 Welcome to Modern Day Debate. My name is Carissa and I am the host for tonight's debate. I'm really excited about all three speakers here. It's going to be a great debate tonight. So we are a channel that hosts debate on many different topics, on science, on religion, on politics. We are a neutral platform, so if you enjoy debates, please feel free to subscribe, comment, and be part of our community. So tonight we are actually going to be discussing the differences and the validity of yogiism, Christianity, and atheism. So it's a trifective debate tonight, so we're really excited. We have a couple people here who have done this a number of times. I know you guys probably recognize a raging atheist. He's been here multiple times, so welcome back Sibyl. You've debated on this platform too, so welcome back to you as well. And Siddharth, I'm going to go ahead and let you introduce yourself. Everyone has a link to their own social media platforms in the description, so if you would like to check them out more and further, definitely check them out below. Siddharth, go ahead and let people know what they can find at your link. So in my link you can find a connection to or like a point or two my paper and my book which I recently published in paper two, and you will find details regarding my research which show the hands of Supreme Personality. You can also leave comments there or you can reach out to me through my website. Sounds wonderful. Thank you. Sibyl, if you want to go ahead and introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what we can find at your link, that would be great. Hey, I'm Sibyl Sanity. My link is just my Twitter. Eventually, I'm thinking about maybe one day possibly considering starting a YouTube channel. But until then, it's just Twitter. I don't know. I say things. I retweet things and occasionally I even comment on things. So it's fun over there. Sounds great. Well, thank you so much. And Arraging Atheists, please introduce yourself and give us a little insight in what people can find at your link. Yeah, I'm the Raging Atheist. My YouTube channel is The Rage. I have open conversations. We have an ongoing religious debate where I talk to theists. They challenge my worldviews and my atheism. We have dumpster fires and we have drama and YouTube views. So it's a good time. Yeah, come check me out. Sounds wonderful. So the structure of the debate tonight is going to be eight minute openings from each of our debaters. And then we're going to go into an hour of open discussion and dialogue followed up by 30 minutes of question and answer. So if you do have a question, definitely make sure to shoot it into the super chat so we can get to it at the end of the debate. So without further ado, we're going to go ahead and start off with the openings. Siddharth, if you want to go first, the floor is yours. Okay. And thank you, Kareesa, for the introduction. I would like to share my Korean and I'll stop the video and share the Korean. That's fine. Okay. Okay. So thank you, dear friends, for joining for the debate today. I'm going to present today scientific evidence for belief in Krishna or Supreme personality. Someone may call him Yahweh, someone may call him Allah. The faith I follow is the faith of yogis and yogis don't have many problems with some calling the Supreme person as one or the other. So let me begin. Before I begin in this, present the argument, I want to let you know it will be a little detailed and not a simple argument as many times you hear, please speak about. So I appreciate your patience. So before we get into the argument, I'm going to discuss how the yogis talk about knowledge. So we all are familiar with the term epistemology. What is epistemology? Epistemology is, you know, how do we know what we know? So the yogis divide epistemology into two types, one R01, which means ascending, and second R01, which means descending, depending on how we take knowledge, how do we know what we know, they depend on these two categories. In other words, ascending epistemology is when we use methods like induction, methods like hypothesis testing, you know, we speculate based on our observations in a model and then we test it against, you know, any modelist, which the yogis talk about is the knowledge coming from an all-perfect source. In this model also, you do test it through, like you say, a blind faith in whatever they say. They want us to test their conclusions about those topics too. However, there is no speculation. All right. Unfortunately, I do think that we lost Siddharth. So you know what? I think Sibyl, you were next up, hopefully he'll be able to join and I will let him know to go ahead and see if he can get a better audio. But Sibyl, if you want to go ahead with your opening, we can get back to him. So my opening is going to be a bit short and sweet here. Apparently, they only invite me here when I am sick and I do have COVID right now. So bear with me a bit. I will do my best. Arguing for explaining reality best actually seems a little bit silly to me because reality in a lot of ways is subjective as far as the experience that we have. I'll recall the blue and gold or black and something dress, black and gold, blue and white dress. We all know what we see, what we experience and we can't necessarily convince that to others. I don't intend to get too bogged down into science and science and that's not exactly my area of expertise. I tend to take a look at things from a more psychological perspective. You know what? We're going to go ahead and let Sibyl finish her opening and then we will get back to you and hopefully the audio will be a little better. Go ahead, Sibyl. So there's a couple of things that, you know, I actually think that Siddharth and I will probably agree more than we disagree in a lot of different ways. Sorry, I can't say the same for the rage and I. Yeah, I think I will just leave it there and let him continue and leave the rest for our open discussion. All right, sounds good. Siddharth, if you want to go ahead with the rest of your opening, maybe if we could limit the screen share, that might help if you want to just try explaining it. So I think some of the screen share is that I'm traveling right now and I'm going or passing through like a developing country and the internet here is terrible. So you know, I'm trying different ways, but somehow working with it. Okay, so as I was saying, the yogis consider knowledge coming from perfect source, sorry, knowledge coming from the Vedas and Puranas as knowledge coming from the perfect source. You know, in the past, people had natural faith because of their experiences, because as I said, whenever you receive a knowledge, they don't ask us to believe in them, but they want us to verify it. Now, there are two ways of verifying any piece of knowledge. It could be a subjective method and objective method. But the subjective method, subjective method is, you know, an individual experiences the results like, you know, reduction in stress, being more happy, freedom from envy and anger. But there is also objective verification where they say things about the world which are, you know, objectively verified. So up till now, many of the things which the yogis said were not really objective, objectively verified. And I'm going to get into those things which can be objectively, objectively verified, in fact, stunningly verified by modern science, so that people who have are apprehensive of trying the Vedic knowledge, who are apprehensive of putting faith in the Vedic knowledge and trying the method, they may gain some faith in this process given in the Vedas and the Puranas, where Vedas and Puranas are the ancient Sanskrit texts which yogis follow. Then I hope that I can convince that by the end of my discussion, by the end of my opening. So let's look at some of the objective data from the ancient, mind you, these objective statements from the Puranas and Vedas have to be so extraordinary because I'm making an extraordinary claim. I'm saying that we should take the ancient text which are 2,500 years old or even older as, you know, as a source of perfect knowledge. Now that's a very extraordinary claim. And as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So what kind of extraordinary claim am I making here? I'm making a pretty big claim that there is Supreme Personality of Godhead. So let me present some extraordinary evidence. So in my paper which I published at the European Journal of Science and Theology, I didn't show 3D data points found in the Puranas. What's the first data point? I just showed in the paper that the ancient yogis knew the exact date for the original universe. Their date was 13.819 billion years. What did the scientists say? The modern scientific estimate after the last 200 years of work