believe something. So why do you believe that? Dumbass shut up. I'm answering your question. You dumbass. No, I don't have to literally shut up Because I'm answering the question. You're refusing to answer the question. Just one second Let's let him explain his point there and we'll bounce the ball back and then It is soon time for us to go into Q&A. So let's just take a moment to Just reset the tone everybody, you know, we'll just bring everything back down. Dumbass, there are two kinds of evidence. One is the layer kind that stuff is made of other stuff Chemistry, physics, biology. I didn't call you all of them. Mute him. Can you just mute him so I can finish the question, please? So Dumbass I'll answer it again. Now shut up There are two kinds of evidence. One is the layer kinds where you have Biology is made of chemistry, which is made of physics, which is made of quantum fields That's the kind you're asking for. You're asking for me to build. Stop talking. You fucking dumbass Stop you're repeating yourself. Stop talking. You fucking Mute him now so I can finish the answer. Let's I'm going to restart every single time you fucking dumbass Do you keep your mouth shut? Let's try to stop now Absolutely not. I'm gonna do I'm gonna think of my way. That's the way it's gonna be. So There are two different kinds of evidence. One is the layered kind how Grains are made of biology which are made of chemistry which are made of physics and you're asking for that You're saying how does quantum fields build Morality, there's a different kind of evidence where you don't need to show what builds what doesn't matter. It's irrelevant You can say there is a pattern and this pattern Can be matched to certain other things that cause the pattern now. This isn't building. This is not building There's no building. They are the same thing like a footprint in the snow was caused by a horse Well, what built there's no building. It doesn't come from one of the other. They're they're the same thing One causes the other because they are the same thing. So if morality is a quantum field It's not built on it. It doesn't relate to it. It is the same thing like h2o is water and the way we provide evidence for that Is by comparing the phenomenon to potential causes of the phenomenon One of the phenomenon of morality is drowning babies is immoral Which means we can say it's not god. This is evidence against god Drowning babies is immoral god drowned babies not god god is a bad explanation of morality Something that is eternal and unchanging and timeless that could ground morality because it doesn't drown babies quantum field so this one fact Indicates quantum fields is a better grounds of morality because they fit the pattern better than evil sky daddy That is literally evidence All right, I think he was wrapping it up anyways, so we're gonna let you close it out there brice So we'll give you up to a minute To close this out here and we will move into our q&a. We're right about a time so We will treat that as your closing statement there to jump and over to you brice All right, so when I actually asked for evidence he proceeded to continually repeat himself and explain what evidence is Which he did several times. I didn't need him to do that But he never actually gave any evidence. He said, you know babies drown and that's a bad thing Okay, we both agree that it's bad thing for babies to drown But at the same time you still haven't provided evidence that there's any relation. You said there's no necessarily It's not necessary for there to be a relation between quantum fields and and morality But then you're just saying they're the same thing which you actually admitted you're saying morality is quantum fields And i'm asking what is the evidence for that because in your worldview you have to You are required to have evidence in order to believe something which you have not provided And so therefore it's a irrational belief according to your own worldview. That's essentially what I think about you All right, let's move into our q&a. I think we've gotten as much out of this. So let's try to uh See what our audience has to say to interact with our speakers so a round of virtual applause for brice and t jump and Let's move into uh our super chats here So manga fan dan coming in with five dollars says why is reason the parameter to describe reality? couldn't we be in alice wonderlands and nonsense describes reality What if cheshire's cat is god Couldn't we be on alice's wonderland? Yeah, I thought I said that right. Yeah, it's just It's not worded very well. So yeah, uh, do you have any thoughts on that? Why is the reason Why is reason the parameter to describe reality is the crux of that question from manga fan dan Is that a question for me or t jump? Well, who said cheshire's hat is god cheshire's an atheist. I'm assuming he's an atheist So it's probably one for me then problem. Well, I'll say is the reason why the reason why uh reason is reasonable to The reason why we use reason to determine what is true and what is not true is because god is reasonable And so it sort of emanates from you know the creator of the universe We should we ought to think like the perfect mind and uh, you know Someone who is all knowing and so that's the way that he determines what is true then we should as well Apparently circular reasoning is reasonable Well, if the circle begins and end with god, then yeah, I believe that it's fine And Beautiful Oh, let's move on. We