 Thanks for being here folks really excited to get to the debate in just a minute just want to first say I'm James I was moderated a and the intent organizer. You really appreciate you being here. Thanks for your support You're really enjoying this is a blast and I'm going to get to eat you and if you haven't just come over Coach keeping me you have to go to the bathroom if you just go right across the hall It's almost a straight shot up that door in the back. There are restrooms there There's single occupancy. So just so you know Lock it once you're in there and then just kind of like he's still forgot. So we've got a lot of that audience now like channel tap on channel like slowly opening with the way, but This door we're trying to keep out of view. So it's supposed to be locked and that's just so we have a picture of who's coming in out of the room and then Well, if they're at least walk through that's normal We've invited them just have a presence here. Just to be sure they're in this mood I don't think there's gonna be a problem, but we just want to know the walk of it. They might walk through so In terms of other housekeeping things What we'll do is we should start this one about on time and then we'll of course have dinner that's scheduled for 530 it's your VIP ticket buyer If you're not with when he's only like two minutes away, so Any any questions though about the facility anything I cover Yeah, well every a Q&A Yes, there will be and this one is a little bit longer last one was only scheduled for 20 and it didn't even go that long So this one if I remember right? Fair to you. In fact, yeah, what I'll do is I'll read you guys the format So you have an idea what to expect. Thanks, Jake is as Jake said it There's a 30 minute Q&A that we'll wrap up with before that will have 13 minute opening statements six minute rebuttals Then 60 minutes of open dialogue and then four minutes of closing statements, so but yeah, so what I'm going to do is just start the stream as these should be recorded and And So first thanks so much for being here for this debate on the evidence does it point toward God or you could say away from God Loosely speaking as well as I want to let you know debate on for is our next conference That's going to be in Dallas on November 4th. You don't want to visit. It's gonna be a full day of religion debates So we hope you see you there and if you're listening online And if you're not able to make it that will be live streamed on the YouTube channel So if that subscribe button if you haven't already that way if you're across the world You can watch it that way that will also be stream live and for free for the public online But we're gonna jump into this debate Jake is going first for his 13 minute opening statement Thanks so much for being with us the floor is all yours I mean Welcome everyone I Just want to start off by thanking modern-day debate and James for hosting this debate And I want to thank on for participating today I also want to mention that I am here on behalf of Muslim debate initiative, which is an organization that I'm representing For the purposes of this debate I want to point out which as James already mentioned the title of the debate is is the evidence for Against God for the purpose of this debate I take evidence for a hypothesis to be that which raises the probability of a given theory to be true I take evidence against the hypothesis to be that which lowers the probability of a given theory to be true On my debate opponent in a video entitled theism is not rational states And I quote what everyone means by God is a conscious thinking mind close quote I'm happy to accept this definition for the purposes of this debate So long as we understand that what I mean by God is an eternal agent I eat a beam that performs actions is the creator of all and is it a foundation of all knowledge and truth Now I spoke to Arne on the thought adventure podcast channel previously about whether or not something necessary exists During the discussion Arne stated and I quote I don't think it's possible for there to be absolutely nothing that Impossibility would make the existence of something absolutely necessary close quote It suffices to say that Arne does not have an issue with the concept of necessity I will now provide an argument for what this necessity must be This argument is actually partially inspired by Arne himself in a video on Arne's YouTube channel entitled the reason for reason He says and I quote in my perspective Accuracy and accountability are paramount truth matters more than whatever we would rather believe close quote So as we can see in this quote Arne says that the truth matters more than whatever we believe Let's see if he's going to stand by that today or if he will abandon the truth for his own unjustified beliefs I will now present the following argument for the existence of God. It is an argument from necessary truth First I will run through the premises of the argument until I reach the conclusion Next I will circle back around and give reasons for affirming two of the premises that are important in the argument Okay, so the argument goes like this argument from necessary truth premise one Necessarily either the law of non-contradiction is true or the law of non-contradiction is not true I don't see any reason why Arne or anyone else for that matter would attempt to challenge this premise Either the law of non-contradiction is true or it isn't there doesn't seem to be another option premise two Premise one is necessarily true i.e. It is true and could not have failed to be true again I don't see why Arne or anyone else for that matter would want to challenge this premise Premise one is true and there doesn't seem to be any possibility of it being not true If Arne would like to challenge either of these first two premises. He's more than welcome to do so premise three true propositions exist Truth is a property of propositions. This is one of the two premises I'll come back to for further explanation Therefore premise four at least one true proposition exists necessarily this simply follows from the first three premises Premise five propositions are mental entities i.e. thoughts. This is the second premise that requires further elaboration I will come back to this in just a moment Premise six therefore necessary propositions are necessarily existent thoughts again This simply follows for premises four and five Premise seven thoughts cannot exist apart from an intellect I don't think Arne or would argue against this premise It seems pretty straightforward that thoughts are within minds or intellects It is not as if we can have free-floating thoughts apart existing apart from minds Conclusion therefore a necessary intellect exists We finally arrive at the conclusion necessary intellect exists This simply follows from what I've mentioned in the previous premises This also coincides with the definition of God from Arne that I cited earlier All I mean by a necessary intellect is a being that must exist and is capable of grounding truth and knowledge Apart from premises three and five I take the rest to be uncontroversial I will now provide reasons for affirming both of these premises Let's start with premise three true propositions exist First let me define what a proposition is according to the stanford encyclopedia philosophy entry on propositions Propositions are shareable objects that are the primary bearers of truth and falsity In philosophy there is a distinction that is well known between truth makers and truth bearers A truth maker is that which makes a proposition true Let's take the idea that water is wet The truth maker in this case would be the existence of water and the fact that it has the property of wetness Now the truth bearer or the proposition is the thing that exists that we ascribe a truth value to We say that that thing is true So now that we have an idea of what propositions are what are some reasons to think that they exist Well, one reason to think that propositions exist is that ordinary language supports this notion For example, I believe that this debate is in houston, texas Presumably arne believes the same thing That same thing is the shared content between our beliefs That is the proposition which in this case happens to be true Another reason for thinking that propositions exist is the notion that truths exist that have not yet been discovered Arne himself affirms this in many places one example of this is when he says and I quote Once upon a time our ancestors believed that thunder lightning and volcanoes were the results of god Result of god's actions that the stars and planets had human attributes That sickness was a curse of witchcraft and epilepsy was demonic possession In each case the real truth might never have been discovered if we'd been satisfied by those lies close quote So truth seems to be something that we can seek for people don't typically seek for things that they know do not exist Arne speaks of the real truth being something which is discovered As if it already exists and is waiting to be realized by humans All of this points to the reality of propositions Another reason for thinking that propositions exist is because we ascribe properties to them For example, we ascribe the properties of truth and falsity to them For any object that we ascribe properties to in some possible world including this actual world it must exist Arne unknowingly himself affirms the well-known truth maker truth bearer distinction that I explained earlier Arne states and I quote Reality itself is not truth, but statements about reality can be if they're true So if we have to determine whether it is true before we call it truth Then the truth is whatever statement can be shown to be true and that's simple enough close quote We see that arne clearly distinguishes Between that which makes something true and truth itself he ascribes truth to statements about reality However, there are good reasons to think that statements or sentences are not the primary bearers of truth Why is that? Well, you can have multiple sentences in different languages that assert the same truth You can also have distinct sentences in the same language that express the same truth This shows that there is something more fundamental that is shared amongst the distinct sentences The content between sentences is what is shared There are other reasons why one should think that propositions exist, but that should suffice for now Now that I've given good reasons to think that propositions exist Let's take a deeper look into the nature of propositions If propositions exist, then what exactly are they? My claim is that propositions are best understood as mental entities or thoughts One reason to think this is because propositions have a unique characteristic known as intentionality Intentionality is a technical philosophical term that refers to aboutness or being Directed towards something. For example, the sentence this debate is in Houston, Texas Is about something, namely the city of Houston and this debate The same is true of our beliefs, our beliefs are about certain things This directedness towards other things is a distinct feature of intentionality Atheist and naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg expresses the difficulty of explaining how our thoughts if they are purely Physical would be about anything at all. He states and I quote What we need is a clump of matter in this case the Paris-Norans that by their very arrangement of its synapses It indicates singles out picks out identifies and here we just start piling up more and more synonyms For being about another clump of matter outside the brain But there is no such physical stuff. He says Physics has ruled out the existence of clumps of matter of the required sword There are just fermions and bosons and combinations of them None of that stuff is just all by itself about any other stuff There is nothing in the whole universe Including of course all the neurons in your brain that just by its nature or composition can do this job of being About some other clump of matter close quote Rosenberg in defense of his naturalism Actually denies that humans think about anything Arne can take the same position if he wishes, but that would render this entire debate futile If arne cannot think about anything then he certainly cannot think about providing evidence against the existence of god Another important aspect of intentionality is what is called aspectual shape This refers to the way in which an entity is understood For example, take the sentences jake branketella debates atheists and the muslim metaphysician debates atheists These two sentences point towards the same man namely me, but in different ways This is why someone may believe one of these sentences to be true But not the other even though jake branketella and the muslim metaphysician are co-referring terms As we can see propositions are intentional Mental entities such as thoughts and beliefs exhibit this unique feature of intentionality Our thoughts and beliefs are about things in distinct ways Entities that are purely physical and lack mentality such as cars tables and chairs are not intrinsically about anything at all Since propositions are intrinsically intentional and so are mental entities such as thoughts They are the perfect candidates to be propositions Unless we have some independent reasons to think otherwise we should regard propositions as mental entities Now if propositions are best understood as mental entities that can be true or false And at least one necessary truth exists then a necessary intellect must exist This is because thoughts cannot be had apart from minds and since all humans are contingent This means that humans as well as their human thoughts are not going to qualify as necessary propositions We need something which is necessary itself We need a necessary mind that could not fail to exist to account for the existence of necessary truths I think that arne should accept one more uncomfortable truth i.e the existence of a necessary intellect that is the creator of all It may be hard for him to accept but in the words of arne himself and I quote Truth matters more than whatever we would rather believe Thank you very much for listening and I look forward to arne's rebuttal and the rest of this debate Thank you very much. We'll kick it over to arne for his 13 minute opening statement as well Arne the floor is all yours. Thank you My experience believers hate nothing more than the burden of proof And that's why they try to redefine what evidence means so that it is no longer a fact that indicates Because they can't give you any facts not the point their way So they give arguments instead of evidence essentially word games trying to define their god into existence With erroneous or fallacious assumptions built into most of them If you ever look at a list of logical fallacies You might notice that every one of them has been used as an argument for god And in my experience every argument for god involves at least one logical fallacy and usually more than one And uh As i'm sure we will both demonstrate in our upcoming discussion at which time I will claim that as one of many facts and evidence in my case against god Of course the fact that the first fact in evidence against god is that there is no evidence for god We have to start there because logically Having no reason to believe something is a pretty good reason not to believe it Especially when such is neither probable nor even possible We don't get to say that anything is possible because we know of too many things that are not a cow cannot jump over the moon For example, that's not just improbable. That's physically impossible In order to say whether something is possible there must be a precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such possibility exists You don't have that for gods or ghosts or demons or souls or for magical enchantments like blessings or curses So not only is none of that evident It's not even a possibility to consider Believers can't even give a consistent definition of what their god is supposed to be Neurosidists understand the mind to be an emergent property of the brain So the notion of a disembodied mind is nonsense as jake just pointed out himself And it's contradicted by scripture as well because while modern theologians have contrived some lofty Exaggerations of what they've built their god up to be let's not forget god's humble beginnings in ancient mythology The bible tells us tells us that god walks talks eats turns his head waves his hand shows his backside and cheats at wrestling It says that adam abraham and moses all spoke to god face to face and that 70 of the