 everybody today we're starting right for another epic debate a question we've all wondered for so long whether or not Tom junk knows anything just kidding let me tell you first couple things one I woke up this morning and I have to say no joke Tom you guys won't believe me I was thinking I'm so thankful for real because Tom and I have worked together closely for about a year and a half and I'm not just saying this to say it I have never had any sort of lapse of trust in Tom I've got to hand it to him you have to give credit where it's due Tom is one of the most trustworthy people I've honestly I've got to say I'm really thankful to have worked with Tom Godless girl as well I've never had any like issues of like trust with her either but we've only worked together a few months in the time that I've worked with Tom we've worked a lot and traveled together like all sorts of stuff so I just have to say I am so thankful for Tom and so it'll be an exciting debate folks and want to let you know as well if it's your first time here consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up so for example tomorrow afternoon an evolution debate between standing for truth on one team with his partner John Maddox against team skeptic and fight the Flat Earth on the other team so that should be juicy and want to let you know both of the speakers are really thankful to have both of our guests just so you know in case you did know Godless we did just lose your cam but want to let you know as well folks if you happen to have a question for the Q&A fire that old question into the live chat and it'll make it easier for me if you tag me with at modern a debate to be sure that I get everything I need to know about the Q&A and I'm really thankful to have both of our guests just so you know in case you did know Godless we did just lose your cam but want to let you know as well be sure that I get every single question in that Q&A list also Super Chat is an option if you want to do a Super Chat all you have to do is fired into the old live chat as well and it also gives you the opportunity to make a comment toward one of the speakers and it'll push your question or comment to the top of the list for the Q&A so we are going to jump into this having our guest Godless girl go first followed by Tom in a standard format of flexible 10 minute openings followed by an hour of open conversation and finally 30 minutes of Q&A want to let you know thank you Q both Godless girl and Tom jump want to say thank you very much we appreciate you guys being here it's a true pleasure to have you thank you guys you guys hear me you can hear me yes so the debate topic is does Tom know anything the first you know I attack my fellow atheists more than like Christians and stuff because the first thing is us the first difference I noticed between me and them is I would see them debating presuppositionalists and their responses were so poor I don't think that T jump did bad in a debate with dark Dawkins or anything but it's just that they're they often think that they're winning against the presuppositionalists their responses are so poor and I since then diverted from them so I'm like I'm an epistemological nihilist because I define knowledge as justify true belief and then because of get your cases it's I add the further condition because there's a problem with that definition so get your cases justify true belief plus the further proposition that there are the further condition that there exists no true proposition that if known by the agent it would no longer be justified and bleeding acts so I don't think you can have any justified true beliefs the extra condition doesn't even matter I don't think you can have any justified true beliefs because any justification is going to require an inference and an inference is going to presuppose that your reasoning is reliable and then but you can never know that your reasoning can never know your reasoning is reliable you never justify your reasoning being reliable is you then when you try to do that be relying on your reasoning which would be begging the question so like my question for Tom tonight is what justified true beliefs you have that doesn't rely on your reasoning and then in turn you use your reasoning to justify your reasoning being reliable like do you know that your reasoning is reliable like lots of people try to say oh well I start with axioms I don't know what Tom's decision is but I start with axioms which are just like that their reasoning is reliable and law is not true and that but axioms by definition are arbitrary unjustified beliefs look like their entire world you rest upon arbitrary unjustified assumptions so and they're just all collapses into like the foundation is unjustified beliefs of the whole world you just collapses in on itself into absurdity I don't I don't know so like he also relied like rely on every fucking word that comes out of his mouth and a presuppose that laws are logic are true but how does he know the laws of logic are true I don't know so go ahead all right I think there for I am I can know I exist wait that's the opening statement I was just you asked a question like what can I know I can know I exist I respond after you we're supposed to do a crossfire after you give your open statement of you're supposed to tell me what you know and how you know it yeah I know I exist I think before I am because I experience it that way so you're not you don't want to give a opening statement I guess I got an argument you have like a you have an argument that is an argument I can know something I know I exist the first premise I can know something premise one I can know something premise two I can know I exist premise three I have an experience of existence therefore I can know I exist wait you said that promise to your first promises I know something and the second well what's the argument for the first premise the premises wait what so so so again what's the conclusion I I exist I know I exist wait that that's but that's not not even a valid argument because the first promise is the conclude the first promise is so none of that matters so again so my argument is I I know I exist you say you have you have a I'm not even I'm not going to waste any time on set up premises none at all I don't even care well I know I just did you but wait do you understand that I know I exist and the first I can go through I can go through I know something you understand that that's not even not a lot of what we might do just to be sure we don't go out the rails too early so we might just we'll give Tom a couple of minutes to explain the kind of the background on what he's saying and then I promise we'll come right back to you godless girl yeah so I'm always no time on arguments on setting up a actual formal system because it's a waste of time it's just linguistic gibberish garbage so obviously I can know I exist I have an experience of my existence that's all I need to know that's something I know I have justified true belief for that and it's that's enough I don't need anything else I can know that is that are you done yep that's it so you're saying a syllogism like I'm not going to waste any time on syllogism it's a waste of time but that's that's just absurd to say like that's no yes it's always a time so maybe it's just because you're not able to form them well to get out of doing that like syllogism you're on a debate I let you finish sir debate show and you're I asked you for an argument and you're not going to have one that's in valological form what I gave you an argument excuse me sir I'm not finished I let you finish okay your I asked you for the syllogism and your first premise was I can know things and your conclusion was I know I exist so you're that's a classical form of begging the question you're it's not even a valid argument let alone sound because you disagree that the the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises no I just half asked that so I took no effort in that whatsoever so you admit that so you admit that it wasn't valid it probably wasn't I took zero percent effort to think about it so it's not relevant to my argument is I can know I don't have an argument you say you know I do you don't need to put it you don't wait wait I'll let you finish I let you finish I let you finish so an argument you don't have to phrase an argument from an premise conclusion format for it to be an argument that's not required it's a different way to phrase an argument so my argument is I know I exist I think the 4 a.m. done I don't need to phrase and premise conclusion format that's not relevant that's not an argument is it a claim I think you have to let him finish no no the argument is I can know can know something I think before I am I know I exist so so I'm saying I you said you said I can't know something I say I do know something and I do know something here's the evidence I think before I am yeah you're saying you're saying that what's the argument for that I just gave it to you what is it I think before I know I exist I think before I am that's evidence so wait is are you making an inference inference what do you mean inference like a chain of reasoning is there a chain of reasoning going on or is it just an assertion there's a chain of reasoning in the sentence but the chain of reason isn't required from my single sentence okay so is it relying on your reasoning I mean there's going to be a bunch of things so you're not reasoning it to be true so how are you just leaving it because I experience it so the reasoning is an inference in order to make an inference you reasoning it no no no so the reasoning describes the fact that I experience it but the reasoning isn't contingent on okay so like if I say this is a cup I mean that presupposes English because I'm using the English language like this is a cup but none of the English language is required for the cup to exist the cup exists regardless of the English language so I'm not presupposing English to make the cup exist I'm just presupposing English to describe the cup's existence so I something that's definitely true no so I'm saying so when I say I think that's a description of the fact I have an experience of my existence the argument I think the forearm presupposing you're not