have more super chats coming in and thank you everybody who has put into the super chats Keep them coming in if you have uh ones again questions regarding the subject Uh, and also hit the like button. I'm going to start another q&a in a second here So you can uh compare your results from before and after ozian talks asks if evidence Of remote viewing is not in the bible and you won't accept the distance to the moon Why are you accepting a 1983 report? as good evidence well Again, I'll say I don't require uh proof or evidence in order to believe something I'm sort of trying to meet other people where they stand And so I would provide something that they would consider to be evidence such as a government report on remote view Okay Be as faith in remote viewing No, I believe there's evidence for remote viewing which means if you make your belief based on evidence Then you should believe in remote viewing All right another one coming in from ozian talks says brice Uh, would you sincerely pray to cure all cancer? please Also doing an after show on matters now So, uh any response to ozian? uh, yeah, so generally the amount of whether or not a prayer is answered is It sort of correlates with how much faith you have like the bible teaches if you have enough faith You could move a mountain with a prayer and so to ask for something that big like cancer to be cured I personally don't think I could have that sort of unwavering Um amount of faith. So how about just one person? That's one person Yeah, I I believe that would have I could I believe that can happen You should one at a time just do one at a time a bunch of times to be great Have the evidence and you know what after each one I'd probably increase my faith. So I agree with that Go for it. I would I would have faith if you could do that I mean, I've had my prayers answered. So I I agree We'll go ahead and pray for cancer to be healed of like 100 people in a row And if they're all healed that is phenomenal evidence just go to a hospital I would I know Well, you want to do it specifically See, this is what I mean. You're you're sort of you're being insincere, right? But if like no If you're asking me to pray for rent Hold on if you're asking me to pray for random random people's cancer to be cured Then uh, how would I even verify if my prayer has been answered? No, I mean like go to go to a hospital say this person is cancer. You're this person's cancer I might just do that but uh, this is something I can do in this. Please do. I'm 100 genuine Please do and if it happens, that's great. I've been a part of prayer I can tell you stories about prayers. I've answered that are similar to that. Like I knew a guy Uh, who was in our church who had like he was going through a brain surgery and this huge problem We all prayed when we turned off high and you it was pretty bad It was it was bad news what was happening with this guy and you know, we just prayed together and nothing happened So, okay, but go to a hospital do it to everyone in the hospital cure everyone in the hospital one at a time I will be convinced I'll take that challenge if you want to coordinate 100 genuine absolutely All right, this next super chat. I'm gonna have to look up from a fact junior role So just uh, chill over one second. Uh, we'll pin on that hussain a pulley of filio says T jump says we see the effect of quantum fields and that proves the concept However, we see the effects of god as he is a law giver What what that doesn't make any sense. So so again the argument is evidence of quantum fields Is we're looking at the patterns of morality and what could fit the pattern We're not looking at the effects of quantum fields. We're saying we're looking at the morality itself What are the things that are moral and saying well, what could cause this like if we look at a footprint What is the shape of the footprint? We're not actually looking at the cause of quantum fields or the origin That's that's a different thing Any thoughts over there on the other side to expound on that? However, we see the effects of god as he is a law giver Um t jump says we can see the effects of quantum fields. So you heard what t jump said Did you have anything to say brice? Uh, generally, I agree with that that we can see the effects of god. And so, you know He's sort of like the same kind of argument t jumps making about quantum fields. Nothing more to add there All right, let's move on a last super chat for now and then we'll move into uh, if you guys have any other Final statements to make before we get to the end, uh, or if any other super chats come in then we will Uh expound on that so a super general nubes asks for five dollars Morality is a social construct by which religions 4200 religions and gods isn't needed for morality quantum fields doesn't explain morality either thoughts So again consensus of experts in the field moral realism that it's morality is a real thing Whether or not quantum fields is not that's not the consensus Yes, it is That the consensus is that it's more it's it's quantum related. No, it's more Moral realism is the consensus also I've looked into quantum mechanics. I've listened to a bunch of lectures on it and it has nothing to do with morality It has to do with the behavior of electrons and how they listen to the words one at a time moral realism Is the consensus is the question is for what it feels is not more realism Quantum fields is a different thing moral realism separate We're gonna let brice