elders of israel were allowed to look upon god in physical form But whether god has a body or not There's no explanation given for how this god even could exist much less how it does anything And the sacred fables all say ridiculous things like how he created the first man with a golem spell Well, he created everything else with an incantation speaking everything out of nothing abracadabra Just like so many pagan gods did like the native american god coyote Who made the mountains and the rivers and who put the salmon into the rivers? There's no explanation for how he made or put anything or how gods do anything It's all a process of pfm better known as pure fucking magic Then there's the fact that it doesn't matter which faith we focus on No religion can show that they're any more accurate than every other faith The same goes for their scriptures too The jewish Torah the christian gospels the koran of islam the kitab e actas of bahoolah The investors of sarathustra the adi grant of the Sikhs the hindu Vedas and the mahabaritas bagavad gita The book of mormon and the irancha book Have all been declared by some devotees to be the absolute truth and the revealed word of the one true god Even when they can't agree on who or what that god is Everyone knows that every word of all these supposedly sacred tomes was scribbled by scribes Mere fallible men who obviously had no idea what they were talking about Because every supposedly god breathed doctrine is full of errors For example everything the bible or the koran says about the earth in relation to the rest of the cosmos is flat earth cosmology from the iron age So they couldn't have been written or given or dictated by any gods or angels because they would have known better We have sufficient evidence and science to prove that adam and eve are genetically impossible and we're not real people The global population cannot have been derived from a single couple not 6 000 years ago nor even 600 000 years ago We descend from a particular population of eights numbering several thousand strong at least Who set out on the road to our lineage at least a few million years ago To be clear this is a matter of objectively demonstrable scientific fact not assumptions Physical anthropologists and paleo primatologists can show how humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestry Is an objectively verifiable fact in the absolute sense that it doesn't change Meaning that it will not be corrected by new information It's not just a pop probability. It's a certainty Cultural anthropologists can also show how we know that the tale of the garden of eden is nothing more than a fable composed of Several tropes and characters showing the apparent influence of elder religions and neighboring regions It's only it's only possible truth depends on metaphorical interpretations There is absolutely no truth of any part of that story otherwise Archeologists assure us that the same goes for the tower of babel and even the exodus Historians agree that moses never existed. He was a legendary character, but he wasn't real Then paleontologists geologists geneticists and practically any other earth and life scientists can disprove the global flood of Noah's art The bible and the Quran both imply that this was a global invent Flooding the whole world and that everyone alive today is a descendant of Noah But we have literally tons of rock solid proof from many independent fields of study that it's just a story It never happened. Not the way it says in anyone's scriptures It's not just that it couldn't have happened But even if it could have by some flurry of miracles, we still have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to prove that it didn't happen So the bible and the Quran are both wrong not just about that, but practically everything else of importance too It's not just that all the scriptures are laughably wrong about practically everything scientifically and historically ethically and morally It's that outside of these assorted doctrines We see that the the fact that belief in any god doesn't have any apparent impact on the person's morality Instead and even worse there are criminal studies showing that the more religious ones The more likely they are to be bigoted intolerant and abusive favoring violent vengeance over rehabilitation or restitution comparative amount analysis of child molesters even decades ago showed Testistically The more religious an abuser is the more abusive they were with more and younger victims Whereas programs like the clergy project reveal that when people stop believing They become more tolerant more curious liberal less bigoted and judgmental And why are so many people leaving religion because of the fact that all the world's religions combined can't even show that There's a there there that there is anything supernatural at all There's no discernible verifiable truth to any supernatural claims just subjective impressions and baseless assumptions Any claim of facts in evidence of the divine or of anything supernatural always turn out to be nothing but frauds falsehoods and fallacies Which ought to matter to you if the truth matters to you at all if you want to understand knowledge as distinguished from make-believe Yet all the major religions require faith instead where you're supposed to believe whatever they said simply because they said so I think all of this would agree that faith healers and self-described exorcists are famously fraudulent yet We ignore that. Uh, jesus was running the same game as they are just another superstitious cult leader The people who have dedicated Decades of their lives to the study of near-death experiences Have lost faith even in that coming away admitting that there's still no substance to it after all this time Over half a century and there's still very few cases without a clear explanation That's not what they predicted 50 years ago And the failure there according to all of the neuroscientists neurophilosophers and brain surgeons I've spoke to is the fact that there's no support for mind-body dualism Neither in neuroscience nor even in philosophy Is not just that there's no evidence right where it should be right where it would be if we had an animating Immortal spirit is that we have so much evidence against it to confidently conclude that we don't have souls Without an immortal supernatural soul there can't be an afterlife Thus no heaven or hell and without them the notion of a god is largely moot This doesn't make a lot a lot of difference in islam since the koran talks about a physical heaven where our bodies will be Reanimated such that we will still require food Even in hell where roughly 80 of the world would spend eternity if love if islam was correct If fortunately islam is not correct There is no hell and god doesn't operate an invisible hotel in the expanse of the non-existent firmament either Regardless what god or religion it is hell is inconsistent with god If there was a god there still wouldn't be a hell because no god would allow it If we are to believe what the scriptures say about god being infinitely merciful and just those two are already in Contradiction with each other and both contradict the description of god as a righteous judge Having wisdom or love or any of that which contradicts everything required to torture everyone mercilessly relentlessly forever and ever over a thought crime The koran repeatedly says that simply believing equals doing good and that not believing equals doing evil So islam is just like christianity in that we are not judged on morality But on gullibility because we are judged and damned forever over what or whether we believed And hell would still be grossly unjust even if we knew god existed But as you've seen here today, we have not given evidence to compel belief So hell becomes exponentially worse No god would want or allow something so petty and vindictive And such is obviously just an excuse that theologians made up so that those who didn't believe in the impossible promise of Apostle this reward might believe in the threat of a fate worse than death if they don't believe for the purpose of course Being the manipulation of the masses toward the ultimate goal of enriching and empowering the clergy This is only circumstantial evidence against god, but it's worth mentioning This is especially bad in islam because the koran says a few times that god decides who will believe and who won't So we don't even have free will instead we submit to god's will as if we're just his play things And he's going to punish us for whatever he forced us to do Thus belief in god is inconsistent with both free will and objective morality Which is a contradiction of two of the most popular reasons believers cite for why they believe And why we should believe and note that their most popular reasons for believing have nothing to do with evidence Again as always belief is assumed in lieu of evidence and maintained despite all evidence to the contrary Evidence is a body of facts objectively verifiable data indicating one conclusion or eliminating another If the truth is what the facts are then there is no significant or spiritual truth in any religious doctrine But there are a hell of a lot of lies in all of them Thus we have nothing at all to imply that there even could be a god But ample evidence everywhere to show that god is a fantasy Nothing more than wishful thinking. Thank you Thank you very much for that arin. We'll kick it into the Rebuttal section jake got the timer set for you and the floor is all yours for six minutes Okay, so what we just saw from arin was a whole lot of nothing not much evidence or even arguments in his own terminology against the existence of god and said we got a whole bunch of uh How scriptures are flawed, which is irrelevant actually to the debate because we're not debating scripture here today We are debating whether or not there is evidence for or against god Disproving scripture or disproving that human beings have souls or whatever else was presented Is very interesting and maybe could be another subject of a debate some other time But has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not god exists So i've made note of a bunch of things that arin said and i'll try to get through at least some of them If not, we'll go through them. Hopefully during the Um open discussion section So, I mean he says there's no evidence for god. I think that I've presented some Right. I presented an argument and he doesn't think that arguments are actually evidence Well when presenting an argument you're supposed to give evidence for the premises in the argument Right. So to say that arguments are opposed to evidence as if they're two entirely different things Just gets the whole equation wrong about what arguments are supposed to be Arguments are supposed to have premises and we're supposed to have evidence in support of those premises Most of my premises in my argument I think to be pretty straightforward and I don't think anybody would deny and the two that are somewhat Controversial, which I think the argument hinges on I did provide evidence for them now Um, it's interesting arin, you know, is not very much into philosophy and this is by his own admission So i'm not like taking a shot at him at all But he made a philosophical claim actually several but one that I noted Well, so he said there must be prior precedents to say that something is possible Well, what's the claim for that? I mean, what's the evidence for that? That's just a philosophical assertion that there must be prior precedents to say that something is possible Where are you getting this idea or theory of modality from that? We must have a prior example of something to determine whether or not something else is possible That's a philosophical claim. That's not a scientific claim um He made this big to do about magic and uh It takes on the Quran and various scriptures like the bible and whatever other scriptures he mentioned But as I mentioned earlier any claims made against the Quran whether it be about the existence of adam or uh claims about evolution and his understanding of the quote and rejecting that Those are all interesting topics, but they're not the subject of this debate Even if evolution evolution were true. It doesn't disprove god. It wouldn't disprove god whatsoever So, I mean it's interesting. He notes all of these things which Are arguments and evidence in support of some other pieces But they're not arguments and evidence in support of the thesis that god does not exist Um, he made you know this these comments about religion entailing violence and abuse and criminality And you know hatred towards others and all this kind of stuff. You're not actually liable But aren't has made a living of claiming that religious people and people of faith are the most most dishonest people Right that is in existence. So it's it's really interesting to me because from his side There's a whole lot of hostility right and this so-called liberal care bear loving attitude I don't see it exhibited in aran and his likes Um, he made a lot of comments about truth. I don't know how much of that you guys call it He said truth or whatever the facts are he said if the truth matters at all blah blah blah blah And in preparation for this debate I actually took the time out to listen to ours worth of aran raha's material And he's a guy who constantly brings up the truth. He cares so much about the truth But he never actually clearly tells us what the truth is and that's why I've provided an argument from the very concept Of necessary truth to the existence of god And I hope that will get some engagement from that in his rebuttal time I know that he didn't have time to because that was his opening statement But I really look forward to that because there's so much I think, you know, maybe he doesn't want to accept it But uh that he has to say about truth that I would actually agree with I just think that that entails other things and that he's not willing to accept that I of course Um, he said there's no support for mind mind body dualism Again totally irrelevant because as a muslim you don't have to be a mind body dualist Right, so it has nothing even disproving islam let alone disproving that a god or a creator exists um Let's see he he also made another claim another false claim about islam that we are judged based on what we believe Yeah, partially we're partially based judged on what we believe But it's not as if you can just believe in god and believe in the existence of the prophet Muhammad And that the qataan is the last and final revelation And then you can just go out and do whatever you want and god doesn't care And there's going to be no consequence in this life or the next that's certainly not the islamic position It may be a version of christianity, but it's certainly not islam. I think my time is up Thank you very much. We'll kick it to our end for six minutes as well I provided a list of facts in evidence against god which was precisely the point of the debate today A fey asserts baseless speculation as if it was a matter of fact But science doesn't prove things like jake says it does Instead it adheres to what is supported and what is not and whatever is not supported Doesn't warrant serious consideration Jake failed to list a single fact that indicates one position or eliminates another Oh, so I provided evidence and he did not We can't say that something is true until or unless we can show the truth of it to know whether something is true as we honestly should Now before we assert that it is so when it comes to how do we know whether something is possible We have to have some way to know that it is possible And my analysis shows that in every case where we can say that something is possible It's not because we just resign that anything is possible No, we have a precedent that established that it's possible or we have a parallel situation Which implies that a similar thing could happen in this case or we have a verified phenomenon Which is as yet unexplained but nonetheless gives the indication that yeah, this must be possible because there it is So that's where I came up with the precedent in parallel a verified phenomenon indicating that such possibility exists And as far as the the other argument when I was on his show with him when he told me that he's looking for a necessary being And he confirmed for me that being didn't have to mean being as I understood it that a being doesn't have to be an entity That it can just be an inanimate object I could see where he was going with this and the weakness of the game He was playing and I wanted to play along as much as I possibly could because for me If I if if we if we don't have