 Hey everybody. Sorry for the late arrival here, but we made it. We've made it and we are ready to debate it. So perspective philosophy versus Schuyler fiction, let's get it going. Is Christianity true? Over to you perspective philosophy to open us up. Right. Okay. So I am very ill-prepared for this debate because I believe the debate topic was totally different. I was under the impression it was deism versus deism and it is in fact, is Christianity true? Which if anything puts a lot of burden on me and because I have to approve the affirmative whilst my opponent. Well, simply has to has to what's the word sort of looking for the right word to has to sort of examine whether I've actually made a strong enough positive case in order to prove whether Christianity is true, which is obviously a fairly tall order. But, you know, why not? Why not? So he doesn't even have to necessarily refute Christianity in the sense of saying it's simply untrue, arguing the negative. He simply has to say that I've not demonstrated the fact that it's true. So without actually helping him anymore, let's get into what Christianity is. So I take Christianity to be a spiritual doctrine, not one that is fundamentally about historical fact. I'm not yet to argue about biblical history, about whether the flood happened or whether, you know, Solomon Gamora was a real place and was bombed and by God and, you know, God's dropping nukes and stuff. I'm not really interested in arguing whether there is enough archaeological evidence to instantiate this as historical fact next to the biblical account because what I'm arguing for is essentially a philosophy of religion. I'm arguing for Christianity as the most developed and most mature philosophy of religion that as a religious structure, Christianity is by far the best explanation we have for reality. And so for Christianity, and so I take Christianity to be essentially a spiritual doctrine and that spiritual doctrine to be summed up in, well, I would, I'm a Catholic. So I would say the Catholic creeds, the Athanasian creed and I can say that, and the Niacin creed specifically. So we believe that there is a father, one God, there is, though there is a God, one God, father, son and Holy Spirit, that these are three distinct persons, that each one of those is a, well, each one is not the other. They are distinct from each other and all have existence equal to one another. And as such, the doctrine states that we believe in Christ or Jesus Christ, a man who supposedly came to earth 2000 years ago and acted in accordance to what we call the Gospels or as told in the Gospels and essentially bestowed philosophical teachings and ethical teachings upon us as a civilization. So I'm here to defend those teachings, and I'm here to defend specifically, I would defend, if I'm going to defend Christianity, a Catholic version of Christianity, and one which is far more allegorical than something which is a literal interpretation of Christianity. So my goal is to essentially, is to essentially instantiate the truth of the Trinity or the need for a Trinitarian view of reality. I wish to argue that the fundamental doctrine of Christianity is the Trinity, the belief that there is the father, the son and the Holy Spirit, that each one of these is allegorical to existence, truth and love, and that each one of these persons is the instantiation of each one of those truths, or each one of those logical moments, if you will, absolutely. That Christianity is unlike other religions very much based around the idea that reality is structured by a perfect, all knowing, omnipresent and all loving God. So that's what I'm here to defend and essentially the reason I would argue for such a doctrine is that each one of those positions within the Trinity is a logical syllogism which is necessary in order to gain the concept of personhood and specifically of reality in its entirety to such a degree to make truth possible. So that's, without having a more robust opening sort of prepared, that's what my intention is in this debate and hopefully I'll be able to explicate that more and maybe be pressured horribly by Skyler knowing that I have the harder position here to argue. So I look forward to hearing what Skyler has to say and yeah, looking forward to the exchange. Alright, well thank you so much for your introductory statement there, perspective philosophy. And hey everybody, if you're new here, hit that like button and subscribe, it helps out a lot. We've got tons of debates happening on modern day debate, we are a neutral platform, we do debates on science, philosophy, religion, anything really. Hit us up, we're open all kinds of ideas. So without further ado, we're going to kick it over to Skyler Fiction and thank you so much for being here, the floor is yours. Hey hey everybody, I'm Skyler Fiction. Yeah, today's topic is what I've been working on for the last week, you know, is Christianity true? Perspective philosophy is correct, it is much easier for me in this position because I'm not having to defend my position tonight. But there are plenty of problems with Christianity and I am going to talk about the Bible a lot and the Christian foundation and the problem of evil and the problem of suffering. There are lots of reasons why you shouldn't believe Christianity is true. We can just start with, it doesn't matter how you interpret Genesis with the Garden of Eden. But if you believe man has some type of original sin that now we need Jesus Christ to die on a cross in order for us to have salvation. That's a great example of an over-complicated solution for an easy problem for God, right? The fact that we have to go through and I mean we could go through the history of the Bible like we look at what happens, right? Like we could start with Genesis and, you know, well we'll skip out of need for a minute. We'll just leave there, but we can go to Abraham, right? You know, the guy who was considered righteous in God's eyes that had concubines and slaves. And passed those concubines on to his children when he died. But, you know, for someone like this is a great example of a moral contradiction, right? Being called righteous yet you have slaves, right? And concubine, sex slaves, things like that. I mean, general mutilation. God, we have this God who comes down to the Israelites and says, hey, you know, in order for us to have a covenant, you got to mutilate your penis, but not just your penis, your slave's penis, because they're yours too, right? This is all part of God. Of course, then, you know, as we get like further on, then we got like the conquest of Joshua, right? Because Joshua's got to go get all that land that was promised to Abraham because he was so righteous and good, right? So he gets the land of Canaan for the descendants of the Israelites, right? But there are people living there and you can't just go take over a city if there are people living there. So, of course, in the Bible, what does God do? He has the Israelites go and attack everybody. Keep the women slaves, execute the children, right? Now, I'm sure my opponent during this debate is going to say this is more war language, rhetorical language. But this isn't going to work when we get into the specifics of it, because if you actually study the scripture, you're going to realize it don't work because the stories don't work. Like, for instance, 1 Samuel 15, which is my favorite scripture to go over, which is where God orders the killing of the Amalekite, well, everybody, right? The babies, the infants, it literally targets infants and babies, right? Now, it wasn't for something the babies had done. No, of course not. No, it was what the Amalekites had done generations before it was a punishment for, right? So here we go another moral conundrum, right? A perfectly moral righteous God executes children for the sins of generations before. I mean, God does this quite a bit in the Bible where he'll curse future generations. You have talks of him, I believe through Jeremiah where he actually tells you he's going to make parents eat their children. It's going to be so bad for them. And then, of course, as we keep going, you know, when we get any type of moral code, there's going to be no way we're going to demonstrate any of the kind of moral foundation with this God. In Christians, it's just going to be plain. I'm not sure what you're going to argue from the philosophy level with me about Christianity being true. And we both believe in creators. I believe in a creator. So having some kind of pre-sub argument doesn't really seem fruitful. I don't want to go too long. It's about the same time as you did. But I will say genocide, slavery, it's very hard to actually find any positive things in the Old Testament. There's almost no ideas of women having consent in the Bible to merit or anything like that. There's no real evidence of the specific Christian God. You're not going to go into archaeological evidence. You're not going to go into showing that Christ rose from the grave. So I don't know how this conversation is going to go. And what I think bothers me is it's not necessarily you, but just people in general. If you're going to be an apologist and you're going to argue for the Bible, or not argue for the Bible, argue for Christianity, like you should know the Bible. You should be able to study this. Give me one second. Go for it. Sorry, my dog's, he's keeping guard outside. So, hey, leave it. So like, but like the argue, the problem is, I think it's like, it's what happens is we have this people used to just argue with generic atheists about philosophy. And it's much easier, I think, when you're just, I don't know if it's easier, but it's, I hate just God general debates, belief debates. But anyways, okay, that's five minutes. That's just my opening. But yeah, I agree. It's going to be very tough for him tonight. All right. Well, thank you so much for your opening statement there, Schuyler fiction. And I want to let you all know in the live chat, we are going to be having a Q&A at the end of this discussion. So get your questions in there. If you have anything you'd like to ask a perspective philosophy or a Schuyler fiction. And on that note as well, we do have our guests linked in the description, including in our podcast. So if you like what you're hearing from either of our speakers, check it out. You get all kinds of more content, I'm sure. And I'll let you know at the end of the debate what you'll find at their link. So without further ado, into open discussion, we go and we'll kick it over to the other side to get us rolling. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that. So yeah, obviously straight in with the biblical history. Obviously, as I said, I'm not, I'm not here to argue a lot of that, but you know, I will actually meet you in terms of how we can interpret it. So in terms of original sin, like this original sin, atonement, the old covenant versus the new covenant, you know, the divine command and the problem of evil. And even the literal interpretation of the gospel sort of to sort of talk about here. So there is actually quite a lot that you sort of touched on. So I'll do my best to sort of rebuke that one by one. Yeah, let's choose one. Yeah, let's go with one and take one at a time. Okay. So the first, you started with original sin. So let's go with original sin. Why would God sort of imbue us with original sin, perhaps? Or why would we cause our own, our own sort of need to be perfected and then God have to come down and save us? I think that this... Shout out, Mrs. Sorry, that was my dog, not you. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What a way to speak to you in a lock with her there. I'm sorry. I'm sorry I partnered you with this. It's such a... Monster over here. I'm kidding. I'm muting. I'm sorry. Get juicy sometimes people. We're not going to get offended over something like that. But yeah, that's for the dog. So continue on. That was funny. Okay. So yeah, so let's start with original sin. So the concept of original sin is often interpreted, not necessarily as being essentially... Well, it's not essentially interpreted as a specific action or something that an individual has actively done, but more the passive condition of humanity and the passive condition of humanity that has been... That is now aware of ethics. So it's an awareness of our own moral deficiency. Original sin is moral deficiency in relation to what is our form. If Adam and Eve... Hold on, hold on. Was there moral deficiency? Was there a moral deficiency before the fall? No. No. So they ate from the tree of knowledge and then they gained knowledge and then they recognized... Then the moral deficiency started. Okay. So that's exactly... Yeah, that's my exact point, right? You don't need this. This is... You don't need that to happen. You do. No, wait, wait, wait. You can't say you need it to happen if they were like that before and they were already perfect. They weren't like that before. And so that perfection is different. They've essentially changed their essential nature. That's the whole point of it. Was there original nature? It was not free. It was not free. It was not free. It was not free. It was not free. Where does it say that in Scripture? It doesn't say that in Scripture. This is just your personal beliefs? No, it's not just my personal beliefs. So I'd say this is like a fairly established theological belief. It's more about what Thomas Aquinas described as the state of innocence. What's the basis for it? What's the scriptural basis for it? The fact that they were absolutely innocent of ethics. So the scriptural basis is that they had no knowledge of good and evil. And so their actions weren't their own. They weren't able to rationally choose for themselves. But they weren't good. But they were good. They don't have to have a knowledge of good and evil. What was evil? What was evil defined before they were able to define evil? Evil is always to act against God's will, right? So like evil is always... Hold on. Is it because is there a scriptural basis for that? Well, to defy the will of an all good God. So if evil is the negation of good or the privation of good, it is to go against the will of God definitionally. So you take the story literal. You take this as historical narrative. Okay, well, then why are you arguing? Hold on, you're arguing from a historical perspective. I'm arguing for the allegory. No, you're not arguing. You're not arguing an allegory. You're saying a person ate from a tree. That was a specific question I asked you. I'm not arguing. Okay, hold up. Dude, stop for a second. I'm trying to understand what you believe. You're not telling me specifically. Do you believe there was an original Adam? Do I believe that Adam and Eve are real people walking the earth or walking on the Garden of Eden? No, none of that. So what is the specific thing that caused them to fall? Hold on. That changed their nature. Is that what you were articulating? What I'm arguing for is the allegory, which is really a story about God's power. The Genesis is a story about God's power, the ways in which we should understand ourselves in relation to nature and animality, and the way in which we are... You were defining original sin. You were defining original sin, and then you went to the Garden of Eden and told me about the Garden of Eden. Now you're saying it's not... Because that is the story. Okay, so how did human beings fall? If that's an allegory, what's the actual thing that gave them the ability to... Let me finish the question. I'm sorry. You're not going to understand the question if you talk over me. What I'm asking you is, what was the disobeyed God? That's the question. Where did they disobey God? Wait a minute. Are you asking where they disobeyed God by essentially partaking in the knowledge of God and evil by eating the fruit? Do you mean in the story? No, no, no. I'm trying to understand. What the fuck is he saying? He's asking me a question. He's asking me to clarify a question. Where did they fall in the story? But you said it's not... You're saying it's not historical narrative, so I'm asking you... No, of course I'm not. I'm saying it's an allegory, but you're asking me where did they fall in the story. No, no, no. I'm asking you... Okay, let me ask you it this way, because maybe I've got to keep it more simple for you. Did human beings ever go against God's will? No, not really. No, so they never went against God's will. So