expand on this just because it is for him. Uh, so go ahead price and you can respond to jump Did you repeat the question? The question was for me. What are you talking about? Morality is a social constructed socially constructed by which religions four thousand fields don't explain it That was for me Okay, all right. Yeah, that was the last question. All right verbally finesse You put in three dollars, but it doesn't look like you had a question attached to it So if you do Let us know if not, then we will just move into one minute closures You guys can let us know where we can find you and any other closing thoughts you have on this discussion Yeah, I think what we should do since you went first price is I will give it over to uh Yeah, I was getting trouble for doing uk rules, but yeah, we'll we'll give it to you first price all right, so Again, uh, I went over what you must do in order to be saved simply believe and if you have any amount of faith the bible One of one one of the persons one of the people in the bible um, they asked for a healing from god and Jesus Jesus replied that you know, he must believe and he said I believe helped mine unbelief. So you don't have to have complete faith necessarily in order to have a prayer answered So I really do encourage you if you're able to muster any amount of faith to ask for god for a sign And uh, he if if he's willing to and your being sincere I promise you if you seek god, you'll find him. So That's pretty much all I gotta say about that. Oh, by the way T jump completely ignored most of my points and I ignored a lot of his because you know He wasn't actually addressing the question of whether or not, um, you know There was a relation between quantum fields and morality, but I'll pass it over to him All right, you got one minute on the floor t jump closing thoughts another person in the bible find you another person in the bible Asked to win a battle and said he would sacrifice the first thing that came through his door when he went home Which was his daughter who he then burned alive J to path, uh, I think I don't know. Jephthah. Jephthah's uh, here's answer. Um, so yeah Jesus also drowned babies phenomenal facts about the bible So probably not the grounds of Slender are you a Are you a trinitarian? I believe jesus is god. Yeah. Yeah, so so anything god does jesus does Yeah God flooded the world. Well, not actually not necessarily, but I understand your point. You're making yes And there were babies on the world when god flooded it Let's go ahead. Yeah, so jesus drowned babies No, because jesus is not the father. Do you understand that the whole point of the trinity Would jesus agree with the fact that god drowned babies Yeah, necessarily he would have had to So so jesus consented to drowning babies. He's like, yes god, we should drown the babies Uh, the world deserved at points. I really have the babies deserved it. So jesus drowned babies Or he consented the bible The bible specifically talks about how, you know, the sons of the fathers would be punished, you know for their father's sins So not last for me because it's true. Jesus drowned babies No, jesus did not drown babies. So by drowned there. I don't mean literally. I mean he consented to it He agreed to understand the concept of the trinity that the father's not the son and the son's not the holy spirit Jesus consented and said it was good to drown babies I'd agree with that Okay, but I I I yield the floor youtube.com slash t-jump Let comment subscribe Okay, sorry I didn't mean to cut you off. Do you want to say that again their t-jump so everybody can hear you where they can find you? youtube.com slash t-jump patreon.com slash t-jump paypal.me slash tomjump Give me money Do you want to drown babies? Thanks t-jump. Uh, let's close it off there. Thank you t-jump. Thank you brice I appreciate you both for hanging out and having this discussion Yeah, you know, it's silly me always talking over everybody. So let's close it out as usual I'll I'll put on my good old tune here and greed by light and shade Check it out and thanks once again to our speakers and our audience for interacting with those speakers We will see you next time. Thanks everybody for coming out. That was a little fun Yeah, let's let's try to keep the debates rolling I want to once again extend an apology to the people in my discord who have been messaging me And the people in my email You know, I do see you. I knew I know you're trying to get at me and I'm sorry that It's taken me a while to get back to everybody. Uh, you know, I got a new I was here recently and there's been a lot of painting going on and Getting the kids rooms ready and stuff like that so they can live their normal lives. So um Yeah, once again, I do appreciate everybody for coming out and all the support that I see in the live chat We appreciate you guys here at modern day debate and uh me ryan I appreciate you guys. I see a lot of positive chats. Of course. I see lots of people that are like ryan did the wrong thing Uh, I'm sure I do often But uh, you know, it's a learning experience and uh, you know, I have to uh, I have to be careful when I use my dad voice uh, because if you use it too much then Uh, it'll become more like uh, it my parental situation. So growing up it was very much like, okay Mom's upset again. You know, but if dad was upset about something Oh, no, like you listen because he was never upset about anything the chillest person you've ever met, right? So if something upset the man You knew you messed up And that's kind of how I'd like to keep things here So once again, I try not to be a reactionary and I try to keep things chill And I like to see y'all hanging out in the live chat having fun Um, and the people that enjoy the tunes as well That's that's cool I'm actually waiting. Uh, issa. I sent you a link to uh, I was zoom chat here So I would like to chat with you very quick about upcoming debates and things that we could do together Um, I think that would be a lot of fun. Uh, let us know in the live chat Or you know in our comment section What you would like to see dad voice which one well, I mean you just heard me sing in that song I mean I can get really loud if I want to Or this but uh, I just choose not to usually because these debates are late and everybody in My vicinity is in bed So a few times I have raised my voice And everybody's gonna be like, oh, you know, ryan, you know, he sees his wife and he just decides, you know Uh, they're gonna be calling me names in live chat But yeah, there has been times that I've raised my voice to shut down some Really, uh, you know things things that I find unsavorable That's for sure And I look over and I see my wife and I'm like, oh no I've yelled and she she has to work very early in the morning and I don't have to work until later. So Yeah, I do it kind of forces me to kind of keep a more Chill mentality when hosting these debates because You know, if you have the ability to raise your voice, then maybe you're more apt to but When you know you have to keep it down in this range Then you have to uh, you know, try to assert I guess a certain amount of dominance Which is difficult, you know, you hear the canadian is coming out of me It is certainly difficult coming out of this range. Maybe I could lean into my mic more You listen to me now. I am the canadian I will moderate you. I don't know. We'll we'll we'll figure out what needs to be done But honestly, uh, once again, I really appreciate everybody for coming out to uh, Um, on our day debate hitting the like button it once again boosts us up through the algorithm and uh, helps people See these debates. Uh, Danny diesel. I I see you. I see all your messages. I really appreciate You know all the positive messages that you've been sending over it. It does help Uh, especially, you know, when you do have certain people that are not so, uh, You know enamored with certain performances. So Not just musically, but also hear a modern day debate. So I do appreciate Your positive support along with all of our moderators. So once again, I should Do a little quick shout out that for all the people watching right now, we do have a discord So hannah hannah anderson is watching out If you can hannah tag our discord Because that would that would be appreciated. I think as far as I ex nihilo. I do voice Impressions and I won't because I get in trouble all the time Um Don't tempt me. Uh, I yeah Elvis is coming back to sing again. Yeah, this is actually Uh, 1953 is what it was dated when we opened it up. So it's definitely in that, you know Since my baby love me, you know, it's in that range, you know I gotta I gotta get more of like a preamp that works for it though I got this modern preamp. I need something grittier that really delivers the uh, old old sense of tone That that's as low as I can sing right now to make sure I don't get in trouble. Um, I'm also not demonetized But yeah, once again just to keep us back in the loop. I do want to say we have a discord, uh, hannah So if you can, uh, thank you so much. I just saw hannah tagged that in there So if you have, uh, you know fingers that can hit that that is the next place I think you should go uh is into our discord Check out all the rooms that we have that you can jump into And have groovy discussions With people that disagree with you on all kinds of various subjects and get yourselves in all kinds of arguments I think that'd be all all kinds of fun. Don't you? Uh, what else do we have? Let's see radiations says ryan. What is uh, modernity debate? Hey, shit. Disrespect T John, were you disrespecting even as a moderator? Why don't you guys take it? What does he have on you guys? Um, some people are more moderable than others But, uh, honestly, I think we had a great discussion tonight. So there's no point I think in not calling out individual people for, uh, uh, certain behaviors I think, uh, everybody worked together, uh, to make this happen. So thank you so much and, uh, Don't worry radiation. Uh, you know, Just keep an eye out. There's gonna be more debates and I'm sure you'll see t jump back here again and I'll be moderating. So, um, you know Maybe, uh, maybe the opinion will shift. So, um, it's been many times Hannah as well Just coming at you radiation. I'm not sure. But yeah, join the discussion in our discord everybody Thank you to Hannah and xxd and batman as well, uh for coming up moderating if I forgot anybody. I'm sorry Uh, you know, this isn't a screw you. I just I just forget. So, uh, I'm gonna go lay down and, uh You know, I'll try to Clear up the snow tomorrow and if it's clean, then maybe I'll get some raking done Just depends if it rains tonight. What a mess we have up here So, yeah, good night everybody. Cheers and Once again, I'm waiting for you Issa. I sent you the link on our, uh, email I'm saying good night to everybody but, uh, I got a few more words for you if you want to pop in and We can chit chat. See you