 Ladies and gentlemen thrilled to have you here for another epic debate This is going to be a good one folks. We're thrilled for it and we're thrilled. Do you hear want to let you know? Modern day debate is a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics I'm your host James, and we want to let you know no matter what walk of life. You were from folks We were thrilled to have you here Christian Atheist agnostic all the all the different views folks were really glad that you were with us tonight And so with that want to let you know a couple of things one in less than a week We are thrilled as you can see right here on this promo poster We are thrilled Matt Dahlahunty will be returning to modern a debate to debate Samuel Nassan on whether or not Jesus fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament. So that is going to be an epic one and folks have to let you know Hit that subscribe button. You don't want to miss that one live It's going to be an epic Friday night. And so really excited for that also What we're going to do for tonight's debate is it's fairly flexible kind of easy going so we're going to have the affirmative going first That is Siddharth and Arjuna aka theology unleashed And then after their openings, which is about 12 minutes from each side split by the two speakers on each side Then we will have ask yourself and Jack do their openings followed by open Conversation after that Q&A So I have if you happen to have a question feel free to fire it in the old live chat and tag me with at modern a debate That way I can see every question and get it into that Q&A list So we are going to introduce our guests. We're thrilled to have them here And so guys we're pumped for this one. This is going to be a blast So we will start with ask yourself glad to have you here What can people expect to find at your link in the description ask yourself? Thanks for being with us Yeah, no problem here a great hype man James Well, yeah, my date my link I guess is down below. What do they find there? You know like philosophy content a lot of it's about veganism a touch on some other topics You got it. Well, thanks so much and Jack. I am pumped to have you. This is going to be epic So if you could share just a little bit about yourself. Thanks for being with us Thank you. Yeah, I I've done some debates on YouTube and on discord on philosophy and economics which I study Informally, so that's about it Awesome. Well, we're pumped for having you here tonight and also Siddharth glad to have you back. What can people expect to find a your link and thanks again for being with us Thank you James for more time for being such a wonderful host I have shared the link from a website where I have a URL to my book and a couple of academic articles which I've written on the subject of science and religion and I look forward to this debate You got it. Thank you very much and Arjuna pumped to have you here also known as theology unleashed What can people expect to find at your link in the description? So my link in my YouTube channel I host debates on there and I also put out when I have time Videos arguing various topics on philosophy of religion. One thing I like to go after is Absurd versions of Christianity and whatnot. We argue for what I take to be a more philosophically coherent theology Which is more inclusive and found in the Chaitanya Vajnava tradition aka. Harry Kushner You got it Well, we're thrilled to have you here as well and want to let you know folks all of our guests are linked in the description And that includes if you're listening via podcast. We're pumped you guys We've been super encouraged that people have been downloading the modern-day debate podcast Encourage you pull out your phone find your favorite podcast app and find modern-day debate as it's been just super encouraging Like I said that people have been giving positive ratings as well So thanks everybody for your support and if you're listening via podcast all of our guests are linked in that description as well And so no matter where you're listening you can access their links and with that We are very excited to jump into this debate So thank you gentlemen We are going to kick it over to Siddharth and Arjuna for a it's like a flexible 12 minute or so opening That they'll split amongst each other and thank you guys for being here. The floor is all yours So that's you want to give your arguments Yes, give me a second. I want to share my screen Okay, okay So thank you my dear friends for this wonderful opening and thank you for the opportunity to have a you know Good conversation with parts of people like ask yourself Jake Arjuna so I would like to begin my talk of my my Presentation with the this amazing picture you can see on the screen I'm not sure if many of you know the history behind this picture. Almost a century ago. Oh This picture was taken by Sir earth andington and it's changed the course of history It changed the course of history of like it's changed the course of how we perceive science Why because in 1900s early 1900s Einstein had proposed theory of general relativity and when he had proposed that there were many questions People were not interested in accepting Newtonian idea People were not interested in throwing the Newtonian idea of you know forces But when Einstein came and said the gravity is just a distorted distortion of space and time people question him Only, you know a couple of decades later or I can say a decade later after he proposed his theory It was vindicated by this picture. This picture was taken by Sir earth andington in 1919 when he showed that the light is you know gets moved due to the space and time distortion Because this was a moving point in the history of science and we have a similar moving point right now with us in our today's presentation So today I'm presenting does God exist. I myself a computer scientist from University of Michigan I work as a researcher a data scientist and a researcher in Michigan and that's my email idea if you have any questions So here's the summary of my argument I'm going to talk about Argumentation Puranas What are Puranas? Puranas are encyclopedic texts written thousands of years ago and They describe history religion Science sociology a bunch of different things Now as a Hare Krishna practitioner we take Puranas as source of genuine knowledge However, such faith in Puranas is questioned by modern, you know people or you know scientific minds or you can say, you know current generation of people the modern generation In my presentation I I'm going to show The second point which is that the Puranas have been vindicated by recent scientific discoveries and Thus I will establish that Puranas are genuine source of knowledge and Puranas unequivocally state that God exists So that would be my summary. That's my summary, you know of my argument first of all, you know epistemology is so Broadly, let's divide epistemologies into two types. One is ascending other is descending What is ascending epistemology? Based on, you know, empiricalism. I'm sorry empiricism and rationalism Or inductive methods and what is descending descending is accepting knowledge coming from Revealed by God and God revealed to sages and coming down to us. So that is Puranas and Vedas There's ascending knowledge is modern science So given any kind of knowledge which we have both epistemologies You know encourage the the person who has got the knowledge to verify it And there can be subjective methods and objective methods So in the case of Puranas, which we're trying to establish as a genuine source of knowledge, there's subjective verification objective verification What is subjective verification? Puranas state that if you follow this lifestyle, which is given in the Puranas Which means having God as a center part of your life then you'll be able to clean your heart of envy and anger which are very difficult problems to get relieved of and It will lead you to a sense of happiness, but you can't find material Some of the Puranic techniques or the Vedic techniques are yogas, yoga, Ayurveda, which I'm sure many of you have tried However, these are more subjective methods because they can't be really measured in the lab You know how much anger was reduced in your case? How much envy did you get rid of? There's no like no scale for it so You know given with this, you know, we have a tough task We have to come up with some kind of objective verification And since you're making such an extraordinary claim that a thousand year old text or a few thousand year old text has You know, general is a genuine source of knowledge We have to come up with some extraordinary Evidence to support such extraordinary ordinary claim as Carl Sagan said it So I'm going to talk about three data points. My first data point is age of the universe So according to the Puranas, the universe is thirteen point eight one nine billion year old What about modern science? Well modern science, you know, it works inductively so over the last hundred years We can say 200 years. It just made progress Usually it started with the opinion that the universe is eternal because they wanted to avoid God However, the current opinion thanks to cosmic microwave background radiation is 13 point eight zero one billion years So what took scientists last hundred years or 200 years is plainly stated in the Puranas The difference between two values is only point one percent That's data point one number two age of the Sun so Age of the Sun is a problem that can be solved by studying the radioactive Properties of the oldest rocks that have been found in the solar system. What is the Puranic value? 4.563. What is the scientific value 4.567 difference point zero eight percent Next earth's greatest mass extinction The scientists state that our earth has gone through many periods of extinctions mass extinctions I was the biggest mass extinction according to the scientists was 251.9 million years ago. That was the end premium mass extinction What about the Puranas Puranas state the biggest mass extinction in the current, you know In this cycle of the solar system happened 251.2 million years ago. The difference is point three percent Now all these three data points I have published in a peer-reviewed journal called European Journal of Science and Theology But I established the the analysis behind it because if you look on Wikipedia You won't find such dates because as I said, I'm a data scientist and a researcher So this is something which I discovered through my study and work on the ancient Sanskrit literature Now somebody may say hey, maybe those stages they guessed it I I The numbers which you can find the Puranas and Vedas go up to 10 to the power 62 They could have chosen any number So the probability that they got this one day correctly is roughly one over 10 to the 62 You know or in that range, you know the red that that kind of Around that number. What's the probability that they got these three dates accurately 10 to the 186 again in that range Somebody may say 170 some minutes of 180 if they want to you know You know create a bigger group of guesses then These are only the three data points in my book I in my book and in my book which is a expanded version of my paper I discussed dozens such data points So summarizing we have two epistemologies of knowing the world around us What is ascending epistemology second listening you're sending epistemology. What is ascending epistemology modern science? What is the descending is Puranas and Vedas knowledge coming from stages from God So ascending epistemology is inaccurate by design. It needs to be constantly updated based on the data which we observe outside You know, sometimes we have new to Newton in theory of gravity Then we have Einstein study gravity and in future there are some other candidates which we want which want to replace even Einstein You know the world doesn't end On the other side we just show how Puranas are genuine source of knowledge Of course science modern science doesn't need to vindicate Puranas However here for people who have faith in modern science We have provided evidence that they can have faith in the Puranas or have confidence in the Puranas as genuine source of knowledge Now Puranas state clearly that God exists Ascending knowledge a modern science says hey, we don't know if God exists or not I would like to end with a quick short story of Samuel Weas in 1847 He was a one who should be credited for discovering the science behind washing the hands However, for 20 years his opinion was rejected. He was ridiculed and people laughed at him So science is a slow process in the slow process of denying God or going against the Recommendations given the Puranas for lifestyle You know saying in the name of science we may lose many lives and that's what's happening right now We have so much pollution so many mental health problems. Why because we don't have God in the picture So I recommend that we use whatever time we have left in our lifetime and make God gain part of our life Thank you. I will let Arjuna continue the presentation All right So I was going to talk about two other lines of evidence Given the time I'll probably restrict it to one So the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavad Gita give a particular ontology of the soul They they talk of the body as like a machine The soul enters into it and travels to another body So this is a prediction you could say and then we have various kinds of evidence which confirm that such as near-death experiences There's various arguments from philosophy of mind and we have the Evidence for reincarnation which has has been advanced by Dr. Ian Stevenson and the work has continued to this day So Dr. Ian Stevenson, he collected over 2,600 cases of past life memories Of which 65 detailed reports have been published He wrote several books So one example of a case is Kumkum She remembered a past life in a village called Darbhanga, which was quite small. She named the Location the portion of the village that she lived in and she was able to correctly recall The fact that Her grandson's name the town where her father lived in personal details such as having an iron safe at home A sword hanging near the cot where she slept and a pet snake that she fed milk to so these details were later confirmed When the they were able to identify a person who lived in the village. She described that match these details That's just one example. There's many such cases so he gave mathematical strengths to his findings by Processing the data one way he did that was he gave evidence for birthmarks So he divided a human body into 160 boxes each 10 centimeter squares That's what it would be on an average size adult So there's a chance of 160 of a birthmark matching a wound Which makes a chance of one and 25 000 of two birthmarks matching A wound So he had 18 cases in which a child remembers a death by gunfire and has two birthmarks corresponding to the bullet's point of entry and exit And one of these cases the second birthmark was predicted by Stevenson and found another child's hair when they looked for it After he suggested that they would find one And these birthmarks they match too. So just just like bullet entry and exit wounds They had the first one small and the large and the exit wound is larger and more It's a different shape than the entry wound these birthmarks match that pattern And there was also phobias and behaviors and mentalities that carried over so Uh In a test batch of 387 children who claimed to remember previous life 141 of them had phobias that nearly always corresponded to the exact mode of death documented for the previous identity and child recalled and Dr. Ian Stevenson was was not some quack job. He worked for the University of Virginia He had had a stellar academic record and he carried this work out to a high standard Uh academic standard and he he has critics noted that he he put things into his presentations And and when he collected that he put things in there, which could be used to be skeptical of them So he wasn't just trying to make a compelling case. He was a real scientist just trying to see where the evidence led so Uh, if we look at different ways we could analyze the data his critics have offered various types of objections and Usually they're just sort of the typical skeptical rhetoric Like, you know, oh, it's just, you know fertile imaginations and suggestions and you know, they're more common in places where reincarnation is believed But there's various ways we can analyze to separate out Which of these is the more accurate interpretation? So dr. Ian Stevenson was quite conservative. He didn't think we can prove reincarnation is true based on this He just you know, he called one of his books 20 cases suggestive of reincarnation But nonetheless, uh, we we can conclude that this is the best interpretation. So So analyze it and see, you know, if reincarnation is true What would we expect to find versus if it's if you know the skeptical Story if or one of