why did you bring up anything to do with sin being going against God's will if they've never done it? The whole point is to show that there's a moral deficiency. So God made them with a moral deficiency? Not about kind of, in the sense that... There's no kind of. Did they have a moral deficiency when they were made? No, not when they were made. Okay, so then how did they get the whole deficiency? They have developed a moral deficiency. They developed it naturally, right? Like a child grows into a man, right? So then God is responsible for them having a moral deficiency. Oh, yeah. Because of the way he designed them. Yeah. So now... Yeah, the way he designed nature. Okay, so what was the... If I extended God know that man was going to fall. No, I know. So he... No, no, he designed them in a way that they were morally deficient. That's not knowing they're going to fall. That's designing them in a way that they don't have efficiency. He designed them in such a way as to develop into beings which can then be saved. So the whole point of it is to go from... Save from what? From themselves. From that lack of freedom. Sorry, what's going to happen? They... What are you... Dude, are you saying they can't have freedom without having moral... No, absolutely not. Well, what do you think freedom is? I don't know, dude. How you define these words is a mystery to me right now. I would say that freedom is rational self-determination and rational self-determination requires an understanding of what is actually good or bad. Inherently, it's the ability to actually act in accordance with your own interests. So yes, you do need ethics to be free. So God crippled human beings. Take a look at, for example, and this is why I've related it to Aquinas. So when we began this, and I was trying to explain that the allegory of Genesis is essentially to show that there was a state of innocence. And this is to liken man to beasts or to animals, right? Animals are innocent. Like children in many ways, right? They don't have the capacity to understand right and wrong. Okay? They don't even have the mean... If they didn't have the means of understanding right and wrong ever, like there's nothing about them that would have the capacity to actually have rational self-determination. They're neither good nor bad. How are you defining right or wrong? They just are. How are you defining right or wrong? In relation to rational self-determination, are they free? I don't know what that means. Like, right or wrong, but we're right or no. Are you a moral realist or are you a moral anti-realist? No. I'm an anti-realist. No. You're an anti-realist. Okay. That's like... So I'm trying to understand when you say something's good, moral or immoral, what does that mean? So when I say something's good or bad, I would say that it's in accordance with a being's nature. Or rather in accordance with that which is rational. Okay. So God's nature is the foundation of your morality. What you're saying? Well, I would say that... Well, I mean, it is now that I'm a Christian, but even before I was a Christian, I had the very similar stance from a secular view. If he's the foundation, he's the foundation, doesn't matter what your view is. Yeah. I mean, it depends on what you take to be the... I used to be able to say something like absolute spirit from a humanist perspective, but now I'm a Christian, so I would relate that to the divine mind. But I mean, I'm happy to argue from even a secular point of view. Well, no, no, no, that's fine. No, I'd rather you guys... We're arguing Christianity, so there's no point to arguing from a secular view. Yeah. But if you're going to say, like, oh, you believe in God and so you question begging. No. No, no, no. I'm a God believer. So I don't know what... I'm not begging the... I'm granting there could be a creed or I'm not going to grant you morality comes from it. Right. That's fair enough. I mean, like, it's one of those... That's kind of what I'm saying. It's like, if you're saying that, I'm going to beg the question by saying there's a God. I don't want to do that. What I'm saying is you're begging the question by saying morality exists. Sorry. If you... Yes, that's what I mean. Sorry, that all morality comes from God. And then if you're going to say, like, well, wait a minute, like... Well, you have no way to show it exists, right? You have no way to demonstrate objective morals exist, right? I would argue I do. Yeah, I would say. Okay, well, that would be the truth for the Christian God. So show me the objective morals coming from the Christian God. So that... So first, what do we mean by morality? What do you understand morality to be? Well, you're the one. You're the one. It's supposed to be organically. Okay. So I would say that the word morality comes... So the word morality comes from the Latin moralist, which is a derivative from the ancient Greek ethikos, which means pertaining to behavior. So what the whole point of moral philosophy is essentially to work out whether there is a right or a wrong action, whether an action can be considered good or bad, if there is a better or worse way of behaving in your life. And your God can't... Yeah, that's a fine definition. Can your God commit immoral actions? No. So when he executes... Like executing babies, that would be immoral. It's not that... It's kind of one of those things where I'm going to go, God won't execute babies. And then you're going to say a biblical passage where God supposedly kills baby. But you've read the Bible, right? Hold on. You've read the Bible, correct? Yeah. I know what you're going to say. No, no, no, no. Don't assume what I'm going to say. But I'm at... You've read the Bible. You know in the Bible where God's targeting the babies. Right? Right. Okay. So you do... The passage as to where God has commanded the death of children. So you're aware of it. You just don't believe... So okay, but what would be the... Because I don't think the story is literal. Like I'm not arguing for a literal interpretation of Scripture. No Catholic argues for a literal interpretation of Scripture. So no... Oh, that's bullshit. I grew up Catholic in a lot of them, arguing for a little interpretation. Not very high Catholic. No, no. It's the Word of God. Not the words of God. Let's let Skyler speak there. Your modern-day Catholics are much more progressive than the ones when I grew up as a child. But... Just that. I mean, even prior to this, like if you look... Do you not believe... I'm sorry. Do you not flood the world at all? I have absolutely no idea. I don't really care. If the idea is a spiritual... Son, I mean, you just pick and choose what you want out of the Bible. What sounds good to you? No, it's not. That's exactly what you do. That's exactly what I said. There is a spiritual fact, and then there's a historical fact. You call this... That's just a feeling. When you say spiritual, can you demonstrate spiritual exist? No, it's not just a feeling. Okay, demonstrate spiritual. What do you think spirituality is? Let's try to refer... What do you think spirituality is? No, no, well... Well, you're saying spirituality... Define it and show it exists. What do you think spirituality is? Because if you think it's just a feeling, no wonder you don't understand anything about reality. No, no, no, no, no. I know it's just a feeling, but the way each one of you... Yes, exactly. You know it's just a feeling. So what do we mean by spirituality? Go ahead, say it, bro. And then I'm going to... So I would say the spiritual is that which connects all things, which is often defined in Christianity as love, which is essentially the activity of logic itself. Where would you... So I wouldn't say it like... Listen to the finishes point there, Skyler. How they define love in biblical terms. You're just making up... Once again, you're taking Catholic ideas that aren't biblical. Well, no. I mean, like the whole point of the connection between the father and the son leads to the spirit. And so you don't think the spirit in Christianity is love. No, no, I don't... All of these biologies... Quote me a scripture. It's not about literal interpretation of scripture. It doesn't have to be literal interpretation, but you can give me scripture that actually backs what you believe. The problem is... If I'm going to... If I'm going to... If I'm going to... If I'm going to... The problem is people don't study the Bible. The problem is... The problem is you don't study the Bible. You study philosophy. And this is the problem. You have lots of Christians like you who don't even read their own book to understand it. You go to other people to read their views. Because you don't know how it all begins with the non-literal interpretation of scripture there. So if I start talking about the living tradition and Catholicism and what we're talking about which can't be filed down if she has scripture, then how are you going to even argue with her? I'm talking about specific things and you're not... You're saying no... I was talking about executing babies. Let me give you another one. How about slavery? How about slavery? Does the Bible condone slavery in there? No, I do not believe that the Bible condones slavery. I think that the Bible actually offered one of the most robust cases or rather that Christianity offered one of the most robust cases for the rejection of slavery. That's why you see massive amounts of anti-slavery movements born from Christianity. For example, the Quake as well really beg about being anti-slavery. If the Bible condone it, why do all these Christians just want to... Do you realize that the... It's funny about that. I do. You got to stop talking. You can't stop. No, no, no, no. I'm going to respond to you. Yeah, you're... Yeah. Just because you did have that wrap up. But I know that my audio output is really, really good and you guys should be able to hear each other with really low latency but that doesn't mean the audience can't hear it. So if we could just wait until the other person's getting to at least a pause before we inject, that would be good just so we don't end up with any internet mess-haps where people can't hear what we're saying. So Skyler, over to you. Yeah. I'm going to read the actual scripture. Just once again, it shows you don't read your own Bible. Leviticus 25 verses 44 through 46. I'm going to give you multiple. Your male and female slaves are coming from the nations around you. From them, you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living in your land in your country and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as an inherited property and you can make them slaves for life. You must not rule over them over your fellow Israelite ruthlessly. Now you go to the verse before it starts talking about indentured servitude, right? Because indentured servitude was for the Jews. They weren't allowed to be put in bondage anymore. But you could go capture people. You could buy people from foreign lands. Women are bought and sold as property and slavery. Literally a father, she doesn't sell his daughter to get out of debt. She doesn't go free as the males do. When you're saying it's progressive, in America, literally, America had indentured servitude in its creation. Places like Georgia were debtor colonies. They were based on the biblical indentured servitude, right? You could see What I read is an indentured servitude. That's owning someone for life. Okay, so Okay, one I'm not a Jew so I'm not gonna argue for the old covenant when the the whole point is the new covenant Even if I was a fundamentalist I'm gonna say that covenant isn't appropriate anymore because we have a new one But God did one at one point. What does it matter what it so God did so if I mean that's actually the different that's like What do you mean what it's in my oh god, so God's more Jumping in bro, let us go back. What do you mean? I haven't finished speaking? We're gonna yeah, we're gonna let him answer the question that you posed there and then we'll continue on My area. Can you tell him what the question was? I? Was in the live chat. So if you want to repeat the question Go ahead man. Go ahead answer the question perspective Okay to even if I was a Jew and even if I was only arguing for an interpretation of the Old Testament Contemporary Jews don't even argue usually even if they argue for a more literal interpretation of the Old Testament They will argue that the law of the old law is not necessarily applicable to the contemporary time So where if God has given a command of us to a specific point in time It's there's no reason to assume that that command would be applicable now So even if I was a Jew, I wouldn't have to accept that slavery was was justified by the but well justified by the Torah So there's that there's the development in the you know in terms of hermeneutics in terms of how we would interpret the scripture How we're actually reading the scripture as a whole unified piece. So for example, you get many Literal that this is essentially expounding upon a greater Greater and what's the word I'm looking for conceptual development within the overall In overall in the overall wisdom of our lives. So we don't have to go. Okay, right? Well, the Bible said slavery's okay It's like well, what is actually going on? What's the story about what what if we were to break it down to its core quintessence What will we look and find into this in the story? How is it structured? Why is God doing this? Why is this happening constantly asking? To the whole piece which is why do you know of any contemporary Christian institution which argues for argues for slavery or Where I show you how Christians argue that their moral foundation Changes right God at what at one point can say hey this with my covenant with you You can mutilate your genitalia, right? Don't eat pork. You can under this covenant own slaves, right? It's if morals are objective and they are in the foundation of God then they don't change God doesn't lie He would never lie because it's a mortal lie, right? So when you say things like oh well, he can tell you to have slaves here And if you want to talk about interpretation my man my my boy dr. Josh bone who's written two books on biblical slavery that we can read Hebrew Greek and Aramaic has a PhD in a Seriality he's got some books you can read and he's much more well equipped About this thing would educate you on biblical slavery because you haven't read the Bible You read philosophy books and this is why when you come in you debate me you're forced to just say well We could talk about interpretation or we could talk about this, but you don't actually give a defense You don't actually give a defense. You just say I can do this But you're not actually give your interpretation what let me give you a scripture you give me your interpretation How about that? Why would like look? I've even told you like am I going to as a Catholic? So I can correctly interpret the Bible as an individual without reference to let's say I don't know the community of the living tradition. No, I'm not going to do that Why am I not going to do that? I don't believe it's possible so God made it possible for you to be able to read the Individuals to understand something Impartially without the assistance of a community. No, absolutely not I don't know but you could read the Bible and understand the Bible without I could not understand the words I don't that doesn't mean I have a correct interpretation Limitations or to God make it so you put epistemological limitations. Yeah They and who created those epistemological? God which is why he gives a church, right? So exactly so he created a problem and gave you a soul solution. Oh, yeah Catholic Church, have you seen the history of the Catholic Church because quite a little bit of people have been molested very it developed a lot more than Yeah, it's it's not yeah, I mean listen, you know what I am We don't we don't we're not pro molesting children like the leaders of the Catholic's a lot of Catholic pre sure did it Well, there's been like comparatively to all that institutions Not really if you look at something like and one the Catholic Church doesn't say that that justified and If you look at if you look at the cover the if you look at the the numbers of Child molestation from the Catholic from Catholic priests compared to teachers the police force for example Do you think that the police force agree with child molestation like the Metropolitan