Whatever Podcast - Zina (Leftist Feminist) vs. DPH (Orthodox Christian) ｜ Free Will⧸Determinism

00:00:00.000 welcome to a debate edition of the whatever podcast we're coming to you live from santa

00:00:15.160 barbara california i'm your host and moderator brian atlas a few quick announcements before the

00:00:20.160 show begins this podcast is viewer supported heavy youtube demonetization so please consider

00:00:25.060 donating through stream labs instead of soup chatting as youtube takes a brutal 30 cut that's

00:00:31.300 streamlabs.com slash whatever link is in the description we prioritize messages that are made

00:00:36.540 via stream labs to read a message is 99 and up and if you want to ask you can ask a question or make

00:00:43.720 a statement we're going to read those in batches at various breaks throughout the debate there's not

00:00:49.420 going to be any instant tts now if you want to just tip and have 100 of your contribution go

00:00:54.920 towards us no platform fees no cut you can via venmo or cash app that's whatever pod on both

00:00:59.900 link is in the description we're also live on twitch right now pull up another tab go to twitch.tv

00:01:05.140 slash whatever drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one and then quick disclaimer the views

00:01:10.720 expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the whatever channel without further

00:01:15.120 ado i'm going to introduce our two guests i'm joined today by dr david patrick harry he has a phd

00:01:22.880 in religious studies from the graduate theological union in berkeley california he's a traditionalist

00:01:30.460 and eastern orthodox christian he is also an online educator also joining us today is zina she's a senior

00:01:40.080 at usc pursuing a sociology degree she is a leftist she does social and philosophical commentary

00:01:47.580 and is a content creator and was recently featured on a jubilee episode uh debating jordan peterson she's

00:01:56.580 the jordan peterson slayer so there you have it folks uh the topic today is free will and determinism

00:02:03.540 you'll each have up to a 10 minute opening statement and then the rest of the show is going to be open

00:02:09.460 conversation we're going to have uh two three breaks for messages from the audience uh patrick you're

00:02:17.360 gonna go first go ahead all right uh brian thanks for having me zina thanks for being here for the

00:02:22.560 debate um to begin obviously i'm going to be affirming the existence of free will and determinism

00:02:30.120 is self-refuting ideology uh every paradigm has a metaphysics and epistemology and an ethics

00:02:35.880 two of those legs determinism is already going to lose uh if all beliefs are conditioned based on

00:02:42.980 you know nature versus nurture uh they're neurological your brain's determined uh you're

00:02:48.300 conditioned by social patterns well then all knowledge claims are then beliefs and if that's

00:02:53.680 the case then you can actually not make a universal knowledge claim the same thing as if you were debating

00:02:58.600 an argument for relativism claiming that relativism that there is no truth as a truth statement is

00:03:04.220 counterfactual and contradicts itself can't go anywhere that's a self-defeating argument especially

00:03:09.800 within a debate that is premised on logic reason and all these different things so and for my opening

00:03:15.500 statement i put together a quick little logical syllogism that uh demonstrates that moral responsibility is

00:03:22.960 um inconceivable within a deterministic framework and i look forward going back and forth with zina

00:03:29.260 regards to social justice racism slavery reparations all these different things actually

00:03:34.640 um depend upon moral responsibility and people actually having responsibility on their right or

00:03:42.620 wrong choices good and bad these types of things but there isn't an objective standard within a

00:03:47.480 deterministic framework and so they basically have you know compatibilism something like daniel dennett's

00:03:53.020 um argument which is really just a semantic argument that's uh using freedom in a new context and

00:03:58.740 that's again i'm not going to play that game but for just a quick opening syllogism and so anybody

00:04:03.240 watching if this opening statement maybe feels like it's a little bit um over your head that's all

00:04:08.980 right we'll get into the nitty-gritty as the debate moves forward but um if moral responsibility rational

00:04:14.440 deliberation and love are real which the majority of people presume that they are um and determinism

00:04:21.520 can compatibilism or skinnerian behaviorism uh render them illusions then uh determinism compatibilism or

00:04:29.700 behaviorism or self-refuting worldviews because they depend on the very realities that they deny

00:04:35.340 and so i have seven principles essentially they're different apologetic arguments to deconstruct

00:04:41.840 determinism the first one would be obviously the moral uh responsibility argument that if determinism

00:04:47.180 is true no one can actually be held morally responsible for anything um number two and this

00:04:52.980 is the irony of actually being in a debate that even though you're arguing in favor of determinism you're

00:04:58.700 again the debate is premised upon that you're going to persuade somebody to adopt determinism which

00:05:05.580 then undermines the central premise of determinism um so argument from rationality it's a self-refutation

00:05:11.880 um if determinism is true then all knowledge are beliefs therefore determinism itself is a belief

00:05:17.440 amongst all beliefs all beliefs are equal and on that basis um determinism is not rationally justified

00:05:24.320 it's only due to prior states and then a third one the phenomenological argument against determinism is

00:05:30.120 that no determinist actually lives as if determinism is real uh they live as if they are free and so i'm

00:05:36.200 interested to see what zina thinks about voting and how voting works or democratic structures work

00:05:41.220 within a deterministic worldview choosing a career debating is premised on the idea that we actually

00:05:46.600 have free will and promises uh making promises if she makes promises to her friends regret guilt uh

00:05:53.940 any sort of deliberation these are going to again be inconsistencies with a deterministic worldview

00:05:58.660 argument from counterfactual possibility all decisions presuppose modal freedom um so when evaluating

00:06:05.640 alternative possibilities determinists rely on what could have been for example if they go to court

00:06:10.260 yet in their worldview there is never what could have been because everything's already determined

00:06:14.680 and then i assume what's going to pop up is that determinists like to use a neuroscientific argument

00:06:19.440 that's really built upon benjamin libitt's um findings it's really from the 1980s and the field of

00:06:25.840 neuroscience has actually moved beyond this so it's a minority opinion the idea that neuroscience has

00:06:30.460 actually proven that your brain is determined or your thoughts are determined this is not the universal

00:06:34.880 opinion of the field it's actually a minority opinion and so uh libitt himself actually says that

00:06:40.220 his research did not prove this and the premise of the research is that they were asking people to

00:06:45.720 kind of lift their finger do different things and then they were measuring what is called resting

00:06:50.740 potentials and therefore insinuating that the brain is already determined before the action occurs and so

00:06:57.440 i reference everybody to go look up david schroger's night 2012 article it's titled rp as neural noise rp

00:07:05.400 meaning um resting potential and so the majority of the field believes that whatever was happening

00:07:11.260 is just neural noise and actually the premise that neuroscience has highlighted that everything is

00:07:16.500 deterministic uh that is not a majority consensus uh creativity and novelty so if you're determinist

00:07:23.640 you're going to have to reject um human agency in regards to poetry art um invention moral heroism

00:07:31.520 these things break away from any sort of predictive um causal mechanism that they would argue for and

00:07:38.420 then the last one is the problem of infinite regress so if you go back to aristotle um you know the

00:07:43.680 unmoved mover this was something that was dealt with in classical greek philosophy and so obviously i'm

00:07:48.880 coming at it as an eastern orthodox christian and so we believe in the imago dei genesis 1 26 and because

00:07:54.740 of that i myself am also in a sense an unmoved mover that i can be an uncaused cause within myself as a person

00:08:03.120 usually utilizing my free will so those seven points i'm sure we'll probably rehash those and come back

00:08:08.920 all seven of which are essentially logical death shots to determinism and then the last thing i just wanted to

00:08:14.880 highlight six points on why determinism is actually not a dominant perspective within academia generally

00:08:20.700 speaking and so determinism was very popular toward the end of the 18th century and into the 19th century

00:08:26.260 so you have people like uh marx and freud um but into the 20th century multiple turns have occurred in

00:08:34.900 various fields that have essentially rendered determinism as nonsense first one is quantum mechanics

00:08:40.180 so the heisenberg uncertainty principle contradicts laplacian determinism um laplace's demon is a common

00:08:47.060 sort of thought experiment determinists use well uh again quantum mechanics itself has already refuted

00:08:52.900 that that's the universe that we live in so in regards to physics physics has already refuted

00:08:57.480 determinism in regards to mathematics chaos theory in the 1960s also refuted determinism because it

00:09:03.020 demonstrated that an attempt to actually show that deterministic systems are completely determined

00:09:09.160 it demonstrated that actually they're unpredictable and there is no deterministic full system that we've

00:09:14.980 discovered yet uh number three is mathematical logic so kirk girdle's incompleteness theorems demonstrates

00:09:21.160 that there are limits to what can be proven and no complex system can prove its own consistency that would

00:09:26.300 that would also be the case for determinism you presuppose determinism to prove determinism

00:09:30.980 that is a contradiction the cognitive revolution linguistics noam chomsky has already refuted the idea

00:09:37.240 that we are determined uh language accusation so that was another turn um in the 20th century again

00:09:43.040 refuting determinism and then number five philosophy of mind so um epiphenomenalism is typically the way

00:09:49.420 that determinists would argue for their philosophy of mind but emergentism is now the dominant thesis

00:09:54.880 uh i'm more of a hylomorphic uh aristotelian uh i'm in that camp more so than even the emergentism camp

00:10:02.820 um but it shows that uh mental states cannot be explained by conditioning alone and then uh the self

00:10:10.100 referential collapse this is essentially the logical basis that all of this debate is going to hinge on

00:10:14.920 is that one cannot rationally affirm determinism since belief in determinism is due to prior states

00:10:20.340 then it too is a non-rational belief that cannot be rationally or universally justified and so that is

00:10:26.500 my opening statement all right thank you uh xena go ahead hi so yeah um i just wanted to clear up like

00:10:32.520 a couple things about my framework and like what i mean when i say that i'm a determinist um i don't mean

00:10:36.620 that like everything in the universe um must have some like specified cause that everything is

00:10:41.440 predictable um instead that um in any circumstance any event is either caused or uncaused and when we

00:10:47.740 look at the self specifically um we're going to see that like when we look at any like thought that

00:10:51.760 we have any want that we have and thus any action that we have is going to result in some kind of

00:10:56.540 external cause right so essentially what i'm saying is that free will is the ability to have done

00:11:02.020 differently or to have chosen differently in any certain instance um in history or if we were like

00:11:08.020 to rewind the clock to like you know 10 minutes ago when we sat down here um you could have just

00:11:14.000 risen your hand right but we know that that could not have happened metaphysically right because you

00:11:19.040 didn't and if we hold all um if we hold all events constant and all variables constant and all like

00:11:25.280 the environment constant in that moment you did not raise your hand because there was no cause

00:11:30.000 right for that to occur and if and if you do something randomly that would mean that by definition

00:11:35.120 it has no cause so it's either that any event is cause or uncaused and that cause when we um push

00:11:41.160 back the chain of causal like causality is going to result in something that is either like your brain

00:11:46.160 or your nurture um and environmental non-environmental sorry um people who kind of study just like the way

00:11:52.820 that we have evolved as human beings have kind of found that this idea of free will is a feeling

00:11:58.120 that we have it's a sense that comes kind of like after the fact when it comes like action where we

00:12:02.860 feel like we have some agency because we have developed the ability to create a conjunction

00:12:06.580 between this idea of like the past the present and the future so you know um as we evolved um the

00:12:12.760 organisms that were able to say hold on wait a minute yesterday i did this and today i want to do

00:12:16.420 that they're able to strive for different goals achieve more um and that's kind of just going to be

00:12:21.560 like um reminiscent of like intelligence and things of that sort so essentially it's just that

00:12:26.020 if you there's nothing that internally right is uniquely kind of causing your actions or your

00:12:33.820 thoughts instead your thoughts um prompt your actions but your thoughts have some cause that

00:12:39.980 are either due to some type of biology or some type of nurture this is kind of like the whole

00:12:44.580 field of psychology the nature nurture debate um and then yeah there are many different angles we

00:12:49.720 can take this from it's pretty simple so yeah okay if you guys want to just get into it

00:12:55.900 it's uh open conversation so yeah so in regards to the your claim that free will is basically some

00:13:03.380 type of feeling that we have uh would you agree that you are parodying like epiphenomenalism

00:13:08.800 sorry what's epiphenomenalism epiphenomenalism is essentially that um consciousness is something

00:13:17.860 that is a byproduct of of neurosynapses brain activity and it's not an emergent property right

00:13:23.260 so emergentism is kind of the state of neuroscience right now and determinism was really couched in

00:13:28.280 epiphenomenalism so it's an epiphenomenon of brain activity it's a sense that you're free but it's not

00:13:34.060 actually you're free that's called i think there's a distinction between consciousness in of itself and

00:13:37.960 free will i think that free will is an illusion correct um we're still a little bit kind of murky on

00:13:42.440 like the nature of consciousness in of itself but i do believe that free will is a feeling rather than

00:13:48.100 something that is true something that you can locate um etc i think that instead it's kind of

00:13:53.360 like our conception of like these processes and like um the ways that we interact with the world

00:13:58.440 so you're arguing that the only thing that exists is materialism right

00:14:02.140 um like the material world the material world right um i don't think i have to posit that to to make my

00:14:09.880 claim not necessarily i'm simply well i'm asking what is your claim do you are you a materialist

00:14:14.500 um i don't think i have to like i haven't completely refined like my ideas on kind of

00:14:19.880 like materialism versus idealism i would probably be a materialist but i don't think i have to

00:14:22.960 that entails this conversation or it's necessary for the conversation so well the idea is if you're

00:14:28.900 assuming materialism or any sort of epiphenomenal understanding of free will as some type of

00:14:33.540 experience that's not rooted in actual consciousness or human agency it's a circular argument because you're

00:14:38.980 appealing to materialism your brain to come up with the universal truth statement that

00:14:43.680 everything is determined hold on i'm not appealing to the brain i'm saying that like

00:14:47.360 how do you come to your knowledge claims okay so i'm saying that our brain interacts with our

00:14:51.760 environment right and that is what creates our wants and desires and those two things like for

00:14:55.880 example i don't that's compatibilism no that's not that's that's how like people make decisions

00:15:02.060 right but that's called compatibilism so compatibilism is the idea that free will is when you act in

00:15:06.980 accordance with your wants yes that are shaped by the external environment yeah and then yeah that's

00:15:11.280 exactly what you just said yeah and then determine thank you determinists also say right that we are

00:15:16.960 also shaped by our wants but free will does not mean that you act in accordance with with your will

00:15:21.080 it means that you would have some agency in the moment to do whatever you want and in regards to

00:15:25.800 like um compatibilism versus determinism we actually agree on the same facts of reality we just define

00:15:30.940 free will differently so yeah compatibilist would also say yeah you're a product of your environment

00:15:34.120 and your biology just as a determinist yeah they just change the semantic word of freedom and they say

00:15:39.820 that you're making choices amongst condition responses that's what compatibilism is okay awesome

00:15:44.480 so so there's but there's a difference there in like yeah that's why what should be determined

00:15:48.300 free will okay so let's get into epistemology how do you so are you making you believe in objective

00:15:53.060 truth um that there is objective truth yes um i would say that like we can't make claims onto reality

00:15:59.860 as it absolutely is i think that like our kind of isn't that what you're doing right now hold on

00:16:04.960 isn't that what you're doing we make assumptions every day right that like the world around us

00:16:08.820 exists so we we can do things like science right and psychology and that's we assume yeah it's an

00:16:13.540 assumption right that everyone like acts upon today we don't really know what the world exists

00:16:17.700 outside what it looks like outside of a human body we know that like for example ants don't see the

00:16:22.700 same things as us neither do like insects like even the color schemes that we seem are different

00:16:27.220 than animals we know that like objectively the world does not look the way that we see it

00:16:30.720 right but we assume that it exists to interact with it for ease etc that's how scientists come

00:16:36.320 to conclusions there are baseline assumptions right to engage with any of these practices yeah but

00:16:40.860 science is also appealing to the laws of logic the law of identity all these different things i asked

00:16:45.000 you a simple question but they all lie on assumptions yeah no they're not assumptions so you don't believe

00:16:48.800 that two plus two equals four we rely on this two plus two equal four we rely on this two plus two

00:16:53.240 can i answer your question because yeah i don't want it to be a debate where like you're going to

00:16:57.000 interrupt me and we can't have like fruitful discussion if we can yeah just allow people

00:17:00.920 to finish there sure yeah go ahead yeah so um relying on the assumption that everything around

00:17:06.440 us exists um and things of that nature yeah i completely agree that that um there is some

00:17:11.560 truth that we can find but you must agree upon reality as the basis right so regarding objective

00:17:18.400 truth i want to just hammer down what exactly your epistemology is my epistemology yeah um so i mean

00:17:24.900 i think that in general i don't think we can say that something is objectively true because i don't

00:17:29.360 think we can so like truly like see reality as it truly is because we already know that our faculty

00:17:34.860 of experience our senses are set in some way that we know other animals already don't have right so we

00:17:40.960 only have we only can only trust like the human experience and like what like patterns that we

00:17:45.280 recognize across the human mind but we don't exactly know what it could look like outside of a human

00:17:50.640 faculty of like perception do you understand what that means yeah which means that you just

00:17:54.720 refuted yourself to make it you're making universal claims right now i'm not yes you are no so this

00:17:59.440 you're making universal we're not we're not having okay you just said free will doesn't exist you just

00:18:03.640 now you're now you're cutting me off so why don't you why don't you stop and just relax for a second

00:18:08.060 because what you did is you just fundamentally contradicted yourself by saying that uh all we do

00:18:13.080 is we have experiences of our environment uh we really can't make universal truth claims and then

00:18:17.420 you're coming here to actually make a universal truth claim by saying free will doesn't exist or free

00:18:21.240 will is just an experience or free will is epiphenomenal and therefore you've already

00:18:24.800 undermined your own epistemological foundation and leads to the inability to have any sort of rational

00:18:29.520 inquiry or any for any conversation that you have usually we have some like you know subliminal

00:18:33.620 assumption that relies like within the like um the conversation for example if i'm just like

00:18:38.200 if i like let's say i love the hunger games and i'm like katniss is like the best you know

00:18:43.880 she's the best ever she is the best huntress ever whatever we you would be you could be like oh

00:18:49.240 you're making a universal truth claim oh no but actually in that conversation that's a preference