says 13.801 billion years. The difference is 0.1%. And also you will notice that over the last 100 years, their estimate has gone closer and closer to the yogi's value, to the Puranic value. Point number two, comparison of Puranic and scientific dates about the life of the sun. So the yogis say that the sun was created 4.563 billion years ago. What did the scientists say? 4.567. The difference is 0.1%. All right, I think we must have lost him again. You know what, Raging Atheist, we can go ahead with yours. We might also have to make a little short pause because we're having a little bit of technical issues. I'm not on a pro-zoom account, so I might have to resend the link, so I apologize for that. But go ahead with your opening. I think he might be back now. All right, you know what, I re-acology, I don't think we're going to be able to do screen share. I think it's just too much for the internet. You know what, we're going to go ahead and put up this incredible picture while we get things straightened out on the air. I apologize all for the inconvenience. Can I take two minutes? All right, thank you all for your patience. We are back. I was using the wrong Zoom account, so my bad, I apologize very much. Siddharth is going to go ahead and finish up his opening. He's not going to be using screen share, and then we're going to get over to the rage, and then we're going to enter into the open discussion, so go ahead, Siddharth. Okay, so I'll try to finish up everything in two minutes. Thank you, everybody, for the patience and for all of us today. So as I was saying, I need to present extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, and the claim that yogis make is that their knowledge is knowledge given in the Puranas and Vedas is perfect, and I wrote a paper and in the paper I discussed that how the Puranas talk about age of the universe, age of the Sun, date for the Earth's greatest mass extinction, and all those dates, and it was only three, in my book I cover about a dozen, and they all are pretty close to the modern scientific estimates. In fact, the date of the universe and the origin of the Sun and the date for the Earth's greatest mass extinction are all three, less than 0.3% within the latest modern scientific estimate. I apologize, I'm not able to show you slides, otherwise you can see on my website if you visit there. So given this amazing data, what could be an explanation for it? So that's one question I would like to pose to my friend, Mr. Nock here, or the rage, if you can forward an explanation. The probability somebody could have guessed it, I calculate that probability, so the ancient Indians or the sages in those books go from one to ten raised to the power of 62 in describing different features. So they had a number of numbers to choose from, they could choose anything between one to ten to the power of 62, and the probability that they guessed this one number right is one over ten raised to the power of 62. Or you may say a million over ten raised to the power of 62 because it could be in a million range close to the scientific value, but if they were to guess it, they had to guess it and get lucky, the probability is ten raised to the power of minus 62. And if they got these three numbers right, the probability becomes ten raised to the power of minus 186. That probability is equal to somebody winning lottery 30 times in a row. Yeah, that seems pretty realistic, isn't it? Somebody may say that, okay, I guess they wouldn't have guessed it, but maybe you are fudging numbers in crazy math. So to counter that, I published my paper with a peer review journal because that's what the current day people who are agnostic writers, that's what they believe in. They believe in peer review science, so that's what I did. I published my paper with peer review science. Somebody may accuse me, hey, maybe I was taking data from the Puranas, that all other stuff in the Puranas is trash. Now we have to understand that the Puranas are talking about a world which is higher dimensional, which is all around us. It is exactly like suppose you go to an address, there is a first floor and there are 99 floors above us. So on the first floor, there may not be any people, but there can still be people on the floors above us. So to say that the descriptions which are given in the Puranas, they're not matching. First of all, that doesn't provide an explanation for the dates which we got. And second, in a higher dimensional world, we can account for other features and other life and other phenomena, which is beyond our three dimensional empiric methods. Again, my friends may argue and complain, hey, there is still not a consensus about the research which we have posted. Yeah, I guess there is no consensus yet, but at least I have started the process. Some scholars agree with my presentation and I hope that in future others can agree. My whole point is that if we were to wait for the consensus to happen, we may lose many lives. Even now, by the day every day, more and more people are becoming stressed and depressed, mental depression and mental diseases are on rise year by year. And this is thanks to modern medicine, of course, it's a rise. But what I'm offering is, is a yogi's method of solving those basic problems. The problems of mental disease, the problems of pollution. Because yogi's profess a method as everybody knows, the yoga. Yoga means to connect oneself to the Supreme, whether it be through body, physical processes, or through mental processes. The point being is these are simple methods which can make big differences to everybody's lifestyle. So that is what I'm recommending. We can wait for the consensus, like the people who were waiting for age or the universe for 100 years and do all the hard work. Or we may accept their conclusions and try those methods which yogis have given us to connect with the Supreme. So just to summarize, I presented that there are two epistemologies. There's ascending epistemology, there's a descending epistemology. Ascending epistemology is a modern science. And descending epistemology is knowledge coming from the ancient text known as Puranas or Vedas. I showed that Puranas and Vedas have testable predictions which have finally come out to be true or stunningly approved or vindictive by modern science. Since these predictions have come out to be true, I'm making a claim that Supreme Personality of God had exist. You may call him Krishna, you may call him Christ, you may call him Allah, or you may call him Yahweh. He doesn't mind. As one gets, we respect him and we try to follow his commands and his recommendations. Thank you. All right, thank you so much. We'll go on to Raging Atheists then. Awesome, thank you very much. I want to thank James for hosting this debate and Carissa for moderating as well my interlocutors for participating and what I hope to be a productive discussion. As I have mainly centered my attention on Abrahamics, I'm truly looking forward to my first interaction with somebody outside of that spectrum. As I try to cram an entire history of Hinduism into my brain preparing for this conversation, I couldn't help be fascinated by some of what I have learned. But I'm here to represent atheism, which is simply an answer to a question. Does God exist? If you answer no to that question, then you're an atheist. Now, within that answer is a spectrum. As with most things human, nothing is ever simple. But within that very general statement, that definition of atheism, I think you get the problem. We answer no, they answer yes. Let me put it to you this way. If I were to come up to the vast, vast majority of people in the modern world, and I told them that a young Jewish woman that I knew had been impregnated while she was still a virgin and then conceived a Jewish God in the flesh, and that after he died he would become a God for all people except Jews, no one would think me serious. And if they did think me serious, they would think me not very sane. And yet billions of people believe this is exactly what happened 2000 years ago with Jesus. Or how about if I were to come up to you and told you I knew a king once, who was overjoyed that his younger sister was about to be married, until a booming voice announced for everyone to hear that the product of that marriage would be the destroyer of the king himself. And that king had the now married couple imprisoned, killing every child that they produced and was presented to him, until the seventh child who was magically moved from the mother's room to someone else's, who bore the child happily away from the cruel grasp of the king. And then the eighth child came, the mother giving birth as the married couple sleeps. The father wakes to see his prison door somehow opened and his eighth child newly born. He rushes