reason you're not reasoning it no that's a description that's a description of the fact yes but again that's all descriptive none of that's contingent on reasoning that's true without the reasoning is it a justified belief or not yes but again that's descriptive so that's a Relevance to the fact it's true. It's a relevant scriptive as opposed to what rescriptive. Yes. So so for example, it's the fact I exist I experience nobody's mentioned So again, remember it take the cup example like if I say this is a cup the fact It's a cup and it exists is not contingent on the English. I Go back so the fact that I use the English language to say this is a cup is irrelevant You can just get rid of the English language It's still going to be here. You don't need the sentence. This is a cup for this cup to exist. How do you know me? Wait, wait, so the same thing applies to I think therefore I am I think therefore I am is a statement Using logic, but all of that is irrelevant Stop interrupting so the logic is irrelevant and get rid of logic get rid of reasoning get rid of all of that stuff I exist is from the fact I experience it and I'm using logic to just describe the logic is irrelevant You don't need the logic for it to be true It's true because I don't think that I think therefore I am presuppose is the law of non-contradiction So you don't think it presupposes that it can it it's impossible You don't think that it presupposes that it's impossible for what you're saying to both be true and not be true at the same time It doesn't presuppose anything. It's just I experience so what you're saying could be false You're saying you don't you're not presupposing that it can't be both true and false at the same time So it could be false. So I'm not presupposing anything. I experience it. That's that simple. Could it be false? No, I experience it. Okay. How do you know it can't be false? Descriptions that's a description. So that's that's presupposing like the law of non-contradiction and you're saying that Remember remember I already I already You are saying that it's not presupposing Is it presupposing that it can't be both false at the same time presuppose anything I already Okay, so then it could be false. No, you have your head up your ass. Let me explain it to you again So you're gonna wait This is a cup that English sentence presupposes English, but the sentence doesn't matter to the Remember so the point of the analogy is the English doesn't matter to the cup the cup doesn't care about the English The cup doesn't exist because of the English sentence exists You can get rid of the English even though I'm Describe the cup the English sentence is not required for the cup to exist Does it mean something for the cup to exist? Does it mean something in language? We'd use the words to mean something. Yes, whether it's with language or not Does it does that's how words work? Descriptions does it presuppose meaning? No, that is just a description So the cups existence is not If you're not saying that it presupposes that it means anything to say the cup Then I don't even understand what you're saying. If you're not saying it presupposing. I'll go I'll go through it again So so this is your claim that when you say the cup exists. It doesn't presuppose anything The the statement presupposes English the cups existence does not presuppose anything Does the cups existence presuppose that it cannot both exist and not exist? No So it could it could be the case you're saying you you don't know this impossible with the cup It might be the case the cup doesn't exist, but you're asserting that the cup exists. No wait, are you presupposing that It can't be true that I'm not presupposing anything So if anytime you ask if I'm presupposing the answer is no, you're not presupposing that it maybe the cup doesn't exist No, that the law of non-contradiction is a descriptive. It describes things. That's it. It doesn't you don't presuppose it It's just a language thing. It's like presupposing English. You don't presuppose English for the cup to exist No, so the answer is always going to be do you presuppose the answer is no It's always so it so you're saying you're biting the bullet on maybe the cup both exist and not exist So again, I've explained this to you multiple times Done is made an assertion that the cup exists without giving an argument for that it's impossible for it to not exist So how does that not you don't need it impossible for it? That's that's again That's the analogy if the cup is for my existence It's impossible for my existence to not exist because I experience it you're rounding the existence of the cup in your existence No, no that the cup is an analogy of I think therefore I am okay, so so remember an algae What's the common property? Okay, so if I say up in you what is the common property? The analogy is between the arguments, so they're saying I don't have an analogy. There's a common property I'm asking you what's the common property the common property is between the arguments Not the cup and me the cup and me are just objects The cup is what and when it comes to I think therefore that what is it's the it's the eye. It's the existing So the cup is the eye. Yes, okay, but you're you're saying that you're including the eyes you're concluding the cup What do you know these are two separate arguments They're not in any way connected to one another just analogous that there's not like the eye required for the car There's a car if they're analogous, and there's a common property, right? So I exist the cup exists That's the analogous part between the two arguments And that doesn't presuppose that the cup doesn't both exist and not exist the same time No, no, that's a different part of the the argument so so the remember the connection here is that You have an argument for this We do have to give them a chance to respond So again, Godless the point of this is that if I say the cup exists the sentence the cup exists Does not need to exist for the cup to exist So even though I'm presupposing English to form the sentence I'd not presuppose an English for the cup to exist So the same thing applies to I think therefore I am if I form the argument I think therefore I am I'm presupposing logic to form the argument But I don't need the logic for me to exist I exist independent of the argument the argument is just a phrasing to describe the fact I exist Just like the statement the cup exists is just a phrasing to describe the cup exists The logic of the reason the stuff is irrelevant. I don't need to presuppose anything. That's just descriptive language Look the exist whether or not anybody is using the English language in stating that the cup exists If the cup exists then there's a proposition whether or not it's being said by you in the English language The proposition that the cup exists, right? The proposition is a language the proposition is a language just like English. That's just logic language. You think Logical language. Yes So look the the cup is analogous to I or thinking The same thing the I is the thinking Wait, how are you so when you say I think you're saying that the I is synonymous with thinking Yes, so you say I think therefore I am you're saying I Exist I therefore I I exist it means I exist what you're saying I therefore I know I'm saying I exist That's what that's that you said there was a just there was a justification going on there That's just a claim, right? If you just say I exist Yes, I exist and I have this experience of me existing. That's the justification Wait the the experience is the thoughts, right? And you're saying the thoughts are not so is it an inference or is it just a claim? I don't know what you mean by that. I literally experienced me There's a pain of reasoning going on or is it just saying I exist the reasoning is just descriptive So there's no reasoning required at all. I don't understand what you're saying. You say descriptive I Was that relevant so so the logic doesn't make it true the logic describes the fact that it's true So you don't need the logic for it to be true. I exist So you don't know what logic what logic like the law of non contradiction all logic all logic is just a language You don't need the language language is like saying this is a cup is English get rid of all the language It's still gonna be true Look, is there an inference going on or not? I have no idea what you mean by that Like a chain of reasoning. You don't need any chain of reasoning. I literally Yes, so that's the language Right, right. So again, that's the descriptive part that is irrelevant to my existence I don't need to have reasoning to justify my existence A claim that you exist, right? What is what is the justification for the claim that you exist? I experience it That's you're saying I exist because I experience. Yes, you're saying I therefore I That's just like restating the claim. It's not even circular. It's just restating the claim I therefore I The formulation of the claim is irrelevant. It's true regardless of the formulation. It's not about saying you're just restating the claim You're saying I and I'm saying how do you know I and you're saying I Yeah, again, so the formulation the English the logic the language stuff is irrelevant It's all descriptive. It doesn't make it any less So like if I say the world is round because the world is round. I mean the fact that it's true One second so if I just say the world is round because the world is round That's true regardless of the argument How do you know the world is round your your answer is going to be Because the world is round. No, no, that's an analogy again What's the common property? So if I say I exist because I experience my existence like that is true Independent of whether or not it's a good argument. It doesn't make a difference if it's a good argument You're saying that you exist because there's thinking but you're saying that the thinking is synonymous with the eye Yes, right So how how do you know that the self exists? How do you know that it's not just the case that there's that thoughts exist And where do you get from there are thoughts to there is a separate thing experiencing the thoughts Like what is the eye to find out? I don't define eye The eye is the thoughts. I'm not saying there's