00:18:53.540 what is entailed right preference yeah right that's a preference but it's a statement no it's

00:18:57.680 assumes that she's a person you realize there's difference between universal claims and preferences

00:19:00.960 right so in that conversation there's an assumption made that we're presuming that you know

00:19:07.360 we're making the presumption that these people you know exist at some sense like at some sense i

00:19:11.840 guess of being like fictional characters right but there's an assumption there that that you're

00:19:15.420 making so i think the most correct way to say that would be like assuming or like knowing that

00:19:19.840 she's a fictional character katniss is like the best huntress ever right but like whenever we're in a

00:19:24.300 conversation whether whether it be metaphysical whether it be philosophical political there are some

00:19:27.980 underlying assumptions made to make any claim the underlying assumption with this claim that i'm making

00:19:32.760 is that um free will is an illusion right so but that's a universal claim no it's not

00:19:37.860 no it's not you just said it's what is it what is a universal claim a universal claim is when you

00:19:44.040 make a fact or a truth claim that is universal yeah no so so it would also mean that yeah that's

00:19:48.740 what it is so yeah that's what it is do you see it as synonymous with absolute claims do you know

00:19:54.600 do you see there's like a distinction between absolute claims and universal claims uh those would

00:19:59.340 be the same thing an absolute claim would be universal right so um i would make a claim if you

00:20:04.240 want to make it synonymous with like something that just like has to be true i think that we

00:20:09.060 don't know that anything has to be true unless we like presume that this reality as we you know live

00:20:14.940 in it is true do you understand that yeah but you just again like just said there's no point in a

00:20:20.020 debate i never said there's no point in the debate your premise your premise the worldview every

00:20:24.760 paradigm has premises and presuppositions built into it this is called presuppositionalism

00:20:29.160 and so your presuppositions okay are contradict the ability to make the claims that you're making

00:20:35.020 that scientists do this like all no scientists no it doesn't scientists you don't have a worldview

00:20:40.020 that allows science yes yes i do no you don't scientists acknowledge this yeah they do i'm very

00:20:45.700 aware i actually do you know what like the law of causality is oh yeah i know what the law of do you

00:20:50.680 you tell me you're the one that's bringing it up right you're the one that has it written down

00:20:54.620 on her paper here so she can look down and read the definition okay it is here but um yeah people

00:21:00.140 you have notes these these are just these are outlines for your worldview they're different i

00:21:04.440 don't have definitions written down anyway the law of causality essentially says that every event has

00:21:08.980 some cause right if it's not it doesn't have a cause it's random right um and we make all these

00:21:14.140 claims assuming that we can make some type of like like statements on reality presuming that it

00:21:18.800 exists right scientists must presume that reality exists to to make you know the claims that they do

00:21:24.120 so in like you know the circumstances of this debate debate i'm going to like presume that

00:21:28.400 reality exists and therefore i'm going to make the claim that like any event is either caused or

00:21:33.220 uncaused does that make sense to you yeah but it's still you have no epistemological foundation to make

00:21:38.860 an actual claim epistemology has to do what do you know what you're you're a senior i have a phd i

00:21:44.440 exactly know exactly what epistemology is yeah so it's it's the study of knowledge what we can

00:21:48.880 know exactly right exactly even in that that gives us a framework for knowledge right it is the

00:21:53.880 framework and i'm saying that you can't make universal knowledge claims within that paradigm

00:21:58.080 making a universal universal knowledge does free will exist no okay then that is a claim

00:22:03.420 so at no point now that reality exists yes at no point right now in the future in the past free will

00:22:10.220 has existed correct no it has or hasn't it doesn't it doesn't exist okay that is called a universal

00:22:16.440 truth claim so you just made a universal truth claim you just contradicted the fundamental premise

00:22:20.660 so that claim that claim exists under overlying the foundation this idea that reality exists right

00:22:27.640 but that's an assumption right so we make baseline assumptions that you exist so your whole presentation

00:22:32.880 is an assumption yeah it's just like we do this every day no no it's not because i believe in the

00:22:38.040 laws you can say that you know that that you're not like you know a brain in a vat right now right

00:22:43.080 and i don't think that you are right i choose to believe that you're not because all the evidence i have

00:22:47.920 like navigating in this world right um points to the fact that we we all exist that we're all agents

00:22:52.860 right etc right so i make this presumption but it's a very very testable presumption and it's almost

00:22:58.340 like gravity is also a theory but i believe in gravity because it's testable right so just because

00:23:03.340 something is an assumption does not mean that we can't use it or that it's not justifiable in any

00:23:07.360 way yeah well yeah it does actually mean that you don't believe in gravity that's not do you

00:23:11.780 believe in gravity that's that's a non-structure it's a really dumb argument that you're making

00:23:16.400 so what okay so you understand theories can like hold but theories can actually have be built on

00:23:21.060 logical basis yes and so does this one okay so where where do you so how do the laws of logic

00:23:27.180 exist because these are non-physical things yeah yeah i'm curious what your cosmology is because if

00:23:31.380 you believe in the big bang if you believe in the big bang and you believe in material evolution ever

00:23:35.980 since then then you can't appeal to things like the what are called philosophical transcendentals you

00:23:41.500 can't appeal to the laws of logic you can't appeal the number theory you can't appeal to all these

00:23:45.160 different things because they're non-physical and they're universal and they're unchanging

00:23:48.040 you can't have let me finish let me finish you can't have non-changing non-physical things in

00:23:57.140 an entirely materialist universe this is and this is a known thing i'm not posing any idea of like a

00:24:01.260 non-changing thing that's my point that's my exactly my point do you understand what do you think my

00:24:06.700 argument is because it doesn't sound like that free will exists and that we're some like we are

00:24:10.800 causal agents with exact without free will there is no reason right rationality depends upon the

00:24:16.680 ability to choose between things right so i think that human beings can like um develop rationality

00:24:22.480 and pattern recognition but the cause for that is determined right you can like someone can like

00:24:28.160 learn and like like learn to like read patterns or learn like to make connections to things but the

00:24:32.900 causes for that person to get you know get to that point of neuroplasticity is determined that's what

00:24:38.100 i'm saying so you can have a want you can have a desire you can act on that desire you can be like

00:24:42.380 forced against acting on your desire but those desires are things that you don't choose

00:24:47.020 that's what i'm saying yeah and and my point is that if that's the case then being here and trying

00:24:52.140 to persuade people to your world do you have any contention with the actual view though because

00:24:56.200 yeah i've laid out i laid out multiple points about how your paradigm let me finish you just

00:25:01.900 talk let me no i didn't get to finish you you kept speaking what i think it was her turn to talk let

00:25:07.440 her finish and then go ahead david oh sorry patrick my my mistake okay yeah so my view is that you

00:25:13.960 which you haven't attacked whatsoever is that wants right are are not coming from this individual

00:25:19.660 instead we can like find some type of cause right that that extends outside the person that terminates

00:25:25.020 outside the person right do you have an argument against yeah actually multiple neuroscience

00:25:29.080 experiments has demonstrated that uh again dealing with labet and dealing with these resting

00:25:33.980 potentials has shown that people can actually prevent a series of or a cascade effect uh from

00:25:40.500 the actions occurring which demonstrates a sense of agency this is why yeah you are not in step with

00:25:45.540 the contemporary neuroscience you're not in step in contemporary psychology you referred to a

00:25:49.780 psychology earlier those fields do not uphold a deterministic worldview no they do not so no one

00:25:55.180 no they do not and so no one's saying that for example like we can have someone a lot of people

00:25:59.500 in poverty that are born into poverty and persist in that cycle and you can have a couple people

00:26:04.240 rise out of that poverty by some mechanisms right people can act that's in ways that seem to be

00:26:09.360 unpredicted but we're saying that that reason that they did choose choose or did not act in the way

00:26:15.240 that most people did is also determined for example let's say you know you're born into poverty but

00:26:21.220 um you you know had an iq of like 130 right so you're just like smarter than the average person

00:26:26.880 you were able to excel at school better than other people and thus you know you somehow became a

00:26:32.120 millionaire we're saying that the reason that you were able to rise up out of that position is not

00:26:35.480 because you just pulled yourself out of your bootstraps but because your iq was higher than the

00:26:39.380 average person and that predicted success that's what we're saying okay but still we're i'm not

00:26:46.680 arguing that external conditions don't affect people's lives and have influence in people of

00:26:51.120 course it does i'm saying that's what makes a person do yeah i'm saying it's not and there's

00:26:55.240 multiple let me finish and there's multiple examples and so even like the entire ascetic

00:26:59.880 tradition of monasticism and people actually renouncing and struggling against passions would

00:27:04.660 actually insinuate that agency free will and human agency exist and that they're not uh totally

00:27:10.460 dependent on external factors that are determining what they do here or there um and demonstrates and

00:27:16.060 this is where the latest research in neuroscience actually is like tell me what what experiments

00:27:21.600 in neuroscience validate so because i'm literally looked at all the research the entire nature and

00:27:26.340 nurture debate if if like the cause of someone's action does not come from their nurture it comes

00:27:30.860 from their from their nature right so it could this could be biology this could be like for example

00:27:35.360 we can look at like phineas gage um i believe his name is um he had like some type of pole that like

00:27:40.080 went through his eye through his um prefrontal cortex um i think it was around his amygdala

00:27:45.920 and it caused him right to to act erratically and it caused him to to act impulsively and he was

00:27:52.020 doing things that we consider bad the reason why is because there's something in the brain right that

00:27:56.000 controls your impulses that controls your social ability etc right and and so it kind of comes down

00:28:01.700 to again these things that you are you inherit right biologically sometimes though like it also

00:28:07.140 comes from things like socialization if you're in a household that is abusive you can end up finding

00:28:11.920 yourself um acting in ways that are socially uncohesive in ways that we don't want so i'm

00:28:16.540 saying that even if someone does rise against what we call their biology or their socialization

00:28:21.260 the result is or the reason always comes from they're either one or the other the biology or the

00:28:26.800 social so why is the abuse bad um because i i personally don't think that it's okay to so it's

00:28:32.120 just a personal belief it's just your preference that abuse is bad i think that so are we going to

00:28:36.200 switch to a morality debate or do you want to say it's all the same thing no it's not yes it is

00:28:39.800 it all again there's only three legs to worldviews this is okay it doesn't matter okay then go into

00:28:44.420 morality no i don't want to go into morality we are we are no this is a free will debate exactly

00:28:50.560 well morality entails free will what are you talking about you don't have to talk yes you do

00:28:54.740 you do not need to talk yes you do this is like you can talk about this purely neuroscience

00:28:58.760 like no no you're not you can't come here and debate determinism and then and then refuse to

00:29:04.280 even engage with morality and ethical discussions okay can i ask you a question sure i feel like i

00:29:08.860 haven't been able to what causes people to act the way that they do it's a series of factors

00:29:13.720 they have their own human agency again nurture any proof of evidence of that will you let me

00:29:19.080 freaking talk i mean i say one sentence and you're already cutting me off finish if you can go ahead

00:29:23.380 so again there's multiple factors that uh contribute to the way that people exist in the world human

00:29:29.400 agency uh again nature and nurture all these things are included it's not one or the other and the

00:29:34.220 idea that we have to just restrict our our um our defense to just one particular one that's ridiculous

00:29:41.340 that's it's not that's not how the world works it's both and there's multiple factors that contribute

00:29:45.900 that shape to a human person their parents trauma uh environment genetics all these things are

00:29:51.000 included but that doesn't deny that people have human agency and free will and so if free will

00:29:55.960 doesn't exist you cannot make any moral claim because nobody is morally responsible nobody is ethically

00:30:01.360 responsible and this would be clue this would be true for the history of injustices this would be

00:30:06.160 true for the patriarchy i just want to keep can i can i finish a thought that would be true for

00:30:11.280 patriarchy that would be true for sa that would be true for reparations that'd be true for slavery

00:30:16.240 all these things entail that there is some type of moral arbiter that differentiates between good and

00:30:22.020 bad okay your worldview does not allow that to even occur what what is this human agency like can

00:30:26.800 you just define it for me i'm clueless what is that yeah for me as a christian it's being made in the

00:30:31.060 image of god genesis 126 all right so it's being every human has this human agency it means you're

00:30:36.560 made in the image of god correct and and god gives you this human agency correct being made in the image

00:30:40.980 of god yes all right so if every person gets this human agency that they're given at birth essentially

00:30:46.440 right so what makes some people's human agency act differently than other people's we just said

00:30:52.260 there's a whole contributing list of factors all right so the other factors you you labeled were

00:30:56.480 had to do with nature and nurture the biology and the environment you talk about those included

00:31:00.220 right so if these two things that we agreed already are fixed right our biology they're not

00:31:04.220 fixed yes they are you don't control the biology your your environment changes you control the

00:31:08.900 biology that you inherit well yeah that's yeah biology biology is fixed okay your environment is

00:31:15.540 not fixed because you can change environments so so that was a dumb argument that was a dumb argument

00:31:19.780 let each other finish go ahead finish that was a dumb argument because biology yeah but you

00:31:24.880 we're talking about nature and nurture and so environments can actually change okay so you

00:31:29.760 don't your biology is fixed right so so what would make someone want to change their environment

00:31:34.960 just like give me an example they want new scenery why would they want new scenery you tell me you have

00:31:42.100 to ask them you have to ask them okay right so if we were looking at the reason why someone has a

00:31:46.060 preference for new scenery we can look at things like just like what they're like um kind of exposed to

00:31:50.680 at a young age for example like if they grew up around beaches maybe they would like beaches or it

00:31:54.860 could just be like the things that they've been like they've been shown like through tv media etc all

00:31:59.120 the stimuli however at this young age where all these core beliefs are being like kind of taught to

00:32:03.380 you and instilled in you you don't control any of that right your preferences are made at this like a

00:32:08.160 younger age we see this idea of core beliefs come up a lot in psychology where like your deepest

00:32:13.160 beliefs about society and yourself who you are this illusion of free will and the self comes about a lot of

00:32:18.760 times when you're younger right so even now when you have the agency now to change environment which

00:32:22.840 you don't really have that agency when you're like two years old let's say you're like 20 and you can

00:32:26.360 move that preference that we're talking about to change scenery or to fly to paris comes from

00:32:31.460 determined right like circumstances that's what we're saying in any given event we keep asking why

00:32:37.060 why you wanted this thing or why you did this thing it is either coming from like some some internal

00:32:42.140 like some nurture right something like that has been like experienced or from someone's biology that's what

00:32:47.380 we're saying and once again this human agency you haven't explained in in any regard how this

00:32:52.140 thing like if it's once once if it's first of all if it's given to you from god how is it yours like

00:32:58.080 how did you choose your human agency number one and number two when we look at how it interacts with

00:33:02.460 your biology if biology affects your human agency we know that's fixed that's already out of your

00:33:06.220 control once again so it comes down to it doesn't mean that again that but that's a non sequitur there's

00:33:10.480 a logical non sequitur to say just because your biology is determined that limits

00:33:14.120 uh or curtails all human agency that that makes no sense what is human agency

00:33:18.260 you it's it's your ability to have free will the ability to make decisions rational deliberation

00:33:23.360 moral responsibility and you define love these types of things actually insinuate free will

00:33:27.440 begging the question in defining free will free will agency is that's not begging the question

00:33:32.060 no it's not begging agency human agency agency and free will mean the same thing

00:33:36.700 can you give a distinction exactly but my point is human agency is human agency no that's not

00:33:41.840 what i'm saying you're not explaining i'm saying human agency why we have that okay i'll make an

00:33:45.840 easy argument here you cannot have rational deliberation you cannot have moral responsibility

00:33:50.920 without human agency and free will and therefore let me finish and therefore you can actually not

00:33:57.260 have a universal epistemology or make universal truth claims you cannot make moral and ethical truth

00:34:03.140 claims which is the point and that's why you're already shying away from getting in any type of moral

00:34:06.700 ethical debate because you have no leg to stand on in regards to deliberating and

00:34:11.500 differentiating why you know white people did this in history why this is bad and this is

00:34:16.560 unjust you you have no basis to actually define those okay so once again you still have not proven

00:34:21.380 why it exists you're saying if it doesn't exist then this exactly no that's actually that's actually

00:34:26.160 logical it's no it's not yes it is anyone can can like go ahead and like like pull up you can't

00:34:31.000 have knowledge without it so you cannot have knowledge you cannot sit here and make knowledge

00:34:34.700 claims a reason would be some type of evidence or proof that something exists to the exclusion of the

00:34:39.500 opposite nope yes it is so to give a reason for something would be oh yeah human agency exists

00:34:46.160 because we can look at this and this proves it or okay you know neuroscience the arguments that

00:34:50.620 demonstrate when people reach a threshold they're able to stop that i didn't get to finish thank you

00:34:55.060 so okay anyway so when we look at human when we look at human agency you have said that the outcome

00:35:01.600 would be blank we can talk about moral responsibility i'd be i'd love to do that but human agency has still

00:35:06.160 not been evidenced by you you're saying that neuroscientists have found right that um i don't

00:35:11.420 actually know how your neuroscience we can actually talk about your neuroscience to the exclusion of

00:35:14.920 the opposite these these are using laws of logic right so if free will doesn't exist you can't have

00:35:20.600 knowledge claims if you can't have knowledge claims then for if there is knowledge therefore

00:35:25.760 free will exists that is a and again i can just use easy syllogisms do you have a syllogism for

00:35:31.700 determinism do you have a logical syllogism that actually didn't actually i do actually i do i

00:35:36.260 have one in relation to god but i do want to touch on this neuroscience point how do you think that

00:35:40.880 neuroscience um entails or like free will because it there's been multiple multiple experiments this

00:35:47.640 is again getting back to david schroger's night uh 2012 article rp as neural noise have demonstrated

00:35:53.180 that when these neurological effects reach the cascade point that a determinist would say okay now

00:35:57.820 they have to do the action we have multiple experiments to show that people can choose not

00:36:02.280 to and the fact that they can choose not to do it demonstrates that they have some type of agency

00:36:07.000 against the deterministic framework of of the brain and neurological process that you would argue

00:36:13.180 determinists are not saying that you are bound by like you're inherited it depends on who you're

