- 4 minutes ago
Philosopher Stefan Molyneux debates Jay Dyer on whether God exists at Word War Debate II in Nashville, Septmeber 12, 2026. He says God is a concept with no evidence from the senses while Dyer claims logic, morality and meaning need a divine mind, and they also cover suffering and what grounds reason.
Check out Word War Debate on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@WordWarDebate
Full event on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/live/mBsUENOg70g?t=12397s
Full event on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7ff4yo-word-war-debate-ii-live-from-nashville.html?start=12583
0:00:00 Debate Begins
0:03:58 God and Reality
0:09:08 The Headless Man
0:14:36 Matter or God?
0:22:21 Problem of Evil
0:33:51 Psychedelics and Proof
0:41:00 Concepts in the Mind
0:49:30 Invisible Mouse Argument
0:55:26 Science Versus Theology
1:01:54 Closing Statements
Support philosophy! https://freedomain.com/donate/
GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/FREEDOMAIN2026
Check out Word War Debate on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@WordWarDebate
Full event on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/live/mBsUENOg70g?t=12397s
Full event on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7ff4yo-word-war-debate-ii-live-from-nashville.html?start=12583
0:00:00 Debate Begins
0:03:58 God and Reality
0:09:08 The Headless Man
0:14:36 Matter or God?
0:22:21 Problem of Evil
0:33:51 Psychedelics and Proof
0:41:00 Concepts in the Mind
0:49:30 Invisible Mouse Argument
0:55:26 Science Versus Theology
1:01:54 Closing Statements
Support philosophy! https://freedomain.com/donate/
GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/FREEDOMAIN2026
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00:00How are we doing? Two down, two to go. You guys with me?
00:00:04Great job.
00:00:05All right. All right, at World War Debate, we strive on being the gold standard of debates.
00:00:11Our Premier Debate League is now hosting the Prime Showcase.
00:00:15God is either real or God isn't real.
00:00:19Perhaps it's more complicated than that.
00:00:21We will hear from two specialists in this topic and this debate.
00:00:24Tonight's debate prompt is God or God.
00:00:31Let's meet our first debater who defends God and his existence.
00:00:35All the things that exist come from and are grounded in the divine mind.
00:00:40In other words, there is an intentional, that's purposive, universal being who is personal,
00:00:48who created this world out of his own goodness, to then give other beings a share in the being
00:00:55and life that that being has.
00:00:57We call that God, but for us, this is the Orthodox Christian Trinitarian God.
00:01:02Specifically, this principle of logos of reasoning that pervades the universe is the second person
00:01:09of the Godhead, Jesus.
00:01:10And just like all the complexity of a virtual world, if you think about it, it has a designer,
00:01:15human designer behind it.
00:01:18It mirrors the complexity, the information, coding, and structure of our world.
00:01:22It does give an account for, it does make sense of our world and how it works and how we
00:01:27can
00:01:27have meaning, how we can have science, how we can have logic, how we can have math, how
00:01:31we can have ethics.
00:01:32Please welcome to the stage, Jay Dyer!
00:02:07Welcome to the stage, Jay.
00:02:09All right, let's turn to the other side of the fight and introduce our next debater who
00:02:12claims there just isn't enough proof for the existence of God.
00:02:18What is reality?
00:02:20If you don't know whether a tree really exists, you can't say that's a tree.
00:02:24So you have to start with what exists and what doesn't.
00:02:27And from there, you can get to what's true and what's false.
00:02:29And from there, which is the step I've been working on for so long, you can get to what's
00:02:34morally right and morally wrong.
00:02:36Because the study of reality relies on the evidence of the senses, you know, your five
00:02:42senses, and it relies upon rational consistency.
00:02:46God does not impress himself on our senses.
00:02:49We can't converse with him in the way that you and I are conversing.
00:02:52We can't, you know, touch him.
00:02:53We can't call him.
00:02:54We can't measure him.
00:02:55We can't detect his presence in any way.
00:02:57And so philosophically speaking, that's the same as non-existence.
00:03:03And so that is the challenge that rational philosophy has with God.
00:03:10Please welcome to the stage, Stefan Molyneux!
00:03:39Welcome to the stage, Stefan.
00:03:41All right, before we begin the debate, please remember to respect each other.
00:03:45I want to give you timer cues, finish your sentence, and we will move on.
00:03:48We flipped a coin before we started.
00:03:50Jay, you won.
00:03:51You will open the debate.
00:03:52Let's put five minutes on the clock for your introduction.
00:03:55You will start now.
00:03:57I'm not here to debate the existence of God.
00:04:01I'm here to call upon my fellow strong black BIPOC individuals who identify with me.
00:04:10And by appealing to BIPOC strong blackness, I've already won this debate.
00:04:15As the emperor of Wixantium, we already know how this is going to go.
00:04:20By the way, shout out to Sam Tripoli for becoming basically Mario from Super Mario Brothers.
00:04:25He looks like Mario.
00:04:26I like it.
00:04:28All right, let's get into it.
00:04:30As you guys know, yes, I do make the transcendental argument for God,
00:04:33but I make a version of it here that hopefully will be accessible.
00:04:39We don't want it to be too abstract.
00:04:41And so as we talk about the elements of a worldview, we have ethics, we have metaphysics,
00:04:48which is what is, what isn't, what is reality.
00:04:51We have epistemology, which is our theory of knowledge.
00:04:54These three branches make up what it is to have a worldview or a paradigm.
00:04:59This argument will specifically argue that the Christian paradigm, the Orthodox Christian paradigm,
00:05:05gives a justification, an account, an explanatory value analysis that only can come from a worldview
00:05:15where you have a divine mind, who's omniscient, who's personal, who has reason,
00:05:21and thus a world governed by providence and those laws.
00:05:25In other words, the transcendental argument argues that the foundations of our philosophical worldview,
00:05:31those ethical principles, those causal principles, those metaphysical principles,
00:05:37those epistemic principles, they don't exist as pure matter.
00:05:43Where do they exist?
00:05:44What are they?
00:05:45They have an abstract, conceptual, universal type of existence, much like laws of logic,
00:05:51much like mathematics, et cetera.
00:05:53These transcendental categories are not and cannot be located only in the physical world.
00:05:58If you remember some years back, Stefan and I had this exact same debate,
00:06:03and Stefan was struggling to understand the difference between the number seven as a concept itself,
00:06:09as a universal thing, and seven coconuts.
00:06:12I want to reiterate that we don't locate those types of abstract conceptual things in matter itself
00:06:20because it would be self-refuting.
00:06:22Matter itself cannot be a universal.
00:06:25It cannot give you a particular law of identity type of identification when you pick out objects in the world.
00:06:33How do we get to God from this?
00:06:35Well, let me start with a couple points like causation or something like the law of identity.
00:06:43If the world itself is pure matter in motion, if it's just matter in motion,
00:06:48there's no real identity that we're picking out.
00:06:51In fact, as David Hume pointed out, being consistent with the atheist paradigm,
00:06:55there's no real justification for causation in the world.
00:07:00We need causation because causation is what gives us our principle of induction.
00:07:05The principle of induction is just simply the idea that nature operates in a regular, uniform way.
00:07:11The principle of induction itself is not found in nature.
00:07:16It is also not observed empirically.
00:07:19It goes beyond empirical sense data.
00:07:23Likewise, cause and effect or causation, the causal reality.
00:07:27It's also not identical to physical objects.
00:07:31It's a metaphysical claim.
00:07:33How do we justify metaphysical claims if we only believe in the material?
00:07:39These things go beyond the material, much like these logical laws that we mentioned,
00:07:44the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity.
00:07:46Those things are not and cannot be found in any individual's sense data.
00:07:52They are thus universal principles.
00:07:55Other principles as well fit within this domain, like telos, purpose, intentionality.
00:08:03Is this a world with no intentionality?
00:08:06In other words, is it a disteleological universe that has no ultimate purpose?
00:08:10It's just sort of matter in motion?
00:08:12Or is it a purpose-driven universe?
00:08:15Is it purposive?
00:08:17And thus it has meaning.
00:08:18Thus, individual microscopic levels of meaning, such as our debate right now, where we speak
00:08:25meaningfully with sentences, using predication, presupposing meaning.
00:08:31Meaning cannot be found in pure, raw matter.
00:08:35Thus, meaning itself is another one of these types of transcendental categories.
00:08:39How do I get to God from that?
00:08:41Well, it just so happens that on the Christian worldview, with a Christian metaphysic and a
00:08:46Christian epistemology and a Christian ethic, it makes perfect sense why there would be these
00:08:52types of non-empirical things which undergird the very possibility of debate and logic itself.
00:08:59Thank you, Jay.
00:09:02All right.
00:09:03Stephan, you have five minutes on the clock.
00:09:06Your intro starts now.
00:09:09So, when I was a kid, I was about six, I went to boarding school.
00:09:15And I came home from boarding school, and I went to bed, and I had a dream that a headless
00:09:22man was chasing me through a forest.
00:09:25Really, very scary dream.
00:09:27And he had these bony fingers, and just as his bony fingers were coming around my neck like
00:09:32some deranged Massachusetts mom...
00:09:38That's her.
00:09:40I woke up.
00:09:42And I woke up, and you know, we've all had this bad dream.
00:09:45You wake up at just the right time.
00:09:48And I woke up, and in the shadows of my room, I looked to the left of my bed, and
00:09:52I saw a
00:09:55headless man kneeling beside my bed.