the skeptical stories were true. What would you be would we expect to find? So there's three or four things we can look at so Uh, to find You know three or four different types of evidence all corresponding It then becomes a better explanation to have the one explanation which explains it all rather than to have Three or four things which are all just coincidences. So to have the birthmarks to have behaviors and phobias all match and And then memories which the which are proven to be veretical meaning we can actually go and find that the things these child Are remembering are accurate And the other thing a skeptic might say is You know, uh, so he avoided doing cases of hypnosis because suggestion it can be powerful and people can imagine remembering stuff He liked cases where children spontaneously remembered something And then he would investigate those the best cases would be ones where he was able to interview the child very early on Before any contact had been made with the family of the deceased And he has several cases like that But uh, one way they analyze to see if it's just suggestion and you know later They contact the family and gain more information and that's fed to the child and the child starts reciting the information Which they receive through ordinary methods. We can rule that out by analyzing the data for So if that was the case then the case should become stronger over time as the child hears more about the deceased person Who they're claiming to have been in their past life? Their story should get stronger, but what actually happens is the stories don't get stronger Along that vector they actually get weaker over time as the child's memory fades And most of these children forget them by around the age of seven Uh, there's few cases. I go past shaman's one case where the boy remembered it Much longer. I can't remember the age He might have been 19 when dr. Ian Stevenson last spoke to him He still remembered the past life and he wished he didn't So I'll leave it there for that. There's near-death experiences One famous case is uh, muria. Uh, she died of cardiac arrest while she was Metaclinically dead She saw a she wandered around the hospital building Just you know disembodied she saw a shoe on the roof of the building which was later confirmed to be there and it's described that she Yeah, she'd come face to face with a tennis shoe poised on the window ledge and there's no explanation for how she could have seen it It was late at night when she came in Uh, she spotted details on the shoe that you couldn't actually see from inside the building You would have had to been floating around near the shoe outside the building to see it So that's one case and then the other line of argument I was going to give but I think I'll drop it for this time was from Uh fine tuning So fine tuning is evidence for intelligent desire for for god because of inference the best hypothesis Of course, it doesn't get us, you know a personal god necessarily, but it does get us an intelligent creator 30 more seconds So yeah, anyway, I guess I'll just leave it there. It's an inference to the best hypothesis We can discuss that later if they want to push back on it You got it. So thank you very much Siddharth and Arjuna We went a little bit over the opening, but like I said, it's flexible. So that's totally okay And we'll do the same for ask yourself and jack. Thanks so much ask yourself and jack for being here as well The floor is all yours for your opening Well, I mean, I invited you here jack. Do you want to do you want to set the direction? Um Yeah, well, I mean, I don't really have much of an opening. Um You know, it's because really what I would need to do is Try to understand the the nature of the hypothesis and the structure of the inference To that hypothesis, right? I take it that's the basic framework that You guys have set up is that You're trying to make some kind of explanatory inference From some phenomena um That are observed right to some positive explanation But I'm just not clear on what that explanation is right like what is the Hypothesis and question Right, so I've not really I'm see I would what I would really like to do in most cases is grant The empirical facts, right? I mean this is would typically be my strategy in A Debate say with christians about the resurrection, right? Um is to just grant that Jesus rose from the dead rather than engage in exegetical Historical and empirical debates about whether that really happened, right and see whether there really is an inference from that fact to The existence of god or the truth of christianity or what have you? um Because I think there's usually going to be conceptual issues that will save a lot of time and difficulty to focus on to Get to the heart of the matter without having to dispute the empirical facts, right? So I'm yeah, so I don't really know exactly what the explanatory hypothesis is Right And so that that's one issue. I mean the one thing that I actually know something about Or that I've debated on before is fine-tuning, right? I don't really know I mean, I haven't spent a lot of time talking about reincarnation and Nor about sort of predictions about things like the age of the universe or The age of the sun and the piranhas, right? So I don't actually know anything about that In the case of fine-tuning, I Have never really understood How there's an inference um How there's a good inference to An intelligent designer as an explanation for Um that data and so that's something I could talk About with a little bit more experience, you know, if you want to lay that out at some point Um, so yeah, so I don't really have much to say to dispute anything that you've said I'm prepared at least for the moment to grant all the empirical claims Uh as being true and I'm just sort of wondering You know what the I want to get some clarity on what the hypothesis is and what the inferential structure is Um, so you can Isaac if you want to pick up from there. I can can stop Yeah, sure. Um Well, I mean, I think that I'm fine with that kind of approach and that's also what I'm inclined towards, you know Being someone who hasn't spent time studying Things like I don't like like what are we talking about like cosmology or like any of that kind of stuff the age of the earth Or like the historicity of jesus any of any of the although we're not talking of christians here But any of that kind of empirical stuff. I don't know a whole lot about so I'm also inclined to just grant the empirics and see if Just granting that they're able to Give an argument that will get to the conclusion that god exists So And just know there's no point in me just repeating a lot of what jack just said So, why don't we just hop into it like could we maybe clarify? What exactly the inference is and you guys gave a few so let's sort of like select one to to focus on I think that would be a good idea instead of we don't we don't want to Phytoning is a good one for me if you guys are open to that because I've talked about that before but Um, but you know, it could be any awesome You got it. We'll jump into the open discussion then. Thank you very much Go ahead general fine tuning has been done a lot. So maybe we'll do the original staff and stick to the reincarnation and A cosmic staff we can we can do fine tuning another day. Obviously there's we're tired on time Okay The the you know the the inference would be You know that the we could call the knowledge which is approved by reincarnation by the re dr. Ian Stevenson's work and by The cosmic accuracies found in the piranhas we could be called in predictions so just like Einstein predicted that we would measure Uh a bend a curvature to the light as it traveled around the sun And they proved that we that that was taken as evidence because it was a prediction made by the theory That's not that every little detail of general relativity has been proven It's just that key features that have been proven and the rest of it is inferred based on that So the inference would be that the Features which we we can very empirically verify have proven accurate Therefore it's sensible to conclude that the rest of it would also be true So that's that's one line of argument Well, let's let's stop there because because I I'm just not understanding What is the explanatory hypothesis and question and how do you derive this specific? prediction from that Well, there's no other way for these ancients to have let's ask her But there's no other way for these ancients to have had this knowledge. They don't have the scientific instruments. Yeah, let's ask her So, uh as I started in presentation, I mentioned in the beginning of presentation that there are various ways to get knowledge There is empirical way Which is I called it as ascending method or the inductive method And or the other one, which is we accept knowledge as it is stated in the Vedas or Puranas Now presently I'm sure you and we will agree that we have confidence in the empirical method And I was trying to bring the same confidence in the Puranas and Vedas now to build that confidence we shared this empirical data because people have faith or trust in the empirical data and since the claim that you made That the Puranas are genuine source of knowledge or authentic source of knowledge is very Extraordinary claim we try to back it up with with the evidence which is extraordinary in nature by extraordinary I mean that it can't be a fluke or a guess And it is not post-hoc, which it has been done. It is stated in the Puranas for thousands of years. Does that make sense? Uh Jacob Not really because I'm not clear on what the explanance is So that's that's what I'm trying to get focused on. I'm trying to understand What is it that you're claiming? Explains these phenomena. What is that explanatory hypothesis and how do you derive? And a prediction from positing that Um explanatory entity or Set of facts, whatever that whatever it is. How do you generate a prediction? Of the unexplained phenomena in question It might just be worth focusing on on on the first. I mean tell me if I'm wrong here jack, but just for simplicity's sake, maybe maybe First let's just focus on the initial question there, which is just what exactly is the explanatory hypothesis Yeah, what is it that we're trying to infer to from the from the data Well, the hypothesis is that the Puranas are authentic source of knowledge What what exactly does it mean to say that the Puranas are an authentic source of knowledge? Well, okay, let me break it down. So like currently, you know, uh, suppose, uh, if you were to Want if you want to say see something in the sky you go and visit a uh, you know Say Hubble's telescope, you know, wherever they have their observatory you go there and you trust it that when you're seeing through the you know that Telescope you are seeing the stars accurately. It's not that the instrument is defective What do you what do you what do you are seeing to the instrument of all the instrument could be defective? But you have confidence that the scientists who have worked very hard They put the such so much hard labor. This instrument is giving me Correct form of knowledge, but I'm seeing there through my eyes, you know In the sky is not some movie which has been put into the telescope Somebody's trying to cheat me, but actually I'm really seeing the sky So there are different ways of gaining knowledge So one way of getting gaining knowledge is, you know, say telescope by which you're getting knowledge of the world and What I'm proposing here in our presentation that the Puranas are a perfect way of gaining knowledge As good as a telescope which gives you a vision of the sky doesn't make sense I mean, I want to say one more thing, you know, cj cj. You are a philosopher So the terms which you use You have to a little bit explain those terms all the same sometimes like easy like use some easy words because you know I'm a computer scientist I don't usually come across terms like the terms you use in your papers or scholarly papers So I would appreciate if you can always, you know, use simpler terms for Whenever you're asking questions A point of process here might just be if a word is uttered that you don't know the meaning of Just feel free to interject because we don't we don't have any interest in saying something you don't understand Right. So if if you hear a word and you don't know what it means just interrupt and ask it's fine and we'll do the same Sure. Sure. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Isaac. I appreciate. Yeah, no problem And you know, I don't I don't want to cramp jack style here if he's got something to say, but It's it's not I assume jack when you ask for the explanatory hypothesis you're looking for What explains the given like Phenomenon we're talking about here, whether it's like What we're talking about like the age of the universe or whatever the empirical claim is you're you're looking for what explains that, right? Yes, that's right and what explains what What explains the claim that the age of the universe is stated Like some some number in the Puranas. Is that the question? Yeah, so like the idea is that there's a mystery as to how um This kind of knowledge could have been had without access to modern scientific Techniques and so on right I take it that's the basic idea is that it's some Mystery as to how this could be if it's not taken to be a coincidence, right? Um, because presumably the idea is that that's somehow improbable that it's a coincidence um question is What explains this fact? Right, uh, okay. Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand. What is it that you're inferring to? but it sounds like what what the claim in question is that you're Trying to well, I'm not sure whether you and our Our juna are actually Presenting arguments for the same thesis exactly. I mean, I realize you probably have the same beliefs at least, you know with regard to your religious perspective or something like that but um, but Uh, it sounds like what you're saying is is That what you're trying to prove is that the Puranas are Reliable or something like that, which is a little bit different than maybe And Planetary hypothesis in the order Yeah, could could that be jack you cut out? Are you still speaking or No, I was done. I was saying I was done I was saying that that it's a little different from an explanatory hypothesis In the ordinary sense, right? There's a quest you could you could phrase the problem as there's a question are the Puranas reliable and then we look to see if in every case we can You know, whatever whatever um propositions we interpret as being stated by those texts we can look for corroborating evidence uh Uh And so maybe the idea is that if we can find corroborating every evidence in every case Then we ought to trust the other statements That are in the text that we don't have a way Of corroborating. I wonder if that's sort of the basic That's what I took it to be. I like I took the argument to be something like If the Puranas are Reliable and the Puranas claim that God exists then God exists the Puranas are reliable The Puranas claim that God exists therefore God exists. I assume that was the the inference. Is that right? Um, Siddharth You're muted Siddharth Yes Okay, but so I think Presumably we're not going to question the second and third premise there that the Puranas state God exists Well, I guess depending what we mean by reliable. Maybe that does need to be challenged But the first premise seems um seems suspect It's not clear to me It's not clear to me why I would accept that I'm also I'm a bit I'm a bit cautious to go um Too far from the line of reasoning that you're trying to press jack like Do I guess it depends what road we we want to Go down here. Do we want to go down the road of like looking at that argument and examining the premises? Are you are you wanting to go somewhere else here? Oh, I mean, there's a lot of different possibilities. I'm not really I'm not sure what the best way to go is see sometimes You know one analog and debates with um Uh christians who you who use like the minimal facts argument Facts about the resurrection to argue for the existence of God Is that we ought to infer That jesus is who he said he was the son of god because he um was able You cut out because he was Not hearing you there jack. Am I coming through? Can you guys hear me? Okay? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, he's cut out Um, okay. Well, I'm not sure what to say to that. Just I mean feel free to cut in whenever you're back pardon to Correctly predict seemingless events right jack. We missed. We missed heart. We missed most of that We missed most of that there could could you could you just say that again jack you cut out? Sorry? Yeah, I I think I lost my connection for a second. Um, yeah, so it in there's an analog It seems to me with a certain argument that Popular In christian apologetics, uh the minimal facts argument um, they're Okay, it sounds like it sounds like jack might be having some technical kind of argument that Jack we ought to and all right. Give me a second wi-fi so that you can hear me better Okay, okay. Um, yeah, that's fine. I can talk till jack comes back I guess where I'm at is I don't understand why we would accept the first premise of the argument Is there is there an argument for that first premise that if um If the piranhas are reliable, um And they state well Reli I guess we if we say reliable, it's going to beg the question if we say everything in the like Are you saying that the piranhas are a 100% reliable source of information? Are you muted again? Yeah Yeah, what I'm claiming what we are claiming is that that whatever parts of the piranhas are testable. They are Those are, you know, 100 reliable, but there are parts of which can't be tested just like in the theory of relativity There are parts of it which cannot be tested because they correspond to higher dimensions Like can you really see distortion of space and time? I don't think so. It's not visible There might be a weird analogy going on there though because If those other things are somehow entailed by relativity That would be distinct from if you know, einstein just included some other statement in his Thesis, I guess that wasn't directly connected to relativity. He just threw in like end unicorns exist, right? You might you might yeah, because you did you yeah, you don't want to make an analogy to a case where Some other things are entailed by um, yes, so so in this case a lot of background noise. Yeah, sorry I'm hearing that too. Does anybody have anything like uh Music James you're the only one lit up right now no No, actually I am right next to a big festival going on I'm trying to it'll be only for next five minutes So I'm trying to you know, speak into the mic and uh, please you have to tolerate Or maybe Arjun can take can can speak for a few minutes. I can read for a few minutes Okay, um, yeah, so I guess that Well, I was asking about that first premise and again I know jack was trying to talk so just feel free to cut in whenever you're back but I was asking about the first premise where we say If the piranhas are reliable and they say god exists then god exists It's kind of like an implication like p and q implies are I guess that one thing that came to my mind because I'm doubtful of that premise, right? But then one thing that came to my mind is that If we're just starting from the assumption that they're everything they say is correct Then it's going to be basically like a question begging argument because we're starting from that position, right? We're It seems like it seemed and When when I said are we saying that everything in there is correct? It sounded like siddhartha was responding by saying Well, there's some claims in there that are testable And those are correct. And then there's also other claims in there that aren't testable but you know, we ought to accept those because they're um I don't know. They're kind of they're kind of showing up in the same space as the ones that we've tested that seem correct and he drew an analogy to Einstein's theory of relativity and said that You know, we could test certain elements of that theory and not others but we accept the ones we couldn't test Because the ones that we could test turned out to be true And I just I drew a bit of a disanalogy there because in one case It seems like you're talking about Entailments of a tested theory in the other case it sounds like you're talking about a tacked on claim Where it's not obvious how it's entailed by the things we have tested right like we might want to pause it that There was a means by which the Let's say we grant that the what the piranhas predict Uh or state that we've been able to corroborate Is correct and we think that there's it's not a coincidence, right? So we think that they had some means to acquire this knowledge, um They they had access to information That we don't have access to that allowed them to To acquire this knowledge, right? Now, presumably we don't know what that is Um, what that means is but I guess there's a question as to why we would think That those abilities right would Uh also give them the ability To make other claims that we can't necessarily independently verify, right? So if they claim well god exists, right? And I mean, that's a prop, you know What what it means to say that god exists is going to be a problem in itself But putting that aside, right we might just ask well, how could they know that right and I take it that you're just saying um Well given that they were reliable on these other things We ought to believe that they would know they would have the means to know that as well I think that isaac is just sort of saying and I agree with this Why would we Sign on to that, right? Yeah, we get the argument. Yeah, okay So, I mean you can call it a logical entailment if we claim You know if it becomes apparent that there's there's no other explanation how this knowledge could have got there So they didn't have telescopes. They didn't have other methods of getting it So we that it then becomes an entailment to You know one possible explanation is divine revelation What what would the alternative explanation be in order to for that not to be entailed? You'd have to have a competing hypothesis that had more that was a better explanation No, okay. So there's there's problems with what you're doing there. So You don't just get to assert something. It's a logical entailment. You'd have to show that um and I don't I guess it sounded also like you said that Your theory just like we start from the position. That's correct. Unless something else is shown to be um Correct. Maybe you just claim kind of like that, but that seems sketchy. That just seems like You know, why would I be motivated to start from the position that your theory is correct? If you don't have give us some kind of reason to Well, I mean you can do it as a working hypothesis. I wasn't saying assume it's true As saying, you know, if it's true, what would we expect to find the kind of thing, you know So treating it like a working hypothesis is fine. And then, you know, you take a theory Behave as if it's true and see what kind of results you get by analyzing through that light And if that doesn't work, then you try a different hypothesis. So but when you talk about a logical entailment Do you think that it somehow follows from the universe being a certain age or whatever exactly the empirical claim is that turns out to be Correct. It's made in the piranhas Do you think that it somehow follows from that that god exists because do you think there's an entailment there you have to show it So Yeah, so one thing is that, you know that the puranas just want to give you some of the background information here Now puranas don't just state these facts about age of the universe or age of the sun just like plane, you know some you know some some like Extra chapters of the book it is part of the whole theology which is the whole accounts of history which are given in the piranhas so puranas are talking about, you know personalities like brahma who are managing the cosmic world and in the project Positive that it's a high dimensional world where they from where they control or from where they manage the world around us And as part of explaining the accounts of brahma They are talking about his lifetime and how how and when he created the sun or how many, you know To part in that that work. So just as he said, you know, like in Einstein's theory of relativity It's not that we can just add in another statement saying hey unicorns exist and then because Einstein's theory of relativity works and and because it says in the same paper unicorn exists, so we'll accept unicorns exist because It has to be connected to the to the to the model So the model which is there in the piranhas that model itself States or god is part of that model and that model also gives the age of the Because the the punas themselves are like a you know, uh, you can say You know very very much like interconnected account of stories and as part of those accounts. We hear these numbers Does it make sense? I think I see the No, it's okay. Go for it. I invited you here. I want I want to give you a chance to talk. So yeah Well, see I I'm I'm still a little bit confused by the the inference, right? So the idea something like God would have the God presumably By god, you do you mean some Being that is all knowing or something like that? Um, and so given that he's all knowing He would have the capacity to know these facts and so given that we don't have like say a naturalistic Explanation for how these facts could have been known. It's therefore reasonable to assume Check any one more time. I think I lost you one more time. Can you say one more time your last couple? Yeah, so I'm trying it sounds to me like the inference the inference may be something like this that We don't have a naturalistic explanation for how they could have known this But and all knowing supernatural being would have that knowledge and would be in a Be in a position to tell these people these things Presumably like the human authors of the piranhas if that's who you think wrote the those scriptures Um And so that's therefore a better explanation than any possible naturalistic explanation that we don't even have is that the idea? That is secondary the first and the primary point I'm trying to drive home is here is that that you know Before we look up for other possible alternative explanations for this data. We should look at the uh the point that That the piranhas are you know a way of getting knowledge which is reliable. So just like we Are you cut out you went on to mute? I heard just like we did Well, I'm sorry So sorry about that. That was my fault. I was trying to I muted the wrong person because I heard background noise Forgive me for that. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. No, no problem. No problem You know, I know James. You're trying to be a really good host there. You're trying to make sure that everybody has a really good experience So no problem um So going back to the point. I was saying that the the the primary point I'm trying we're trying to bring home here is that the piranhas are providing a source of knowledge which is uh Reliable and we don't necessarily need to look into methods like induction or empirical is um empiricism or rationalism for Uh, you know and providing an explanation for what is there in the piranhas the piranhas are stating something and Those people who have You know trust in the empiric method They can see the piranhas to make these these claims which are you know Extraordinary claims. They are nowhere testable. You know, you know, you can say statements Which are found the piranhas which have been found to be true by the modern scientists and thus The piranhas are should be accepted as a source of knowledge as a reliable source of knowledge That is a primary point and the secondary point which uh jack was talking about which is that You know, hey, maybe we can go the other way out that there's no You know natural explanation for the data found in the piranhas. That's a secondary point We can take that reasoning also, but that is secondary It's just said that horn Yeah, so that that sounds like we're going back to the original sort of issue which was This question that it seemed like the the thesis that at least You were trying to defend was the idea that we ought to rely on the Piranhas as a source of knowledge right um So I take it that But again, that just sort of raises the question. Are you just saying that because some things in it are true The things that we've been able to corroborate independently we therefore should think That the rest of it is The things that we aren't able to corroborate Well, we can call it. I don't know if Sid's trying to talk. He's on mute We can call it an inference to the best hypothesis too. Like, you know, if this were true What would we expect to find? We would expect to find that all the pieces of all the statements made which we can be verified Would be vindicated and that's what we find Could we maybe get a direct answer to what jack asked there? um Yeah, yeah, I mean you could say that that's what's going on that we Because we find so many things in there that are accurate that we we then make the assumption that other statements will be accurate But why why Draw that inference, right? Why not think That the text is one Which is accurate about some things And not accurate about the things that we can't test But what is it that because what what is it that is favoring the one hypothesis over the other? Let's just make that super super crystal clear. So we're getting two hypotheses on the table. Okay, so one is The pranas are reliable about both the things we've confirmed and the things they haven't confirmed The other is they're reliable about the things we've confirmed but not reliable about the things we haven't confirmed What is it that would Give us reason to accept the one hypothesis over the other I just wanted to be clear when you said that jack because you said the two hypotheses and I was worried it would get kind of lost there I just want to clarify what they are. Yeah It seems like he it seems like the evidence would be equally consistent with both Hypothesis right the wire we Yeah Why are we inferring to these other facts and and there's a there's a word There's a word we can talk about that in one sec happy to answer But there's also a word for this. I think which would be under determination, right? Yeah, this seems like there's an under determination problem and so I'm kind of wondering Resolved that So the best that can't be verified empirically can be verified subjectively So not all truths are accessible in the you know external empirical world some truths are esoteric and you access those Through subjective means so one thing that's esoteric is if I have a headache You kind of just have to take my word for I'm the only one that can you know prove my headache some headaches are They call it uh, there's there's a word with um Idiopathic meaning they have no idea what's causing it But that doesn't mean the person's not having a headache just because we can't find a neural correlate for So we can prove the other statements can be proven by the practice of christian consciousness And by following this practice you elevate your consciousness to the level where you can perceive The truths that these statements are referring to So I want to add something there just one thing. I want you to since you bought in the term under determination You know, there's this brings us to the general problem of under determination in philosophy of physics In many important cases, there is not enough Evidence to decide which of several alternative theories is true Actually, if the history of physics is any guide, none of the theories is true a physical theory is never proven true It's only proven false The longer a theory stands up to relentless experimentation. The more confidence we have that is that it is approximately correct But can never be proven to be absolutely true Absolutely, there's there's an obvious problem with with what you're saying Absolutely. There's there's an obvious problem with with what you're saying right there. Let me finish my point. Then you can Let's do more work two more words Absolute truth doesn't exist in science. It is important to be clear about what science can and cannot deliver. Yes. Go ahead Sorry about that. Okay. So this is how I'm understanding the dialectic right now Okay, so I'm understanding that there's an argument that's being given that has the form if the pranas are accurate and The pranas claim that god exists then god exists. The pranas are accurate The pranas claim that god exists therefore god exists So when we ask why we would accept that first premise It seems it seems like the response is Well, if the pranas say a bunch of accurate stuff that or a bunch of stuff we can confirm then, you know We ought to believe the stuff that we can't confirm. So then When we raise a problem with that kind of sub argument, right that argument for the first premise it seems like So we we raise the problem of saying okay. Well, there's two hypotheses here. The one is that the pranas are Correct About both things we've been able to confirm and the things we haven't been able to confirm and the other Is that they're correct about the things we've been able to confirm And incorrect about the things we haven't been able to confirm You could also create other The hypotheses here like partially correct about the things we've been able we haven't been able to confirm Like maybe some of those things are true. Some are false. Whatever. Let's just leave the two hypotheses on the table for now So then when we ask It's when we say, okay Well, it looks like we've got an underdetermination problem here What what exactly is the symmetry breaker that should cause us to favor? You know one of these theories over