00:36:18.240 talking about and you're making a generalized claim okay so don't say determinist then because

00:36:22.160 actually i would assume that when you come to this debate and you forgive me like some type of like

00:36:26.780 refutation it's like tailored to me and like well you have heart right so you've made you've made

00:36:31.760 some general like blanket like um like statement and said it replies like determinists well that

00:36:37.660 just demonstrates human agency you asked me to demonstrate human agency multiple neuroscience

00:36:41.880 arguments do that finish you just asked me to demonstrate your agency i'm responding to you

00:36:47.000 neuroscience arguments have done that this like andrew wilson debate tactic is so old there's so many

00:36:51.500 wilson debate tactic but anyway what are you talking about so back to what i was saying um so

00:36:56.520 in regards to like determinism in of itself not all determinists have to entail that like i don't

00:37:01.240 think any determinists entail that like you can't act differently than like in some way like your

00:37:05.580 biology predicts that's not true um and also actually there are some that do well that's not

00:37:10.220 mean you're i didn't say that anyway did i say some that do or did i say xena if you're bringing

00:37:14.600 in an argument it should be refutation against my point i'm saying generally regards the argument

00:37:19.360 you're talking about determinism you're talking about determinism i said determinism generally

00:37:23.140 speaking all right okay so keep up you're like three steps behind okay so when we when we talk

00:37:29.440 about when someone acts against any type of like biological stimuli there's still a reason for that

00:37:34.100 that is going to like um bottom out and nurture so that what you just brought up is not a refutation

00:37:39.060 against it is the entire field of neuroscience this is why they believe that there's human agency

00:37:43.940 this is why the philosophy of mine has adopted emergentism and believes that human agency is an

00:37:48.340 irreducible fact someone choosing that so you're saying that's not the case in the philosophy of

00:37:53.240 mine i'm saying that what no no no no in the philosophy of mine you're saying that's not the

00:37:56.680 case the majority of philosophers in the philosophy of mine do not believe that human agency is an

00:38:01.260 irreducible fact i think that if they meet it no no no let's talk about the field no no if we talk

00:38:05.820 about a field if they meet in the compatibilist sense that might be true i think that a lot of

00:38:08.640 scientists and a lot of um philosophers are like compatibilist but i don't believe that they

00:38:12.680 believe no they are not no most i i know for a fact actually most philosophers are not don't

00:38:17.700 believe in libertarian free will that's been like no it's been debunked no it's not yes yes no it

00:38:22.660 does okay this is you're just making shit up right now because this is not even the case of academic

00:38:27.600 look it up i actually i actually write academic papers i actually write books and stuff so i

00:38:32.560 actually deal in these circles and i deal with philosophers because it must not be that hard

00:38:36.660 sorry ad hominem already wow so we're off to a great start called me the r word earlier the r

00:38:43.300 word i what yeah yeah i heard oh retard the r word i don't know if that's oh my gosh oh my gosh

00:38:52.400 did your fifi yeah did your fifis get hurt i didn't say i was hurt well it sounds like it it sounds

00:38:58.020 like you were hurt when i ad hominem do you well my point is that it's a logical fallacy and

00:39:02.020 demonstrate demonstrates the infutility of your argument i don't even want to count how many

00:39:06.660 times you've done that but it's fine anyway we can get how many times i've said an ad hominem yes

00:39:11.700 how many tell me how many times have i i love tell me tell me how many times we're talking about

00:39:16.840 free that's my point exactly okay so again if someone acting against any type of biological

00:39:22.840 stimuli does not entail free will that means that the cause still bottoms out somewhere in

00:39:27.800 like socialization or nurture that's not like like like um determinists don't say that like

00:39:32.520 biology is the end-all be-all that that makes your your action so yeah i know that and you have the

00:39:37.560 environment and exterior stimuli that's part of the world so when you say that like someone but

00:39:41.100 the the contrary again it's necessary of the contrary logical argument here if there is no

00:39:47.560 human agency you cannot have true rational deliberation that's a fact what do you mean

00:39:52.060 by true rational deliberation by the way being able to choose amongst different things and come to true

00:39:57.160 knowledge claims yeah so you're not going to be the sole agent in like the things that you choose

00:40:00.820 and like the preference and the credences that you have and the beliefs that you have

00:40:03.820 that's correct however people can speak and have discussions and someone else you know like using

00:40:09.380 like their language right to sway your opinion that happens all the time so yes debates can still

00:40:13.400 happen so you believe that you're going to persuade people with a deterministic worldview with your

00:40:18.460 deterministic argument it's a fact of it's not a fact it's not a fact okay let's get into logic

00:40:24.460 so two plus two equals four would you agree um yeah is that always true um what do you mean by always

00:40:32.400 it past present and in the future is it a universal truth like there's like an entire

00:40:36.900 like um like debate over like whether we like found math or it's always existed like for example if

00:40:42.300 there was no one to see it like in the cosmos and we had two particles like just like rolling around

00:40:46.920 each other um did they were they does that mean two like does that still exist does math still exist

00:40:52.960 in that context i think that math is probably something that we like observe and that we've kind

00:40:56.480 of come to use like like in a utility sense but i don't think that any like i think there probably needs

00:41:01.880 to be someone they're counting for like for there to be one or two or three things i think it's like

00:41:06.780 there's some utility in math so i don't necessarily think it's like something that you can quantify in

00:41:10.800 this way of always existing i think it's something that we kind of constructed so you're saying numbers

00:41:15.260 are only dependent upon the things in the world um i mean if there's no things in the world yeah there's

00:41:21.260 no number of things yeah that that makes no sense uh numbers are universal yeah numbers pre-exist

00:41:26.460 logic pre-exists creation that's why creation is ordered in a logical way okay i i would probably

00:41:32.180 disagree so creation is not ordered in a logical way okay do you believe in the laws of logic i think

00:41:37.380 the laws of logic are like we use them at like utility wise right to come to conclusions and to

00:41:41.860 like you know you know so they could be they could be false in the future that's not what i'm saying

00:41:45.220 i'm asking you a question okay i'm asking you could they be false in the future um that's what

00:41:50.340 you're saying if things if the laws of physics stay constant probably not no so you think they

00:41:57.700 are universal that if the laws of physics stay the same then the laws of logic for example if you make

00:42:03.120 a system like and and like whatever conditions that perceive the system continue to exist it will

00:42:08.040 continue to stay true however however to say that like numbers and math in the way that we have like

00:42:12.580 imagined it has always existed probably not it's just a system for example today i could say that like

00:42:18.200 i don't know like two plus two equals five and if everyone starts to kind of agree with those terms

00:42:24.280 or whatever we can make that a system that works but i just don't think that like how would that work

00:42:28.920 because all everything we build engineering geometry all this stuff is based on actually numbers mean

00:42:34.540 things again they're built on logical principles so to make my point is you claiming that if we make

00:42:39.560 two plus two equal five that somehow we can make that work actually i mean you can't more you can't

00:42:43.820 because it defies logic i'm meant in a semantic sense but like either way two plus two equaling

00:42:48.880 four exists because it has some meaning that we gave it no it has it's not we didn't give it meaning

00:42:54.240 that we discovered the laws of logic we discovered mathematics these things are universals and they're

00:42:58.560 non-physical yeah this is just going to be like i don't think it's like an actual tangible thing i think

00:43:02.380 most things that we see as things are tangible i think it's an ideological system i think it works i think

00:43:07.440 it's it's for pattern recognition etc but i don't think that we can in any way kind of like say that

00:43:12.580 like this system existed before humans right and that's an entirely incoherent worldview um again

00:43:20.160 this is what the people that use presuppositional apologetics or even presuppositional philosophy

00:43:24.700 this is the this is what's called you know the the postmodern turn is realizing that the modernist

00:43:29.620 project is ended and uh the history of metaphysics anymore what's that i just would really love to

00:43:35.980 talk about free will free will is tied with all this stuff what are you talking about this is like

00:43:40.480 you pivoting and going down this rabbit hole so it never gets the actual this is all about free

00:43:45.540 will you cannot have rational deliberation objective truth and moral responsibility without

00:43:50.000 free will that's what we're talking about every single day that's what we're talking about this

00:43:54.040 reality that we live in okay that's great that your your whole thing is a belief based on your

00:43:58.140 assumption yeah we've heard it everyone's doing that all the time that's wonderful things must be

00:44:01.760 true we'd love to hear about your preferences but that's all you're only saying that things are true

00:44:05.820 because you don't like the opposite and that no i'm not i'm saying that you're saying dude the

00:44:10.380 opposite can't exist if the if you're right there aren't objective truth claims talking

00:44:14.840 so that's my all of your arguments you have not given any actual proof or evidence

00:44:20.520 everybody watching this debate who's familiar with logic and philosophy knows knows exactly what's

00:44:27.520 going on and shout out to all you guys god bless you all he continues to interrupt me and i just

00:44:31.640 what what about this do you want to pose him some questions do you want to do an internal critique

00:44:36.780 yeah let's do it i'm trying to do that i'm trying to get at that like what proof or evidence you have

00:44:41.840 of human agency and you've given me this neuroscience argument that i've already debunked and you'll

00:44:45.440 continue to say it over again but again how can you prove that human agency exists without

00:44:50.340 referencing because the outcome of the latter i don't like what evidence do you i never said i never

00:44:56.480 said what evidence do you have for human agency i never said it was a preference let me finish

00:45:00.680 jesus christ just shut your mouth and let me finish thank you about time so the idea is

00:45:08.600 i'm using logic to demonstrate that the opposite if your worldview is true that we cannot actually

00:45:15.760 have universal truth claims we can't have more evidence are you going to let me finish do you

00:45:19.440 have evidence for that's what logic is do you understand what a debate is premised on yeah logic

00:45:24.340 is not evidence what the laws of logic are not what oh my god just if you can please let each other

00:45:30.240 finish you know the laws of logic are not evidence that's what the entire mathematics is built upon

00:45:37.320 so mathematics isn't evidence logic isn't evidence philosophy can't be evidence the only thing that

00:45:43.160 is evidence is if i just have a preference that i assume based on my external environment and then i

00:45:48.140 can come to some type of claim that's wonderful that's that's a really really strong argument my

00:45:53.040 argument is that if free will doesn't exist there is no objective truth claim and there is no moral

00:45:59.520 responsibility and even in your worldview i know that you act and move in the world as if those

00:46:04.900 things are true my point is your paradigm the presuppositional paradigm the lens in which we look

00:46:10.340 at reality through your presuppositional paradigm does not actually allow for objective truth and

00:46:16.440 moral responsibility and therefore by definition can't be true based on logical premises okay logical

00:46:21.740 premises are the argument that i'm making turn back the clock five minutes ago when i don't know

00:46:26.860 you're probably raising your voice or something like that probably if we could have done if we could have

00:46:31.160 done that could you have chosen differently if everything was the same there's no interference no

00:46:36.360 different cause coming in um could you have stood up and gone to the bathroom yeah i can i'm a free

00:46:42.240 agent yeah i can make choices why again for me i'm going to appeal back to a theological system in

00:46:47.820 which we're made in the image of god and then utilize that premise to say if that is true therefore

00:46:53.700 we can have objective truth therefore we can have moral responsibility therefore we can have

00:46:57.980 a totalizing metaphysics that deals with uh being itself in unity so because you were made in the image

00:47:03.100 of god you have free will is that that's your kind of your well fundamentally yeah okay so being made in

00:47:09.920 image of god means that you have free will okay so and this this like again i'm it's kind of like

00:47:15.460 the same idea of like a soul like this idea of like the agency thing this is what where people say

00:47:19.660 that like it's given to you by god and then people are kind of like you know thus can kind of live

00:47:25.100 with it etc the soul like do you agree that there's some type of soul of course i'm an orthodox

00:47:29.760 christian do you are you familiar with eastern orthodoxy any matter if that's true is everyone's soul

00:47:35.100 different like like when let's say i'm born do i have a different soul from someone else that prompts me to do

00:47:39.200 different things or is everyone's soul the same so i believe in aristotelian a form of aristotelian

00:47:44.800 hylomorphism do you familiar with what that is nope okay so hylomorphism these have to do with theories

00:47:50.660 and there's actually this theory is becoming it's utilized more and more frequently in the philosophy

00:47:54.680 of mind and hylomorphism argues that soul actually gives form to the body and so form is dependent upon

00:48:04.220 the existence of soul and that's exactly what we as orthodox christians would believe is that the soul

00:48:09.080 is actually what's giving rise to the body and so our anthropology as a human being is soul body and

00:48:14.280 noose noose being the eyes of the soul the eyes of the heart so be your noetic faculty uh your mind

00:48:19.800 imagination these types of things is everyone's soul does everyone born with a different kind of soul

00:48:23.440 yeah everybody has their own soul yeah okay and god gives it to them of course and your soul act

00:48:27.500 causes you to act differently than other people your soul allows you to have free agency it does again

00:48:34.180 the use cause is trying to put it into a sort of deterministic framework if you're going i already

00:48:38.840 already caught it okay no it's not a caught thing you just don't like the wording of the same thing

00:48:43.180 right but again so if everyone's soul can like if everyone's soul is different what does that mean

00:48:49.020 everybody is a unique person meaning that they act differently right they can act differently or they

00:48:55.500 could act similarly people or they could act the same so everyone has a different soul and the soul

00:49:00.000 like is what make is is also entailed as like this agency or whatever but it's agency everyone's

00:49:05.340 agency is different everyone's soul is different so essentially the soul can prompt different actions

00:49:10.440 and different outcomes in different people correct yeah okay if your soul is given to you from god and it

00:49:16.240 can prompt different actions for within you than other people this means that there's something

00:49:21.000 entailed in that soul that you were given by god that is causing you to act differently than other

00:49:25.360 people meaning that you're not the arboretum no that's not that's a non sequitur that actually does not

00:49:29.740 a logical follow no well because you keep falling victim to non sequiturs and so just because god

00:49:36.280 gave you a soul or even god foreknows the end of history does not actually entail determinism yes it

00:49:41.620 does no it does not yes so how okay so you understand that god is outside space and time right

00:49:47.260 yep and so the difference is is actually watching the choices that we've already made is not the same

00:49:52.660 thing as making us make the choice he doesn't have to do when you go to a restaurant and there's only

00:49:56.700 certain items on the menu are you determined to choose something or is actually there's a set of

00:50:01.660 opportunities to make choice it's not opportunities it's not opportunities no so when you tell me

00:50:06.480 once again how you choose when you go to omniscience no right when we talk about omniscience right

00:50:10.400 if god does not need to be seeing everything in linear time to know what will always happen

00:50:15.760 right if you just look at like just like the story of like anyone in the bible like noah from noah's

00:50:21.620 ark he already knew everything that was going to happen and thus noah could not have acted

00:50:25.460 outside of god's knowledge no he could he could have chose not to listen to god that's the that's

00:50:29.640 the whole point of being a christian that we're aligning our will with god's will that's the whole

00:50:33.580 point of being god knew that that he would not list like um act in accordance with god correct god

00:50:38.160 knew that noah would not act in accordance with god god as outside space and time knew that noah would

00:50:43.380 make the choice but noah making the choice is not dependent god didn't force him to make the choice

00:50:48.300 okay again those are two that's a category that's a logical category error that's a category

00:50:52.580 i didn't i didn't make the error that you're trying to that's a category you said that omniscience

00:50:56.900 demands determinism so again if god knew that he doesn't have to be looking at this from like a

00:51:02.280 linear perspective of time but if he always knew he's omnipotent omnipresent whatever if he always

00:51:07.120 knew what noah would could do by death by definition noah could not do what god did not know he would do

00:51:13.880 aka god god knew he had there was some path that everyone was going to have god knew what their future

00:51:19.820 would hold what their present would hold their past would hold whatever there's some future that

00:51:23.680 exist existed for noah and he could not have acted out of accordance with it because god already knew

00:51:30.140 it but god knowing does not entail causation of him causing the person to choose it i'm saying that

00:51:35.340 he couldn't have acted differently and i do think there's an argument for causation no you're again

00:51:39.020 it's a category here because god is out some can you do something that god does not know you will do

00:51:42.840 god he's outside space and time so he's already looking at history as a finished completion

00:51:49.080 completed thing he knows the choices i'm going to make before i've made them but that doesn't mean

00:51:52.740 that i did not have free will to make my choices can you do something that god does not know you will

00:51:57.260 do no because god's already outside space and time but again that doesn't necessarily cause that's not

00:52:03.100 causal necessity i just raised my hand god knew i was going to raise my hand could i have not risen my

00:52:08.720 hand you you yeah you could have and then god would have known that that's what you were going to not

00:52:15.660 no it's not because that's a that's a category or you could have chose not to not raise your hand

00:52:20.020 and god would have known that's what you already chose no exactly on your own premise you just

00:52:24.340 contradicted yourself yes you did you just contradicted yourself we have a past and a present

00:52:29.500 and a future thank you i could not have risen my hand or you could have or could not have god being

00:52:35.280 outside space and time would already because i didn't though right so if we look at that means that

00:52:40.040 i couldn't have right so if we if we look at like what god knows if god knows some like events are

00:52:46.360 going to happen you cannot do whatever he won't for example if god knows let's say tomorrow god

00:52:51.200 knows that i'm going to pick a blue shirt that means that tomorrow i cannot pick a pink shirt because

00:52:56.300 god knows but you're putting the cart before the horse because god only knows it because he's outside

00:53:00.680 space and time and for him you've already made the decision no he doesn't already know it just he

00:53:04.660 knows it because he knows it because no he knows it because he's outside space and time no god

00:53:08.900 yes it is the actions already happened for him god does not have the action god has already seen

00:53:13.800 the action wait guys one at a time one at a time go ahead okay i think that you're thinking of god

00:53:18.360 in some type of like human perspective and that someone has to know things by having seen them play

00:53:23.600 out or in some way he already has things because he has all he's all knowledgeable sure not because

00:53:28.660 he's sitting at the end of the finish line and looking back yes replay clips that's not that's my

00:53:33.100 worldview so why don't you debate me instead of just this general concept that's exactly what we as

00:53:37.460 orthodox christians we as orthodox christians that's exactly how we believe it to be is that