00:09:58And I'm like, is this some crazy inception, wake up, wake up, wake up, kind of dream situation?
00:10:06So, terrifying.
00:10:07I, like, hands were shaking as a kid.
00:10:09I turned on the light.
00:10:11And it was not a headless man kneeling beside my bed.
00:10:15I had hung my jacket on the chair that was right beside my bed.
00:10:20So, where does the headless man exist?
00:10:24Well, he existed in my dream, for sure, I can tell you.
00:10:26I can't prove it to you, but he existed in my dream.
00:10:29And when I woke up, I thought he existed in my room.
00:10:33But he didn't.
00:10:35I made a mistake.
00:10:36With additional information with light, I made a mistake.
00:10:40So, where does the headless man exist?
00:10:42Headless men don't exist in the real world, or at least, if they do, they don't chase kids
00:10:46through forests.
00:10:47I guess they could be communists, but they don't exist in the world.
00:10:53So, the question, of course, is, does God exist?
00:10:55So, we have to define God, and we have to define existence, and we see if we put God
00:10:59in the bucket called existence.
00:11:01So, God is an all-powerful, all-knowing being outside of space and time who created the universe,
00:11:07who sustained the universe, and in many accounts is going to end the universe.
00:11:12Hopefully not during my speech.
00:11:14That would not be a good look.
00:11:16Well, actually, it might be a really good look.
00:11:19It could be very powerful.
00:11:20Like, it's one thing to be deplatformed by YouTube and PayPal and all of that,
00:11:23but to be deplatformed by the Almighty, that would be something.
00:11:29So, that's God, and then we have to define what is existence.
00:11:33Well, existence is that which conforms to reason and evidence.
00:11:37Evidence being the evidence of the senses, all of this stuff we touch, we're composed of matter.
00:11:42And I'm going to say matter, I mean matter and energy, but we'll just use the shorthand
00:11:46of matter.
00:11:46Matter is consistent, predictable, universal, has stable properties.
00:11:52In what scope?
00:11:54In the greatest conceivable scope that there is.
00:11:58Ninety-three billion light years across.
00:12:03Billions and billions of years back to the very origins of the universe,
00:12:08matter is perfectly consistent, perfectly stable, perfectly predictable.
00:12:12That is the maximum certainty that you can possibly get.
00:12:16And reason comes out of matter.
00:12:20It's the stable and predictable elements of matter that give birth to reason.
00:12:24And we know that.
00:12:24We know that empirically.
00:12:26We know that psychologically.
00:12:28We can...
00:12:29There's no law of logic that is contradicted by any of the properties of matter.
00:12:33We can see the development of our ability to reason from seven million years ago to
00:12:38when we tripled our brain volume about two million years ago.
00:12:42We can see each individual child learn to develop reason.
00:12:47I worked in a daycare.
00:12:48I've been a stay-at-home dad.
00:12:49You see children develop reason when they interact with the physical world.
00:12:55And so reason is based on matter.
00:12:58There's nothing below matter.
00:12:59There's nothing behind matter.
00:13:00There's no ghosts making gravity work.
00:13:04There's nothing behind it, nothing below it.
00:13:06It is from which all knowledge flows.
00:13:08So asking why are there the principles of matter is like going to the North Pole and
00:13:13then trying to go further north.
00:13:14You can't go north from the North Pole.
00:13:17So reason and evidence define that which exists.
00:13:20So if God is self-contradictory, God cannot exist.
00:13:22And God is a self-contradictory concept.
00:13:25I love Christian morals.
00:13:26I was raised a Christian myself.
00:13:28So I have great sympathy for Christian morals, Christian worldview, and Christian virtues.
00:13:32But God is a self-contradictory concept, all-powerful and all-knowing.
00:13:36These things contradict themselves.
00:13:37God is alive but was never born.
00:13:39God is the most complex thing but never evolved.
00:13:42And God is a mind without a brain.
00:13:45And God is immaterial but consciously interferes with the material world.
00:13:49God is a self-contradictory concept is the opposite of that which is rational.
00:13:53There's no empirical evidence for God.
00:13:55And so sadly, God is the headless man of my dream.
00:14:01God exists in the mind.
00:14:02He exists in our early experiences where we look at our parents and think they're gods
00:14:06but just not in the world of reason and evidence and facts.
00:14:10Thank you, Stefan.
00:14:11Great opening, guys.
00:14:13Fantastic stuff.
00:14:15Those of you at home, never too early to start voting.
00:14:18Start voting.
00:14:19Get yourself on your phones.
00:14:21Get yourself on your computers and vote early and often.
00:14:25Because this is word-word debate, let's move right into the open debate.
00:14:29Let's put 15 minutes on the clock and start it off right now.
00:14:33Jump in.
00:14:34Whoever wants to go.
00:14:36So make the case that reason is contingent and God is necessary.
00:14:42Because this is like a linguistic trick that you use.
00:14:44Every piece of knowledge has to found itself on something beyond which there are no questions.
00:14:48You can't go any further, otherwise you're never certain of anything.
00:14:51For a rational and empirical worldview, that's matter and energy.
00:14:55That's where you get everything from, and that's what you build everything up from.
00:14:59And Jay's position, if I understand it correctly, is that matter is contingent,
00:15:03which means it has to rely on something else.
00:15:05Reason has to rely on something else, and that thing is God.
00:15:08So if you can convince me there's a God, I'd be thrilled.
00:15:11I'd absolutely love to spend eternity with friends, family, and loved ones.
00:15:14So if you can make the case, I'd be thirsty to hear it.
00:15:17Sure.
00:15:18Simply by demonstrating, which I think you demonstrated in your opening statement,
00:15:24that reason itself cannot be reducible to or identical to matter.
00:15:28Exactly as we pointed out in the original debate,
00:15:31this is as silly as saying that the number seven is identical to seven coconuts.
00:15:35This means that matter itself magically gives birth to reason.
00:15:40So you do believe in immaterial, invariant, non-physical things like laws of logic and like reason?
00:15:49Why would the laws of reason be non-material?
00:15:51They exist as patterns within the brain.
00:15:54Well, when you call it a pattern, that begs the question.
00:15:56A pattern that has what in commonality?
00:15:59And if you think that it's just the human brain,
00:16:01then how do we know that it's the same laws of logic in my brain versus your brain?
00:16:05Well, the fact that we both made it to Nashville at the right time and place
00:16:09means that we're both operating in the same reality.
00:16:12The world is comprehensible.
00:16:13The world is universal.
00:16:14The world is rational.
00:16:16Our mind is a physical structure which interacts with the world
00:16:19to gain sustenance from the world so we can survive and grow and thrive.
00:16:23And so the brain as a material organ in a perfectly stable and predictable material universe
00:16:28evolves to detect those patterns.
00:16:30And that's what reason is.
00:16:32Is the gray matter and are the molecules in your brain identical to the gray matter
00:16:39and the molecules in my brain?
00:16:40Thank God, no.
00:16:42Oh, okay.
00:16:43So if they're not identical, then how do we know that there's some commonality
00:16:47that is a pattern that you're recognizing?
00:16:49Do you have any kids?
00:16:51How is that relevant?
00:16:53Okay, well, if you have kids, an amazing thing happens when you raise children.
00:16:57There are studies that show that children, babies as young as a few hours old can count.
00:17:03There are studies that show children of a few months of age can do statistical reasoning.
00:17:09And so the fact is that we have evolved to process the rational sense data that comes in
00:17:15from the universe that gives us commonalities.
00:17:17That allows people to organize this event to say, we want Jay and Steph, and they know that
00:17:23you and I are going to show up.
00:17:25That wasn't the question.
00:17:26The question was, how do you know that there are the same principles at work in my head
00:17:31that are at work in your head if it's just matter because it's different gray matter,
00:17:34different molecules?
00:17:35How do you know that it's the same principles since the principles you said are just the matter,
00:17:40but the matter is distinct?
00:17:42I don't understand the question.
00:17:44I'm sure you don't because it would undo the whole position.
00:17:46So it's very convenient to not understand the question.
00:17:48Your molecules are not my molecules.
00:17:50You appeal to a pattern that both share.
00:17:54That pattern is something that's not identical to the molecules here and the molecules there.
00:17:59That begs the question when you say, well, there's a study one time with peer review
00:18:03with babies, and therefore it's the same.
00:18:05No, no.
00:18:05I want to know how you know that that's the case without appealing to the thing in question.
00:18:10I still don't understand.
00:18:11Are you saying that you don't know that this is a microphone?
00:18:14Is what you're talking into a microphone?
00:18:17Yes or no?
00:18:18Sure.
00:18:19Okay, great.
00:18:19It's what I'm talking into a microphone.
00:18:21Yeah, and that makes my point.
00:18:21Boom, we're done.
00:18:22Then we're talking about the same thing.
00:18:24We don't have to worry about different molecules at all.
00:18:26So the question is, how do we know that they actually share those same universal characteristics?
00:18:31For instance, that shirt could blind even a blind man.
00:18:34We all recognize the ugliness and vicious ocular assault of that shirt.
00:18:41And so we know for it.
00:18:42That's why you need the sunglasses in case you glance down.
00:18:44And so we know we've got language.
00:18:46We've got science.
00:18:48We've got math.
00:18:48We've got physics.
00:18:49We've got fantastic ways to communicate with each other.
00:18:52And, of course, we have to work these things out, and sometimes definitions are very important.
00:18:55That's great.
00:18:56You're just asserting the things in question, so you can keep saying that we have these things.