Police Force because the recently broke up? Investigating a pedophile ring Must be pedophiles all of them. Yeah, I mean Just your church doesn't have a good history with being good moral leaders is my point. I think that it has a fairly good history I think that it's Yeah, I'm happy and I'm going to you want to kill the clock Moral progress you're the one killing the you're the one killing the clock by not letting us finish man If we look at that what is moral progress in the first place You're saying wait a minute the ways in which we would interpret scripture for example of the ways or the events in scripture for them to Be good one you'd have to require a literal interpretation and say this actually happened in such a way as to mean that this this this this in this sort of fundamentalist interpretation is the way it should be interpreted in the first place but Even if you took that even if you took that you could say morals actually do progress along with the epistemology of humanity It's not that God told us to do the wrong thing It's that we didn't understand God and Catholics believe that the Bible was divinely inspired and not written by God himself So even the authors even if you're gonna say the authors themselves did not understand the truth of God's message as God intended it which is why the living tradition constantly interprets and develops in the first place So we will necessarily see a development in the Christian tradition But the way what you want to do is bring it back to something like Sola script horror script horror where we're like, oh, well actually no, it's just I just You know So let me ask you is it God loves children, correct? Yeah, well, God loves I'm happy to say God is loved. Yeah, why does he allow them to get starved to death every day? Well, you mean the problem of evil. I'm no, I asked you a specific question. Why does you allow that? No, I answered my specific question Children to starve and suffer when he could feed them Well, I don't think that he could feed them without undermining the overall teleology of the natural world So there are physical limitations to the world and God can commit miracles. He's done it before One How we understand a miracle in the first place is Dude Specific question and you act like a what's a miracle you play dumb like God's net well depends on how you define miracles Did Jesus rise from the dead? That's a fucking miracle. He's done miracles. He can feed starving children Stop playing dumb. You're a philosophy major. You know better. This is ah, go ahead You're on mute right now perspective philosophy if you want to come off mute, but he's asked the question there So if you can give him a straight answer and then if you want to go down why you're answering it that way Then well, we can definitely get down in that path, but you're still oh you're off mute. So there you go Okay, so if I just to make sure I understand correctly, you're asking me Why doesn't God just perform a miracle and feed everyone? Yeah, the question was he has the capability to feed children You grant that correct. Yes. Okay. He has it. So he has the ability he chooses not to Right. Yes, we'll say that He's allowing it to happen. Yeah, right if I allowed my neighbor to molest their children would I be a moral? Yeah, so you'd be complicit. Yeah, yeah Yeah, but why isn't God complicit when he allows his children to get raped because God God There's there's I mean if you're asking for essentially a theodicy Right. Yeah, I would I would argue for a combination of an Augustine theodicy and an Iranian theodicy I think one I think there has to be evil in the world to overcome in order for us to become perfected And essentially to become free and capable of the self-actualization that is God Well one that's limiting. You're just let you're purely No, I mean you can get by your own by your own reasoning. That's great And a couple of the philosophers you've read right yeah, you're reasoning but there's no Logical reason why God can't feed starving children. He fed the people in the Bible Jesus fed people. Yeah, okay. Like look look one again Masking your position boy, it's your position. You should know your fucking position. Yeah, I know my position for Miracle is nature as it should be rather than a supernatural event now I'm assuming you understand the miracle to be Definition of a miracle at Did you just make that definition up of a miracle because I've never heard that definition and I've had Where's the source It's not like a definition it's more It was a definition You asked for my definition. I gave you my and I asked you where that came from So I would say it's an interpretation of a gusty and okay, so of Aquine in philosophy from where what Thomas Aquinas Yeah, I know who Thomas Aquinas is you have some a theological. Where'd you come where it is books? Yeah, I got you Well, what do you mean you want to give you sources going? I just I mean good debate I mean, but you're not actually like you're not No, we're just because you couldn't read all we could in real life What the fucking topic of the debate was like that's on you, bro I read it the video was made earlier today. I even warned you on Twitter. I had a time it told you But yeah, I don't know if you Well, I mean it's on the comma you go look at it, bro But that's your own fault, right, but you've argued You start the whole video by complaining about it like Here's the question I want to why I want okay, so God has let's children start to death so that they could be better You're I mean if you are actually capable of debating this you would be bringing I'd rather bring up that's what it is. No, no, I know it's the problem of evil Specifics of the problem of evil is what I'm trying to argue. Yeah, and then you're like, oh wait a minute We're talking about the problem of evil. Yeah clown I'm giving you specifics with it between intervention the intervention of God in the reality and what just Defying avention and not yeah, and you said it's a soul building pipe thing I said that there is a combination of an iranian theodicy which is soul building This is a world of soul building at the baby dies. How does the baby dies? How's it so built? Because the look even if that specific child dies, right? Dies on a baby literally dies on a table once it's born two minutes later. We are individually isn't just one child It's all of us. It's our humanity that we are talking about. Yeah, I don't know what that means Okay. Yeah, I know you don't but that's not why I'm asking you to clarify. Don't act stupid. It'd be like Oh, well, I know you don't I'm fucking asking you to clarify. He didn't mind. You're getting I know because you're you play dumb Speak for a little bit there You kind of got your questions out there. So I'll let you expound on that perspective. Okay, right? Well, okay So first and foremost if we're talking about intervention of God and whether a miracle would be essentially a supernatural Incurrence from God like some heavenly being just fucking popping food into existence or not We need to talk about why nature structure the way it is and what a miracle is and what it actually is about now That's what I was trying to express, but we didn't do that. So I'm asking you. I believe About all that how would you have any knowledge of that information because this is what theology is theology is Philosophy philosophy is a topic right like me saying where it's like hey I learned how to grow my plants outside through science. That's oh, yes. Science is the topic. Where did you learn this? What in philosophy you keep repeating your same fucking What do you mean? Where did you want specific thinkers? Like what are you asking for? Yeah, because you so like Like there's gonna be a Yeah, I don't know we're even at now at this point Well, I will I can tell you that we're at about whether in the weather God should intervene into reality and Like he's done in the past how a miracle how a miracle works and what the purpose of a miracle would be then you Responded to me. Why why where did you get this interpretation? Okay, yeah, yeah, I got it So and then I reference the fact of theology in the living fucking tradition Perfect over and over again, then you complain that I'm referencing Christ rise from the dead Yeah, okay, is that a miracle? Yes, is that a natural thing with our universe that people rise from the dead for Christ. Yes Yeah, that's special plea. It's not oh, yeah, it's not special Just define it. That's just defining it some way. It's theological. It's just how you fucking define it is no way It's not how I fucking define it. It's in accordance. It's like what's the purpose if we're getting to it What's the purpose of death? How does it function? Why is it exist? And what what's the meaning behind the there was no death in the beginning, right? Was there death at the beginning? Why before the fall no No, so why was there no death before the beginning if we wanted to get into the fucking allegory of original? You're not dealing you're just like hey if you want to get in this I'm asking you okay, when did you mean so do we mean? I'm asking you what your position is on what we're talking about right so whatever your position is You're saying that human beings, right? Did let's talk historically have human beings were there a time where they did not die No, no, so they always died so so what you should say is spiritual death is what you mean Yeah, okay, okay You'll fucking be more clear about your fucking communication because I think you're talking about death because you're using the word death But you're talking about it's literally how many times no, no, no, no No, you're no you said hey we can depends on how what we're talking about whether it's allegory. I'm asking you your position It's allegory. Okay, so the whole time, okay So what the fuck do you mean by humans are born with a deficiency if it's an allegory the deficiency is essentially our Capacity to be perfected that we have essentially a lack of knowledge of good and evil that needs to be overcome that can only be overcome through ethical rational inquiry institutional development Ethical you defined evil earlier is going against God But you said no one's ever gone against God's will Not in the sense like if going against God's will would be like going against like what is actually right like what you should do So it's it's doing something irrational. So evil would be going against God's will be doing something irrational What but evil is you just defined when nature is nature is ration like so for example nature itself is like I can be free This is why like Hegel would argue that predeterminism or rather Like predestination is completely compatible with free will and but like, you know, we could have talked about these things But the whole time Go you're still not making you were going in you're about to actually make the point And then you start talking about how we could have talked about these things, right? Yeah, but it means So Are you just ready to give up is that what you're doing? No, I'm saying how long have we got left? Basically starting the conversation over Dude, we have 15 minutes left of the official open discussion We can go as long as you guys want or we can go right to Q&A when you guys are ready But I will remind our audience. We are going to have a Q&A at the end of this So keep your super chats friendly and they will get read and keep them related to the topic Tonight we're gonna well tonight our debate. We're talking about is Christianity trill So Skyler back to you Yeah, so Basically, we've got some kind of unclear position About why we need Jesus Christ to die on a cross in order to come back Somehow that does some soul building but asked I asked that why how a baby Being executed soul would be built because we're not gonna get a straight answer on that Okay, so so one What you're asking is essentially this was two things to be said there So one and it's important because Christ is essentially the representation of humanity, right? He is he is humanity and the atonement he takes on the sins of the world He represents humanity in its process of being perfected assumed into God, right? That's in the in I can't even say the Inesian creed and at the nasi and creed my god, I can't say and Essentially, it's this idea of like the human the humanity of Christ is assumed into the divine nature of God that humanity can be Perfected that it can be possibly raised to the point in which it no longer it not simply hasn't doesn't have original sin But that the original sin has been essentially and Not undone, but overcome What is that Adam had a fall in order for Christ to save us? Well, Adam's not real It's now. Yeah, I know the allegory the art the allegory of Adam is essentially Humanity coming to Adam any humanity coming to understand their own moral deficiency and their own need to be perfected Yeah, it's 100% I would say that in terms of like evolution that we've so they evolved basically to have rationality Rational cognitive capabilities. Yeah. Yeah, and I don't know how that therefore Jesus on the cross so like from the point of having rational cognitive capabilities and engaging in ethics And there is this need for the spiritual development of humanity spiritual being the the Shared consciousness if you will or What a sense or the individuality of humanity and I mean that literally so when you use the word so Individual in terms of let's say a logical analysis of season like Hegel or can't if a universal is Something which is all it's allness a particular is something in its business an individual is actually a combination of the two Which means it's a singular. It's actually a Limited universe. This is word salad. This is logic actually Okay, let's let's can you present it in logical premises then maybe we can go through the premises With it because I you can't you want just it's like a bunch of work I mean, I can show you like Kant's can't agree. I mean, I don't really want to have you're gonna make us go through like Yeah, what is logic? I can't make it do anything, bro. No, but I mean you're asking you Okay, wait, I'll ask you does this make sense to you go ahead Do you know what a unit is what is a universal? Is it is it something? It's all this would you agree that universals would be the word the way I've heard the word universal Applied is that it's something that applies to everyone everywhere Everyone of you. That's fine. Every it's it's something. It's all this. It's all this You're like said, it's the problem is you're using poor language to describe what you're what you're actually meaning And that's why it's like it's important So what I mean, okay, what's your I don't even know where we're at. What's your premise? I'm trying to show to me. Okay. I'm trying to show you that when we talk about The individual what it means to be an individual we're actually referencing a species essence Which is moving and developing through time So we actually have the development of humanity itself not one given human and in Christ humanity is essentially Fully resolved in a subject which comes to know it But how does that happen? How does that affect humanity and how does he die and come back on a cross? How do you come back? But we're not being literal. Yeah, we'll be we've talked about this So Jesus didn't literally die on a cross and come I don't think it matters. I've said this and no Don't run from your position I've said a few times I don't know whether a literal man was nailed to a cross and whether he rose from the dead I don't think any of that necessarily matters to the position You have a pick and choose religion is exactly That's exactly what you're doing. You're literally saying you're calling it spiritual And you're going to you're going to the philosophers Because you're not studying have you studied any of the historical stuff of the Bible a Little bit. I mean not enough to where I would be like comfortable Well, wouldn't that be like what do you want to understand the people who actually wrote it and oh, no I mean I understand a little bit more about like essentially the like the like in terms of the culture and like the language a little bit More but I need you more in it like so for example like the Relation of the Gospels essentially like how people in Jesus time would have spoke Greek in relation to the essentially the Roman and Greek culture at the time No, you're asking like what I'm like, you know, like there are some things I've studied There's just not like this isn't my main avenue of study my main Right, you've actually read. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I know actually I'm terrible for that. I haven't read the whole Bible Maybe a bit of Christian Like me whole life really, I mean there was like a gap of like eight years when I was agnostic and I've read I've read the New Testament I kind of defend I know it's lazy. I know that's lazy. I kind of defend that but uh, but yeah, like I mean I've read I've read a lot of the Bible. I haven't finished the Bible I love it is it like to be fair. I will say it it's just finding the motivation That's I think that's the that's the hardest thing. I know that I should But I'm not going to listen. I appreciate your beliefs I don't want you to think that I don't appreciate that your beliefs aren't like fundamentalist beliefs Like I appreciate you're not a fucking fundamentalist Uh and stuff, but I think that you're you're kind of holding on to a religion based on the trinity and your Catholicism But like if you you're getting you're literally getting Like the Catholic catechism But but you have to get rid of 90% of the book. Like, do you know why I don't really know Like well, you know like so to give you when my mom was a child growing up the Catholic church You weren't even allowed to have Bibles to read. Oh, yeah. Yeah before like you mean like uh, like what it was like Latin and yeah, they didn't even do like yeah Well, they didn't do anything. They didn't even do the services in English. It was all yeah, yeah, Latin. Yeah Yeah, that's not good. Well, that's not good. I mean, yeah, I mean, there's lots of things. Yeah, I was wrong I mean they're against the LGBT community is another thing. Yeah. No, I mean they're getting a little bit better with um With you're not you're not anti-gay, right? No, no, no, I think that the Catholic church should develop in relation to that I think you got to be in it to win it. So I would I would 100 I'll tell my fellow Catholics I think this is what we should do and that's my participation in a universal community, which Uh allows me to rationally, uh, you know engage So, yeah, like I genuinely do think that we should progress beyond Not allowing homosexuals to marry and I think that love should be considered regardless of its Of its instantiation of the other gender of those people who are involved. I I agree man You just you know, but the new book says if it's an abomination, that's the problem Your place where you get your moral philosophy from some of it if we're long like like a veticus like like in terms of like The leviticus like there is the fact that that's the old testament I know that some people even argue that it's a mistranslation. I know that Paul Or maybe young boys or something. Yeah, I know that Paul um Condemns homosexuality Um, but again, I think that again, I think it's in relation to a misinterpretation of natural law Um, and so he's even if he is divinely inspired, which I'm happy to say he's divinely inspired He could even have made a mistake. Uh, which you know, it's not like we don't edit the yeah, I believe in hell I'd say it's the uh frustration of the wicked will is it a physical place that the soul goes to No, no, so when you die, it just lights out No, I believe in life after death. I don't believe it's like No, no for the place like no, but I mean, are there people who don't go to heaven? Yeah, yeah, I think so though, but the people who don't go to heaven. They're just lights out There's not a helmsman to go to no, I think there's a hell. I think that they are frustrated eternally I think it's a spiritual truth. But so that loving all loving god tortures people for all time. No, I don't think he tortures anyone I think we torture ourselves now. I think that's well. He could help us though He could definitely make it does he tells would please stop doing that yourself. No, he doesn't do it otherwise He's given us reason and conscience where he's given us the capacity You have you know, okay my conscious. No, no, no, I have a conscious of my own, right? But my conscious doesn't uh, it doesn't match up with the biblical Thing that you're talking about. I think there's a maybe it depends on how you understand the biblical I mean, I think you you probably agree with a lot of christian teaching even implicitly just for the You do it Jordan Peterson on you like, you know, the whole like Yeah, I like Jesus but god of the old testament still god still trinity, right? This is the guy who had babies killed drown babies and no, I mean if you don't believe that's a literal story. I mean, yeah I mean I mean, this is the problem. You're gonna have all kinds of holes. You believe in nephilim. Is that a thing you believe in? No, no, well like well like depends on what you mean like I mean I believe the story had meaning but like I don't believe that like there were these giants and shit Or like these half angel half man. What about satan? You were yeah, I mean like I think that it's like uh again and essentially a being who is uh, the idea of a being who is um as malevolent as possible essentially the the incarnation of um unreason of irrationality Does he tempt human beings? I think he is temptation in many ways. I think that's the whole point Not an allegory. Is there a what do you mean? Like what do you mean not an allegory? Well, no, I'll say it if you're well, then tell me it's he's as real as us He's as real as us and and he tempts people Yeah, so why do you gotta allow him to tempt people? I'm just using pronouns. Yeah, it's it's it tempts people It's a rational, um Because it has rational purpose in the fact that we need to be able to gain control over what is our self determination He is he is the embodiment of our um Of our own inability to restrain our desires because god has given us desire. God has given us desire Satan is the embodiment of abusing that desire Yeah, but god created us with desires that aren't moral In your in your I think he's I think he's created us with actually very moral drives I think that the whole point is that original sin is that we do not know how to structure ourselves and that are The are the ways in which we create second order Even the ways in which our first order desires are made, but even our second order desires don't match up to what actually is uh desirable So we drive ourselves off a cliff if you will It's like the ship of fools Is Satan the enemy of god? Um, yeah, the enemy of goodness. I'd say yeah God is the goodness Yes, why why would god allow him to do anything? Is it just is this more pay? This is the help to humans again like that. It's like negation or the possibility of negation. Yeah And is he the reason behind the fall? Uh, well, yeah, it would be tempted to essentially self abuse. Yeah So do you believe it was like are there any humans that I haven't seen besides jesus? um You mean allegorically as in like if we're talking about like a mary having original sin I do you do you see sin is all is all sin allegorical to you? No, I mean sin is real I mean like do you mean specific? I mean are you talking about are you talking about people like I could like actually be like Oh, yeah, like there's a bloke down the street. John never did a thing wrong in his life Like is that what you're asking for? Yeah, are there human beings that exist that have never sinned? No, not one not not Yeah, that's that's impossible because you have people that are mentally challenged that don't have the capacity sin It's not just that. I mean it's in terms of babies don't have the capacity It's not even just that it's it's worse than that. It's more the fact that even if you had someone who is Acting in absolute perfect moral intention Their capacity to understand what is right and wrong is limited By our specific historical location, which means they'll never perfectly understand scripture of itself even even if god went Even if god personally said hi mate Do this thing You're gonna fuck it up You're still gonna fuck it up because you're not gonna understand what he means I mean, that's an opinion, but it's not really an argument for a logical god because once again, you're limiting god's capabilities All this is just Knowledge into your head, but you would you would undermine your freedom because you'd be essentially creating what that means undermining freedom Well, because if I have knowledge, how am I undermining my freedom? So your knowledge your knowledge is causative, right? So if you look at even someone like thomas Aquinas, he's like the knowledge of god is what's causative. So this So like the way in which you gain knowledge Is essentially like if if you just like for example, mate like imagine like Let's say I convinced you so that you had perfect that in Your like without your rational capacities being engaged that the world you're living in is in fact the simulation That everything about it isn't real and that you had Knowledge as far as you're concerned That you're living in a simulation and you go on as if you're living in this simulation But in fact, you're you're not Right, it would that's not a lot of study Well, yes, but the way that knowledge actually what we mean by knowledge isn't simply just having a true belief god could give you a true belief Right, but what makes it your own is the fact that you've engaged your rational capacity. That's what makes it What knowledge is rational capacity, but it's like you've actually engaged your reason But that's not the definition of knowledge It's justification. How do you gain justification to the application of reason? Did you disagree with that? I don't know what this isn't even what we were talking about. We were talking about. I mean, this is epistemology You're talking about essentially could like what we're saying could god essentially Uh allow you to essentially beam knowledge into your head so that like you could you said you're limiting these capacities I'm saying no, I'm saying there's a reason why god wouldn't just beam knowledge No, but it doesn't but it doesn't limit your capacity You haven't actually specifically told me how it would limit your capacity Because the knowledge wouldn't be your own unless your reason is what construed it's still it's still you're it's still knowledge You still have you wouldn't have for the just if there's no reason to say it's your knowledge You wouldn't be able to know whether it was right It doesn't matter whether it doesn't matter whether I say it's my knowledge or god's knowledge If god gives me the knowledge because then god's acting through you. It's not like so what it's like the story of moses It's like god does You're god interacting with mankind you're acting like god You make up your own religion you you literally have made up your own No, I think I grew up Catholic. I grew up Catholic. You're full fucking shit. These aren't Catholic beliefs. What you're doing You could say I'm heterodoxical, but I mean, I I'm certainly not Jesus christ, bro You fucking talk out of both sides of your mouth you word salad one minute you'll see your catholic Then you're like, oh no, no, no What are you talking about? What have I said? I'm not catholic. I am What have I said? I'm not catholic. You just literally were saying I said heterodoxical, which means what? Not the standard interpretation. I said i'm happy to accept them. Maybe it's not the standard It's it's by far. That doesn't mean i'm not catholic Well, yeah, I mean listen if you don't follow any catholic beliefs I mean, yeah, you can I don't give a shit like I don't care how you fucking define yourself. That's fine. You want to find yourself No, no, no, no, like I said However, you like It doesn't match christianity That you're you just admit it that your interpretation was different than most of the catholic That doesn't mean anything like the catholic church except The catholic church accepts heterodoxy. Oh, jeez. So like I don't see what the problem is. I don't I don't I know I know you don't man That's because there's a difference between heterodoxy and heresy. This might be a good time for us to jump into the q&a there Uh, if you guys are ready for that, um If you guys have other things you wanted to discuss that's up to you gentlemen I think skylar's good. Um, so yeah, uh, I guess we'll jump into the q&a. Uh, genius tracks five dollars Thank you so much. Shout out my floridian gangster the skylar fiction put respect on the boy Right. All right. Thanks to Florida. Genius tracks a fan. It's fun Von zoom 999 How is scripture divine when it is written by man divine inspiration would violate the free will of choosing Oh, that's actually I like I like that question. I think that there's a difference between having Uh, what would be like a revelation? Which is uh, which actually I would say comes from reason that revelation and reason are like that like essentially a revelation is Is a is a realization that the the act of your reasoning in accordance with Reality is in is essentially incomplete. Uh, it's incoherent. There's something wrong there and it's developing a radical new solution based on the precepts Uh, and the conceptual application of of reasoning you're actually thinking about reality and in that in in that action You gain this possibility of revealing a The the world as it should be that the world itself gives you the capacity to analyze it and epistemologically develop In accordance with on it's worth salad man. This is not This is my fucking question unless you got a fucking answer for it. I'm just I just want you to answer the question Not fucking give him like a word salad like I'll answer Imposition of fucking free will stop answering for me. How about that? Like he just like you're like, uh, you know, I choose the verses that I feel are divinely inspired I'm glad that we're content. Yeah, I thought it was the fucking the bible is divinely inspired But I choose the verses. They're divinely inspired with inside I will say it is fine if we want to have a little back and forth throughout the q&a But if we do have a question addressed to one of the the specific speakers Let's just try to wait until they've wrapped up their point And we'll try to keep it within like two minutes for like one side answering a question And then if we have any pushback, we'll uh, we'll definitely entertain that for as long as you guys are willing to have it You know, I'm having fun. I hope you guys are too So von zoom 499 Would God creating us broken in need of him being be considered abusive Yeah, I wouldn't say so. I don't think he's made us broken in the sense that I think that we've that they had to be a rational development in order for humanity to to actually Obtain itself. It has to be something that we do Uh independent. He can't you know, like a like a good father He can't live our lives for us. He gives us the lives to live and we and ultimately it is on us to live them and Doing to act in accordance with what is right. He's showed us how to do that He's give us the way in which we can do that and it's on us to do that Any thoughts over there scyler? No, go on. Okay. All right. Let's continue on Uh, contrarian 420 Five dollars pp you said adam and eve is allegory, but don't catholics believe the blood of the eucharist Is literally blood not allegory. Do you agree? it is Uh, we believe in transubstantiation. So it is the substance. Um, so I don't I don't think it is the substance of christ It's not like if you want to take some of the eucharist Like the I think you'd be sharp to find a catholic that believes that if you were to pull the wine out of the glass Pour under a microscope that you will find specific genetic material It's more about whether the spiritual substance of christ is present in the eucharist So like uh, not specifically like there is a physical like you are like otherwise why am I not tasting blood even Do you know what I mean? No no catholic Any thoughts over there scyler Yeah, yeah, I just like I said, he doesn't share traditional catholic views Uh catholics do view a lot of their stories literal like the Noah's ark story Uh But yeah, they do believe it's the blood of christ But like I said when you have to like kind of do things a little, you know, if you tested it It won't really be the blood This is just a way of like of course because it's not really spiritual. It's nothing It's just oh no, that's that's that's it. We're good. Of course. We don't believe in spirituality