the other it sounds like you both gave separate ones So it sounds like arjuna. Sorry if i'm saying that wrong You got it right Oh, okay. Good. Great. I'm not confident. I'll be able to do it again, but I'll try It sounds like you're saying that the symmetry breaker is that those things that we can't verify Um, I guess like through our normal empirical methods. They can be verified subjectively And then uh, siddharth is offering a different symmetry breaker And you're saying it's about the length of time that the hypotheses have existed for So I think siddharth's just straightforwardly fails because one hypothesis isn't older than the other And then we could talk about arjunas. Maybe jack has something to say to that Sorry, how does my hypothesis fail? Can you explain one more time? Well, yeah, you you tried to break the symmetry between the two hypotheses and suggest that one That there's not an underdetermination problem in virtue of one hypothesis being older But that's why why would we think one's older? Another one being older the point I'm trying to say to you is that that if you use if you use a modern scientific methods You know, there's always a question whether the theory can ever be proven to be absolutely true because you know, modern science uses methods Which are always in questions and people ask, you know, hey, this method is, you know Is this method going to give the truth for forever and forever not really the methods get replaced by, you know Improved methods and they give different kind of knowledge. So the point I was trying to raise there was that in science you can never have Absolute truth. That's not possible. So there is always a problem of underdetermination, especially in philosophy or physics When you're when you have underdetermination between two hypotheses though You ought be agnostic, which is correct unless you I mean, don't you agree? You think surely if if the evidence equally supports two hypotheses, then it's not the case that you ought to select one over the other Well, the first hypothesis which you have there, which is that the other part of the data is incorrect and the first part of the data is correct That hypothesis is made post-talk. So when you have two hypotheses, one of which is made post-talk because the other one is You know written thousands of years ago I would take the first one like suppose if you're doing there was the age thing again That there was the age thing again, right? Why would you get to say one is older? We can say I mean, who knows someone might have had that other hypothesis back then It's not if the idea is you just you don't ever prove theories. You just knock theories down It's like, okay Well, both the theory that everything in there is correct and the theory that the stuff We've been able to confirm is correct and the other stuff may not be You know, both of those are still standing neither has been knocked down, right? So it doesn't work as a symmetry breaker No, it works because one of them is made post-talk after observing the data like, you know here Suppose I'm you know, we you know, we are in a game and in that game We're trying to figure out what is behind each door. Okay now One person says that behind door one two and three Out of the ten doors. There is something another person says, you know that After the first three doors are open. He says, you know behind first first three doors There is uh, what you call there is there is something and behind next seven doors. There is You know There is nothing I mean, let me put them through differently. I'm because uh, okay So one person claims we're playing some kind of a game there where we have ten doors And we're trying to find out some kind of hidden, you know wealth behind the doors. So The doors which can be opened are one two and three Person a comes there's two persons person a and person b Person a says that I know what's behind each door And he says that behind first three doors one two and three. There is something and behind next seven doors Are the next seven doors only door number eight has, you know wealth now After we open first three doors person b comes and he sees the three doors are open, you know And he says, you know, hey, you know, these three doors have something that's what I'm saying and behind next seven doors There is nothing now next seven doors have not been opened yet Now whom would we put our confidence in I would put my confidence in the first person because you know, he made the prediction before You know, the doors were open. So that's how science progresses science progresses when you have a theory competing theories Which theory, you know makes a prediction which can be found later to be true Of course, it can be the case that that that uh, you know, that uh, the theory which was made post talk Could be correct. But when you have two competing theories for which we have a symmetry as you rightly pointed out I will go with the one which is Predating the discovery not something which is made post talk So we can Uh, sure, I'll just make a quick point then pass to you So we can discuss post-talkness as a symmetry breaker But I just want to clarify that the initial symmetry breaker Which is how long the theory has existed without being refuted just fails. So you're adding in a second one And I was just going to ask jack Um, do you do you accept the general characterization of the dialectic that I've given here? Or are you are you seeing this differently because that's what it's looking like. Yeah, I I accepted that I it seems to me that Siddhartha may be um employing a different Or engaging in a different dialectic, right? Because the way that because otherwise I can't really understand his objection Because the way I understand it is We have these facts. Let's grant for the sake of argument that there are these predictions that uh I already like uni words. How old is the sun and Yeah, right. So they're these things that the piranha state, right? So the question then is um It seems to me that what we're doing is we're asking um What is more likely to be true? That the piranhas Are reliable about everything including stuff that we don't have independent corroboration for or corroboration at all for or the hypothesis that Um, the piranhas are reliable about everything, right? And so I just don't see how if you frame the issue that way there's even an issue of One of those hypotheses being ad hoc Right, we're just asking the question. Here's a here's a fact which we're granting for the sake of argument that these statements and the piranhas are true right so Which is the more plausible hypothesis that everything in it is true or that um You know only some things in it are true at least the things that we um Have been able to corroborate, right? But why should I think why ought I think? Right that everything in it is true. Just because some of it is true, right? That's all that I just don't see how the issue of like an ad hoc auxiliary hypothesis even arises when the Uh dialectic is presented that way so, uh, thank you, uh jack since you're a philosopher, you know, you're able to uh put things in a what do you call In a very deep manner, and I really appreciate for having you I'm not actually a philosopher by the way, but that's flattering What didn't you say something about philosophy in your introduction? I study it informally, but I I don't actually have any formal training in philosophy And these days studying informally or formally is practically the same. Yeah, this is information age No, people become computer programmers by learning online. They don't necessarily He's being modest siddharth. He's just he's being modest Okay, okay, okay That's nice to know You know, we had to debate that hypothesis right now visa philosophy Is there an undetermination problem? Yeah, so, um, you know, um Of course, you know, the since there is no objective verification of the part that, you know, that God exists, you know through empirical methods, you know, you're You know, we are up in air, you know, whether you know, how can we state that? but my whole proposition was that Uh, the puranas are a genuine source of knowledge and since they state these Numbers of this data, which is extraordinary Set of you know data not something which is, you know, uh, some usual such stuff like, you know, earth is around anything like that so One can then go ahead and invest once time in Investigating the method which are given there for verifying the claim regarding, you know, soul or regarding, you know One's connection with God because those methods are also available in the puranas If somebody were to say, you know, hey, I I need to be proven empirically that God exists before I can, uh, you know, uh, you know, I need some kind of like empirical Just for that part of the puranas also then You know, one can wait for that because as I said earlier that Modern science is progressing slowly and slowly towards absolute truth It took them 200 years to reach to a place where they have accepted this much part of the puranas And I'm hopeful given that the progress of the science in the last 200 years that in the future They will start they will indicate more parts of the puranas also in the future However, as I said, there are various ways of gaining knowledge. Like I'm sure you gain knowledge through You know, your eyes, you know, we gain knowledge through like phones. We trust them Right now I'm just what I'm seeing in the phone is a zoom debate. I trust it So similarly what I'm offering is that we don't you know question, you know, after testing in one time Hey, did I use my phone and the phone worked? Maybe, you know, and in an hour later, maybe I need to check it Maybe somebody just know some kind of like, you know, uh cheating me by putting some kind of like crazy Trojan heart software into my phone and actually I'm not this this phone is recording me or something like that You know, we can come with all kinds of crazy hypotheses And you know be afraid of using the phone what we're offering here is that you can One can go ahead and try the methods of the puranas which also offer You know techniques for subjectively verifying the claim that God exists However, on the strength of what we have shown the extraordinary data points One should have confidence in the puranas that what they are that they are a reliable source of knowledge Just in any case of any theory like as an example of theory of relativity. Can you see space and time distortion? Can you see that? But Siddharth, you're you're arguing for the premise we aren't challenging, right? So we're not we're not we're granting for the sake of argument that they're generally accurate And I should clarify here. We're assuming we're assuming you're not begging the question when you say accurate We're assuming you're saying they've been accurate about a certain amount of claims But we're not we're not challenging that second premise, right if the argument has the structure If the pranas are accurate and the pranas claim God exists then God exists the pranas are accurate The pranas claim God exists therefore God exists. We're not challenging that premise that says that they're accurate We were understanding that to me and they've been accurate about a bunch of empirical predictions We're questioning that first promise and a little side note We're not asking it doesn't have to be empirical proof for God. We'd accept an a priori argument It's just you've kind of gotten yourself into the case where Well, I guess I'll just clarify the problem. We're talking about the first premise, right? We're talking about why should we accept that if the pranas are accurate and the pranas claim God exists then God exists, right? we're saying it sound it sounds like It it seems like we can have Two hypotheses there, right one that everything's accurate and the pranas the other that some things are accurate and We're just we're still haven't heard like a symmetry breaker. I've heard three proposed the first I think was from Arjuna who suggested that the Things that can't be confirmed empirically can be confirmed through some kind of, you know, subjective like phenomenological Like something about maybe your subjective experience. Well, we can talk about that. I heard the length of time that the hypothesis has existed without being refuted symmetry breaker But that's not going to work because that's equally true of both hypotheses and then I also heard A symmetry breaker about ad hocness and we're kind of we're kind of getting into that So how exactly are you breaking the symmetry such that you're able to say there isn't an under determination problem here? Well, let's go back to the second point I don't understand why you're saying both the hypotheses have been there for the same length because the data was not there for the These data points which are discussed Before like, you know, a couple of years ago So this the second hypothesis which are proposing that the Parts of the put on us which have been shown to be correct are the correct ones and the parts which have not been shown to be correct Are the ones which we don't know about How do you arrive at that second hypothesis and how are you saying that that hypothesis has been there for longest? I feel you have made the second hypothesis on the spot. It's a post-op hypothesis Isn't that's enough. That's a different way to try to break the symmetry. That's talking about post-hocness I'm just talking about the initial way that you tried to break the symmetry which is referring to How long It has been that the idea hasn't been shown false, right? Yeah, but that's that's Yeah, that's why I was trying to say that that's sort of like the wrong way to frame the problems, right? The way to frame the problem is okay. Here we have a We you know, here we are in the modern day, right? We have the ability to Now, you know, due to the advent of modern science to actually Evaluate some of the claims in the piranhas, right? So it turns out let's grant for the sake of argument That it turns out that the piranhas makes these remarkable claims that are true given what we know through this from the science Information that you presented at at the outset, right? Let's grant that for the sake of argument, right? So we're now asking, right? Why ought I to infer that the stuff we don't have independent That we don't have corroboration for at all, right? The stuff that we haven't found a way to test yet or maybe Inherently untestable, right? Why ought we think that is true? Rather than just be more modest and think well, we know some of it is true, right? but we should be agnostic about the rest until we have a way of Evaluating that right and I You know, josh my friend josh makes an interesting point, you know Which is just that look if we and I don't mean to to be in any way insulting to the tradition I'm not an anti-theist by using this example. So it's I'm not trying to be cheekier But if we have sort of had a spider-man comic, right? It makes true statements about new york, right? Like if we you know thousands from years from now, we found a spider-man comic and we wanted to know if that was a reliable um Reliable sort of source of facts about Of that period in history or that it it seems to be reporting on, right? We might say. Oh, yeah. Well, look, we've been able to check some of the stuff about new york He gets a lot of the new york geography, right? right um, but would we be would that be reason enough to think that It was um reliable And other statements it makes that we don't have a way of testing, right? So that's sort of the question that we're raising So I don't think the issue of how old the hypothesis is is really relevant No, we're not talking about how old the bomb is that I'll let me give let me give him a couple of two examples here. So first is the theory of relativity So in the case of theory of relativity when Einstein proposed he proposed that gravity is due to space-time distortion And uh, that's something which cannot be tested. It's cannot be you know seen by eyes or by our direct means But based upon that he made a prediction and that prediction was very precise prediction And that prediction prediction was that the these stars during the time of eclipse would be deflected life on these stars would be deflected by this much distance And what was found was that Neutron theory also made a prediction and that theory made a prediction that you know that the ship would be only half of it So when the sir in 1919 was an intern was able to you know found Find the evidence that matched the Einstein's theory of relativity. His theory was accepted. It was not that was said Hey, maybe you are correct about this Prediction, but the rest of the model is you know is incorrect Here in the case of the Puranas the age of the universe is not some like Some like a hidden around some one statement as I've given in the text It is part of the whole picture. It's a prediction coming out of the whole model The model is the history of the universe which is stated in the