00:18:59I'm asking, how do you, as an individual, empirical, sense-being, person-data-deriving person,
00:19:06how do you know that the non-material thing that you're calling a pattern is the same thing between us
00:19:13because you already admitted that there's different molecules?
00:19:15So what's the common thing?
00:19:18When did I say it was a—I actually explicitly said it was a material pattern you need to put on
00:19:22your listening ears.
00:19:23Oh, then it's not a pattern if it's different molecules, Stefan.
00:19:27I don't—are you saying that our arms—
00:19:29What's the thing that's the same?
00:19:30You need to let me finish my question.
00:19:32Are you saying that our arms are completely different even though we both know that they're arms?
00:19:36That's making my argument.
00:19:38What is the thing that's the same between them?
00:19:41In the arms?
00:19:42Yeah, sure.
00:19:43You mean what is it that makes our arms our arms?
00:19:45How do you have a set of things?
00:19:47Well, we both have arms that we have developed.
00:19:50Yeah, but it's different molecules, Stefan.
00:19:53If you don't let me answer, it's not a debate.
00:19:55Can you just let me answer?
00:19:57You're just talking.
00:19:58You're not answering.
00:19:59You're telling stories.
00:20:00So what's the answer?
00:20:01All right.
00:20:01So when I answer something, I'm just telling stories.
00:20:04That's a really convenient way to debate.
00:20:06When I try to answer things, you just interrupt me and say I'm not answering things.
00:20:09Is that how you want to do it or do you want to do it like two or three?
00:20:11Different molecules, what's the thing that's the same?
00:20:14I'm sorry?
00:20:14Different molecules, according to you, what's the thing that's the same that makes them a set?
00:20:20Do you not understand biological classifications?
00:20:23It's a metaphysical question.
00:20:25Where is your metaphysical answer?
00:20:27Do you not understand biological classifications?
00:20:28It's a metaphysical question, and you can't answer it by just saying, biology tells us.
00:20:33Biology doesn't give you metaphysical answers.
00:20:36I don't think anybody has any clue what you're talking about.
00:20:38We know what an arm is.
00:20:39No, people do.
00:20:40This doesn't work anymore.
00:20:42It's not 2016 libertarian atheism.
00:20:45I'm Stefan Molyneux, Freedom Aid Radio.
00:20:47Just believe in anarcho-capitalism.
00:20:49It's not 2016 anymore, dude.
00:20:51That's an impression, dummy.
00:20:54I just made the argument.
00:20:55The argument is, what's the common feature between the two arms that isn't matter?
00:21:01Because you already admitted, they're different atoms and molecules.
00:21:06So what's the thing in common that makes them a set?
00:21:08All right, let's stay on the prompt.
00:21:09Let's stay on the prompt here.
00:21:11We're getting off the prompt here.
00:21:12Let's talk about God.
00:21:13I mean, it feels like we're getting into a DNA discussion.
00:21:17This deals with abstract conceptual things and their existence, which is what gets us to God.
00:21:23Jay doesn't know what words mean.
00:21:25Jay doesn't know what biology means.
00:21:26Jay doesn't know what an arm is.
00:21:28Jay doesn't even know what a microphone is.
00:21:30And so this is all just a bunch of knowledge.
00:21:31No, that's totally just genuine.
00:21:32Let's not make it personal.
00:21:33Let's just go with the facts.
00:21:34Let's go on the God topic.
00:21:37All right.
00:21:37So let's say, let's say, so the argument is that reason needs to be grounded in God.
00:21:43Is that correct?
00:21:44The argument is that there are conceptual things that go beyond pure physicality and that conceptual
00:21:53existence has to have some metaphysical status.
00:21:57That's the thing that I do as the stepping stone to get to the God that justifies that.
00:22:01Yes.
00:22:02So God is pure reason.
00:22:04No, I didn't say that.
00:22:06Okay.
00:22:06But reason is based on God.
00:22:08I'm arguing.
00:22:08Reason is based on God.
00:22:09So what God produces in the universe is the sustainability of rationality.
00:22:14In part, yes.
00:22:15Okay, fantastic.
00:22:16So then everything in the universe being a product of a rational God is rational.
00:22:21Ultimately, yes.
00:22:22Okay, fantastic.
00:22:23So let's say that we accept that argument for a moment and maybe you solve a metaphysical
00:22:28argument, but you raise a much more difficult moral argument, which is, of course, I'm not
00:22:34going to ask for a show of hands because it's a very painful subject, but a third of
00:22:39pregnancies end in miscarriage.
00:22:41There are childhood cancers and all kinds of terrible biological things that happen in
00:22:45the world, in the world, and evolution and reality and science and biology explain these
00:22:53things, that there's transcription errors and problems and so on.
00:22:56And so if I wanted to believe in a malevolent universe, then I would say, oh, God is pure
00:23:02reason.
00:23:03Everything God produces is rational.
00:23:04Well, therefore, childhood cancers and endless miscarriages are rational, and they're not.
00:23:10They're horrible.
00:23:11They're wrong.
00:23:11They're terrible.
00:23:12They're bad.
00:23:13And if this is the product of a loving God, then God cannot be loving by any rational definition.
00:23:18So yeah, maybe you solve, even if we accept this argument, which doesn't follow, even if
00:23:23we solve the existence of God thing, we don't solve the problem of, I mean, not just evil,
00:23:28I get the free will argument, but the problem that there is horrible things that happen that
00:23:33biology can explain and perhaps work to alleviate.
00:23:36But if you're going to say, God is reason, everything in the universe is rational, you
00:23:41know, I got to tell you, man, childhood cancers are not particularly rational.
00:23:45Yeah, that's a really interesting emotional appeal to the audience, that if you feel bad
00:23:49about people dying, which obviously we would, then that would give sympathy for your argument.
00:23:53This is something that, you know, Sam Harris does all the time.
00:23:55That's a fallacy, by the way, but to the problem of evil argument, actually God's existence
00:24:00is the only thing that actually explains what evil is and why there is evil.
00:24:04On Stefan's paradigm and Stefan's worldview, not only is there not evil, there's only matter
00:24:09in motion.
00:24:09If matter is just in flux for all eternity, then you come and you go, boom, you're done.
00:24:16So it's an infinite void of nothingness and meaninglessness, which means that all of our
00:24:21lives are meaningless, which means that all of the debates we do are meaningless, which
00:24:25means that everything that Stefan just argued is also, by extension, meaningless in his paradigm.
00:24:31Thus, the universality of reason and the universality of the good is the only thing that can explain
00:24:37the possibility of there being such a thing as evil.
00:24:41He said, but God's reasonable and rational.
00:24:44Why would there be such a thing?
00:24:45Well, that's not the only part of the story.
00:24:47In the Christian paradigm, there's also the history of the fall.
00:24:51The fall is why the world is also at times irrational and it evidences things like entropy
00:24:57and decay.
00:24:58So it's not just that God is pure reason as some sort of like supercomputer.
00:25:02It's also that we live in a fallen world.
00:25:04And because there is the existence of evil that necessitates and presupposes some conception
00:25:09of the good.
00:25:10But in Stefan's worldview, there is no good other than your own individualistic desires.
00:25:15And that's all he can ever tell you.
00:25:17So on what basis is God bad?
00:25:21See, the thing that I do that's polite, Jay, is I confirm with you whether something is
00:25:25your belief.
00:25:26And you just make these assertions about what I believe without even asking me.
00:25:30Well, that's very intellectually immature.
00:25:33You said you're a materialist.
00:25:34That's very intellectually immature.
00:25:36I mean, you said you're a materialist.
00:25:37And so the reason that I sort of wanted to point this out is that Jay is moving the
00:25:42goalposts, right?
00:25:43So you remember, like it really wasn't more than a few minutes ago, when I said that things
00:25:48like childhood cancers are terrible and wrong and painful and agonizing for everyone involved,
00:25:53particularly for the children.
00:25:54So then Jay, and I said, I'm not talking about evil, right?
00:25:58I understand the problem of free will.
00:26:00You've got free will.
00:26:00You can do bad things.
00:26:01I get that.
00:26:02So then Jay completely strawmans the argument and says that I'm talking about evil and
00:26:07there's free will.
00:26:07And I specifically said that wasn't the case.
00:26:09So the problem is that Jay is not listening in the moment.
00:26:12Jay has a bunch of pre-programmed responses like an NPC, doesn't listen in the moment.
00:26:16And when I specifically talk about things that aren't evil, like childhood cancers, he
00:26:20says, oh, well, no, that's just the problem of evil.
00:26:22And it's been solved a long time ago with the magic ghost of free will, which I am a free
00:26:25will guy.
00:26:26So it's a little hard to have a debate when he's just running this NPC script and not
00:26:31actually responding to the things I'm saying.
00:26:33But the important thing is not to change Jay's mind, which I don't think is possible, but
00:26:36to appeal to the reason and evidence of the audience, which I see by the smiles I'm having
00:26:40some success with.
00:26:42Okay, Stefan, you said 93 billion light years ago, Matter was doing such and such.
00:26:47No, no, also false.
00:26:49Yes, you did.
00:26:49Yes, you did.
00:26:50I wrote it down as you said it.
00:26:51No, that's incorrect.
00:26:52Yeah, you've got to listen, man.
00:26:5593 billion light years across is the width of the universe.
00:26:59That's not a measure of time, but of distance.
00:27:01Okay.
00:27:03What?
00:27:04It doesn't, it doesn't matter either way, because how do you know that?