or anything like that I don't believe I like of course and spirituality is just feeling are you sure that your mom was just not a bit of a stupid catholic? Like and that you don't know what the the theology of catholicism is Oh, wow, you're gonna go after my mom Oh I Well times I know I knew this is gonna take take six bags of dicks. You're the one that brought your mom up I'm one of my supposed to say your mom's not a stupid catholic. There sounds like a stupid fucking catholic. What? We're gonna let you know the only first of all, yeah Let me let me say when we brought up my mom actually earlier We were talking about the difference in languages in the bible and then you agreed after my mom believed this I know No, no, I said I believe these things clown. You can't even listen. That's the problem We were talking about different languages being used the catholic church wouldn't even teach the bible in english bro until the 1960s You weren't even allowed to read a bible, right? These are your spiritual leaders. Yeah, these are your fucking spiritual leaders These are your spiritual leaders, right? Now you want to call my mom a dumb catholic, right? You weren't even allowed to read fucking books you moron. I even said I know loads of dumb catholics Yeah, I mean you're a fucking dumb catholic, bitch. Oh, yeah. Yeah, look look You're a dumb little fucking debate. How does he even fucking read the bible? You haven't even read the bible. You're a non-fundamentalist position. Let's let's try to I'm a fair chris. You're just laughing that you're a bit 15 seconds from the next question Who's never even read the bible in the how many years you've been a christian? That's pathetic There are atheists that read the bible more than you and then you're like i'm a philosopher. I study philosophy I'm sorry that intimidates you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I argue with you. You're intimidated by thinking I'm debated more It's a tragedy. I'm just sorry. You just I say something's non-literal and you're like wait a minute. What do you mean? You're the one you're being articulate like you literally couldn't even articulate what the death was I bring up something about logic and you're like this is ramble and it's like no I'm actually speaking about logic and then you're like wait a minute All right, well, I'm gonna check here guys Yeah, right now. I get it just hold on. I'm so Hold on. We're gonna try to get back on track here. Okay, because we've lost We've lost things Check my dick in your mouth motherfucker. Let's just try to keep it. Uh, keep it Oh my god I don't know Take on these fucking small salty fucking balls. I'm I'm I am I am having a great time. I'm sorry. This is funny But let's let's pull ourselves up Mom Hold on. We're on mute guys We're gonna get out of you know, the early 2000s here. We're gonna stop talking about each other's mothers All right, you know I'm just you know what We're gonna move on from there for the This shows you that once again the christian morality when they talk about your mother like that's what they do when they get In the fucking shitty situations they talk about your opponent's mother I'm on the table say whatever you want about me. Call me a santa claus looking motherfucker Whatever you want to fucking do but the fact that like your debate tactics is to talk about someone's mother, bro It just shows why you should read the bible or maybe read a couple more of those quotes from jesus Instead of just reading thomas Aquinas all the time because that's all I heard you fucking quote for two hours Not one other fucking source. Just a thomas Aquinas for fucking two hours All right, that got it. We know your catholic We got extremely spicy there for a couple seconds guys We're going to try to reel it back in but perspective philosophy the question was for you So we're going to give you 30 seconds to wrap up your thoughts and we're going to move on Um, I can't remember the question after that. I'm not going to lie to you. That's okay Uh perspective philosophy you said adam and eve is allegory But don't catholics believe the blood of eucharist is literally blood not allegory Do you agree that? Oh, yeah, I think I answered that really where I just said it's about transubstantiation and uh, you know that You know, and then he said that catholics don't actually believe that and then we're going into a conversation about He's more there and various other insults. So so yeah, and you probably right. I shouldn't I shouldn't I wasn't I you know I I think you're right. I apologize I shouldn't have brought up your mother and you shouldn't have insulted me this entire time So there's been many times you've insulted me. Yeah, that's fair. Let's say it's fine. It's all me back But don't fight. I was not fine, but it just shows you your morals very you don't have morals No, no, I think that I have morals that what they don't live up to fail. It means I a partake in original sin me What can I say? I mean, you don't even know. I mean, I'll I'll make sure I bring it up in confession. That's not even how you defined original sin now You're talking more like a traditional fundamentalist So more like all right. That was definitely more than 15 seconds everybody. Uh, let's continue on I'm gonna turn my preamp down a little bit because I'm redlining on my side All right, so in defense of the gospel 999 thanks for your super chat and that last one was from contrarian 420 That that really caused a buzz there contrarian. So you got any more keep them coming Along with the rest of you you got questions. I see in the live chat. You got lots to say Get your questions in well while it's hot in defense of the gospel 999. Thanks for your super chat Skyler, why is it moral but a demanded right that mothers be able to kill their offspring in the womb? But it is morally wrong for the god of the bible to kill his creation I am pro-life. So I don't know why you're asking that question But if you think that it's moral To execute execute innocent babies Right and the way they did it in the scripture where the take out swords and slice them open as in first Then first annual 15. It's very specific Um, that's the way they did it So if you want to say hey Uh, it's moral here when you think god's allowed to tell people to do it, right? But you want to say that it's immoral when women do it. You're the one with the inconsistency Uh, also, uh, you should think about the idea of like what god's forcing people to do Right god's forcing a human being to have to slice open a baby Right our soldiers go to war and fight enemies who fucking deserve death And they come back with extreme ptsd And you have god causing Uh physical and mental torture physical torture to the baby mental torture to the person who has to kill them Be consistently pro-life if you're gonna be consider if you're gonna be pro-life You think that our soldiers deserve death I don't think you understood what I said No, no, I'm just making I'm just just double-checking just quickly like I'm just I'm just do I think do I think our soldiers deserve to die Is what you're asking like as in all soldiers like just for partaking in what they think that they deserve it No Okay, I'm just checking. I have my I come from military family my my parents. That's fair enough. I was just double-checking. I was just double-checking I was just making sure All right, let's continue on everybody pointless poppy 499. Thanks for your super chat Why does god give young children that were our word and impregnated pain during childbirth? Well, you're just asking like why is like pain exist and specifically like, you know, why did the why would pain exist in relation to A natural function. I think The question that they had here, I I mean, we're already an hour in so I don't need to censor. I don't think we'll be okay Uh, depends on whatever other platforms were on but why does god give young children that were raped and impregnated Pain during childbirth okay, um Well, I think that there is the there is the I mean that is the one of the reasons why rape is so awful I mean the fact that it does cause such distress and harm um, I don't think that gods interfering in undermining natural um mechanism You know by essentially stopping one person from feeling pain um, maybe a rape a natural mechanism I mean, I mean in terms of like how it occurs it it occurs because she's essentially well like because of a natural mechanism I don't think anyone would disagree that there is a physical science behind it. I mean, it's horribly wrong. I thought I said that I don't know why so they're in it. They're horribly wrong made in a way where they have a natural inclination to rape No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the woman's pain is produced by a natural mechanism Which has just been occurred because of the unethical actions of an individual if you want to stop me I'm gonna feel pain Do you know what he was referencing in the question like where that question comes from? Like I don't I don't know like no, not specifically genesis. He's talking about genesis Because you know, that's what's referenced right in genesis is that women have to have birthing pains. Yeah, I know the birthing Yeah, I know the I know so like yeah, I think you're talking about eyeball tells you that women have birthing That's why he's asking you I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and I'm and if I'm talking about natural mechanism And I'm seeing like why wouldn't god let's say stop pain for that specific because it's not just that It's not just that she's That she's a woman going through childbirth It's that the the pain of childbirth for a rape victim is how I was answering it Why doesn't god intervene to stop the pain in this specific circumstance? And I'm talking about why god wouldn't intervene in terms of natural mechanism. What's the allegory there? What's the so what does the allegory mean when it talks about how women will have pain birthing pains? And what are you how do you interpret that as an allegory? I think that what it's an interpretation of is that essentially It's not just that and I think that it's it's sort of uh, the way it's been written I think does lead us to believe in a so more misogynistic way of of interpreting it, but I think that there is the When we begin there is this The fact that we are going to die is necessarily because of our actions that we aren't going to live forever That there is the possibility that we aren't the allegory of the pregnancy I'm talking about yeah, when we move on to that It's the continuation of that same narrative that they are being punished for the fact that they aren't actually able to take Whole responsibility for their nature sure, but what you would want it otherwise that it would be better But what's your allegorical interpretation of that though? What are you saying it's better otherwise? It's not just that it's not just this specific point of child You're saying it's talking about natural mechanism I'm just saying it's it's a better thing to have for women at what the what you're saying the the story Is allegorically telling you is that it's better for women to have pain during childbirth What i'm saying is that that no that's not what i'm saying at all If in fact i'm saying quite the opposite that the whole point of it being considered a punishment is to say that Our ideal nature does not suffer in relation to its procreation And so that pain and suffering is is we obviously lost me with the punishment thing You lost me. What are you talking about with the punishment? The punishment for for the fall like that's the whole point, but that's not real. That's not historical. You don't know, but it's allegorical It's the fact that our own what is that our own epistemological inadequacies is what's causing us to suffer that we were born with That god created that we need to overcome that this is so he created a problem and came up with a solution for Yeah, it's making us with a deficiency He's made us with the capacity to perfect ourselves But we have to perfect ourselves the problem with this is you leave out the whole story of abraham daniel And why this all connects in You just you make this is just about like you literally lose the whole biblical narrative Like do you know what joshua was there for in the conquest? Like i don't i don't know why we're getting back to the bible because the thing is you get your you get your You get your spiritual beliefs from the bible parts that you choose and from your people like quaintus That's dude if the bible didn't exist I think catechism But the thing and I agree like look it is about how we interpret the bible. That's fine Right, like i'm not saying that i'm not saying that the bible is not important Right, but i'm saying it's about when we talk about how we interpret the bible When you ask me about the allegory of this and we talk about natural mechanism And then you want to go wait a minute. Let's go on to this other this other point of scripture Like it's it's irrelevant. It's the same time You you have you the problem is is like you take like an allegory like jenesis You have a view on jenesis. That's doesn't match what the hebrus who actually wrote it Believed and their culture like that has what you articulate is not a belief by the jews Actually, there's a problem with that I don't even I don't think that is a problem anyway, even if it doesn't match with the people who wrote the book That's the whole point of divine and spared the word of god versus the words of god in the first How would you know what's divine divine is that which accords to like to reason which is why we're more good I thought we're talking about deism and theism I'm gonna talk about rational structure in terms of the capacity to engage and you know use your precepts in a fight of reality Don't you don't just talk over us like no, but the problem is you don't stay on topic And you don't focus and you're looking move to a different point of scripture and you start We should probably just go to the next question, man Because you're the one that's you're the one that like I was talking about that national national mechanism How it works then you change it To something else Let's carry on let's follow what i'm saying. We'll let philosophy finish up 10 seconds and we'll carry on Just because there was a lot of cross talk I mean, like I don't even know where to take it up from there. So just yeah, okay Hopefully we're able to decipher that because there was a lot of going back and forth there But once again, hopefully my audio interface will be up to the challenge Ember five dollars. Thanks for your super chat and being here again perspective How can you demonstrate christianity is more true than other religions? What are your criteria for falsification? Do they apply to jesus? Oh that five dollars. Yeah, I mean I think Yeah, yeah, I think that would uh, that's fair I would probably agree with a kind of perennialism. I think there is a lot of truth in all religions um, and I think that there are The ways in which we gauge Which religion is more or less correct would be metaphysical So an engagement with reality. Does it explain reality? Does it Give us an indication of how reality is structured Allow us to more correctly answer. Let's say metaphysical questions And I think the trinity does that I think that you know when we're talking about the allegory of the trinity I think it reference references essentially logical unity It poses god as an absolute subject and so the nature of reality as an absolute subject I think it gives a good indication of human nature what like for in original sin this need to overcome and perfect ourselves The possibility and necessity of accepting that is actually going to happen But you can't do that The the fact that the truth is causative that everything is caused by the truth You know in the beginning there was the logos and this the idea that they got is a A logical instantiation and the ultimately that christian ethics are about love now The what you know what ties us together and unifies this possibility of actually obtaining truth is an engagement in love Any thoughts on that scyler before we move on? No, no, sir. All right. Ivan Gonzales $1.99 perspective philosophy makes me hate philosophy Oh, you got a hater. You got any words for the uh for that Yeah, I mean like look I might be uh look You read your own philosophy right go and read it yourself. I'm just one