Transcription
[Music]
So yeah, read the Bible. What if I'm not convinced that the Bible is offering good information? That's a subjective opinion. Yeah, okay. It's my subjective opinion, but if the Bible tells me, for example, that it's okay to own people as property, and the facts of reality show that this is contrary to human well-being, how do you resolve that?
[Music]
Conflict. Is this a debate about Christianity? This is a debate about how do we find out the answers. Secular humanism. Christianity. Does Christianity condemn slavery? Yes. Wow, that's that's a new one. Because the Old Testament confirms it, and Jesus specifically, rather than saying, you know what, the Old Testament, we got this wrong, now, now I'm here to tell you that slavery is immoral, instead Jesus says, slaves, obey your masters. Maybe you're not aware of old covenant, new covenant, abrogation. Hebrews chapter 8, Hebrews chapter 9, and that the doing away of many of these old things in Christian theology. In the New Testament, you find nothing about, um, the promotion of slavery, except in the book of Philemon, and even there, there's the negation of it. If you do a Bible study on it, you'll see what Paul was talking about. Where does the Bible say slavery is immoral? I don't think it says those words exactly. Where does, where does the Bible say that slavery is morally permissible? I don't think it says those words either. Okay, setting aside those words, where is that concept presented that slavery is all right? I don't think it's, uh, right there, really. Slave or Leviticus 25. What do you mean by slavery? What I mean, owning other people's [Music] property. Where's that in the Bible? Exodus 21, Leviticus 25. Well, just sorting these things out really fast. Isn't the issue? You see, you've got to understand something. Hold on. In Deuteronomy, it says that if you are not to, um, if you have an ox, someone's ox that is lost, you are to return that ox. Slaves aren't oxes. I know that. I'm just saying the principle is that if someone's property is lost or someone else's property is there, you are to return it, right? So if their slaves is lost, you're supposed to return it, right? Because that's property. If a slave comes to you or wants to escape, you do not return them. If it's property, then they should be returned. The concept of the scriptures is not that they're simple property. If you want to get into the world of property, we can, but this is an issue of slavery or the superiority of secular humanism.
[Music]
I don't know. I'm since your worldview does not include God as part of the equation, then since there's only two things to work with that we can even talk about, the natural world, which you said we know, and there's nothing that we can use as a method to determine the, the supernatural, we're left with the natural. So your worldview necessitates the working of the natural. Yes. Therefore, I'm working within that. The worldview of the natural has the physics laws of chemistry, etc. Our brain works on physics laws of chemistry, etc. How does a physical brain therefore produce proper logical inference if one chemical state loses another chemical state, and that's what our brains are? So, like I said, there's no guarantee that any particular brain is going to actually reason correctly. And what I will say is that logic is not something that is, or the foundations of thought aren't something that are produced by a brain. They are truths that we recognize. They are the truths demonstrated by a simple Venn diagram, that something is either A or not A. That's it. I'm not answering the question. Okay, the question is, how can a brain produce logic? How a, a brain restricted to physical laws of chemistry and physics, I'm just going to use motion, matter, chemistry, physics, how does that produce proper logical inference? As you said, which I think is very interesting, is not dependent upon the human brain. I totally agree with you. Well, then that means your brain, my brain, are different brains. We can't use your brain or my brain to be the standards of logical inference. We can't. We both agree, we both make mistakes. We're both not perfect in our logical thinking. We apply, we apply to something else these laws of logic. Now, the issue is the physical brain. Yeah. And they're outside of ourselves. Correct. The physical. Oh, there you go. They don't exist. Not contingent upon any individual's thought. They don't exist as a thing. Question is, how does the physical brain, where one chemical state relates to another chemical state or changes to one, how does it produce proper logical inference? Does it? Can it? Can it? Yes. Otherwise, we would, how would you know? Because we can recognize it through the logic that we just talked about. So, wait a minute. If your brain, if your brain's saying that, and it's all that is of physicals, chemicals, you can't say that to be true because you don't know if your brain saying that is right. This is the real issue here. Truth. What's the definition of truth according to you? Well, we're look, the issue, if you're going to make truth and logic the foundation of it, we ought to get this out. Truth is that which corresponds to actuality and or logic. Okay, so we agree on what truth is. And so if truth is what corresponds to actuality and logic, then when a brain reasons, you take the output of that and see if it corresp correlates with logic and with, with the facts of reality and reason. But the problem is, if you are in a cage of physical chemical reactions, you cannot ascertain whether or not those conclusions properly relate to the truth. Uh, so the assessment doesn't have to be done solely, which is why science relies on independent affirmation. Now, you can say, and I will agree, at the end of the day, maybe all of us are wrong. And you know what? I agree. It's not impossible that we, that we could all be wrong. But the question is,
[Music]
I see no way around that problem. I am stuck dealing with the reality that I deal with on its rules under my understanding. And it seems to me that so is everybody else. The people that I interact with, they use logic and reason, we come to agreement on things, we actually point out where something is in conflict with logic. And if your answer to that is to say, hey, that's just a brain bubbling up, the claim that it's in conflict, that you have committed a fallacy, and it's just Zach's brain that is bubbling up in agreement with me, that you've committed a fallacy, and all these other brains, and therefore, there's all you're doing is denying the truth is accessible at all. Um, and, and you don't, your solution, you don't have a solution. Yes, I do. Okay. Yeah, I do. Tell. We're still, we're still on this. You see, I think you're squirming a little bit. You're trying, and I understand that you're atheist, and your worldview restricts you from being able to think through this other than me just responding by saying, your brain made you say that. You see, you're the one who says that's that's the answer of somebody who's not squirming. Your brain made you say it. Your brain made no, that's just a logical necessity of your position. If your brain is nothing more than physical chemical reactions, no matter what you say, I can respond with, your brain made you say that. There is no way to determine truth. If chemical reactions lead to other chemical reactions, that doesn't mean truth. You yourself said you got to appeal to something outside of yourself, which means brains are capable of appealing to things outside of themselves. Me, you abandoning your own naturalism. No, I'm not. Yes, you are. My naturalism does not preclude the fact that Zach is there to tell me that I'm wrong. It doesn't preclude the fact that you're outside to tell me I'm wrong. That's part of naturalism. That's fine. But that's not the issue. The issue is the laws of logic, which are not dependent upon physical brains. Correct. But
[Music]
your brains are capable of appealing to things outside of themselves. You are abandoning your own naturalism. No, I'm not. Yes, you are. My naturalism does not preclude the fact that Zach is there to tell me that I'm wrong. Brain here. I'll try it again. Your brain is chemical reactions. I just said something. If it's just chemical reactions, then what I say is irrelevant. What you respond with is irrelevant. It's not an issue of truth. It's an issue of my chemical reactions are better than your chemical reactions. No, it's not. It's about my, my demonstration of consistency with the logical absolutes and the facts of reality are more reliable than yours. That's not true. You see, I'm trying to tell you. I'll go over it again and again. Your phys. Do is you're demonstrating that you can just flat out deny something. I'm not denying the laws of logic. You can deny something by saying that's not true. What am I? As you said in your talk, something's not true just because somebody says so. And you merely saying that that's not true. If I demonstrate to you a logical fallacy in an argument, and you're in agreement that there's a fallacy there, have we gotten to the truth? Well, the only truth we would have agreed on is that there was a logical fallacy. But Okay, so we've agreed that there's a logical fallacy, right? Yeah. And we don't also agree that the foundations of reason, identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, are what dictate that particular fallacy? No problem. No problem. Agree. Sure. So you and I are in agreement that there's a logical fallacy, and you're saying that we can't access that. We can't say that under my worldview. Yes. Okay. No, you can. No, correct. You can say it. I'm not going to play that little game. Yeah, okay. Good. You can say it, but that's not the issue. I know what you're getting at. The justification from that worldview, that's the issue. My worldview, I can justify. Your worldview can't. Let's go over again. A chemical state that leads to another chemical state doesn't produce proper logical inference. We'll get to whether or not you can justify it, but here's the thing. We have two different worldviews. Yes. Okay. And yet you just agreed that we can agree about a logical fallacy. Of course, demonstrates that I can in fact be correct about a logical fallacy. Of course, you can. Okay, that's not the issue. Okay, the issue isn't that. Let me try it again. You have one chemical state that leads to another chemical state in the brain. This is your worldview. Yet you're going to say this interaction in this change, I'm going to oversimplify baking soda and vinegar. That's that's an oversimplification, but something we can relate to. There it is. Fuzz. Does that produce proper logical inference? Of course not. But if your worldview is comprised of a world of physics and chemistry and motion and matter, then that's what it reduces to. You cannot justify the laws of logic in that worldview. Okay. No, no, no. I've already. Why are we talking about whether or not you can justify the laws of logic when I said I presuppose them? I've already. I when I say I presuppose these, I'm already acknowledging them. Yes, that's I got that. Let's try it again. Your worldview cannot account for them. What difference does that? Let me finish. Meish. Why would you presuppose something that you can't account for? Of course it can't account for it. I'm trying to say this. Your worldview refutes itself. How? Because my world, I presuppose this because I can't account for. When you have a chemical state that leads to another chemical state, it doesn't guarantee proper logical inference. Let me finish. Therefore, what it means is your conclusions can't be trusted as being correct. Wrong. And they can be trusted for being correct because I am presupposing it. You don't. If you just keep. How could it be? Wow. It's like it's perfect. Go. Here's the [Music] thing. I'm let's go. We'll backtrack a second because the police are coming to haul us away. Um, I acknowledge that I cannot give an account for the logical absolutes. My position is also, I don't see how anyone or anybody or anything could account for the logical absolutes. The reason I wanted to ask about truth is because you have in all of your objections here an implication that there must be absolute certainty. Implication, that there must be absolute certainty, which I've already pointed out is not the case. That you can have reasonable positions, probabilistic positions, that don't require absolute certainty. Which is why I was asking about the definition of truth. If I say, my worldview does not account for this, I'm also willing to say, I don't, I've never been presented with any explanation from any worldview that could account for this. What I hear is somebody saying, my worldview can account for it because I have an invisible friend who's perfect and can't account for these. Or my worldview can account for this because I have something that I can't demonstrate to be true, which serves as a necessary and sufficient account of this thing, that is just an assertion. It is not a demonstration of truth. It's not a demonstration that your worldview can account for it. Saying you can account for it doesn't make it so. He did goes your brain chemicals reacting again and saying stuff. Okay, really. I have to make this point. This is what you're saying. We have two minutes left in our conversation. Thank God. I can see why you'd want that over no. So you say we don't. I see why I want it over too, because when I make, when I make an argument that actually gets to a point, you reply as if you're sigh. I'm sorry, you're not a cut above with brain fizz again. I've made my case. You are the ones who said we don't have to have absolute certainty. No problem with that. My position is not that. My position is that in this particular subdivision we're talking about, it's self-refuting. You cannot trust your own brain to properly represent actuality. You cannot present a rational reason without presupposing that the laws of logic, excuse me, that laws of chemistry and physics can produce proper logic inference. This is a problem. It's a serious problem inside of the secular worldview. That's the position, and you're not tackling that particular position. You jump into the area where we both basically agree. Of course, you can use logic. And I have an article on my website, can this be ethical? Of course, they can be ethical. Can they be logical? You better believe they can. The issue isn't that. In this worldview where chemical reactions lead to other chemical reactions, you cannot demonstrate that logic leads to proper logical inference. And if anything, it can be demonstrated that it could lead to something that's not proper logical inference, which means you shouldn't trust a system. Sure. Where in there did you explain how you can account for those laws? Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. I can account for the laws of logic by presupposing that God exists. Let me finish. Because the laws of logic themselves are abstractions, and they're universal, transcendent, and universal transcendent abstractions imply a universal mind. Loser. You're a loser. Are you feeling sorry for yourself? Well, you should be, because you are dirt. You make me sick. You big baby. Baby want a bottle? A big dirt bottle.