Puranas so So that is why What I'm proposing here is that just like in the case of theory of relativity We don't question space time distortion Once we have observed evidence which can be tested Similarly, I'm offering Like in physics. We do the same thing here the Puranas. We accept it as You know a generous source of knowledge What do you think jack jack doesn't make sense? Well, I think there's a I think there's a problem. I think there's a couple at least One or two problems there. Um, okay, so I mean the thing is right Now the way I understand first of all I'm having some difficulty with the analogy with Einstein right because there what I'm understanding is the The way the abductive inference works there right is that you had a This is the way I understand the dialectic with respect to the 1919 experiments, right Was that, you know, you had a you had a reigning paradigm? Let's say which was you know, basically Newtonian notion of space time, right? And in I think it was what the 1870s or something when the mickelson morally experiments took place there was There were some anomalies That were observed in certain in those experiments which were inconsistent with the ether Hypothesis right, which was part of the Newtonian world picture at that time, right? and so Einstein thought that came up with sort of a new paradigm which Would give up on all these key aspects to the Newtonian picture, right? But could accommodate the anomalies That the mickelson morally experiments had discovered, right? So his theory was consistent with that data, right? Unlike the Newtonian picture, right, which was inconsistent with that data, right? Now what I take the 1919 experiments to The reason why that's significant in say philosophy of science, right? Why this is used as an example in philosophy science is because that had the The virtue of That that provided an additional explanatory virtue, right to favor the Einsteinian hypothesis because the the problem was That Einstein's theory Could have been interpreted as a mere just so story, right? A story that was constructed merely to accommodate the data, right? Yeah, and so what made the 19 what was remarkable about the 1919 experiments that Gave really strong abductive support to the to Einstein's theory was that it predicted something that nobody Had ever expected To find right. Nobody had ever thought of before which is gravitational lensing, right? And so 1919 They tested this people. Well, you know, I mean, I guess there's some dispute as to whether They cooked the data or not, but yeah, it's been it's been corroborated many many times since right? Yeah, we know It was pooped up actually They made some mistakes. Well a few minutes before we go into q&a. Oh, okay. We didn't get very far in this We're gonna have to do this again sometime. Um, yeah, yeah, yeah So I I take it that that that is there what you're saying is there's two So so the way I would frame the dialectic there just to put it simply is you have two explanatory hypotheses newtonian mechanics and Einstein relativity theory and one Both accommodates of the anomalous data that the newtonian picture cannot but is additionally strongly supported by Novel facts that it predicts so it has this extra virtue of predictive novelty And so on that basis alone that it correctly explains the data that newtonian Newtonian mechanics cannot And the fact that it makes novel predictions gives it Greater makes it a more explanatory virtuous theory, right? But see See now it seems like you're making a different point with that which is you're saying that We should treat the We should treat The model of the universe outlined in the piranhas As a single model, right? And so we should say that the model is likely true right um Given that That it also made novel predictions, right which we're granting for the sake of argument For now, right? We're saying. Yeah, the piranhas did make novel predictions, right? um But see the issue there is is that I'm not sure why Those predictions are not actually Detachable from the model Right, because that's why it seems like there's sort of two issues to debate right one is Should we have an inference to whether the piranhas are? um Reliable about Facts that we don't have corroboration of right And then a second issue is should we make some other explanatory inference from the fact that the piranhas were able to predict Or correctly state, you know facts about the age of the universe and the age of the sun and so on to There being a divine Being or design divine source as the best explanation for how it was able to Have access to those facts, right? And so we you know at one point earlier in this discussion. We were trying to clarify which hypothesis You know or which abductive inference we were going to target at the outset, right? And I thought we had focused Focused on this one about whether the piranhas were reliable, right? But it sounds like what you're now doing is sort of moving to the other hypothesis, which is fine You know, it's just sort of a shift Midstream To we we should take the fact that the piranhas are able to predict these remarkable things as evidence For a divine source, right? And so that's like a whole different That would I don't you know, I don't sure we're going to really have the time to cover that because We're so far down along the line in this debate But that seems like there's going to be different issues there as to how to Evaluate that That type of argument. Do you see what I'm saying? Well, I think uh One of the spider-man stories, so you know if if there was a spider-man comic which Was the author claimed was predictions about the future and you know things that were going to happen and these predictions had a probability of being true Which we could work out to be One in 10 to the 186 And we had enough of the predictions from this comic come true And there were things the author could not have known other other ways then We might start to ask ourselves if maybe this comic was somehow inspired And was making predictions about the future, you know, or you know, suppose I came that claimed I had psychic psychic abilities And you're like, oh, yeah prove it And then I made a series of predictions and the probability of me getting that series of predictions Right worked out to be one and 10 to the 186 then Maybe that would count as evidence for Uh me being psychic like there's one savant. I can't remember his name But anything he's ever read he can memorize so you ask him a question on a date You know anything any piece of history He can answer on anything. So do we assume that You know, well, he's only able to answer the questions, which he's correctly answered And that's probably everything he knows or do we assume geez he's never gotten a question Which he couldn't answer. Maybe he can answer every single question So the probabilities involved for these dates these predictions to be accurate is So great that it it irks of something divine Yeah, but that's to go back to the hypothesis that we decided not to I mean, that's to switch to a different sort of abductive argument Which is that the best explanation for these remarkable Uh The the the remarkable knowledge that the piranhas seems to Um report right is that it has a divine source Right and that that's going to be a whole other Inference than the one that that isaac had tried to outline am I right isaac Right. Yeah, I I want to make sure I'm following you actually so I understand you're talking about one argument that would just say Um, you know, I'll have to think about how to structure it but something like, you know Just in virtue of predicting these crazy things like it's it's likely that uh God exists or the piranhas are are correct or something like that. That's that's one of them Well Well, it might it might be it might be useful for us to just make sure we're understanding Because I know the line I was pressing but I'm not totally clear What I thought I thought that one is you thought so I I thought one issue was Should the fact that the piranhas is accurate about some facts be a license to to us to Should we be um licensed to us infer That it's reliable about about everything else that it says right ought we to believe that right the other things that it says, right? So that's one type of argument, right? But the other argument is going to be something like well There are these remarkable facts that we don't have a naturalistic explanation for which is that the Authors of the piranhas seem to know Things that it doesn't seem like they could have possibly known given The level of their scientific Technical knowledge and therefore the best explanation for them being able to know this is Through contact with a divine source and that therefore counts as evidence that The divine source exists, right? And so it's a kind of argument for the existence of God Or something like that, right? Those are two different to two very different types of inferences. Yeah. Yeah, definitely Those are two different do different hypotheses Sidarth, and then we we want to jump into the q&a. So I'll give you a chance to respond Thank you. Yeah, that's right. There are two different hypotheses and most of our discussion has been Talking about the the first one as you just mentioned the second one at the end, you know Just in the one line to you know to give an alternative or a secondary, you know You can say push also there, but going back to the first one, which is that the The first one where we are seeing the pranhas at a level source of knowledge and they have stated this information Which has been proven to be true and you're wondering, you know, how how would we or what like, you know As as isaq pointed out that there are two competing hypotheses and they have there's a symmetry problem there One of the hypotheses is is you know that all that all that pranhas says it's correct And the second hypothesis is that whatever we have found right now is correct or whatever we have not checked is incorrect Or if not incorrect is is questionably correct. We just we don't know Yeah, so to that I was saying that that that that's how the science science moves in in science and modern science at least in physics you You know given given two competing theories you go with a one theory which you know Makes a predictions and and uh, you know Let's me so given that given given that we have a theory which makes some predictions and there are parts of which which can't be tested You know either we can wait for eternity for All the parts we tested before we can use a theory or we use a theory and move ahead and wait for it to be proven false So what I'm suggesting is that that you know, since the pranhas have shown to be Correct on these on this data point, which are very very, you know special data points Uh, and you know very noble testable predictions just as in the case of 1919 experiment for Einstein's theory of relativity Therefore we should take it for granted that this hypothesis that the pranhas and tennis or some other should be accepted And we should go ahead and try the pranic method And of course the final verification of this point regarding does god exist has to be subjective There is no way we can provide ever an empirical method empirical proof for god exists It is it's a subjective Uh, you know experience which one has to have so but what i'm asking people or the viewers or yourself Is to try it not wait for you know, the same in the case of germ theory People waited 20 years to use the washing the hand recommendation by samu louis and because of that so many people lost their lives Now we have very short lives. So we have to take a decision. What do we want to do in our life? You want to wait for science to discover god or you want to go ahead and try the experiment gosh, yeah, I guess Well, all I was going to say is like I just don't see what the symmetry breakers I don't I don't know if jack caught it, but this is where I'm at. Okay We have this three premise argument if the pranas are accurate they claim god exists god exists They're accurate. They claim god exists. Therefore god exists We push on the first premise and we ask why should we accept this claim that if the pranas make this claim That or that if the pranas are generally accurate and they claim god exists the god exists and It's it seems I'm still just not clear when we when we say there's two Hypotheses here right like there's one that says The pranas are just right about you know, everything the claims they've made that have been tested and those that haven't and second hypothesis that says they're correct about the claims that have been tested but You know, we don't know the truth value. We don't know it What if they're correct about the others that haven't they they're incorrect or partially correct or something like that Why what breaks the symmetry such that we ought favor one of those that we're not dealing with under determination and the three things that I've heard that I've caught were the The ones that are empirically testable can be confirmed subjectively from Arjuna, which we didn't even really talk about We could talk about that probably don't have time I heard mention of how long the hypothesis has Existed without being rejected, which I I don't think I don't actually see how I don't see how they've existed for differential amounts of time So that doesn't seem like a symmetry breaker. It seems like if it's equally true of both It's not a it's not a symmetry breaker. So it's a category error to propose it as one and then the third was About ad hocness and I don't know if we really got anywhere with that But I would just what I would like is if you could just be Like perfectly clear Like without like elaborating over like multiple paragraphs, which I'm not saying to be rude I'm saying it for my own sake so I can understand if you could just be perfectly clear What is the symmetry breaker here? I just said earlier that in physics or in in modern science There are whenever a theory is proposed or at least in the case of modern physics There are parts of theories which can't be tested. There are parts of theory which can be tested which are falsifiable The puranas have parts of it which are falsifiable and they have proven to be correct. Therefore I I am arguing that they should be accepted as genuine source of knowledge I don't see how that's a symmetry breaker Well, I have an explanation for why they should all be correct Do you have an explanation for why some of the parts are correct and other parts are incorrect? That's just not answering the question I'm asking you a question. Did you answer my question? No, of course not. I'm asking you a question Why why would I let it myself be derailed like that? I don't think I don't think just to be clear. I don't it's not it's not clear I was just going to say is that I I don't think you've answered Accurate like well the question of what the symmetry breaker is right So if if I put pressure on that and you respond by trying to grill me about my view That's beside the point of as to whether you can justify on Sorry, that's that's beside the point as to whether you on your view can justify that There's an asymmetry there to stop under determination, right? That's your challenge asking me a question is beside the point I just want to know what the answer is You're the one who's proposing second hypotheses. I'm saying can you explain your second hypotheses hypotheses? I'm I'm saying that my hypotheses Which is the first one which is all the The everything said in the pronounces correct is something which is based on ancient texts Which can be checked which can be which can be studied which can be read Where is the explanation for your second hypothesis? You're saying that there are parts of it which are correct which we have just discovered and rest of it is incorrect But there is explanation for it. Why would those parts be incorrect? Maybe i'm not understanding jack are you appreciating what the symmetry breaker is here or are you also just not understanding what it's supposed to be It sounds like the idea is something like Um You've got these two different ideas, right? One is that the piranhas are Accurate about including things we haven't been able to test and the other is that um It's not necessarily accurate about The things we haven't been able to test right and he's saying well if we a We have evidence For the hypothesis that um the Piranhas were written by people who were in contact with a design divine source And that's an explanation for how they could have this knowledge, right? Uh In the first place, right And the alternative hypothesis makes no commitment To anything of that kind it just has this glaring unexplained set of facts, right? Which is how is it that the authors of these texts? um were able to to um To be in possession of that knowledge, right? And so I think I it sounds like sardar's is trying to say that because you have an explanation for How it is that they could be right about some of the things whereas in the alternative