anything coming from nothing or if everything isn't coming from nothing Then obviously if we have something if we have a universe with something in it There must have been something to start with So as according to the first law of thermodynamics Material energy right so matter cannot be created or destroyed. I knew what he was going to do with this So I suggested that the necessary being Would be dead unconscious material Knowing that he would crow victory that dead unconscious material counts as his living immaterial consciousness That it doesn't bother him that he's going to completely contradict himself My problem in not being able to get to the punchline on this was that they began to they wanted me to speak Authoritatively about a subject. I don't even study which was cosmogony In which case I don't like it doesn't matter what my uneducated opinion is So I have to defer to the experts. I had recently I recently had an interview with Sean Carroll Sean Carroll in that interview said that there could just have easily been nothing as something It was like, well, if you want an authoritative statement, that's not going to come from me That's going to have from come from Sean Carroll and then they argued this I thought this was funny when they said well, it doesn't matter what what the experts say. What do you believe? I'm I only have an uneducated opinion. So it literally doesn't matter what I believe We're talking about objective truth here. Not subjective beliefs Are you able to speak a closer of the mic? If you put the mic right in front of you, I have a trouble Sure, no worries so I'm the one presented to evidence. That was the purpose of the debate. I'm the only one that presented facts and evidence He got nothing Thank you very much. We'll go on to the next section. This is the 60 minute open discussion Okay It's ready Okay, so I have a question for arm because you know you're saying I didn't present any facts or evidence Um, what do you make of my argument that I presented? Can you explain what my argument was and what you take issue with? No, I can't explain what your argument was I just predicted that you were going to use a word game to try to define your god into being because that's all you ever do You've never presented evidence in any of your presentations You think that arguments are evidence just like every apologist does because they don't have any evidence to point to So you have to come up with a word game. We're in dead unconscious material because you're living in material consciousness So it's anti logic Yeah, so you're trying to convince me and everybody else here that's watching Both here and live that I didn't present any arguments. I don't need to convince and make them just play it back But yet but yet you yourself are admitting that you cannot even render my argument You have no idea why I presented so it's as if you weren't listening You came here with the assumption and the bait whether you're correct or not But we wouldn't know it because you can't recall what I didn't say In the previous argument All I could do is it is understand that this is where you're going that you think that if I believe Subjectively if I personally without any education in the field if I believe that there must have been something that somehow disproves god That's not a valid argument And that's that's all you do So I've come to expect that that you're not going to bring anything So I will bring facts that you won't be able to dispute and these are going to matter This is where science looks at what is supported. Okay, here's the The support that I've given there's no possibility of god There's no indication of god and all we have is a bunch of facts and evidence to indicate that there is not a god That god is a fictional character that god has largely exaggerated whatever and this is why Religious apologists like yourself have to come up with these contrived arguments to try to play a word game to define your god into existence without evidence Okay, well since you can't run under my argument, right? I try I listened when you went over it again. I'm like, what is he talking to me? So maybe we can go through it step by step. Otherwise, we're gonna have nothing to talk about other than you asserting that I think we've got money to talk about I didn't present anything and I never present anything Well, I'm I know that's that is your claim you also claimed the oh you owned me By walking into what I'm thinking you were trying to set a word game trap for me And I'm trying to reset it for you But then it neither way it wouldn't have worked either way If I believed that nothing was necessary where I believed that something was necessary either way Doesn't matter which option of that I take it still doesn't establish a god And I can't believe that you that you actually think that it would The wielder's name You're you're necessary being that you will accept literally dirt All right, so do you have do you have a fact You know and it's something that indicates one position or eliminates another Objectively verifiable data Now I Help me out here, where was the objectively verifiable data That that positively indicates one available position over any other That wasn't just a logical Quandary, but but an actual objectively verifiable data From you regarding what you said about I mean you've made so many presentations about true some of them I found very interesting and helpful Right, so I'm actually using an argument from necessary truth to prove that a necessary mind exists So let's get to truth because you want to talk so much about truth and you're a true seeker and And faith is against truth and religiously hate truth So let's try to figure out what truth is right and then see what that entails The truth is what the facts aren't the truth is what the facts are so what do you got? So I I quoted you this is a direct quote from you and maybe you don't agree with it anymore I don't know but this was what you said you said Um Reality itself is not truth But statements about reality can be if they're true, right? I heard that So this microphone, right? This microphone is not truth But if I make a statement about the microphone, which is true, then that statement is true, right? So we're in agreement now my claim is that that means that you think that sentences Are what have the property of truth Is that your position when you make a statement and you have to be able to show that it is correct So you can't just make a statement and then tell me that you like it's true until you prove it wrong Because I've heard that plenty So I happened to cross a brilliant quote by Abraham Lincoln that absolutely loved He said it's an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it's true or false Is guilty of falsehood and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him Which means you can't say something is true until you can show that it is true You can you're welcome to say that you believe something But you can't state it as a fact because the moment you start claiming facts that are not facts And pretending to know things you don't know which is what faith is all about Then that's called lying Yeah, okay, so But we're in agreement here that there's a distinction and in philosophy, right? The distinction you made is between a truth maker and a true bear And you say if we can't show that something is true That's the thing that makes it true in this case, right? If I say that this black microphone is on the table What makes it true the truth maker with the fact of the matter in your terminology Is that the microphone actually exists? It's objectively verifiable data. Correct, right? So this is this is a what we call the truth maker So we're agreeing things that exist in reality are the truth makers They're the things that make something true the truth bearer is the thing that we refer to is the truth We don't say the microphone is true We say as you said the statement about the microphone being on the table is true Okay, so what I'm saying is your claim is that sentences This is the entailment of what you're saying and you think I'm misrepresenting you you can correct me But as far as I understand you you're saying that existent things right as you're saying empirical verifiable data Facts okay, the that's what I'm saying is the truth maker the things that make what is true Right, you don't just come up with things on our own out of nowhere I can't just tell you there's an elephant in the room if there's no elephant in the room Right. So the fact that this microphone is on the table That's what makes it true But when I make that statement about the microphone That's the truth bearer the sentence in in in terms of how you're describing it Is what has the property of true or false the microphone doesn't have a property of true or false In this case the sentence about the microphone does right. Is it a true statement? Well in this case, I mean, I hope you would agree. Yeah, the fact true that the microphone's on table, right? Yeah, and in one sense we could say the truths exist that are as yet undiscovered But I mean the fact that your microphone sits on the desk is not a truth in itself It's only the statement you make about it whether we can show that it's true or not Can we show that it's true? Yes, we can. Okay. So in this case, we can show that it's true And when I say when I utter the statement here to you The might this black microphone is on the table. Is that statement true? You would say it's true Yes, objectively verified say it's true because we can verify But what I'm trying to get to is You're saying that the sentence when Jake utters the sentence The microphone is on the table That the sentence itself has the property of truth meaning the sentence is what is true or false And the microphone is what determines whether or not it's true or false. Okay But I gave an argument which maybe you didn't catch so I'm happy to present it again But my argument was that sentences You're you're kind of going in my direction, but you're not there yet sentences Cannot be the primary bears of truth. Why? I believe that sentences can be a true or false, but so can beliefs Sentences and beliefs have things in common, which is propositional content It's the content of the sentence or the belief I can say that the microphone is black and is on the table And I can write that same sentence down on a piece of paper Now if I write that same sentence in English down on a piece of paper and I utter it if I speak it How many truths are being expressed? One or many I would have to evaluate it and we were talking about Whether you're making a factual statement whether you're if you say that you believe something You're welcome to say whatever the hell if you want it But the moment you express it as a fact Now the burden of I'm trying to use a simple fact that we would agree with for the sake of the discussion I'm saying and I'm sure as long as I can verify as long as I can verify Is on the table? Okay. This is true as long as I can verify that what you've said is true Then I have no contest. Okay. So in this case the microphone is on the table This is true when I say that and if I were to now type it on my computer Or write it down on a piece of paper and hold up the paper and say it out loud How many truths are being expressed? One or more than one Probably more than one more than one so if I so if I write on a piece of paper The microphone is black and on the table and I speak it out. I'm speaking multiple truths If we can verify it Yeah, the color of the plate the position of the thing the fact that it exists a number of other That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying take the same sentence. Okay I say the black microphone is on the table Then I write that same sentence out in english on a piece of paper That sentence matches verbatim what I'm saying In the case of the sentence that is written on the table and what I said How many truths are being expressed? There's only one truth being expressed It's the same sentence one is verbal one is being spoken Color the definition of the item what it is where it is all of that There's a number of different things you said that are verifiably true Beliefs can be true too. Yeah, it can be but you don't you can't declare It's something that you don't know to be true. You can't say that it's true If you don't know that it is all the time I hear people say well, no for a fact There's a god except you don't know that and it's not a fact If it was a fact it'd be objectively verifiable data. We'd both be able to show that So one of the challenges that I made earlier this year was when people tell me all the time that they present evidence And I ignore it. Well, okay. Well, then let's show me something to show me objectively verifiable data Show me something that we can both Confirm is actually true That is it is also indicative of your position Okay, well, why don't you go ahead and be the very first person in my 25 years or so To present something that's verifiably we can both show is verifiably true And positively indicative of your situation. Yeah, so I'm trying to do that with the Example of the microphone. I'm using a mundane example, which we both agree. We're not gonna sit here and debate Oh Jake. No, it's actually white. You're wrong and no, we're not debating about that. Right. It's something very simple Now if you want to get technical and say well when you say the microphone is on the table Well, you're saying that there's a microphone that it's black. It's on the table I don't care about how many truths are within that one sentence I'm saying to you when I say that sentence in English and I write it down on paper Or I could write it down in Spanish the same sentence How many truths are being expressed? Whatever amount of truths being expressed Both when I say it in English and Spanish is going to be the same number as long as it contains the same That the same number of bits of information that we have already confirmed. Yeah, it would be the same curve curve So my point to you is that when I say something if I say something in English or I speak in sign language Or I speak in another language the same idea Okay, that means the same truth is being expressed Which also means that the sentences themselves are not the primary bearers of truth They're not the thing which is the primary bearer of truth because in that case the truth is singular is one And the sentences or expressions of that truth are many. They're not the same thing I'm a little confused as to why you turned it into whether The you know whether you can say that a statement is true. You can show the truth of it, right? There's the truth of it But it's not is it the primary bearer of truth or is it the fact that we can verify it Not being the primary bearer of truth No, because as I said there's a distinction between what makes something true And the thing that is true, which we agreed with and the thing that makes something true is that we can verify the fact of it Yeah, it's existence right. Yeah, and what color it is and all of that we're agreeing on that. Okay. The only difference is So we're agreeing on what makes something true The fact of the matter the existence of the microphone and whatever it is that we can verify it We're agreeing that that's what makes something true We're differing on And I'm agreeing with you that a sentence can be true or false I can say the microphone is black or I can say it's white and that would not be true So we also agree that sentences and beliefs can be true or false However, what I'm saying is because Sentences can have multiple expressions which are very identical and yet the same truth is being expressed That means there's something more fundamental than the sentence itself, which I'm arguing for is a proposition Okay, so you're making the statement that your microphone exists and what color it is What position it is and all of these things are independently verifiable and so we can now verify its position Its identity. It's uh, it's uh Coloration all of these these are all different things that we can show to be true That doesn't mean that the sentence is the primary bearer of truth It's the fact that we can verify it that makes it the primary bearer of truth. Is it verifiable Therefore we're there. Okay, so Thank you for proving your microphone exists. Can you go on and do what do that for god? No, because you're you're skipping back every time every time You've already agreed with me that the sentence is what do you believe this microphone is true? Well, it's not it's not a belief Okay, is this microphone true? The reason I have to make the distinction is because I argue with observers And I found