00:53:42.800 god is not a causal necessity for every decision i make i have free agency i have free will and god

00:53:49.140 being outside space and time being the beginning of the alpha the beginning of creation and the meaning

00:53:54.060 of creation the omega he has already seen the choices that we make that doesn't that doesn't mean

00:53:59.920 that i'm putting anthrop i'm not anthropomorphizing god because that's not that's not something that

00:54:05.340 humans can actually go ahead that's not something that humans can actually do so the idea that that's

00:54:10.420 an anthropomorphization of god is ridiculous because that's not even how we understand what does it mean

00:54:14.620 to be omnipotent and omniscient what do those two things mean omni-powerful okay and all-knowing all-knowing

00:54:21.700 right so where in that definition does it say that god knows everything not because he's all-knowing

00:54:26.940 but because he's able to sit like um at the end of time and just know all the events because he just

00:54:32.900 he can see them all like i don't think that that's like it's not because of some chronological order

00:54:37.620 but because all knowledge is bestowed to him sure so that that doesn't well he is the source of

00:54:42.460 knowledge exactly he's the source of knowledge and he knows all things that will exist so it's not

00:54:47.540 because he's like he was able to like watch you know in his head like how everything was he can do

00:54:52.860 this was not because he like watched it could watch in his head like all of history play out and then

00:54:57.200 he knew okay she's going to do this it's because he knew he knows right so it's like what's the

00:55:01.320 difference exactly right because you're saying that if you didn't raise your hand right god would

00:55:05.800 have you could have done either one yeah no god would have known yeah right how is that not true

00:55:10.560 you could have done either one okay so i'm saying that we couldn't have done either one because god

00:55:14.620 knew i was going to do that one thing there's no multiple realities of reality god knowing that's again

00:55:19.520 that's a non logical non sequitur just because he knows what we choose does not mean that our choice

00:55:25.460 is totally dependent he forces us to choose you do what god does not know you will do god already

00:55:30.980 knows the decision i make before i've made it he knows the decisions i'm going to make in 10 years

00:55:34.900 from now i haven't even made them yet and that's part of the judgment that's part of the life of a

00:55:39.520 christian is god made humanity in the imago day so that we can participate in these categories that

00:55:44.940 animals do not have so then so for us that would include love logic reason truth mercy compassion

00:55:51.960 honor glory these are called uncreated energies of god and these are the things in which differentiate

00:55:57.500 us from the animal kingdom and differentiate us from operating purely based on instincts or in a

00:56:02.460 deterministic way that's framed through nature and nurture why don't you let me finish something so

00:56:07.420 you can actually argue what i'm talking about so what two minutes we're in a debate we're in a

00:56:12.880 debate guys fuck god for god forgive me i said something more than two minutes oh my god jesus

00:56:18.900 christ i wonder if y'all anyway so again so decisions that you've made god before you ever made them

00:56:24.840 god knew you were going to make them correct before you even made the decision to like come here today

00:56:30.340 god knew you're going to do that yes that's where god knew you were going to do that you could have

00:56:34.620 not not come here no because i've already made the choice from god's perspective he's outside space

00:56:40.360 in time i've already made the choice that means that you could not have decided not to come because

00:56:44.360 god knew before you came that you were coming going to come here no god's knowledge does not

00:56:50.360 does not determine my choices okay he knows my choices because i chose them they do so now it

00:56:56.160 doesn't by definition that's it doesn't make any sense that's not a logical argument if he knew them

00:57:00.140 before you chose them that he doesn't know them because you chose them he knows them because i chose

00:57:04.220 them yes so you said earlier that it's because he knew them before you chose them so that was a

00:57:08.800 contradiction yes but i still have free will and causal agency that's the whole idea of repentance

00:57:12.900 let me finish really she says a question so that's the whole premise of a christian world

00:57:18.700 being regard to repentance moral responsibility objective truth and so without those things so

00:57:23.840 it's like you're arguing that the christian paradigm somehow doesn't allow for free will because god's

00:57:29.360 omnipotent and omniscient yeah and i'm saying that that does not make any sense at all because the

00:57:34.280 entire paradigm is built upon the idea that we have causal agency made in the image of god that's

00:57:39.040 the entire worldview of so i love that this is live streamed and also going to be on youtube so we can

00:57:43.300 just rewind to the point where you said that god knows things before you make the decision yeah he's

00:57:48.060 outside space and time no no then i want to be able to speak because i've let you then speak okay

00:57:53.880 so you we know you know that god um knows the things that you are going to do before that you do them

00:58:01.000 right and then you said that god only knows these things because you did them so that is a complete

00:58:05.320 contradiction right in what i'm saying is so can you acknowledge that contradiction his knowledge

00:58:10.600 does not determine my question his knowledge does not determine the choices i make you're you're not

00:58:16.020 so just because he knows the choices i make you're not it's not determine what choices i actually choose

00:58:21.420 you're not answering my question restate your question is it that god knows things before you

00:58:26.420 before you does god know the decisions that you make before you make them or does god know them

00:58:31.440 because you make them both essentially because again he's outside space and time this is a non-temporal

00:58:39.180 form of knowledge so it is true that you're using you're using you gotta let them answer the

00:58:42.740 you're using temporal frameworks to talk about god's omniscience and that makes no sense you the point

00:58:48.160 is we actually can make free will choices okay god knows the choices we're going to make

00:58:53.680 and that doesn't determine what the choices that we make contradiction in those no it doesn't yes no

00:58:58.700 it doesn't god so you posited that god knows things that you're going to do before you do

00:59:03.320 them then you that means that if god knows something you're going to do before you do it

00:59:06.420 he doesn't force you i never said anything about forcing i said that if god knows the things that

00:59:12.060 you're going to do before that you do them you cannot do anything other than the thing that he

00:59:15.420 knows that you're going to do that would entail a sense of force that god can force you hold on let

00:59:20.100 him finish that would entail a sense of force and or a deterministic worldview that you cannot

00:59:24.180 choose to do the opposite and i'm saying that's not the case okay that's not what we believe

00:59:28.080 that's not let each other god is outside space and time so he knows all the decisions that we've

00:59:35.180 made we are inside space and time so god is outside space and time let him finish therefore

00:59:40.840 at the end of history he can already see the choices we make and that is a present reality

00:59:46.240 for god right now so you keep referring back to temporal a temporal metaphor in regards to his

00:59:52.400 omniscience and that somehow we cannot make a choice because god already knows that that's the

00:59:57.380 choice we're going to make and again that is a logical non-sequitur because he's outside the

01:00:02.500 temporal categories that you're using so god knows or doesn't know things you do before you do them

01:00:06.860 yeah he knows okay that doesn't mean that he forces me so see see see okay so god knows things that

01:00:14.640 you're going to do before you do do them therefore you cannot do the things that he does not know that

01:00:20.360 you're going to do right is that true or just a true or false for that one say it again can you do

01:00:25.960 things that god does not know you're going to do no he would already know the choices i've made because

01:00:30.960 he's already seen the end of my life he's already seen the choices i make i am living that out and

01:00:35.700 choosing those as i go and that's what i'm going to be culpable for but the the end point has already

01:00:40.520 occurred history has already ended god is at the end of it oh wait perfect so there is an end point

01:00:45.300 of history and there are some events in history that are going to occur no matter what even if you

01:00:49.840 don't know them now yeah like the second coming of christ okay cool perfect so so god knows what

01:00:54.880 your life is going to look like there are some trajectory there are some events that are going to

01:00:58.120 happen correct in your life just yes or no yeah okay so can you do anything other than those events

01:01:04.100 yeah there's still you still have you still have moral you still have moral freedom you still have

01:01:09.340 you still have to see that free will you still have free will that was a contradiction no it's not

01:01:14.060 just because god knows the things you're going to choose doesn't mean that you can't have a variety

01:01:18.760 of choices when you make the choice you have options you have rational deliberation we can have

01:01:23.400 moral responsibility i think i think i've done enough on that topic i think that okay let's get into

01:01:28.460 ethics and morality let's get no no it's now my turn to ask questions right really quick though let's

01:01:33.080 let some chats come through and then i'm happy to get into uh something else so we have chef dill

01:01:38.460 pickles xena if there are two rocks and no people around to call it two are there still two rocks

01:01:44.840 um yeah by our use of language right now yeah there are still two rocks okay and then we have

01:01:50.680 let's see we have another chat coming through chef dill pickles thank you very much for the

01:01:54.760 super chat guys if you want to get a super chat in streamlabs.com slash whatever if you want to

01:01:59.400 get a message in uh charlie kirk dp usa okay hey xena you said this about me definite definitely

01:02:07.640 charlie kirk egregious lower region of his face do you think body shaming is okay what if i called you

01:02:14.640 a muffin also what is a woman um yeah so i called charlie kirk ugly i think that in my world view if you

01:02:23.840 are like a really shitty person i'm i'm gonna call you weird looking i think that's okay um and then

01:02:30.320 a woman is someone who identifies with you know the traits that are associated usually tend to be

01:02:37.640 associated with the female sex but not all females associate with this social category uh so yeah okay

01:02:43.540 do you want to bite on that or i would just be curious i mean again when we start getting into

01:02:48.840 the trans issues i mean determinism and the ability to choose and express oneself certainly is going to

01:02:53.520 play a big factor there so i'm curious how she feels like uh do our children determined is it by

01:02:59.760 their parents is it their nurture is it their environment um that is going to cause them to

01:03:04.380 then eventually be castrated potentially before puberty or they have to go on these hormone blockers

01:03:08.400 like is a trans person actually choosing to transition are they determined to transition how does

01:03:13.280 that work yeah so this actually like a super an interesting question in psychology and sociology

01:03:17.740 like what makes it so that people kind of are trans um and a lot of times i think that um studies i

01:03:24.600 think it's inconclusive on whether this is like something like biological although we see that people's

01:03:29.240 brains like for example men who tend to be queer tend to have brains chemistry that is similar to

01:03:35.140 women's and so i think it is also true of like trans women like their brain makeup is similar to

01:03:39.860 women so it could possibly be something biological and then also sociologically just kind of like

01:03:44.520 you know like what you're kind of i guess like what you kind of gravitate towards socially the kind of

01:03:50.600 friends you want to make um all these type of things just influence things that you like dislike and then

01:03:55.240 that's going to influence like the traits that you want to express um if you like dresses or not

01:04:00.760 whatever um so yeah it's just going to be a mix of biology and sociology like anything else

01:04:05.080 um in regards to the human condition so all right we have another chat here from chef dill pickles

01:04:11.580 when god sees our action beforehand he sees it simultaneously during the action and afterwards

01:04:17.780 space time is theorized to be the fourth dimension completely consistent with the gentleman thank you

01:04:24.520 yeah any response there so yeah i mean i'm going off of um the notion again that god is seeing our

01:04:30.260 action or not even that he's seeing our action but he just knows our action doesn't happen doesn't

01:04:33.820 matter like how he's interacting with it but just that he knows our action he knows our actions even

01:04:37.920 from the start of time so even given that he transcends time there is some like actions that we are going

01:04:44.680 to take that um exist right and there is some future clearly that you believe in that that exists and if

01:04:51.680 such things exist that means that there are some fixed actions right that you're going to take in your

01:04:56.160 life regardless of whether you know it or not so the way that god perceives these um these actions is

01:05:02.400 it doesn't matter if you agree that there is some future some end point and that of your life and

01:05:07.340 god knows all these actions there are some actions that you're going to take that exists fundamentally

01:05:11.360 so all right and we have one more chat did you want to respond to any of that or okay we have

01:05:17.340 jordan peterson uh kermit the frog voice on that what do you think about white people uh maybe i should

01:05:28.080 have you read it no no no go ahead uh so what do you this is for you zina i guess uh what do you

01:05:32.420 think of white people do you think white people have culture is cis a slur and then you i guess you

01:05:38.240 was this a tiktok of yours every here i'll pull it up again every woman has felt innate frustration

01:05:44.460 and fatigue for men at least a million times maybe this is is that something you said i don't know what

01:05:51.480 that i don't know what that's referencing okay but what do i think of white people i think white people

01:05:55.900 are people fun fact um do you think white people have culture um do you i mean kelly clarkson exists

01:06:03.080 yeah like i i is that is that a yes or is that a no i get down to some white culture i get down to

01:06:10.280 some of y'all's stuff you know and then what was the other one uh is i'll pull it up one more time

01:06:15.020 uh is cis a slur no i don't think so not colloquially okay easy questions uh patrick you

01:06:25.560 wanted to get into it sounded like yes so yeah so um i was wanting to shift the conversation in

01:06:32.220 regards to ethics and morality and how exactly zina comes to any sort of differentiation between right

01:06:38.940 and wrong um from my understanding uh you're big in regards to racial injustices through history

01:06:46.320 uh slavery these types of things i are you in favor of reparations real quick i'm just curious

01:06:51.400 um yeah i think there's probably some mechanism that we can use to come about and and within a

01:06:56.060 deterministic worldview and claiming that there's a culture that is has a chattel slavery and that

01:07:02.440 they are conditioned through the nurturing process through the environment that they're in and they

01:07:07.080 have normalized this as a social construction which you agreed earlier about two plus two equals five

01:07:11.980 could be a social construction um how exactly then are you saying that white people should be

01:07:17.360 guilty for something because guilty would entail more responsibility and something that there's an

01:07:21.480 objective justice a level of justice that needs to be equated yeah so um never once did i use the

01:07:26.100 term guilty um but either i did okay yeah but you said that how are you saying that they're going to

01:07:30.860 they should feel guilty which i didn't say i didn't say you did yeah i did so i didn't say she did but

01:07:36.080 anyway um so regardless i think that in regards to like reparations i think that there are some

01:07:40.200 just like values that i think that in society like um um are just should should be held and that we

01:07:46.580 think that humans are valuable that no human on the basis of like skin color is is lesser than another

01:07:51.960 human human being um and thus when there are some injustices that are like predicated on the basis of

01:07:57.340 race we should see seek to kind of eliminate those type of things those type of structures um but

01:08:03.340 regardless um in regards to reparations i think that it's not something that like we need to focus

01:08:07.660 on like feeling guilty it's more so just like valuing equality and valuing just like equality of

01:08:14.600 opportunities specifically um it's something that needs to be done just like structurally um and then

01:08:19.340 so yeah i don't think guilt is a part of the so so why would why would white people in 2025

01:08:26.400 have to pay reparations to the black community in 2025 for something that neither of those

01:08:32.900 communities have been a part of so it's first of all the system that we're talking about is not

01:08:36.760 like it's a generational so it's it's not saying that like white people out of their pockets need

01:08:41.020 to be paying black people in any sense that they would have to be something that's like

01:08:44.240 governmentally funded um etc because taxpayer money yeah sort of but it doesn't have to be

01:08:49.260 specifically from taxpayers well how does the government i mean the government gets money

01:08:52.860 majority of it is from taxes but there are a bunch of like different like um are they're

01:08:57.700 different sorry a bunch of different departments that we have that are funded in different ways

01:09:01.380 etc um but regardless right um this is something that that like was sanctioned by the government

01:09:06.220 where we had um just like slavery legalized and we also just had jim crow laws in an era where

01:09:10.420 black people were economically subjugated and thus i think it should be something that like the

01:09:13.820 government kind of um goes to like fix right but let's say like 2025 america we don't have

01:09:20.940 chattel slavery correct yeah but we have like okay so poverty so but why would that why would

01:09:25.960 2025 be superior to any uh example i guess we could even go to libya right now because they have open

01:09:31.460 slave markets but um why would one be superior to the other in your deterministic worldview because

01:09:37.500 superior well one are do you not appeal to one being better than the other like one society being

01:09:43.400 better yeah so a time in history in which uh slavery was normalized would you say that that is equal

01:09:49.240 to a period in history right now where it's not yeah so or is it better i would say that like when

01:09:54.660 we talk about morality yesterday asking about my moral framework i see it as like um society like

01:10:00.240 collectivizes upon different views that a lot of times throughout history tend to coincide um and we

01:10:06.000 haven't been able to prove any truth aptness right but absolutely of like moral claims but there are

01:10:12.500 like um but there are tenets that we tend to value over time so like tenets that um i think are

01:10:18.180 valuable are things like again equality of opportunity um you know i'm pretty anti-bigotry

01:10:23.780 and things of that of that sort and um in that using that framework i would say that something

01:10:29.160 in a society where we you know unalive people based on race or we subjugate people based on the race that

01:10:35.320 isn't okay and so why why is it not okay yeah so this is going to be like a moral subjectivist view

01:10:41.340 okay so there so it's just your own personal preference yeah i think that's what uh moral claims are

01:10:46.700 so it's all okay so then if it's your moral personal preference um me having a different

01:10:52.260 moral personal preference we're equal equal and standing yeah so it's it's not something to like

01:10:57.180 to be like debating on base of equality it's more so just like one i think that moral claims are spread

01:11:03.240 based on like you know how favorable they are and if one and i think that we should we should be

01:11:08.260 making certain moral claims less favorable because of their output and their effect and i'm the attempt

01:11:13.740 of the moral subjectivist is to move someone's credence or belief towards their own um for for

01:11:19.140 whatever due reason so it's like it's not about the equality of certain like moral frameworks or moral

01:11:24.920 takes more just that like um they all exist and their expressions of usually like resentment or like

01:11:33.200 likability that's like kind of like what a moral attitude is okay so why why would for example uh the

01:11:41.120 world cup and abu dhabi got criticism because they were using slave labor to build their city now

01:11:45.300 incredibly uh successful economically that that society low crime low theft low murder uh by a lot of

01:11:54.300 metrics that we would analyze we would say wow that seems like the utility if we're just going to make

01:11:58.880 a utilitarian argument that seems pretty effective but at the same time you would agree that slavery is

01:12:04.060 wrong i would agree too i'm a christian yeah so i'm not in favor of that but my point is within your

01:12:08.040 worldview i don't see how you can delineate between the two because if you're just going on utilitarian

01:12:12.400 consequences it'd be very easy to find civilizations that do things that you would find uh hold on

01:12:17.460 abhorrent and that and that utilitarian that it's actually very very successful for their society and

01:12:22.740 maybe that they're more successful than other societies that don't do those things yeah i'm not