right. You're saying I therefore I Yes, and that's yeah, that's so you don't even have your you don't even have a circular justification You don't have any justification. Again. The logic doesn't matter here at all. I experience my existence. That's enough I exist because I exist that's what you're saying. You're a fucking clown. You're a fucking clown. That's ridiculous I therefore I again again the argument doesn't make a difference here. It's I experience my existence I therefore I Okay, do you have an argument for that? Do you have an argument? I don't need an argument. I experience it Okay, so well Yeah, but that's just an assertion. You have anything other than just assertions The the topic of the debate is do you know anything? Yes Hey, can you fucking make claims like I exist? I'm asking you to justify how you know I can I can know I exist for I exist. That's just an assertion No, so again the fact that I experience it is how I can know you already admitted it's just an assertion No, no the the argument Hold on. Let's the argument is irrelevant. So Again, so the fact that I exist and I know I exist because I can experience in this thinking thing is a justification So the fact is irrelevant. Are you saying anything other than I therefore I? That's that's again irrelevant. I therefore I is I experience. It's not like a therefore. It's just I experience There's no I therefore. There's no therefore. It's just an experience Sorry, hang on one second With that do you want to remind you folks as it's been a wild one? Okay, sorry Uh, wait Are you so there's there's no therefore there's no therefore in the argument You can just get rid of therefore I experience is period So now you're saying that there isn't an inference now you're just contradicting what you said earlier I said I didn't know what you meant by inference. So I didn't if there's no therefore then there's no inference like no chain of reasoning You're just stating I I said I said you don't need that. So you don't need the reasoning. There's no chain of reasoning You don't need logic. I just I experience I exist Yeah, that's a claim We're supposed to be arguing over do you have any justified true beliefs or not and a justification is going to require an inference So i'm not interested in you coming on here and just making an assertion, right? You're supposed to have a argument and it which is it has a fucking inference. Do you have a fucking argument or not? I have a feeling All right, let's take a second and it might be a fine time to change gears into a different Area as we've gone deep on this one On that's this is going to be the whole thing because i'm not going to move past this I know I exist because I experience it and therefore I win. That's it. That's all I need Gotcha Well, we may for example be able to talk about your moral epistemology time are you open to that? Nope, this is about whether I can know something and the first thing I need to know is I exist And I can know that and that's sufficient I win the debate whether she wants an argument doesn't make a difference if she wants an argument or not The arguments are relevant to the fact of the matter So you don't have an argument that you know you don't need an argument your inferences are irrelevant. I exist. That's enough How do you know you exist? Because I experience it How do you know that? Because I experience it. How do you know that? Because I experience it. What's the argument for that? Because I experience it. There's no argument reasserting the claim sir. Sir, please stop just reasserting the claim You're on a fucking show called modern day debates Produce a fucking argument Stop this reasserting the claim. You're just reasserting the claim. How do you know you fucking exist? Philosophy has never been so heated. Uh, we may switch into Another component so for example, we had kind of gotten into a little bit on whether or not tom Can justify the laws of logic or maybe given that tom is no, no, this is I'm not moving past them This is the one thing that is going to ask me How do you a person is planning god exists and you ask them? How do you know god exists? They say god exists So then what then they've given it a fucking they've given justification. They know god exists No god exists try to argue against me try to argue against me do it bitch try to god exists try to get Try to ask me why try to ask me why you don't you don't need to so again direct sense experience doesn't need an argument It's something that literally just just go along with it. God exists. Do you just great? Uh, again, so can I know something? Yes, I know I exist. Yeah, I know god exists Okay, do you disagree? I don't care. It's not relevant to the debate I'm trying to show you how absurd you fucking sound how much of a clown you look like It's like if you came on this show with a christian and you ask them for an argument that god exists And they say I don't have an argument. I don't care about any arguments Actually, I don't have any fucking inference or justification if you ask me how god exists god exists That's how I know. How do you know god exists god exists? Oh, I was wondering how god how I know god exists Because god exists you're a fucking clown a fucking clown So again, you don't need any arguments for direct sense experience. Yeah, you don't need you don't need What's the argument for that? How do you know that? It's it's you experience it Ria's starting to claim again Yeah, we might be like Like I said it we could talk about so tom as we all know is He is definitely a fan of science. That's one way of putting it We might use this as an opportunity to examine tom's justification for induction. We could do that Or how does he know the external material world exists without grasping at the external material world? Which would be begging the fucking question. How do you know the external material world exists? Uh fallibilism, but uh, I'm still gonna go with I think that's the word. What's the argument for the external world? No, again, that's a different topic. I'm not going What is the justification? I think before I am I exist. How do you know you're not in the matrix? I could be What does that ever do anything? I still exist Then you don't know the external material if you're saying that you could be in the matrix My argument is like this material world exists because in order to know something you would have to know that the contrary is impossible Right since knowledge is justified to believe if you said, oh, I uh, I know the external material world exists But I might be in the matrix. That's the same thing is saying I know that the external world exists, but I might not know I know it. I don't I might not know it, but I know it My argument is I exist. So if I'm in the matrix, I still That's not an argument. That's just a claim. Yeah, I don't care You already sell it. You have no argument or justification for that. You don't you don't need an argument if you care You don't care You don't need an argument for direct experience. That's not a thing How do you know that? Because you experience it. That's the answer How do you know you're experiencing? How do you know you're experiencing? Uh, how do I how do I know I'm experiencing because I'm experiencing it? That's Yeah, you're a fucking clock. Like how could I not know I'm experiencing it? Is that not just a good time to switch over into Tom's justification for induction very important in science. No, no, no We're gonna stay on this one point because you like this Okay, no, it's fair enough my justification for all the other things actually stems from this one thing So this has to be granted first for to go to in further anyway But when he uses when he's using science and induction Is that not pretty supposing that he wasn't that his memory is reliable And he wasn't just created five seconds ago with all false memories about past that never really occurred Is that is it not presupposing that? No, like I don't presuppose anything So when you when you uh presuppose science when you talk about science That's not presupposing that cause and effect doesn't exist and everything is ran every event random Nope, you don't need to presuppose. So how would you use the scientific method? If every event is random then the scientific method would be useless. Well, we start with I exist That's where we start I can know I exist. How does that what does that have to do with anything with a scientific method? Uh, well, we start with I know I exist and then I can describe that using logic And that's why I can create a language of logic. You already admitted that you can't you you don't have any arguments for that I don't know why you're trying to go back to that. No, no, you don't need an argument for direct experience So so I whether or not you fucking exist. You think that the scientific method holds, right? what Your argument for the scientific method is that you exist No, that's the first thing I know and then I can build off that to know more things including leading to the scientific method Okay, so does the scientific method presuppose that will cause an effect is the case. No So how would you use the scientific method if every event was random and uncaused? Uh, uh, how would you do the same way? What do you mean? She wouldn't change it at all. It was random and uncaused. How would you tell us anything? You'd say if it's random and uncaused, I predict this is going to be random and not wouldn't be able to make any predictions Yes, you would if it's random, then it's not going to be orderly everything is uncaused Stop stop interrupting godless. If it's random, that means it's not unorderly. So you can predict it's not going to be orderly not unorderly Random means uncaused Random random means yeah without not being determined Yeah So how would you so how would you say this is going to be random then you can predict it's not going to be not random You can figure it's going to be random. You can still make predictions there This but how would you use what would you test with the scientific method? Again, that's that's irrelevant. So again, we start with I exist off that the scientific method just describes the way reality is that's it so it doesn't like make reality non-random The scientific method describes the world. Yes