over my experience that if I say that I believe something It means that this is what I think is truest or closest to the truth But I don't know it because I can't show it. That's what belief means to me But to people who call themselves believers, it seems that what they mean by that is make believe they're going to believe this Regardless, they're going to convince themselves. So it's a very different context I try not to use the word believe for that reason. Okay, we're fine This microphone is on the table. Correct. Now I'm saying is this microphone true is the microphone true Yeah It doesn't make any sense. That's the whole right. So that means You're making a distinction between what whether the statement is true and the statement Right now. I'm saying is the statement true. The thing itself isn't true I'm giving an argument that I agree with your position to a certain extent that there's a distinction between the sentence And the thing that exists that makes that sentence true. We agree But I'm saying there's something more fundamental than the sentence because and my argument is one of my arguments is That you can have multiple sentences either in the same language or different language Or you can have a belief which has the same content as the sentence And all of those can be true yet. None of them are identical So what do the beliefs and the sentences on paper and the sentence is spoken? What do they have in common which is true? If the statement whether it's written or spoken has the same amount of information and it's verifiably accurate in each bit of information Then you don't have a check. I don't have an issue with it You can show that it's true You can show the truth of it. Therefore the statement is true every part of the statement is true We can verify every part of the statement Yeah, so what I'm saying is the content the content or what you're saying is the information is what's matters Because the sentence if I say that the microphone is on the table And I say that in English and then I repeat it in Spanish Those two sentences are not the same yet. They express the same truth The same pieces of information as I just said so many times sir So then that means there's something I'm glad we agree on this So we can continue arguing it for another 25 minutes or so the part that we agree on No, because what I'm saying is are you agreeing with me that there's something more fundamental which is true More fundamental than sentences and I'm saying that's a proposition I'm not saying that I'm saying that's where we're different Okay, I don't I don't see where the difference is if you make a statement And you're making an assertion and you can't back the assertion You you're telling me that you know as as so many creationists do they always want to cite a fact You know that you know dinosaur soft parts prove the earth is as young. No, it doesn't here's all the reasons why But you just assert the fact and we're supposed to accept it because you say so Okay, no in this case in this case, you're actually giving information For your god, but you're giving information for your microphone that we can both verify is correct. Okay. Good I'm glad you can defend your microphone. Oh, well, that's not what I'm doing But we'll move on from that point. Let me let me explain Another way to try to get at what I'm trying to say I used in my first premise of my argument. I said either the law of non-contradiction is true or it's not Let's take an example like the law of non-contradiction. Do you believe it's true? Again, I wouldn't say that I believe okay. I'm sorry about the word belief. Yeah, but I mean it in a context of to my understanding Yes, okay, so the law Prediction is true. Was it true before any sentence existed? Okay We're only arguing about the truth of the sentence as I said before The the existence of the thing is not a truth. It's whether the statement is true that makes it truth Yes, so are you speaking truth or are you not speaking truth? That's the issue So if you're saying things that you can't show to be true, then you're not speaking truth Yes, so now i'm asking you about the law of non-contradiction. We both agree it's true Was it true before either one of us or any human being ever said the law of non-contradiction is true Was the law of non-contradiction always true again as I told you before Repeatedly there can be things that are true that we don't yet know The issue is we cannot say that they're true until we can show that they're true Until we can show the truth of it as I said, but they're already true before we say they're true Yes, but we can't say that they're true until we know that they're true So we have to have a reason to say and we have to be able to show the truth of the statement Does anybody feel like we've just been round and round? You're you're you're proving my point and I was oh I'm proving his point Yeah, because that was one of my other arguments when you said we're in total agreement He's proving my point. I'm proving his you said that there are truths which I quoted you and you said again here Which I agree with there are truths that have not been discovered yet That means that truth exists prior to your sentence in other words you can have statements as yet unuttered There may well be true But if you say a thing and you can't show the truth of it, that's a lie That's technically a lie. So when you when you say and that's what all faith is, you know, asserting You know asserting empty speculation as if it's a matter of fact Pretending to know things you don't know both of those are lies. That's what faith is But both of those are lies So listen, I went over to law of non-contradiction same thing We can go through many different examples of truths You're saying there are truths that are not have been discovered, right? Okay. I agree with you. Where are they? So they're not true until they're spoken. How would we have a sentence be true before it was uttered? But that's my point How are you saying that there are truths that have not been discovered yet? That's implying that language implies that there's a truth out there that has not been uttered yet It's waiting to be uttered It exists So there are sentences we could say That could be true Or that we could show the truth of it and they would be true But we haven't uttered those sentences yet. Does everybody remember when we went over this? Like I feel like it's been about three or four times now Okay Yes, what are you seeking to utter the correct sentence? Is that what you're seeking? Because by what you're saying you're saying there's truth There's something out there that's waiting to be discovered and waiting to be realized So you are affirming that truth, which you're not really grasping Truth exists independently of the sentence. The sentence expresses the truth Once again, the truth is what the facts are But you can't state what the truth is if you don't know what the facts are you can't show the truth of it We're not disagreeing about that. I'm glad can we get past it? We're disagreeing on whether truth exists independently of sentences And I'm giving you an argument to show that truth exists independently of sentences How is it nonsense you yourself? You said you're a truth seeker. What are you seeking? One one is that I won't say things are true unless I can show that they're true That's part of being a truth seeker. I don't want to believe anything that isn't evident What's out there? Whatever it I will tentatively accept Whatever that can be shown to be true as best as it can be and the moment that it turns out that my information may not have been As reliable as I thought it was or that it should have been or as it was reported to be Or if I foolishly read something off of an onion article and didn't check it first and I make a Comment on that thinking I've checked my stats Well, I need to correct myself and the moment that I see that something is not as well supported as I thought it was You don't have to disprove Whatever position I had as soon as I realized it was it wasn't good enough reason to believe in it in the first place I've already stopped believing in it And of course what I mean by that is my original statement that I think this is true But I don't know it's but I don't know it because I can't show it So I'm not make believing like faith does So God does not exist is that true Evidently that's sure God evidently does not exist. Was it always true? Was it always true that god evidently does not exist? Yes, or was is it evidently true that god Never existed or was there never evidence that god exists virtue of someone uttering that sentence? Help I've got a weird ass twilight zone How do you not understand that? We because again the same thing we've been going over the for the last 20 minutes If you make a statement if you tell me that god exists and you and you do You tell me that god exists. You don't have fact one to back that up. You claim this knowledge You can't verify so your statement is not true So your claim that god exists is not evidently true We need to have the evidence which you refuse to present Which was the purpose of this debate and this is the reason I agreed to it I would love to see a religious apologist be forced by the definition of the debate to cough up evidence I knew you wouldn't even try But you I didn't try no So maybe it's that I am trying and you just don't understand what I'm presenting. No No Clearly presenting evidence When there was the fact I'm clearly by your own admission and you don't see it That's the funny part of so so where is the objectively verifiable data We're affirming sir the existence of truth that has not been discovered yet And I'm truth exists independently of your sentence It's Because I've corrected it so many times and you can't grasp the repeated corrections the correction The statement whether it's true or not the thing It's the the the the item sitting on the desk is not in itself a truth The statement you might make about that could be true or it could be false It could be baseless, which is the same thing is false If you say something's true and you can't show the truth of it It's baseless baseless has the same level of credibility Zero as a statement that has already been proven wrong You can't show the truth of it. It's not true It has to be treated as if it's not Even if if even if you said something and you couldn't show that it's true What if in reality it really was the case, but you're not able to say it then you're in the wrong because What you would call you would call it a truth, but your statement about it is still false because you can't show it You're claiming knowledge you don't have which again is what faith is all about I'm claiming that truth exists independently of my sentence or anybody which uttering it Contradicts what I've said so many times. No, I'm not I'm contradicting that for the end time Okay, so you're not true. I am absolutely truth-seeking. What are you thinking? Well one something's true Not what you're saying So you can make the statement that the thing is there and if we can verify that it's there then you are justified in claiming that It is there. We have and it doesn't have to be absolute A lot of people say well, you can't prove absolutely, but I don't have to prove absolutely Is it supported? Is it not is there a probability? Do we have 80% likelihood that this is this is true? Okay, very good. We have sufficient to believe it We're to accept it if you rule but the but the thing sitting there Is not without us I did without without us making a statement about it or knowing about it the thing Does not become a truth in itself. It's only what we say about it Okay, so is the statement true? Yeah, do we create truth or do we discover it? Again when you can form this this the statement about it Then you can determine what you can I show the truth of what i'm saying is the statement therefore true Is it therefore right that it becomes so you're stating so your stator So you're stating a truth you have to discover whether it's true or not But then you make the statement about it and that becomes whether it's the truth is what the facts are What is a fact? What is new what is the what is a fact objectively verifiable data? The truth is what the facts are and is is objectively verifiable data So we need to determine that a thing is objectively verified. Here's the information about it Now you make the statement. Is that the suit? Is that the truth? Yes, it's the truth The thing existing is not in itself a truth I've been over this I don't want 10 times you keep contradicting me while telling me that i'm that i'm agreeing with you You know while telling me that i'm agreeing with you. You're disagreeing with me while telling me i'm agree with you It's the point we agreed on right we agreed about evidence We agreed that we between a statement and the thing existing itself When there is only one additional claim i'm making okay, where was the objectively verifiable data? It was positively indicative of your god or i'm presenting it right now That truth exists independently of what you say Okay, so you're wrong. You're you're saying that you're a truth creator. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that We we find it's true until r and rauh says it. That's what you're saying Uh New and I think I heard you're here by the laughing in the audience. They've seen through that That's exactly what you're saying. No, it's exactly not. We discern truth. We it's just it's like that It's like the laws of nature Laws of nature not given by a law like a law giver laws of nature are what So are you saying that laws of nature are given by a law giver? What is the law of nature? I was trying to explain that when you interrupted It's a property of reality that we have determined as best we can It's not always accurate because it was two guys in the 19th century that that both came up with virtually similar The names were very similar. There was the law of biogenesis or there was the biogenetic law Very different things are very similar names and both of them happened to be wrong but in general It's it's a statement about a pretty the properties Of something which can be summarized in a single sentence or in a mathematic equation These are what we call laws. I wish they hadn't called them laws because that makes every idiot out there Think that there's a law giver But it's just properties that we've discerned and then we've written them out And if we can you know, we can confirm that it's correct And by the way, both of these these laws that the other guys had Failed by some little detail They could have been laws. They could have been good laws But they wrote just a little bit too much so that it wasn't consistent anymore So it's not that we create truth We find whatever the truth is and we phrase it so that the sentence is a truth And we find it or was it true before we found it Again, you can have things that are true that have been yet haven't yet been discovered or described True before you say it's true You can't we're talking about whether you can justify making a statement about it before you know about it You have to be able to it becomes truth when the statement is true No, yes, see this is the thing you're saying Green that it's only true if whatever you're saying is in line with reality There's gonna be a correspondence, but I'm saying it's already true before I say it's true Right. There's the many things that could be true not truth But true you could make a statement about something that might be true And then you can if you say it before you know that it's true. Well, then that's not true That's that's a false. I'm trying to say you're saying that truth, right What is it? Okay. What's the difference between truth and true because you just made a distinction there What's what are you distinguishing? We're discerning Whether something is true and we have to have a statement about that a hypothesis if you will That we can then verify whether this is correct according to the way we've described it And if it is in line with what we've described then that becomes Truth that is that is a true thing on the statement about it is truth if it's true So I'm here you say that so on the one hand This is where I'm seeing you're contradicting yourself We're all due respect because on the one hand you're saying That it's not truth Until a sentence expresses that truth But then on the other hand you're saying you're a truth seeker as if Truth already exists and you're is waiting to be verbalized. Those are contradictory. How do you not see that? The laws of the of nature are not Spelled out that way until we spell them out that way But these are still some