Speaker A
you are you're you're like the the primal guy. I've watched a few of your videos. I saw you did one um on on Bryce Crawford um kind of you know saying like um oh oh you know Christianity is a
A debate on whether God exists: a materialist argues only the testable is real, while a Catholic Christian argues ideas and natural law exist immaterially and point toward God.
Key Takeaways
- The fundamental disagreement is epistemological: whether existence requires empirical manipulability or can include immaterial realities like ideas and natural law.
- Both sides agree natural order matters but draw opposite conclusions: one sees it as evidence for God, the other as grounds for purely material explanation.
- Language and definitions of key terms like 'exist' and 'natural' strongly shape the outcome, and much of the debate centers on clarifying them.
- The debate highlights the tension between faith-based and evidence-based reasoning without resolving it definitively.
What the video covers
- The debate opens with each speaker defining their worldview: the materialist grounds everything in observable reality, while the Catholic speaker argues natural law and reason can prove God's existence.
- The core dispute is over the meaning of 'exist': the materialist holds that only what can be manipulated, tested, or sensed is real, whereas the Catholic speaker argues immaterial things like math and ideas still exist.
- Math is used as an example: the materialist says math is an idea that cannot be shown to a wild human without language, while the other side says 2+2=4 holds independently.
- Ideas are defended as real because they influence human action, with the example of a desire or thought shaping behavior in the material world.
- The materialist argues language is just sounds and abstract concepts that refer to real things, and that communication transmits thoughts rather than proving God's existence.
- The conversation turns to whether senses and desires are trustworthy, raising the question of natural desires versus moral judgment, including a contested example about sexual desire.
- The debate touches on morality as natural law versus social constructs, with the materialist arguing that good and bad are human-made systems used to control people.
- Arguments about religion as a 'slave system' and whether religious belief is blind faith are raised, with each side questioning the other's grounds for knowledge.
- A formal syllogism about fire producing heat is introduced as a design-style argument, with the materialist questioning its premises.
- The discussion includes side remarks about blood, weakness versus strength, and audience super chat questions, reflecting the informal livestream format.
Chapters
- 00:00Introductions and worldview framing
- 07:23Defining existence: materiality vs ideas
- 14:19Language, sound, and abstract concepts
- 27:31Syllogisms and proving God's existence
- 466:48Senses, desire, and natural law
- 695:43Morality, religion, and social systems
- 897:33Formal argument on design and fire
- 1133:43Closing remarks and super chat questions
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
man-made religion. It's not natural. Um do you maybe want to like explain like your worldview how it differs from the typical worldview so that you know everybody has like a good basis a good grounding for um what we're going to do.
Speaker A
Sure. I just base everything on um this actual reality. So no imaginary ideas, abstract ideas.
Speaker A
That's what I talked about in the video that you mentioned. Um basically just what science is all about.
Speaker A
It's really as simple as that. So may maybe kind of the opposite of the way you live your life. Well, it's well, it's actually it's interesting because I I'm a Catholic Christian. Um, and we we approach Christianity slightly
Speaker A
different. We we say that you can actually naturally prove the existence of God. Um, and actually what what you talk about when you say that there's like like a natural order, we would say that that's actually a way that you can
Speaker A
you can prove the existence of a god. I mean, I have a like a few arguments that I could run by you to kind of show you that, but but we actually agree with you on certain aspects. Like, no, naturalism
Speaker A
is very important. Natural law is very important. Um, but I think we would disagree on on what conclusions we take from that. Like, I wouldn't say that um living naturally is doing whatever you desire. Um, but more so living naturally
Speaker A
is um adhering to what is distinctly human like rationality um and virtue. Yeah. Well, I would already disagree with the beginning because you said uh that yeah, you can talk about God existing except if you mean another word
Speaker A
because purely scientifically for something to exist, I would have to be able to manipulate the object, material, being whatever it is.
Speaker A
If I can't do that, I can't even I can't even start talking about the existence of the thing. So if I can't do an experiment, test it, observe it, obviously most importantly or sense it in some way, then it's not even a an interesting um
Speaker A
topic for me to discuss. Yeah. So So I think I think there are still things that are immaterial that we would still say exist. So for example, like like math um we we would say that that math still exists. Like 2 plus 2 equals
Speaker A
4. Would you say that math doesn't exist exist at all? Math doesn't exist? No, of course not because math is an idea. So, well, ideas for example, if you would go up to a human being in the wild who doesn't speak any language,
Speaker A
there's no way for you to show him math. God, money, time, status, marriage. It's impossible because it's ideas. So we apply ideas to real objects sometimes. So we put layers over something that is real. So for example, in Christianity, this ideology, you
Speaker A
would look at a piece of metal and you would say this is holy. But I would call that insane. No offense to you. It's just No, none taken. But what I would say is so so when we posit that something
Speaker A
exists maybe maybe we have different definitions of what we mean by exist. So I would say ex ideas still exist because we speak of an idea and an idea is something that still affects reality. So for example like you are a you're a
Speaker A
human person and when you have an idea it influences the way that you act. So, for example, right now, you you had the idea to have like come and have a conversation with me. And so, that idea existed. It it truly did exist and it
Speaker A
influenced the way that you a material being um reacted and acted in certain ways. So, I'd say just because something is immaterial doesn't mean it exists.
Speaker A
But, we would say that it exists immaterially. It's a non-material existence. I get what you mean. But uh since we're using English and we try to communicate somehow, we just have to go by the definitions and it just doesn't make
Speaker A
sense because exist means to be or to be real and real mean not imaginary.
Speaker A
Everything that you talked about is imaginary. Yes, you can enslave people. You can convince them to do something.
Speaker A
You can absolutely uh through ideas convince people to do real things in reality. So that's true, but it's still thoughts and I will never be able to sense any of these thoughts.
Speaker A
They will never be real. So if that would be the way you define it, there's nothing that we need to discuss about the existence of God. It's just it's it's just not a relevant topic to me unless I can actually manipulate the
Speaker A
object. Yeah. So, so when when you say that it it it h you said the definition of exist is to be and for it to um ex like be in reality I think is how you said it. So I
Speaker A
would say for example like an immaterial thought it is because we're speaking of it like we say thoughts are blank. I'm thinking of blank. So it it we would say it is it is being in some sense and then
Speaker A
also it is being in reality because your thoughts are affecting the way that you act which is a reality. Um, another another example you could use is like a desire or an instinct that you have. So, so this kind of plays into like, you
Speaker A
know, the naturalism that that you stand with. Um, like when you have maybe a sexual desire or, you know, an appetite of desire, that desire itself is going to be something that is immaterial. Um, it's going to be not not something that
Speaker A
you can like pick up and hold or manipulate like you said. Um, but it still truly affects the reality around you. So, it has some existence, right?
Speaker A
I I see what you're saying. The thing is that all of these concepts that we use, even nature itself, it always refers to something real, but it's much easier to use these conceptual terms instead of saying my eyes see this and they like
Speaker A
it. I smell it with my nose and I like it. It's much easier when we talk to say it's natural for me instead of describing every single step of what's going on with my body. But you can never
Speaker A
say that this is actually real. I understand exactly what you're saying, but these are all abstract ideas and concepts, and English is a pretty messed up language. It's not very good to communicate with English. So we can we
Speaker A
can try to do the best we possibly can but uh there's one thing that I need to explain just so you understand like if we don't use our imagination at all right now it's very hard for people to do that but really if you really just
Speaker A
don't use any abstract ideas no imagination right now we are just uh sitting in different places on earth we have these devices we can somehow communicate you could say but really all that we are doing is making sounds.
Speaker A
That's really in reality all that we are doing. And so I hear you your sounds, you hear mine, and we try to interpret them because we learned English, a language. Um it could it's really just anything. What we're saying doesn't have
Speaker A
any actual meaning naturally. And um the thing is that uh sounds can only transmit transfer however you want to call it beliefs ideas so thoughts in our minds. So it's in our minds and then we let them out through speaking sometimes
Speaker A
we write something down whatever it may be and then the other humans can absorb that and that's how writing texts works and everything. I just want to break it down because a lot of people don't really think about this deeply. But the thing
Speaker A
about it is that you can't actually like when we talk about existence it has to be based on knowledge like if you want to discuss the existence of God with me that's all that I will accept. And so
Speaker A
what you are doing is you're making sounds and then you want to convince me that there is a god with beliefs, ideas and that's something that I cannot accept because we could uh talk here for a million years and I would still not
Speaker A
see God. I would still not be able to manipulate this being. So that's the thing. Um because uh actually I have a question for you.