define scientific method The method we use to a differentiate imagination reality And how what's test are you doing to do that? Novel test about like testing Yes, it is testing. That's that's okay. How do you test them? Like how do you test? How do you test you're not in the matrix? That's philosophy. That's look there's no observation That's in you could make with in the external world that's inconsistent with you being in the matrix It doesn't matter. It's called fallibilism. You don't need one Look, is there any observation that's inconsistent with you being in the matrix? You don't need one. It's called fallibilism. So do you know you're not in the matrix? Yes How fallibilism What does that what does that mean fallibilism means you can have knowledge without absolute certainty So you can have justification for a belief wait, wait, wait, wait in order to know something Knowledge is justified your belief in order to know something you have to know that the contrary is impossible No Yeah, so what you're saying is it might be the case that I'm in the matrix, but I know I'm not Knowledge is justified true belief. So you're saying it might not be true I might not know it because it might not be true, right? If it's not true, you don't know it Yes, it's called I might not know it, but I know it So fallibilism is the position that knowledge is fallible. It means it could be wrong. Yes Right. So if it is wrong if you are in the matrix, then you don't know it So you're saying I know that I'm not in the matrix, but I might not know it Yes, I might not know. I might not know it, but I do know it. It's called fallibilism Right, so you're saying I might not know it, but I do know it In the same sentence. So it's like saying I'm justified in believing that my dogs are downstairs Now if they are downstairs, then that's a justified belief, which is also true Now it's possible. They're not it's possible. They're they're outside somewhere Which means there would be a false belief. Knowledge is justified true belief Right, right. So remember if I have a justification to believe the dogs are downstairs That's a justified belief and if they are downstairs, then it's also true. So it is a justified true belief But it's also possible that you're not certain they're downstairs So they might not be downstairs, right? And if they're not downstairs, then you didn't know it, right? If it was false, then you didn't know it Right, then it would be a justified false. What you're saying is I might not know the dogs are downstairs But I know it. I know the dogs are downstairs, but I might not know the dogs are downstairs You're a fucking crook All right So I'm sorry you're an idiot Let's relax We can talk about the dogs be downstairs And I think we'll be able to get to the bottom of this. I am an optimist. I think we can so we'll uh return to that So again, uh fallowism consensus and philosophy. You don't get an opinion on it academics crush you You're you're a small minded person. So, um, are you appealing to authority for now? Are you appealing to authority right now? No appeals to authority are only flashes if they're not actual authorities since they are actual authorities. It's not No, that's not true. I don't have as your debate opponent. I don't have to accept your authority um It's not up to you I'm going back to the argument I'm expressing skepticism to your authority. Do you think you're saying that you're you uh shown that it's true When I'm expressing skepticism to the authority by catching the authority I don't care. So so I'm going to go back to explaining the argument now. So, uh, uh Justified true belief is the criterion of knowledge. Now. I can have a justified belief Like I know something has been true in the past like induction or whatever Therefore I have a justified reason to believe the dogs are downstairs Now if they are downstairs, then it's also true. So I have a justified belief, which is also true That makes the justified your belief. I don't need to know with absolute certainty There's not part of that argument that requires you're saying that you're not certain they're downstairs Right. So it might not be true that they're downstairs, right? Knowledge is justified your belief So we're saying is you might not know that they're downstairs Uh, no, so again. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no, no If you're saying it might not be true So it might not be if it's might not be true, then it might not be a justified You're not you're not following. So I'm saying it's it might you already agreed that it might not be true No, no, no, no, you're not you're not following So I don't know whether it's true or not with 100 certainty But it might not be true the matter. It is either true or false Right. It might not be true. You said, you know, I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, you don't know that it's true Wait, so go back. So either it is true or it is false in reality regardless of what I know, right? So, right, you don't know that so I have a belief It's true and if in reality it is also true even though I don't know it Then I have a justified belief and it's true that makes it a justified true Right, but when you're saying that you don't know it, right? You're saying you don't know It could be it could be false, right? That's the same thing is saying it might not be true Which is the same thing is saying it might not be a justified true belief when you say Yeah, yeah, oh, yeah, when you say it might not be true That's the same thing is saying it might not be a true belief. It might not be a justified true belief When you say it might not be true. It's not that not the same. Does that not? Intel that it might not be a true belief. No, no, I'm saying I don't know if it's true I don't have absolutely right. You don't know it might be the case that it's not true. No, no, no, go back. So my knowledge is irrelevant here I'm saying in reality. It is either true or false one of those two things and my knowledge is I don't know whether it's true or false right now But I have a justification now if it happens to be true in reality whether or not I know it then I have a justified belief Which is also true. Like if it's true in reality, you don't get Sorry, can you go back and repeat it? Yeah, so in reality something is either true or false If we assume that like my dogs are downstairs is true in reality whether or not I know it and I have a justification for believing It's true based off of induction or whatever then I have a justified belief Which is also true whether or not I know it's true. So it's true regardless of whether or not I know it's true It might be false, correct? No, I'm saying in reality. It's true We're just gonna assume it's true right now for the sake of the argument. Is it impossible to be false? It's impossible to be false. It is true the case that the dog Wait, it's impossible that you're in the middle. Now you're saying, you know, it's certain that you're not in the middle This is just for the sake of the argument We're saying it is the case that the dogs are downstairs and you know, that's that's true And I'm going to assume you's be bait used on my inductive evidence that that is the case Wait, you want me to grant you for the sake of argument that what you're saying is true No, no, I want you to grant for the sake of argument that something is true about reality So it is the case the dogs are downstairs. We're gonna They're not no, no, I'm saying we're No, I'm saying it is necessarily the case in this reality Necessarily yes necessarily necessarily means it's true in all possible worlds So you're saying the dogs are downstairs in all possible world. No, no, no, it's necessarily case in this world I'm describing the dogs are downstairs. What do you mean? You just don't know what necessarily means No, necessarily isn't only applied to modal logic. It has other context. So it doesn't mean Necessarily means in this world, I'm describing the dogs are downstairs. You're assuming that you're not in the matrix when you say that This is this is this is a world I've made up in my head We're assuming that in this world the dogs are downstairs just because I'm defining it that way for the sake of the argument But that's it So in this world, I've made up in my head the dogs are definitely downstairs for sure 100% certainty now the person who's sitting here I don't know that I don't know it's the case the dogs downstairs But we but in the universe as a whole if we could just look at all propositions It would be true. We just don't know it yet And so I'm sitting here and I'm using the induction to assume the dogs downstairs So I have a justification for that belief and in the world if we look at it having omniscient We would know it was the case then I have a justification a fallible justification and it happens to be true Even though I don't have absolute certainty about that. Therefore the belief is justified and it's true Which means it's a justified true belief. Okay, so in this hypothetical world Do you know with certainty the dog downstairs? Okay, so in this hypothetical world As far as you're concerned, you might it might be false the dogs that upstairs right my knowledge is fallible, right? So it might not be true that the dogs are downstairs from my knowledge is fallible. We know they are down So in this hypothetical world, it might not be true that the dogs are downstairs. No, no It is true. They're downstairs. It's just I don't know it. No, according to you What you say in this hypothetical world it asked you say it might not be the I'm justified in believing that the dogs are downstairs But they it might be they it might not be true that they're downstairs. Yes, that's what I would say Yeah, which is the same thing is saying I might not have a justified belief No, no again justification does not require I'm sorry You might it's the same thing is saying you might not have a true belief that they're downstairs, right, right? So since knowledge is defined is justified true belief. It's the same thing is saying I Might not know that they're downstairs, but I know they're downstairs No, again, this is just The same thing is saying I might not have a justified true belief that they're downstairs No, that's again That's not saying