things that we discern that we work out that we determine whether this is true or not Yeah, I agree, but was it was a true before you discovered it There were many things that they said so many times that could be true that we had we don't yet know yet So and then we determine what they are and then Okay Maybe right so and I'm saying to you if all those truths exist Before we say them then our sentences about them are not the primary bearers of truth So when you say things That you cannot show to be true That's a falsehood. Yes When you say things what say they cannot show the truth out that you cannot verify That is that are not necessarily because it could it could be true. You just can't verify it yet It does not justify or excuse him. It's still a falsehood You've said you've claimed knowledge you don't have if I say something that's true, right? But I can't prove that it's true. It's thus you don't know that it's true You have to have some way difference between knowing it's true and it'd be true. Is it Knowledge is knowledge is demonstrable There's been many times that I that I would say that I know that I left my keys hanging up there But then I find them in the bathroom or whatever and realize nope my miss remembered so that's possible So you know what you can show Yeah, knowledge is different than truth Again knowledge is justified true belief Justified true. That means truth, right? So it's so they're no difference then There is a difference. Okay. What's the difference has to be justified. That's what you're saying all this time That's what knowledge is. That's what I'm saying Right, so you can't say something is true until you know that it's true. You can't say it's knowledge Until you can justify meaning until you can show that it's true that it's then it becomes knowledge Yes, exactly, but it could be true before I there is a thing right there as I said so many times already It could be true and you don't know that it's true and got no business saying that it's true until you can Show the truth of it or it can also be true and you say it's true Even though you can't demonstrate it and you just get it correct by luck And which case if I made an assertion of something this year I've claimed a fact that is not a fact objectively verifiable data And I'm now claiming to know things. I don't know that's the realm of faith and it is also false. It's a false hood It's false It's a false because you've asserted something you don't know you said that it's true You don't know that it's true. That makes it a false statement And even if it were to happen to turn out to be correct, it wouldn't be true It wasn't true If you want to guess if you want to guess the number of dumbbells in a jar you may guess correctly But when you say that I know that this how many you don't actually know that You guessed correctly, but you're still lying about whether you know it I agree on that part But I'm saying if I say there's a fly behind that curtain And I have no idea that there is and I go and I open it and what do I know the fly comes out So you've made it and I said it did I know it? No, I did not know it But it was still true my statement was still true Except that it's still a false hood because you're claiming knowledge How is it false? I was answering the question when you interrupted the answer to ask the question Because you're making an assertion. You don't know to be true. That is claiming to know things you do not know We call that lying It wouldn't matter if you guessed correctly. You're still claiming to know things. You don't know You're still you're still asserting baseless speculation As if it was a matter of fact and if it turns out that there is a fly there You've guessed the right number of gumballs or whatever. You don't there's the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse in I'm not saying I know there's a fly behind the curtain. Okay. If you want to tell me that you believe that I'm asserting I'm asserting that there is a fly behind the curtain now if it turns out that when we open it up There is one there that was true. That was true, but you were still false Because you're playing I was still false. How is it a false? How many times do I have to explain the same damn thing to you? Because you're you're claiming knowledge. You don't have no sense The sense that my claim makes is that you're pretending to know things you don't know I never said I knew it. When did I say I knew it? I'm asserting there's a fly behind there And what is an assertion sir? You're stating is fact. It's not a no. I'm saying it's there I'm not saying I know it's there right so you're asserting a fact that is not I'm not saying I know it's there. Oh, but you've you've asserted I said it's there And asserting that it is there establishes that you you're now saying that it's a fact that it's there. No, I'm not I'm saying it's there. That's not saying that I know it's there That's what the assertion is you're stating as a fact that it is there. That's not the case But that is definitely every time you assert something you're saying that you know it's true If you say that you believe something that's fine. Okay. I believe I believe that there's a fly there Nope, nobody cares. It's just a matter what you can show nobody cares, but is it true? It doesn't matter It doesn't matter. We're only interested in what you can show I'm making a distinction between truth and knowledge as I have to something that's not a false hood Just because I don't know that it's actually true if it's true It's true independent if I know it or not one of the things that I have to explain to people Constantly is it when they tell me well, I believe blah, blah, blah, and I'm like I don't care what you believe It doesn't matter what you believe all that matters is why you believe it What is the reason is the evidence valid? Is it justified? Does it actually indicate that conclusion? Is there is there a reason I should believe it or accept it as well? That's what matters not what you believe you assert whatever you like when you say that you believe it I don't care. It doesn't matter But when you state as fact There's a fly on the wall and there's no fly on the wall Or even if there is a fly on the wall behind another room and you couldn't have known that In either case, you've made a false statement claiming knowledge You don't have and even if there was a fly on the wall your You just stated a fact that is not a fact What do you call when you call something a thing that is not the thing? Oh that that's a lie Why do you not get that because your faith? That's what it is because that's what faith has nothing to do with faith We're talking about mundane things faith is the assertion of baseless speculation as if it was a matter of fact That's that's your definition. I don't define faith that way I know you don't define it that way, but we can demonstrate that I'm showing you that there's a distinction between truth and knowledge Okay, so let's move on because we're not going anywhere with that clearly you believe that there are any necessary truths I have to ponder that as you said I I study science. I don't care a lot about philosophy Why because it's spinning wheels in the mud where you have to truth, right? I do but I don't like having pointless arguments about the fly on the wall that you imagine is there and is it a lie If you didn't know that it's a lie and all what you're claiming. It's a lie It is still a falsehood as it has stated. Yes Yeah, anyway, you're claiming knowledge. You don't have that you believed. I know things. I don't know that's that's a false statement Are there any necessary truths? I don't even know what a necessary truth is you don't right So then how are you responding even to my argument by telling you Present I'm not pretending to know things. I don't know I'm honestly telling you when I don't know which is another thing that that faith Faith can't say that I don't know faith always pretends to know what it doesn't know Which is what makes it the most dishonest position it is possible to have You're saying it's dishonest. Yes. So everybody who has faith is dishonest Faith is the most dishonest position possible to have yes because you're because you were there's no possibility You cannot stand in reason that I believe what I'm saying. I'm just totally wrong about it. That's not even possible No, you can absolutely believe and remember we said to believe could mean make believe because I've talked to a lot of people Before will be it actually does mean make believe But you're saying we're dishonest. Why can't you just say because you're asserting knowledge You don't have you're asserting baseless speculation as if it's a matter of fact What's for what aren't sometimes there are things that you think you know, but then it turns out you're wrong You were dishonest piece of crap. No, it just means you turned out to be wrong. Yeah Why can't you grant that when you're having to debate or discussion with people of faith When they say that they know something and you think they're totally wrong But they believe that they know what they're saying is actually true And then it turns out maybe it's not true and show me the truth of it Show me how you know that I'm attempting to do it But I'm trying to get somewhere with you because you make this statement all the time You're assuming that your interlocutor is dishonest and then that spoils the conversation claiming knowledge. You don't have I believe that you don't believe god exists. I believe that I don't think you're being dishonest You're claiming I just think you're wrong. So you're making you're asserting facts that are not in evidence Okay, so anyone that's that's dishonest anyone who disagrees with you No, and it's wrong No, and they claim that there's they know what you're saying is actually wrong But they happen to be wrong. They're dishonest. No, that's why No, I did I said said or implied nothing remotely like that And I have to wonder where you're going with this when you distort everything I did say so clearly to to put it into this claim about faith Everybody who has faith is dishonest. I didn't say that I said faith is the most dishonest position It is possible to have because it is convincing oneself to believe things that are not evidently true It's asserting baseless speculation as if it's a matter of fact and pretending to know things you don't know All three of these things are false. They are dishonest Arm, you're saying they're pretending to know. Yeah, but they I know for a fact. There's a god No, you don't yes, you're you you say that they they know you believe that I think that there's no god No, okay, so I believe but you will still say there's a god and I will still say no I believe I know that there's a god right and you don't me on to exactly That's what the debate is about. So you will this doesn't mean I'm dishonest when I say that When you say that you know things you don't know that's not dishonest. No, because I believe that I know But you don't because knowledge is demonstrable you can't demonstrate that knowledge Or when you state a fact that you don't know to be true Because it doesn't have but if you believe you know it to be true, then it's not a lot Again, if you're making a statement, you can't know to be true You just made up your own statistic, right? Well, maybe that statistic maybe it really was 96% of statistics are made up on the spot But when you say that it's still a false it even if it happened to be correct It's still a false it If you're claiming to know things you don't know and there's no way that you could know you can't demonstrate that knowledge to be true You got no business saying that it's true You you still don't even know what truth is I explain it to you over and over again You still don't know despite the simplest You just told me you don't know what a necessary truth is. Didn't you? I don't know what a necessary truth Oh now the adjective matters, right? Yeah, so if I know what truth is, but I don't know what a necessary truth is You know what truth means. Yes, you know what necessary means put them together Tell me because philosophy often uses definitions. I wouldn't use okay, so what's a necessary truth You don't I have no idea So I presented an argument from necessary truth how in the hell could you even attempt to respond to it? And you don't even know what it is Especially since I've told you that honestly and you won't even explain yourself Or so you would and you are not actually responding to my argument. That's what you admit right now, right? I'm not responding to it. Yeah, I don't have I don't have the slightest idea where you think you're going with this All I know from past experience we went over truth for 45 minutes and you got it wrong the entire time Okay, I got it wrong and I lied to I lied to everybody When you when you make statements when you make statements about who God is And what he is and what he does and what he hates and why all of those are statements You don't know to be true, but you're asserting in this back anyway And how you understand it tell me how you understand we have multiple definitions of belief We have multiple definitions of a lot of the different words that I'm asking how So when I'm right argue with a believer well, then I have different contexts Well, well, do you have faith in your wife? You know, you say you don't have faith, but you have faith in your wife Well, that's a completely different context because trust is not religious faith So I'm used to the equivocation that constantly happens in religious debates. So I'm wondering what Well, that's why I'm asking you so we don't have that right. That's why I told you I don't know And I'm asking for your definition which you will not provide the meaning of the English word necessary All I do I know I could think of multiple contexts, but that doesn't tell me the definition you're using I can come I can show you and you turn around ask me I showed I showed you we can have multiple definitions and context for any number of words And so I need your definition. How do you mean that work through it? I just asked you what can you give the definition No matter what I mean, you're the one using the term because in order to find your term You need to define your terms. We have to be using terms the same way And define it by defining or you it you're the one using the term. Tell me what it means to you I said, I don't know what you mean. I how would I know what you mean? I literally presented it And explained the definition to me. I literally presented it. I literally Wailed on for a while without ever defining what this means one is necessarily true Ie it is true and could not have failed to be true. Okay, what it means to be necessary It could not fail to be the way it is. Okay, so that's necessary. We already went over truth Do you believe there are any necessary truths? Maybe there are but I don't understand the context in which you're using them Well, I just got to find it. So now What do you want me to do? So it when necessary means that it has to be it can't be otherwise It could not have in this case when we're talking about necessary truth We're talking about truth that could not have failed to be true. Okay I mean, that's simple enough. I don't So I'm not I'm not aware of any necessary truth. I could name you're not So the law of non-contradiction is not a necessary truth not according to quantum physics, which is confusing as hell But yeah, that's true. Well, I just thought you said before that you believe that the law of non-contradiction is true Generally, yes, but that doesn't apply in quantum. Does it classical fine all day But I listened to quantum physicists. I'm like the fuck are you saying So no, they they don't appear to have this law Non-contradiction applied the same way. So I don't know when we get into you know talking about cosmogony as you like to do I don't go there because I don't know anything about quantum physics. It's not something I study Yeah, but I'm just in this case. Okay, so you don't think that you're saying you're agnostic about it No, or you're saying it's not uh necessary truth. No I said I can't think of a single example Yes, in order for me to say in order for me to answer your question. Is there a necessary truth? I have to have an example that I can that Then give me an example. Okay, law of non-contradiction. You don't believe it's a necessary truth as just explained Okay, two plus two equals four as just explained Physicists will say that there could be potential universes where other things would be done now I would accept that numerals And mathematics they do seem to hold that that must be a consistency Yeah, like