philosopher If there's plenty of philosophers that disagree with me There's plenty of philosophers, you know, you might even interpret them differently. So don't hate the subject You know, don't don't hate the don't hate the uh, you know, it's like don't hit the player hit the game No, don't hit the game right just hit the player go and go and read the philosophy yourself Alrighty sunflower five dollars weight perspective philosophy literally cited summa Theologica by Aquinas as a source and scyler is so riled up. He thought he said somewhere I think there might have been addressing a miscommunication Yeah, he definitely bought up Aquinas quite a bit. I got yeah I know I did. I said summa theologica and I said I I said that not then you got I thought that you heard that and then you got mad which is why I said like I don't understand um so All right, well, let's continue on from there um, you know, it was kind of more like a Call for clarification. So thanks for that sunflower Ivan Gonzalez 499. Thanks for your super chat perspective philosophy represents the worst aspects of philosophy Someone playing language games. Oh no another person in the chat's coming at you. What do you have to say to Ivan? Um, well, yeah, I'm not really playing language I mean if there's a point that you need clarification on in terms of my argument I'm happy to happy to do that. Um, but yeah, I mean, you know, I'm not really playing language games I think there is a in terms of philosophy and in terms of all of this really there is a great deal of subject specific language that needs to be sort of engaged with and And and really even if you try to Any way in which you try and answer the question you're going to end up having to engage somewhat even implicitly in that language Uh, so so yeah, uh, I'm not really playing any games And if there's something that you like answered ask us a question and I'll do my best to answer it I think you would benefit from syllogisms I think if you brought syllogisms, I think you would benefit from it I think that I think you're a smart guy, but I think you're a core communicator when it comes to it I think you kind of get backwards and I think you get some syllogism I think that's somewhat true. I do think that I need to work. I've said this for a while I do need to work on me rhetoric like it is certainly my weakest point Uh, I heard a little everything okay smack smack It's not like somebody hitting something hard. Well, uh, hopefully everybody's all right. Uh, let's continue on Oh flame. Yo is in the chat again five dollars perspective philosophy Uh This this was said last night. Why does god need money and why do churches raise money on god's behalf? If god is so omnipotent and he's trying to get my george carlin impression and that's the best I got tonight Oh, yeah, I was just I was just getting told what happened essentially. Uh, sorry. Um So like why does god need like why does god mean god doesn't need money? Uh humans do? Um, yeah, like and I think like there is there is a reasonable amount of money Right, there's like these super churches have to spend it. I think that like in terms of Um, how money is used in terms of the institution of the church is something that we should be heavily engaged in We should look at it and we should discuss it And I think that's the the beauty of having a universal institution is we should actually be actively engaged in it And I do think that we should probably push for more um Engagement in how our church is in the catholic church is spending its money whether it's spending it right And we should like audit it, you know in that respect Uh is and you know specifically I can't defend a lot. I mean, I know there's a lot of churches in the united states Um, which you know, basically use it as a you know, essentially a Pyramid scheme or something like you know like sell salvation or something. Uh, yeah, it's wrong Like just as the indulgences were wrong Um in the history of the catholic church the people selling Salvation at these mega churches or whatever it's wrong You got to pay off the sex abusers somehow man. They all get money I can't even I can't even say oh, yeah, that was wrong. That's you know, like this is wrong Maybe we should be you know without what you're going on like you're wondering why I ended up getting personal It's like because you've been personal the whole time. Well, it's a that's a fact what I stated was a fact It's not not a fact. They paid off Children who were molested in the church. That's a fact. There was there are like don't be wrong I do think there are dubious cases of this and I think that there was there was some in which um, the acted as basically every other institution seems to act Which is probably not what I would want from the church. I'd probably want them to act at a higher level of More culpability. Uh, and I think that's probably why they've got such a bad name Uh, but I even brought this up to a priest recently. I even said like I was like man like there was like something about like I think it was like a priest killed himself recently. It wasn't to do with pedophilia I think was I had like some sort of drag queen party or something They it turned out not to be the case or something but there was like homosexuality involved and he killed himself Anyway, I was like it's tragic um, and and I said like I brought that up and I said the Sort of investigation that's going on now and then also, you know, the child sex abuses that's going on I was like, come on man. I'm like, I'm trying to talk about Catholicism to people and like, you know What like they're going to throw that in my face. How am I supposed to even say it? And he's like he's like imagine how I feel You know, like we know that it's a problem Catholics even joke about it being a problem. We know that it's an issue But we try to resolve and not and Catholics don't agree with it But like come on man, like it's not like it's like I think the police force is a good thing But there are a lot of dickhead police officers Do you know what I mean? Well, yeah, I mean but I mean throughout history. It's not just the Catholic priests raping the kids I mean, it's a whole history Of stuff from the Catholic church and what they've done against people Like you might have a couple good you might have a good couple philosophers like Aquinas But like a lot of Good there's a lot of good people as well. There's a lot of good Catholics I'd even say the majority. I think the majority of people are largely good I think that the there are some there has been institutional failings in the church Some that they've recognized and some that they still need to recognize but and I hope would do improve I don't think that there is I don't think that the Catholic church is worse than your average institutional Um, even in relation to something specifically like child sex abuses Is that just like your feelings or is that like something you like got? No, I mean statistically we find that let's say public servants for example like public sector workers and schools way more likely to abuse children and the same thing with Like police force and so on like that and the way that they engage is very similar to the Catholic church They seem to engage in a very similar way Um, you know, it's it's more like cover up protect the name of the institution Rather than actually do the right thing which is I think more of a it's a travesty That needs to be needs to be resolved and redressed Alrighty. Well, let's continue on Uh, I see lots of questions coming into the live chat and uh, this is going to remind everybody We have been going for an hour and a half. So if you want to have your questions read out tonight Um, well, you heard the last chat. Give us money. All right. Let's continue on Uh, you'd hurt to her coup. I can never say your name Heck Heck who let's put it that way five dollars one our condoms murder two is discouraging condoms use by using disinformation in an hiv written area Murder, thank you. I think that's referencing a No, I don't think condoms on don't think condoms on murder and uh, like obviously I know the whole thing the referencing with benedict and and you know, um specifically because it was I mean there was like You know john paul seemed to be much more pro the use of contraception with hiv benedict come in against it I think benedict was stupid in this respect. Uh, and I don't think he represents the the sort of the development and reason of the catholic Tradition, which is why we seem to be going the other way now really. Um So, yeah, I do think I don't think there's anything also. No one really believes are condoms on murder The belief that it is the that you're acting not in accordance with uh, natural law and that taking pleasure in sex Not for reproduction is objectification Uh, that's that's really the uh, like, you know, essentially Doing sex for something other than reproduction is is wrong is essentially the argument that's given Uh, I don't agree with that. I wasn't asking if that's your position No, no, no, you feel So why do they hold that position? I would say it's a misinterpretation of natural law. They think that the the goal of sex is only reproduction I think that there's you know, I actually have a reference to Aquinas again Aquinas even argues that you know, there is the the the pleasure of sex actually being a natural mechanism And that's not even taken into consideration that the the the full enjoyment of a human life might just incorporate the fact that we engage in sex For a loving mutual satisfaction Um, and that that can measure what goes against natural law In terms of reasons, so you'd say that like so natural law is essentially an interpretation of of what is our natural purpose Who is good or bad like reason reason in general reason by what standard Yeah, so all standards of reason rely upon and apply application of reality. So there is an essentially like Well by all individuals by institutions by yes, but but but but you're so it's subjective It's not subjective. No, like that's like same science While you're demonstrating it So if I was to say like so for example, like I engage rationally to see whether gravity works and I construct an experiment Where I drop a ball or a feather of the leading Yeah, but who defines what's rational? But who defines what's rational? What standard are you looking to? Well, I think it's a term and whether something's rational So a community has to define what rationality is and then you use what the community comes to Define rational so in relation to reality In of course, well, you're dealing with reality. That's kind of yeah Hopefully well, it's not irrelevant because you get perverse Well, you can't do anything outside of reality. Can you? No, but I mean, it's not in accordance with what's actually going on But you can get perverse philosophies and get what does that mean? Like colts So you can get like colts who are totally broken from reality who are engaging in such a way Is it may be valid but have nothing to do with The nature as it's actually it actually function how but you don't have any What what do you use to be able to understand what nature really is? Well, I think the same mechanisms that everyone I use sense data or I use Rational communication and argumentation. You're using yourself to validate rationality We all use ourselves. We'll use the community. I think we all have to accept I think this is the and I think this is essential. We should accept the community rule Well, I think we have to okay So when it was community rule that segregation was perfectly moral in the south and it was community rule that overcame segregation No, no, it was not. Oh, it was not overcame. No, it wasn't. No, no, it was the federal It's not it's not how government works, but you know, you know, are you it is? I mean, it is and Where are you from? I'm from the uk from the uk. Do you live in america? No, you understand. Have you ever lived in america? No, you understand how our constitution and legality works here Some what? I don't think I understand that you're a constitutional democracy that is Organized and then that that legislation and that legislatory body acts in representation of the population. Does it not? No, and so it's an instant. It's so it doesn't at all So you don't give so you don't vote and you vote means nothing and no, no, no, no, we vote but it doesn't mean just because we vote for somebody doesn't mean that the The body or government body is going to represent what the people Uh, no, I mean you get corruption. Yeah, you do get corruption. I mean, that's a problem as an institution That's not necessarily corruption They don't have to vote. No, no, it's not because in our legal system. You don't have to vote For how your constituency votes. It's not how our american system works. That's not corruption Well, you don't have to act in accordance with your constituents. You don't have to represent you You can vote however you want and if people want to vote you out as a representative of the constituent What do you think happens in like places like arizona that senator from arizona? That just gives all the shit the democratic party or the democratic senator from wyoming not wyoming west virginia mansion He does shit that goes against his own base all the time Yeah, I know they do that. They're not supposed to do that. No, but that's not a law, bro When you say it's supposed to you just mean Yeah, no, no, I do agree. There is an issue. It's just your opinion. You don't think they should do that No, no, it's not it's that the the legislation the legislators are voted to be representatives of the people Which is from the preconceived the people which is why it's in your constitution It's in your constitution. They don't have to there's nothing that says legally that they have it's implicit It's like most of your rights. They're implicit don't understand our american constitution because it's not unconstitutional To vote against your constituency. That's not unconstitutional. It's not unconstitutional. So let's say let's say right Let's say you got in on a campaign of flagrant lies Right, do you think that it would be constitutional to do you think it would be constitutionally accurate even if you've lied to shit? Like we just we just had a representative from new york. Just get hired. Do it. The do it. It just literally just happened It's legally just yeah, but it's not illegal It's got to be if the problem is proving it That's the thing. They're fine corrupt. They're fine. You know, no, well, no, no, no, it's not a law It's what i'm saying. You can call corrupt. That's fine. Whatever you want to call it I mean that's your opinion and how you're describing it. I agree with you People should vote with like the representative should vote in my opinion with the people that elected them, right? So maybe there's no law maybe you come i'll i'll go and do my due diligence and i will go and check to see whether the united states You're allowed to lie to your constituents and and whether that's completely it's america, bro. These people We think donald trump was you think donald trump was an honest fucking politician No, i know i don't know anything i don't believe in an honest politician so much But like, uh, but yeah, i'll i'll go i'll go and check. All right Let's continue on then C e two dollars Uh perspective how much sin will get one sentenced to hell Uh, yeah, i mean nice question. I don't think hell is a sentence, right? It's not like Hell is this uh, like you've committed like nine sins and then you're going to hell The whole point is that you've acted viciously the whole point of sin is it's it's a it's a point of virtue It's in the same way that like, uh When you see in in the bible, you know, paul and christ talk about what what what is the like, you know What is the law? Why are we acting against like why are we acting in accordance with these rules? It's about the it's about why you're doing it. It's about the rational intentions of an agent Engaged in not just simply performing what is right But like as a as an actual act for why they are doing it It's it's it's about the way in which you are structured as an individual it's virtue And so when you look at a point in which an individual is you know vicious like gluttoness and uh Greedy and malicious and envious what these things will do to you Uh, they will tear you apart and that these things will ultimately undermine your own well being And so you end up sentencing yourself the hell when you engage in these Vices without without actually contesting them when you choose to in to go for your own specific perverse uh perversions of your own goodness to something that is irrational and senseless Ireland's awesome by the way, I just wanted to say Ireland's a cool country I got to go there last month and it was one. I think it's actually A better country than the u.s. In many ways. It's cleaner safer Dublin was the cleanest safest big city. I've ever been in two in my life. So God bless the Irish Irish all pretty cool with someone Irish there Well, the glad that uh glad that we're all having fun and uh, we got a couple more super chats to go through But I will let everybody know uh in our live chat if you want to keep the debate going 24 7 I'm gonna put our discord link in there right now. You can find me there. Oh, Zion's hanging out Our moderators surgeon and Hannah, you know, you can hit us up in there and organize debates, you know, flex your flex your debate skills out and See how you do and maybe we can vet you and get you in for a debate as well You know, there's all kinds of ways that we can Accomplish that but overall we've had a great time tonight. Let's continue on And pointless poppy 499 A perspective if humans can not comprehend a perfect mind, how can we know God is a perfect mind? That's actually a really really good question. And I mean like that's I mean that that's actually in many ways I think catholics actually Engaged with that question a lot. So in catholic theology, I know thomas Aquinas argues against Um, specifically, uh, what's he called? Um, unsound and he's on a logical argument saying yeah, like uh If I had knowledge of a perfect mind then it would necessarily exist But I don't have knowledge of a perfect mind because I'm imperfect so I can't like so like it's sort of an acknowledged thing But yet he's arguing for the existence of God through reason And and so like the way he does it is to say like we can see the actions of a god We can see what God does or what has necessarily leads us to believe that this perfect mind exists And so that this is so we see that nature is causative and trace it back, you know, through a cosmological argument Um, and and so this is where I would say like you can have Imperfect knowledge of something which is perfect in the same ways you could have Imperfect knowledge of something which you could have imperfect knowledge of reality, but still you have a knowledge It it might be absolutely correct knowledge. It's false You know, it is not necessarily completely true, but there is uh, You know, there is some truth there, and if the the more truth the better Many thoughts there No, I'm good. Okay Uh padme the cat meow 333 perspective. Why do you debate about a book? Oh Someone dying uh perspective philosophy. Why do you debate about a book you haven't read? I have read a fair bit of it. It's more of the fact that like, uh, I don't think that the book could even fully Encompass the religion. It's not just about the book It's it's about the interpretation of the book the community around the book the catechism of the catholic church, um, so yeah, and Yeah, that that's it. I do think that I'd need to go and You know pick up me slack. I know I do. Uh, it's just a personal fault Uh, but but yeah, and it's all I can really say about that All right, and he got nothing I want to keep dragging this out No, it's okay. I was going to say, you know, we might get into something That you might have more thoughts on here as we continue through We still got a few questions to go if you've got questions and I see a lot of you do Get them in the q&a because we have god long. So we're only going to be reading super chats For the duration of the debate here frankenstein 999. Thanks for your super chat If it's all allegory then the miracle is the dictation by a misogynist illogical male god that is a bit sadistic That the that the miracle and proof Not very well written, but I'm sorry. Maybe just the end there. So Um, I think that's for you there. Well, but you know, you could both expound Yeah, I'm assuming what he's saying is that uh, if it's allegorical then the way the bible is Is the miracle? And or that the miracle is essentially that such a perverse text could be considered holy I think that's probably maybe what he's getting at Yeah, so, um I'll just read it from the top there. I wish disagree with it like so the question started off if it's all allegory Oh, I lost it if it's all allegory then the miracle is the dictation by a misogynist illogical male god That is a bit sadistic Excuse me. I think that even like I don't think god is sadistic at all. Um, I don't think that I think even when we're talking about god being male, it's it's even questionable Like whether it's like where we could just uh say god is like just a man Like in the sense that he's jesus christ and he's particularity or individuality. Yeah, I see what the point is there Uh, that doesn't mean that jesus couldn't be a woman if the wanted to be Um, and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying god the mother I know this is actually an ongoing debate in the catholic church. Um, and you know The the catechism doesn't argue that god has gender specific sex Um, you know, when we look at uh, the philosophy of st. Augustine Uh, he even argues that sexual dimorphism is fundamentally related to humanity And not and god's not bound to that sexual dimorphism is really just a means of achieving a goal together And so god's made us mutually dependent So so yeah, and I mean then there's the whole philosophy of like what is gender and how you know whether it you know How it actually functions, which is a whole other debate. Um, so yeah, I don't even think you'd have to do that I don't think there's anything really necessarily misogynistic about christianity. There have been misogynistic christians Um, I don't think there's anything sadistic about christianity and there have been sadistic christians um So, yeah Yeah Yeah, that's enough bad. Go ahead. Alrighty Excellent. We'll get on with it 60 second skeptic, uh, five dollars canadian Canadians I that's that's the first one. So i'm just doing a little huzzah for my own kind my own people Uh answering every simple question by first referencing a philosopher and then redefining several common words Words seems unnecessary. Why do that? I think that when we engage in a natural language argument And so for example, let's say the word miracle, uh, when we start using something like, you know Oh, but everyone knows what a miracle is. I don't take these things to be just givens and I don't think you can I think the most people when they engage with they're not understanding of miracles often think that they're supernatural um Or that it references something supernatural and even philosophers do that and then philosophers argue over definitions And you know vittgenstein thinks that all philosophy is in in ultimately is just people arguing over various definitions Uh specifically because it's a language issue not necessarily a metaphysical issue So, you know, I do think that the problem is is that When we talk about various ways in which if you're going to engage in a form of reasoning You're going to have to understand the semantics The the words what they mean how they apply to the argument how the reasoning is necessarily structured Rather than just, you know, oh, yeah, I know what you mean. No, I disagree. Yes, I agree You know, especially since it's going to lead if you go, oh, no, I don't think that's a miracle What do you mean? You don't think that's a miracle or what do you mean miracles don't work like that? And it's going to cause issues and it's going to need a dress So I think it's better to just, you know, say this is what i'm doing. This is why And i'm happy to talk about it I think the problem that you run into and I think what uh perspective philosophy is running into is that the bible defines what a miracle is it tells you What miracles jesus committed right and then what what someone like uh inspiring philosophy does I call you ip perspective philosophy What he does is like he's got a he's picking and choosing what terms he wants to define is what like he's just getting it from Aquinas Right, this isn't biblical the bible clearly tells you What a miracle is and when you when you have a question you're having conversation with I'm clearly someone who's read the bible and understands it and you've talked to many other people Read and understand the bible and then you come up with some weird definition of miracle and I've never even heard in the two I've oh debate 200 christians least in my day No one's ever used that strange definition of miracle not a once And that's worth looking into right there is a there is a debate on this whether miracles are in accordance with nature They check it out like our miracles in accordance or our miracles opposed to nature. There's a whole debate on this There's a whole massive theological Debate on this. So it's not it's not just me But you have to throw out hold up But you have to throw out all the whole gospels for the gospel as well just throw them out because it Specifically tells you what the miracles jesus committed were an example of a miracle It doesn't tell you the definition of a miracle but those miracles are based on going against natural reality No, I don't I don't agree and Lazarus did came back from the dead people don't talk about what the story is about why the miracle is happening this way Like, you know, essentially what the miracle is a representation of um But I don't think that it is a going against nature as I said before I think it's nature as it should be There is an act of change from a usual circumstance But it's people come back to life after they die. Is that how nature should be? It's in relation to like why he was dying what christ was doing. What he's telling us to do and so on Yes, I think we should save people if we can I don't know. No, that's you're saying that bringing nobody's we are talking spiritually or those stories No, I mean even if you're talking about the dead, that's not a natural process of life Well, is it? I don't think it's unnatural to let's say to bring back someone I mean like it depends on how you define death. I guess you don't bring death and so on But if we had the technological sophistication, Lazarus was in the grave for days, bro Yeah, I'm not I know what it's saying. I know we can't do that. That doesn't I know we're gone I'm not I'm just saying that if it was possible. Yeah, I don't see the why that would be unnatural But it's not possible. I know it's not and you're defining miracles as the natural And then when the bible says hey, this is a miracle as it should be but yeah, but humans So as it should be humans should rise from the grave as it should be Yes, all suffering should be But they never will rise from the grave Well, I guess we'll have to find out the end of days. No, that won't be like do you Not literally that we're going to rise from the dead from the grave. No, I don't well That's what the what a miracle was stated as in the bible This is the problem with not having any like core beliefs you just pick and choose what you want Is that like if you feel that like as soon as we engage in something that's non-literal You're like oh eyes falls apart And then I'm like no it's not no no no you just pick and choose the problem is you just pick and choose your beliefs And then you get rid of you've literally gotten rid of 90 of the bible How have I gone rid of 90 of the bible because I okay. Do you believe in the joshua conquest? Look, I'm historically happen. No, I'm gonna I'm gonna go through it real quick Historically is no no even if I but even if I took all of the history and said I don't believe in any of it Have I gone rid of the bible? I'm not But there's it's still going to be a book with words written in it book with words in it spirit Yeah, but it's just a book written by humans then And that's what you're gonna be divinely inspired and it But you can't demonstrate that you have no way to demonstrate that it's divine. Oh, I think we can actually I think that the whole point is it's a work in relation to humanity and what it means to be evidence that it That it is divinely inspired I think that I think there's there's To say that something is divinely inspired is to show is to show that it is in relation to the highest point Of revelation. I get it. How would you show that? How would you show that? That this is the highest point of natural moral reasoning How would you show it? You're just saying it. Yeah, you're just saying this is not a law That's not explaining it. You're not explaining it It's you just conclude they and you said natural reasoning based on a group consciousness Well, that's all reasoning is group consciousness. Well, are you a moral and are you are you an epistemological anti-realist? Do you believe in truth? Yeah, I think well, I think that we define truth is it's based on a proposition basically So what is okay? Yes, but how is the what is the truth is that that correlates to reality? Okay, and how do we understand what correlates to reality? How do we understand? How do we understand that proposition is coherent and whether and it corresponds to reality Are you are we doing it as a community? Are we doing it as individual particular subjects? How are we just in do do I So people I think it's me. I think mostly people coming up with their individual ideas of rationality because what you find is rational It's not what I find rational Well, I don't think that rational is something that we define. It's something which is coherent There is a there is a like if I was to say something so for example We could so by logic so for example if I was to say that something could be itself and not itself simultaneously Or that something would not be itself Or could be itself and not itself or or that that something could be itself and it's negation Like do you think that like you're talking about that you describe me how reality functions I'm saying how thinking works. You couldn't think like anything like this So it's in a way that's different to this. It's like it's not something that's subjective It's something objective you you could think in different ways because you can't think in a way that doesn't correspond to Logic you think you can think in a way, which is not I don't know what you mean by that I mean, I don't like the laws of logic. Could we defy the laws of logic? Those aren't really They're not really laws and guidelines What they are is descriptions of how our reality function Is it so you just think that we've we've guessed they're not necessarily laws Like it's not that it's necessarily they describe how our universe functions our physical reality functions, right? How do we yeah? But okay, but how do we gain the knowledge of how do our physical reality functions without first Oh, that's too different. Well, that's two different things. You're talking one. You're talking about the epistemology Well, you're talking about how we have knowledge compared to how do we gain the knowledge of the laws of logic? I'm asking you right. How do we gain? Yeah, how do we gain knowledge? What do you mean? What do you mean by knowledge in that sense? The fact that was that the laws how do we know that the laws of law that logic are true Well true by what how would we measure that how would we we couldn't definitively figure out if the laws of logic were The same here is in another universe Well, yes, yes, we could like even modal logic has to apply the necessitation rule Like you can't there isn't another kind of logic It's like there is logic. There is what is but you're talking about the laws of law. I think you're talking about what is Possible to be conceived. We're talking about possibility itself. Yes. So how would you know how would you have now? How would I know that's possible that could be conceived? How would I know that something if well, it's what it's one of those things where you it's impossible for something Like it is definitionally impossible For something to not be logically coherent. It's meaningless You're talking about I don't know what if you want to see like there is another universe where something is and is not itself Right or that is an identity No, I think we're I think we're talking about two different things here because I