that I might not have a true belief that they're downstairs The same it does that entirely you might not have a justified true belief that downstairs No, again, that's not how fallible some works So it fallible some works is I have a justification whatever that is and if it also happens to be true Whether or not I know it then it's a justified true belief whether I know You might not have a true belief so you might not know it I'm saying if it's if it's not true that they're downstairs, and you didn't know they were downstairs Right, so I'm saying there is the reality says it's true. So it's true, and I have a justification Oh my god, how are you so dumb so it is true about reality that the dogs are downstairs I don't know this but I have a justification for it like which is inductive If it's true about reality that means it's true. It has to be true now No, no, no, no, it doesn't matter what I say if it's true it has to be a true belief So it is true. It is necessarily going to be true in this universe I don't know what you said what you mean when you say it just means it's true So the justified true belief the true criterion is true. It's definitely Stop stop trying to derail the conversation. It's true. So we know it's gonna be true Because it's the thing. I'm a surgeon about the analogy moron. Holy shit If we're saying if it's true about reality that the dogs are downstairs, then it's true about reality That's that's the thing we're assuming about the argument. You still wouldn't know it for certain knowing it doesn't make a difference You don't need certainty for knowledge. So again if it's true We know it's true. It is true about reality the dogs downstairs now That means that the T criterion of the JTB criterion is fulfilled It is true and then I can also fulfill the justification criterion by saying I have an inductive reason to believe it is the case Even though it's not certain so the justification is fulfilled That means it's justified as true and it's a belief that means it's a justified true belief But I don't look you well, you know, then we would have you're we're just skipping over get your cases But I don't want to get like Well, look you could be just you could think that the dogs that are downstairs for the wrong reason I don't mean I don't want to I don't want to derail the conversation and get your cases, but you could have a Justification for thinking that the dogs are downstairs To the get your problem, you know what get your pieces are. Yes, I do know what the get your cases are where you believe something right? So yeah, so just if I truly alone isn't sufficient for knowledge In that case only if you define knowledge in that way, so if you define knowledge is fallible yet is Well, so if you are justified so if you look at a clock that's broken and under fallible them if you look at a clock That's broken that just happens to be on the correct time and you believe it's in virtue of what the clock says of what time it is Then you knew knew it was that time. You have an inductive justification. Yes, so it's justified Yeah, just a justified true believe so like a compass pointing at a broken compass that you knew it was pointing at the direct Right direction is broken only if it's true then yes, it's justified true belief based on Wait, it can't be in virtue of it being true that it's justified No, if you have a justification for it Even if it's a fallible justification and it happens to be true for no no particular reason then it's a justified true belief That's fallible. Okay, so I don't want to get off track with the Get your faces so when under fallible ism you're saying that your belief might not be true So it might not be justified true believe No, I'm saying I'm saying I don't know if it's true, but it is true about reality I don't know if I don't know if I know it it might be false, but I do not I might not know No, no, no, no, I'm saying it's true about reality regardless of anybody knows it and then I have a belief which is justified We're looking at your epistemology Fallible ism is just basic philosophy. There's nothing to do with my epistemology directly. It's just basic philosophy So you're saying that you it might you might not know it meaning it might not be true But you do not so think about it like a truth table kind of a thing I have a justification as possible that the just that it's a false belief or a true belief and So if my justification if I have a justification as false then it's not knowledge But if I have a justification is true and it's knowledge Right So so like Imagine it like Falling rocks like going down different paths You have one path that I have a justification and now possibly there's a 50% chance It's a true in the world and there's a 50% chance. It's false Chance, you know it. I'm just saying 50% because there's two possibilities true and false. It's not actually right But if it's false, you don't know it So so again go back so if I have a justification and it's true, then I do know it necessarily by definition If it's if I have a justification it's false, then I don't know it necessarily by definition But if it's true, I do know it and I have knowledge. It's false. I don't know it. I don't have knowledge But if it's true, I do know it and I have knowledge Yeah, but how do you in order to justify that you know you have to know that you know it? No, and justifications is not You don't require absolute certainty for justification No, thanks. Your answer is I don't know My answer is I have justification through like induction probabilistic And how do you know how do you know that and your answers? I don't know What how do I know that induction is justification for belief? Look, I'm asking you use I ask you How do you know you know things and you said you don't know right? No, I'm saying I have justified true belief. Are you but you're not certain of that? I Am certain of that by definition. Do you have justified your belief you have justified your belief? Do I do I have justified true belief that I have justified true belief? Maybe I have no idea what that even means Well, do you have justification that you have justified true beliefs? I guess so I still have no idea what that means. You don't know it. What what part do you not understand like justification is is a Chain of inferences right like me saying like do I have a justified true belief about how justified true beliefs work Justified true belief is a system of epistemology. It's not like a thing that exists in the world What do you mean the reality is just everything that exists if there exists No justified true belief is like a language. It doesn't actually exist in the world language is part of reality Like external objects that have mass. I'm just talking about reality, which is everything that exists Does language exist? No, language is a construct language doesn't exist. It's an abstract object Yeah, does language exist though? No, it's an abstract object, which means it does not exist Exists means everything. There's everything that is right. So abstract objects don't exist. That's why they're called abstract They don't exist material or they don't exist at all. They don't exist at all Language isn't a thing. No language is an abstract object. Yeah, but it still exists language. We can use language You're saying we can use language we can use something that doesn't exist. Yeah, it's called abstract objects Google what abstract is the distinction Well, I don't accept that like I'm not a fucking plateness, but Not platenism. That's basic philosophy. Like what what do you think it is a Platonist is someone who believes there are platonic objects, which are not the same as abstract objects are abstract objects No, if they're abstract objects that means they don't exist So platenism would be false. Platenism says they do exist doesn't mean they don't exist That's abstract object. Google what abstract object is then it's part of reality Google Google what abstract object means We'll go into Q&A pretty quick here and want to say thanks so much as Philosophy's never been so passionate and I have to tell you in terms of like pure philosophy debates, which we have here and there We usually don't And you know what it fucking says it says abstract and object concrete classifications that you know whether or not the object Terms describes has physical reference, which is exactly what I was fucking saying you moron Object is an object that does not exist Wow an abstract object is not an object that doesn't exist any particular time language doesn't exist Languages does it fucking exist not part of reality fucking clown Good job So we'll probably like I said philosophy has never been so passionate. I don't know if we've ever had We we have philosophy debates once in a while and We've never had one like this. So we are very I Haven't laughed like this giggled like a girl a school girl as Darth Dawkins would say it's been a while since I've gotten to Giggle like that. So let's see good old Darth Dawkins. We hope you're well if you're out there. We love him So we will go into the Q&A pretty quick. Are you guys both feeling pretty good ready to go to the Q&A? More issues to hash out. Oh I haven't looked at the large. I ought to look at the watch out It's definitely active tonight, but you will jump into those questions So thanks so much folks just pulling these up and want to say I am excited want to let you know Finally, thank you so much for being patients patient. It's been a while We have had occasionally people say hey, we'd love to have it on podcast because if we don't have YouTube premium Then it would be great. I mean podcast is free. We have finally done it. It is free to everyone We only have one so far. Give me give me a second. Okay, we're working on it. We have one podcast It's the debate between Dilla huntie and inspiring philosophy Michael Jones That is up that that was their live debate at the atheist experience studio in January that is up on I know it's for sure on Spotify and We're currently waiting on Google podcasts and Apple podcasts, and I think it's Stitcher We are waiting on those three to approve us Once they approve us will be on those as well, and we're going to continually upload Debates in the mp3 format that way you can listen to them on