01:12:26.340 a utilitarian so again if i was a utilitarian i i think i i wouldn't hold the same values i do now

01:12:31.500 then in like equality of opportunity of respect etc so again this is going to be something where it's

01:12:37.160 like a society is not successful in my view and a lot of americans view if they do not you know

01:12:42.760 promote you know the equality opportunity and and safety of all individuals um and why is why is that

01:12:48.280 important because that i feel like what i'm hearing is that you're getting back to a sort of moral worth

01:12:52.520 of individuals i agree with yeah right but i'm just trying to figure out how you how do you come

01:12:56.320 in your worldview how do you come to the moral worth of individuals i can tell you i've come to these

01:13:01.040 feelings and these opinions but i'm telling you that like moral claims in my view are not truth apt

01:13:05.360 meaning that you can't like in any way they're not provable they're not testable right and we've

01:13:09.920 observed this like again like like through science and evolution evolution kind of shows us that like

01:13:13.960 people who kind of tended to respect other people and like other people um and and work together with

01:13:19.820 other people tend to tended to survive more and and and in that that that biology that chemistry of

01:13:24.720 having like mirror neurons and like you know just like social ability tended to become more of a

01:13:29.580 prevalent factor in human biology so i think that's how we can explain where moral claims derive from

01:13:34.960 but are they truth apt no that's what i'm saying okay so would you since you debase morality and

01:13:40.920 ethics from truth claims uh in which i fair enough at least you're being consistent i appreciate that

01:13:45.720 uh because my criticism for your worldview that now that you've actually justified or argue that you

01:13:51.980 you're a moral subjectivist therefore there are no universal moral claims okay fair enough now i can

01:13:57.660 understand your point of view and where you're coming from my next question would have to do with

01:14:02.080 in a world like that and i would assume maybe you're a fan of like somebody like michelle foucault

01:14:07.560 that with theories of like power knowledge and stuff like that which are you going to argue that

01:14:11.260 the only thing that actually like really exists in the world is power um what do you mean by really

01:14:15.720 exist like what is the arbiter of of like civilizations like if we're not coming down to um universal

01:14:22.920 truth claims and we're not coming down to uh universal moral claims uh typically the post-modern

01:14:29.440 turn uh again values subjective experience and in the construction of your own identity but somebody

01:14:35.380 within the foucault tradition would argue that it's about power dynamics and that power dynamics and my

01:14:40.800 my point to you would be if that's the case i'm fairly confident that you're anti-patriarchy but men

01:14:46.800 have a monopoly on power and so if we exist in a deterministic worldview where there is no

01:14:51.000 objective truth and there is no objective morality how exactly do you get around the fact that if

01:14:55.560 every man on this planet decided that we're going to subjugate women which again god forbid but if

01:15:00.280 we decided to you have no say in the matter because we have physical we have a monopoly on violence yeah

01:15:05.660 so again like when we talk about like someone like foucault would probably say that like power is what

01:15:10.120 drives like the differentiations between systems and like change over time socially etc right but

01:15:15.260 they're not saying this is some type of like again they don't make like a moral like there's no moral

01:15:19.720 no they like claim on yeah they're relative yeah they're relative yeah so i think that this is a

01:15:24.580 fact that like men currently we live under a patriarchy um whoa that's really loud outside

01:15:31.280 i'll just wait a little bit um but yeah like i think we can make this descriptive claim that like

01:15:38.100 things like power and like and power and balance drive like uh change in society um without saying

01:15:44.600 that thus like whatever structure we're in is like good or or making some type of like moral truth

01:15:49.660 claim on whatever structure we exist in right therefore so so i would say that like we should

01:15:54.480 promote values like social cohesion like uh like respect like equality why um because i think it's

01:16:01.800 good to value people and like in that that's an emotion why though they're all determined i've

01:16:05.480 explained to you this is a descriptive framework right so i'm not going to be able to grant any

01:16:10.440 objective moral truth to these claims and i don't think anyone can do that even no matter how hard

01:16:15.220 you try i don't think that's possible but we can say in a society okay we care about people we care

01:16:20.320 about people's quality of life let's make a society that like maximizes that i think that's what that's

01:16:24.760 what we've done in society like throughout time if we want like a society with the most power you're

01:16:28.600 going to get like authoritarian fascism if you want a society that's most egalitarian you might see

01:16:33.580 something more close to like communism or something like that but i'm saying we should put certain

01:16:37.400 values at our at our foundation or we do put certain values at our foundation and that is what

01:16:43.080 builds up the society the question is what values we put at that foundation and that's just the

01:16:47.660 question now right rather than if it's like objectively good and in my estimation i would

01:16:52.000 prefer a society that uses logic and uses rational deliberation and uses the pursuit for objective

01:16:57.660 claims to make that differentiation on what values we should actually pursue as a civilization as a

01:17:03.180 culture and so with my well but your determinism you can't do that yes you can and so my point with

01:17:09.320 uh the example of if all men decided to team up against women um even using foucault's understanding

01:17:15.860 of power and the in the transient restructuring of society and and uh again power dynamic institutions

01:17:23.060 essentially is what he is focused on um you can't you yourself disagree that you can't make a value

01:17:28.160 claim against that you can only have your own personal preference yeah well if you look at something

01:17:31.700 like an objective moral claim i don't even really know what that means because it would mean like

01:17:35.120 something that is just true because it's true there's no evidence for it this thing is just true

01:17:39.980 i could tell you right now that like pokemon is like oversees the world and he and it like pokemon

01:17:46.220 just exists in the cosmos and they oversee this world and that's just an objective truth why because it is

01:17:51.480 because if not i wouldn't like that world or whatever but that doesn't mean that that's an objective

01:17:55.980 like truth claim right an objective truth claim just is true and and to say something like that

01:18:01.880 doesn't even make comprehensible sense to me um so i i just i don't think that we can make moral

01:18:06.600 claims but that doesn't mean that we can like we can't strive toward certain societies because we

01:18:09.680 value certain things so yeah and but how do we come to a collective orientation towards values if

01:18:15.300 everybody has if it's a moral subjectivist like if everybody adopted your moral we we have

01:18:20.040 philosophical conversations like this one and we provide like you know but we'd have reasons that

01:18:24.720 like might like people resonate with for example like hey like one reason might be like hey like

01:18:29.660 you don't like it when people do bad things to you that hurts or you don't like seeing other people

01:18:33.300 get hurt you know we should stop hurting people or hey this is what's happening in so-and-so country

01:18:37.940 and we we don't like that let's stop doing this so it's again it's going to be belief it's going to

01:18:42.060 be like like credence shifting it's going to be like discussion that moves um kind of like social

01:18:47.740 order and what changes it so it's just kind of the persuasion of rhetoric so we come to we come

01:18:53.120 to a table collectively say the example like this and then through rhetoric we persuade each other

01:18:59.100 descriptively that is what's happened over history yes i i would disagree i would argue that there's

01:19:04.080 actually axioms and premises and logical foundations for why we should choose certain

01:19:08.200 things i mean i understand this is the this is the fundamental contradiction between our worldviews

01:19:12.480 and that's why it keeps coming back to things like logic and things like objectivity and again i

01:19:18.460 understand that within your worldview you can't have those things and you're saying we don't need

01:19:22.760 those things we can make quote-unquote claims about the world based on our assumptions of the

01:19:27.860 environment and how they stimulate us and our our innate biology and how that affects us and then

01:19:33.120 you're agreeing that you can't make universal moral claims either so you're a moral subjectivist

01:19:36.900 and so you're basically in a point in which the only thing that really exists in the world is power

01:19:41.880 no and in that game uh the things that you advocate against be it slavery be it reparations

01:19:47.560 uh i mean if people in power decided not to you can't actually make an argument of why it's wrong

01:19:52.940 so people in power like white people when they enslaved black people they said like hey you

01:19:57.600 shouldn't have rights but things still changed even though there was a power dynamic there so i'm not

01:20:01.200 saying that the only thing that exists is power i never ever said that actually um all it says that

01:20:05.500 you cannot there's no way to prove by definition objective truths or objective moral claims because in

01:20:12.260 of in in their definition they they don't require evidence they just exist they just are moral they just

01:20:17.920 are true that that that doesn't that's not conceivable in every in any circumstance when we

01:20:22.080 have some type of like premise we we either just assume it like we assume that like for example again

01:20:26.740 like i've said before reality exists right we assume that to make tangible you know discussions

01:20:32.000 make tangible claims test hypotheses whatever but beyond that like if i want to say you know

01:20:37.880 we should um we should all like i don't know i'm trying to give some example like slavery should

01:20:44.440 become a thing again the reason people don't say that it's like some absolute truth they give

01:20:48.120 reasons why and it persuades people or it doesn't i'm saying that we need to push certain ideas and

01:20:52.300 beliefs that you know you know promote happiness and goodness because i think most people would

01:20:56.700 enjoy that i think it would be the best the most optimal society when we found when we value

01:21:00.860 fundamentally you know equality of opportunity and in general and so how could somebody be if free

01:21:06.520 will doesn't exist how could they be persuaded to adopt a different opinion like we because we don't

01:21:11.560 have free will right now however i can have this discussion with you and if we have like you

01:21:16.620 know for example let's say we both value individuals but then you're like i want slavery or something i

01:21:22.020 could say well hey you know if you value people here's what would happen under slavery then i could

01:21:26.300 move your credence and move your belief into believing what i believe is that we shouldn't have slavery

01:21:30.200 right so you can still move people's you know beliefs under this to your in your opinion in your

01:21:35.580 worldview does that insinuate that people can make choices between two different things

01:21:39.100 um it wouldn't be a choice between two different things it would be like your brain processing

01:21:43.620 one belief over another belief and depending on again your biology your brain chemistry and like

01:21:48.780 your socialization you would pick one over the other however if we introduce better stimuli or more

01:21:53.580 stimuli that like promotes one belief you're more likely to believe that and that's how we get like

01:21:58.120 for example better people in society but if i'm determined or my my innate biology in my environment

01:22:03.180 determines me to choose the opposite of that aren't we both on equal footing what do you mean by

01:22:08.100 equal footing that any claim that you make or any claim that i make they're essentially equal claims

01:22:13.220 there's no one that can be superior to the other because due to the mechanisms of how i came to my

01:22:18.040 decision it's really just a belief that i've acquired or what you're the word you're using

01:22:22.480 assumption because of the environment and the biology nature virtues nurture and if that's the case

01:22:28.460 well then i don't understand again the premise of the debate the premise of of coming here and

01:22:33.440 persuading people because the people that watch this and choose the opposite of you they're no

01:22:38.480 worse or better than you it's the same i mean it's equal it's just deterministic i think it's funny

01:22:43.260 needing to like you know say that like like one belief in this metric is like like yours is better than

01:22:50.240 mine i think it's just that like in society i think that all we can do like at least what i've seen is

01:22:54.500 take a descriptive lens and look at the history of society and look at the brain and just look at like

01:22:58.640 the way that people act i think that we have not seen any proof that these things are inherently

01:23:02.860 better or worse however that doesn't mean that we can't promote different ideas um because of what

01:23:07.660 what the outcome would be for example if you value human beings which most human beings do agreed such

01:23:13.520 some such system would result the question is not whether people value human beings i think a lot of

01:23:18.600 people especially now really do value human beings um most of the time the argument for slavery was

01:23:23.600 just like oh they're not human therefore we can do blank not saying that no one has ever

01:23:27.660 not valued human beings but many a time they have something like neurologically that is actually

01:23:31.220 a disorder or whatever whatever the thing is so what i'm saying to you is that whatever system is

01:23:36.280 going to come come about depending on what stimuli we introduce and how we kind of gauge people who

01:23:40.920 tend to have that bad brain going on who tend to have like less mirror neurons things like um people who

01:23:47.280 are like really bad psychopaths or whatever it might be so it's not like a bearing on my claim it's just

01:23:53.480 like i think i'm just describing how reality exists okay i understand that that's what you feel like

01:23:58.500 you're doing my point is i just don't see how uh your argument against somebody who would assume the

01:24:03.920 opposite so let's say me for example or anybody watching uh the stream how we get to a point in

01:24:09.960 which we can justify one over the other and and so my what you were saying and i was listening to

01:24:15.000 your response the follow-up i'd really like to hear is like your anthropology do you kind of view

01:24:21.240 humans as mechanisms based on uh the nature and the environment and then the biology in which that

01:24:28.620 they have are they a mechanism is that how you would describe it you can call a human a mechanism

01:24:32.880 or whatever you really want to i feel like the way that you describe it doesn't really matter um if

01:24:38.100 you define a mechanism as something that operates off of like inputs and outputs and outputs i mean you

01:24:43.460 can define it that way but regardless what we have seen what psychology has proven why we have the

01:24:48.980 nature nurture debate is because people are composed of nature and nurture and that is the claim that

01:24:53.580 i'm making so the way that you codify it doesn't really matter to me so my question then if we are

01:24:58.180 mechanisms i'm curious can i grape a typewriter i mean that is a mechanism that's purely based on

01:25:03.960 inputs and outputs and if we are mechanisms then i don't even see how you could argue against

01:25:09.000 grape which again as i'm a christian i believe we have free will and that violates somebody's

01:25:13.400 volition and consent so it's wrong yeah in that sense but i from your worldview i don't even see

01:25:18.040 how you could say that grape is wrong because it's the mechanism the man doing it was determined

01:25:23.380 and the woman receiving it she was determined to kind of be in that situation no matter how she

01:25:27.740 feels about it so yeah so really quickly so we don't think that grape is wrong right just because

01:25:33.180 like uh like the person i think part of you say we who do you mean exactly i mean i guess you can

01:25:38.020 just say like in general i think we take it from a societal like lens like even if the person like

01:25:42.940 didn't know what they were doing we would still didn't know what they were doing we would still

01:25:47.120 like kind of have a problem with it but i think one of the biggest the biggest reasons why grape is

01:25:51.360 wrong is because someone is negatively affected and they didn't want such thing to happen to them

01:25:56.700 etc right i think grape is wrong because i value people and i value human beings and their well-being

01:26:01.220 and their safety right so even so when someone grapes someone we oh great okay sorry so when

01:26:09.660 someone essays someone um i would say that like we said that those actions we don't like those actions

01:26:15.320 they're bad because they kind of like violate someone's ability to kind of just like freely exist

01:26:19.800 and and kind of just like exist like with their bodily bodily autonomy and things of that nature

01:26:23.680 but the the solution is not to say like uh like like oh like like i think we should say boo that is

01:26:29.700 bad but the solution is to rehabilitate that person find out whatever cause cause them to do that

01:26:34.920 and exterminate that cause so that's kind of the way i would take something like grape or

01:26:39.300 what if the cause is biological yeah so that's why we have like meds and pharmacy like we have

01:26:44.560 things that like we can pinpoint what part of the brain is causing the problem and provide a solution

01:26:49.360 so um another question um there is an argument regarding uh this is specifically regarding like

01:26:56.540 daniel dennett and his compatibilism uh regarding like what kind of the issue that we're talking

01:27:01.400 about regarding moral responsibility and things like this and it's called the manipulation reductio ad

01:27:06.080 absurdum argument and so suppose there's a woman named alice and that a neuroscientist engineers her so

01:27:12.080 that due to all mechanisms that she is programmed to commit a murder and she through compatibilism

01:27:20.360 again daniel dennett's terms uses her freedom to choose based on those things so there's not an

01:27:26.440 exterior compelling her an exterior reason or cause compelling her to commit the murder and then she

01:27:31.940 commits the murder is she responsible or is she not responsible for your perspective so yeah i think

01:27:37.440 this idea of moral responsibility comes from this idea that we are these isolated causal agents which

01:27:42.480 again i i disagree with i think that when we look at like when people do bad things we need to look at

01:27:46.680 just like you explained the mechanisms and the foundation that caused them to act in the way

01:27:50.800 that they did so in that sense i think that this idea of fault and blames comes from this idea that

01:27:56.360 we just everyone has this kind of like set state of like they know the things that they should and

01:28:00.920 shouldn't do and and whatever and they're operating off of the same you know basis um so instead i would

01:28:06.100 say that like that person i think i wouldn't even reference moral responsibility i think how can we make

01:28:10.480 it so we we figure out what caused you to do such thing and stop it right so it's like it

01:28:16.260 i understand but just using my thought experiment let's say alice committed the murder in your

01:28:22.260 world view is she would you find her guilty responsible or would you say she's not guilty

01:28:28.880 or responsible because she was programmed through neuroscience say like a neural link elon musk neural

01:28:33.060 link or something like that yeah again what issue if you want to go from my framework and yeah

01:28:38.140 that's what i want to know is like in your framework how would you address alice yeah so legality

01:28:42.980 works in a way where it should prioritize rehabilitation and and fixing whatever again

01:28:47.460 cause caused the output right so for example if it's her engineering you said it was engineering

01:28:52.760 that kind of sounds like a lot like biology if it was her biology thing that she was encoded with

01:28:56.820 we we fix that right we we give her the drugs that she needs and then we take her to somewhere

01:29:01.340 where she can no longer hurt people right that is the output so it's not it doesn't my legal framework

01:29:06.320 does not have to do with like dishing things out because you deserve it it's dishing things out that's

01:29:10.120 they're going to fix the problem i just want to know if she's culpable like in your world view

01:29:13.880 is alice culpable for the murder because the neuroscience engineered her to do it no yes or

01:29:19.620 no so she's not culpable no i don't that would violate compatibilism because in that hypothetical

01:29:24.640 in that hypothetical she is not compelled by external factors and she's only conditioned by her

01:29:30.540 internal uh internal response in her biology and therefore within a compatibilistic framework i'm not a

01:29:36.360 compatibilist so you earlier you're arguing for compatibilism no i wasn't that this was i was i'm

01:29:43.220 a determinist there's a difference between determinism exactly well compatibilism is a form

01:29:46.520 of determinism so maybe you can call it soft determinist yeah it's a sub branch it's a sub branch

01:29:51.080 but once again a determinist would say that she is culpable i would say she's not because as a hard

01:29:55.720 determinist not a compatibilist i would say that even your biology is one of these causes that we you are

01:30:01.760 not in control of you don't author and compatibilists agree with that but they just define free will