case you have no explanation For how they could be right about some of the things We should prefer the view We should prefer the first because at least you have an explanation Right, whereas the other case there's no explanation being offered at all It's just taken as unexplained. Well, they're not equal are they? Uh, well see I don't really see That as being um, a good explanation Just saying god told them Right, I don't take that to be a good explanation. Which is sort of the same objection I would make in the case of the fine-tuning data, right? Is it's very easy to say oh for any unexplained thing to say oh it has a divine explanation, right? It seems to me you're going to need something a lot more Than just sort of the fact that we don't have an explanation. We don't have a naturalist explanation Right for something To their then infer to a hypothesis To you know an omniscient being that has the capacity to reveal things Right to explain that fact, right? For me to think that that's better than any possible naturalistic explanation even one that I don't have right You're gonna need something much more than that Right It's kind of like this right like here's a way to think about it like let's say we have cheese, right? Um, well, we don't you know, we might not know Why it is that we live in a universe that? Uh is has the capacity for there to be cheese, right? There are types of universes that could have existed where there wasn't a possibility if they're being cheese, right? It would have been inconsistent with the physical laws for cheese to ever emerge So we can posit a thought that has the capacity the desire Right to produce a universe that In which cheese would eventually emerge, right? Uh, and so if I don't have an explanation for how cheese emerged, right? That is something predicted by the hypothesis, right? But it doesn't seem to me to be a good explanation No, but we're not talking about not having an explanation for something people happen to find tasty We're talking about not having an explanation for something that is mathematically Impossible otherwise one in 10 to the 186 is a really big and probability So I can't see how you're making that it is just the discrimination between the two hypothesis any other way then by having An a priori metaphysical bias against anything that's not naturalism. I hate to do this guys But just because it's worth it's It's worth pointing out jack jack isn't a naturalist We're going to jump into the q and a I hate to do this guys But just because we we have gone for a while and I know some people have been waiting for their question to get Asked for a while. So forgive me guys for doing that But want to remind you folks that our guests are linked in the description So if you want to hear more you certainly can by going to their links in the description And hey, I'm hoping to having these guys on again. It would be a blast in fact So we'd love to have them back on and so thanks for your patience To our speakers as we we try to jump into everybody's questions. So thanks everybody for your questions This one coming in from sebastian says Great win for jack and ask yourself. Please ask them what they think about nick Bostrom's simulation argument really interested in their opinion I don't really remember the argument that well. I know he argues it's more likely we're in a simulation I don't have anything interesting to say about it though. Sorry No problem and thanks for your question or I didn't give you a chance jack. Sorry about that Do you have thoughts jack? Oh, well, I I mean I It's I think the argument is very interesting Though I haven't really ever tried to really engage with it I I think there might be an issue, you know, I subscribe to a pragmatist epistemology There so I think there might be an issue with the coherence of the Simulation hypothesis on a pragmatist epistemology, but I can't really say much more than that Um, you know without looking into it more Got jillian. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from soldier of science says ask yourself I would like to donate five usd to get you to consider changing your label. Isn't everyone an agnostic Um changing my label Oh to atheists Well, I I mean I take atheists to mean someone who denies that god exists So like they affirm the proposition. It's not the case that god exists and that's actually not my view So it would be a wrong label But if you mean atheists is in like somebody lacks belief if that's the definition you're using that's that's fine I just I just don't want to confuse people. So I think agnostic is is unambiguous regardless of which construal of atheists you take You know what I'm saying when I say agnostic Juicy so your is it fair to say you're the steve mccray camp. That's a fun topic we have once in a while Or is it well, no, I think I think steve goes a bit further I think steve makes prescriptive statements about what definition we ought use and if i'm wrong He can correct me on that but I don't go that far like I think both definitions are coherent Maybe you could raise some some practical issues with one likes I think steve tries to say you're gonna count like people who believe in god But do it for irrational reasons. I forget his critique, but no, I'm not I'm not committed to that strong imposition I just know that if I say agnostic it doesn't matter which version of atheism you have in your head You'll know what I'm saying But if I say atheist people who have a given version will get the wrong impression and think I'm making a claim That's too strong. So I just go for the term that's most likely to accurately convey what I believe Gotcha and everyone needs a smile. Thank you for your question said question for siddharth and arjuna Slash theology unleashed If it could be shown that the dates in the piranhas don't match modern science Would you assume the piranhas are incorrect or modern science? Well, even to be shown that they are Not indicated or not supported by modern science Then given that depends which epistemology you follow if you follow the epistemology of empiricism Then yes purans are incorrect source of knowledge However, if you follow the other epistemology, which is that I just accept everything which is stated in the purans to be correct Then from that perspective purans will still stay, you know Correct for them. So depends, you know, what what kind of model do you follow? I think they're asking you what which you follow though Because your answer was a conditional you said well, if you have this you'd say this if you had that view You'd say that but they want to know what you'd say well, I would say that uh The the science I have what I found, you know You know that it goes through sometimes cycles performed What we have found right now is that the puranas have been, you know, totally vindicated by modern science So, you know, I feel that if for some facts puranic Data is not corroborated by modern science. I feel modern science will eventually come to agree what is said in the puranas And let's say it were just shown to be widely inaccurate Right, that's kind of what the question is getting at like say it just turned out that the scientific predictions are just bunk Like just for the sake of argument. If that were the case, would you abandon the puranas or science? I'll give you a chance to respond and then we go to the next one I was gonna answer Not necessarily because they haven't shown to be correct in so many in so many different ways Like these three three data points and many of the subjective experiences I'm pretty confident that they will come out to be true Just like in the case of the age of the universe if you had asked a question 100 years ago The opinion among the scientists was the universe is eternal at that time And you know or sometime later the opinion was that the universe was only like a couple billion years old That number those numbers are pretty hard. I know you would respond to yeah So I have more than Sorry more than just okay So those those numbers are you know pretty off then what we have to our understanding of modern science So like that in future, there's a modern scientific claim, which is very much off from the puranas I would assume that in future it will come to align itself with the puranas. Go ahead Arjun bro So it would take more than just the cosmological data in the puranas to be off for me to discredit them because That the philosophy in them is so rich and there's so much philosophical support for it And then experiential support to you know by following the practice I get the results which are promised by following those practices to the good degree that I follow them to the proper standard So, you know if chani harry christian didn't you know have effects on my consciousness as they're described And the scientific information was found wrong and philosophically it didn't stack up then I would reject it But if only the cosmological details failed then I would just say oh, maybe it's Not describing the world the way we perceive it. Maybe it's a metaphor Or maybe it's describing it from a different angle of vision than what we have access to through our senses Jumping into the next one dharma defender. Thanks for your question said to the atheist crowd Do universals exist if so, where do they exist? If not, is that universally true that there are no universals? Thanks I'm sure jack would love a question like that Not really. I mean, I don't Isn't that like a Darth question? I guess it is. Yeah. I mean, I don't really take I don't I'm not really sure that the debate between nominalists and realists about universals is actually a substantive Debate so I I really don't don't have I I'm not only do I not take a position on whether universals exist or not I'm not just even clear on whether it's a substantive question. I guess is what I would say Gotcha and juicy. Louis Barnett. Thanks for your question said jack. Have you missed in-person events because of covid? Well, there have been no events They stopped all the events. There's no, you know, there's no performing arts. There's no lectures. There's no Classes. Well, I mean the classes are all online, right? So there's nothing in person that's actually happening that I could be attending So I haven't missed anything Gotcha and ferran salas. Thanks for your for your question said siddharth and arjuna do the piranhas sound better on vinyl I don't get it He's like it's he's making fun of the name. He's saying it sounds like a band Oh Thank you very much But they said also ferran also said thanks debaters and uh to the show So thanks for your kind words ferran on behalf of all of us. We appreciate you and then brenton langle Stoke to see you dearest friend. He says if we grant that the piranhas are a reliable source What exactly does that say regarding gods or a god? Miracles aren't evidence of anything in particular except power Well, you know when you have an explanatory framework that fits with miracles miracles, therefore they count as evidence for that framework You'd need an alternative hypothesis which explain them Gotcha and by the way isaac a k a ask yourself I have been seeing in the chat people are saying we want to see darth versus jack I have seen that in the chat a lot tonight. I told you So we have to well let you know folks. I I already said it to converse when he was here I said converse people are calling for it. So we'll see if converse is able to jack. Are you good buddies with darth? Not anymore. No, but he was offered uh, he was offered 300 dollars. Um to debate me, but uh Oh, let's make it 350. I'll throw 50 and it's 350 now Okay, I don't think he's gonna accept All right, well Sorry to hear that and thank you for your question. Chris gammon. Good to see you It says for sit arth and arjuna if scientific methods improve and begin to show the universe is actually 30 billion years old Are your piranhas no longer accurate and reliable? Please consider this and give your best answer Arjun, I think I already answered it. Are you want to repeat yourself? Oh, yeah, it's kind of like the same question we already had so I would just assume that the piranhas were talking about it in a sense different from how science is talking about it so they could be describing the world from A mode of vision which we don't have accessible through our five senses and I would still accept the Statements, you know given on the piranhas based on the other lines of evidence personal experience and philosophical support Gotcha and brenton langle strikes again says validity of tax Seems beside the point brahman can never be the object of its own knowledge i.e. A knife cannot cut itself fire cannot burn itself I don't know what's there Yeah, this is some kind of a statement. Yeah A third party opinion and seferin. Thank you for your super sticker support. Appreciate it ruckster has a question Thank you very much ruckster says I am still unclear what the symmetry breaker was to deal with the issue Adjudicating the competing hypotheses. I might have missed it Do you guys feel I have some I have something to offer on that suppose you're eating a big piece of cheese You bite into the first one. It tastes good. Now you haven't tasted you haven't eaten the other part of the cheese Now there are there are two competing hypotheses You know the of course before beginning you Good and you taste you taste the small piece of it turn out to be good Now there are two competing hypotheses. One is that the rest of it is poison or the rest of it is also good Now Take your pick which one would you would you choose? You are hungry Would you wait for some mice to come and eat the rest of the cheese practically all of it before you can conclude That it is not poisonous Well, we are all hungry currently in the world. We don't have a solution to problems like envy Pollution and put on have an answer That's other we can wait for science to prove each all the parts of it or we can accept it and see changes in our lives Gotcha and thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from I want to make sure I'm pronouncing this right So forgive me if I don't but is it and to Good luck james And it cathera. Let me know if I pronounce it right, but we're not Thank you for your question said if we find The infinity gauntlet should we believe the entirety of the marvel universe If an empirical claim of your faith was shown false, what would prevent you from claiming it was only metaphorical well, I mean if we We give evidence for it and if that evidence fails then we just stop using that piece of evidence But if we have other evidence like I said, you know my personal experience of the practice would have to fail And I would have to see that the philosophy doesn't stack up Yeah as far as the infinity gauntlet goes, you know if we did find that and there was some ways in which you know It was improbable to 1 in 10 to the 186 like the data we have in the piranhas is then I'd say that's pretty impressive evidence for the marvel comic world existing Gotcha and thank you very much this question coming in from Brenton lingo says what is the puranic or puranic methods? The puranic method is uh chanting names of god in your language Daily for you know good amount of time Gotcha. Thank you very much and labs or thank you as well says for jack. What is that? What is it that is fundamentally absolute and non From which all your knowledge claims derive Get wrecked jack That won't get yet. I'll be um brahmeti paramati. Bhagwan. It is up there. This is the worst form Which says that the absolute truth has three features uh brahman paramatma and bhagwan brahman is the all-pervading You know energy of god Then the form of god which is in the heart and then there's a supreme personative godhead So these are three different levels of absolute truth and the philosophy is very deep You're welcome to study bhagwat purana. You can find it on vedabase.com if you want to know what about absolute truth You got it and jack any thoughts on that question Well, I don't think that they're necessary concrete fact, so I don't think there could be uh some kind of causal dependency um And probably not some kind of constitutive dependency either now there might be like logical dependency um So there might be like um fundamental um uh logical truths, you know, like things like laws of logic, but um Presumably there's just going to be some brute contingent facts. I don't see any getting away from that So I think that the question is actually loaded um, it presupposes that I think the question presupposes there's no brute contingency and I just take that view to be self-defeating Gotcha. Thank you very much and thanks sheep work for your question Asked was Krishna vegan and if not is that hypocritical? Krishna is a lacto-vegetarian so he would he takes dairy as well as vegetables And the cows are cared for like mothers So in the Vedic culture, there's seven mothers cow is one mother because you take the cow's milk And therefore the cow is sacred and needs to be protected. So that compassion is a critical element And because the cow is giving milk it's treated with the the greatest care Gotcha. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Brenton the langle Uh, let's see. We had to change in the screens there. Oh, there it is. Okay Two of me for a second, but Brenton stoked to have your question for Arjuna Brenton says you tried chanting Nam Myoho Rangi Kyle I think maybe he's asking to chant something nonsense and see if it gives the same result I definitely haven't tried chanting that but yeah, there's certain gods whose name I would be worried about like chance in public That's a Tibetan. That's a Tibetan Buddhist chant Nam Yoho Okay, right, right. So it's possible that chant gives a similar result Our religion sees things in quite an inclusive way. So there can be names of God and other religions that give similar results when chanted I'm I'm totally satisfied with the results I get from chanting Harry Krishna and if Nam Yoho Rangi Kyle is our names of God Even if they're not, I'm sure the Sanskrit meaning as something uplifting Or Sanskrit it might be another language. I can't remember what language the buddhas use I think I think that's a Tibetan chant Nam Yoho, right? Yeah, I think so New land Buddhism is theistic by the way, and it's very similar in its teachings to the bhakti yoga in our tradition You've got it. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it brenton and next question. Just kidding. We love brenton This is thank you very much for letting me know regarding your name Auntie Keterra, thank you very much for your question said What's the difference between how you would justify discrepancies between Vedas and science and how young earth creationists would justify discrepancies between their view and geology or science Well, we're not in the position that young earth creationists are in because we don't have a divide between what's taught in the Puranas and what science has discovered If we were in that situation and we were you know Acting in a similar way, then it would be a fair comparison But given that we have the science on our side as we're in a different situation Just to be sure because I might not have read it that well. I think they're saying like theoretically, you know, like They said how would you justify discrepancies? I think they're saying like if there were discrepancies I haven't paid much attention to young earth creationists and how they argue I do have to say I've never been impressed You know dinosaur barns were planted by the devil to trick you They're asking how you if there was a theoretical discrepancy how you would address it between discrepancy you turn your view and science He seemed to answer that clearly though He just said the science isn't all there is to like tell me if I'm wrong But you just said like if ultimately it turns out the science is wrong Then yeah, you'll you'll grant that but you still have independent reasons to accept Krishna Wasn't that the view like subject to experience and stuff Depending on the strengths of the science, you know, if the you know, if our scripture said the earth was 5000 years old I'm not sure I'd accept that because you know, just basic things about cause and effect tell us that Things are older than 5000 years. So supposing our scriptures said the earth was 5000 years old I just say I'll just interpret it metaphorically or say it must be saying something else I don't know what it's saying and I'll just focus on the bits I can confirm through my experience and through philosophy Gotcha. Thank you very much. And then pardon my missing That earlier Anton pie. Thanks for your question said how is Hinduism caste system different from apartheid The Indian caste system that goes on today is a degradation And it is despicable. It's a degradation of an older system Which is actually based on quality. So it's basically a wave structuring society where people who have certain qualities It's not by birth, you know, you could be born in any kind of Varna But if you have the qualities of a higher caste of a higher Varna, then you're You're meant to be allowed to you know live as that Varna and work as that Varna And the whole point is, you know If you have somebody who has the qualities of a suger running the kingdom Then they just pocket all the money And oh wait, hang on. Look at modern society Gotcha and thank you very much for your question. Brian Stevens Says what is one specific truth that Krishna has helped them find that can only be found through Krishna So can you say it one more time? They had asked what is one specific Truth that Krishna has helped them find that can only be found through Krishna Well, the Impressive thing that I would say can only be done given the theology being true is that the transformation of characters So, you know a prior pad came and was asked what's your mystical ability? And he said my mystical ability is that you know, I take all these degraded people and I turn them into saintly people So, you know, there's like all sorts of psychology dedicated to how to transform people But actually it's found like, you know the AA 12 step program that it's it's Intrinsically theistic and that's the most successful program at transforming people into not being alcoholic So similarly in the Harry Krishna movement There's a big track record and impressive stories of people's lives being turned around And my life has definitely been uplifted by the practice and I don't think you could just do that with wishful thinking Wishful thinking doesn't make people give up being a drug addict Gotcha, Richard gray. Thanks for your question said does the historical evidence for Jesus and his claims of being the son of god disprove Hinduism I would think that all of you would say no Or well, maybe they're saying if you granted that those arguments for Jesus were sound Or strong was I saying if Jesus is reincarnated and that proves Christianity. Does that disprove Krishna consciousness? Uh, I think they're maybe saying like if you granted the minimal facts argument for the resurrection that had come up earlier in the debate Let's say I think they're saying like would that disprove Hinduism? No, because the version of Hinduism that we follow is called Vaishnavism or Tritanya Vaishnavism is very inclusivist So god is all loving it said that he descends wherever and wherever there's a decline in religious practices and he comes to You know Re-invigorate the religious teachings. So the idea that he came Or sent someone, you know, whether you want to accept Jesus as god or as sent by god Either one is fine by us He's it's consistent with that thing of god expressing his compassion and giving people all of the world opportunities to be uplifted in god consciousness Gotcha, and folks so sorry just if you uh, let's see we have a shortage of questions for Isaac and jack So thanks for your patience guys. Uh, we have many for uh, siddharth and arjuna So we'll ask just two more and then uh, we we've got to wrap up But we do appreciate your questions big thang bruce wane said for That must be that they're asking uh, arjuna and siddharth. They say Are Claims sufficient evidence for other gods I don't understand the question I oh, I know as our claims evidence, you know, if I claim the great pumpkin exists Is that evidence that the great pumpkin exists? Maybe that's the question I think uh, that that's roughly it. Yeah Well, I mean my my problem with that type of reasoning is, you know Let's define the the great pumpkin, you know has all the qualities god has only it's a pumpkin instead of christian Well, then we're not arguing over where the god exists. We're just arguing details about god So it's a say I was that evidence of my god versus your god is kind of philosophically Uh inaccurate when really we're just, you know, there's a motor vehicle. Is it a fort or is it a hundai? That's kind of the debate. It's not, you know, which motor vehicle, you know Is there a motor vehicle is there this one? Oh, I guess that example doesn't quite work there But with you know with god, we're talking about one thing, you know, like the podium creator argument You know the guy who created the podium is the christian or is he a pumpkin? That's kind of the debate. So we we've already accepted that god exists at that point There's philosophical arguments that get you to a single divinity And yeah, I think there's there's philosophical arguments for christian because god is the greatest Being imaginable and christian fits that definition better than a pumpkin You got it and thank you very much last question. Appreciate it. Platium Thanks so much for helping us out in the discord not helping Platium and larry let's do everything. And so I want to say huge Thank you to people like Platium larry let's and others who have helped run the modern day debate discord and uh and like I said Fully have run it. So ask could you ask what piranha translates to? I think they're asking if I can ask that so in other words, what does piranha translate to? Ancient history You got it. So thank you very much gentlemen I sincerely appreciate it. I know there's a you know, we haven't gotten as deep as we I think that all of us would have liked to have and apologize for that But we do really want to say thank you guys You guys honestly, you're the lifeblood of the channel. You make it fun. And so sincerely Isaac Jack Siddharth and Arjuna. It's been a true pleasure to have you guys on Thanks James. Oh, thank you and thanks guys for coming. I liked this discussion Thank you Absolutely. Thank you. I wish I wish we could go more deeper. It was going Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We weren't really able to do justice to Evaluating the the arguments guys who are trying to make so I you know, that's probably our failure I always follow up. You can always you can always come by the server if you want to talk more We can we can make that happen. That's yeah. Yeah, send me some links. We could we could do another one on my channel too Absolutely We're a relatively shorter format and so that makes it harder on you guys And so we appreciate you guys and want to let you know in the audience All of our guests are linked in the description If jack has a link in the future, I'll add that as well And so you can hear plenty more or replay more listen plenty more from our guests They are in the description whether you're listening via YouTube or via the podcast and so one last thank you to our guests and thank you everybody For all of your questions and just hanging out here the more the merrier and we likely said Hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you come from so thanks again to our guests And I will be back in just a moment with a quick post credit scene about upcoming debates everybody So stick around for that. Thanks everybody and be back in just a moment Thanks everybody That was an epic one and like we had said our guests are linked in the description if you'd like to hear more What are you waiting for those links are right there at the very top of the description box Whether you're listening via youtube or podcast and so thank you so much everybody for all of your support And thank you so much if you are listening via podcast One reminds you if you happen to give us a rating that helps us a lot We really do appreciate that and folks. I'm just excited. I was I got to be honest Well, first, let me say hi to you and then I'll tell you what I was a little bit nervous about Thank you everybody for being with us sonny deville jelly bones marion grand bruhheim Let me know if i'm pronouncing it right vesper realist realist de truth glad you made it friend says hello Pending that to the top of the chat. We appreciate you being here and saying hello my friend soldier of science Good to see you again grimlock says 150 likes and james will do a shoe reveal. Oh you guys that's for real Oh, I would I have like the the the best shoes that I have to show you They're tremendous shoes people are saying they're the best and larry less Thanks for being with us. I appreciate your help on the discord man When I say help, that's an understatement. I appreciate that you guys do the discord because I uh an embarrassingly absent Discorter but really do appreciate you guys and so we hope that the discord for modern day debate is fun Um, I I wish that like we had that I could like offer more and like try to pour into it in terms of trying to add Like to make it cooler. Uh, I I don't It's so I just appreciate you guys It's um, I'm like doing as much as I can for modern day debate and I love it, but I also like Sometimes I'm like, okay. I've got to do like school work and everything and so it's it's a hard one But we appreciate you guys are the biggest supporters and I just hope you know how much I appreciate that folks We have a dream of vision of hosting fair debates on a level playing field so everybody can make their case And also making the world a better place. And so we do appreciate you guys As you help us in fulfilling that vision. Thank you guys that you guys have just been so supportive and hey Despite all the doubters my dear friends, we are going to do that and it's going to be epic You're going to see it and so we are excited about the future. So thank you guys and the thorn in my side Thanks for being with us says thanks everyone. Thank you the thorn in my side And rel phallus. Good to see you again jg glad you're here nick Boysmen you thanks for being with us. I hope I'm pronouncing it right. Let me know dharma defender Glad you're here with us and clinton rosh Good to see you again. Thanks for being with us and yes. Yes. I'm pumped though. It's always cool It's a fun to chat and so Brenton langel He's always at it. He's always got energy. We love it. I love I always enjoy it my dearest friend brenton there he is and Let's see best top Glad you're here better late than never buddy marky. Oh, thanks for hanging out with us And oh xd says I was doing latin homework, but I remembered about this debate Thanks for coming in and checking us out even with your latin homework. I was doing work today. Um Usually I take saturday off. It's usually my only day off But I actually work today because I've got like this, uh big paper That i'm working on finalizing so I sympathize i'm with you and john smith. Good to see you again slam rn. Good to see you Oh, man. Long time supporter. Thanks for always being so positive slam rn seriously We appreciate you more than you know and Louis Barnett good to see you and then anti cathara Let me know if I've said that right. I hopefully We're just glad you're here. Thanks for being with us and yes, I'm pumped though you guys jelly bones Stoked things. I appreciate your kind words and brian stevens. Thanks for your support says smash that like button Thanks for that. I appreciate that brian stevens. Your support means a lot the 40 year old vegan glad you are here My friend said later be kind be vegan. It's simple It's it's easy simple really. Thank you for being with us my friend and master optics Thanks for being with us as so james arjuna believing in christina we're like we're kind of like flexible with our titles but Thank you for being with us my dearest megan satanis. Good to see you again As well as ash gosh bhajash says I wish mdd wasn't usually a shorter format. It's true. We are I admit it guys We are a little bit shorter than some of the debate channels out there and so that can be like man. I wanted to hear more But thanks for your patience as uh, we appreciate you guys being patient with that and uh, maybe in the future Like as I have more time kind of free up Maybe we will go for longer formats reality hits. Good to see you. Thanks for being with us my dear friend We hope you're doing well the shire crier says great discussion. Thanks for your positive feedback friend. That's encouraging I enjoyed it as well and we really appreciate our guests who are linked in the description and Brian steven says great debate. Thanks for that positive feedback as well Brian stevens now I want to let you guys know we want to know what you're like pumped about in terms of like topics things that you want to like see on the show I want your hand to be on the steering wheel and so That for me is like we want you to feel like listen to and I'm actually like Host things on what you'd actually enjoy and so that feedback we do appreciate that you guys as you let us know and so One of the things is that I think about putting out a survey But there I know this is a small percent because I know 95 99 Probably percent of you would be honest on a survey But I worry that if I put out a survey and I was like what topics do you want to see? I worry that there might be some zealots that would like Find a way to vote for the survey 20 times and then be like oh, I want to see this topic really bad and you know But so I that's but we're I'm maybe going to put together a survey and put it out And like I said, I know 99 of you would not do that. So please don't be insulted I'm only trying to insult the 1% but I I think there are like 1% of people like they would probably try to abuse the survey But thanks for being with us. Squatch talk. Thanks for your encouragement says I want your channel to grow Well, thank you. It's a community effort. And so we just appreciate you guys like I always tell people it's like because I'm that's the like weird thing about hosting a debate channel Is it's like I never really get to Unless I you know, I could debate on the channel and then I could put my views forward But otherwise it's kind of like it feels truly like a community channel because it's Like I I never and I promise to keep this promise We'll never put out a video. That's like Hey, here's my position on this and you know going like partisan on you guys I promise we will always be a non-partisan channel as long as this channel exists Louis Barnett. Thanks for being with us. So thank you for having this debate on a weekend So I could watch it live much love from the uk. Thanks. Louis. It's appreciated. It seriously means a lot to me I love when we hear from people from across the world. We're like, oh, I listen and it's fun That's seriously encouraging to me. It's so cool that people from around the world Uh Enjoy it and you know, it's just like it feels good. It's just like, hey, thanks so much for hanging out with us Whether you be american or from england. I'm trying to think of like the most common Uh, so we have a I think amer- you know, the us we have most of our viewers, uh, even on the podcast too um, and then And that makes sense because most of people hear about the podcast from here youtube but canada Is another big one england's usually a big one We have viewers in australia and thanks for hanging out with us and watching us from those countries as well. And so Thanks slam our end who says don't forget to hit hit like on the way out Thank you for that and diverse bakery. Thanks so much. We appreciate you being with us And so yeah, i'm pumped though you guys Thanks tiger jinn for your positive feedback says I love that you genuinely to keep this platform neutral. Thank you for that That seriously means a lot and that's the plan forever folks If I ever want to do a channel where I like share my views or like try to make a case for something I'll either be Debating on this channel where there's a moderator. So it's fair and balanced, uh, or I'll just start a different channel where I might you know, eventually share my own views, but I love This doing this channel is so fun that I don't feel compelled to start my own channel In terms of like, you know, trying to put out my own views I think more power to those people who do like, you know, I don't like there's anything wrong with obviously But for me, I just like love doing modern day debate and moderating and all this And so just getting to hang out with you afterwards in the chat, too Thank you guys for your support. Seriously do appreciate it. Now. We are considering I'm hoping to hear back from dr. Craig. I'd reached out to william lane. Craig. What a potential debate between richard carrier Um, whether or not that happens, I don't know and I'm starting to kind of be like, I don't know if that's actually gonna happen But that would be our potential next Kickstarter event and Let's see Very funny master optics and uh, but yeah, I'm pumped you guys and z native says new zealand present Thanks so much for being with us. Oh and then anti anti kathira. Thank you so much says luxembourg here That is really cool. Thanks for oh, it's it's awesome. I love just reading that. That's so cool and let's see Dave versus bart k versus vegan gains on the vegan diet. I don't know what bart k is but I'm like, uh Oh, maybe I'm open to it. But yeah Oh seferan from ireland. That is so cool. Thanks so much for being with us my friend and then and thanks for staying up late with us and tiger jinn, uh, thanks for your feedback and then Cep 2 And then plet. Thank you for being with us my dear friend. We hope you're doing well And yeah, we are excited you guys. I am just pumped You guys see this debate poster right here. This is going to be epic. It's on friday night So hit that subscribe button if you haven't already and that way you will get a notification for it As it's going to be epic live on friday night. Talk about a friday night party It's going to be fun. You guys I'm pumped for it. And so that's the one nice thing. It's like, hey like We're uh, enjoying each other's company and you guys make it fun. So thank you guys for making it enjoyable Thanks, matthew simard says thanks for your dedication. Thank you. That seriously means a lot I love that positive feedback. It seriously does encourage me you guys. I love it. It means a lot And so yeah, I'm pumped though you guys I have to tell you that World view detective. Thanks for your question said what would be the topic for craig versus carrier? Uh, it was going to be whether or not god exists because they've never debated that topic But uh, they have debated the resurrection And so I'm hoping I'm like I'm a little surprised. I wouldn't hear back like I told him like, hey, you're like, yeah Like it'd be awesome. But I don't know. Maybe they're just late. Who knows Jai rom. Thanks for being with us my friend. We hope you're doing well hannah anderson a long time Friend of the channel. Thank you hannah for being a supporter means a lot and yeah, I'm pumped though you guys just that I was uh, what I was going to tell you before is I was a little when we first started the podcast I was afraid I was like, is this ever gonna like Have anybody like check out the podcast? Uh, and so, you know, I was uploading the podcast for a while And I started I think it was in june Uh, so it's already been what what would that be? No, I think I started back in like April or may Uh, maybe may so what would that be? That'd be like seven months plus another two. So Um, nine months or so March april Yeah, so about nine months I'm like, wow may is kind of coming quick here pretty pretty fast But yeah, I have been so encouraged So thank you guys so much for your support of the podcast and I would encourage you You guys we put out some epic ones Let me read you some of the titles if because one of the things that you might not know Is that our podcast we also have like the the new debates that we have But you might not know that we also Put debates in there that are throwback thursday debates So on thursday We always put a new debate in there or you could say Kind of a new it's new to podcast We put that in there each thursday and I want to tell you the last several that we've been putting in there I've just been really juicy ones. And so I want to read you some of the titles. So It's been a long time Almost three years. What has it been? Yeah, it's been about two and a half years Since we had apologia on and so we have a debate with apologia versus samuel nasan That I just put on the podcast on thursday and that was a great debate. Like they were both really well prepared They were both just friendly fellows And so I highly encourage you check that out on the podcast the throwback thursday debates on there are always fun as we basically we try to like go back for like some of the more fun juicy debates And it's just convenient because if you don't have youtube premium, but you still want to listen to modern day, but modern day debate Um, without using your data It's nice. There's like, hey, you can just download for example I'm looking at the last three. The last three were epic The last three debates that we uploaded onto the modern day debate podcast were marked riz dale versus darth dawkins That was a fun one and also On throwback thursday, I mentioned the debate on whether or not jesus rose from the dead between apologia and samuel nasan So that was all the way back on september 13th 2018 when we originally aired that debate. So that was a while back and also exciting though We just released this one. This is even more juicy you guys just the juiciness just keeps going up is the is the uh religious text of isl a m Dangerous and that was against nadir amed and then apostate prophet That was a controversial and fun debate you guys And so that's another one on the podcast that we just uploaded. So that was a really fun one And so yeah, I would just say I hope that's valuable to you for long trips like maybe uh, you're You have to maybe it's a long commute in the mornings or maybe you're going on a road trip or whatever Or maybe it's like while you work out or while you're cleaning the house It's just nice to have something to listen to and so That's one cool thing. So I've been like I said, just thanks for your support of the podcast you guys That means a lot and then thanks for your ratings too Make it say tennis that are you planning any future kickstarter debates? Yeah, that's the only one that I uh mentioned is the only one that I think might happen and now I'm starting to doubt it I was like really thinking it would but uh, usually I could have sworn that usually like reasonable faith would get back to me faster Brooke shavis thanks shavez. Thank you for being with us says can I be a moderator here since I'm a mod on twitch too? Yes, you can brook and thank you for being willing to do that. The only uh, yeah the only trick is The only uh, let's see you could say the only thing we ask of you is to do a uh Do a favor by always wiping out any sort of hate speech We always want people to feel welcome and so we're like, gosh, we have hate speech going on in the chat That's not going to make people feel welcome. So we do that's the only thing that we're hard on where we just don't give a warning We're just like sayonara, baby and otherwise Even when brenton is in the chat and he's like man, you guys got to try out this new type of soy And we're like, okay brenton seriously, but we still let him say it without erasing his messages So yeah, but we're excited and so we love brenton brenton. I'm pumped about the possibility I told you guys that there might be a debate between brenton And this is not it's not confirmed, but we might have a future debate with brenton against A big name youtuber that he debated in the past actually so it wouldn't be that surprising Well, it's surprising. It's cool. It's epic, but it's interesting because they have a history you could say and sabin Thank you for being with us. Am I pronouncing it right? Let me know, but we're glad you're here sabin And so thank you guys so much for all of your support. We love you guys. Thanks everybody Thanks brook for your help moderating and oh my gosh. I'm so sorry twitch chat that I've been so behind How brook said are you going to get emoti emotes for us here in the in twitch? Let me figure out how to do that. I heard that it's a cool trick you can do in twitch and so Thank you for reminding me about that and it also reminds me that hey you oh Yes, you guys I am excited and I appreciate you guys Let's see leary. Let's say if I come on for a debate as let's farm you should mod that account too It's the one I use on discord. Thanks for letting me know about that leary. Just remind me and I'm happy to and Steve mccray manager says g-man I don't know what that means I highly doubt you're steve mccray's manager Um, that's so funny. Um, I'm sure you're teasing them But thanks c e p2 plet who says thanks james. Thanks so much friend. That means a lot to me. I appreciate your kindness Day versus j dire versus cosmic skeptic on atheism or veganism. That'd be epic I mean if if j dire wanted to do veganism, I'd be open to it. I don't know if he does that topic, but Thanks, sam rns who says have a great night pal appreciate it you too And soldier of science says if I have a great idea for a website for you guys Imagine a site where your users have an avatar that can join into different rooms and debate with each other While watching debates that would be epic. I actually I noticed that during the debates like so many people are debating each other in the chat That's awesome. But yeah, I am pumped you guys. I'm excited. Oh and then That reminds me I almost forgot our twitch. I have just posted our twitch in The chat and so if you prefer twitch over youtube That is pinned at the top of the chat. And so that way like we're pumped that we love party and on twitch as well And so leonaldo chat tree. Thanks for being with us my dear friend And soldier of science says and people can actually purchase items to smash each other with that's funny That would be epic foreign objects. That's right. That's funny Did we get to 150 likes because I I want to show you these shoes. I am excited about them We're close. You guys we're at 147 likes roi lindsey says j dire versus g jump That would be epic. I don't know if j dire. Do they get along? Or do they not I can't I can't remember. Did they have like a fight or something? But um Louis Barnett says I'd love to hear a debate about whether gambling should be legal. That would be cool That's a fun debate. It's an interesting like ethical topic too about like The potential of like one you obviously want to reduce harm And that's why you're considering making it illegal. Um, and then also Uh, you're you're trying to like not uh, infringe on like liberties too So that's also another like ethical argument the opposite direction. So that's cool Brooke Chavez says twitch is very chill and laid back I am glad to hear that. Yeah, it is like kind of like a It's like a more like You're able to read the chats because once in a while on the youtube channel The chat is flying so fast that you can't even read the messages because it's so fast But roy lindsey says they're just watching that dumpster fire from a few months ago both j and t jump were terror I don't I don't want to slam them when they're not around but uh Rural view detective said they debated on kill stream a while back. You can find it on t jump's channel That sounds interesting and juicy. I think I had seen that before and then Let's see Alex Gordon says tom and j don't like each other, but they probably debate again Hey, maybe yeah, that's uh, thanks for letting me know that by the way, alex gordon and good to see you alex gordon 152 legs. I'm stoked you guys. Okay. I'll show you these shoes Um, because I know that you guys are nasty foot fetish type people But I love these shoes. I'm usually like a cheapskate As in like I one time walmart had a sale of shoes on dollars or uh On sale for three dollars a piece And I bought like 10 pair like I was like, oh my gosh three dollars for sneakers. You know, I was like I jumped at it And uh, they're not the most comfortable. Um, but you know My girlfriend frankie she's super sweet and she was like james like you should get some comfortable running shoes And that way your feet feel good while you're running and they don't feel like they're in pain Because some walmart shoes aren't super comfortable But you know most of them are but long story short We uh, yeah, basically frankie bought me these that's her name She's really sweet and so she bought me these nicer shoes that are comfy and it's just like oh, I love them So if you, you know, have a foot fetish, you know, here you go, but thank you louis Presciato, thanks so much for your super chat. My friend says do you think you could get professor david back? I think it's possible, but uh professor david is looking for like big fish like big influencers And it's tough to find you know, it's tough to find too many. Uh But let me look i'm sure we could find somebody because that would be fun um So i'd be open to that that'd be cool and i'm excited about it and Yeah, that's a possibility, but I remember it because yeah, so I'd asked him, you know a few names And he's like i'm looking for like kind of like those bigger debates and so which totally makes sense He's like hey, I don't blame you like that makes sense. And so, um Let's see uh, alex gordon thinks you're kind words. So it's good to see you james great debate as usual. Appreciate that friend and Let's see Oh Yeah, you guys are so funny leonaldo chat tree. Thanks for your kind words about those shoes. Appreciate that buddy and uh, let's see I in uh making satanist things saying I need a pair of shoes in that style. It's nice of you But yeah, I appreciate you guys Making satanist prefers them a little more girly. Yeah But thank you guys so much for hanging out with us. Thanks for all your love and support. I love you guys Thank you guys for making this fun. It's honestly, it's always a blast. I just love doing this and so Thank you guys so much for all of your support. Thanks for everything everybody and we were excited We might have a debate on monday that one. I'm still waiting to hear back and then As mentioned though this debate on friday It's going to be epic. So we're excited to see you for that one It's going to be a big friday night party and so thanks everybody and hope to see you again We hope you keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care everybody