think one of the laws of logic Yeah, the laws of logic, but they're not laws of logic. They're their descriptions of how our physical reality function No, they're not they're not just descriptions of physical They are they apply the non physical you could talk about like you talk about mathematics and like unless you What is non physical? Well, you talk about something a priori something ideal something like in your head something mental That's what is conceivable brain creating chemical reactions. That's how your brain perceives itself That's that's physical. That's even how we understand the physical It relies upon first conceiving of these a priori Like like in the first like it's like to say that it's physical one. I'm not a physicalist I don't I don't actually argue that reality is me. I'm not necessarily physical. It's either but it is a fit Arguably, I mean you are saying that this is all physical Yeah, yeah, but but I'm arguing yes against your point because you haven't demonstrated that it is anything more Than physical like you're saying there's something else to the physical. You haven't demonstrated that Well, what I'm saying is that like not well actually in terms of physicality If we look at what the physical is it would be concrete real as opposed to mental fictional so on like So if we're saying that something is opposed the relationship between physicality and ideal Physicalists try to reduce that down to physicalism, which is actually a theoretical basis No, the funny thing is is that your position is the one that is begging the question of physicalism to say that this is physical right Listen, there could be other things that are spiritual that aren't physical like there could be other non physical things I'm saying that your thoughts come from your brain We know this because if you completely agree, I think my thoughts do come from our brains But I don't think and I think it's in relation to the way in which reality works I just don't think that that boils down to what is simply objectivity Which is what physicalism is proposing that there is that everything is the product of the physical mechanical laws of the universe And that we have gained knowledge of them through sense observation Right, like that's that's essentially the basis of physical but how well, what's the what's the other side of that? Like how are you the other way? How would you demonstrate we're getting knowledge on a way other than that? Okay, so like if you look at the way that that tradition They sort of figured out which is empiricism. The alternative was rationalism and the both of them come from two other uh traditions or like what there's actually like really for which is uh exaggerated realism indifferentism Uh nominalism and conceptualism really the the nominalist and empiricists are one and the same they think that You gain what what you're doing is essentially creating a nominal category when you observe reality And I think this is basically what you're saying with the laws of logic Or maybe you're a conceptualist like Locke where basically you look at the external world And you think that it functions in such a way that all of your if you were to put together the experiences in your life You will gain um you'll create these sort of structures and beliefs about how the world works And that's through sense observation. That's like how you right the alternative to that was The same time was rationalism there are they would say that there are for example innate ideas Which are necessary in order for you to make logical decisions for your position rationalism. No, I'm not a rationalist Well, that's I'm actually an indifferent. I'm an indifferent to so I'm actually a combination of the two I think that we gained knowledge through uh observing the world and rationally deducing at the same time But that they are mutually dependent. So for example, I think that my observation of reality is very much tied into Uh what my intuition? Like how I how I'm capable of epistemologically structuring reality. So for example concepts such as space time Which might or may or may not be objective, right? But are necessary for me to even be able to think Not to be able to think linearly for example for me to be able to understand that like in a way that a logical Syllagism would go so I could go like premise one premise two premise three These would be necessarily presupposed and this is a sign of a kind of innate idea If you will or rather at least an innate category Which is then may or may not be correct necessarily But is is not necessarily obtained through my observing the world I have that category to observe that world In the first place if I didn't see things spatially oriented if I didn't see things Uh temporally oriented. I wouldn't be able to observe the world So my position is a combination of the two So that this is why I said like, you know, we could say that this is applicable to things like mathematics Which even if you're not a mathematical non-realist you'll go Okay, the laws of logic are applicable to maths as they are to the physical physical reality from which we're observing So it doesn't matter if you're a dualist. It doesn't matter if you're a materialist. It doesn't matter if you're a fucking Uh a p-zombie the laws of logic are applying to you right now Do you see what I mean? Yeah, I guess I'm gonna stick with my position that it's just descriptions of how reality functions, but it's okay I don't agree with you All righty. Well, let's uh, let's continue on make sure we're all good here uh Super charts, uh, so J am 84. Thank you for your patience there. Uh, we we had a long question there and a lot of unpacking I think it was good Five euro, uh, how can the jews know that books of kings or isiah or scripture? I don't I don't I don't think I understand that question person's How could the jews know that the books of kings or isiah were scripture? Uh, that's more. Yeah, it's about the bible and when it was put together and so that's really for you, my man But I don't think perspective. Yeah, I think that I think that the the question is essentially How can we identify something as like a difference? So if I was to let's say why why am I not jedi, you know, for example, or like why am I? You know, why shouldn't I believe in the philosophy that's imparted by Tolkien? Why shouldn't I say that Lord of the Rings is scriptural? Uh, like how do I differentiate between what a scripture and what isn't? Uh, I think that's actually a really good question. I think that that that's actually really good I mean, I would see that in terms of the live and tradition Uh, I think it's important how we engage in terms of what is Uh imparting a certain message. I think that the the topic has to be specifically about God for one for us to be able to say that It is even relevant to something that is But the scriptorily relevant that it's about God that it's about um It's about divinity Um, and that in that in that scripture then from that point, okay, it's topically relevant That it is rationally understandable and then that reason Accurately defines reality in such a way as to create a revelation under what we've already established in other Uh scripture or even in relation to what we understand in reality as a whole so we would just say like is this From me reading this Does it give me the conceptual framework necessary to analyze reality to understand my well specifically analyze reality in relation to my spirituality? In its universality in its particularity and its spirituality Specifically its unity like am I able to spiritually analyze reality with these texts? um If not then it's not it's not really religious text Um, whether that text is true or not depends on whether it corresponds to that reality actually represents that reality so yeah The old testament almost does none of that and it's completely almost the opposite of the new testament as far as it goes It's a completely almost different god as you read it, but I mean you have to read the bible to really Know that know what it says. So yeah, it's not gonna Anyways, let's go on Alrighty, let's see Uh, what happened to james today? Uh, he's he's writing a dissertation for the phd. I'm pretty sure he's he's pretty advanced stuff Uh, so uh, he'll be back. I'm sure next week to uh, moderate some debates But we are getting close to our last super chat. So if you got any other questions get them in there now I'm gonna be back tomorrow with the thorps and they're gonna be talking uh to uh Actually, I'll have to look that up. I was gonna say I have to look up with her talking to I'm gonna be back with the thorps tomorrow to talk about jesus incarnations. So Uh, yeah, definitely tune in tomorrow to check that out pointless poppy 499 Uh perspective philosophy, what's perfect about one tube for breathing and eating Making choking very easy in humans snakes have two tubes and never choke Well, I mean, I think that the I don't think that humans are in themselves Perfect is in physically perfect like as in we are the big, you know, the we couldn't be improved like let's say like genetically Engineer ourselves transhumanists or whatever and become something greater and even in terms of the mechanical laws of the universe If we were to simply choking off and eventually evolve a second a second Tube for breathing now that might be very well and good. Um, it's more about that our physical form allows us to engage with reality to Understand it and and even point out these deficiencies so that we can improve them ourselves even So I don't think there's an issue there I think the whole point of like being made perfect is more in the sense that we are at one with our nature It's not to say that we are perfect as in like, um, that we are represent In any way similar to god's perfection where there is no particularity. There's no issues there. Nothing goes wrong Nothing can't go wrong. Um, it's it's more about a logical unity between essence and existence okay, and The whole point of ethics is essentially formulating in essence Which accurately relates to your existence now that I do exist now that I am existing. How should I act? Uh, and so that's when we're talking about like perfection animals don't do that So they're perfect in themselves. They don't need to do that There's no reason there to do that and that's the goal of agents not subjects So that's really the what I would say is being referenced. They're not necessarily like Are we physically manifested as perfect beings? Any thoughts skyler? Yeah, we're not we're okay. Okay. I don't think we're all right. I'm gonna be all right. Okay. Cool Max the professor five dollars on that day Many will say to me lord lord did we not spew botched Dominican philosophy? And then we'll declare to them. I never knew you I like I like my botched Dominican philosophy. I'm not just uh Dominican to be fair I do I'm a Hegelian really. I just think that Thomas Aquinas and Hegel are both Aristotelians christian Aristotelians So fundamentally I'm a christian. I'm a catholic. I'm a christian Aristotelian catholic And I'm not just part of any single tradition. Um, but yeah, I think I think the philosophy I've gave's pretty good. Uh There's something wrong with it. I'd like to know All right. Well, uh, I think from there we'll move into our closing statements And where perspective philosophy just wrapped up his point there We'll give a little extra time to you skyler to maybe respond to what he just said and Give your closing thoughts. So up to two minutes there for you Yeah, no, this was a fun debate. Uh, I do apologize if I The little name call and I got a little spirited I get I get I have a lot of fun in one of these debates. I do like you respect the philosophy, uh, thank you, uh For having the debate with me, uh, but yeah, I think in the end, uh, what we got here Is what I pretty much figured right? We have someone who has uh Pick and shows what he wanted from the bible Based on some of his philosophers that he enjoys I study philosophy that really doesn't know a lot about the bible the history of the bible where it comes from What has a lot of ideas on what god is and what he wants and Our deficiencies in humans um So, yeah, I I mean, yeah, this was a tough debate. I admit for him to come into because it's not easy Especially if you already have another god believer to have to come specifically and argue for your particular god Uh, I wouldn't end up having to do that to be real. Uh, but at the same time, uh, you know, I just think that I mean, it's just it's pick and choose philosophy Night is what what I got and you gotta have specific beliefs It's if you take 90 of the bible and you don't think it's I mean, if you think it's allegorical when it's clearly not in certain areas allegorical the joshua conquest are not allegorical In nature, uh, there's quite a bit of stuff in there that isn't allegorical Uh, in fact, the what's crazy to me is the stuff that is allegorical like genesis or the book of joe um He didn't but I find typical christians like take Almost historical narratives from these things. So, uh, anyways That was it was fun. So thank you for hosting and thank you for perspective philosophy for debating me tonight Well, you're welcome and uh, we'll kick it over to you perspective philosophy for your closing statement there Yeah, uh, thank you again, uh to both of you for, uh, essentially Engaging in this debate. I do think it got a little bit heated on both sides. So, you know, skylar No shade I'm sure we can go away amicably amicably from this. So yeah, I mean in terms of the actual like contents of the debate Um, I'm also really not surprised. I don't think that it's very rare to engage with anyone online about this topic and not find that a non-fundamentalist stance is taken to be essentially heretical or um misguided it seems that if you have any stance that isn't going to Sort of profess to a literalist interpretation of scripture. You you're going to be essentially um ridiculed and told you not a christian um Primarily because I don't think that it's easy to debate against I think once you start saying that it's allegorical Some of the traditional arguments against christianity sort of fall apart um I do think that the argument that it's not allegorical and it's clearly not allegorical would require further instantiation I also think that when we look at the Spiritual truths in the bible. I think that they have to correspond with nature and that also to understand it We are going to need a rational tradition Catholicism offers that rational tradition from understand our spirituality to understand what it means to be uh in this World that we live in and so it gives us the opportunity not simply to simply know these truths just that we are given them to attempt to better ourselves and a better the rational structure of the church itself to be in accordance with what is true and what is real so Hopefully we learn to interpret the scripture in better and better ways And we become better and better people and we become better and better at Essentially discovering truth So I'd like to close really by saying the science of religion is theology which can only truly be represented or truly understood in the philosophy of religion So if you're not doing the philosophy of religion You're not really religious. You're not you don't really understand what you're doing. So there's a lot of Inadequate religious people out there in my opinion as well. So yeah Awesome. Well, thank you so much for being here perspective philosophy and scholar fiction Just let everybody know that was our debate on is christianity true between these two gentlemen We're gonna be back tomorrow night and I had the names of the gentlemen now. They'd escaped me earlier I had to go back and check. So grace thorp and ben thorp are going to be on tomorrow debating against big tech and adam green It's going to be a good one on whether jesus existed So tune in for that tomorrow and uh Yeah, thanks everybody. We'll see you next time All right, okay Thanks very much I didn't have anything ready, but let's play a little outro. I suppose while I have y'all here I'll hear my guitar So, yeah, hopefully y'all tune in tomorrow for the thorps debate Versus uh big tech versus adam green. We had a lot of fun here tonight Uh come on over to the discord. I'm going to be hanging out in the religion bc Um, and I'm gonna put my guitar away back before I get myself in Trouble. All right. See ya