01:30:05.260 different so like sam harris then who's a hard determinist would you argue that people who so

01:30:09.560 for example sam harris is famous for being very anti-islam and he's okay if like all muslims were

01:30:15.880 for your position rehabilitated or like a cancer extracted from a tumor from the world because of

01:30:22.320 the consequences he argues that the program of islam look again using a metaphor of a computer or

01:30:27.380 something like that that software needs to be eradicated so is that is that also your opinion i think

01:30:33.120 that people who practice islam should it's not just about islam it's in general i'm just saying

01:30:37.560 that for sam harris in particular that's an issue that he uses his hard determinism and talks about

01:30:42.760 islam as a cancer as a tumor in regard to like our global society his hard determinism because he

01:30:48.600 sounds what it sounds like what i'm hearing is that you're kind of parroting the the hard

01:30:52.920 determinism of sam harris yeah so and that's so that's my point is he he would argue that we just

01:30:58.100 need to hold on just let me finish i'll let you go that he would argue that we need to eradicate

01:31:03.260 that group of people or rehabilitate them because the software is cancerous that's his argument so i

01:31:09.280 would definitely say that so i don't know what parts of islam he's entailing are cancerous i don't

01:31:14.320 take that position i wouldn't but i would say that if any group of people um regardless anyone who is

01:31:21.220 committing just like violent crimes or things that we would see seem as deem as socially unacceptable

01:31:25.540 right we would isolate the cause right which is always going to terminate in their biology

01:31:30.180 or their socialization and we would extract the causes it's usually going to entail again

01:31:34.440 rehabilitation so i've given you my my answer for that it's usually going to be rehabilitation

01:31:37.900 and then kind of just like removing this person from a place where they can do that again right

01:31:42.360 and and that's where when you kept saying rehabilitation that's where in my head it kind of

01:31:46.260 keynoted sam harris because that's kind of that's the rhetoric his argument oh well that's kind of the

01:31:50.840 rhetoric he uses in um uh one of his books on free will i remember reading it was years ago

01:31:55.480 but uh yeah that's the way that he tries to get around again the the moral culpability and stuff

01:32:00.120 regarding his worldview because he does recognize that he can't actually justify morality or truth

01:32:04.920 in his worldview and so he has to develop different systems to try to justify those things yeah cool i

01:32:10.200 mean i just think that rehabilitation is just the most just even just like logical way of kind of

01:32:14.560 uprooting how do you how would you like what is in your worldview in an ideal circumstance what is

01:32:20.520 rehabilitation because you're what you would identify as the ideal rehabilitation i could argue

01:32:26.340 is like something is negative for example i'm not in favor of like the lgbtq movement as a

01:32:31.360 traditional christian and so i could see potentially in a thought experiment where you would say i need

01:32:36.340 to be rehabilitated because of my thoughts and my feelings towards a particular community how would

01:32:41.280 you go about doing that if you want to like harm people on the basis of don't want to harm anybody okay

01:32:45.680 okay no worries yeah so everyone has like the ability to think what they want and feel what

01:32:51.240 they want but right if our goals in society are to create a society that promotes well-being

01:32:56.640 anti-discrimination and things of that nature um and and you have some type of like unwarranted

01:33:03.140 belief against a group of people i would say that you probably need to be exposed to information

01:33:07.060 that would cause you to no longer hold that belief i think that's just kind of the same thing that

01:33:11.240 would apply i think that people should be just like we shouldn't judge someone for something that

01:33:16.000 that like for an unwarranted reason um unless they are like harming people or doing something that we

01:33:21.740 would deem unjust other than that like i just don't see a reason why we would right i wouldn't be in

01:33:25.740 favor of harming people but the idea that i have a moral objective structure that i believe that

01:33:30.940 for example sexuality there's certain things that are uh godly divinely intended in certain ways and

01:33:36.700 that there are transgressions though that's just my worldview so i'm not arguing for for you i'm just

01:33:40.980 saying that so for me it's like it's not about uh wanting to hurt anybody or again violate their

01:33:46.920 free will but let's say in a thought experiment and it's kind of already occurring in american

01:33:51.240 culture that the persuasiveness if everything is the world if we adopt your worldview and everything

01:33:55.640 is just assumptions and that it's all rhetoric and we're just trying to persuade people so that

01:33:59.360 their innate biology actually clings on to it and then deterministically moves in the right direction

01:34:03.900 we're seeing right now i mean in 2025 that the support for pride support for lgbtq seems to be

01:34:09.800 diminishing um and i mean the white house uh so like pride parades um i mean general that i don't

01:34:17.620 know again you're a leftist so i assume that some of the cultures or the circles that you swim in are

01:34:22.160 a little bit different but uh in the circles that i swim in it certainly seems like and anybody watching

01:34:27.340 this in the chat let us know if you agree or disagree seems like the support for the lgbtq movement

01:34:32.500 in general has really diminished from the last five to ten years so i don't know how if you have like

01:34:37.080 some type of like population census on that um i would say that like the government is moving towards

01:34:40.980 like um a path that i would say it probably isn't great um but i mean yeah i don't think that this is

01:34:48.020 going to have any bearing on my descriptive explanation on how societies change um i would

01:34:53.220 say that like from my worldview someone who values people and is non-discrimination um and values just

01:34:59.640 like the well-being of humanity yeah i would say it's wrong to just like to just hate people for

01:35:06.520 for being kind of the way that they are and that is in a way that's not hurting people so i mean

01:35:10.700 again i don't see how this is like well my point is what if what if this persuasion continues continues

01:35:15.820 continues until maybe it's 95 of the opinion this is the thought experiment i'm not saying that it

01:35:20.380 like but that exactly just based to you and your subjective experience and and in a sense be us

01:35:26.900 who would disagree with your perspective we would essentially win the culture culture war and there's

01:35:34.060 nothing that you could really argue like there's nothing you can argue against it other than hey

01:35:38.340 this is my preference these are my friends we should do this but if other people are being persuaded

01:35:43.160 in the opposite direction it just seems like you kind of lose what you're describing here is what's

01:35:47.460 happened throughout history we have different dominances of power of thought of belief sometimes

01:35:52.620 the drive of power in one direction is founded in things like christianity in some objective morality

01:35:57.580 other times people being like i don't like how i'm being treated you don't like how you're being

01:36:01.640 treated let's fight against it you don't have to entail some objective morality to want some

01:36:06.280 cultural change you just need some unified goal and if our my unified goal is equal protection

01:36:11.240 equality equality of opportunity um general well-being of humanity and i get a bunch of people to agree

01:36:16.900 with me um that that is an um you know important thing then we then we win right um so true in the

01:36:22.620 opposite as well yeah exactly so i don't want the opposite to happen i can express how much i hate

01:36:27.500 that idea but i can't entail some objective moral truth because that's quite literally it's it's

01:36:33.400 improvable in that an objective moral truth would would not have evidence it would just be truth and it

01:36:38.300 would and if it was so objectively true it would seem obvious to us because it would be true right so

01:36:44.120 again and i would say for at least the circles that i swim in it is very objectively obvious in

01:36:49.440 regards to some of the yeah the sexual transgressions and things that are going on in that community

01:36:53.100 for us we would think that that's quite obvious and quite explicit so for us just the observation

01:36:59.060 is i mean yeah that's how like you can construct a reality based on some belief

01:37:03.600 that well that's what yours is you yeah i think that's exactly what you're explaining though as well

01:37:08.480 here too where i'm just adopting yours and doing an internal critique in regards to i don't think this is a

01:37:12.720 critique this is an explaining of like a world i think people watching it understand so sure we

01:37:16.340 think anyone who's well versed in philosophy will know we'll know what cognitism non-cognitism is

01:37:20.660 whatever but again um so someone in your view if you just objectively believe that god is true then

01:37:26.980 everything that he says must be true and you will go on and live in that reality regardless of if

01:37:32.140 there's evidence for it or evidence for the opposite you're going to go on living in that reality

01:37:36.700 i am someone who values science who values probability me too okay sure about values kind of

01:37:42.700 pattern recognition um yeah etc um i'm also someone who you know values other people you think if

01:37:49.980 you're christian you can't believe in science never said that no i'm just asking i'm not saying that's

01:37:54.040 what you said i'm just asking for clarification i'm telling you that i'm saying that i value science

01:37:58.320 is just something that i value i'm not saying making any bearing on christianity and is is the

01:38:02.700 scientific method can it prove the scientific method can what prove the scientific method can

01:38:08.000 using science measuring and averaging prove the scientific method itself or is it a priori

01:38:14.620 presupposition of how we using induction yeah yeah yeah so it's something that we assume to be true

01:38:19.360 based on kind of like how we navigate the world and how we see the world right so science is based

01:38:24.280 upon the assumption right that reality exists in some measurable way i think that that's not that's a

01:38:29.380 pretty fair assumption to make yeah and that's the assumption that you kind of come into debates

01:38:32.840 with which is kind of what we were wrestling with earlier right no i agree with that i i just think

01:38:36.600 that without again this is where i would perform if we if this was getting into a much larger debate

01:38:42.020 in regard to philosophical transcendentals or using the transcendental argument for god i would appeal

01:38:47.580 to a coherency theory that my paradigm is actually much more coherent and allows for things like science

01:38:54.040 uh and objective truth and morality to be justified and that's how again using the laws of logic i know

01:39:00.040 that you argued earlier that logic isn't a methodology to proof uh but it is and that's what i would use

01:39:07.000 for to justify that belief in god is actually a superior worldview because you don't have to presuppose

01:39:12.700 things like the laws of logic or like the law of non-contradiction the law of identity like science is

01:39:19.020 working based on the presupposition that tomorrow will still be the same as today but that is built

01:39:24.840 on a logical presupposition that science itself can't prove so logic and like so logic and reality

01:39:31.580 or something tangible existing outside of this human experience are all presuppositions we make

01:39:36.840 to believe in science but that presupposition is is simply because we don't have him from any

01:39:41.140 information that deems the opposite so i don't i don't think we need to fall into some alternate

01:39:46.600 conclusion because it makes things easier because okay then i don't have to make an assumption we make

01:39:50.560 that assumption because it's it makes the most sense because we don't have any evidence of the

01:39:55.280 opposite so it's more so making sure that we're the most airtight in our descriptions of how things are

01:40:01.360 and how we pattern recognize etc it's just kind of making um the way that we kind of pursue information

01:40:07.360 seeking the most airtight so i mean i don't have a problem with those assumptions i think it's pretty fair

01:40:12.260 to make the assumption that yeah reality is real that tomorrow will be tomorrow that yeah that is the

01:40:17.840 foundation of science i completely agree right okay um i i mean that pretty much answers some of the

01:40:25.580 the found foundational objections that i had regarding your worldview and i i think that my presentation

01:40:31.460 um has come across in regards to the lack of objective epistemology the lack of moral responsibility

01:40:38.600 and that you've and you've granted that you're a moral subjectivist so my point still stands so

01:40:44.720 you've adopted a position that coincides with a deterministic worldview that doesn't allow you to

01:40:49.020 justify those things and fair enough that's where i granted you at least you're being consistent regards

01:40:52.960 to the ethical and moral component you being a subjectivist is at least consistent with your

01:40:57.220 deterministic framework well yeah i think that in regards to kind of like um just like the the whole

01:41:02.620 assumptions thing if you believe in science as someone who is non-religious you are making this

01:41:07.960 assumption as well that like reality exists objectively um that things that have patterns

01:41:13.360 that things have causes etc and it's a pretty sound assumption to make especially when we don't have

01:41:18.400 evidence provable evidence of the latter so yeah i think that that what i'm saying makes a lot of

01:41:23.780 coherent sense same thing with morality we haven't been able to find some truth in moral claims that's

01:41:29.660 it's just non it's non-testable um although we do see that evolutionarily it makes sense why we value

01:41:36.220 other people we value human beings we we we value um people people being okay like well-being over

01:41:42.820 non-well-being etc so i think we have a lot of explanations for why we feel these things but i

01:41:46.940 think that a lot of times emotivism comes to recognize that moral claims and attitudes do come

01:41:53.160 from again this feeling right that sometimes you can point to in the brain socialization etc so

01:41:58.380 yeah i think i think that kind of sums up what i what i've okay you have any uh counter questions for

01:42:05.360 me in regards to my worldview yeah i just think i think if we kind of i don't know if we want to

01:42:10.560 go back into this but the agency thing i do still just have like a really big issue with it with this

01:42:17.040 um knowing that there is some set future and then also saying that we can act out of accordance

01:42:23.020 with it seems to be incoherent to me well it's a category i mean my argument that just be a category

01:42:28.820 in regards to god and so that's the whole point of sin so we can choose right and wrong decisions

01:42:35.560 some of us choose bad decisions and those consequences follow and god christ being the

01:42:42.400 incarnate god has a perfect heart that heart is the heart that all of us are going to be judged upon

01:42:46.660 and my agency to choose right or wrong does not diminish god's omniscience and god's omniscience

01:42:54.140 does not diminish my ability to make a free will choice right here right now so so again predictability

01:43:00.060 is not proof of determinism and it's just probability under limited circumstances is essentially

01:43:06.080 what what you're and that's where my point with the restaurant earlier it's like just because there's

01:43:10.400 limited opportunities to choose on a particular menu doesn't mean that i'm determined for any one

01:43:15.840 particular meal that i choose okay so once again i just want to kind of like get it straight from here

01:43:20.860 do you believe that there is some future that exists like there is a future that exists obviously

01:43:24.620 right okay so again if there is some future and some events that exist in those in that future

01:43:29.480 then those events must happen and you cannot do any events that would contradict that event so say

01:43:34.880 again if there i don't i don't know what the i don't know what the future is and we know that god

01:43:40.520 again still exists outside of time we do know that he knows what this future is right we're sitting

01:43:44.840 at this point of the present where we cannot kind of like like actually perceive of that but we know

01:43:49.060 that it exists if we presume that god exists the question is can you do anything that is not

01:43:54.580 entailed in that future that god knows exists just yes or no can i do anything in the future that god

01:44:01.240 knows exist no can you do anything like in this set future that god knows exists that but he's already

01:44:07.100 at the end point of history so it's already happened right that's fine right so it's already

01:44:11.040 happened these events are going to happen whatever but in these events that are going to happen

01:44:14.920 can you do anything other than the events that are going to happen if i made a different

01:44:18.420 choice at that point, then it would have been the, again, God would already known what choices

01:44:23.340 already make. So again, this is a category error because the choices I make in temporal space and

01:44:29.320 time are not determined by God's omniscience of knowing which decisions I choose. I'm not saying

01:44:33.780 that because he knows is, is, is why like, um, well, you keep asking insinuating, let me finish.

01:44:39.860 Do you keep asking if I can choose to do something different though? Is that not what you were

01:44:44.060 asking me? No, I'm not done yet. But that is exactly what you're asking me. I thought we

01:44:48.400 weren't supposed to be cutting people off. Okay. So see, okay. Anyway, anyway, so sensitive.

01:44:56.240 Okay. Um, anyway, so if there is some set future that you know is going to exist, it's a simple

01:45:03.140 question. If there is some set future that we know exists, can you do anything that is not in those

01:45:08.680 events of the future? Just a yes or no. Again, the premise of the question. No, that's not, I'm not

01:45:14.280 going to fall into your dialectic. It's not a trap. Well, let me respond. I get to respond

01:45:18.380 however I want. No. Oh, I don't? You, you can be bad faith if you want. How is that bad

01:45:23.140 faith? Because you're not even. Do you even know what bad faith means? It's when you're

01:45:25.960 arguing like, like disingenuously. Yeah. I'm disingenuous by saying that God's omniscience

01:45:31.560 doesn't entail. You're disingenuous by not answering the clear yes or no question.

01:45:34.760 I can make free will choices. God knows what choices I already make. I can choose different

01:45:44.160 choices in that particular period. So free will entails that there, in some event, there

01:45:49.740 is a choice that you can make other than another choice, right? There's not some like lineage,

01:45:55.280 even though we're already entailing that God knows some like events that are going to happen

01:46:00.060 in the future, right? Yeah. But you're, you're presuming that you can pick something other

01:46:04.300 than whatever is going to happen. So tomorrow, if God knows, let's just assume God knows that

01:46:09.580 tomorrow, even though he's this outside of time, he does still know that tomorrow you're going to

01:46:12.640 pick a blue shirt. That means that you cannot pick any other shirt, but the blue shirt. Just yes

01:46:17.540 or no? No, it's because God knows I chose the blue shirt because in his perspective of being

01:46:23.180 outside temporal space and time, that's the shirt that I chose. Okay. So you couldn't have

01:46:27.060 picked a red shirt then? You could not have picked a red shirt because he knows

01:46:30.020 you're going to pick a blue shirt. His knowledge doesn't determine my choice. I'm not saying that

01:46:33.480 his knowledge determines it. But that's what, that's the insinuation of your claim. That's the

01:46:36.340 insinuation. I'm saying that it's already known. So it's already going to happen that way,

01:46:40.440 right? It's known by God, but I still choose it in the present moment. If God knows today,

01:46:47.060 right, or even before you came here, that you were going to come here, right? That means that

01:46:51.080 you're going to come here inevitably. He knows that that was the decision I was going to make,

01:46:56.760 and he knows outside space and time that I've already made that decision. So you couldn't have

01:47:00.560 not come here? I could have chose, yeah. And he would have known that that was the choice that I

01:47:04.140 made because he's outside space and time. He's already at the end of history. He knows that that

01:47:07.900 was the choice that I made. That is a contradiction. No, it's not. No, it's not. Again, the super chatter

01:47:12.420 highlighted, people watching know that this is kind of a Reddit tier level argument about God's

01:47:18.100 omniscience. And you realize that I'm not a Calvinist, right? So I don't believe in any sort of theological

01:47:22.560 determinism. I'm not going to use the people watching to determine who is correct or incorrect

01:47:26.680 in the debate. Well, you should because you don't have an arbiter of projected truth. Especially when

01:47:29.980 metaphysics, psychology, neurobiology, and many other sectors of science also, not really. They also

01:47:38.760 entail the same fact that every, first of all, that one, that when we make a choice, right, it is a

01:47:44.800 product of circumstances that we don't have control over. And also, even if we presuppose some

01:47:50.560 Christian God that exists, if he knows in any regard what will happen, then you cannot do what

01:47:57.760 he does not know will happen. That's a fact. But his knowledge is based on our ability to have free

01:48:03.640 will. It's really just a yes or no question, though. It's going nowhere. There was multiple

01:48:09.840 contradictions there, but anyway. Oh, yeah. Well, name them. What are the contradictions? Yeah. Tell me

01:48:14.200 the logical contradictions I made. Saying that God knows what you're going to do before you do it,

01:48:18.360 that, but also he only knows things that you know that you're going to do because he's seen it

01:48:23.040 before. So, yeah, that's, he's outside space and time. That's a category error. Right. So it's not

01:48:28.000 a category error. Yes, it is. If you, if God knows you're going to do some set things, you can't do

01:48:31.920 the things that he does not know you're going to do. That's essentially the problem with your

01:48:35.060 argument. That's not a problem. No, that's not. Yes, it is. That's not a problem. Even if you're not

01:48:39.600 aware in the moment that you're going to do something, you were always going to do that said thing.