your commute no matter where you're going and That'll include this one So, you know just a good way to wake yourself up on the way to work and with that We will jump into your questions. So thanks so much folks appreciate all your support and with that Can I say this I want to see this is off-topic, but I really want to see t-jump debate Aaron raw I would be rooting for Aaron raw, and I don't expect t-jump or the audience to believe me when I say this They're gonna think I'm fucking trolling, but please you can go watch the video Mr. Batman who's just like some dumbass fucking young with Christmas, which is usually too handy to follow a conversation, right? He debate had a short debate with Aaron raw, and he actually came out on fucking top He had Aaron raw he made Aaron raw resort saying the consciousness pre-exists everything and then now Aaron raw is all of a sudden A fucking pantheist he thinks rocks are conscious I would like to see t-jump debate him on that like Aaron raw will get his ass kicked and psychist you mean Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. I meant pants like it's not pantheist Gotcha, well we can ask Aaron. We'll see what we get that would definitely be a fun one And thanks so much for your super chat from dearest Steven who sent a super sticker of a piece of pie Appreciate that Steven and Achilles. Thanks so much. Who said James say yummy and So anybody is this some sort of code if this is one of those white national Tight people with your Kermit the frog Things you're I don't know what then the second word that they asked me to say is Baca. I Don't know. Well, okay. Let me know make billers. Thanks for your super chat Did you lose a bet Baca is a cab backwards, right a cab backwards the word is the first word was yummy I don't know Tom. This is like you guys are hip and young. I used to be cool. Believe it or not But I don't know what this new slang is godless girl any idea. I don't understand what Team ask yourself a cab Steven steen thanks for your comment who said Tom Has as many wins as I have hairs on my head. Oh Oh Sing okay. Thanks for your Question from Mike billers says wait. Is this GG or Darth Dawkins? Yeah, I thought he didn't win against T jump, but I think he actually wins most of his face Do you do are you flatter to be called like Darth Dawkins his daughter or is that offensive to you? It's not offensive. Okay. Thank you. We I want him back I told him I reached out to my discord. He said Darth the people want you back. No response Very sad. Oh have dark Hawkins debate era That would be epic and thanks for your question from meow meow meow says godless girl You have a bad attitude also stop whining also sit in a corner and let the grown-ups talk I don't really have a response. That's what I love haters though. So half my YouTube viewers are haters So that's fine. Gotcha. I appreciate your giggle Thanks for your question or comment Charles in solo says thanks James love your show. Thank you That means a lot. We love the positive people around here We give extra. Thanks for you the people who are like saying positive things. That's the kind of culture We just really appreciate and I have to say all credit if you enjoy this show It's because of the debaters people like godless girl and Tom who come on and who are a joy to have so all credit to them Ryuzinski, thanks for your comment said petition to sacrifice the feed or sacrifice slash feed godless girl to Tom jumps chair Very nice He's got the chair second the motion second It's famous Thomas the Holy's back. Oh, thanks for your comment said God does always wants. Oh Godless always to To wax never Let's see. I am confused Mike billers. Thanks for your Super chat says petition signed next Surgery we don't get you understand what that man. What does that mean the petition to feed you to my chair? I don't get it. They're not really gonna feed you to the chair, but I will say Surgery we had one person Surgery I deleted your super chat and I think I don't know if you know this I also hid you too and the reason is we have one Stinking rule at this channel I honestly I get people all the time who are new here and they're like James all these people are using all caps And some of these people are calling so and so it you know all these nasty things and I'm like I know we like let we have everybody's on a long leash here. The trick is We only have one rule which is no hate speech So that's why anything remotely close to hate speech because we we give everybody so much liberty on everything else Anything close to hate speech is gone Me on me on me out. Thanks for your question said Godless girl. Are you drunk quit yapping hush? I Don't want to respond to that. Thank you next Scott great Gretin says Godless is pure screeching cringe Nothing no response That's the kind of reactions. I'm looking for When they do that they're encouraging my behavior, I have to say you're very well adjusted during these Barbed super chats. You're you just it rolls off your back T. O. God. Thanks for your Comments at both the cup and gg aren't real Next the holy spackle. Thanks for your comments. Oh, I know her. She's obsessed with me the holy spackle or Tioga The holy spackle. She's one of the main ones that encourages my behavior. Look out for tioga, too But I don't know that is you will see if the whole you will Thanks for your comment says never go for Godless girl. Here comes the shriek. I Didn't hear a shriek per se Yeah, the holy spackle is upset because you can see the video where I exposed her for being the one they called Falsely called CPS on shiny for Christ with false allegations like what if those fucking kids holy spackle had gotten removed when they didn't need to Be from the home and they got my lesson foster homes. You sick fucking cunt. All right, that might be for another night But Ryosinski, thanks for your question said Tom. What's make the make-and-model of your chair v6 or v8? v12 yeah, yeah, I mean teach up there's rumors going around that you're like Paralyzed from the waist down and you can't get out of the chair. Oh, that's right. I've heard about that I just stand up. He he does walk Picture soon I have a touch of a legs. They're they're metal. They're like AI relates. It's okay speaking of Speaking of the what's the info circulating around the grapevine the 4-1-1 as People used to say I think like 20 years ago. We may I had told I had mentioned to you that we were going to have a couple of debates This month that would shake the foundations of the debate world both in religion and politics We have one it's like it's so close and I'm not for sure if it's gonna happen Which is why I'm like, oh, I really hope it happens now that I've said it We might have one this Tuesday keep an eye out for our social media like Twitter stuff like that I'll announce it once I hear we are waiting on one person for a tag team that if it happens Honestly, you will all pee your pants. It will be unreal. So next up genius tracks. Thanks for your comment said Godless uses reasoning to justify her nihilism. That's a contradiction at worst hypocrisy at best Well, just It's not a hypocrisy. I mean, I'm not playing making knowledge claims when I claim that I'm just saying I believe you can't know anything I'm not saying that I know it. So it's not a problem Gotcha You bet and next up genius tracks. Thanks for your comment said we got that one Mike billers Thanks for your comment said so is the cup like quote-unquote the spoon from the matrix Yeah, yeah probably Got sure there is no spoon. I'm a huge matrix fan. So I really appreciate it that and since you're Fredo Sarabia Thanks for your comment said Tom can't prove he exists. So all in favor of GG Matt, is that the real Matt Dillon see in the chat? I think it might be Now what do you can't I don't know YouTube you can't I think it's I think it might be I Hope you're flattered Gigi you've My boyfriend calls into the AK experience posing as a fias twice and Matt Dillon He got hung up on him twice for like because he was making him look fucking stupid Okay, let's not talk about people while they're not here to defend themselves. So Let's see Next up if you If you consider to Olga's What's the word I'm looking for if you consider her comment? She says I am also godless kaffir We are one Apparently she this is before her later comments aren't as big of a fan of yours This must have been early tonight. So if Rados Rabia says No, we got that one doing birth. Thanks for your question Said go fund me for Tom's chair to have a two-week vacation from Tom Gotcha, I agree take donations at my YouTube channel or my patreon channel Gotcha, and thanks for your let's see Super chat. Oh, this was me must have been before I blocked you surgery said case in point. I Am kind of confused but seriously it honestly It's so easy for me if I see any sort of hate speech boom gone deleted. So Something don't mess around with Dwayne Burke. Thanks for your comment. We got that one to Olga said This was not a good look for you godless kaffir Okay Okay, Gabrielle K. Thanks for your question comment said she lost her mind her let's see This is you can let us know I mean because it is true godless tonight. You have been more barbed than usual Gabrielle K said she lost her mind her husband walked in and she took it out on Tom jump Is it is this true? Did you have a bad day? Is there something whether it be your husband or maybe a bad day? with someone else or at work whatever like Me no, this is how this is just how I always ask When I'm streaming and stuff I'm sell them actually ask for everybody on discord I'm so I'm actually obsessed just the way I debate gotcha and house house soy Said Karen. I don't have a manager. I only have myself Is that to me? I think so. Do you resent being called here? I? I'm only guessing they're referring to one of your videos in which you were Scamming CVS or something like that I Don't yeah, I I showed a video how to Shoplift or steal from Walgreens without shoplifting. I don't understand what that has to do with whether she's a manager And I was nonsense fuck. I was okay. Okay, yeah Let's see house. So I thanks for your We got T. We got thanks for your comment said people can't hold or touch or record data for God Who are these all to me? I Think you may have caught everyone's attention tonight. Well, how do you know? I don't understand. What is it? You can't import data data for God That's gibberish go to the next one. It's just ever it's just fucking gibberish look fuck gotcha and thanks for your Your comment from sister Fritos to Rabia who says Tom's saying unicorns exist cuz somewhere a pink invisible unicorns unicorn is thinking quote I exist unquote prove it wrong Tom on your arguments premises Well, if I was the pink unicorn and I was thinking I exist and I would exist So it only if it only applies to like if you are the one thinking you only you can know you exist It wouldn't apply to a second thing like a God or a unicorn a synthetic thing Gotcha next a little fat girl Their username is says resorting to yelling and swearing means you already lost the debate I don't see how I don't like Losing or winning debate does that mean to do with how much you insult or how much you scream Right, it's about the fucking arguments and I gave an argument and T jump self-admittedly doesn't have any arguments It doesn't even care about like fucking coming to the debate with a syllogism Gotcha, and thank you for your comment from Tioga who said godless kefir is going to be embarrassed later This is how I act all the time I'm embarrassed about any of my past behavior barely well barely any Gotcha and baffle guy says Tom came in here to mess with gg He isn't even trying and just wants to show her how silly the debate is and it's hope Expose her well done sir expose me for what? They said technically expose her insanity Okay, but like I said you are strangely like Unaffected by the barbed superchats my billers. Thanks for your comment said wow I've been missing out on all this by not joining godless girls discord. I Don't know But Peter griffin things for your comments that can someone let's see Can someone ask gg to relax? I don't know if that's possible Bartos Diagos thanks for your super chat said why is dr. Disrespect banned from twitch. What do you guys think? I? Don't know that is you Dr. Disrespect. Yeah, he was he's a guy. He's a streamer who wears a mullet wig and glasses I don't know anything about his personal story But I think he said something like edgy or something and twitch just bans anybody if he's anything even remotely edgy So I'm guessing that's something like that. I have no idea Gotcha and thanks for your question from Gabrielle K said I don't know what this means. It's like giving sex toys to whole Next fucking retards and lie to I don't know how to like say things that are even meaningful It's just like how like 25% of the comments have just been like gibberish. What the fuck? What the fuck next Mike billers? Thanks for your questions for Godless girl says do you believe it possible for us all to be brains in a vat? Do you believe we all exist I? Believe we all just see if we were brains in a bad we would still exist So it so that would be irrelevant whether we exist or not. It's irrelevant to whether we're fucking brains in a bad because Existence you would still exist your brain about and Do I believe what was the question do I believe we're not do I do I believe that it's possible? Yeah, I believe it's possible Next Nathan artwork. Thanks for your comments at Tom you lost because the dogs are actually downstairs So true next Zorita Kondi Thanks for your comments at the possibility of believing in God does not proceed from humans It's a godly sentiment the essence of it is meaning of Essence of any divine spark Deborah Gotcha Surgey Seraf. I don't understand how you're still sending like super chats after I banned you Let's see Next Gabriel K. Thanks for your super chat said donation for Let's see They said donation for the people who have to deal with Godless girl Next up. Thanks for your question or comment Sol said the nicotine isn't doing its job very well. Is that nicotine? Yeah, not me. Yeah, I'm trying to vape Gotcha next my billers. Thanks for your question said tomorrow on modern-day debate is Tom jump a clown and does he know it? Let's do it next to Mike billers says so now the dog is quote the spoon Dex Maynard saves. Thanks for your question said don't care if Tom exists, but what about his chair? The chair will live on when I die. Thank you and Bartos Diagos Said Tom and James are brothers called it Tom as I told you we're like brothers. I'm the older one. No By the way, but yes, honestly, I I 100% meant what I mean We have we've had so many interactions and I've just I've been like wow so glad Tom has always been very cooperative and trustworthy. I was talking to in fact You won't believe this I was talking to standing for truth and he was actually saying he's like Tom is a very pleasant person to work with He's very cooperative. He's a win-win type of guy. So I just want to let you know you've got some Does that mean like he's reliable to not cancel and stuff? No, I mean like he has never Seemed selfish to me. He's always looking for a win-win like Like when we do things Why won't he come on here with ask yourself? What's that about? Oh, he will I'm Said he wanted to do something. He didn't want to do try to set that up and you wouldn't agree Because the 2v2 on my morality is kind of tough since I'm the only one who holds it And so ask yourself so they didn't want to do something separately from you since you set it up first Oh, we want a tag team you what else we'll we'll talk about what else you can debate because it seemed like you were scared I can't do it to my morality since I don't have a second me Well, what we will do is we are trying to set up in it basically a one-on-one between ask yourself and Tom and then Hopefully we can get a tag team between Godless girl and ask yourself teaming up against Tom and none other than a mystery person who I'm recruiting So that should be fun and thanks Lily R. Oh for your comments said Tom winning a debate while keeping his cool is satisfying I will never yell again Gg1 can have a debate without screaming PS James's handsome. Oh, thank you. That's so nice of you Like I said, I it might be Earl the postman saying that but I'll take it Why are they so emotional about me yelling like why can't I just listen to the content? What was being said rather than like getting upset that I was yelling But these people need to calm down and listen to what was said rather than whining about me screaming Gotcha and Mike billers. Thanks for your statement said Tom jump You're stuck on a deserted island for five years one person is with you Is it Darth Dawkins or Godless girl and how do you know that you clown? Darth Dawkins, I like Darth Dawkins. He's very funny. I find him very entertaining. I enjoy I enjoy listening to him talk I'm proud. It's quite hilarious Next Brutus Lugo. Thanks for your statement said Godless even if he were in the matrix He'd still exist his experience is what justifies his belief that he exists Uh Wait, what's the justification what I heard him say is just I exist and then the justification was just reasserting the claim Which is that I exist I asked him I asked him what is the justification for him existing and he said I exist You got it right the justification is the experience of me existing. That's how do you know you're experiencing things How do you know they're not just experiencing and there's a self and your answer that I think They're quite there basically they were putting the cogito into matrix form neat Gabrielle K thanks for your statement said tom your philosophy is sound Steve McBoomer will boom out on this stream soon Steve's gonna hate me for saying that. I love you. Steve says ps. I get why you're a pair. Let's see They said oh, they they were worried that you'd become paralyzed After this debate from this debate So he's all right. He's got thick skin Godless girl hasn't gotten to him Have has she I'll give it a 50 50 Next up raven zero. Thanks for your question comment. They said Let's see. They said this girl loses her marvels really easily What does that mean? Next Ryuzinski says favorite quote from tonight Uh Did someone scream is that a generic scream brutus logo? Thanks for your statement said Godless you lost the debate tonight. Be happy that you can know things Next up. Thanks for your question or comment from Captain Gini said Who we voting for peeps? Oh, I think they're saying like who do you think won? I don't know. I'm excited to see in the comments after next. Thanks. Okay. Thanks for let's see Brandon Ardeline said Who screamed to these interlocutors? Nice Darth Dawkins reference. We miss you, Darth Brutus logo. Thanks for your oh, we got that one charles and solo. Thanks for your comment said help me Help me are I think quote And I am synonymous Oh, they said Are I think and I am synonymous Yes Yes, they are synonymous next Charles let's see Achilles. Thanks for your Super chat said yameet and baka are Japanese terms. Okay. Good. So glad that it wasn't like I said sometimes Bakas idiot. I know bakas are stupid baka is stupid I don't know what the yameet means. That's good to know I'm so glad it wasn't what I thought it might be and Thanks so much for your question from whizbang more of a comment said Yamate also I vote that anyone who loses a tom jump gets sacrificed to the chair In all yama say it must be probably also a japanese reference. Yamate next sleet Said I'm now wondering if mdd contestants are graded on how well focused their webcams are Godless girls camp is superbly focused. Well, what is james ranking on that? I don't know Mine's okay funny one Next gabriel kay. Thanks for your Comments that godless. Please study comedy. You're bad at it girl It wasn't really a sense of humor most of it Gotcha Well next Tom's chair says and I'm for real. There is a profile called tom's chair says Thanks for the quote conversation unquote The picture even looks like your chair next the holy spackle. Thanks for your Statements that gg is a liar and a doxer also shanny apologized Yeah, you can just go watch the video where she's fucking I pile evidence upon evidence that she Called false cps with false allegations on shiny for christ Next thank you very much Kevin guilfau for your statement said gg. It might help next debate if you don't speak in caps lock I don't know how the fuck you could talk and