00:27:09It doesn't matter.
00:27:10Do you have access to that time?
00:27:13What a level of precision we have going on here.
00:27:16One at a time.
00:27:16It works better that way.
00:27:17As an empiricist, as an empiricist, how do you have access?
00:27:24Can you stop talking, please?
00:27:25Calm down.
00:27:27As an empiricist, you derive your knowledge.
00:27:30Can you please get her to, she's talked the entire time.
00:27:33This chick is insane, man.
00:27:34Please, please.
00:27:35No, it's distracting.
00:27:36Like I'm trying to make arguments and she won't stop talking.
00:27:41In terms of empirical sense data, because you are an empiricist, you are limited to finite sense data.
00:27:48But throughout your statement, you made multiple universal claims, which you don't have access to because it's not justified.
00:27:55You cannot make a move, and this was the whole point of David Hume's argument, from the individual particulars to
00:28:02what is universally the case.
00:28:04Now, you did that about five times in your opening statement.
00:28:07So I want to know how you justify epistemically the move from particulars to universal claims.
00:28:13Sure.
00:28:14So we can see 93 billion years across.
00:28:17We can see back, I think it's 13.8 billion years in time with perfect universal consistency.
00:28:23How?
00:28:24Excuse me.
00:28:24Universal?
00:28:25Can I finish?
00:28:26Just let him finish.
00:28:27Can I finish the point?
00:28:29We got one minute.
00:28:30One minute, by the way.
00:28:32Right.
00:28:32So we can see all across time, we can see all across the history of the universe, perfect consistency.
00:28:37So that's the greatest certainty you could possibly have.
00:28:40I mean, imagine if you had a wife.
00:28:42Storytelling.
00:28:42Who was faithful to you for 14 billion years.
00:28:46Never looked at another man.
00:28:47Never put her DMs to open.
00:28:50Nothing like that.
00:28:50And then you say, but tomorrow she's going to cheat on me.
00:28:54I mean, that would be crazy, right?
00:28:55So if you've got perfect consistency across time and space, that is as much certainty as
00:28:59you get.
00:29:00All of our best predictions assume all the universal claims.
00:29:03How do you as an individual do this?
00:29:05All the best predictions.
00:29:05This is storytelling filibustering.
00:29:07Okay.
00:29:08You go ahead.
00:29:09Filibustering.
00:29:10You're just filibustering.
00:29:11No.
00:29:11I want to know how you justify the universal claim.
00:29:13Filibustering is saying filibustering.
00:29:15Oh, it's not an argument.
00:29:16It's storytelling.
00:29:17All right.
00:29:17It's not an argument.
00:29:18Okay.
00:29:18Okay.
00:29:18It's not an argument.
00:29:20It's not an argument.
00:29:20It's not an argument.
00:29:20We're running out of time.
00:29:21You need to let me finish my point.
00:29:22You're just storytelling and filibustering.
00:29:24Ah, storytelling is also not an argument.
00:29:28You're not making arguments.
00:29:29All right.
00:29:29Time's up.
00:29:29Time's up, everybody.
00:29:30Time's up.
00:29:31Time's up.
00:29:31Time's up.
00:29:31Time's up.
00:29:33Oh, baby.
00:29:34We're getting into it now.
00:29:35I got a good feeling about this.
00:29:37First debate has concluded, the first portion of it.
00:29:40The next section, I have some questions to ask both of you.
00:29:43Jay, I'll start with you.
00:29:44Do we need an intermediary to speak with God?
00:29:50Yes and no.
00:29:51I mean, in one sense, we can all speak directly to God, but also in the Christian paradigm,
00:29:56God has established other means by which we can also go to God, namely through the church.
00:30:00So the answer is both and, not either or.
00:30:03So not necessarily, your views on organized religion.
00:30:08I'm Orthodox, so I believe in the Orthodox Church.
00:30:10Okay.
00:30:11All right.
00:30:13Stefan, we're living in this magical world.
00:30:16Who built it?
00:30:19It just is.
00:30:20It's an irreducible primary.
00:30:22Now, people say, ah, but you can't have irreducible primaries.
00:30:24They call it in the religious world, they're brute facts.
00:30:28Brute facts.
00:30:29You know, they're facts that grab your ass.
00:30:31You brute.
00:30:31They're facts that you have to report to HR.
00:30:34They're just brute facts.
00:30:35But God is just a brute fact.
00:30:37It's just one step removed.
00:30:38It's like saying, well, there's gravity, and gravity is a bunch of tiny little angels
00:30:41flapping and pushing things.
00:30:42It's like you don't need the angels, because all the angels do is say that gravity is a
00:30:46certainty, but gravity is a certainty anyway.
00:30:48And so you don't need anything to be ascribed to create that which is eternal and already
00:30:54is.
00:30:55Now, if you're religious, again, I respect the morals, and I appreciate that.
00:30:58That's a great journey we can go on together.
00:31:00You say, God just is.
00:31:01God does not need to be created.
00:31:03God just is.
00:31:04But it's an extra layer of just is that then goes far beyond what matter represents.
00:31:10And you can say matter just is.
00:31:12Matter is eternal.
00:31:12Can't be created or destroyed.
00:31:14Universal properties are universal and absolute.
00:31:16And so if something is an irreducible primary, it cannot be created.
00:31:21And if you have trouble with that with matter and you're religious, just think, well, God
00:31:24can't be created, and that's fine.
00:31:25So matter can't be created or destroyed.
00:31:27We know that from the conservation of energy.
00:31:29So we don't need something to have been created that is eternal and stable.
00:31:34Jay, why are people taught to fear God?
00:31:38Isn't this supposed to be a loving and compassionate God?
00:31:41Yeah, just like the previous question, it's a false either or.
00:31:44Or both things are true in one sense.
00:31:45We fear God because he will be our judge at the end of our lives and because he is the
00:31:51sovereign of the universe and the creator.
00:31:53But also we love God because God made us to love him and to love one another.
00:31:57So it's just, again, another kind of false either or where we don't absolutize one text.
00:32:02We take all the texts kind of in harmony to harmonize them.
00:32:07Stefan, what about the structure of the universe?
00:32:10Do you believe in intelligent design?
00:32:12There has to be some sort of system in place that keeps everything from flying off, right?
00:32:18No, no.
00:32:19So the nature of matter is matter.
00:32:25There is no change to it.
00:32:26There is no progress to it.
00:32:28It doesn't alter.
00:32:29All of the best theories that we have assume that the properties of matter aren't going
00:32:33to change.
00:32:34A hydrogen atom is going to do what it does as it always has across, again, 93 billion years
00:32:38and almost 14 billion years of history.
00:32:40It's just stable.
00:32:41If things were to suddenly magically change tomorrow, there's no scientific theory by which
00:32:46that could happen.
00:32:47It could never happen across the universe because if everything changed all at once, it would
00:32:51mean that information was traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible.
00:32:54So we have a structured brain in a structured universe.
00:32:58It's been stable throughout the entire history and breadth of the universe.
00:33:01It's not going to change.
00:33:02There's no theory by which it could change.
00:33:04And if you introduce a God into the equation, then you know for sure it's going to change
00:33:09because billions of people around the world pray every night.
00:33:11For what?
00:33:12They say, God, please change the properties of matter and energy.
00:33:15God, please heal this childhood cancer that my kid had.
00:33:18God, please have me not crash this car if I drive drunk tomorrow.
00:33:21So people are constantly appealing for God to change the nature of matter and energy.
00:33:25The only certainty that we can possibly have is in a universe that is not constantly dictated
00:33:31and interfered to by an all-knowing, all-powerful being whose particular goals and processes we
00:33:38could never conceivably understand.
00:33:39So the only way that we can have any certainty in this universe is if matter is stable and not
00:33:45interfered with by some cosmic consciousness.
00:33:54Jay, how can God know what is wrong if he is incapable of doing anything wrong?
00:34:01How can God know what is wrong?
00:34:03What is wrong?
00:34:04What's right and wrong if he's incapable of doing anything wrong?
00:34:08Well, I mean, I can know.
00:34:10The medieval Stelastics answered this question by saying that there's a notional idea of things
00:34:15versus experiential knowledge of things.
00:34:16So because God's omniscient, it doesn't require that he actually be in every mode of being
00:34:21to know notionally what that thing is, just like I can know about China without being China
00:34:26or being in China.
00:34:27So in the same analogous way, I'm not saying it's identical.
00:34:30I'm just saying it's an analogy.
00:34:32God can know what it is to be a bat without being a bat because God isn't restricted to
00:34:38empirical sense data and the limitations, infinitude of empirical sense data, which don't justify
00:34:43justify Stefan's universal storytelling about 93 billion light years.
00:34:49This is a difficult topic.
00:34:52And people come at trying to understand God from a variety of different angles.
00:34:57I'm wondering if either of you have had the additional help of psychedelics and open you
00:35:04up to the possibility of God.
00:35:06You mean other than this shirt?
00:35:07No.
00:35:09That's a no for you?
00:35:10No psychedelics?
00:35:11No?
00:35:12I mean, I'm not trying to out anybody, but I'm just saying in terms of opening your mind
00:35:16up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong, I'm just curious if you guys,
00:35:20in your exploration of God or non-God...
00:35:23Can I just revise my answer?
00:35:24That shirt and that jacket.
00:35:27Stuff.
00:35:27All the psychedelics.
00:35:29I would wear that.
00:35:32Listen, I'm sorry you guys don't have hair.
00:35:34I know you guys wish you had hair.
00:35:37It's a little bit of hair.
00:35:38How dare you?
00:35:39How dare you?
00:35:40How hair are you?
00:35:42It's just testosterone.
00:35:43Well, I'm just wondering if psychedelics have played any role in your awakening throughout
00:35:47the course of your life, no?
00:35:48I mean, I've done psychedelics when I was young, but no, they didn't have any role.
00:35:51Nothing to do with God or anything like that?
00:35:53Okay, let me ask you this.
00:35:55How do we prove this?
00:35:56How do we prove this?
00:35:58God is real.
00:35:59God is not real.
00:36:01Are we going to walk out of here with an answer tonight?
00:36:03Well, I'll give a very brief one.
00:36:05I like the empiricism you can test, right?
00:36:07I like the empiricism of matter and science, not government science because, you know, COVID
00:36:13and global warming and nonsense like that, but, you know, private science.
00:36:18So I like the empiricism that you can test and measure.
00:36:21And if you were to divide the world into two groups, let's say, and I'll keep this very
00:36:26brief.
00:36:26You've got scientists, you've got theologians.
00:36:29Now, if God is pure reason, then the theologians should end up with far more agreement than
00:36:34the scientists, because the scientists are dealing with imperfect matter with our inconstant
00:36:38senses and all of that.
00:36:39But what we found is that religion has had between 100 and 200,000 years, at least, to
00:36:46tell us what God is and his properties and his nature.
00:36:48And I love that Jay doesn't know what an arm is, but he knows the nature of God.
00:36:51That's an amazing statement.
00:36:53But what we're doing is scientists have had a couple of hundred years to explain the
00:36:59universe, and they've done a really fantastic job.
00:37:00It's why we have all of this technology and how we could get here very easily.
00:37:04The theologians, after a couple of hundred thousand years, are still squabbling and bickering
00:37:08and fighting and disagreeing, not just between religions, but even within religions, even within
00:37:13particular denominations.
00:37:15They can't come to any agreement.
00:37:16That's how you know that God doesn't exist and is subjective.
00:37:18Because if you're studying the fountainhead and the source of pure reason, you should
00:37:23all come to an agreement.
00:37:24But we find that's only the case in objective disciplines like science and physics, mathematics
00:37:28and so on.
00:37:29And so that's one reason we know that God is subjective, is that nobody who believes in
00:37:33God can come to any firm conclusions.
00:37:34Come on, dude.
00:37:35It's not a sermon.
00:37:37I love the word...
00:37:38The use of the word storytelling rather than a rebuttal.
00:37:40Because you're not making arguments.
00:37:42I am making arguments.
00:37:43It's all absurd.
00:37:43You and your ideology can't hear it.
00:37:45You ask God...
00:37:45You make no arguments, just assertions.
00:37:47No.
00:37:48Not a single argument.
00:37:49Those are empirical arguments.
00:37:50Matter has stable properties.
00:37:52Is that truth value in matter itself?
00:37:55Matter has stable properties.
00:37:56Do you see that in a microscope?
00:37:58Yes.
00:37:59The proposition is in the microscope?
00:38:00The stable properties are observed in the microscope.
00:38:03The proposition's truth value is that in the microscope?
00:38:06That's like saying, is the temperature in the mercury in a thermometer?
00:38:09No, the meaning, the truth value.
00:38:11You don't think...
00:38:11The truth...
00:38:12Do sentences have truth value?
00:38:13Truth exists in the mind's relationship to what it...
00:38:16Is that universal?
00:38:17Okay, so...
00:38:19Is that universal?
00:38:20Can the moderator...
00:38:20Can you just let him ask me?
00:38:21Okay, let's...
00:38:22I'll do the question.
00:38:24He just acts like I'm interrupting.
00:38:26He keeps interrupting me and then says I won't answer.
00:38:28This is sad.
00:38:28You haven't answered any questions.
00:38:29It feels a bit like an interrogation, though.
00:38:32So let's...
00:38:33Every other debate did this.
00:38:34What are you talking about?
00:38:36All right, well...
00:38:36Every other debate...
00:38:38Absolutely, he did.
00:38:38So if I...
00:38:38And let me just explain this to the audience, since he won't listen.
00:38:41No, this is just storytelling.
00:38:42So if I point at this and I say this is a microphone, I'm correct.
00:38:44He just yaps and tells the same thing from the opening statement over and over and over.
00:38:48Just let him answer.
00:38:49It works better if we do one and then the other and then the other, instead of talking
00:38:53over each other.
00:38:53Let's go, Stefan.
00:38:54Yaps, storytime, assertions.
00:38:55You're filibustering.
00:38:56So filibustering.
00:38:58I forgot that one.
00:38:58That's also a good argument.
00:38:59That's what you're doing the whole time.
00:39:00So if I point at this and I say this is a tree, I'm incorrect.
00:39:04So there's things that exist, things that don't exist, and then there's accuracy in the
00:39:08mind about what we're talking about.
00:39:10So I hold this up and I say, my eyesight is not fantastic, so I need giant text.
00:39:15It's very sad.
00:39:16Very sad.
00:39:16It used to be good.
00:39:17But I've just done so much reading.
00:39:20So if I'm going to say things about things in reality, I can be true or I can be false.
00:39:24And that is if the ideas in the mind correspond accurately to things in reality.
00:39:28So again, not answering the question about truth value.
00:39:30I actually have just answered the question.
00:39:31No, the truth value itself is that under the microscope, is it in the matter?
00:39:37The stable properties are in the matter.
00:39:39The assertion that the properties are stable is in the mind.
00:39:42The truth value.
00:39:42You've got to let me finish the answer.
00:39:44You're not answering.
00:39:45Ten seconds.
00:39:47I don't even know what to say.
00:39:48The truth value itself is yes or no.
00:39:50I'm just going to talk to the audience.
00:39:52You have to say yes.
00:39:53So the stable properties.
00:39:54And time.
00:39:56That's time.
00:39:58That's time.
00:39:58That's time.
00:39:59All right.
00:40:00All right.
00:40:00We're getting there.
00:40:01Before we get back to our next open debate, let's see what the audience has to say.
00:40:05We're going to go to at reexamination show.
00:40:07Steph, isn't normativity evidence for God?
00:40:11To be able to call some thoughts errors means we fall short of an ideal.
00:40:16Whose ideal ground the ought to believe true things?
00:40:21Whose ideal ground?
00:40:23So, of course, we know from lower animals, so to speak, animals without a conceptual ability
00:40:29to reason, that they interact with reality in very successful ways.
00:40:33Lions don't hunt rocks and try to eat them.
00:40:36They hunt the baby foals and zebras and so on.
00:40:38So all animals need to successfully interact with reality in order to survive.
00:40:42I don't know why God made a nature where animals have to tear each other apart and eat each other's
00:40:47young.
00:40:48That seems pretty horrible.
00:40:49Nature and biology explain that for God it would just have to be a sadist.
00:40:53I mean, if you put all of the animals in a zoo in one pit and they all tore each
00:40:57other up,
00:40:57you'd be up on charges.
00:40:58But apparently it's fine for God because he's perfect.
00:41:00So the way that we find out if things are true is we make hypotheses or conjectures about things
00:41:07in the world, we measure the response, and we find out if we're right or not.
00:41:11And hopefully we have a consistent theory about how they are going to operate in the world.
00:41:15All right.
00:41:16Our first rumble rant from at Alexander Mitrios.
00:41:21Jay mentioned that a pattern isn't material.
00:41:24Can you explain how the concept of a pattern is material, Stefan?
00:41:29Sure.
00:41:29So the concept of a pattern is something that is in the mind.
00:41:33So if I say this is a microphone, I'm using language that is in my mind to correctly identify
00:41:37things in the world which I can verify by speaking into it and seeing if it amplifies my voice and
00:41:42so on.
00:41:43So we are trying to translate raw sense data into universal patterns and characteristics.
00:41:48Those universal patterns and characteristics exist within the mind.
00:41:52Sounds good.
00:41:52All right.
00:41:53Do we have any more questions?
00:41:54No more questions?
00:41:55All right.
00:41:55Now that we've heard from a few fans, let's get right back into it.
00:41:58We now move into the next and final open debate of this verbal battle.
00:42:03Put 15 minutes on the clock and start the round now.
00:42:07Is the concept identical to the molecules?
00:42:11If the concept is accurate, it accurately describes the molecule.
00:42:15So is the concept in your head different than the concept in my head?
00:42:19Not if we have the correct definition.
00:42:21But you said they're the same.
00:42:22You said it's identical to the molecules.
00:42:24No, I didn't.
00:42:25Yes, you just did.
00:42:26You said, yes, you did.
00:42:27You just contradicted yourself.
00:42:28You literally just said it's identical to the molecules.
00:42:31No, I didn't.
00:42:32I didn't.
00:42:33I said that the conception in the mind is derived from the stability of the molecule.
00:42:38Is the conception identical to the molecules?
00:42:40No.
00:42:40In your view?
00:42:41No.
00:42:41So what is it?
00:42:43It is.
00:42:43Okay.
00:42:44What's the ontological status?
00:42:45Let me give you an example.
00:42:47What is it?
00:42:47I'll tell you.
00:42:48So if you can see behind me, I have a shadow.
00:42:51I don't know if we could use props if I'm a prop.
00:42:53So here's a shadow, right?
00:42:54Now the shadow doesn't exist independent of my movements, right?
00:42:59So I move and the shadow goes up and down and so on.
00:43:02So the concept that is accurate in the mind is like the shadow on the wall.
00:43:06This is an analogy, but it's a way of saying that it is not subjective.
00:43:10It is derived from the behavior of matter in the world.
00:43:13And so when we correctly identify things in the world, we have accurate concepts.
00:43:17Those concepts exist as neuron patterns within the mind.
00:43:21So they are like shadows cast by the reality.
00:43:24So the concepts are the matter or they are not the matter?
00:43:26I'm sorry?
00:43:26The concepts are the matter or are not the matter?
00:43:30Didn't you just have a whole bunch of false dichotomies?
00:43:32You're giving me a false dichotomy.
00:43:33I'm asking you on your view.
00:43:34You explained it to me.
00:43:35No, but...
00:43:36So two quoque, you're doing a two quoque?
00:43:38Do you not understand what I just said?
00:43:40You're doing a two quoque.
00:43:41You're asking me a question about your...
00:43:42Do you not understand what I just said?
00:43:44You just...
00:43:44You didn't answer the question.
00:43:46Is the concept identical to the matter or not?
00:43:49You said an analogy.
00:43:50The concept is accurate or inaccurate depending on how well it describes the matter it says
00:43:55it's describing.
00:43:56Okay.
00:43:56So it's not identical to the matter it describes it.
00:43:59I still don't understand what you mean by...
00:44:01The concept is the thing that's in commonality between the two different heads, the two different
00:44:05brains.
00:44:06You're talking back and forth.
00:44:08Okay.
00:44:08And you're not answering whether or not it's matter or not because you want it both ways.
00:44:12You want a worldview where there's non-physical things that are conceptual, but you also want
00:44:17materialism.
00:44:18But the problem is that you've already made countless logical claims and appeals to logical
00:44:24laws and universal claims which go beyond individual empirical sense data, like the idea that
00:44:30you know what happened 93 billion years ago.
00:44:33Well, we actually can see 93 billion years ago.
00:44:36No, you can't.
00:44:36Let's let them answer.
00:44:37No, you can't.
00:44:37Let them answer.
00:44:39Okay.
00:44:39So just to dumb it.
00:44:40The audience doesn't need it dumbed down, so I'm sorry to be using this pedestrian kind
00:44:44of language.
00:44:45So I have identified this as a microphone.
00:44:48Hands up if you don't agree it's a microphone.
00:44:50I don't want to give everyone too much exercise here, although you all look very fit, very fit.
00:44:55So if I say this is a microphone, I have a concept in my mind that this is a microphone.
00:44:59I've looked at it.
00:45:00I've tested it.
00:45:00I've used it.
00:45:01It follows all of the properties of a microphone.
00:45:03It doesn't have any contradictions.
00:45:05Is the microphone physically inside my head?
00:45:09Jay may want that, but it's not physically inside my head, right?
00:45:13So I have a concept of the microphone in my head that is accurate, which is why I know
00:45:18to speak into this.
00:45:21So when you say, is the microphone and the concept the same material?
00:45:25No, I said the mind and the concept, not the microphone.
00:45:28Your brain, the gray matter, is the concept identical to the molecules in here is a simple
00:45:33question.
00:45:34Yes or no?
00:45:35You mean, is there a little photograph of a microphone in my head?
00:45:37You tell me what the ontological status of the concepts is in your view, because you're
00:45:43appealing to things that don't make sense on a materialist worldview.
00:45:46So you don't know what a microphone is?
00:45:48No, that's a two-quote-quote fallacy.
00:45:49I'm asking you on your paradigm what it is.
00:45:52How is it possible?
00:45:53If all that exists is matter, then how do you know that there's such a thing as a concept?
00:45:57Because that's more than matter.
00:45:59The mind, okay, so.
00:46:01So you don't have an answer.
00:46:02Okay, let me.
00:46:02No answer.
00:46:03Let me answer.
00:46:04Okay, so let me answer.
00:46:05So about six or seven million years ago, we split off from the chimpanzees.
00:46:10Now, we have, okay, let me just finish.
00:46:13You want the answer?
00:46:13You're filibustering because you don't have an answer.
00:46:15He doesn't answer.
00:46:16You're not moderating because you just let him filibuster.
00:46:19Stop yelling at him.
00:46:19Let him answer.
00:46:20Answer the question.
00:46:24So, as I was saying, we split off from chimpanzees six or seven million years ago.
00:46:28There was a creature called an Arthralopithecus, and that had a brain volume about two-thirds
00:46:33smaller than what we have.
00:46:35And then we can see this in the fossil record and the brain skull record and so on.
00:46:39You see concepts in the fossil record?
00:46:41We can see the capacity of the brain expands.
00:46:44You see the concepts there?
00:46:45Okay, let me just finish the answer.
00:46:47This is storytelling.
00:46:48And then we can see the brain expand and develop.
00:46:53Neofrontal cortex expands.
00:46:54And we can also see it's a very interesting thing.
00:46:56So evolutionary story, no concept.
00:46:58We can see it's a very interesting thing.
00:46:59We can see that.
00:47:00Where's the concept?
00:47:01It's magic, Stefan.
00:47:02A longer childhood precedes greater brain development.
00:47:05And now we have this incredible brain that is 20% of our energy, which is why we had
00:47:09to develop agriculture and cooking and so on.
00:47:11This is a story.
00:47:11Why are you not moderating, dude?
00:47:13You let him story.
00:47:14He's answering the question.
00:47:16Let him answer the question.
00:47:17You don't know how to moderate.
00:47:18You just, all you do is yell at everybody.
00:47:20Pipe down.
00:47:21Let him answer the fucking question.
00:47:22I'm sorry, you guys are bald.
00:47:23I'm sorry.
00:47:24Between you and Mariah, my God.
00:47:26It's a story.
00:47:26It's not an answer.
00:47:27You don't know how to moderate.
00:47:28Let him answer.
00:47:30It's not an answer.
00:47:30It's filibustering.
00:47:34So we can see, so it's a very interesting thing.
00:47:38Where children are exposed to reason, you ever have kids and you play the peekaboo, you
00:47:42hide and you reveal, that's to teach object constancy so that we know how to interact
00:47:47successfully with things in the world.
00:47:49We can see this growing in children.
00:47:51And we also know if children lack visual ability, like they're blind, then the reason
00:47:56doesn't develop in visual spatial skills.
00:47:58It's very interesting.
00:47:59If a child is deaf, it doesn't really understand sarcasm very well because sarcasm...
00:48:03No, I'm just going to keep interrupting because you're just letting him...
00:48:05Let's make a deal.
00:48:07Answer the questions, but do it shorter.
00:48:09Yeah, that's fair.
00:48:13Everybody's a failed stand-up.
00:48:15They turn to philosophy.
00:48:16So, yeah.
00:48:16So we can see development of capacity to reason in the fossil record.
00:48:21We can see it in individual children.
00:48:23And we can test it where children lack particular sense data.
00:48:26They don't develop reasoning in that sense data.
00:48:27And you'll notice, of course, that Jay is using sense data to transmit all of his information.
00:48:34So he perfectly accepts that sense data is a source of knowledge.
00:48:37He believes in radical materialism, which is a very difficult position to defend philosophically.
00:48:42I specifically asked multiple times throughout this debate for a justification for his explanation
00:48:47that there's different gray matter in our heads, but there's a common concept.
00:48:52The question is, what ontologically is that common concept if you are a radical materialist?
00:48:59And when asked a very simple question to justify those claims and those assertions, he tells
00:49:04the evolutionary paradigm story, which is not a justification.
00:49:07That's why it's storytelling.
00:49:08That's why in logic, that's a fallacy.
00:49:10You can't just tell a long story.
00:49:12When the question is, how on your paradigm do you give an account for non-material things,
00:49:18reason, evolving from material things?
00:49:20You can't just say, well, because it was a long time and there's a lot of billion years
00:49:24ago and there was a lot of evolution in the fossil.
00:49:26The fossil record doesn't show you concepts.
00:49:28That was the question.
00:49:30Is God a concept in your mind?
00:49:32So this is a two-quote way.
00:49:33Is God a concept in your mind?
00:49:35Two-quote way.
00:49:35I asked you, how do you get a concept from matter?
00:49:38You don't have an answer.
00:49:39I don't actually have to answer you.
00:49:41I can also interrogate you.
00:49:43Yeah, that's called a two-quote policy.
00:49:45Is God a concept?
00:49:45Because you don't have an answer.
00:49:46Is God a concept in your mind?
00:49:47Because you don't have an answer.
00:49:48Let's do one at a time.
00:49:49Come on, come on, come on.
00:49:49Is God a concept in your mind?
00:49:51Sure.
00:49:52Okay.
00:49:53Are there concepts in your mind that come from anything to do with material reality?
00:49:57Sure.
00:49:58Okay.
00:49:58But I'm not a materialist.
00:49:59It's not a problem for me.
00:50:01That's my paradigm.
00:50:02You have a different paradigm.
00:50:04He has concepts.
00:50:05He wants to have things that make no sense in his paradigm, which makes sense in mind.
00:50:10That was the transcendental argument.
00:50:12So he has things in his mind that come from the material world that are concepts.
00:50:16So we're done.
00:50:16That doesn't mean we have the same account of them, Stefan.
00:50:19We don't have an account for them.
00:50:20We're done.
00:50:21Animals have concepts.
00:50:22We're done.
00:50:22So he has no answer.
00:50:23He just declares we're done when asked a pressing hard question for his worldview.
00:50:27I don't have to give an account for it.
00:50:29We're just done.
00:50:30It just is.
00:50:31How many times did he say in this debate, reality just is.
00:50:33It just is.
00:50:35No answer.
00:50:35Well, you say God just is.
00:50:37No, that wasn't the argument.
00:50:38At least there's material proof of reality.
00:50:41That wasn't the argument.
00:50:42At least there's physical, tangible proof of reality.
00:50:44That wasn't the argument.
00:50:45You say God just is.
00:50:46Hundreds of thousands of years, you guys, have produced nothing.
00:50:49Nothing.
00:50:50You said a minute ago, hundreds of thousands of years of people debating theology.
00:50:53Who was debating theology 200,000 years ago?
00:50:56Do you not know the archaeological records?
00:50:58Who was debating theology then?
00:51:00Well, so there are 40,000 years ago, there are religious symbols.
00:51:04We can go back 100,000 years for what appeared to be religious symbols.
00:51:07Who was debating theology 200,000 years ago?
00:51:09Do you think that people didn't talk about why?
00:51:11I want to know how you know these.
00:51:13Let me ask you this.
00:51:13Tell these grand stories.
00:51:14How do you know it, Stefan?
00:51:15Because there are carbon dated historical records of people.
00:51:18Have you verified those things empirically?
00:51:20Have you verified God empirically?
00:51:22Tuquokwe.
00:51:23Oh, no, no.
00:51:23Tuquokwe.
00:51:24Have you verified God empirically?
00:51:25That was a tuquokwe.
00:51:27Please, show me.
00:51:28Show me.
00:51:28Listen, if God is the type of being that is not material, then why would he be proven in a
00:51:35material way?
00:51:35Hence why the argument necessitates arguing for him on the basis of non-physical, abstract, conceptual things like I've been
00:51:43arguing this whole time.
00:51:44Look, I've made the transcendental argument multiple times.
00:51:47I still don't think after seven years you get it.
00:51:49I know you don't like it.
00:51:50You don't agree with it.
00:51:51But could you at least restate what you think I'm arguing?
00:51:54Even if you disagree, what do you think I'm arguing?
00:51:56What do you think the argument is?
00:51:57No.
00:51:57What I want to do is...
00:51:59So he won't.
00:51:59So no.
00:51:59So he doesn't even understand the argument.
00:52:00I don't have to do what you want me to do.
00:52:02So I will make this case, though, that God...
00:52:05Let me give you...
00:52:06I'll keep this brief.
00:52:07I know we want to keep things brief.
00:52:08So let's say I say I have an invisible mouse on my hand.
00:52:11And you say, well, can I touch it?
00:52:12And I say, no.
00:52:13And I say, well, can I see it through infrared?
00:52:15No.
00:52:15And I say, does it have hair?
00:52:16No.
00:52:17Does it give birth to live young?
00:52:18No.
00:52:18Is it warm-blooded?
00:52:19No.
00:52:20So what I've done is I've taken the properties of a mouse and I've removed them one by one.
00:52:23And eventually you end up with nothing that is comprehensible at all.
00:52:26So what is God?
00:52:28Well, God is alive or God has a form of life.
00:52:30Well, what is life?
00:52:31Life starts simple and evolves complex.
00:52:34Oh, but God is the most complex right at the beginning of things.
00:52:36Life is born.
00:52:37God is not born.
00:52:38Life dies.
00:52:39God doesn't die.
00:52:40Life reproduces.
00:52:41God doesn't reproduce.
00:52:42Life is bound by space and time.
00:52:44God is unbound by space and time.
00:52:45Life is limited in power.
00:52:48Oh, God is all-powerful.
00:52:49Life is limited in knowledge.
00:52:50God is all-knowing.
00:52:51So what you've done is you've taken the concept of life and you strip them away one by one
00:52:55until you have a quivering mass of nothing that explains nothing, can't possibly exist,
00:52:59and is useless in any rational, empirical, or scientific way.
00:53:03Okay.
00:53:04So that was, again, a giant story, which is not an argument.
00:53:08It's just rhetoric.
00:53:09So I want to know in Stefan's worldview, given that he believes in empirical sense data,
00:53:14and again, as I said in the first 10 minutes, particular instances, how do you get to the
00:53:21universal claims that you keep making throughout this debate?
00:53:24How do you justify the move from empirical sense data 1, 2, 3, 4, particular, to that
00:53:29it's universally the case?
00:53:31Logically, how do you make that move?
00:53:34We demonstrate it every time we use science.
00:53:37That's the thing in question.
00:53:38You're begging the question.
00:53:39So it's true logically because we demonstrate it, but I'm asking you how you know that logically
00:53:44it's true.
00:53:45Because it works.
00:53:46That's a pragmatic argument.
00:53:48It's a fallacy.
00:53:48It's not a fallacy.
00:53:49A lot of...
00:53:50Not a fallacy.
00:53:51Can error work?
00:53:51Can error work to do something that I want it to do?
00:53:55It's not a fallacy when you provide evidence for something.
00:53:57No, evidence for the non-empirical laws of logic is what I'm asking for.
00:54:01How do you prove that logic actually is logical and universal?
00:54:06Logic is derived from the stable properties of matter.
00:54:08Is that universally true?
00:54:10Logic is derived from the stable properties...
00:54:12Is that proposition universally true?
00:54:14What do you mean by universally?
00:54:16Is it true at all times and all places?
00:54:18It has been true for the entire history and length of the universe as we...
00:54:21Have you observed the history of the universe?
00:54:24No.
00:54:25So you don't have a justification for that claim?
00:54:27You mean, am I God?
00:54:28If I was God, I wouldn't be arguing against myself.
00:54:31You don't have a justification for the claim, which it took two fucking hours to get him
00:54:35to realize.
00:54:37So apparently, the universal properties of matter and energy...
00:54:41You don't know that they're universal.
00:54:42Hang on, hang on.
00:54:42I'll let you finish.
00:54:43The universal properties of matter and energy across all of time and space are not enough
00:54:47to prove something, but him pulling a ghost out of his ass is absolute proof.
00:54:51Yeah.
00:54:52So that which you can't prove...
00:54:53No, you notice what he did there.
00:54:53That which you can't touch.
00:54:54That which you can't reach about.
00:54:55He just lost the debate because he says, I can't justify it.
00:54:58It's totally true, but the matter and energy...
00:54:59Look at him spiraling.
00:55:00He can't justify it.
00:55:01When he gets pinned down, he finally answers, and he has no answer.
00:55:06How is it universal, Stefan?
00:55:08How is what universal?
00:55:09Your universal claim.
00:55:11My universal claim?
00:55:13Because it is observed all...
00:55:14Because it is.
00:55:15Because it is.
00:55:16Okay, so...
00:55:17Reality is reality.
00:55:18We're at T-dump level.
00:55:20So Stefan has not progressed beyond T-dump level Reddit argumentation.
00:55:24This is crazy.
00:55:26Well, here's the thing.
00:55:27So we have two thoughts that approach the universe.
00:55:31One is theological, and one is rational and scientific.
00:55:34The theological one has produced nothing but wars and conflict, and some good morals, without
00:55:38a doubt, throughout all of its history, and has moved human beings very little beyond
00:55:42its original primitive state of animism.
00:55:44And we have a rational, empirical, scientific view of the world that has produced untold miracles
00:55:49in the few hundred years of its existence.
00:55:51So one has traction in the world.
00:55:53One works.
00:55:54One doesn't.
00:55:55Empirical evidence matters.
00:55:56If you have a medicine that's supposed to cure a disease, and you have a control group,
00:56:00and then you have the group, the placebo group, and then you prove that it cures the
00:56:04medicine, that matters.
00:56:05And it matters that science works.
00:56:07It matters that reason works.
00:56:08It matters that the properties of matter are stable and universal.
00:56:10One minute.
00:56:12None of that was a specific epistemic justification, which is what I asked for, for the claim that
00:56:18all of these things happen and universally work this way, as far as we know, throughout
00:56:23all time and in all places.
00:56:24He messed up and lost the entire debate when he stringently argued for empiricism early
00:56:30on, and then said that he knows all of these universal states of things being the case.
00:56:34And I want to know how you get from the particular to the universal.
00:56:37As a supposed philosophy student, he should know that this is David Hume 101.
00:56:41I'm simply asking him the skeptical challenge.
00:56:43What's the logical justification for the move from this particular, this particular, this
00:56:48particular, to a universal state of affairs?
00:56:51Sure.
00:56:51And he has no answer.
00:56:52He admitted he has no answer.
00:56:53I do.
00:56:53I have an answer.
00:56:54It wasn't an answer.
00:56:55It just is.
00:56:56My answer is that it is universally observed.
00:56:59All the most successful theories predicted.
00:57:01Are you universal?
00:57:02All the most successful.
00:57:02You're finite.
00:57:03Hang on.
00:57:03How is it universal?
00:57:04All the most successful theories predict the universal.
00:57:06And there's zero scientific way that they could ever say.
00:57:11It's a universal claim with no justification.
00:57:14All right.
00:57:15That's the end of the open debate.
00:57:16But don't worry.
00:57:17We're going to have closing comments here.
00:57:19We're going to move right into that.
00:57:20We started with Jay.
00:57:22We'll reverse and start with Stefan.
00:57:24Stefan, you've got five minutes for your closing statements.
00:57:26I'm starting right now.
00:57:27So first of all, I do enjoy Jay's takedown of atheists.
00:57:31If there's anybody who's matching Jay's contempt for the arrogance of atheists, it would be me.
00:57:37Atheists have really tried to tear down religion without providing a secular system of ethics.
00:57:42I've been working very hard on that for many decades.
00:57:44So I hope that you'll check out the book.
00:57:46It's free for free on my website on ethics.
00:57:49I am here to make friends.
00:57:52I know that there are religious people in the audience.
00:57:53And I absolutely promise you we overlap 95% on ethics.
00:57:58The problem that I have, and maybe this is my problem.
00:58:02I could be completely wrong about all of this.
00:58:04I'll just tell you what motivates me.
00:58:05And maybe it echoes with some of your thinking.
00:58:08The problem that I have is that if you base morals on religion, then you can walk away from morals
00:58:16by ceasing to believe in God.
00:58:18And I think that's a terrible shame.
00:58:20I think virtue and morals and purpose can be defined philosophically, can be pursued morally and philosophically.
00:58:26And it's a different debate, which perhaps we could have another time.
00:58:30So what I want to do is since the success of science, the success of reason, has really given people
00:58:36a lot of respect for rational empiricism, and people can't get the ought from the is.
00:58:41They can't get the morals from the facts.
00:58:43And so what's happened is people have been drifting further and further away from religiosity, which has some terrible things
00:58:50in society, as we can sort of see with the gender debates and things like that.
00:58:53People are kind of going nuts from a lack of objectivity in morality and so on.
00:58:57And as a philosopher, not a theologian and certainly not as a politics guy, as a philosopher, I want to
00:59:04have a system of virtue and ethics that you cannot walk away from unless you're willing to reject reason completely,
00:59:10which very few people are willing to do.
00:59:12Like, you know, if you go to your math teacher and you say two and two make five and they
00:59:17say no, it doesn't, you can't just keep going.
00:59:20Most people will say if my argument depends on there being a square circle, they will give up the argument
00:59:25and move on to something else.
00:59:27So what I've been working very hard over, oh gosh, since I was 15, so a rather large number of
00:59:33decades ago.
00:59:34So what I've been working on very hard is to have a system of virtue and ethics and reality that
00:59:38can survive atheism because atheism is growing, whether we like it or not.
00:59:42And we need to find a way to rope atheists into virtue and goodness and evil and free will and
00:59:47all this kind of stuff.
00:59:48Because atheists tend to walk away from religion and they tend to become hedonists and they tend to become pragmatists
00:59:55and they tend to become socialists.
00:59:57And they believe in a far more dangerous God than even the worst God you can imagine, which is the
01:00:02state.
01:00:02And the number of times I've talked to atheists and atheists are like, oh, God doesn't exist.
01:00:07I'm like, you know, the government doesn't exist.
01:00:09They're just horrified and shocked because that's their cult.
01:00:12And they say, oh, no, but the Capitol exists.
01:00:15The Capitol building exists.
01:00:16And I'm like, but you wouldn't accept that God exists because a church exists.
01:00:20So trying to get atheists to dispel the greatest and most dangerous superstition of statism is a very big challenge.
01:00:26So I really do enjoy, Jay, holding the feet of atheists to the fire.
01:00:31I really do appreciate that.
01:00:32And if we can reason our way to true virtue to the point where people can't ignore or walk away
01:00:42from virtue without walking away from reason and reality itself, I think we've got a very good chance to build
01:00:47a truly, truly free society in the future.
01:00:50Which is why I focus on peaceful parenting and all of these other kind of wonderful things so that children
01:00:54grow up without being frightened, without being terrorized, without being threatened with hell and things like that, which just makes
01:00:59people fearful and compliant rather than happy and virtuous.
01:01:02So in that goal, you know, I was raised a Christian.
01:01:07I love Christian morals.
01:01:08I love Christian ethics.
01:01:09I have, of course, noticed the danger of people walking away from religion and thus abandoning morality.
01:01:13I don't think you can walk them back to religion because science has been so successful.
01:01:18So I think we have to keep pressing on to philosophical virtues.
01:01:22And the 3,000-year-plus history of philosophy has been the search for secular, rational virtues that can't be
01:01:28overturned unless you're willing to say, two and two make four, black is white, up is down, and a square
01:01:33circle is my deity, which people aren't willing to do that I've ever debated with.
01:01:37So I will actually stop early to here to say thank you very much to the moderators.
01:01:41Thanks to the people who came in at 6 a.m. to set all this stuff up.
01:01:44Thank you so much to the audience.
01:01:45I really appreciate it.
01:01:48Thank you, Stephon.
01:01:50All right.
01:01:51We've got five minutes on the board for you, Jay.
01:01:53Go ahead and close this out.
01:01:55Yeah, I want to thank Stephon for doing this.
01:01:57It was a really fun, heated, intense debate.
01:01:59I love those.
01:02:00I enjoy those.
01:02:01Everybody, I think, can take it with a good spirit, good heart.
01:02:06I don't mean any ill will personally towards Stephon, of course.
01:02:10We've had this debate in the past.
01:02:11I think that, you know, again, like we had in our debate some years back, I asked very specific.
01:02:18Philosophical questions that dealt with how we give a justification for our beliefs and our claims.
01:02:24And when I speak of justification, this is within the domain of epistemology, a very precise, very specific idea, not
01:02:31just about any old reasons like stories or vast claims about what happened a long time ago.
01:02:37But what's a coherent, justified, true belief that we have for our propositions?
01:02:44I didn't hear anything that justifies the move from the particular to universal, which is a common classical problem for
01:02:51radical empiricism, empiricism in general, or just even modern scientism.
01:02:56In fact, as I tried to argue, the very things that undergird science, like the principle of induction or the
01:03:03law of identity, all of these tools in the toolkit that are actually philosophical, I asked a very specific metaphysical
01:03:11question about what's the ontological status of those things.
01:03:15When you make the move from the physical to conceptual or to a set, right, the same type of question
01:03:22is asked in set theory or in metalogic.
01:03:25How do we know that logic is actually logical and universal?
01:03:28That was the question I asked throughout this discussion.
01:03:31Perhaps it should have been made even more simpler as Stefan himself elucidated in his closing statement, that the question
01:03:37is also, how do we get an ought from an is?
01:03:40This is another problem that plagued David Hume and the skeptical atheist tradition.
01:03:45In a worldview where God exists, even though we might not have an answer to every single problem, it at
01:03:50least makes sense why there would be ethical norms, why there would be right and wrong, why there would be
01:03:55justice and retribution for wrongdoing.
01:03:58In a world where it's just matter in motion, there's no reason why we ought to pursue the virtuous life.
01:04:05I mean, you could say, well, more pleasure, more cummies, more good feelies, right?
01:04:12But there's no reason why anyone else ought to do that other than personal taste and preference.
01:04:17So the question wasn't, is there virtue or do we believe in reason and concepts or do I get concepts
01:04:23from empirical sense data?
01:04:25The question was, what are the good reasons on our paradigms, on our worldview to believe in those things in
01:04:33the world being regular and existing?
01:04:37One of the famous mathematicians that you've probably heard of is a person named Mandelbrot.
01:04:42And when Mandelbrot embarked on his study of sets, he had no, I'm quoting from the mathematician and physicist Paul
01:04:50Davies,
01:04:50he had no prior conception of the fantastic elaboration within Mandelbrot sets.
01:04:56The complete details of the complication of this structure of Mandelbrot set cannot really be fully comprehended by any one
01:05:02of us,
01:05:02nor can it be fully revealed even by a computer.
01:05:05It would seem that this structure is not just part of our minds, but has a reality all of its
01:05:11own.
01:05:11The computer is being used in essentially the same way that the experimental physicist uses a piece of experimental apparatus
01:05:18to explore the structures of the physical world.
01:05:20The Mandelbrot set is not an invention of the human mind.
01:05:25It was discovered.
01:05:26Like Mount Everest, the Mandelbrot set was there and mathematicians discovered it and proved it,
01:05:33as he asked for proof, when computers were at the sufficient processing power to be able to zoom in to
01:05:39see what fractals show.
01:05:41And fractals show these amazing mathematical patterns.
01:05:44Why did I bring that up?
01:05:45Because they go beyond the possibility of any individual finite mind to conceptualize.
01:05:51That means they were not created by the human mind.
01:05:56Every time I've debated stuff on this topic twice now, I brought up mathematics as the very thing that disproves
01:06:03his materialist worldview.
01:06:05Mandelbrot sets themselves disprove it because they're not in the human mind.
01:06:09They're literally mathematical structures that show fractal patterns that were discovered and can be infinitely zoomed into.
01:06:20That means that mathematics, universal logical laws, principles, like I said, with induction, the regularity of nature, the law of
01:06:30identity, or even ideas of the virtuous life.
01:06:33For example, you heard Stefan say that statism is oppressing human beings at times throughout history.
01:06:40We see this all the time.
01:06:41I would agree.
01:06:42But in the Christian paradigm, we have a basis why it's wrong universally to oppress and to kill.
01:06:50In Stefan's worldview, we're all just matter and motion.
01:06:53There's nothing wrong with it.
01:06:54It just is, as he said many times.
01:06:58Amazing.
01:06:59That's it.
01:07:00Let's hear it for Jay and Stefan.
01:07:02All right.
01:07:03You guys can go vote right now for whoever you thought won the debate.
01:07:06Is it Jay who defends God's existence?
01:07:09Is it Stefan who says that God does not exist?
01:07:11Vote for that at wardebate.com.
Comments