01:48:43.340 That's, that's the problem. No, because you always have choice, but God being outside space and time.

01:48:48.220 What does choice mean? Choose between a rational deliberation, choice between multiple objects.

01:48:52.980 If there's two. Choice between the red and the blue shirt. There's two possibilities. One is

01:48:55.880 definitely going to happen. One, you feel like you have a choice, it's going to happen, but this one

01:49:00.340 was always going to happen. No. That means that you don't have a choice. No, that's not. It's just a

01:49:03.820 feeling of having a choice. But again, that's, that's, you've already structured it, and that's not how

01:49:07.220 Christians. I haven't structured it. That's not how Christians believe that choice works. The structure that you

01:49:11.800 just drew on your paper. Two different things? That's, the point is that you just said, because

01:49:19.760 God knows the choice you're going to make, you cannot make any, you basically have no free will,

01:49:25.040 you cannot make delineation between two things. I'm saying no Christian, both Orthodox, Catholic,

01:49:31.840 Protestant, believes that to be the case, because the paradigm is not based on that presupposition.

01:49:36.500 The framework that you laid out is not the framework that we agree to, is not the framework

01:49:40.260 that we believe in. Christians don't believe that to be true because it would, would mean that there's

01:49:44.360 a contradiction in their logic that is there. No, it's a contradiction for you. You just don't want to

01:49:46.840 categorize it, right? So let's say you have a choice between a blue shirt and a red shirt tomorrow.

01:49:51.960 God knows you're going to pick red. You're going to pick red. He knows this. He's always known it.

01:49:57.020 Even when Adam and Eve were frolicking in the gardens, he knew you were going to pick this red shirt

01:50:01.340 on this day. And you're like, hmm, blue or red? You're going to pick red, and you were always going to pick red.

01:50:07.480 There's no option. I thought it was blue. No, it was red. Now it's changed. No, it was blue shirt

01:50:13.180 earlier. Yeah, well, you know, examples can change. Anyway. So your argument is essentially the same

01:50:19.680 type of redditeer atheist argument that would say, well, if God's the creator, who created God?

01:50:24.760 And it's like, well, that's a category. I don't think that's the same argument. It's the same level

01:50:28.120 of argument. No, it's really not. It is the same level of argument. It's really not. I think that a lot of

01:50:31.960 Christians also have come to see the problem with this idea. Yes, they have. More and more young men

01:50:37.560 and women are becoming Christian than ever before. You haven't answered the contradiction. You just

01:50:41.180 keep saying because it is. That's not a contradiction. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes, there is. The

01:50:45.140 super chatter already recognized. Super chatter? Oh, wait, hold on. The super chatter told us it's

01:50:49.080 correct, so it's right. That's not what I said either. That's not what I said either. Is that what I

01:50:52.940 said? I mean, you're using that as some type of evidence. I don't know why you're bringing it up. Because other people

01:50:56.520 watching this are realizing what's going on, and you and your... Other people that watch this tend

01:51:00.400 to lean conservative. So, of course, they're going to agree with your framework, and I don't think

01:51:03.960 that I'm going to, like, kind of capitulate to them to arbit, like, who is correct, right? Especially

01:51:08.800 when this argument is very, so straightforward, and it just is going to be in the realm of, like,

01:51:13.560 metaphysical possibility. It's metaphysically impossible for you to pick blue if God already

01:51:18.160 knows and has always known and always will know that you will pick red. That is a fact. I rest my case.

01:51:23.400 No. Again... Just say no. That's fine. It's just not consistent with our worldview,

01:51:27.940 and that, again... With your worldview, yeah. Yeah, exactly. With our worldview, because that

01:51:31.620 would entail, again, that we have no choice. There is no objective truth. There is no moral

01:51:35.040 responsibility, as we've already talked about. That would mean that there's no choice, and that's

01:51:37.220 scary. I understand, but it is true. You chose to be here. I did choose to... Oh, you can't choose!

01:51:43.460 You can't choose, though! Under, like, a compatibilist understanding, yeah, I did choose to be here.

01:51:47.860 Okay. But, I mean, did I have control over the desire to be here? No, I didn't. Okay. So, yeah.

01:51:52.800 Anyway. Well, I hope this was convincing for the audience, because you guys had no choice in the

01:51:57.340 matter. We will take a break for some chats. We have Chef Dill Pickles. He writes,

01:52:05.140 Zena said that axioms are his preference, and then almost immediately said we should do what

01:52:10.860 most people want. Absolutely, cognitively dissonant. Yeah. So, never said that we should do what most

01:52:17.500 people want. Definitely didn't appeal to numbers. I said that over time, we generally do, like,

01:52:22.160 power is held by the majority, and we tend to structure society based on what, like, the majority

01:52:26.380 wants. And then, also, axioms are preferences. No, didn't say that. There's the message again,

01:52:34.580 in case you wanted to address anything else, or... And it's probably in reference to you saying two

01:52:38.580 plus two could be five if we all agreed to it. Yeah. So, if we labeled, like, what we conceive as,

01:52:43.460 like, four as five, and we just said semantically now, like, that's now five. But if you're just

01:52:48.180 changing semantics, again, that's not getting at the heart of it. Okay, sure. Is that is mathematics

01:52:52.540 objective and universal? That was the point that was being made. Yeah. So, it's, like, going to be

01:52:56.400 one of, like, the oldest philosophical debates. Did we discover math, or did we create math?

01:53:00.240 Whatever. I mean, I think that, like, for someone to say that, like, math as a system exists, it's

01:53:04.620 probably going to entail, like, utility to some degree. So, like, it's something that, like, you're,

01:53:08.480 like, actually constructing, for example, to divide ten by two to come to five. Like,

01:53:13.540 there's some type of, like, process or system there that, like, requires humans. However,

01:53:18.300 like, the physical objects being there, for example, if there are, like, five meteors in

01:53:21.800 the sky, those meteors are there. So, I mean, it's just a very big philosophical rabbit hole.

01:53:29.240 It doesn't negate anything I've said. We have another chat here. Chef Deal Pickles. Zena,

01:53:35.020 please explain why we should not eliminate first degree unaliving and simply replace it with

01:53:40.860 second degree unaliving. Good point. Yeah. So, under my legal framework, right,

01:53:46.540 if someone is, like, what I would want, or I think what is most coherent, if someone has

01:53:50.840 unalive someone, right, instead of looking at it in this way that we do, we would say, okay,

01:53:55.460 like, what caused this person to unalive someone? Was it intentional? If it was intentional,

01:54:02.040 right, we look at the cause for that thing. Let's say they're a psychopath, and we would

01:54:05.860 rehabilitate them. If this person did not mean to unalive someone, we would take, we would just,

01:54:11.540 kind of, like, figure out what caused them to do such thing. If it was, like, nothing at all,

01:54:14.920 like, a total, something that they, like, there's no circumstances that we can rehabilitate. I think

01:54:20.200 we would just see it as, like, someone who, like, for example, if someone broke the law, like, we can

01:54:25.280 still have laws under the system where, like, we can deter them from doing such law and put them in

01:54:30.580 jail specifically because they broke the law and as a symbol of why you shouldn't do it again. So,

01:54:34.380 I think that, again, like, not only rehabilitation, but deterrent should be

01:54:37.720 one of, like, the pedestals of our law and our governance. So, yeah.

01:54:43.120 All right. Somebody, Streamlabs is not working, apparently. I don't know.

01:54:49.700 Oh, here we go. Chef Till. Dylan, Streamlabs is down. Zena, what does it functionally mean to be

01:54:57.000 outside of space-time? I can't tell if you're genuinely or disingenuously missing that detail.

01:55:02.860 Yeah. So, it means that you're not bound by time, right? Even still, regardless of God knowing

01:55:09.000 something before or after or during, if something is said to have known, sorry, if something is said

01:55:16.220 to be something that he knows, it means that it will happen because he is God. So, I'm not saying

01:55:20.200 that, like, he must know this thing before you did it, even though you kind of agreed to that.

01:55:25.000 I'm saying that God, in whatever sense, knows that something is going to happen,

01:55:29.280 and thus, it will happen that way. That's all my argument is, unless you agree that...

01:55:34.280 And for you, that means determinism, right? That's like a...

01:55:36.860 Yeah. I mean, if you want to take it to be...

01:55:39.000 Well, that's what you're trying to use it as, right?

01:55:40.780 Well, it proves that, like, in any circumstance, something was always going to happen, yes.

01:55:45.880 Well, something's always going to happen, but the reason why you're bringing that up is try

01:55:49.520 to insinuate that, even in my worldview, believing in God, it's determined. That's the premise

01:55:54.240 of what you're trying to present. And, again, shout out to Chef Dylan, because he's highlighting

01:55:58.640 that. It's a category error.

01:56:00.840 Nope.

01:56:01.700 Okay.

01:56:03.000 God knowing something means that it will always happen that way. It is true. So, you can't do

01:56:07.800 the opposite of that. Is that true?

01:56:09.840 It doesn't mean the determinism.

01:56:11.160 Okay. Whatever you want.

01:56:12.620 Okay. All right. We have about 20, 25 minutes left. So, why don't we do closing statements

01:56:18.880 and then the rest of the show, for what time we do have remaining, we'll open it up to some

01:56:23.400 audience questions.

01:56:25.320 We'll do... We'll lower the read or TTS threshold. We'll put it to... We'll do 69. $69 TTS, because

01:56:32.680 we don't have too much time. So, Zena, you go first with your closing statement. Then, Patrick,

01:56:37.860 you'll go after. Go ahead.

01:56:38.980 Okay. Yeah. So, my closing statement is going to be pretty similar to my opening statement.

01:56:45.420 I think I'll just focus more on kind of the God aspect, though, of how you can take determinism.

01:56:51.720 Essentially, I'm going to just restate my argument. God knows, you know, how the world

01:56:57.660 will exist and what events will take place. Regardless of time, events are going to happen

01:57:03.040 in the way that he knows that they will happen. And thus, you cannot act out of accordance with

01:57:08.000 what God knows, right? So, it doesn't matter, like, if we're talking about this in, like,

01:57:12.700 a circumstance of time or not. If God says that blank thing is going to happen a certain

01:57:18.540 way or blank thing is, it always will be. So, thus, if God says, you will pick up this cup,

01:57:25.980 you're going to pick it up, right? That's going to happen. So, that was... Therefore, this concludes that,

01:57:31.400 like, God knowing every action that we're going to take and every thought that we're going to have

01:57:34.740 or every thought that we do have, regardless of, like, the fact that he is outside of time,

01:57:39.340 we cannot do anything that he does not know. And thus, there are some set actions that we will

01:57:45.280 take throughout life that he has always known are going to exist that way, and thus, we cannot act

01:57:50.560 differently. There's just this feeling or illusion of choice. That's always been my argument.

01:57:55.140 I think that, as well, if I want to get back... I want to get back into this neuroscience idea.

01:58:01.480 Patrick was trying to make some type of claim that neuroscientists have seen that sometimes

01:58:05.320 people act differently to, like, biologically, the way that we know, like, study it in the brain.

01:58:10.640 Well, yeah, like, we're always going to find the reason for that differentiation and action,

01:58:15.580 like, differentiating from their biology to be something that exists in, like, the social realm

01:58:19.920 or the environmental realm. Like, some social stimuli causes people to act differently than we

01:58:25.220 might assume they will based on their biology or their brain chemistry. So, yeah, it's either that

01:58:31.100 any event is caused or uncaused. If it's caused, we'll ask... Well, first of all, if it's uncaused,

01:58:37.420 it'll be random, so you don't have control over it. If an event is caused, we ask why, and when you

01:58:41.720 continue to ask why, why you prefer waffles over toast. It's going to result in something like,

01:58:47.420 because my mom made them for me or because my taste was just in a way where it releases more

01:58:52.500 dopamine in my brain. There's always some explanation, and it just resides outside of

01:58:56.120 this idea of the I. So that's been my argument. Yeah. All right, go ahead. As I was presenting in

01:59:03.980 the opening argument is seven points logically refute determinism. The first one being moral

01:59:10.040 responsibility argument. So if determinism is true, no one can be held morally responsible

01:59:16.720 because they were determined to do so based on nature and nurture, as we've already talked

01:59:20.800 about. And she's conceded that she's a moral subjectivist, so therefore she really can't

01:59:25.240 make universal moral claims or ethical claims about people, things, historical events. She

01:59:30.600 can use rhetoric. She can state her preference, which she stated multiple times today, but that

01:59:34.900 does not justify, and that is not a strong argument within a formal debate to actually present

01:59:40.180 why something is true or false. Second one is that if determinism is true, then all knowledge

01:59:46.980 are beliefs, including the belief in determinism. And if that's the case, then determinism is not

01:59:51.520 founded on rational inquiry or rational deliberation, and therefore itself cannot be rationally justified.

01:59:58.060 So therefore, point number two, if determinism is true, we can't have objective knowledge.

02:00:03.300 Point number three is that no determinist actually operates in the world as if they're a determinist.

02:00:11.700 Determinism would violate the idea of voting. Again, I'm not the biggest advocate of democracy

02:00:19.620 myself, but democracy is premised upon the idea of free will and that you can make delineations

02:00:25.220 between things and choose. But she would argue that you're really just conditioned to choose

02:00:29.160 whoever your political person that you want to support is. Fourth argument is that from the

02:00:36.680 counterfactual possibility is that all decisions presuppose modal freedom. And so even though she

02:00:42.640 has a sort of semi-compatibilist, she says she's a determinist, but then she appeals to compatibilism

02:00:47.720 in regards to her ability to choose and be here today, this still insinuates what's called modal

02:00:53.860 freedom. And so it's still, even within a compatibilist framework, we have to evaluate

02:01:01.620 alternative possibilities. And this is true within legal structures. So like our entire legal institution

02:01:06.660 is built upon that there could be something or it could have been the opposite. In her worldview, there is no

02:01:12.420 opposite because everything was determined. Number five, the neuroscience misinterpretation argument

02:01:16.980 regarding Benjamin Labette. And this research has kind of been followed up more recently with

02:01:21.300 John, John Dylan Haynes, arguing again, that these resting potentials demonstrate that the brain is

02:01:27.460 deterministic and that things fire before every action we do. And then that's been disproven. Again,

02:01:33.060 I recommend everybody to go up, look a paper. It's from 2012 by David Scherger. It's called RP as neural

02:01:39.700 noise and highlights that now the kind of operating standard with the neuroscience is that these,

02:01:45.940 these neuronal firings before actions are actually just neural noise and they're not deterministic

02:01:51.220 structures in regards to behavior. Number six, creativity and novelty arguments. So again,

02:01:57.300 you can't have art, poetry, invention, all these things, moral heroism. So again, I'm surprised she

02:02:03.540 didn't bring up more arguments regarding biology or evolution and evolutionary constraints in regards to

02:02:10.260 our biology. But you know, art, poetry, moral heroism, people who actually self-sacrifice themselves

02:02:17.860 and kill themselves. This is a defiance against, again, this idea of like survival of the fittest and

02:02:23.140 that we do everything for personal survival. And then number six or number seven is the problem of

02:02:29.140 infinite regress. And I think this is a pretty strong logical argument against determinism is that

02:02:34.420 there has to be an unmoved mover. I mean, this was Aristotle figured this stuff out in classical Greek

02:02:40.020 philosophy. And so determinism relies on an infinite causal chain. Well, where does the causal chain

02:02:46.260 begin? It typically begins with the Big Bang. That's why I brought up cosmology, which she wasn't really

02:02:51.700 wanting to get into. And so free will allows for an uncaused cause within a person. Again, being made in the

02:02:57.700 image of God, the imago Dei, Genesis 126, allows me to be my own uncaused cause within the world through the

02:03:05.700 utilization of my free will. And as I said in the opening statement, you know, the 20th century,

02:03:12.020 this is why determinism has really kind of fallen to the wayside, is because quantum mechanics,

02:03:18.020 the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has demonstrated that Laplacian determinism, again,

02:03:24.180 Laplace's demon, which is a thought experiment, that's not how the universe actually works. And this

02:03:29.380 is more consistent with a theological worldview because I believe in miracles, right? So I don't believe

02:03:33.940 in a deterministic system. I'm not a deist either. So God's intervention into the world is a real

02:03:40.420 occurring fact. And I would appeal also to number two, chaos theory, which also mathematically demonstrates

02:03:46.980 the same thing, that we live in an undetermined or indeterminate world. And that is consistent with

02:03:52.900 my worldview as God created creation and that miracles and His agency can actually still affect

02:03:58.100 the world while me being made in the image of God can still have free will. Kirk Gödel's incompleteness

02:04:03.780 theory, again, trying to prove determinism based on determinism is impossible. This is kind of what,

02:04:10.020 this general problem is why logical positivism failed in the early 20th century. And so

02:04:17.620 the cognitive revolution as well, Skinnerian behaviorism was overthrown in the 50s and 60s.

02:04:23.140 And this was done by, again, linguistic work. I'm not the biggest Noam Chomsky fan, but Chomsky's work

02:04:28.420 regarding linguistics and language acquisition shows, again, that we do have human agency and

02:04:33.700 human free will and that these aren't deterministic mechanisms. The philosophy of mind, as I said,

02:04:39.220 typically the majority of the field adopts an emergentism, the idea that we actually have a mind.