two plus two equals four You would think but then some physicists say that that the laws of physics could be different Well, how could the laws of physics be different in any other sense because physics is Is mathematics, right? Well, let me read a quote from arnau. How about that? Arnau says Okay, and one of them now we're gonna hear a true statement We're gonna hear a true statement. We're gonna hear necessary truths right here And one of them referring to religious people. That's my Concertion there Confessed that if the bible said that two plus two equals five So you were telling a story Yep, you were telling a story about a person who said that if the bible confessed a two plus two equals five He wouldn't question that That he would find some way to believe it and then you went on to say I have a serious philosophical objection to assertions like this in my perspective Accuracy and accountability or paramount truth matters more than whatever we would rather believe Now when I read that and when I listen to it, I say wow, I agree with that arm because I have You know, Trinitarian Christians telling me all the time. Well, they believe father son And all his spirit is god and reach god, but it's only one god It's contradictory doesn't make any sense And and then I asked them the same question. Well in the bible It's a two plus two equal five. Would you believe it and some of them say yes And then what do I say have a nice day, buddy. Bye. Bye because there's no reason to even talk to such a person Now, why do I have the same reaction that you would because there's an assumption that two plus two cannot equal five Ie that two plus two equaling four is a necessary truth It's true and could not have failed to be true It doesn't matter if the bible said it or aren't pro claimed it or anyone else for that matter Yeah, so two plus two equaling four seems like a perfect example of a necessary truth I would have thought so until a mathematician came to me and said, you know two plus two actually can't equal five depending on higher values of five What Can you believe that I don't do higher math? I'm not a mathematician So it makes no sense to me, but I obviously can't call that a necessary truth that the mathematicians say that it's not true Okay, so aren't it then it becomes the issue of they're going to believe whatever the bible says simply because the bible says so Then that's another matter. That's not because of some higher lofty math mathematics that I'll never comprehend No, but I'm saying you you making that statement You're assuming that this person is out of their mind to believe that why because you're assuming that two plus two equals four No, yes, that's exactly what it is Again, you asked if it was a necessary truth. I would have thought so I would have answered that way had a couple more than one Mathematician corrected me on that exact point So there are extenuating circumstances on a number of things So I can't think of a single example of a necessary truth not one Not even that one And on the case of the you know, he's just going to believe whatever the bible says and it goes this goes back to William Jennings brian who was the lawyer for creationism in the scopes monkey trial 1925 When they when they grilled him on the stand about How how could he believe something so ridiculous as Jonah being swallowed by the whale and living inside the whale for three days Brian responded that if the bible said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I'd believe it So it doesn't matter logic Right out the window They're going to believe because I mean we could say two plus two equals five. So what's the difference? Right, it's not a necessary truth then exactly. So it's not a necessary truth that Jonah couldn't swallow the well How do we know that because exactly that's the point. So that's what I'm saying This conversation devolves into well Jonah then I mean if two plus two equals five then Jonah could swallow the whale What the hell why not? Is the whale this big Is two plus two equal to five? Because it seems so impossible to you just like you said aren't you said well, it's the whale a Hebrew word for sardine I'm not a mathematician either. Right. So I'm sitting in the same position as you maybe Maybe I'm ignorant. Maybe I'm a buffooner. I think two plus two equals four But that's what I've been taught all my life. Nobody told me otherwise So if somebody comes along and tells me otherwise Then we would need to have two mathematicians up here because I bet you I can find mathematicians saying the opposite That no two plus two cannot equal five and then we what me and you sit over there And we need to watch the debate and see what happens. It's not that they say that it can't equal five But that it can equal five. No, I know that's what you're saying I'm saying to you And do you think that I would be able to or you even you yourself Find a mathematician who's just as qualified as the person saying that who rejects that claim How would I know that there and that's my whole point to you Your claiming thank you for making my point to me Oh, you're claiming that it's ridiculous for someone to believe that two plus two equals five No, I'm saying it's dishonest to assert knowledge You don't have to make statements of or make assertions declaring facts that are not facts If you don't know that it's a fact you got no business saying that it's a fact As soon as the person meets the same guy the same mathematician It told you that two plus two equals five Who can then turn around and jam you and say well, yeah, johnny the mathematician He told me two plus two could equal five. So if the bible said it wouldn't be any big deal The issue was again They're believing whatever the bible says simply because the bible says so Even in cases like this particular guy does not know what the higher mathematicians the two of them were talking about when they told me this He's just going to believe whatever the bible says. So he's thrown. He's rejected reason Is the issue there? Yeah, but why is he rejected reason because he wants to believe what he wants to believe it doesn't matter what the truth No, but in virtue of what did he reject reason? Because he wants to believe what he wants to believe. Yeah, but because in this example, you're saying two plus two equals five Yeah, he's he's finding an example where he thinks that that would be a necessary truth and he's going to violate that He thinks that's a necessary truth seem to be assuming that it was an maybe at the time of this statement You were assuming it wasn't at the time of that statement. I thought it was pretty clear Yeah, so you've got thought the guy was out of his mind But the reason again is that he's rejected reason he that he's gonna believe whatever the bible says now in hindsight Okay, now he can come forward and say well got a mathematician that says two plus two equals five So arne you can't use that again. The reason is is you're gonna believe whatever the bible says regardless So he has rejected reason. He's just going to go with authority not with fact You remember what fact is objectively verifiable data. You remember what the debate was supposed to be You show evidence two plus two equals four because you're you're going by authority Again, it doesn't have to be absolute Again, it doesn't have to be absolute. Just show me what is supported versus what is not supported You verify that two plus two equals the five or did you take it on authority by the mathematician? I can verify that two plus two can equal five. I never said it cannot equal five I said that other mathematicians have explained that from their from their expertise that it could No I'm not questioning expertise. I'm not pretending to know more than the experts Which is another issue of faith by the way pretending to know more than the experts You're you're claiming that this person who says that two plus two can equal to five You did not verify that other than asking him who's a claimed expert and him telling you So you have not actually verified it. No, I haven't other than him saying Yeah, I have so you could have asked three more mathematician. They could have said well that guy that told you If I if I cared if it was Unfortunately, it was two different ones independently who came to me at different times. So I had to I had to think okay Well, now there seems to be that there are But so you're taking it on authority. No, I'm not taking it on authority. I'm not questioning the expert I'm not pretending to know more than the experts. I don't actually no I'm not saying I don't say that I know that two plus two we can equal five under any Higher value of five or whatever the fuck he's talking about. I don't know You don't know but I'm not right. So I'm not saying that I do know Okay, so you don't know that two plus two cannot equal to five I don't know that. No, you don't know. That's what I said 30 minutes ago when I said I don't know of a necessary truth and this was the reason I gave Have you noticed we still a lot of spinning in the mud where I have to keep re-explaining things to you again Like 15 times and you still don't get it and I'm sure that's because I'm stupid, right? Well, you're the guy that thinks two plus two can equal five I don't think that and I think so I'm the one who corrected you multiple times to say I don't think that Okay, but you don't know that it can't but I don't know that it can and I'm not going to pretend to know things I don't like the faithful Okay, so anybody just for what you're saying Anybody who claims that they know that two plus two can not equal to five It's faith. That's your claim. No, of course not that that's something that's based on evidence Faith is a is a firm conviction. It is not based on evidence So if I say that two plus two cannot equal to five, do I have faith in it? If you if you have evidence to imply that it cannot equal to five and you would be justified because the level of your understanding would say Unless you're some higher mathematician and I don't even know that that's true I've only heard from two mathematicians talking what I think sounds like bollocks I don't know what they're saying is true. I'm not going to I'm not going to challenge the experts in their own field I know better than that But I know better than to use that as an example of a necessary truth as you define it Because not even that not even as clear as that seemed to be did it seem clear for everybody So it's two equals four. Would that be a necessary you think right? And then somebody hits me. Well, maybe Fuck So so I don't know of a single example You don't know of an example, but you're also not claiming that there is no example No, I'm not. I don't I'm not pretending to know things. I don't know. Yeah, so you're saying you're agnostic on it You don't know one way or another Fine, I I don't know if if what you mean by agnostic is that I don't know and I'm not going to say that I know Because Huxley defined that agnostic precisely as that one should not pretend to know things They don't know and in that sense absolutely. Yes I don't know that two plus two equals five Or two plus two equals four is a necessary truth because It may not be so far as I know by the experts So there's a possibility that maybe it isn't so I can't state that if I state it and I don't know it And I haven't verified it so I can't know it Then that would be a false. But and even if it turned out that my guess was correct It would still be false for me to pretend to know what I don't right So in simple terms r and ra has just admitted that he cannot know that two plus two cannot equal five Yeah, I mean this I I did I did state that if given the explanation that these mathematicians give that I don't have any understanding about at all. I'm not going to challenge them on it correct Everything the time is up James at least on my end. I don't know Yeah Okay, so guys, uh, I hope that this was of some benefit to the people in the audience R and doesn't seem to think so I think that I demonstrated that he contradicted himself numerous times throughout the debate He's going to make his closing statement and try to refute that when he claims that there are truths that exist that have not been discovered yet And then says that truth depends on the sentences being uttered That's contradictory and the fact that you cannot see that sir is probably the same reason why you cannot see That two plus two cannot equal to five I don't care how many mathematicians told you that they need to get their head examined In the same way that you think everybody that has faith maybe needs to get their head examined But what I tried to point out earlier right and this is why because R and consistently makes his claims all the time. Well, if people have faith faith is the most dishonest position possible Well, can't you stand and reason and think well, maybe the person has faith Right, but they're not being dishonest and it's not a dishonest position Right, they claim to know and you can think that they're wrong even though they don't think that they are I can think that R and Ra is out of his mind Which I really do at this point by thinking that two plus two does not have to equal to four But at the same time, I don't think he's being dishonest I think he believes whatever he's saying when he says that no matter how ridiculous It seems to me and I just wish he would afford the same thing that when I say that I think That two plus two equals four and I know it and it cannot be five That I don't have faith in that that I know that it's true You care how many mathematicians you can pull from out of your hat or wherever it is I don't care how many tell me that I don't believe what they're saying and I would be happy if James can maybe we'll have to do that for the next debate James We gotta get a mathematician here to debate whether or not two plus two must equal to four I'm happy to do that and maybe arne would be happy to watch it. I don't know Maybe you think it would be ridiculous But anyway, I attempted to at the very least present evidence. Yes evidence for the existence of god I gave a particular argument from necessary truth Unfortunately, we got bogged down in definitions about what truth is what necessity is the distinction between truth makers and truth bearers arne agrees with me that there's a distinction between Things that exist right like this black microphone There's a distinction between things that exist which are what the facts are the verifiable empirical data And truth which is independent of those things Right now on the one hand he says that well truth is independent in the sense That there are truths that have not been discovered yet. Well, then where the hell are they? I mean, is there like truth in a cloud out somewhere and it's written in the stars or something like that What is this truth that is being looked for? He calls himself a truth seeker and goes on about truth But he cannot even define what truth is. He didn't even know what necessary in this context was of necessary truth was And my argument and guess I gave only one argument Why because I knew we would get bogged down any argument And I don't want to be like some of the other Apologists come up here and give 10 different arguments and then expect that arne is going to reply to all them No, I don't really think that's fair. I think at the very least we should try to keep it succinct and limited to a few arguments Now I limited it to one Arne contradicted himself numerous times as I pointed out He says that well there he doesn't think there are any necessary truths for for him He doesn't know if the law of non-contradiction holds universally So why can't it be the case that god exists and also god does not exist? Well, that's contradictory. Well, it could be a true contradiction because the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold universally Anyway, I think my time's up. Thank you very much Reality which logically means that he does not exist in reality. So is that a contradiction or not? No, that's a consistency Jake says that he knows more about math than any mathematician And somehow he doesn't understand why it is dishonest to pretend to do more than he does Which is a key part of our argument what he failed to do was present even one objectively verifiable fact that positively indicates his god all he did do Was and wave away utterly dismissed without consideration any and all of the evidence that was lies contrary to his position Which again is what faith does yet. He thinks he uh He thinks that his inability to understand when I gave clear and consistent definitions for my terms including truth That he kept trying to distort and pervert