talk and tax. What does that mean? I'm speaking odd Auditorially. I'm not typing anything. It's fucking moron Yeah, man. Yeah, kevin. All right next I'm kidding Super chat Kevin's not another super chat with a response to them wrong. He meant like you were screaming. Okay never Lily roe. Thanks for your super chat questions said gg. Do you know if your boyfriend is real? No, I don't know anything gotcha and ash Kid it says I think therefore I am So true How the fuck do they know that harley quinn thanks for your question said how can someone so beautiful be so sad? What sad? I don't know what they mean. I know tom is sad. I think they're talking about james. They're definitely definitely No, they're talking about tom, but thank you tom. I mean hey, I'll take what I can get next Dave gar thanks for your statements that tom just show us the butt print of your chair to prove your existence Everything that exists can leave a butt print. It's the butt print principle Uh, I cannot do that for unspecified reasons Next thank you mic billers ask if we're all Brains in a baths. Do we share a reality? Reality is everything that exists. What does that even fucking mean? Do we share it? Anybody who exists shares everything that exists fucking retard. How do you know that? It wasn't a knowledge claim Gotcha and thanks so much for your question from Jay forte said tom. Do you ever get tired of destroying godless girl? Nope, it is invigorating every time Next thanks so much for your question from We got that sleet says godless girl. If you were debating g-man, what would be the topic? I adore g-man. I would never debate g-man. I love g-man Gotcha, I go now. I just fucking defend ever defend creationism to g-man's audience and win Gotcha, but what about let's see if you had to what would you debate him on? Oh, I mean I don't know. I don't we I probably debate him on not uh, some like really like philosophy or religious issue would probably be like uh About like what does he think of a certain person in the community? Like why does he think the therapies they're good when I think there's a shit or something? Next Thanks so much. Let me move over here. Oh, I want to say what g-man's problem with brekkine is I love brekkine I thought they were buddies Yeah, well brekkine hasn't blown out everyone except me Next up. Thank you for your question from ashkid it says absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence Therefore the unicorns do exist and the matrix does as well. He he I do not disagree exactly who that's for Gotcha, and next up. Thank you for your question from nephilim free in the house Is it the real one? It is the nephilim free the one who as I mentioned g-man and nephilim free Have been debating on youtube since like 2008. They basically invented youtube together They used to debate in person with people, but they were like we need to do this with more people around the world Let's invent youtube, but nephilim free asks does matt dilahunty Have a more desire than are in raw to debate me I fucking neph come on my discord server I love you fucking when air neph debated air and raw air air rockers scream and not respond anything was saying Gotcha, and then neph asked would he take my challenge to debate? And Let's see after so many people have encouraged him to do it I don't know we can ask him. Let's see. Thank you. Let me just reload really quick Thank you so much for your questions folks in your comments most of them comments, but Josh says dumb as a box of bricks I don't know if they're referring to all all three of us or one of us or two of us I don't know but john means for a fucking box of bricks to be done. What does that even mean? It's just gibberish again. Yeah, josh Okay, next john nathan. Thank you for your question said tom. Are you a solipsist? What else do you know? Well, I can know I exist and then I can use logic and math to describe that like I think therefore I am Reality is reality. So that gives me logic and I can say there's only one reality Which gives me one which is the basis of math and then from there I can go There's some difference between my imagination of my experience I need some methodology a difference shape between the two and then Through lots of arguments I can get science through as that methodology and so using that I can justify essentially all knowledge up till Scientific knowledge up till we are today. You know all of it Gotcha and next up. Thanks so much for your question This one is coming from none other than john nathan. I know we read that one. Sorry Matthew Steele says gg your lack of filter is refreshing. Could we have a discussion about epistemology? It would be fun Sure, do you guys ever do aftershows? We don't do it. I'm on this channel. We are willing to link them if other channels on either side server if you want to jump what Do after show for what? Just if anybody wants to come in and talk to us if you want Sounds pretty. I have to go, but maybe next time Next want to say thanks so much appreciate your But yes, Matthew Steele by the way has also been in the debate world on youtube for a long time Like old schooler. He's been uh, he's been at it a long time a lot of experience gabriel k Thanks for your question said tom walked the path of philosophy boomers pick up the crumbs Love you tom. I was reluctant of you because I had been in a cult Uh, thanks for the comment. Yes Next thank you and kevin gilfow. Thanks for your question said gg Since you asked at a decibel level that won't blow out my ears You don't need to yell to get your point across james. My last name pronounce foo Sorry kevin gilfoo Why are they so upset that I was yelling to calm down? I don't know I don't know But next up. Thanks for your question said uh from kevin gilfoo Gotta write this time said but ultimately you were trying to get t jump to prove or disprove hard solipsism You asked him to do what academics can't even do You are ridiculous and entertaining and loud. Thanks for all of it amazing Well, he disagrees that he can't do that So he disagrees with the academics that person this thing Which I don't think that it's true that academics say it can't prove I think there are like uh like more that says he can so whatever Hmm Well, that's interesting and thank you for your question from riozinski says godless can accurately sum up tom's arguments Ken godless Accurately sum up tom's arguments Satisfactorily to him Also, thanks to all of you for coming on also fun fact nef's arguments are bad nef so sorry nef, but I I have to read it. Okay. There's uh, so They asked godless can you can you recite tom's argument? Can you steel man his argument for him? He said he has to have an argument Well, let's say Whatever the way in which he was trying to persuade tonight. He doesn't care about syllogisms. He doesn't have one He said he wasn't he admitted. He wasn't even making a fucking inference So that's a no. I'm guessing gosh. Yeah, it doesn't sound Doesn't sound like she's interested next. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll sum it up. I therefore I I Next gmd apologetics 101 glad to see you john said what does gg think of warranted true belief? What's the difference between warranted and just if it doesn't just mean justified for belief Uh, it's modified epistemology alvin plenty gives modified epistemology where he says warrant is a separate kind of justification It's not the same most philosophers say they're the same thing, but he says they're different Oh, I don't know what the difference is Gotcha Gmd apologetics 101 maybe godless girl would be up for debating. I don't know but Captain gingy says I meant the general election Who are we voting for like electoral politics as in president because one is the correct answer a whole snap Are you guys willing to disclose who you're gonna vote? I am going to vote for myself write my own name in that is the correct answer Good for you Godless girl. Are you doing the same for this debate? No presidential debate Oh, I don't follow. I don't care about politics. I don't even know Trump is or is running we're talking about the president, but I don't even know who his opponent is. I don't give a shit Well then next josh, thank you for your Statements at the smirk on tom says he knows who I'm talking about I plead the fifth Next thank you so much for your question from Sigefredo Sarabia. Good to see you in the house says. What do you call someone who doesn't fart in public a private tutor? or a nosy pepper jalapeno business Yes, that was funny. I agree. Next. Thank you. Sigefredo and There's always time for a fart joke next lily ro says gg said she doesn't know anything I agree Next Mike pillars. Thanks for your super chat says bunch of betas Appreciate that Next gabriel k. Thank you. Oh my gosh. I just got an idea I'll tell you guys later gabriel k. Thanks for your Statement says tom's neck jerks Mean more than gg's comedy neck jerks Yeah, just yeah like when he does head tilting the strange Next Oh, that was I think that was it for what we have we are a little over time So I suppose we can with that just say want to say thank you so much Philip Says bret keen 2020. Well, that might happen. Who knows? Uh, thank you very much. We appreciate you folks. I honestly hate saying goodbye. I really do just enjoy Hanging out both of the speakers and also with all the peeps out there. I want to say thanks so much everybody for hanging out with us tonight This has been a true blast both of the speakers. I've linked in the description. The links are there right Now waiting for you. What are you waiting for if you want to hear more you can at those links So want to say one last thanks to godless girl and tom. We appreciate you guys hanging out with us tonight Thanks for having us Absolutely and with that want to say thanks so much everybody That was quite the if someone says that you can't be excited about philosophy You know where to point them and that's this video. So I want to say thanks so much. Uh, this is honestly Appreciate you folks tomorrow 4 p.m. Eastern standard time We will be live with a tag team debate On evolution with you know who in the bottom right corner of your screen So thanks everybody. Hope you have a great night. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care folks