Speaker A
How would you convince a human in nature, a completely wild human who doesn't speak any languages that there is a god?
Speaker A
Yeah. So, so, so I I'll respond to both of those. The fir the first thing I I want to speak on on the things that you just said about nature or language just being sound. And in a sense that is
Speaker A
true. Like if you reduce it to just like the material aspect, the sound waves.
Speaker A
Yeah, there is sound. But notice that we are making specific sounds and through those sounds you are able to receive a specific set of information. You always receive the information that I am intending. Now I agree h like human
Speaker A
languages are flawed. They're not always perfect. But if I say for example uh the sky like I am transmitting a concrete information to you. When I say sky you're not going to randomly think of a rock. You're going to think of a sky of
Speaker A
the sky right? And so so our information transmits real concrete immaterial ideas. And so this sure language is is is you know just sounds but we give specific sounds for specific things. And if you want to say that that's man-made
Speaker A
it's not found in nature by all means sure that's okay. Um but it doesn't mean that there's still not an immaterial reality that exists. So we would say even something like truth truth in general you're making a a truth claim.
Speaker A
you're saying that you know um for example language is just sounds that is a claim. Truth itself is immaterial. So if you're going to convince anybody of that claim you have to first allow them and and make them believe in the fact
Speaker A
that truth is something that has any real meaning even though it's immaterial which means that there are immaterial things that exist. Now the second thing that you said um you you brought up like how would you convince someone that God
Speaker A
exists in in nature? or they don't know any languages. I would say the the first thing is that in order to convince someone, convincing requires some form of communication. And I think that's that's clear. Um so so for example, like if
Speaker A
let's say I'm talking about something different. I want to convince them that apples exist, right? Maybe there's like a Native American, they've never seen an apple before. Well, the first thing that I would have to do to convince them that
Speaker A
apples exist is either show them an apple, which would be a form of communication, or teach them language and then describe an apple. Um, but let's say maybe I don't have an apple on me. There's no apples within like a 5
Speaker A
mile radius. Well, then they would have to be able to understand communication. I would have to be able to communicate with them to actually deliver that idea, even though we know that apples exist.
Speaker A
So communication um is still very important to delivering ideas and it doesn't have any effect on whether or not the thing is real or not.
Speaker A
Here's the thing is that as I explained before that would again be belief. So for example, let's say two human beings stand next to each other back to back.
Speaker A
So they don't see what the other one see. So they look in different directions and uh one says there's a car coming. The other one if they cannot hear it let's say some new electric car or something he would have to believe
Speaker A
there's some other way for him to know he can only believe. So in your example the human would only be able to believe you right maybe apples don't exist in that reality right if he mentioned that.
Speaker A
So the only way to know for that kind of a human would be to sense it. So for a completely wild human, he only you could for example hold up a sharp object, he would be afraid or he would attack you
Speaker A
because he would want to defend himself. Or you could offer him a liver brain and he would see it as a present. He would never take anything else seriously because to him you would only be making sounds. So the sounds cannot prove an
Speaker A
apple, a ball, a car, god, nothing. So there is just my point is simply the reason I ask you this is because you cannot convince an actually natural saint human who doesn't use his imagination at all because uh a saint
Speaker A
human being completely lives in this reality. He doesn't use his imagination or at least he doesn't base his life on it and an insane human being puts these layers over reality. So, as I said before, you see a piece of metal.
Speaker A
You believe that it's a holy cross. You see a structure, you believe that it's a church and you're not allowed to say specific words there. You're not supposed to be allowed there. Blah blah blah. So, it's a special place. So, you
Speaker A
put these layers over reality. So, that's what an insane human being does. A sane human being doesn't do any of that. And uh you also said that well about um you need to be able to give me an
Speaker A
argument that's based on something real because you said uh yeah I can do that. I I haven't even really given my argument yet. Um but more so we're just kind of trying to understand you know the the naturalist standpoint
Speaker A
that you take. Um here's here's a hypothetical that I think will maybe aid in this conversation. So you're saying like since you know somebody who doesn't know language, you can't communicate with them, that somehow, you know, diminishes the idea of like immaterial
Speaker A
realities. Well, what about like somebody who's blind, right? They can't see at all. They they they have they've never had vision. If you try to describe to that person what the color red is and how red is different than blue, you're
Speaker A
going to fail, right? Because they've never seen color. And that's something that you really can only experience. So you can't describe what a color looks like to somebody who's never seen it all, but that doesn't mean that that
Speaker A
color doesn't exist. And so I would say in a similar way, um just because you can't describe or communicate with someone who doesn't know language, it doesn't take away from the fact that there are real meanings to things and
Speaker A
real um immaterial existences. It just means that that person has not experienced language and they need to experience language in order to understand that. Um, you can't really describe colors anyway.
Speaker A
How can you describe red, blue? It's just something that you see or you don't.
Speaker A
That's the whole point is that since they since they can't see it, there's no way to describe it. But we still say like you agree colors exist, right?
Speaker A
Well, yeah, it's it's because they see it. Yeah. But they don't So just because they have no idea.
Speaker A
Yeah. But just because you can't describe something or communicate something to someone doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. So in the same way just because like I can't convince that person because today doesn't exist.
Speaker A
But no, you just said that that color exists but we can't communicate that to blind people.
Speaker A
Yeah. Because to them it doesn't exist. That's what I mean. It doesn't exist to them. What does what does that mean? I thought Wait, but what do you mean? What what what how do you how do you know if anything
Speaker A
exists? For example, if I take uh if I put my hand up like this, if it would be standing um next to each other in real life right now and I I will say I'm going to throw God at you now. Would you
Speaker A
duck? I I wouldn't even know what that means. I don't think you can throw God. I think he's immaterial.
Speaker A
Okay. Whatever. Whatever you imagine. I will throw something imaginary. No, because it doesn't exist. So, but if I would take a stone, I would throw it at you. It would be real. So it's the same yubu duck obviously because you know
Speaker A
that it's real. So that that's how we define what is real. So for the blind man there is no way for you to describe the colors because to them they just don't exist. It's as simple as that.
Speaker A
No I I'm not saying that that tang So so your claim the point that you made against like language and communication and me using like logic to to prove that God exists. You said well you couldn't prove that to someone who doesn't know
Speaker A
language. And so so the the presupposition there is that if you can't communicate something um de facto it means that that thing doesn't exist.
Speaker A
That that was kind of the the the syllogism that you put forward. But but what I'm saying is is that we can come up with things that clearly exist such as like the color red and the color blue. But there are some
Speaker A
people who we can never communicate that to. And therefore that kind of shows because they don't sense it. That that's the whole point. You're just proving my point because like I said with sounds you can only express your ideas,
Speaker A
not prove anything. It's impossible. I think we could talk about more interesting topics than about the existence of God because unless you can tell me where I can go and find God, it's just a pointless discussion.
Speaker A
Yeah. So ju just just real quick though, maybe you're you're not understanding my point and I I'm not saying may maybe I'm just misunderstanding. It could be either one of us, but but what I'm saying is you agree that red exists,
Speaker A
that blue exists, but we cannot communicate that to blind people. And so in the exact same way, just because I can't communicate God's existence to somebody who doesn't know language does not mean that God doesn't exist.
Speaker A
Yes, it does. Because uh let's say if God would be walking around in reality, the blind man would never know because he cannot see. That's as simple as that.
Speaker A
But that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It just means the blind man couldn't see him.
Speaker A
God doesn't exist because there is no God, right? We cannot Well, that's that's circular.
Speaker A
Smell him, touch him, or anything. That that's just that's circular. That's like me saying the earth doesn't exist because it was a joke. Obviously, that's why smiling and laughing.
Speaker A
I'm just saying God doesn't exist because it's not uh Yeah, like you said, it's immaterial. Immaterial. Immaterial means non-existent. When you say that it's immaterial is just a concession anyway.
Speaker A
No, because I I believe that material is not convertible with existence. In fact, I think that matter is is potential. I don't think that it it's actual.
Speaker A
Yeah, it it really doesn't matter what you say. You you can uh try to express the sounds. No, I'm just saying look, like I said, we could talk here for a million years, right? You can express as many sounds as you want. You could write
Speaker A
a lot of texts about it. It will still God will still not appear in the sexual reality.
Speaker A
So since I base everything on what is real, what we can sense, what is factual, there there's no point for me to discuss this, but there's more there's other interesting topics we can discuss. Uh yeah, I agree.
Speaker A
Christianity. Yeah. Um I I would love to talk about about Christianity in specific. Um real quick though before we do that, this is just something I'm I'm kind of interested to see how you would answer this. Do you think you can prove that
Speaker A
things exist in general? True. What do you mean? Of course you can. I can prove to you something, but not right now because we are communicating through this artificial device. So before the call, you said I could even
Speaker A
be a AI. So you wouldn't even Oh, it's real. But like is there is there like let's say there's somebody who believes that like everything is an illusion kind of.
Speaker A
Have you seen the Matrix? Yeah, sure. Yeah. So So like kind of like that. Is there any way to prove that like we actually exist? Or maybe it's just like all like a complete illusion. Is there a way to prove that naturally?
Speaker A
All that we know is what we sense. So this is again an abstract idea. Where do we come from? Why do we exist? Is this an illusion? Blah blah blah. That's all in that we can talk about stuff like
Speaker A
that, but it's just when when it comes to the existence of God, this is this is not even relevant to me. Well, well, well, well. I'm just trying to see I'm trying to follow your your logic a little bit because you're you're saying
Speaker A
that we can't prove that God exists in this way because it's like an abstract idea, but I think existence itself is somewhat of an abstract idea. That's what like philosophy is for. It's the study of being. So, I'm asking, do you
Speaker A
think that we can prove that existence is real at all? That things actually exist rather than not existing?
Speaker A
Yeah, but the thing is that uh you're thinking it's just an abstract idea because all that I can know is is what I have in front of me right now. That's all that I can know. Like for example,
Speaker A
just to really make the distinction between knowledge and belief. Uh if my neighbor has a white house, right, I come back home, I sit in my room, somebody calls me and asks me for whatever reason, right? what's the color
Speaker A
of your neighbor's house? And I say white. I believe that. I cannot know that. I would actually have to see it.
Speaker A
It's very unlikely that it's not white, but it could be that he painted it in the last hour. So, all that I can know is what I sense. So, if you ask me if this could be an illusion, how can we
Speaker A
prove if reality exists or something? We just know what we know. That's all that we know. So, everything else is a is a thought. It's an abstract idea which come a lot of these ideas come from religions and spiritual
Speaker A
groups and whatnot. Okay. So, so let's say like do you have any apples near you? Can you see any apples right now?
Speaker A
Not right now. Okay. So, do apples exist? I couldn't possibly say right now because what as No. No. What do you mean? As unlikely as it may be, think about it. Something can be super unlikely. Like I just said,
Speaker A
technically somebody could have removed all of the apples. Like for example, if somebody close to Yeah, it's super unlikely. I know. It's just a silly.
Speaker A
I would never say that. I would never bet anything on that. But for example, if somebody close to you dies, you cannot say that they exist because they are dead, right? The being, the being in flesh that you knew is
Speaker A
gone. It's out of your senses. So it's only in your mind, in your memory.
Speaker A
That's it. So abstract ideas, thoughts, concepts, even your memories, that's all. That all doesn't exist anymore.
Speaker A
What exists is right now. That's all that exists. I I could believe that I know somebody very well, but as far as I know, they could be dead right now. Something could happen. It's very unlikely, but I could
Speaker A
get in a car accident and they may not exist as the being that I know.
Speaker A
Okay. So now I would never bet anything on apples not existing anymore because uh I have some downstairs but uh yeah. So so I would say in a very similar way like like you would say there's no need like in regular
Speaker A
conversation to ever say maybe apples don't exist. Like we can all just kind of like for the sake of speaking say yes apples exist. So I would say in a very similar way, we can show that God exists
Speaker A
even though we can't sense him right now. So just because we can't sense him doesn't mean that like like we would say it's extremely unlikely that God doesn't exist because everything would have to be an illusion. But I would say this
Speaker A
this that kind of proves my point that um you know you don't have to be actively sensing something for us to say that there's an like really really high likelihood that that exists.
Speaker A
But the difference is that in this case I wouldn't bet anything on it because I have already sensed and ate apples myself. So I would just be basing it on that in the case of God. I it's not
Speaker A
based on my memory. It's just based on nothing. So I would purely religiously blindly have to have faith that there is a god in another dimension or whatever you mean.
Speaker A
Yeah. So so I would say I I have never sensed like the divine nature but we can come to believe in the divine nature or know that the divine nature exists based off of things that we experience in
Speaker A
reality. And so just like with the apples, you don't have to be actively like sensing those things, but we can still say that based off of what we have sensed in the past and what we are sensing right now that we can still
Speaker A
understand that that this God like kind of as an extension exists. So So here's a good analogy. Um, every time it rains, it's wet. Okay? Like let's say that we've sensed that in the past and then we sense right now that it's raining.
Speaker A
Now we maybe we aren't outside so we don't know that it's actually wet but we can say it's still wet outside even though we're not actively sensing that and that that would be like an extension using logic. It's called modus ponent um
Speaker A
if P then Q P therefore Q. But if it's raining then it is wet. It is raining therefore it is wet. And so just because we aren't sensing that we can still use logic to come to a specific conclusion
Speaker A
with a very very high likelihood. I I get what you're saying and I get the the likelihood, but it's just not how I live my life. If you're talking to me, it's just not going to work with me
Speaker A
because uh you you it would just be an assumption. Well, yeah, but but you could say the same thing about like apples existing, right? Like apples have always existed in your memory and there's no reason to believe that they haven't. So therefore,
Speaker A
apples still exist. And we can say that with a very high likelihood. So I think you can do the same exact thing with with you can do very high likelihood assumptions and beliefs. I get that. But it's just not it's just not a topic when
Speaker A
we talk about actual existence. Well, I think it I think it's how we understand things because you could even say like why should you trust your senses at all? Why why would you trust your senses instead of not trusting
Speaker A
them? Right? Like if I'm seeing the color blue, why should I trust my senses that I am seeing blue instead of assuming that they're wrong?
Speaker A
Yeah. What is the question? So, so why should Yeah. Why should you trust your senses at all?
Speaker A
This is again an abstract idea. This is something that's irrelevant because I think it's very relevant.
Speaker A
For example, it's relevant because it's it's it's just how it is. We are in the in these bodies and we sense things. So, if I see meat in front of me and I eat it, I like it. It feels good. um I
Speaker A
become healthier then that's all that matters. So these these these abstract ideas that you're trying trying to apply to reality don't matter.
Speaker A
Yeah. So when so I I'm I guess I guess I'm just confused is you're saying that it's irrelevant but it see you're saying that since we can't sense God we shouldn't assume that he exists. But then it seems like when I ask you about
Speaker A
the senses that that would be relevant because that's how you're saying that you're determining that God doesn't exist because you don't sense him. So I would say like if you can't explain why we should trust the senses at all
Speaker A
instead of things that are in our mind, um it doesn't seem like that's really a good litmus test for things existing.
Speaker A
You know, but you don't need an explanation for common sense, which is what people would call it. You just sense something and your senses tell you if it's good or bad for you. That's it.
Speaker A
Yeah. But why should we trust that? They are always right. Yeah. Because they are always right.
Speaker A
They're always right. Yeah. So, what what if your senses, for example, tell you that you should um like have intercourse with a minor?
Speaker A
Like, would that mean that they're right? This is tricky to discuss on YouTube. Well, I think I think it's it's pretty easy to just say no.
Speaker A
Sure. What do you What do you What do you mean? Wait, what? What do you mean by a minor anyway?
Speaker A
Like somebody who's under the age of 18. Like like if your senses are telling you like have intercourse with like a 15year-old, do you think your senses are right?
Speaker A
You're funny, man. So when when does a girl become attractive? When does Well, uh I don't I don't know what you mean by that. I think it depends on What do you mean? You said 18. So do girls become attractive at 18?
Speaker A
Well, no. I I'm I'm just I'm just asking you specifically like if you're sensitive maybe we can use a different example like what if your sense No, I do I do want to hear this now.
Speaker A
This is important. Just answer the question. Yeah. I think if if I was a 15y old I would be attracted to 15y olds. Um but I'm 20 so I'm not I can't see that guys who are over 20
Speaker A
are together with younger girls. So this is this is irrelevant. It's not as if yeah your age determines find attractive. I'm not attracted to to 15y olds.
Speaker A
No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking at what age does a girl become attractive? Because you said 18.
Speaker A
Well, I think attraction is like a subjective thing. I I I I think you're asking something very very specific.
Speaker A
Like if I if I'm a 15year-old, I would be attracted to people my age, but I grew up so I'm no longer attracted to 15y olds.
Speaker A
Yeah, that's nonsense. When you when you do that's nonsense. when when people did uh so-called studies questionnaires, then all of the guys chose younger girls, never girls their own age, even guys who are over 30. So, this is nonsense. It's
Speaker A
not as if when you're 15, you only find 15 years attractive and then all of a sudden it goes away. That's never the case. But that's not even a question.
Speaker A
That's not what I'm asking. You said underage is 18. So, at what age does a girl become attractive then? So, she's Yeah, just answer that.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. So, so for example, when are you in your early 20s or what?
Speaker A
Yeah, I I'm I'm 20. Okay. So, like when when you ask when does a girl become attractive? Like when I think that's a subjective thing that that changes depending on who you ask.
Speaker A
So, I would say like Okay, I'm asking you. Yeah. So, when I was in second grade, like girls started becoming attractive around like second grade, but now I'm 20 and I'm not attracted to those girls at all because that's weird.
Speaker A
Yes. But I'm just asking you if girls become attractive at 18. What? What? Like to me?
Speaker A
Yeah. Because you said it's weird or something uh to find underage girls attractive. Something along those lines.
Speaker A
Yeah. I think it's weird for a 20-year-old to be attracted to a second grader. Would you say that that's weird?
Speaker A
What second grader? Nobody said that, man. Why are you acting dumb? No, because you asked when like when did like I start thinking that girls were attractive like around second grade.
Speaker A
Yeah, but uh do they become but yeah, but you said under age under 18. So do they become attractive at 18?
Speaker A
When I I I I don't know how else to explain this. Like to me girls that are under the age of 18 are not attractive.
Speaker A
So 17 11 months 29 days not attractive. Yeah. Because I because I'm 20. I'm not attracted to to girls who are 17.
Speaker A
You're not 20. You understand that age also doesn't exist, right? Age doesn't exist. No.
Speaker A
Well, time doesn't exist. But you mean you just count symbols. You just look at some lines and then you imagine that the years go by, but it's not an entity.
Speaker A
It's not it's not something you can count. Yeah. But I would still say like like like a 5-year-old girl can't like comprehend like No. Yeah. No. Nobody says anything about 5-year-olds. You're trying to twist it around. But the reason the reason we
Speaker A
brought this up, let let me maybe just get us back on track. The reason I brought Why don't you just No, man. Just answer the question.
Speaker A
I did answer times. Okay, then answer. I didn't hear. Okay, then it I wouldn't I wouldn't be attracted to that person if they were underageed.
Speaker A
So, and one day later you would be um No. I I actually probably wouldn't be attracted to them if they were 18. I I'm more attracted to people that are like my age.
Speaker A
Really? So, an 18year-old girl in front of you ready to go. You're not attracted. Yeah.
Speaker A
What What do you mean ready to go? What What does that mean? What is ready to go?
Speaker A
[ __ ] What the [ __ ] man? Why do you act Why don't you just say the truth?
Speaker A
Everybody knows the truth. No, I I am I I I don't know what what truth you're referring to. I'm just attracted to people that are my age. That's that's the answer.
Speaker A
That's nonsense. So it's it's pathetic that you cannot answer it. Maybe you think it's pathetic, but I I answered the question and maybe you don't like my answer, but that's that's the No no it's all fine.
Speaker A
So So but my my question is is when we were going back like when we were talking about the senses things, you said that we should trust our senses.
Speaker A
What if what if your senses tell you like maybe to have non-consensual intercourse with someone? Are your senses right then?
Speaker A
That's even trickier to discuss on YouTube. Well, I think the answer should be no.
Speaker A
Like that's bad all the time to have non-consensual intercourse with someone. There's no such thing as bad. Uh you you relationship.
Speaker A
No, I think there's there's I think that's bad. I think that's definitely bad. We can say that's bad.
Speaker A
No. Okay. What is bad? Where is bad? Can I see it, touch it, smell it? What is bad?
Speaker A
Yeah. I I think that bad and good are artiliological. So, it's like we would say a good knife is a knife that cuts well. Um, a good eye is an eye that sees well. And I think a good human is a
Speaker A
human that does what is distinctly human. But, but I I I would like to get an answer. Should we still trust our senses in all situations?
Speaker A
Absolutely. No. No exceptions. So, like if like if your senses tell you to do what we just said, would you would you do it?
Speaker A
Can't answer that on YouTube, but let let me explain. No, you can say no. You can say no.
Speaker A
That's a pretty easy thing to answer. Yeah. Is the is the answer not no?
Speaker A
Let me explain it indirectly because I also want to upload this on YouTube. Come on.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Of course. You you imagine that there is a good and bad somewhere out there. It's this mystical religious whatever thing and uh you this slave system is based on humans believing that what we do in nature the
Speaker A
way we are supposed to live that is evil wrong bad so they twist everything upside down it's an inverted reality which is why Christianity is just a form of Satanism not that I believe in Satan but I just use it as a joke and uh but I
Speaker A
do actually believe that and Um what is uh good? Good means being weak. So a weak human being is a good human being in the eyes of religions, society which is also imaginary and uh 99% of people around you. And this the
Speaker A
reason they built a system is simply because then they have nothing to worry about because all of the stuff that you call bad and that you're trying to get me to answer these people who created the system, they do all of that and they
Speaker A
know that it's good but they want you to bad. I'm not saying anything specific. I'm just saying everything that people It's not necessarily everything though. Maybe over 90% of things that people see as bad.
Speaker A
actually good because all the only way that you can measure what is good and bad if you want to use those conceptual terms is the way your senses respond to something. So when you said a good eye is what did you say a eye sharp eye or
Speaker A
whatever just an eye that sees well yeah that's a that you could call good because it refers to your own body. So whatever your own body senses if it feels good it's good. There's nobody who can tell you that it's bad. There's
Speaker A
simply people who thought of religions to make you believe that what's good is bad and what's bad is good and this is your mindset. But it's not based on your senses because purely based on your knowledge, you know that
Speaker A
Yeah. Whatever. Yeah. So I I I would say like like would you say a good knife is a knife that cuts well or a knife that doesn't cut well?
Speaker A
I I would call it good if if I could use it as a good weapon. So the sharper it is, the better it cuts, uh the better.
Speaker A
Yeah. And so I would say in the same exact way, a good human being is a human that does what is distinct to human nature. And so the thing that is distinct to human nature is not just desire, not just the senses, but also
Speaker A
rationality and control of the will. And so I would say that that you you you should be correctly ordering your actions not only to your desires but also to rationality to right reason and ultimately towards your final cause.
Speaker A
I agree except for the will part because your will is basically who you are. So if you're self-willed, which is just another word for wild, then you don't fit into this so-called society, the people around you, because you will do
Speaker A
what is good for yourself and your family. So the only way that you can live in the slave system is by following whatever Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, it doesn't matter. It's all the same.
Speaker A
All of them teach you what's good is bad, what's bad is good. And that's the only way that you can do it. Then you you constantly suppress your nature and you try to live together with people and everybody knows that if tomorrow there
Speaker A
would be no laws and there are no laws because they don't exist. The police also doesn't exist. It's all imaginary.
Speaker A
Then people would be stealing, taking what they want. They would be attacking other people like the the natural order would simply return.
Speaker A
And it really kind of already we already have it anyway. But u the slave population is made to believe that good is bad and bad is good. The ones at the top, not an actually real top, but an imaginary top,
Speaker A
they do everything that we see as evil and bad anyway because they know that it's good.
Speaker A
Yeah. So, so I would agree that that people at at the top, as you would call them, do evil things, but I don't think that that means that it's actually good.
Speaker A
I think it just means that they're evil when they give into temptation. Um, so so like as far as like control over the will, you don't think that there's any situation in which like a person should should restrict some of their actions.
Speaker A
Like if if they're they have a desire to do something, it's always good to do that desire.
Speaker A
Yes. Always. Okay. So, you kind of brought up like the example of like if we got rid of society, like it would kind of be like warfare, anarchy, kind of that that type of thing. Would you say that that's a
Speaker A
better way of living where there's like theft and and murder? That's a better way of living than what we have right now.
Speaker A
Yes. Yes. That that would be the best way. That's what I wish for. And that's that's all that I want.
Speaker A
That's all that you want. So, so I I guess I'm just struggling to see how the outcome there is better than the outcome that we have with society where people are getting murdered, they're getting stolen from, they're getting either, you
Speaker A
know, non-consensual sexual assault. No. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's that that's a good question. So, we have that as I said before, we already live in the system except that we don't realize it.
Speaker A
We are getting murdered. We are we are people do steal from us, but we call them the police. These are people who have killed more people than most serial killers. So if you would want to apply concept of serial killers to somebody,
Speaker A
those would be serial killers or mass murderers for the most part, right? And so they come into your house, they they often times just kidnap the children, but they call it they go together with the child protective services. They they
Speaker A
do that. Then you just don't want to inject something into your children. They come and kidnap them. You defend your children, they kill you. This happens all the time. So they they murder the parents or the father and nothing happens to them. So
Speaker A
we already live in this system where people threaten you with torture, which is imprisonment, putting you in a cell, or they will murder you. So every every day when people walk around outside, they know that they won't steal. They
Speaker A
won't sometimes even lie maybe, although people do lie. They won't um yeah, they they won't do everything that's seen as bad because there's the threat of torture and murder. So this will always be the case because if there
Speaker A
is no threat of torture and murder, then pe somebody else will take their place.
Speaker A
So for example, if tomorrow let's say everybody would agree that we will live peacefully, we will be all Christian and whatever, then somebody would say that this is a great chance guys let's get together and then they would take the
Speaker A
power because somebody will always have the power. So the delusion is to believe that we don't have this system already.
Speaker A
We have it. But the police officers, the guys who put on clothes and act as if they are police officers, they just don't realize that they are enslaving themselves. They are slaves themselves.
Speaker A
They enslave the other slaves. And um they work for the people at the top.
Speaker A
They they don't get what's going on themselves. like this this whole this whole imagination that if there would be no laws or rules there would be whatever you called it anarchy we already have that yeah um well I would certainly push back
Speaker A
on that like so for example like prison is a conditional oppression it's conditional upon you doing something that's wrong so like for example something like murder I think if you murder someone you deserve to have punishment for that um because if there
Speaker A
is no punishment for that, if there's no societal boundaries, then everybody will just murder people and then society will collapse and there will be no humans left to have, you know, natural desires and that would be I think you would even
Speaker A
agree if there's no humans left that would be the worst, right? Yes. But you cannot fulfill your natural desires. The only way you can is if you have power and that's the system they created. Because if that's your logic
Speaker A
that whatever stealing is wrong, then they should also not be allowed to do that.
Speaker A
But the way it works is that they have the power because they have the weapons.
Speaker A
In the US, some people do have weapons thankfully, but overall most people don't. And uh even they don't use them anyway. And uh so so for example, in Florida, I guess that they do the death penalty. So they use different words to
Speaker A
describe the same thing. They murder people for murdering other people. Then the question is who murders them? So somebody murders somebody and then they murder him. So who will murder the murderer? Nobody does because this this they have the power so to speak this
Speaker A
this illusion of power. So so we already have the system. We already have the system where we have the threat of torture and murder and they have the power and if they wouldn't then somebody else would. Somebody will always have
Speaker A
it. And that's why you back in the day always had big families who would reproduce, they would grow and then they would attack others and try to take uh over and so on. And we we have the same
Speaker A
thing. Yeah. Nobody does anything about it. You saw in Iran they kill 100 children. No murder, mass murder. Nobody gives a [ __ ] Nobody does anything because they can commit mass murder, serial killing, and nobody will do anything because they
Speaker A
have the power. You you kill one human being. It's all over the news. Monster. He's in this society. Get him.
Speaker A
Catch him. They murder 100 people. H you know. Yeah. Who murdered 100 children in Iran? Who knows? I don't know. Who gives a [ __ ] Yeah. So, so the claim here isn't that bad things don't happen in a society. I
Speaker A
agree that bad things happen in a society, but it seems as though you're implying that like genocide is a bad thing. When you bring that up, you're like, "Yeah, murdering children is a bad thing." Would Would you agree with that?
Speaker A
No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is simply that they have the power, so they uh they can decide.
Speaker A
So, how many people did they murder? I don't know, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of many children. I agree. It's a I think that's a bad thing and I think it should be avoided, but it seems like you're saying,
Speaker A
but you see, they don't see it as bad. But it seems like you're saying that it it shouldn't necessarily be avoided because it happens in both systems.
Speaker A
It seems like you're saying it's not necessarily a bad thing. No. Well, there's nothing that you will be able to say that I will call good or bad because you are referring to something imaginary, something that doesn't exist. All that I can refer to
Speaker A
are my senses. So, for example, if those were my family members, I would say that it was bad. I probably would have cried and I would be really upset and I would probably want to get revenge which is
Speaker A
probably the case with tons of parents in Iran. Yeah, it happens everywhere anyway. But obviously we have no rel we have no relation to it. You cannot relate to it because if if your mother for example dies, you
Speaker A
will cry and be devastated most likely, right? But if a 100,000 people get uh bombed to death in Iraq, you have no you cannot relate to it. You you don't cry.
Speaker A
There's nothing because you just hear about it. So it's not real to you. No, it's it's real to me and I I I do get very upset by that. I'm not someone who cries, but I I am very upset by by
Speaker A
children dying. I don't believe that anybody is as long as they don't sense it. You You don't believe that anybody's upset about that?
Speaker A
No. So would you say that you're not upset about that? No, of course not because I don't know them. If I would be upset about that, then I would be in the corner crying every day because I I assume that's what
Speaker A
they say that how many people die every day? Hundreds of thousands or who knows what. I I would just mentally completely break apart if I would care.
Speaker A
Yeah. Uh, no. I I do care about that and that's something that makes me very upset. And so that's why like I'm a proponent of like medicine research and converting people to Christianity so that they're they they don't like
Speaker A
permanently die. So So I I think that like you're saying that that nobody cares about this. It seems like maybe that's just you projecting your own apathy onto the rest of the world when I think I think everybody watching this
Speaker A
agrees that like children dying is a bad thing and it does affect them negatively. Even if they don't know those children or see them die, I think that they only do it uh for example, people who have so-called
Speaker A
followers online, they will just do it just to just to look better in the eyes of the religious people because 99% of people follow morals, religion. So you will just be seen as a good human being if you say that you care about it, but
Speaker A
you turn off the camera and you just do whatever. You don't actually care. Interesting. Okay. Well, um maybe I mean if you completely reject objective morality and being affected by, you know, um what what I would call objectively evil, I don't think there's
Speaker A
like that can just be a position that you hold to, but I don't think it's it's a coercive position. I don't think that you could prove that over objective morality. Like you can say, oh, it's something that's made up, but I would
Speaker A
say your worldview is also something that you've made up. Um because that's how worldviews work. It's somebody coming to conclusions based off of what they sense in reality. No, I get what you mean by world view, but I'm just,
Speaker A
like I said, I base it all on what I sense and I just don't sense them. It would be insane if you would actually get affected by something that we don't sense, that we simply read about because, as I said, through sounds and
Speaker A
texts, you can only absorb beliefs, ideas. I got to get something to drink. It'll only take two minutes. Yeah.
Speaker A
Yeah. No worries. No worries at all, man. God's primal drink time. I won't say anything about the debate while he's gone just for uh you know you know clarity and and good faith discussion. Um so I I'll leave
Speaker A
commentary until after just to make sure that you know I don't misrepresent anything he says or say anything that he can't respond to. Um so very very very interesting conversation so far. All right. Well, I I won't comment on the
Speaker A
contents, but uh we we can just kind of wait until he gets back. Um but yeah, we we'll also answer some super chats after the conversation um as well. I don't I won't have time to answer all of them,
Speaker A
but maybe we'll do super chats over $50. I'll I'll answer um just so that I can be as fair as possible to people. Um but yeah, uh this is this is an interesting interesting conversation to say the least. Um, I'm sure there's going to be
Speaker A
quite a few clips um on on the uh the internet after this. Very, very interesting things being said. Um, but but I'm looking forward to to the conversation here. Um, but yeah, this is this is radical relativism. Um, very
Speaker A
very very interesting. I wonder what he's drinking. Is it is it going to be like raw milk or raw blood or something like that?
Speaker A
That's That's kind of what I'm assuming it's going to be, but who knows? Who knows?
Speaker A
Who knows? We'll just have to see. Hopefully, he doesn't I don't want to see that. I don't know. I don't know if that would like be like demonetized or anything.
Speaker A
But this is Oh, people are saying coconut water. Is that his like go-to? Does he drink coconut water? Is that Is that natural? But wouldn't like the packaging be not natural?
Speaker A
That's very That's very interesting. Um, yeah, pure thing coconut water. Very interesting. I hope it's not blood. That'd be so gross. That would be That would be very gross. Um, yeah.
Speaker A
Oh, they're his own coconuts. Are we serious? Does he do that? That's crazy. This is crazy. This is a long drink break. Hopefully he's okay.
Speaker A
Hopefully he's okay. This is uh he's going to come back with his laser eyes. Very interesting.
Speaker A
Um but yeah, we've been live for a minute that it was supposed to start at 9. So I've been live for two and a half hours. We might we might have like 15 20 minutes left in us. But um after that we
Speaker A
we'll we'll end the conversation. I assume. But yeah, no, this is this is I I'm surprised he joined. I'm surprised the conversation actually occurred. Um but yeah, we'll uh ju just prayers prayers are needed is all we'll say. Um
Speaker A
very very interesting. Um very very interesting. Yeah, we we'll have to see. Um, this is this is a this is this is a long drink break.
Speaker A
I I don't know what's what's going on. Um, I guess we'll we'll just wait.
Speaker A
Primal primal drink break. Primal punctuality. Oh, we saw his hand. He's back putting earbuds in.
Speaker A
Okay. We We were guessing what your drink was. Was it Was it coconut water?
Speaker A
Yeah. Nice. There we go. That's That's good. Um I I guess the the drink break could be like a good segue to maybe get into um like I haven't even given my argument for why I believe God exists. Do you
Speaker A
want me to maybe tell you that and then you can kind of give your thoughts on it after?
Speaker A
H sure. you can do it. Yeah. So, um it'll be there's there's three premises and one conclusion and that's basically just things that are being stated that can be contested with and then the the conclusion is something that logically follows from those
Speaker A
conclusions. Um so, how long is it going to take? Because the the thing is 30 seconds.
Speaker A
Oh, okay. Sure. Don't do it. Yeah. Yeah. It's very brief. Okay. Premise one. uh some things without intelligence regularly produce specific effects. So for example like fire regularly produces heat and it's specifically heat. Fire does not produce cold. Fire does not produce a rainbow.
Speaker A
It it's heat that is specifically and regularly produced um by fire. Um premise two if something regularly produces a specific result it is directed towards that result. Um so um an arrow for example doesn't fly towards a bullseye just completely randomly. An
Speaker A
arrow will fly towards a bullseye because it is directed that way by some intelligence. Um premise three, something without intelligence can only be directed towards a result by an intelligence. So just like with the arrow, the arrow will not fly on its own
Speaker A
because it has no intelligence. it will not go towards anything purposefully without an intelligence behind it. Um, and so there must be an intelligence, a human being that that shoots the arrow and directs it in a specific direction.
Speaker A
Therefore, the conclusion is things without intelligence are directed towards their result by some greater intelligence. So fire is directed towards heat in that sense by some intelligence that isn't human beings cuz we don't direct fire and that's what most people would refer to
Speaker A
refer to as God. All right. Um yeah, it's a very abstract. Uh no, it's a cool story, but like I said, it's just irrelevant to me.
Speaker A
It's irrelevant to you? But but is there anything that you disagree with in there?
Speaker A
Like like I said, it's not even relevant to me at all because unless you can tell me where I can manipulate this object, God. But you said already it's immaterial.
Speaker A
So there's just nothing there's no sounds on earth that you will ever be able to make to convince me that there is a god since it's your ideas. So that that's why I explained this before.
Speaker A
You have a your brain is functioning right. you're alive and you want to express what you believe, maybe what you absorbed from other people. That's the case with um Christianity since you in the wild, you wouldn't just think, oh,
Speaker A
there is a God and this cross is holy and blah blah blah. No, you need to absorb.
Speaker A
We're not talking about Christianity specifically yet. We're just talking about God existing. Okay, whatever God. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker A
Yeah. But but no like like the point the point that we're we're saying there like for example you believe that truth exists or or you you you said that you believe that truth exists that truth statements exist but again we said that
Speaker A
that's an immaterial thing and I would say that something being material is actually like a limitation. So like I'm limited by my material body.
Speaker A
You you said that before I didn't respond. Uh actually I don't agree with that because truth truth can only be what you sense. It can never be anything else because as I said if you don't sense it you don't know if it's true
Speaker A
that's why I gave the examples with the color of the house if a car is driving at you if you don't know meaning you cannot sense it it's not the truth it cannot be so nothing this this it's very
Speaker A
important to understand this also for the people watching you can never get anything true out of a book lecture video not this video not any video because it's human ideas, thoughts. So you can only you have to be able to test
Speaker A
it scientifically. So the only way that the only thing that you could do here is refer to something real such as you could say that you can see God uh every day uh at sunset in this place in
Speaker A
Pakistan in this cave somewhere. I I would still not know if it's true. I would have to go there and then I would see. Of course, we know we we can assume we don't know if uh well, we can assume that that has never
Speaker A
happened because nobody has ever taken a photo or video of God. But uh well well here's the thing. Um we talked about the Apple situation earlier, right? And you said, well, you can't know for certain that that apples
Speaker A
actually exist, but you say it's very likely that they do, right? Yeah. I just said I would never bet anything on on it because it would be ridiculous.
Speaker A
So, is it is it true that it's likely that they exist? That's a question that's impossible to answer because either something exists or it doesn't.
Speaker A
Well, it's some it's something that you said. You said that it's it that it's likely that they exist. I'm asking is that statement true?
Speaker A
I don't know what exactly I said but uh my overall point is only what you can sense is really what you know is that statement true but it what you sense is what you know what what is true that that's what exists I
Speaker A
don't know what exactly what I said before but what I meant is that I would uh have to of course go and see about the apples but it's just very likely I can assume that if I go I would see the
Speaker A
apples I just cannot know it with in the moment. Yeah. So about So I don't know how I express myself, but that's what I mean.
Speaker A
Yeah. But you're you're making claims right now. So you're saying like you can only know thing know things through your senses. Is that a true statement?
Speaker A
What do you mean by that? Is it is it is it correct? Is it true?
Speaker A
Is it objectively true or is it just like an opinion? Yeah. But that's that's that's an idea, right?
Speaker A
I'm asking if it's a true a true idea. Yeah. Yeah, but an idea cannot be true or false because it's an idea. You would still have to prove it. So, for example, you would have to make an actually
Speaker A
specific claim that refers to something real. So, something that I can actually sense uh anything that's actually real.
Speaker A
So, so you would say that like your position then that you can only know things if you're actively sensing them, that's not necessarily true.
Speaker A
It's just that you're referring to a statement, a belief, an idea. So what is true is what you can sense. I cannot sense your idea. It's just it's something that I cannot even answer because it's a statement.
Speaker A
Well, statements are either true or false. If you define true differently. Well, statements are either true or false. Meaning that like they have validity in Yeah. If you refer to something real, then you could say that.
Speaker A
Yeah. So I'm asking I'm asking like your your position. The real statement would be that I have a mouse here like a computer mouse sort of the object if that's what you mean.
Speaker A
Okay. So so you just said that the you can you can sense that the mouse is there. Is that true?
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. That's the truth. Yeah. Exactly. But that is it true that you just said that?
Speaker A
What do you mean? Is it true that you just said that it's true even though we we can't actively sense it?
Speaker A
Oh, you mean uh like in the past because it's in my memory. Well, well, more so just like any any of the claims that you've you've made.
Speaker A
You're making you should you should define what you mean by true then it would be simpler to understand.
Speaker A
Yeah. An accurate representation of reality. Well, then no, because it would be a memory.
Speaker A
Well, no, but but just like the ideas or the claims that you're making. So, like for example, when you say that you can only know things through your senses, is that true? Is that an accurate representation of reality or is it
Speaker A
possibly not true? That I already explained that it's it's true. What do you mean?
Speaker A
Okay. So, it's true, but therefore, you're saying something is objectively true, which is immaterial, and therefore immaterial realities exist. No, not the statement. Just if I sense something, that is the truth. That's what I mean.
Speaker A
Okay. Kind of talking past each other. Is the statement true then? No, not like I said, you would have to define true because I think we are defining it differently.
Speaker A
I already gave you my definition. Okay. Okay. What? Okay. I didn't hear it. An accurate representation of reality.
Speaker A
Okay, then. No. So, your entire worldview is not an accurate representation of reality. No. The world view, the world anyway is imaginary. So anything that has to do with the world.
Speaker A
Yeah. Because uh think about it. Whenever people talk about the world, they always talk about something imaginary.
Speaker A
The world cup, the world records, they are nowhere to be found. They are completely in our minds. But where are they?
Speaker A
It's completely imaginary. For example, the world is it real? Yeah. Is it is it a really I would say yeah that the the World Cup is is something that happened.
Speaker A
Oh that's very interesting. No of course not because it didn't it doesn't exist in this reality.
Speaker A
Well because it's a concept happened. No. No. What do you mean football also doesn't exist?
Speaker A
Football doesn't exist. Of course. Where is football? Does Does God exist? Well, obviously not. is just a is a character.
Speaker A
What do Well, okay. So, this this is do you 5 seconds ago exist? Well, there time also doesn't exist.
Speaker A
Okay. But but you do you believe that like the past exists? No, of course not. Because I already explain No, I already explained that to you before. If somebody close to you dies, then they are just a me memory because
Speaker A
the way you knew them in the moment, it's gone. You just don't know. Right now, if you don't see the humans that you know, you don't know if they exist anymore. It's very unlikely, but they could be dead.
Speaker A
Interesting. Okay. Well, so it kind of seems that this just leads into like a lot of absurdities. Like you can't say that any statement is true like objectively.
Speaker A
It Well, if I if he define it the way you said it, it's it's only what I sense.
Speaker A
So you would say that that you can't show that any statement is true. Yeah. Statement. No, if you mean an idea, it just depends.
Speaker A
So then like what's the point of having like any debates or conversations because we can't prove that anything that we're saying is true.
Speaker A
That No, that's that's that's a very good point. That that was my whole point at the beginning. The only thing that you could do is refer to something that is real and I would still have to check it because uh you can only express your
Speaker A
ideas and thoughts through sound or by writing down and then I can absorb that and do the best I possibly can. And so for example, if this would be a different discussion with somebody else and I would say that
Speaker A
blood is the best uh drink on earth, he wouldn't know. He would have to try it.
Speaker A
But we can at least refer to something real that we sense and then the other one can absorb the information, the thoughts and they can do something with that. That's the best we can do. But you you can you will never be able to prove
Speaker A
God to me through logic, ideas, thoughts. So I guess my question then is is you make YouTube videos where you go out and talk about statements, right? And you talk about like the primal lifestyle.
Speaker A
Um, but you would say that none of those statements are true. No, you people have to go and do do it in real life. Yeah.
Speaker A
But that's also a statement. You're saying you're saying that people have to go and do it. That's also a statement.
Speaker A
And so we would say that that not even that is true. Yeah. Of course, because all that all that people are doing when they watch my videos, they absorb my ideas, my beliefs. That's all that I can do. I
Speaker A
can't give knowledge to people. But didn't you say ideas? Didn't you say the ideas aren't real either? They don't exist.
Speaker A
Yeah, they are. They are not. That's what I mean. How do they It's a concept.
Speaker A
How do they absorb things exist though? I already explained that you interpret that languages don't exist. You interpret what the sounds are supposed to mean and then you try to get uh you interpret the sounds and you try to
Speaker A
understand what the human being is saying, what kind of information he's trying to transfer or however you would call it and then you implement that in real life. So you actually do that.
Speaker A
That's the only thing that I can do with my videos. Interesting. Okay. Well, um I I guess that's that's kind of all the questions I have for you. Is there any specific things that you want to question me on?
Speaker A
Not necessarily question. I did want to discuss one thing which is how uh you know Christianity this ideology how it inverts everything and how uh for example when our senses tell us that uh blood tastes really good. I assume that
Speaker A
you've never had it but it's really the best tasting food drink on earth. You do agree that uh in these texts uh whoever wrote it, they try to make people believe that blood is sinful, bad.
Speaker A
So So I have tried blood. I I I'm not a fan of how it tastes. It's kind of metallic. I I don't I don't prefer it.
Speaker A
Um it's it's not something I'm into. I prefer like like steak um without the blood. Um but I I I do like like raw meat at times. Like I think like uh like like raw beef is is pretty good. I try
Speaker A
to avoid like raw raw chicken, but but yeah. No, I'm not not fully against raw things.
Speaker A
I have no idea. Yeah. Um how however um like when it comes to like drinking blood, um typically it's it's like a ritual thing. It's less so like like a sinful condemnation. So like we we would say that there's nothing sinful about
Speaker A
drinking like blood. Um but but more so it's what it symbolizes. like it symbolizes life and um like like the the spirit of life flow flowing through someone and so to drink it could be ritually or symbolically a violation of
Speaker A
that life like it would be like taking life from someone but we would we as Christians would say there's nothing wrong with drinking blood okay because the thing is that like n over 90% of the Christians that I've
Speaker A
talked to they do say that it's they they get kind of mad at you when you start talking about it, they do see it as sinful.
Speaker A
Yeah. Well, well, I don't I'm a Catholic and there there's no condemnations against drinking blood.
Speaker A
What about uh choosing uh the Jesus uh over your father or seeing uh those imaginary beings as something higher?
Speaker A
Uh yeah, I do believe that that Jesus is is more important than my my father because he's God.
Speaker A
That's pretty [ __ ] up, man. Well, I still I still have great honor for my my father. Um, and I don't believe that I would say in a perfect relationship with your father, those should those two should not contradict.
Speaker A
Like I think your father should love Jesus in a way to where um like like you honor your father and by honoring your father, you honor Jesus.
Speaker A
Interesting. Yeah, I just uh that was the only thing that I wrote down. The only thing that I wanted to discuss. Uh yeah, there's also the repression of uh emotions, desires such as anger in certain situations.
Speaker A
Um forgiving the enemy, turning the cheek and whatnot, stuff like that. Uh this it just has a lot to do with suppressing your feelings, emotions. Uh not always, but sometimes.
Speaker A
Yeah. So, so what I would say is that like a lot of emotions and desires are actually limitations in a certain c like a certain sense like I would say that maybe from like your naturalist standpoint I'd say it's good to be free
Speaker A
and if you are constantly limited by emotions you can't control your emotions then I would say that you're like in a sense a slave to those emotions like if you get angry and you can't stop yourself from being angry then I say
Speaker A
you're actually losing like your own choice you're losing your free will but I would say that there's so much more power in being able to um choose to be angry or choose to be happy or choose to be sad and being able to choose between
Speaker A
these emotions and have control over yourself. I'd say that's more of a freedom than if you're just like a slave to your emotions and your desires.
Speaker A
Control is freedom. It seems like opposites controlling controlling yourself, being able to use all your powers. Yeah.
Speaker A
No, I I get it. But uh yeah, I just see it as enslavement if you control yourself. But we don't need to get we don't we don't need to discuss this.
Speaker A
It's just interesting to hear your perspective. Mhm. What about uh fasting? Uh starving. I like fasting. I do it often.
Speaker A
What do you mean you like it? You cannot like it. Well, well, I I like the um the rewards of it and I I enjoy putting myself through difficult things and offering up uh pain for for other people. I think
Speaker A
that's a good thing. What do you mean for pain for other people? Yeah. So, so I think that that when you fast, it can be a way to unite yourself with with the suffering of somebody else. Um, so for example, it can be like
Speaker A
it can be petitionary. Um, and so so for example, like imagine like you have a friend who who like lost their their grandma or something like that. Um, you you go and you discuss with them and and you you empathize with them and you
Speaker A
bring yourself into their suffering. So I think a way fasting can be a way to do that to like unite yourself with the suffering of the world and make you more more grounded in reality.
Speaker A
Uh very interesting. Yeah. It's uh this mentality of weakness which was what I described before.
Speaker A
What did I I thought you did fasting. I did many years ago. Yeah. What what was your experience like with fasting?
Speaker A
It's horrible. I would never do it again. It just it just feels horrible. You completely have to yeah control yourself. You have to go against your nature, your instincts because your body tells you to eat and you restrict
Speaker A
yourself. It's it's the worst thing ever. Yeah. Well, I agree. It's it's not fun in the moment, but I think the the reward of it is is very beneficial.
Speaker A
Being able to control yourself, I think, gives you more freedom in the future. Um because then you can choose between different things. So like for example um like imagine like there's somebody always telling you what to do and always
Speaker A
like forcing you to to choose a specific thing. I would say that that's not freedom. That's slavery. And so in a similar way, if you're allowing your your emotions and your desires to tell you what to do, you're just as much of a
Speaker A
slave to those things as you are to somebody who's like actually enslaved. And I think the only way to escape that slavery is through having real self-control and being able to practice virtue when you please.
Speaker A
I would define that as complete freedom, but we just almost see things the opposite way. What about reproduction?
Speaker A
We kind of already talked about that, but not really because um religious people imagine marriage. Marriages don't exist. And then they imagine that in their minds they somehow marry somebody because they sign some paper or put some ring on a finger, whatever. Just some
Speaker A
rituals, imaginary abstract ideas. What about uh when you want to reproduce with somebody but you believe that you're married and you shouldn't or even more importantly what about girls and guy girls and guys who are like 18 maybe
Speaker A
younger who want to reproduce already but don't do it because they believe that they need to wait for marriage.
Speaker A
Yeah. I would say from like a naturalist standpoint like obviously I could say like you know the the church has said this the Bible says but that wouldn't do much. So from like a natural perspective um I would say that there is an
Speaker A
inclination and a desire in humans to um preserve their bloodline and um that there's a pride that's taken when you have children and I think that's a really good thing. However, if you just have a bunch of children with a bunch of
Speaker A
different women, um then those children aren't going to do well and they aren't going to glorify you or your bloodline.
Speaker A
And so, I'd say that the best way to ensure from a natural standpoint um that those children do well and that they they thrive and that they honor you and your bloodline would be by marrying um or just like committing yourself to one
Speaker A
person and focusing on those children and raising them. Yeah. I just wanted to specifically hear about because I've heard of cases this where girls really want to or guys also really want to reproduce and so they have a sort of boyfriend girlfriend but
Speaker A
they believe that they're not supposed to be intimate so they try to do whatever they can but they they hold themselves back. This is what you would call strength because this is what how I define um slavery weakness.
Speaker A
Yeah. So, I would say I would say it's it's self-control. I wouldn't say it's weak. I think being able to control your desires is a form of strength. Just like if if there was something heavy on top of you, like pushing you down, giving up
Speaker A
and letting it crush you would be something that is a weakness. But being able to stand up and and push back against it would be a strength. So, when like a desire is pushing down on you and and pinning you, if you just give up and
Speaker A
let the desire overtake you, then I would say that's weak. But if you stand up against it um and you push against it and that would be strength. And so I would say somebody who maybe has a desire that they they believe is not the
Speaker A
right thing to do well they they would be a stronger person for standing up against that rather than getting crushed.
Speaker A
Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. We we see things the opposite way. It's pretty interesting. All right. Yeah. No, that that was uh all. Uh um let me just check if there are any points, but I think we pretty much discussed everything. Uh
Speaker A
is there anything else you wanted to ask? Yeah, I think I think that's good. I think we we covered everything. Um I appreciate you coming on and and this this was a fun conversation to say the least.
Speaker A
I uh I did did want to say one thing uh to your viewers or whoever is watching this. If anything that I said uh gave you some thoughts uh if maybe after this video you will think about things
Speaker A
and maybe something that I said makes sense to you. I very very strongly recommend stopping eating seeds that means bread, pasta, cookies. They really poison us with this stuff. It really clouds your mind. I believe that this is the number
Speaker A
one reason why people even follow religions. I don't believe that a human being who actually eats liver, brain, drinks blood would even be able to because they would be completely grounded in reality. So even if you don't start eating raw meat, just
Speaker A
cutting out all seeds, rice and everything, lentils because it's absolute feminine starvation food, you will be able to think a lot clearer if you do that. And u I'm not even saying that you need to watch my videos or go
Speaker A
on my channel. This is not a promotion of my videos. I'm just really saying it uh for your own sake and yeah for people because uh people are very lost and u insane. Most people are insane. I do
Speaker A
believe that over 90% of people have a light form of schizophrenia. That's how messed up it is nowadays.
Speaker A
I would agree. Schizophrenia is a a big problem. Um but maybe we would disagree on on who it affects. Um yeah, you guys heard it here. seed seeds are are bad for you. I would actually agree. Seed oils probably not the best go-to. Um,
Speaker A
eat healthy, but we probably disagree on on what is healthy and what's not healthy. Um, but yeah, thank you for coming.
Speaker A
You you do eat some uh good food, I guess. Uh, one more thing uh I would like to say is that uh just one question actually. Do you believe that focusing on God and Jesus uh all those uh main beliefs the faith
Speaker A
that you have is that the most important thing or would it be more important to f focus on still what is real and uh you know how I define that by what we can sense yeah I would say that that focusing on
Speaker A
God which I believe is is real um but maybe not material I would say yeah that's much more important than anything else right because Uh, it's just one thing. A lot of your subscribers who probably take what you say really seriously, they
Speaker A
may be in their 20s now, probably pretty young, I assume, they will eventually have children and their children will still deal with real problems. uh no matter if they believe in God or Jesus for example their children if they don't eat natural
Speaker A
foods if they are not breastfed for long enough they will need braces because the skulls will be too narrow glasses because the eye sockets they uh squeeze the eyeballs and the eyeballs become long instead of round the way they are
Speaker A
supposed to be and then you need glasses to try to deal with the symptom of a underdeveloped or deformed skull. My point is simp that's just two examples.
Speaker A
My point is simply that your subscribers will still have to deal with real issues and these people will not have uh much success with women or the women with men although women have it easier to be fair and a lot of real life issues even if
Speaker A
they live in the system. getting a job will be harder is my point is simply that real this real life what we can sense the real problems that we deal with those are all that matters we have opposite views obviously but I just
Speaker A
wanted to put that out that e even if you want to believe in God or Jesus whatever if it doesn't affect your real life if you don't go against your nature which is what this satanic religion Christianity promotes
Speaker A
Then uh well at least simply follow your senses and really listen completely to what your eyeballs, your ears uh well the brain what it actually tells you when you sense something even if you want to believe in God and so on and
Speaker A
heaven still at the very least completely follow your nature and then you won't have to deal with all of the real life issues. Eventually, you will realize that the real life issues are all that matters. Yeah, that's all that
Speaker A
I want to say. All right. Well, thank you for coming on, man. This was this was a good combo.
Speaker A
Yeah, man. Thank you. All right. See man.
Topics:God existence debatematerialism vs theismnatural lawCatholic apologeticsatheismphilosophy of existenceepistemologynatural theologyYouTube debateChristianity vs science