and I had to go back and correct him again and again and again He thinks that his inability to get that right is somehow my problem And then getting back to the factual matter the holy doctrines of the various religions remain the only source of information Of who or what god is supposed to be and they violently contradict each other This is another fact against god each of these tomes is Individually full of absurdities and atrocities inconsistencies and contradictions So that none of the authors of these myths and legends actually knows what they're talking about Nearly anything any of the scriptures says falls into one of two categories It's either not evidently true meaning that there's no evidence for it or it's evidently not true Meaning it's already been shown to be false The fact that the bible and koran and all of the rest of this man made mythology even exists in such Defective conflicting condition is evidence against god who should have corrected all that And despite all attempts at philosophical rationalization, there is no actual factual evidence of god outside of scripture either Literally not even a possibility to consider The claim that an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving creator god exists is logically Inconsistent and paradoxical due to the presence of suffering in the world At the in a world that is as darwin described it read in tooth and claw The persistent existence of such a level of suffering throughout the earth's history as well as the extent of that history Remains in conflict with the attributes attributed to such a god Moreover considering the lack of logically coherent verifiable evidence for the existence of the abrahamic god specifically It is reasonable to conclude that the claims of such deity are just a myth It is essential to adhere to the fundamental principles of logic which necessitate evidence and demonstrability When affirming the truth of a claim holding an absolute positive belief in anything let alone something that lacks reliably verifiable truth Proof rather violates these principles Rendering the claim of an abrahamic god is not only a myth but a baseless speculation having no more credence than a claim That has already been proven false Very often believers may may already know that there's no evidence of god or anything supernatural But they're determined to make believing it anyway for reasons that don't qualify as reason So they have to find a way to shift the burden of proof onto the negative claim or to onto someone who doesn't believe in their Unsupported assertions of the illogical irrational impossible absurdity I mean It should be that if you make a claim you have to substantiate it or be dismissed and discredited for stating false hoods But faith is the most dishonest position It is possible to have because claiming facts that aren't facts and pretending to know things you don't know Is what faith is all about but in every other application we would call that lying The only way that faith could be any less honest or any more dishonest is if you're a religious apologist Asserting speculation without reason and defending it against all reason is what apologetics is all about making up any and all Excuses to justify doctrinal errors and or to systematically dismiss or ignore Any and all evidence against an a priori belief to defend the faith even in those instances where you know it's not true So they resort to an appeal to ignorance as if they can assert whatever they want without any justification at all We saw that tonight and they think that they can refer to such lies as the absolute truth until or unless we can prove It false then apologists will still call it truth even after it's been thoroughly disproved because faith means never admitting when you're wrong Because of one of the problems with a faith-based belief system Is that there are required beliefs and prohibited beliefs where you're forbidden to admit certain truths That may call the faith into question because you have to believe a particular interpretation of doctrine No matter what or else face the empty threat of eternal damnation Additionally, there's usually an emotional attachment to certain faith beliefs And often culturally conditioned deep seated need to believe that overrides our natural desire to understand In either case it means that the believer has come what has to come up with some excuse has to Any excuse to keep on believing even when they know it's not true has has happened a few times people have admitted to me That they know it's not true, but they're going to believe it anyway So they make up arguments of arguments instead of evidence arguments that all require specific assumptions and typically depend on false dichotomy Where only two options are allowed and no others may be admitted because the goal is not to seek the truth But to avoid uncomfortable truths in defense of the faith my problem is And this is sincere. This is my problem. I can't relate to this I can't choose to believe whatever I want to especially when it's apparently Indefensible when there is no truth to it The difference in our positions is that I want to know whatever the truth is regardless what I might rather believe Whereas the faithful just want to believe whatever they want to regardless what the truth is Judging by several admissions. I've heard the so-called true believers apparently don't even care what the truth is They want to make believe something else instead Hey guys, there's a little preamble, but I'll make it quick The topic isn't can I frame a question that aren't can answer or what doesn't aren't know it's is the evidence for against god So for clarity features of reality are the actual they are not true Sentences express a concept neither the sentence nor the concept is true Truth exists only in the comparison or evaluation Between the actual and the concept your concept of the sentence two plus two equals five Might not match another person's concept of that statement If the concept accurately represents the actual we evaluate that as true as a truth seeker I seek accurate concepts about the actual I'm seeking to gain concepts of reality that evaluate is true the facts of reality aren't truth They are the actual and truth doesn't exist In quotes until there's a concept for comparison the measure of truth or how they concept compares to the actual facts so your previous attempt Is to claim that truth exists without a concept But now that I've actually rejected that no concept no statement The truth exists only in the comparison between the two of them I will rephrase the question you were asked multiple times during the debate What is the objectively verifiable fact that confirms the god concept that you expressed is actually correct Yeah, so you misrepresented me when you said that I think that Truths can exist apart from concepts. No, in fact, what I argued is that truths are mental entities So I don't know why maybe it was because we got bogged down in other parts of stuff But it seemed like it seemed like you didn't understand that. I'm sorry that you're upset sir. I don't understand. I'm just not fucking idiot Okay Maybe you're not idiot, but maybe you can't hear very well because I never denied that truth What if I never I never denied Stop Well, maybe I can actually correct you first on your lie. I don't think so statement I don't know Yeah About because you just Just claimed what I said about truth That was not true when aren't asked you for your objective fact that proof god you said that's the second That's your second allow me to say you can go back your seat You can't you can't go back and hang out because I'm going to Fitness responding. I'm going to finish responding to your question, sir. This is not a debate This is not a debate or you just say it's not a debate if you would quiet for a section We do Maybe you don't want a response Maybe you don't want a response I am but you're not allowing me to get to it. I am but you're not allowing me to get to it Okay, you're making it a second debate. You're making it a second debate What you can do what you can do is you can sit down you can sit down and be quiet You can sit down to be quiet. Okay. Go ahead and sit down But he's still trying to talk when I'm trying to give my answer Anyway, so I was trying to correct the first part of your what you said your preamble Which was a misstatement or I've claimed that it's a lie because you claimed that I believed that truth was somehow Independent of any concept. No, I never claimed that that's what you said in fact In fact, what I said was that truth is a mental entity, right? So that's fully compatible with it being conceptual I never said anything about truth existing apart from concepts whatsoever. I never made that claim Now, what's the verifiable data? Well, I was trying to present it and it's the fact that truths exist that true propositions exist And that at least one necessary truth exists Which because necessary truths and truths in general are mental entities That's going to entail the existence of a necessary mind. Now matt, I know you're sitting down just wrapping this up If you'd like to debate the topic, we could do it another time I have no problem with it and then you can speak as much as you want. Tell me how much you don't like me Go ahead Clarify just in common verbiage As I mentioned before that philosophers often use definitions different have different definitions than common parlance When you tell you when you say something and the statement is true We can verify that it is true when people ask or challenge or maybe defend He's telling the truth So that is the context that I've been using this whole time Thank you for the debate Thank you I'm glad to admit that I am probably the only idiot here My question is to Jake. Jake, it looked like you tried to present it and evidence in almost seven pages I am sorry to admit that I did not get the evidence Maybe it was because it was too long so I could not hold my attention Is there any way to express your evidence in 3 4 5 sentence 30 seconds? Is there a way that common people like I can understand and still it will be long like seven pages Yes, I mean, I think you mean seven premises not seven pages Um, but yeah simply what I what I tried to sum up in my response to that Was my argument is an argument from necessary truth Okay, I'm making the claim that truth exists. It's an actual existent thing. Okay That it's independent of any concept or anything like that, but it's actually a real thing Okay, and that necessary truths exists truths are mental entities Okay, and I gave an argument to explain why they're mental entities because they have certain features Move over please Yeah, they have certain features one of them being intentionality, which is that they are about other things Which are the same sorts of things that mental entities have Okay, so I'm making the claim that truth is a mental entity It's a type of mental entity or thought and that if you have a necessary truth You need the existence of a necessary mind or intellect in order to ground that Otherwise you cannot account I'm explaining it. It's very simple If you if all human thoughts and all thoughts besides god's thoughts or mental entities No, I'm trying to prove anything. I'm trying you asked me to explain my argument. I'm not trying to prove it now That's how I'm trying to I'm trying you asked me. What's the the gap between? It's that all human beings and all human thoughts are contingent Therefore they are not the type of thing that could qualify as necessary truths because they don't exist necessarily If necessary truth exists that has to exist in something that is necessary So two plus two therefore god Well, you don't even believe two plus two equals four necessarily so Oh, I fully accept that normally two plus two would be four. Yes But but there's no way that you can you can jump to two plus two equals four therefore god Well And there was no fact given anybody hear a fact in there Okay, sorry, I'll try to answer shorter Hi there as a former Methodist I I attend these debates to see if there's A reason that I should start believing in that god or what specific god and it's it's frustrating because every time Someone gives an argument. It feels like it's not evidence that they're playing philosophy war games and defining truth and it's like All other truths in the world that I know of can be demonstrated With experiments or discoveries to show something is true. It's not just words or scripture. That's true It's what they represent and I'm wondering if there's any Evidence you have that can be demonstrated in science not not philosophy or Webster dictionaries just Yeah, there are other arguments that I could have presented and I've presented in other venues That focus more on what you would consider tangible science and things of that sort Certainly there are arguments, but I didn't present a scientific argument. I presented a philosophical argument But of course the purpose of the debate was to present evidence not arguments Yeah, and a philosophical argument can be evidence It's a point not on a scientific topic It's not scientific I Like the previous questioner um I'm trying to understand your argument because perhaps you have some kind of of Evidence that I'm unaware of But I'm having a little trouble understanding your argument so I'm paraphrasing here is your argument that because there That reality exists then it's necessary that Mind existed that created it. Is that is that where we're going here? No, uh, I'm to sum it up. I mean I try to sum it up a different way Uh, that truth is dependent on minds and that if you have a necessary truth It has to be dependent on a necessary mind that's the simplest way I can say it Okay Lake But the false assumption you don't think you don't know if they exist or not. So you don't know it doesn't matter You're making a leap that's unjustified okay so Is there evidence for god Your evidence is because there's there's uh, he plus two therefore god No, there's minds that there's a necessary mind that That created that no because truth exists And truth is a mental entity and necessary truths exist then you need a necessary mind Okay, but you didn't give any evidence Like even if there were a necessary mind What is your demonstrable evidence that it was a god? I appreciate the question, ma'am My evidence again was the existence of truths the existence of at least one necessary truth Which then would entail the existence of a necessary mind except that it doesn't arguments I gave arguments and evidence for the existence You gave no evidence. Let me finish sir. You're gonna get your turn. No, okay I gave an argument and evidence for the existence of truths and necessary truths now go ahead Well, you didn't give either one what you did was you wanted to assume Just like what if there's a necessary being and it's dead unconscious material that somehow magically transforms in your mind Into an immaterial living consciousness same thing two plus two equals four therefore god That was your that was that was your leap. It's completely unjustified It you presented never at any time an objectively verifiable fact supporting your position You've had three people come up in the q&a so far all of them have asked you the same question What is your evidence? Obviously at this point even you should have figured out you haven't given any I have given it And why the hell does nobody know about it probably for the same Probably for the same reason that you don't know that two plus two can't equal fives Next question So my question is to Aaron Is it true that aren't sorry? Is it true that harming others is wrong? If so, could you provide the empirical evidence for that? Yes, it's our it's our evolution as a social species Globally, it doesn't matter what society you're in we all understand that if I walk up to somebody just unprovoked and I Unnecessarily cause them damage an unprovoked attack everybody everywhere every community all time It's objectively verifiable that that a physical attack on somebody without the necessity to do so is wrong That's objective morality However, how can you prove like what is Because we're because we're a social species. No Because we're a social species and so we depend on society. No man is an island. Have you ever heard that term? Have you ever have you ever heard the term no man is an island? What phrase? If I like had a massed power over, you know, let's say Okay, never mind. You're you're missing the point that the point is is it Is it we depend on society? We're a social species and society in turn although it seems to be an abstract concept also depends on us to pro to cohabitate productively so society and I mean global society just whatever The community in which we live whether it's local or as global doesn't matter Society depends on us to cohabitate productively. So what ends up happening? Oh, what if reality wasn't real Then you're gonna have to come up with a bullshit excuse to justify your inhumanity which people have done they usually The reason it that I'm trying to explain you keep interrupting the answer to keep asking the question Maybe if you just let the answer happen, you'd get it So society depends on us to cohabitate productively now in order to do that if you are selfish if you are if you are apathetic Then you are eventually going to be eliminated as a prop Issue of population mechanics. You're going to be eliminated from society Other by being banished imprisoned or killed whereas The guy who shows the empathy for his family friends and fellows who can be relied upon who stands by his word and people know That they can trust him again mathematically over the course of population mechanics That person is going to be favored that person is going to be more productive They're going to be more More socially acceptable might be granted more power and wealth will produce better and more So that what ends up happening over the course of many generations is that we have people who develop Empathy far more than any of the other apes do so that was the thing that gave us strength was our ability What Okay, no said nothing remotely like that at all, but it's it's obvious when you ask the question You were trying to find fault not an answer Yeah, can I just respond for 10 seconds James? Yeah 10 seconds you just didn't understand you're too dumb to understand just like the other people didn't understand Yeah, that's his words. Yeah, not mine. It's it's sarcastic. Okay. Yeah, because that's not at all what I said We've all been waiting to hear what evidence you have for a god I'd be curious to see what your definition of evidence is and if you believe that you've presented anything That actually touches evidence for a god Yeah, I mean it's kind of the same question again, which I already answered The definition the definition the definition I gave if you were listening in presentation Oh, see it's because you're too stupid. No, because because that's what you're saying to this gentleman here It's not what I said Maybe you said that you didn't want to listen to your answer I made an observation that was not what you say exactly. That's the same thing Which is completely different. That's not let me put it on the screen here Okay, very very quickly. I said and I quote I take evidence for a hypothesis to be that which raises the probability of the given theory to be true And I take evidence against hypothesis to be that which lowers the probability So I did define what evidence is and aren't himself Didn't give it verbatim the same thing, but it was similar evidence the available body of facts or information Indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid Kiss that's what we got out of you All right, next question Hello, Aron as an atheist. I find myself in the scale of Richard Dawkins as a 6.9 seven That's my question. So I don't affirm that there's no god. I believe God is not even possible So what evidence do you have for that? I believe I already expressed you didn't see it. He presented it all night. Where were you? If if God is not even a possibility as I explained We don't even have a possibility to consider We have science considers what is supported what is not supported. Where was the support for God? He was supposed to present it. So we are left wanting you know That's not evidence against God You know, but it's not evidence for God is there and that's all that matters I presented it. We that nobody saw I need people saw it. Where are you? Well, we can we can look on the live stream and see what all the people say. Okay So they're not in this room I do have a follow-up so I do believe the with the internet universe. We cannot know everything right So I know that there's no evidence for God We cannot claim that there's not yeah, I I didn't Again, it's what is supported and what is not what is the evidence for God? We don't have any we have evidence against God. We have nothing for God Therefore we have no choice but to conclude there evidently is no God Thanks Okay, my question is for you Jake. You believe that everything is contingent of a God, right? Everything other than God is dependent upon God. Yeah Okay, why why Why and how uh, because I believe God created everything I didn't say that was evidence you asked me what you asked me Evidence what? We asked me why do I believe it's definitional No, I love that kid My question is for Jake you in my print I understand your premise as there's truth outside of people's stances And before they could figure it out, you know, it's true How do you reconcile the fact that what you consider to be truth without evidence? It may not be true Uh, what I consider to be truth without evidence may not be true. I don't understand. Can you clarify? You you you stated that your stance your position Is that truth exists outside of humans? Right, so if you come across something that's not true, how do you reconcile that? It's not true. Like what you know example like your God is not true You can't prove that it is How do you reconcile that? I I reconcile it by demonstrating as I think I have and today in other places that God does exist And I do believe that truth when as I explained earlier Is dependent on what the facts are as aren't keeps repeating. That's not a difference of opinion But that doesn't mean that truth is Identical to the microphone because we don't say that that's true Hi, my question is for both speakers Aside from a God or gods, can you think of anything that exists that people have to argue for the existence of using philosophy? God is kind of unique in that category, isn't he? I can answer. Yeah, plenty of things. Uh, we can talk about mathematics Logic as the gentleman just asked morality. There are plenty of things that people argue in philosophy that has nothing to do with God Does mathematics exist in the same way that God exists? Yes They're both necessary Yeah, so um, I had a question about uh, I guess for jake and aren't pleased if you can pipe in there, um You said that um, I understand I understand the argument that you presented tonight jake I guess uh, maybe it might be the only one appears That truth exists Outside of our minds and kind of tap tap it on people have been saying so my question is Is are all thoughts from humans the same as the thoughts that God has Is it done as a qualifier? There's there's a little extra to No, God has thoughts that we don't have But all those thoughts is the the idea of God thought the same as a human thought Are they the same things? Uh, no, they're not identical. No So then why are they contingent upon the same thing? Why are they both contingent upon a mind? What do you mean? Sorry Why is if they're not the same thing? Then why are they both contingent upon the same things i.e. the existence of them? Well, because I can have multiple thoughts that are contingent upon my mind and those thoughts are not the same Just as God can have uh, God can be a mind that knows things such as truths And he can know many truths that I also know and yet my thoughts are not his thoughts They're not identical in that way They're the same if they're both are the same thing God Same thing. They're both contingent upon a mind. God's thoughts are depending on God's mind Our thoughts are contingent upon our minds. Yeah But they're not the same but they're contingent upon the same thing which is Because they're both related to a mind. Yeah, they're both related to a mind But the difference is that God is necessary. So he's a type of being that can ground Necessary propositions human beings are contingent. So they don't fulfill that role God is not necessary. He's imaginary Yeah Hi, uh, my question is for uh, erin aran Aran, sorry. By the way, I I tried to call you aran the whole time. I think you could at least give me that I mean Uh, aran, so it seems yeah, okay. You have no idea how old this gets So aran, uh, it seems from the debate here and other debates I've seen of yours and it seems like your your general position on what evidence entails seems to be empirical Scientific evidence my question for you is how do you justify asking for empirical scientific evidence for something? That is by its very nature And outside the scope of science because it everything every example I gave Uh would be different if there was a god All of the holy books all all telling contradictory things all claiming to be the absolute truth and the revealed word Even though they're mutually exclusive and violently conflicting And when they're full of falsehoods Then the absolute truth of the bible is no better than the absolute truth of the koran when they're both demonstrably wrong Right, so you asked for empirical because the whole time you've been asking jake Right, give me the demonstrable empirical scientific evidence Right. So why are you asking for scientific empirical evidence for an entity that would be empirically verifiable is not empirical Which but is Empirically verifiable Either we either there is a god when there's an afterlife meaning that we have to have souls Or we conclude that we don't have souls or realize this doesn't apply so much with islam because islam imagines that we're all Going to be reanimated corpses that'll have to eat food in hell But there there's still the supernatural aspect for which there is zero support for anything supernatural to all that includes miracles Effectively the same thing is magic. They have the same they have essentially the same definition So all we have it we have the the support for god We have a handful of books That are all wrong about everything and then we have Theologians past and present all over the place who all contradict each other and make statements We can prove to be false. So we don't have any evidence for god at all But we do have quite a lot that i listed and i can go back over it with you for things that are inconsistent with god So facts that actually contradict the notion of there being god. Why don't faith healers work in hospitals? How come a faith healer has never healed an amputee if there was a god? These things would happen if magic existed you would have people like Hermione and gandalf and obi one and spock Who would be able to demonstrate this ability reliably? We don't have that because that's just another fact That is against god nothing for god plenty against and these are all empirical because of course they would be If there was a god these facts would be different Well, look, I I just don't think you're answering my question because things like faith healers things all these problems We have in scripture. They don't really they're not really relevant to whether this non-empirical entity exists or not except that he is empirical You seem to be assuming that there must be some empirical evidence for something about that by its very nature Is not empirical and I think that's that's where you're going every time that god reaches his Ethereal hand into the prime material plane to affect any change in nature. He's going to pull his arm out dripping with physics He's going to leave some residue of himself We will have indications when miracles happen when you know if if in the in the twin towers attack You know if the plane stopped 10 feet short of the building it just stood there in space and then was slowly lower Gently down I was like yeah, you know what that that's a something that we can we can look at that But and that that would be empirical right empirical for god But we don't have telepathy. We don't have telekinesis. We don't have teleportation. We don't have any Anything that would be consistent with the god all we have are things that are contradicting god So this question is definitely for both speakers And I apologize are and if it sounds like I'm trying to smuggle in Uh a presupposition. I do admit that definitely Would the existence of a necessary mind depend upon it also having an effect on the material universe? I think you already answered that but I would love to Uh hear a bit more about it if there was a necessary mind If we were a dream in the in the mind of brahma, so Presupposing that it could exist It's getting over that whole if we presuppose the possibility that reality isn't real That we're all figments of some god's imagination then in that reality There would be a necessary mind of a necessary mind depend upon it also having an effect on the material universe Well, that's that's the instance in which it would If we were as the zen buddhists or whoever it was that put this I forget Um, wouldn't it obviously not buddhists, but when they assert that we are We're just imaginary beings created as a dream of brahma and that when when brahma wakes up We all cease to exist that by definition would make brahma a necessary mind No All right question for aran. Um, I had a different question, but you mentioned 9 11. So I'll use that as a jumping off Is it a moral failing for a layperson to hold an opinion and act as if that opinion is true It contradicts the experts no As I said, you're welcome to believe you're talking about experts You're welcome to believe Whatever you want as long as you express that it is a belief when you express it as a fact When you can't show that it's a fact then it becomes dishonest So but following the experts are we obligated as lay people to follow the experts? No when they So we're allowed to contradict them and that's fine as carl sagan said arguments from authority are worthless There are no authorities in science Question them all you'd like All right building seven Anybody see my eyes rolling with these shades. This might be a little funny, but uh our arguments evidence Both participants, uh the definition I just read is a body of facts. Yes, sir I mean objectively verifiable data Jake our arguments evidence if you have evidence for the premises in arguments. Yes Why didn't you I did I gave him You had an assumption two plus two therefore god I gave them I gave them and it was it was erroneous It made no sense and it wasn't justified So Jake you said that um arguments can be evidence if you have Like facts or evidence behind them. So what what's the evidence that you have behind the argument that god exists I already gave it if you didn't get it. Sorry to tell you I gave it already you're asking the same question I mean There's no like physical evidence that you've been able to present. It's all just been Your assumption is that I need physical evidence. Do you have an argument for that? evidence for that well So we need evidence to prove that anything is that a scientific claim or a philosophical one. It's um, I would say scientific No, it's philosophical It's a philosophical claim And yet you think that I need evidence yet you're up here asking a question Which assumes a philosophical principle which you don't have scientific evidence for so the idea that Thank you very much two equals four Somehow requiring a magical mystical mind Many things that it can't prove like but it doesn't assume It doesn't assume this other things that go so evidence is objectively verifiable I do I hate to do this to you guys, but just because we do have to wrap up Folks want to let you know we have vip dinner in here in 15 minutes. It'll be in this room We're bringing the food in otherwise if you're not having dinner with us tonight There's a wendy. There's two minutes away. There's a lot of other places But I want to give a huge round of applause to both Jake and arin. It's been a true pleasure Thank you kindly That was one of the best I've seen in a while So thank you gentlemen That was a very lively debate and like I said folks, uh, we'll start that vip dinner at 5 15 and then Tonight's final debate will be at 7 p.m. With matt de la hunty and daniel hikikachu. So stick around for that Folks if you're watching online I want to let you know modern day debate debate con will be happening this saturday november 4th in dallas texas You don't want to miss it. You can get your tickets in the description box below And if you are from across the world and you can't make it in person that subscribe button Now's modern day debate will be live streaming all of those debates at our youtube channel Thanks so much. We'll see you at tonight's debate between Daniel hikikachu and matt de la hunty. So stick around for that Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss it as well as many other upcoming debates. Thanks so much and we'll see you soon