from the prison with the baby only to swap it with somebody else's newborn baby and rushes back to the prison in order to present the king with an innocent child to murder. Now, if I were to tell you all of that, you would clearly think I was making it up that it couldn't happen. But this is the story of how Krishna came to be born, at least as I understand it. As an atheist, I do not have to believe these very unbelievable stories from the ancient past. I can simply answer the question. No, I do not think a woman can be a virgin and give birth to a God. I don't believe this because the reality in which I live demands this to be something that just cannot happen, something that does not happen, except for once 2000 years ago, supposedly. As an atheist, I can answer no. Of course, a fetus can't move from one womb to another magically. No, I don't think a woman would give birth and remain sleeping. No, I don't think the man swapping babies is a thing that happened or any of the things that were to come after as Krishna fulfilled his destiny of destroying the evil king. Of course, I don't believe these things because they are absurd. And then I can move on with my life, responsible for my own actions after having answered those very, very simple questions. I can look at the world with eyes that are my own instead of shaded by the lens of some dogma. I can try to be a better human being or I cannot care and just be a human being or I can be an absolute shit of a human being and every dealing of my life. Atheism does not dictate any of these things. It just simply answers a question. So after I finally started to answer those questions with the answer, no, after I could think free of the refrains of religious indoctrination, then I could see the naturalism of things and adopt that philosophy very easily. I can observe the natural world, but I cannot observe the supernatural world. For that, I have to take your word for it. I don't do that anymore. I find the atheist experience to be absolutely better than any of the religious experiences I had in my youth. And I can state that with fact, because it is my personal experience in this life. But unlike the personal experiences I get offered from theists, mine is consistent with observable reality. I go about my life from one day to the next, uncaring of the peeping toms watching from the heavens above me. So as the atheist interlocutor in this discussion, it will be interesting to be to see this clash of two very different religious traditions and to see if I can manage to poke at both of them. But from what I got from their introductions and how they kind of pointed out the atheist, that might not happen. I can see the rest of my talk. Thank you, Rage. We'll go ahead with the open discussion. Sidharth, if you want to go ahead and just turn your video off, so we don't have to run the risk of losing you again, that would be great. And we can just start it in on that segment. OK, I'm pretty sure I'm pretty confident it should be good. I switched over network again, and this should be good enough. If it really happens, I'll be quick. All right. I just find it nice to have expressions and see and, you know, let the audience see what I'm speaking. That's what is an important part of speaking. All right, presentation. Go ahead into the open discussion. Thank you. Should I start? So the rating assist or Mr. Rage, very nicely in beautiful words, narrating the story of birth of Krishna. However, he missed an important part of it. You know, he left it somewhere where, you know, he thought he could pull an emotional, you know, win. He said that, you know, Krishna was swapped, you know, as a baby with another person, with another baby. But what happened to the other baby? The, you see, you have to understand that the bigger plan whenever Krishna and acts a pastime. So in this pastime, when Krishna was in a swap, first of all, he raised an interesting point. He said it is not possible that a woman can be can go can become faint or, you know, can stay asleep after a baby is born. My dear friend, if you look up online or Google, there are millions of cases where women faint or become unconscious after giving a birth to a child. It's not something unusual phenomenon. I didn't say unconscious or fainted. It's it's sleepy unconscious. They're, I feel quite, quite synonymous. You know, it's not a you're reading from a book which is giving an account. I wake up from sleep if I need to pee. It's not a medical book there that, you know, he's not. Yeah, but you can still fall asleep after or three fall. Let's get to that part. You said I was, you know, I was getting too emotional, but if I actually let out like the most magical part at all, you was getting to that part, I will get there. I'll get there, but you I'm just asking you to chew on your point because you made a point and you said that's something like, you know, as a scientific invalidation. So I want you to accept that that's not a scientific invalidation because that's something observed quite a lot in, in, in, you know, in rooms, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in hospitals that when women give birth, they fell unconscious or they faint due to the pain, due to issues. So, yeah, unconscious. I agree with sleeping with your husband. I don't. Well, he's not sleeping, she's not sleeping with her husband. She fell asleep. They were sleeping. They were both sleeping. He looked up at the baby. Go ahead. I don't, I don't mean that. Go ahead. He, I can't, I can't. Yeah. So the point being that it is not such a far-fetched idea that she was unconscious. First of all, you understand these texts are written in Sanskrit. So when you have texts written in Sanskrit, they are describing an event, an account. They're not, they're not medical textbooks that they're describing medically what was happening to the person. Sleep unconscious, I would say that's pretty, pretty, pretty much the same because sometimes people go to deep sleep and that's also, say, people say that they're going to do a kind of a conscious work. So I'm just saying that argument doesn't hold on water. If that was one of the arguments, it's out. Now I'll give, I'll give a counter-argument to the other points also, which are important, but one step at a time. So second point, you made the point that, you know, the baby was swapped and that's such like, you know, unjust thing. He's supposed to be God. You know, what kind of God it is that for his own protection, he is letting him swap with another baby, die. Actually, here what happens next, so that baby is swapped and that baby is swapped is actually one of the energies of Krishna. When she comes back, the king wants to kill her because the king thinks this new baby is the baby who is going to kill him. But low and pure, what happens? The moment he tries to kill her, she shows her divine form and he's not able to even touch her. So, you know, let's give full story. Let's not give half stories to people. Well, I stopped you right there, but you just mentioned the most magical part. So you skipped over the magical part about the seventh baby who was taken from the womb of the mother, I have her name, but and placed in some other womb actually skipped over that part, but you get to an important part because so the point of me pointing out that the father switched the babies was the fact that the father did switch the babies with the intent of trading the life of an innocent baby for the sacrifice of his own. So he had no way of knowing that that baby was a war goddess, a warrior goddess, and that once the king came to destroy the baby, yeah, the warrior goddess zapped into existence and the warrior goddess, ha, ha, look, you're not gonna, your destroyer is already born. But then, you know, that warrior goddess didn't like free the mother and child, that warrior goddess disappeared and didn't do anything. Didn't kill the king, didn't do anything, just disappeared, ha, ha. But the father didn't know that and that's like the most magical part of all. And as an atheist, I can say no, of course that didn't happen. Of course it didn't. Like, you don't think it happened, really. What? Ha, ha, ha. Two things there, one, you know, whether I believe it or not, that's not something you can judge. You know. Sure, sure. Secondly, it may still have happened, it may still happen and you may say that that person is not God. These are two different things. So you may say, I'm not going to accept that person as God. And just helping you formulate your argument better. You can't say that didn't happen. That can still happen. But the point, whether he's God or not, that is the beginning. In my reality, in my reality, babies don't turn to warrior goddesses and disappear. In my reality, that can't happen. Okay, so that part didn't happen. But I thought maybe you said that the babies can't be swapped. Okay, so the baby can still be swapped. But what part can't happen is that baby can't turn into a warrior god. Well, I mean, I do find it quite ridiculous that the father woke up. I mean, I do find it quite ridiculous that the father woke up, found the doors magically open. He's able to, like the guards are magically sleeping. He's able to run all the way into the town. Okay, okay. Somehow able to get into somebody's home, swap the baby, the priest doesn't notice. I don't find any of it believable. Very good, that's very good. Because you're missing the basics of the philosophy there. So we're talking about Krishna here. Krishna is supreme personality of God. By definition, he has power to open the gates. By definition, he has the power as a baby to speak to his parents, Nanda and Ishoda, about what he wants to do. So let me give you an analogy. Suppose there's a father and they have a small child. Now, when the father tells the child, child go and put this box there, whether the child understands it, it's good for him or not. The child just follows it. Why? Because the child has natural trust in father. He has a relationship with father. So when a devotee has faith in God, and when God tells him, do this, he doesn't question it. So the reason Nanda Maharaj, the reason Vasudev, who's a father who swaps the baby, the reason he swaps the baby is not because he was afraid that his son would be killed because he's supreme personality of God. The reason he did that was because he had natural faith in Krishna. That whatever Krishna is telling is the right thing for me. And that goes back to my main point, that the baby was Krishna though. Yeah. You're talking about Vishnu, right? Vishnu is like, would be the guy that was interfering in all of this stuff. Like Krishna was the baby. No, Krishna and Vishnu, they both are synonymous. I can see that since you somehow think that Jesus Christ is Krishna too. Like, man, I'm lost on that one. How do you get there? We can get to each point, but one point at a time. So I'm just giving you a background behind the story itself. I also opened the Christian and the Hindu would go at it. Well, first of all, you have to get your case clear because you make points and then you step back on your arguments. I'm just telling you. I just don't have to believe in you. I think it's funny that you do, but go ahead. I'm not going to believe anything. I'm not, you ask me that, why does that theology work? And if you're asking me theology, you have to ask me the details about it. Otherwise, you can assume whatever you like and make fun of whatever you like. But you have to first read into the theology. If you want to argue in theology, you can argue in theology unless you have read into it. So, Krishna, okay, thank you for being so humble. And I appreciate that you're asking me and I'm happy to give more details on this topic. So Krishna, he's like a father to everybody. So when he tells something, people accept it. So that's something similar to what I said about the Vedas and Puranas. The Vedas and Puranas are taken as word of Supreme Personality of Godhead. They're a source of perfect knowledge. So, coming from perfect being. So when the Vedas and Puranas say something, people accept it naturally. Now, people who have doubts, that is why the Vedas and Puranas have these objective details, especially right now, and people can test it objectively. How come in ancient texts, which is 25-minute year old, how come it has such an exacting, such a precise values for age of the universe, age of the sun, and date for the Earth's mass-created extinction? You haven't provided me answer for that. How did the ancient texts come to have those values? And that's from the whole basis of- I'm not a mathematician or a scientist. And I think by your own admission, you said that your work is, there's great consistency against your own work. So you admit that there's consensus against it. So obviously the people in the field disagree with you. I don't have to. I'll put it differently. I would say there's consensus against it. But that's what you said in your opening, though. No, I didn't say- I wrote it down. I said, no, what I said was that currently there's no consensus on this topic, which doesn't mean consensus against it. Consensus, what it means is that many people are aware of it. You have exact words. I wrote down your exact words. There is consensus against my work. No, I said there's still not consensus. Silly point. Again, like, so say you're right and these dates are accurate and they got it right. What you're saying is like, it sounds oddly familiar to me. It sounds like almost every single thing every Christian's ever told me. The Bible's perfect. It's an infallible word of God. Absolute truth. And for you to reject it is just absolute nonsense. Kind of similar. I'm used to hearing this from the past. What objective details do they share? What are you talking about? What novel testable predictions those books make, which you're talking about. I don't believe in any of them. I don't know. Go ask them. I'm not saying believe in them. I'm saying- Everybody wants to talk to them. Yeah, don't believe in them. Don't believe in them. I'm not asking you to believe in them. I'm saying that- I just don't believe in ridiculous stuff. I just, I mean, I dismiss it. That's what I do. Yeah, dismiss them. But do you believe in science? Sure. I mean, as far as I can understand it, I'm not a scientist. Okay. So if science makes a claim, if science makes, if the scientific community comes together with the recommendation, would you follow it? It depends. I mean, scientific community has come out with plenty of recommendations that I don't follow like smoking. Like I really should. I really should quit. I'm really trying hard to quit, but I haven't yet. So you are saying that even though the truth, maybe, even though there may be something else that's true, that because you have, you're caught up in your practices and your habits and your previous notions, you're gonna want to change it. Because like I just saying, you, there is practically all the time I just say we shouldn't smoke. And they say there are so many difficult, so many problems with smoking. It can cause these many diseases. But because it is hard for you to change your, you know, your habits and your, you know, previous, you know, notions about it or something like that. I didn't help me with that. How is this important? Like God didn't help me quit smoking. Like I don't get like how, so like we started talking about, like I just don't believe the crazy crap. You come like, I'll have to admit to you. And I think everybody in the audience and Carissa and Sybil, feel free to pipe in please. But we didn't really, I didn't really understand a lot of the opening because it was so bad audio-wise. So I didn't really get like the scientific stuff that you was trying to present. But like, again, it sounds like a lot that Christians give me. I can almost guarantee you that when you make the claim that the pranas are a source of perfect knowledge that Sybil, the Christian in the room would probably disagree with that. Cause I'm fairly certain she would consider the Holy Bible to be the source of perfect knowledge. And the pranas, well, they would just be heretical. I mean, how do you get to the point that it's Krishna. Now you're trying to be like very universal and say Krishna is all. So Krishna is like Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Vishnu, all of those things. Like, why does Yahweh and Allah always fight with each other? I don't understand that if they're the same being. But like, I don't get how you get there. How do you prove to me as an atheist that I should indeed be following Krishna and accepting like all the ridiculous stuff that surrounds that? Well, see, whenever we are talking on a subject we are trying to find out what is the real knowledge there? What's the truth there? And I presented my, you know, arguments in the beginning that's called epistemology. How do we know what we know? So how do we know what we know? I said the yogis devise epistemology into two types. One is the modern scientific which is also don't seem to accept. The other is knowledge which is coming from perfect source which is coming from the Vedas and pranas. Now you're saying even though the scientists may come together and say that, hey, there is God and he has this capacity. So because it's a ridiculous claim, you would say, I don't accept it. So if you're not able to read, that's what I'm trying to understand that what would it take you, what would it take me to convince you of some ridiculous thing? Like how do you accept knowledge? What do you accept as truth? What are your parameters of accepting? For me to accept that, for me to accept that any God exists, I would need the actual evidence of the possible existence of a supernatural God. We have nothing that would indicate that anything outside of naturalism actually has an explanation for it. Can I just jump in? There's never been like... I'm sorry, I just... Simple, is there anything that you wanna add? Please, please jump in. I mean, I have some questions there a little bit. I have comments and thoughts about some of the different things that you said. I guess I will start with Siddharth, since Rachey don't seem to wanna feel too many more questions at this exact moment. I'm used to Christian questions. I'm getting used to the Hindus. I just, I mean, I have some questions. Like I said, in my opening, I think we actually agree in a lot of ways more than we might disagree, but I did have some things that, you know, this is relatively new for me and I had some questions for you. Like as far as Krishna being the same as Yahweh or Jesus or Allah, can you explain to me why the repeated rebirth? Like why would he keep being reborn to have all of these different stories? Or is he not? And those stories are just retellings of the same. Like I don't think I understand that. Simple, that's a really good question. Thank you. And thank you for Kavisa for stepping in for, you were kind of ignoring Simple all this time. So thank you for getting here. Even atmosphere here, even participation. So it's a very excellent question there. Why would Krishna, why would God keep appearing again and again? Or is there that a retelling of the same story? So first of all, I didn't say necessarily that Jesus Christ is God. I just said that Christ is God. In fact, in the Bible, Jesus Christ says 216 times that I am the son of father. So I'm talking about the father, not necessarily the son. Two, why would he come back again and again? He comes back again because he loves us. And since he loves us, it is by interacting with him, by having, you know, by hearing his activities, by talking about him, that we gain an affinity. Like suppose if I want to know Mr. Nutt, I would have to spend time with him. I would have to, if I want to make a relationship. So the whole philosophy of yogism is that, or the yogis is that, that we have forgotten about God and we have to reawaken our relationship with him. So how do you reawaken a relationship with somebody? If I want to have a relationship with Mr. Rage, then I would like to know more about him. I would like to know about what did he do the last 20 years? You know, where did he go? What are the activities? And the more activities that are available for me to read about, the more I can be connected to him. So this is the reason why Krishna comes back again and again in, you know, various places, various forms to reestablish his relationship with, you know, the living entities like us. Okay, so the story is where it's not specifically Jesus, where it's Yahweh or it's Allah, those would still be him coming back again. So these are all just new stories. I guess if they're real, I have not read so much about other theology because I have always seen people make, you know, have concerns about other stories, but I understand that a big population of the world worships Allah as supreme and they address his supreme as Allah. So I, you know, I have no problem in addressing a supreme person as Allah. That's their, you know, their language and their way of denoting the supreme. So Purana, we hear many stories where people were not aware of the name of the supreme. So the most important thing in praying to supreme or connecting with supreme is the person's sincerity. Do we really want to know the supreme? Do we really want to connect him? Because it's not that he will come and hear and do some magic and have a bow down. His point is that, that he wants love. He's not looking to show some magic and gain some, you know, you know, some followers, some fans, because he understands that by showing some magic, he may win something, something, but not a relationship. He's interested in a relationship. So he's asking us to, you know, you know, pray to him to think about him, to talk about activities. And by doing that, we gain affinity for him. Okay. Am I breaking? A little bit, a little bit. He has it in and out. So one of your slides, the first slide, it was talking about the cyclical universe. I was a little bit curious about the beginning and the end of the cycle, because you didn't really go into that. You kind of, how is that explained? Yes. It seems like you are breaking up a little bit, a little bit more. Okay. But as you... So according to the Puranas, the universe is eternal. It always, you know, it always goes on and on. There is no end. Okay. How about now? Is it better? It's a little bit better. There might be a lag. Is it better now? You might have to hop back on again. So... Is it better now, Karissa? There's a lag. So if you hear this, just exit out and come back in again. But, you know, Rage and Sybil, if you want to start talking a little bit, he will hear this eventually and he'll come right back on. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? I can see everybody. Yeah, I think you're on a lag. All right, go ahead. Okay. Okay. I'm not sure, like, and I know like he's on a lag, so he probably couldn't even answer, but I see, I don't know much about Hinduism in general or yogiism. I crammed a lot about Hinduism today. And when he comes back, like what I'm interested in is like, is this a comment, is this perception of Krishna being this pretty much all gods? Is that like uniformly accepted? I'm trying to look it up real quick because I know very little about Hinduism itself. And I'm not really seeing that in any definition of Krishna that I'm seeing that Krishna is Yahweh or Krishna is Allah, you know, or Walkantanka even maybe. I don't get where he's getting that from or how he could even like provide evidence for that. Like, to me, if I was a Christian, I'd be slightly offended by that, I think. How do you feel about it? I'm less civil, talk about it. Well, rather than be offended, I think, you know, it's a step in the right direction. If we can funnel that into the Christian God, that would be better. But belief in God is definitely a step in the right direction. But I guess while he's gone, I mean, I have a couple of things I could say to you. I welcome it. So in your opening, you were telling the story of Jesus and you were saying that he would come and not be the God of the Jews, but he's still supposed to be the God of the Jews. How? Well, the whole point was Jesus was still supposed to follow Christ. That's why he came and preached to them. Well, maybe the original message of Jesus himself, but I would argue that Paul changed that message in the moment they started preaching to Gentiles that no longer became a Jewish religion. When I say that he was the God of all except for the Jews, I say that as simple statement that if you are Jewish, you do not accept Jesus Christ as God. Right, no, I understand that, that they don't. I believe the message in the New Testament, yes, but in the New Testament, it's still, there is definitely a preaching both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles people. I would argue that the Christian religion should be like a sect of Judaism. I believe that the historical Jesus was talking to Jews and only to Jews. That's my belief based on the history that I've read. Originally, I would actually agree with that as far as I understand it. That was the original idea. And then because of the rejection from the Jews, it was kind of opened up to everybody else. I don't think it was necessarily that. I think it was the argument between Paul and the original, I guess you'd call it church. It wasn't necessarily a church, but James and the apostles, the original argument, if I'm remembering history correctly, pretty much centered around working on the Sabbath, circumcision, keeping to the kosher laws of Judaism. Paul wanted to preach to the Gentiles. The apostles and James were against that. That led to a rift and history played out. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that simply because there is a definite distinction between when Jesus talks to the Jews and when he comes and says that he came and fulfilled the law and now no one is under the law. So therefore it wouldn't just be for law-abiding Jews. Maybe, sure. I mean, definitely, I mean, I think history documents, though, the early Christians struggled with that. Paul was his own faction. James was his own faction. I think Peter and Paul had huge disagreements on it. I think Peter eventually came around to preaching to Gentiles, but at first was against it and at first had great issues with Paul. Yeah, but I mean, definitely, I think history says that preaching to Gentiles was a huge issue for the first Christians. Paul claims to get his gospel. Paul claims to be made an apostle by, I would say a hallucination. You would probably say... Divine revelation. Divine revelation, something like that. Okay. We have Siddharth back on. So I don't know if you guys want to continue with the Christian versus Atheist or get back into... I mean, I always enjoy talking to new Christians. I mean, the point of my opening is, it's just in the reality that I live in, we just don't see virgins being impregnated for nothing. Like here in the modern world, sure it's possible with artificial insemination, I'm sure. But I just, I dismissed that. So like in the conversation of Jesus, I will clearly tell you that through reading history, I have come to the determination that there was indeed a historical Jesus, but all that supernatural crap, no. I don't think history shows it and I don't believe it. Because my reality doesn't show me the supernatural. I understand that. One of the things that struck me in your opening, I kind of had to giggle to myself when you said we can't observe the supernatural. My first thought was, well, duh, because if you could observe it all the time and test it, then it wouldn't be considered supernatural. Well, sure. But like if your claims about the supernatural are coming from a book that's proven fallible, riddled with problems, proven wrong time and time again, if that's your claim that, well, this supernatural exists, well, why should I believe in something that I can't see and your source material is very problematic? Well, I suppose we would agree to disagree on whether, on how problematic the source material is. Well, I mean, it doesn't coincide with what we know about the reality of the world that we live in. So like take Genesis, for instance, right? So we could take Genesis and according to that story, we live in a very new earth and the world was made in a certain way. And yet through generations of hard work, we just know that that's not the case. So to me, that's a big, huge gaping hole in this source material that I'm supposed to take as like some indication that this supernatural exists. See, I've always had a problem with that simply because that framework automatically limits the power of my God by suggesting that somehow, if I have a God that can do all things, why would he be limited to doing them in a way that we can understand, you know, whether or not the earth is 4.5 billion years old or however old they say, does that forget? If some spirit had his hands filling with evolution, I don't know, maybe, but like, we're talking about the Bible, right? Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Yes. Like I just pointed out, like, well, so Genesis says the thing, we know that it's that thing ain't exactly true. No, because again, that's suggesting that God, a being who exists outside of time, can't work time to however he wants it. But the book isn't true. I was talking about the book isn't true. I was talking about the book isn't true. I was talking about your defense here. Now, Mr. Rage, if we were to show the things which can be tested in the Bible are found to be true, would you accept God as a true person, as a real person? So, the God in the Bible, would I accept that? Or is that your question? Yeah. Well, my question is, if the Yahweh in the Bible is proven to be true, I would accept the truth of it. I wouldn't follow it. No, you missed my question. I said, if the statements which are given in the Bible, which we found to be untrue currently because of the understanding of modern science, if somehow the Bible was having statements and predictions which were found to be true and the Bible also says that there is Yahweh, would you accept God? No, like some predictions are true. Like what predictions are true in the Bible? Well, like you're saying that Genesis says that the earth is 6,000 years old. I'm saying as you, that the Bible said that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, who do you have accepted God then? No. No, okay, so that's my problem. That no matter what evidence you produce, I don't understand how do you accept knowledge? Can you please explain first of all how do you accept the same to be true? Because the supernatural cannot be seen. I guess in order for me to believe in it, I would have to have like that personal experience everybody talks about, right? Like God would have to like show himself to me. God hasn't done that yet. That's good. That's very good. So the yogis say, yogis say that take everything with a bit of salt and try the process. Don't accept things on the face to value. Well, I've tried the process. The yogis say we have, the process is of meditation. The process is of yoga. I've done the meditation thing, yeah. I still do it. I still meditate. Have you done the process? Have you done the process which is given in the Puranas? No. The process is- The only Puranas I know about, like they're the fish with teeth. That's the only Puranas I know. Yeah, these are the, these are not those ones. These are Puranas which are- I saw briefly like one of your old debates and you was mentioned and I literally thought like, is this dude talking about Puranas? Then I finally got it. I'm like, oh, that must be some like text he's talking about. But not like, so I would accept God if there was like any evidence whatsoever that the supernatural could exist, right? Like, so throughout the ages, humanity has believed in the supernatural. Well, we live in a different world now. We have modern technology and we just, we don't accept magic like maybe they did back in the past. I've never seen it with my own eyes. Now I've had plenty of people talk about it. I've had plenty of Christians give me quote unquote personal experiences and I never try to take away from those. My personal experience is the reality that I have perceived. And in that reality, I tried the God thing and that God never came to me. I never saw anything that would indicate to me that that God was correct or I should base my life upon those dogma's or ideals. So like, that's what I was saying. Like if your piranhas have some dates that turn out to be close, yippee! Prove to me that Krishna is real. That's what I'm interested in because I don't believe that that thing is real. Is it possible that there's discombobulated minds out there? I don't know, yeah, possibly. Possibly, but I really don't think that they would care about us. And it's definitely not that book in the Bible. That book in the Bible, you're not gonna convince me ever that there was a global flood because we just know that there wasn't a global flood. There just wasn't. Sure, sure, sure. So you made two points. One is that you're looking for a personal experience of God. And second, I'm not looking for it. I'm just saying that that would be something that would convince me because that's what seems to be the thing that I get from theists is these personal experiences and I have to trust their word for it. Well, without ever looking for it, you would never have one. That's also impossible. How can you sit there and say that I've never looked for it? I just, I just literally admitted that I did. Like I was a Christian until my early 20s. I went from there and I tried Buddhism. I tried Taoism. I practiced Native American spirituality for a long time. Like, people assume that. There's a lot of assumptions being made about that. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I have faith in you. I have faith in you. I have trust in that you have tried the process. I'm not trusting. I'm not questioning that. I was worried, I would be the quiet one here. I'm not questioning you. I'm just saying one. It's funny that both religions don't like the atheist. No, I'm not. That's interesting. I don't dislike him. Well, I mean, you're both, you both came at me from the very beginning. You both mentioned me. You didn't mention each other. And I just find that interesting. Like I literally thought I was going to come in here and I was going to have to force myself to interject because I totally thought the two religious sects would go at each other. But y'all, y'all agree on one thing. Like the atheist is weird. Hey, I opened my questions for him. Okay, so calm down. Yeah. I can't, I'm having fun. I'm enjoying this. I personally have no problem with Christian theology that they believe in Christ the Father. So I don't know why I should. If y'all watch my channel, you'd have plenty of reason not to like me. I trust, trust me on that. Okay. So going back to the point you mentioned that you're looking for two things. You're looking for some supernatural phenomena and that will help you convince of God. And second, I mean, it convinced me that the supernatural exists, definitely. Yeah. Okay. So you're looking for a supernatural phenomenon which will help you. Something very solid, which you can accept as evidence and that will help you have faith in the supernatural. And second, you're looking for a personal experience of God. These are the two things you're looking for. Is that correct? I mean, maybe I'm not looking for anything. Like he keeps saying that I'm looking for these things. I'm not, like I'm perfect. As I said in my opening, I love being an atheist. I feel more free than I've ever felt in my life. I'm not bound by dogma. I am able to think freely for myself and I can take my accomplishments and my failures as for what they are, mine. They don't belong to nobody else. They sure as hell don't belong to no Yahweh or Christmas. Well, I guess, you know, a way of the modern, you know, like the theories of advertisement, you think you are free. You go to, you know, I feel pretty free. Turn on Facebook. Turn on Facebook. They are bombarding you with so many impressions of things they want you to buy. And you think you are free. You know, you saw, you see the advertisement for Apple iPhone 12, you know, 20 times a day. I got it. I think it's a 10. Good. So that's the, that's my point that, you know, there's so many outside advertisers which are in, you know, putting so many impressions to your brain. There is no, as such, you know, I'm not even going to do another four day, which is discussion of free will, whether it's free or not. The point, the point I was trying to make here is that let's not skip topics. Let's do, because you mentioned earlier that I asked you, what would it take for you to claim to accept some form of knowledge? And you said that you would not accept God unless you have a personal experience. And I'm telling you, if you accept the Puranas or the Vedas, have a method by which you could have personal experience of God. Now, if you don't accept that method and don't try it, then you're okay. That's good. So if you read them, if you try them, it doesn't work. So Sybil would say the same about the Bible though. Well, Sybil may say the same thing about it, but I'm not disagreeing with her. She could, the essence of the Puranic or Vedic method is that when it's supposed to read the Vedas and Puranas, under the guidance of the teacher and inquire for him and do some service and then read and apply in their life. And then if you don't have experience, you can leave it, no problem. It's an open-minded process. Like you go to any school. Suppose you want to learn astronomy, you want to learn cosmology, you want to learn physics. You go to a school and you submit yourself to great teachers and you study with them. You inquire, cautious with them. And you learn the science of, say, chemistry or physics. Similarly, science of spirituality is a very deep, deep science. And one has to study thoroughly for many, many years in order to have some deep experiences. It's not something, hey, I'm going to try the yoga for today. I'm going to stretch my body and I want the experience of God's tomorrow. That's how it works. So like all Christians have years of deep, deep knowledge and that's how they came to their Christianity. I thought it was like that whole childhood indoctrination thing. You know, the same, I could say the same about Hindus. I have a question for you. All right, so if Christian is like all the gods, should the whole world be under the caste system? Do you subscribe to the caste system? Do you believe in the caste system? Yeah, yeah, I'll answer the question. But first of all, you made the point that many Christians follow for a long, long time and then many of them are indoctrination. See, indoctrination is different from education. Puranas and Vedas talk about education. One can be a Hindu or a Christian or a Muslim by birth, but that does not guarantee human experience with God or relationship with God. Everybody has to earn their bread, which means they have to work hard on developing that relationship to the Supreme person. It is not something you get by. Oh, I'm telling you, like 90% of theists in America ain't got that. Yeah, so that's the problem. You may call yourself tomorrow. That is a problem. I would agree. I think theism is a problem. It's not a theism, it's a problem. It's a problem with indoctrination. Like, of course, if you're born to two doctors, you don't call yourself a doctor by birth. That's ridiculous. So same way, if you're born to, say, some Christian or Hindu parents, you don't say, hey, I'm a Hindu, I'm a religious person. Unless we are practicing, you're not really a Hindu, you're not really a Christian, you're not really a Muslim. We have to practice and earn that relationship with God and work on that. Now, moving to your point about casteism, that if Christian or Supreme personality of God is a Supreme God, why is there casteism? Is that what you're asking? So casteism is a problem. I'm just asking if you agree with it. And if Krishna is like all God, shouldn't the whole world have this caste system? Yeah, so caste system means that there is a division of work. Division of work means that when a person, when a child is born, you let the child figure out. Division of work, segregation, division of work, tomato tomato. Yeah, so if a child is born, supposed to a doctor's parent, he has both doctors, there's a good chance that he will be interested in going for medical sciences. There's a good chance. Now, I'm not saying for sure. But you let the child go for education and there, the child decides what kind of occupation is natural to his capabilities, like what kind of qualities does he naturally have? So instead of making everybody into an engineer, like that's what's happening in India, practically every parent forces their child to become an engineer or a doctor. That's not what Krishna is saying. Krishna is saying we should let people find out what's their nature and they should do activities which are insane within nature. That's not what I've read about the caste system. Like the caste is the life you live within the caste. I don't think, like can untouchables become an engineer? Yes, so again, there are four castes. I'll give you Sanskrit down for that. First one is Brahmana. Brahmana means teacher. Those who are naturally interested in research. Let me finish the point. I'm actually in the caste system there. So there are four divisions. Brahmana, a teacher. Two, Sathriya. Sathriya means warriors or protectors. Three, businessman or Vaishyas. Shudras. Shudra means laborers. Laborers means those who are like jobs, like servants. So these are four divisions of life. Krishna talks about this in Bhagavad Gita, 413. Chapter four of Bhagavad Gita, text number 13. He says that these divisions, these caste systems are born out of nature of work, not out of birth. Now, like with theology, like with religions, in caste system also, there is a similar problem. The people are making a practice. Do the untouchables come from Krishna? Do they come from the divine? Of course. Not according to what I, but man, you are going to get everything, every single day, everything that I have studied about the caste system today, you are saying the opposite. You are saying the opposite. I'm saying everything. I'm saying everything from what is the understanding of the yogis and what is the understanding of the text themselves. So tell me the understanding of the reality in India. In India, currently there is no, not many people who are following yogas, like same here in Krishna, in Europe. Because the untouchables are treated like atrociously. It's segregation. You have a caste system, a feudal system, to where you have the serfs, which would be the untouchables. And then, you know, those higher caste systems that literally get to crap all over them. That's the reality. Well, just like in any good system, people can misuse the system. Like, you know, have you ever like, you know, socialism? It all like, you know, communism? It started with a good ideal. I consider myself a socialist. But people, sorry, people misuse the system, and you know, like, instead of having property for everybody, they misuse the system and practically make everybody into like slaves. Same way, the principles laid out in the text and the principles followed by yogis are very scientific and very deep. However, people in the current age misuse them for, you know, ruling over the, you know, ruling over them or misusing them. For my research, the untouchables have been a thing since around 500 BCE. So like, nothing current about it. Nothing current about it. Like, there wasn't even, there wasn't a caste system at all, like 1,000 BCE. It changed. Okay, the divisions of these four divisions called Varanashram system has been there in the text, in all the texts, in the Vedas and the Puranas, and each of those texts are 1,000,000 years old. So based on the text, look at this text, Bhagavad Gita, chapter four, text number 13. Bhagavad Gita is a book from Mahabharata. Mahabharata. I've got a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, but I haven't read it in a long time. Okay, so chapter four, text number 13. Krishna himself elucidates the physics of caste system. You can look it up and read there. He says that caste system is based on quality of works, not by birth. But as you rightly pointed earlier, the many people take religion to be born out of birth. Similarly, people take caste system also to be born out of birth. It is not out of birth, it is out of the quality or out of work. From everything that I read and have read today, untouchables, like if an untouchable were to touch another caste member's food, that caste member wouldn't eat that food because it has been poisoned. That's what I read today. So that was something that happened. It is deeply dehumanizing to it too. And not to mention like, you know, Gandhi, he made a bit of reform, but he didn't go far enough. And like now, currently in India today, there's like armies rising up of the untouchables. And they- Yeah, I personally, I personally oppose it. I'm with you, Mr. Raj. I oppose it. That caste system should not be there. And that is not something- That's what I was asking is if you support it or oppose it. And then you started giving me like everything that like was not like the reality of India. And I'm like, well, are you justifying it or not? No, no, I never said, I'm not justifying. I'm giving you the real system from which it became an aberration. I'm giving you what was stated in the books. What I'm telling you is that that's a scientific process. But of course, it has a misuse and misappropriated last 2000 years. I'm not saying that there has not been misappropriation or mis-treatment of the untouchables. I'm telling you what the science, what the texts themselves say. I'm telling you what the yogis follow. Hinduism is a bunch of people who have missed, who have taken a, you know, and text and it's molded into like a system to rule our people. So I'm not here, you know, professing for caste system or the Hinduism. I'm here for yogis. And I'm presenting their point of view and I'm presenting evidence. I'm presenting super human evidence or supernatural super human evidence for their existence. So the existence of supreme person, which is Krishna. I presented you three data points in the beginning of my talk and many more data points in my book which are, you know, a proof of supernatural existence. And I'm offering you a process which is given in the Puranas and Vedas which you have kindly said you ready to try out. I'm sure that they have like English translations. Yeah, I'll check it. I love reading ancient holy texts. I mean, I get off on it. Oh, wonderful. It's one of the things I love to do the most. I would like to have a deeper discussion later on your time. Yeah, I'd love to. Oh, I would love to do that. I would love to do that, man. I'm going to jump in real really quick here. If it's good with everyone, if you guys want to kind of like leave with like a closing point, we can get into the questions. I know I feel so bad civil as COVID and I know that must be so uncomfortable. So I want to be sensitive to people's time. I have one last question, Just, if that's okay. Yeah, go for it, go ahead. So I was just curious. So since all the representations of God are Krishna, why would I give me the reason to convert from Christianity to yogiism? Or how, I'm sorry if I've said that wrong, I don't. Well, I don't want you to convert. I want a Christian to say a Christian. I'm asking you to say I'm asking. I would only recommend to take up the practices which yogis recommend, which is we should every day chant the names of the supreme. So, and that's also their practice in Christianity that they should, you know, holy be their name. So I should chant every day and try to, you know, pray and remember the supreme person. So I'm not asking you to change your religion or your faith. I'm presenting evidence for, you know, existence of supreme person Krishna who comes as Christ or Allah or Yahweh. Okay, interesting. Well, if you guys want to, I don't know, rage if you want to start off since I think you were the last one to go. What do we do now? Just like if you want to make it closing a little bit. I highly endorse yoga and you don't need to be a Hindu to do yoga. You can truly, I mean, I love that stuff. Great source of meditation. I enjoyed this, you know, this was my first interaction with anybody, I think, outside of Abrahamics is like my entire life that as far as I can remember. And it was heated. I think it was interesting, but I would love to talk to both of you again. So we're in this email chain. So I'll reach out to both of you and I'd love to talk to both of you. Awesome. Sibyl, do you want to say anything to close? You know, thank you all for being here. I appreciate that you both came on and we had this discussion. It was pretty cool. I enjoyed myself as much as I can through my brain fog. But yeah, just thanks. Sure. I'm amazed how in tune you were with having COVID. That's awesome. So I appreciate you taking your time to come on. Siddharth, I know that there were so many tech issues at first. So I appreciate you sticking with us. Do you have like a closing statement or anything? Well, you know, this is when you only recently I started, you know, coming to these platforms for debating and discussions. And I feel this has one of the most productive ones where I could really talk to people and just fight because I like Mr. Rage and Sibyl. They are very courteous and they are really to hear the, you know, my information with an open mind and they do the thing, you know, think about it. And I appreciate that they really did try the yogic method for meditation and, you know, connection with Supreme Personality of God. And I'm happy that they are, you know, gave a little bit of clearance to what I'm offering that the Puranas and Vedas have this astounding fact and that should, you know, push us to try the yogic method for developing a personal relationship with God because that has got a really amazing benefit. You know, there are so many problems in the current world, the pollution and the mental pollution, the physical pollution. And those can be easily resolved if we all were to follow this yogic method of meditation and connection with God. So I really appreciate the, you know, the humility of the other participants and thank you, Karim, for organizing the daughter team here. Yeah, definitely. So if we can get back, get into the questions, the first one we have is a question for Rage. Did anyone tell you, Rage, that you looked like John Moxley or Dean Ambrose? Hey, no, I've never actually, I don't even know who either one of those, like if I shaved my head, I was told I looked like Billy Corbin of the Smash and Pumpkins, but that was a while ago. Most, most young ins probably don't even know who they are. Now you have someone to look up and see if you look up. Yeah, I can kind of see it. Yeah, yeah, it's bad. If I'm clean-shaven and like completely bald, it's like exactly, that's like my doppelganger. That's awesome. Blue Heron actually gave $2, thank you so much. They said, feel better, Sybil. So everyone's wishing you well. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. I'm sure I'll be fine. I just gotta write it out. Aw, Mike Billers, thank you for the $10. He says, that explains why they started close to on time. Chris is the moderator. It also explains why we had a little bit of tech difficulty, so blame that on me too. So. It didn't get, it happens. So yeah, but I appreciate all of you guys staying with me through that brief period. The next question, Rach, is actually from your absolutely favorite person. Can you guess? I think I can guess. If you don't want me to read it, I don't have to. Go for it. I love hearing from Tanks. All right, he says, question for the atheists. Since you support women's choice for abortion, would you have supported your ex if she chose to abort your daughter? I mean, I don't think that this debate is about abortion. Pretty solid answer, all right? Sounds wonderful, so I really appreciate you all coming on and for your time. Definitely be sure to check out everyone's links in the description box below and be sure to tune in this Friday for the debate on the bottom right hand corner of your screen is Slavery Biblical. So definitely be sure to check that out and subscribe, like, comment, all that fun stuff. Keep on separating the reasonable from the unreasonable and have a good day.