02:04:44.980 Now emergentism argues that the collective firing of neurons is so complex that we have an emergent

02:04:51.540 property, right? So water molecules, you can have a molecule of H2O, but until you have multiple

02:04:57.140 molecules, you don't have what's called wetness. That's an emergent property. And so I'm not an

02:05:02.500 emergentist. I don't believe in emergentism. As I said earlier, I'm more of a hyalomorphic

02:05:07.460 in the Aristotelian tradition and the Christian tradition. But emergentism is kind of the dominant

02:05:13.220 stance within philosophy of mind right now. And persons from that perspective are not

02:05:18.420 are not reducible to just physical components. Human agency is not irreducible. We actually have

02:05:25.620 agency. And this is, again, even part of the emergentist school within philosophy of mind.

02:05:31.700 And then self-referential collapse, this is the logical argument. Again, she argued that logic

02:05:37.140 is not a way to prove something, which is just ridiculous. I mean, nobody believes that. That's

02:05:42.260 that's ridiculous. Well, you earlier, you're claiming that I wasn't proving something. And I

02:05:47.300 said, I'm using the laws of logic to show that the opposite of what I'm saying demonstrates that

02:05:52.660 there cannot be universal knowledge, there cannot be objective truth, and there cannot be moral

02:05:56.660 responsibility. And so one cannot rationally affirm determinism. It's just, and even determinists

02:06:03.940 will agree with this. Since belief in determinism is due to prior states, then it too is a non-rational

02:06:11.620 belief. And then she agreed that that's all it is. It's a, it's a preference. It's assumption

02:06:15.860 on her part due to nature and nurture. And so it's just a subjective opinion. That's all she really

02:06:21.780 came here with. And therefore her goal is to persuade you through hopefully your innate biology

02:06:28.260 clings on to something she said through these deterministic mechanisms of, of cause, causation,

02:06:33.780 and that you then will adopt and parrot her worldview. And maybe it'll become more popular,

02:06:38.340 but she can't make a claim that it's objectively true or it's superior to mine because she doesn't

02:06:43.620 have a basis. Determinism undercuts the necessary categories that it depends upon for objective

02:06:50.500 truth claims and moral responsibility claims. So from that perspective, essentially,

02:06:57.620 determinism can't be true because we're coming here to have a debate assuming that we're coming to

02:07:02.580 a truer answer, a truer response to the things that occurred today. And her worldview, that's not

02:07:07.940 possible. So I feel very confident that the people watching and hopefully people looking into these

02:07:14.820 questions, and maybe you're wrestling with the concepts of determinism and free will. These are

02:07:18.500 things that people move through in their own personal journeys towards fuller understanding,

02:07:23.860 philosophical inquiry, theological inquiry, and that essentially they're going to realize that I do

02:07:29.460 believe that things are true. I do believe that people have moral responsibility. And if that's

02:07:34.100 not the case, then everything is haphazard and is full of chaos. And as I said, mathematics and physics,

02:07:39.860 mathematical logic has determined that we do not even exist in a deterministic universe. That mechanism

02:07:45.380 that really developed in the 18th and 19th century is no longer in favor. So that's pretty much summarizes

02:07:51.780 my argument. All right. We have a couple chats here. We have, by the way, guys, we've lowered the TTS.

02:07:59.300 We're going to do TTS here at the tail end of the show. $69 TTS. But we do have our favorite

02:08:05.140 trucker here who sent in the soup chat. How long, Nate? Thank you for the soup chat, man.

02:08:10.020 God doesn't determine your choices. He can see the infinite outcomes of your choices from

02:08:15.620 Nate. Thank you, man. Appreciate it. Are you in the middle of a route right now? Thank you,

02:08:20.420 man. Appreciate the soup chat. All right. Let me let the chats come through. We have Cha. One moment.

02:08:26.580 One moment, guys. By the way, guys, like the video if you enjoyed the stream. We have Cha here.

02:08:34.420 Cha XD donated $69. Thank you, man. If Reddit atheism and moral subjectivism was a person,

02:08:41.220 she'd be predetermined to go on whatever incoherently spurg and make category errors.

02:08:46.980 I'm doing it. Also, I didn't choose to send this.

02:08:52.340 Any response there to Cha? I don't know if there's anything

02:08:54.980 intelligible to respond to that with, but yeah. Okay, we have.

02:08:59.460 Charlie Kirk DP USA donated $69. Zesty Zena, do you think black people can be racist towards white

02:09:09.780 people? Do you think women can be sexist towards men? Why do you wear a cross?

02:09:15.220 There's quite a few there. Okay. Go for it. So yeah, there's just gonna be like

02:09:32.020 kind of like semantic questions. If you believe that like sexism is kind of like something that

02:09:36.900 like entails like a power structure, then no women would not be like able to be sexist to men. If you

02:09:44.180 believe that it's just like having like a distaste for men, then yeah, like a women could be sexist

02:09:49.620 vice versa to for the race question. And then also in regards to like sociology,

02:09:56.500 yeah, it's just like, it's going to be like definitional in how we define these things.

02:10:00.340 So yeah. Well, what about your own definition of racism and sexism? Yeah. Yeah. So I think that

02:10:07.460 in sociology, it's most meaningful to look at just like, like what's meaningful about racism is like

02:10:11.620 the power that it entailed. And thus, when we look at like racism as a system that has like outputs and

02:10:17.140 inputs, et cetera, we're going to like see it as like, like the dominant race kind of just like

02:10:22.900 perpetuating the system of racial hierarchy. And in this racial hierarchy that we've seen

02:10:28.180 throughout history, it's been white people holding this power dynamic, being at the top of it,

02:10:33.940 et cetera. So what about South Africa? That'd be the flipped, right? So white people are the

02:10:38.340 minority. Is there, is there structural racism against the white people in South Africa?

02:10:43.700 Actually, no. So right in, in, in South Africa, even though they were the minority, like, like,

02:10:48.820 um, in regards to like numbers wise, it was still colonized by white people and taken over by white

02:10:53.780 people for them to have like black people being part of the working class for them to enjoy. So it

02:10:58.260 wouldn't be some type of like systemic racism. But you just said it was the majority versus the

02:11:02.340 minority. Yeah. So a majority in holding power, power entailed structure. But do they don't,

02:11:07.300 but white people don't hold the majority of power now in South Africa? I don't know too much about

02:11:11.220 like South African politics right now, but, um, even in general, like, um, unless you're going to see

02:11:16.020 like some type of like systemically like racist policies happening in South Africa, which don't see

02:11:21.780 any evidence for it. Yeah. It's just like a, it's, it's another community, just like many in Africa

02:11:25.540 and other communities that was exploited or sorry, yeah, exploited by, um, European, um,

02:11:32.340 yeah, European colonizers. And can I ask you a question about voting? I'm, I'm really genuinely

02:11:36.660 curious in your worldview. Like, are you in favor of democracy? Like what kind of political or are you

02:11:41.700 Marxist? Like what, what kind of political orientation? And then separately, what are your

02:11:45.860 thoughts on like, can you vote like in your determinist framework? Do you have agency to vote?

02:11:49.620 Yeah. So again, I don't, I think you're just one, you're making a lot of presuppositions in the

02:11:54.180 question of the voting, but regardless, yeah, I, I really like Marx. I don't give myself like too

02:11:58.740 much of a label in regards to, um, like what kind of like leftist I am, but I would say leftism. And

02:12:04.420 then also, um, in regards to voting, um, it's going to be the same. I'm not positing any like

02:12:10.180 structure. I'm defining, describing reality as how it is. So when we look at just like people and how

02:12:15.540 they vote, if they're exposed to more ideas that say, Hey, we don't like this minority group of

02:12:19.780 people, they're going to vote negatively. We still give people the right to vote, but the,

02:12:23.060 the, um, what we should be doing in society, I would say is, is kind of looking at the stimuli

02:12:28.420 that are around people and what are causing them to think certain things and having some basis of

02:12:32.340 like, we want equality, we want justice, we want equality opportunity. We should kind of promote

02:12:37.860 such things and promote such education that explains how we can get there and people would vote

02:12:42.420 accordingly. So it's just kind of about, again, like, I mean, all of like what I would want for voting

02:12:47.380 is going to entail, what system I would like us to live in, what values I have. Again,

02:12:51.540 it's going to be a quality of opportunity, um, wellbeing of humans. So again, I don't see the

02:12:57.700 problem. And he was also asking, why do you wear a cross? I guess he's asking if you're a Christian

02:13:03.220 or yeah, I like, I like, I think it just looks cute. And then I'm agnostic. So, okay. Uh,

02:13:10.580 we have, hold on. We have Chef Dill Pickles. Thank you, man. Chef Dill Pickles donated $69.

02:13:18.100 Zena, thank you for admitting that you are racist against white people. What a disgusting bigot.

02:13:24.740 Didn't I say I loved Kelly Clarkson? I don't know what that means.

02:13:27.780 Well, even, even insinuating that's white culture is kind of disingenuous.

02:13:32.740 Well, I'm not saying it's racist, but it's certainly disingenuous when you look at the history of,

02:13:36.900 you know, European cultures, Byzantium, Western civilization, all these different things.

02:13:41.700 What did I say that that was only all the, I didn't know.

02:13:43.380 I didn't say, I mean, I'm just saying because to choose that when somebody's asking about white

02:13:48.100 culture is just, I mean, it just seems disingenuous. It's kind of mocking it.

02:13:51.620 I didn't know it was mocking. I actually like Kelly Clarkson.

02:13:54.100 Oh, okay. Maybe. Okay. That's just the way that I took it.

02:13:57.540 Yeah. Okay. Go ahead.

02:13:58.180 It's kind of sensitive, isn't it?

02:13:59.460 Oh, that's sensitive. I, yeah, it is disingenuous to equate white culture with Kelly Clarkson.

02:14:05.140 I mean, that it's, it's kind of low, low IQ and low tier.

02:14:08.100 How is Kelly Clarkson low IQ?

02:14:10.820 That's white culture. Kelly Clarkson is white culture.

02:14:13.700 Is it not?

02:14:15.220 She's a white person that plays music, but culture at, no, she is not, she is not a cultural phenomenon

02:14:20.260 in regards to culture in, and like capital C culture, like Western civilization, culture,

02:14:26.340 Christian culture, Western culture, American culture, what's, what's, are you the arbiter

02:14:32.100 of what culture? Well, usually again, religion, politics, again, all these different presuppositional

02:14:36.660 frameworks are going to define what culture is. And somebody studying sociology, which should

02:14:40.020 be familiar. Culture has to do with music too.

02:14:41.300 Should be familiar. Yes, it does.

02:14:42.340 I'll inform you then. Yes, it does.

02:14:44.020 Music. And it has to do with a sacred canopy.

02:14:46.100 Film, the kind of things that you like, practices, et cetera.

02:14:48.980 Absolutely. Yeah.

02:14:49.380 So Kelly Clarkson being like a white artist in America, American culture is something that's

02:14:53.540 kind of tricky to define because it's really influenced by a lot of minority communities,

02:14:56.660 ways, but especially in America, someone who a lot of white people in America would really enjoy.

02:15:01.220 Um, I would say that, yeah, she is like, um, related to like white culture and the things

02:15:05.620 that the people in this country, white people in this country enjoy, but so do other people,

02:15:09.940 but yeah. All right. We have Retro. Thank you, man.

02:15:13.460 Retro donated $69. Zima, you know that DPH showed up to the debate today. So did he have a choice?

02:15:23.220 No. And you didn't have the choice to make that comment either. Wow. Determinism.

02:15:31.540 Okay. Pretty hard logic there, guys. Hard to defeat that. I'm just going to read these

02:15:35.700 instead of doing them as TTSs. Uh, thank you, Retro, for the message.

02:15:38.900 Jeff Still Pickles donated $69. Zima, can you please delineate good from bad actions?

02:15:45.620 Why aren't they simply actions? What are morals?

02:15:49.140 Yeah. So, um, again, like, like, um, the position I'm taking is that moral claims don't, are not

02:15:56.500 truth-apt, and thus there's not any absolutely, like, fundamentally, like, unless you can again

02:16:03.700 give some, like, you couldn't give some evidence for it, because moral claims would just be,

02:16:06.900 that our objective would just be true, um, evidently. Like, they would just be true. And

02:16:12.260 clearly, I don't think that we've, like, found that to be the case. So instead, I would say that,

02:16:17.540 like, there are things that we call good and bad, but they're based on, like, a conception of it,

02:16:21.700 or, like, a feeling towards it. So something being good and bad is, one, when someone's talking about

02:16:26.820 something, it's going to be different compared to when someone's talking about another thing.

02:16:29.780 Or the types of people that are talking about morality are going to be having different takes

02:16:32.900 on what's good and bad. Someone like, um, Patrick would probably have, like,

02:16:37.860 many different ideas of what is good, and he would totally believe that it's totally good,

02:16:41.540 and I would have different beliefs on what is totally good and totally bad. Obviously,

02:16:45.540 he says that there is some objective morality, yet we don't agree that that is evidently true.

02:16:50.580 There's, there's a problem there. So again, yeah, good is going to be something that is, like,

02:16:54.900 contextual. All right, we have Justin Henley. Justin, thank you very much for your message.

02:17:01.460 Zina, you're internally critiquing Christianity. God is omnipotent,

02:17:05.540 but you claim he cannot create free will. Your critique fails logic counter. If no objective

02:17:12.020 truth exists is logic, dot, dot, dot. Okay. So first of all, the internal critique was saying

02:17:19.620 that free will cannot exist, and that it's incoherent that God says that free will exists,

02:17:25.140 and also says that he knows all things, and how they will exist, and how they will be,

02:17:29.860 and there is some set future that that is going to exist. So that was, the critique was that saying

02:17:35.380 that free will can exist in, in that type of framework is a contradiction. There's a contradiction

02:17:40.340 in those beliefs, and then I can't remember the last thing that was said. I don't know.

02:17:44.020 He was saying, he said, God is omnipotent, but you claim he cannot create free will. Your critique

02:17:49.380 fails logic counter. If no objective truth exists is logic, and that was, perhaps he ran out of

02:17:58.740 characters. I guess I'll just say, he was probably like alluding to like how logic works. Yeah,

02:18:03.940 again, once again, all scientists, a lot of them are not Christian. A lot of them don't believe in

02:18:07.780 objective morality, and so do I think the rest of us as well, agree that there is some reality,

02:18:13.620 right? And once we agree that there is some reality that exists outside of ourselves,

02:18:17.220 we then can pattern it. We can then, you know, test it. We can look for causes,

02:18:22.100 et cetera, and kind of that's what happens. And then we can create structures and frameworks,

02:18:26.820 and we can dissect things through logic. Like logic is a system of governing and making claims,

02:18:32.500 and et cetera, to move people's credences, et cetera. And we can do that once we accept, you know,

02:18:37.540 basic claims, like we all exist, reality exists, et cetera. So yeah, again, no problem there.

02:18:44.660 This has been a fact of philosophy and science for years.

02:18:47.940 All right. We have Chef Dill Pickles. Thank you, man. Would you believe me if I said I wasn't

02:18:53.060 racist simply because I like Lil Wayne's music?

02:18:58.100 I don't even, I don't even know what to say about one. Lil Wayne is good though.

02:19:02.580 Okay. A couple of quick messages here at the end. Guys, if you enjoyed the stream,

02:19:07.380 hit the like video, please. Also, if you guys are watching over there on Twitch, or you're just

02:19:12.740 watching on YouTube, if you can open up another tab, go to twitch.tv slash whatever, drop us

02:19:17.780 a follow and a Prime sub. If you have one, if you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.

02:19:22.500 It's a quick, free, easy way to support the show. Also, we have a really fantastic community,

02:19:27.780 discord.gg slash whatever. We post our stream schedule so you can get advance notice of when

02:19:33.940 we're kind of doing a debate or something else. You can also buy some merch, shop.whatever.com.

02:19:40.740 And yeah, guys, thank you guys for tuning in. Like the video, please. Let me just double check,

02:19:45.860 make sure, see if we have any other chats coming in. Doesn't look like it. Okay.

02:19:53.300 Let me see if there's anything else we needed to go over. One sec, guys. Patrick is going to be

02:19:59.460 joining us tomorrow for our dating talk panel. Looking forward to that. That's going to be live

02:20:03.620 at 5pm Pacific. We have a really fantastic panel lined up for you guys. So be sure to tune in 5pm

02:20:10.900 Pacific tomorrow, Sunday, dating talk panel. Got some interesting guests for that. And let me see

02:20:19.700 if there's anything else. I do want to thank both of you very much for joining me today for the

02:20:25.860 debate. It was great to have both of you. Very interesting debate. And yeah, thank you guys so much.

02:20:31.060 And let me just double check. Don't want to screw anybody over. If anybody sent in a last minute

02:20:38.020 message. Let's see here. No, we are all good. Okay, cool, cool. Let me just check. All right,

02:20:46.660 guys. Well, in the chat, 07's in the chat, please. Oh, did you have? Oh, no, no. Okay,

02:20:51.460 I thought you were gesturing like one more thing. Okay. In the chat, guys, 07's in the chat. Like

02:20:57.380 the video on your way out, please. 07's in the chat. And guys, tune in tomorrow, 5pm Pacific,

02:21:03.060 dating talk. Fantastic panel. Patrick's going to be there. It's going to be fantastic. So

02:21:07.700 we'll see you guys tomorrow.

02:21:27.380 We'll see you guys tomorrow.

02:21:57.380 We'll see you guys tomorrow.

02:21:59.380 Bye.

02:22:01.380 Bye.

02:22:03.380 Bye.

02:22:05.380 Bye.

02:22:07.380 Bye.

02:22:09.380 Bye.

02:22:11.380 Bye.

02:22:13.380 Bye.

02:22:15.380 Bye.

02:22:17.380 Bye.

02:22:19.380 Bye.

02:22:21.380 Bye.

02:22:23.380 Bye.

Whatever Podcast - July 03, 2025

Zina (Leftist Feminist) vs. DPH (Orthodox Christian) ｜ Free Will⧸Determinism ｜ Whatever Debates #21

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript