Live Debate Jay Dyer VS Brian Shapiro

[clears throat] We're live. [gasps] Okay, guys. Got another debate for y'all today. We got Brian Shapiro, Jay Dyer. Both have been on the show. Thanks for coming in, guys, in person. Let's make this thing happen.

So, we're going to talk about Trump today, Iran, and uh Alex Jones. I know Brian wanted to talk about Alex Jones, but uh >> absolutely. >> You want to lead this thing off with Alex? Brian.

>> All right. Well, first of all, thanks for being here, man. Nice to meet you. I've seen uh I've seen some of your stuff on u social media. Uh I'll be honest with you, what we do is is is probably a little different, right? as we were talking off the air. I you debate you've been doing this for like what 25 years, right? Long time. Uh I've been doing radio for almost that long, but my show is more of like the last 24 hours, you know, uh talking about news of the day and that sort of stuff. But all right, let's start. I wanted to start out by asking you about something because I know you're you're friends with Alex Jones, right? Um and I know this is probably something where we'll get into it a little bit, but

>> Well, you know, I come from Connecticut. I was raised in Connecticut and obviously where the Sandy Hook shooting was. And I say to myself, and I've listen, I've interviewed his ex-wife. That's kind of irrelevant to this conversation, and I've had private conversations with her, but I've also interviewed some of the parents who have lost their children, eight and nine year olds that were decapitated. Uh, and Alex Jones made their pain worse. And I thought what he did was reprehensible.

>> And then he used the excuse of psychosis, which I think is utter [ __ ] Um, he knew that that shooting happened. He's not a stupid guy. And he only lied about it on the air with his huge platform and said that they were actors. You know what he said? And he only did that for clicks and money. And you're making the pain of a of parents, like I said, some of whom who I had to talk to and interview, and my heart goes out to them, and I'm sure yours does as well.

>> And he called them actors, and he made their pain worse. And I find only a reprehensible, despicable human being would do what Alex Jones does. Now, he is a conspiracy theorist and I understand he says a lot of batshit crazy stuff, but if you don't hurt somebody by doing that, then I don't have a problem with it. You could think 9/11 was an inside job and you could fine if you're not hurting anybody.

>> But he hurt those people who are already grieving the loss of their children. And I'm wondering how you could be friends with somebody who who does that. I I just I don't it's it's unbelievable to me that that he would even do something like that and then blame it on psychosis. M like how could you how could you square up and be friends with somebody like that because I don't know you. I don't know you. I've never hung out with you. I'm just asking like how how can you be friends with somebody who did that? And and are you willing to call that out?

>> Well, I think Alex himself has called that out. Alex has admitted that he made a huge mistake. Uh I remember at the time when the trials were happening, one thing that I noticed in a lot of the uh you know examinations and the the prosecution questioning was there seemed to be quite a bit of uh laxity when it came to vetting the guests and that was hammered home with multiple people that produce the show. And the way that I'm sure you know the way that media works especially for high-profile people is that a lot of that is farmed out to people that work for you to vet [clears throat] the guests and whatnot. So I think there was some significant failures mainly with vetting people like Wolf Gang Halbig, people that ended up being I think probably conmen and Alex was lax in that. I think that was a huge mistake. Um, I think that there is precedent not for what happened at Sandy Hook, but for the idea of government being involved in types of things like that, like the Operation Gladadio, for example, that's a publicly declassified document.

>> I get that, but the government, as you know, wasn't involved in San, which is why Alex would have had in his mind the legitimacy legitimacy to question certain topics. So,

>> but why would you question that though? Why would you question a school shooting hours after innocent children are killed?

>> Because if Operation Gladadio includes public shootings at places like malls or perhaps even schools, there's there's no reason why you couldn't question.

>> But wouldn't you question it if there was some sort of evidence to prove like the 2020 election? I mean, Trump still says we I'm sure we can get into that. But it's like when listen, if people have ideas or opinions, they're entitled to that. That's fine. But like I said, I'm not someone who's trying to censor free speech, but at the same time, when you say things that can hurt people, I know you're not a fan of Candace Owens. Neither am I. Okay, we both would agree on that. I'm friends with Tim P. He said some things about her that I actually agree with.

>> But to me, Alex Jones does what Candace Owens does, which is >> say things that, you know, are not true. You know, are not true. Alex Jones knew that innocent children were murdered. He knew that those weren't actors. They're dead. And yet he went on the air and called them actors. Those family members, as you know, were threatened. They had uh threats to their life. He knew that those children were dead. He knew that those families were grieving. I have an issue not necessarily with conspiracy theorists, but conspiracy theorists like Candace Owens and like Call Jones that say things knowing they're not true and knowing that they will hurt people. Alex Jones comments at times, not just the Sandy Hook shooting, hurt people. And I find that only a despicable human being would profit off of something like that. I'm glad that he has to pay out that money. Like I said, I've had private conversations with his ex-wife. I don't know what's true. I don't know what's not true. That's why I'm not going to share the conversations I had with her.

>> But what I do know is I could never associate myself with somebody like that >> who It's good to have differences of opinions. We probably have a lot of different opinions on I think that's great. That's what makes America great.

>> But I think Alex Jones is a scumbag. And by the way, I met Alex Jones. He is a different person off the camera. He doesn't have, in my opinion, that persona or hey, was that good? Was this good? Uh, I mean, I don't know. I I I don't think he's a good person. And I'm not saying guilty by association. I'm not trying to make that argument, but I just can't fathom or understand how anybody could hang out with a guy like that who literally made

>> that would be guilt by association. Well, I I'm just trying to understand how anybody, not just you, but anybody would would be okay associating. And you host on on that network. Like,

>> I just don't understand.

>> Well, again, so that'd be like saying anybody involved in media who's involved with anybody that's made a mistake in media.

>> I don't think that's a mistake. You know what I think a mistake is, Jay?

>> Well, but how do you prove that it's not a

>> A mistake is locking your keys in your car? You mean to tell me that after this shooting happened where body bags were taken out of that school that Alex Jones legitimately believed that those eight nineyear-olds were actors? That's [ __ ] I don't believe that.

>> No, I think that Alex legitimately believed that there was a variety of options that you could have. Uh in terms

>> he called them actors, Jay. He called

>> No, I understand that. But that's after having people on who were not properly vetted like Wolf Gang Halic.

>> He has a lot of people on on Infowars that have zero credibility. I actually agree that everybody who does media for the most part I'm not talking about you Sean [laughter] you.

>> No I'm just um everybody in media has people on because it's media right media is kind of like you know it's about the numbers

>> but but it's our responsibility to push back at those people. I agree that and I think that my main criticism of Alex would have been and still has been there should have been a better vetting of the sources of these so-called events because the main source at that time because I was listening through that whole period

>> was Wolf Gang Halbick who said I've worked in government. I worked in education. I was there. I know that this was a fraud. I went investigated and all that was not true. So he did not properly vet this.

>> He blamed it on psychosis. There was no medical information to prove that.

>> Okay. That could be you mean his his Yeah, that could have been.

>> He didn't provide [clears throat] any medical information that he had psychosis. I mean, I don't know. I don't know Alex's legal team's, you know, advice that they gave.

>> Psychosis. You know that. Come on.

>> Again, I don't know what the legal team advice him. Well, the legal team, if they're going to say he suffered from psychosis, there would have to be some evidence to prove that, which clearly they didn't show. It wasn't psychosis. And I guess this is maybe where we disagree. People like Alex Jones and Candace Owens and many others. Laura Loomer, I could name you a lot. They say things knowing that it will hurt people and they don't [ __ ] care. They say things knowing that it'll hurt people, knowing that it's probably not true. By the way, I don't buy the fact that Alex didn't think it was a real shooting. He knew it was. Like I said, Alex is not a stupid guy. He knew that there were innocent young children that died and he called them actors. Now, regardless of what all their stuff might have been going on in his mind, he made a lot of money off that. Now, in the end, it's going to cost him money. I don't think we should be allowed to to say things like that with no justification. And it hurts people. Those families had death threats. They had death threats, Jay. And they hadn't even buried their kids yet. Eight and nine year olds. And I, as you can see, I get visibly angry talking about this guy because I think he's a horrible human being. And I think his entire network is a [ __ ] joke. It's a bunch of tinfoil hat morons who spread conspiracy theories about COVID. They spread conspiracy theories about the deep state. They spread conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. And the guy who runs the whole thing spread conspiracy theories about a shooting where a bunch of eight and nineyear-old kids were murdered were kept in I mean I just I don't even think the guy should be allowed to even have a show. That's my personal opinion.

>> Could you name another uh crazy temple hat that position that you think me or Alex or anybody has positive? I can't speak to you because I'll be honest with you and I I I don't mean this

>> the whole network is all crazy people.

>> Well, I mean the regulars I I I would assume you're a guest on there a lot and sometimes you you I'm talking about the regulars who do shows, you know, 5 days a week. Um they spread conspiracy theories about me. Uh Harrison talked about me. Didn't even and we talked about this off the air a couple minutes ago.

>> Didn't even know my position on vaccines. And I don't want to get too deep into the vaccine stuff because, you know, some platforms don't allow it. didn't even know my position on the vaccines and just assumed that I want everyone to get 10 boosters. They say things about people not doing their homework, not under even and by the way,

>> I said I would go on their show. I was talking to somebody from their network. I said, "Listen, I will go on that show

>> and I will defend my positions. Harrison didn't want me on. I call that a coward."

>> If you're willing to talk [ __ ] about somebody, which is fine. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But then you don't want that person to come on. I invite anybody on my show. Nick Fuentes can do my show if he wants to. I think he's an awful human being. But I would have I would have had OJ Simpson do my show. It's not the criticism. He's no longer with us unfortun, or fortunately, whichever way you look at it. But

>> I'm willing to have anybody on my show that I disagree with, even if they're despicable people. If Alex Jones wanted to do my show, I would probably be a little bit more heated with him than I am you because I'm not blaming you for the stuff that that Alex Jones said. Make

>> Well, but what's another topic that you think Alex spread?

>> Co. Uh, I think he spread lies about the vaccines. He sells his stupid pills on uh on his website to make money that there's no evidence that any of those pills actually help you if you had uh co. Um, I I I would talk about 9/11 a little bit more because I know he's talked about 911 a lot. Uh,

>> well, what about 911?

>> Well, he thinks it was an inside job,

>> right?

>> I do too.

>> Okay. Well, we can get into that. We can get into that.

>> So, what's the crazy part though? Where's the crazy part?

>> Talks about the deep state all the time with no evidence to back up his claims about the deep state. What is the deep state? Tell me. It's the breakaway national security apparatus in the background that has a tremendous amount of influence installed at the time of World War II particularly from people council on formulation. It's the same structure right now who is running the deep state

>> CFR and trilateral commission have a huge amount of influence. This is a CFR historian's own uh back background account for hers on my channel right now. So uh yeah so that would corporation military industrial complex that's the deep state. So, I've heard Alex say that Barack Obama was really running the country when Joe Biden was president. There's no evidence to back that up.

>> Well, you meant the stay behind uh situation that Obama had set up in DC.

>> He said he said the Obama's had gay relationships and that Barack Obama was gay. This is not a serious

>> Well, but you do talk radio. You make jokes. You make you do sat there. Alex has sat there all the time.

>> Okay. Well, when I hear Alex Jones say that he believed, First of all, I don't think that's funny. That's 10-year-old humor. I don't think there's anything funny in saying a president is gay. I don't think that I mean unless we're 10 years old.

>> What about fake and gay?

>> You think you think I mean Okay, but you but you get what I'm saying, right?

>> Well, you just laughed, so you do think it's funny.

>> Well, [laughter] here's the problem, right? Alex Jones has a huge platform

>> and I think it's important for people to choose their words wisely um and to be responsible. We agree, I think

>> that Alex Jones should not have done what he did when it came to the Sandy Hook

>> shooting. It hurt people. M.

>> Now, if you make a joke that doesn't hurt somebody,

>> okay, fine. If you have a conspiracy theory that doesn't necessarily hurt somebody, then that's one thing, right? But when you have the platform that Alex Jones has and you say things that are unproven stuff that is just blatantly ridiculous. They said things about me that aren't true. Um,

>> I have a problem with that.

>> And I don't think that network is a serious network. I don't think that is a serious news network. You give it's one thing if you give Kanye West a platform. Heck, I would interview Kanye West and ask him about his anti-semitism. But Alex Jones, he was praising Adolf Hitler and Alex Jones is sitting there with his thumb up his ass.

>> No, he I was watch specifically disagreed with him and said that he didn't believe Hitler was a good guy and and the but the very next day, Richard Gro and I hosted that next day and talked about that we did not agree with Hillary perspective. Okay, it's one thing to say you don't agree with it, and I'm glad you did that,

>> but if someone sitting next to me is praising Adolf Hitler, I would call them for what they are.

>> You are [clears throat] an anti-semite and you are a [ __ ] If you if you if you praise a man who's responsible for murdering anybody, let alone millions of people. There's something wrong with you. And I would say that to Kanye. I wouldn't sit here and say,

>> well, you know, Kanye, I really disagree with you on that. I saw that. I don't respect people who praise evil, murderous dictators. That's what Alex Jones did in that interview. Okay. He cuddled Kanye. Alex didn't praise him.

>> Well, he praised he [clears throat] praised Kanye West in some ways. And he was satired. He coddled him. It was a fluffer interview. And I think we also have a responsibility to

>> to question people and to be tough on people that praise murderous dictators. Alex Jones did not do that. So on one side of the coin, Kanye West will sit there and praise Adolf Hitler and he'll say, "Well, I disagree with that." But on the other side of the coin,

>> he'll just bash Democrats and left-wingers and AOC and attack her for being a bartender. Uh, he's more tough on somebody like AOC than somebody like Kanye West who praises Adolf Hitler and is a Jew hater. Make no mistake about it. Kanye is a Jewer, anti-semitic piece of scum. I don't care whether he's mentally ill or not. and these gripers that go around. Um, I just think they're really bad people.

>> Right. But so a lot of this debate so far has been about the character of people. So, and I'm not I'm not believing that. Okay. But I mean, you just said at the beginning that you weren't interested in go by association, but this seems to be your whole course.

>> I'm trying to understand why you would be friends with somebody like that who I think has no moral. But what I'm illustrating is that nobody consistently can apply that in media because I'm sure you have friends that you disagree with that you might find reprehensible or that you've gone on shows that you disagree with I don't have so you don't have any I don't have any friends qualms with Piers Morgan. You go on Piers Morgan show.

>> Um yeah I don't hang out with Pierce Morgan. He's not one of my friends. I do his show. There's a difference.

>> So now it's so it's guilt by So it is guilt by association.

>> Well you're friends with him. I'm not friends with him.

>> So that is guilt by association. what you said you're not trying to do.

>> I'm trying to understand why you would be

>> so you are doing guilt by association.

>> I'm asking you I'm asking you a question

>> implying that it's implying that it's morally wrong.

>> I'm trying to understand how morally

>> right

>> you could associate yourself

>> and I'm trying to understand the ethics

>> as a friend not just for doing a show

>> the morals are which are what like what's the because I don't think it's consistently applied. I think people that associate themselves with people like Alice Jones are the same people that associate themselves with Donald Trump. I think it it's guilt by association.

>> I think it's same. Well,

>> this whole course has been guilt by association. What you said at the beginning you're not going to do.

>> Well, what I was hoping to do is try to get a an explanation from you on how you could be friends with somebody like that. I find that in general, and I'm going to make a general statement now, people that are big fans of Alex Jones or friends of Alex Jones tend to also be big fans of Donald Trump.

>> And they throw they're willing to push aside the Epstein stuff. They're willing to push aside his behaviors, the way he talks about women and gold star families and PSWs and the fact that he's named thousands of times in the Epstein polls. I think the same kinds of people

>> who support Donald Trump are gravitated towards Alex Jones. Yes, I'll say it again. I think Donald Trump and Alex Jones are similar. I think they're both horrible human beings. They're horrible human beings who probably only care about themselves and you know,

>> but again, I think this is what usually ends up being something not worth debating. I'm not saying you can't bring it up. You debate whatever you want. But the idea of

>> only focusing on the morals of some individual in media or in politics to me just seems absurd.

>> It's why I'm always an issues guy because I'm sure that

>> we can talk about issues. I'm sure that everybody has some moral flaw or some problem uh in their their ethos.

>> I would never deny that. I would never deny what you're saying.

>> So then so then it's not consistently applied. So it would seem like

>> there are different levels of mistakes.

>> How do we know the levels here? Because it seems like you're doing the very thing that you're saying shouldn't be done.

>> No. So there are different levels of mistakes that are made whether you cheat on your wife or

>> Well, who determines that?

>> Okay. Well, I'm just giving you my opinions. There's no book on determining. I'm just telling you uh simply put, if you're a person

>> who intentionally lies about a school shooting when children are murdered

>> to make money and clicks, you're a [ __ ] disgusting human being.

>> But how do you know a person's motives? Maybe you do

>> because Alex Jones does it all the time.

>> He says things.

>> He's over the top and he says things.

>> But how do you know the motives?

>> So you think Alex Jones didn't have what do you think his motive is when he says things like I'm saying that when you debate, and again, you can debate whatever you want, but my critique of this

>> type of debate is that when you debate people's motives is something that you can never really explicitly prove.

>> Why does why do you think Alex Jones, Give me an educated guess, uh uh Jay, if you can, why do you think Alex Jones said those things?

>> I believe that Alex has always, for the most part, been sincere. That's why he has been willing to change his mind and admit he was wrong. For example, he recently admitted he was wrong, that he thought Trump might reverse the course on Iran. Let's talk about that.

>> He admit he admits that he was completely wrong.

>> I do want to talk to you about that. Probably gonna agree on that.

>> That's a recent admission that Alex said, "I was wrong about this."

>> Okay, good. So, so let me ask you something about that because I disagree with you respectfully.

>> If Alex Jones wasn't sued,

>> you think Alex [clears throat] Jones would have apologized?

>> Well, the again the lawsuit as I said highlighted the bad vetting. If you look for example at the prosecu where they were Jay, I understand.

>> Let me finish the question. Let me finish answering the the when they were uh interrogating uh Owen Schroyer and Owen was responsible for bringing on

>> uh a couple people that not just Wolf Gang but also the uh uh Zero Hedge article that they highlighted that was misinformation. Uh, so that was not properly vetted. And I'm saying that if you've got a network that has multiple people doing multiple cogs of the operation, you can't I understand that the head of the operation is going to receive the brunt of the criticism,

>> but it's not like Alex was just doing all of this without sincere investigation. I believe he's sincere.

>> Okay. So, I I that's where we disagree. And I would go as far as to say this. I believe that if Alex Jones wasn't sued and he didn't have to face consequences for his for his things, he would never have apologized or retracted anything because he never has in the past to my knowledge for anything else. The reason why he apologized and says, "I shouldn't have said that," which by the way he said in a courtroom and then he said it was a kangaroo court and he attacked the judge and he attacked the prosecutors instead of just being a man and saying, "You know what? I really [ __ ] up. I really shouldn't have said that stuff. What happened to those families was awful." Instead, he does what Donald Trump does. It's a kangaroo court. Uh, I didn't do anything wrong. So, no, I disagree with you, uh, uh, Jay. I don't think Alex Jones would have ever retracted what he said, and I don't think Alex Jones would have ever apologized if, in fact, he was never facing a civil lawsuit, which he lost. That's my personal opinion. Yeah, this is a because there's no way to prove that. Know that.

>> Well, that's just my personal opinion. Obviously, there's no way to 100% prove it other than the fact that, to my knowledge, I don't think Alex has ever apologized for anything else on the air in the past. The only thing I could ever uh recall that he's ever apologized for or or retracted was uh the comments he made about the school shooting and those kids being active.

>> He recently retracted his position on Iran. He thought Trump would have a better course and a course correction and he was wrong about that. He was wrong about the uh thing that was going around where Pam Bondi was saying that they were going to release the files. He thought that that was a legit

>> many. He has been open about uh criticism for the Epstein files because he's been talking about the Epstein files for years. And I think Donald Trump has made a lot of people like the Alex Jones type look really bad because Donald Trump has protected pedophiles in my opinion.

>> Well, Alex has called that out.

>> I know that. That's what I just said. Yeah, I'm happy. I agree with you on that.

>> And I would refute your claim that he never says he's wrong.

>> He's angry. Well, he's he's upset at Donald Trump. It's not really that he was wrong about something. He

>> He's wrong about what Pam Bondi said like two months ago. So yeah, he he's criticized at times the Trump administration.

>> He doesn't give the apology that you want. Basically,

>> um it's not really the apology that I want. It's it's basically it wasn't really an apology. He just basic when it comes to the Epstein stuff, he's talked about how disappointed he was he was wrong about Pam Bondi. He was wrong about Pam Bondi and he thought Pam Bondi

>> No, he said specifically that the claim that they were going to release more of the files that when Pam Bondi claimed this, he shared that

>> and then a bunch of people on social media called him out and he said, "You know what? You're right. I was wrong. So, he he say he will admit.

>> Okay. Well, I'm glad he did that. I was unaware of that and I'm and I'm glad he did that. And we could we could end the Alex Jones conversation, but I but in closing, I'll just say this and and you know, it's not nothing that I' I've never closing statement,

>> too. That's fair. Of course.

>> Um I think Alex Jones is what's horrible with society. I think there are grifters, the Candace Owens types. I put Alex Jones in that category. I think he only says things as an act

>> to get clicks and to make money. Um, what he did was disgusting. And then why the reason why this topic is so it should be personal to anybody, but it's even more personal to me because I grew up about 20 minutes away from Sandy Hook. Number one. Number two, I've interviewed some of those families who have to wake up every day without

>> seeing their kids. Um, it's it's reprehensible. And the fact that somebody like Alex Jones, and this is irrefutable, made their grief even worse with what Alex Jones put those families through is reprehensible. Um, and I think only a reprehensible and repugnant human being would do what Alex Jones did. I have zero respect for him. I don't care how many followers he has. I have no more respect for him than I do like a Candace Owens type. And I know we'll probably agree on Candace Owens. There is a way to have differences of opinions and there is a way to have a [clears throat] conversation without hurting people. And there are too many people, particularly in right-wing media today, that do that. They make claims that hurt people. They lie. They attack undocumented immigrants and brown people every single day, making it seem like all these undocumented immigrants are going to rape your kids. They're wrong. They lied about the terrorist attack in New Orleans. They said it was undocumented immigrant. They said it was because of Joe Biden's open border policies. They lie. They lied in conspiracy theories about what happened to Paul Pelosi when Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer. And Alex Jones was one of those guys that spread the conspiracy theory that Paul Pelosi had some sort of gay relationship with the guy that almost killed him with a hammer. Did Alex Jones ever apologize for that when the police report came out and Matt Gates when he was in office? Another repugnant piece of garbage. And Ted Cruz spread those conspiracy theories. These right-wingers don't apologize usually. I'm glad that Alex Jones has done that, but there's a lot of people on the right that don't. They don't retract. They don't apologize. When you get something wrong, why don't you wait until the information comes out first before you you spread conspiracy theories. I'm not talking about you. I'm just saying in general terms, people on the right. And that's my one of my biggest criticisms with the Laura Loomers of the world and so many others. It's all about clicks, Jay. It's about money and clicks. They don't care whether they get it right or not. They I'm generalizing. There's a lot of people on the right on X. They want to be the first one to say it was an undocumented immigrant. it was a black person, it was this without knowing. And then when they get it wrong, they don't retract and they don't apologize. And I'm sorry if I'm going on a rant here, but on X,

>> when you look at uh when they're fact checked, what is that called on the bottom?

>> Facteing.

>> Yeah, community note.

>> Yeah, What is the point of a community note if somebody is getting a community note like 200 times? There are right-wingers out there that have been community noted 200 times. They're not suspended. They accounts don't get taken down. Why are we community noting people when they literally it happens to them every day? So anyway, I digress. Go ahead.

>> Yeah. Again, I think um you know, so much of media ends up being a lot of low tier slop and debating about things that are not really that substantial, such as people's motives or intentionality, which is unless you have, you know, somebody's actual DMs or something like that. It's really difficult, I think, to to know the motives. Uh and so in philosophy and debate, we don't typically focus on that. understand that in media and in news it probably is the best, but I would assume that maybe you uh engage in debating about who's good and who's bad because that's the easy low tier route to go to get attention and to get clicks. I mean, aren't you interesting?

>> I don't think it's low tier to

>> debate, but it is to debate people's motives because it's called ad homonym, right?

>> I don't think it's low tier to talk about our president and uh his behavior.

>> Well, we're talking about Alex Jones, right? you're saying is bad motives and I'm saying that that that works in low tier political debate but like if you get into a philosophical debate and you debate people's motives that's called ad homonym because unless you have proof that there's bad motives you don't know people's motives other than to say that well there he's a bad person okay

>> so he's a bad person what does that prove

>> I don't think it's low tier to criticize Alex Jones for what he did

>> but you said that you know his motives and I'm just trying to figure out how you know that

>> well first of all I think most people would say the reason why Alex Jones says these things

>> is because he wants to get more attention.

>> The fact that most people think that really has nothing to do with it.

>> I would like to think that a logical opinion would be that the reason why Alex you can't do fallacies.

>> Okay. Well, if you think that Alex Jones does this stuff,

>> do you think appeal to masses is a fallacy?

>> Uh, no. But I would say I would say

>> you don't think it's a fallacy

>> perhaps. But the point that I was trying to get at is that just just Alex Jones says these things not because he needs to get this off his chest or he wants to be an entertainer.

>> So you're just saying what his motives are.

>> Okay. Well well what do you think his motives are then? Help me help me understand Alex Jones. You're friends with him.

>> I've listened to Alex since 2003 and I've noticed him consistently over the the years reference many texts that we lecture through on my channel. So it's become a mainstay what I do is to kind of take all those books that he references over the years to check to see if he's legit and if he's saying the right things. And most of what he says I would say 90% of what Alex has said over the years has been accurate in terms of the big geopolitical perspective. There are minutia areas where I would disagree particularly with who he who he brought on during that that time period of Sandy Hook that was not properly vetted.

>> Uh but when it comes to the big geopolitical stuff most of the time I disagree but there's been areas where I disagree with Alex over Trump. So, I don't have a problem disagreeing with Alex, but I don't think that Alex is ultimately overall a bad person. I've met him, known him, you know, personally for many years. So,

>> okay. I mean, I base that on some other things that I'm not gonna talk about here on the show, but people that have known him very close closer than you even. Uh, but we can leave it at that. Uh, I know this entire debate isn't isn't But if you do want to talk about Iran, I'm happy.

>> Let's dive into Iran, even though you both agree maybe there's some slight

>> I won't be taking Alex Jones out to dinner tonight, I guess, is what I was trying to say. Go ahead, Sean.

>> Okay. you want to start off with Iran and how you feel about the US getting involved, how you feel like Trump's done um with that relationship.

>> Uh yeah, so this is an issue that I've uh dealt with for many years. I've had a lot of debates publicly with Muslims for about eight years straight. Some of we've debated most of the top Muslims, I think maybe junior, a future Muslim debate that we're going to do.

>> Um so I'm very familiar with like the background of, you know, Sunni versus Shia Islam. Um I'm decently educated on the history of Iran. And I think the big issue with Iran is that this is really just a repeat of 1953 with the CIA coup where they took out you know Mosedc to put the Shaw in. Then you had uh the Shaw failing and you had uh Ayatollah Kashani being brought in with British intelligence and CIA assistance all ultimately for Anglo Iranian oil company which would become BP. So I think that from the very beginning this was a destabilization a regime change that was brought about for the purpose of a big corporate interest in Iran. I think it's really not that different today. If we fast forward to where we are now, it's a lot of repeat of what we saw with Iraq, uh, which was, you know, false intel, weapons of mass destruction, which are not true. Um, Saddam was brought, [clears throat] uh, into power by the CIA, trained by the CIA, he's given, uh, weapons of mass destruction originally by the CIA to fight the Iran Iraq war. And then when we decided that he had spoiled like spoiled milk, then we didn't need uh, Saddam anymore. And I I've never been pro-war all the way back to 911. kind of an anti-war pretty much because I think most of the wars are fought

>> uh for interests not in the best perview of the American people. They're fought for corporate and banking interest for the most part. Uh I'm not a pacifist. I believe in self-defense, but um so the same situation with Iran. I think that we've seen uh the administration all the way back to Obama with the green revolution. They were pushing for a kind of a a more democratic ND style color revolution back in 2009 101. Uh but now what we have is a situation where Trump has just uh green lit under I think probably influence from BB Netanyahu to go for a full-on just you know you know taking them out and go back 30 years. I think we were playing the clips yesterday on Hodge Twins where BB is like saying they're two weeks away from a nuclear bomb and then like every few years it's the same two weeks and it's like so it's like two weeks to flatten the Iran was my joke uh on Twitter. Not making jokes about but I mean

>> the same situation where oh it's two weeks flatten the curb and then it's going to turn into protracted war. This is different than Syria. Syria it took 15 years to take down Assad to install uh by CIA and Western support a very radical Sunni regime under Giulani. Uh that's something that was mentioned in the clean break memo. It's something that goes back to Odinan strategy. So uh I think that all of those are a disaster for the West and for America. uh uh they basically only benefit the Greater Israel Project and I disagree with all that.

>> It pains me to say I agree with a lot of what he [laughter] just said. Um not much of a debate there, but I will say this.

>> When Donald Trump was running for office again, he said he was going to be the peace president.

>> The peace candidate. Yeah, exactly. You'll never have war again. Nothing to worry about. Probably the best.

>> That's true. He said that and u he said there would know he's going to be a no regime, new regime president and all that. Tulsi Gabbard testified 10 months ago under oath that there was no reason to believe based on our own intelligence that they were furthering their nuclear capabilities. We were told eight months ago oblivated, I believe is the word. Obliterated, I'm sorry. Obliterated uh their nuclear capabilities. Then we heard it was regime change. And then when they figured it out, well, wait, we're going to have to have boots on the ground if there's regime change. Then they said, well, these civilians need to rise up. Yeah. The hell does that mean? Uh then Marco Rubio in some terminology was blaming Israel and I agree by the way with a lot of the stuff you said about Benjamin. I am listen I'm a Jewish guy.

>> It's not anti-semitic to to uh be critical of the Israeli government. I've maintained that position. I am very anti-Israeli government. I am very pro-Israeli people. I think they're great people, but I'm anti Benjamin Netanyahu who plays Donald Trump like a fiddle. Then we were told by Marco Rubio that Israel, you know, forced our hand. Then uh we had this school bombing and Donald Trump it was a tomahawk missile. Iran doesn't have tomahawk missiles. Everybody knows that and he blames Iran.

>> Mhm.

>> Does he even know that they don't have tomahawk missiles? It's it's this guy is such a madman and he's such an imbecile and Pete Hexath is they don't take responsibility.

>> We're told this is the party of protecting children and now we're told well this was about the Marines and this was about attacking the ships. I agree with what you said about Iraq. That was an ill-advised war. Thousands of American soldiers died. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died. Trillions of dollars that were still paying off.

>> How is this any different? Are you disappointed? You voted for Trump. I know you're not defending this war, which I appreciate.

>> Are you disappointed in your vote? Kla Harris would not have start You could have your criticisms of Kla and that's fine and we can get into that.

>> I'm not saying she was perfect. She would not have started a war in Iran. I do not believe this war would have happened.

>> Well, you know, it's similar to, you know, a lot of what Obama campaigned upon. We saw Obama campaigning as a peace candidate back in the day. We saw him then reversing with the drone strikes that he was involved in. So, I I didn't have high hopes for um politics to be anything other than what than what it usually is. I was involved in uh you know promoting Ron Paul back in 2007 and 8 Rand Paul campaign and and I saw back then the way that Ron Paul was sort of sidelined and kind of kept out of the political discourse and so my vote for uh Trump was mainly based on a lot of the policies that he supported which are kind of older '90s centrist Democrat type

>> America first though right Jay

>> sure you think is some of some of these policies are America first

>> no I'm saying what he campaigned on and I'm saying

>> so he campaigns on a lot of things that he lies about we're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for I'm saying that I disagree with the the main areas that my my main issues are that I can think of with Trump. Um I think Warso was a huge failure. I think that was a mistake.

>> Uh I think he did that probably at the behest of a lot of pharmaceutical and corporate interests. That's my opinion on that.

>> Uh I think that it was a mistake to um to talk a lot about the Federal Reserve and not really to go after the Federal Reserve. I think that's a huge problem for the country for the economics and uh and then also to promote the war uh for Israel's benefit. Really, that's I mean those are the main things off the top of my head that I can think of with Trump.

>> Those are big things.

>> Well, I mean those are my main those are my main

>> those are pretty important things. Don't you think?

>> Again, I'm not I'm not a Trump apologist, but I I'm an issues person. What I'm saying is that since 2007, I was really disaffected with mainline party politics.

>> What about rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin in Alaska? What about no concessions? What about the fact that Russia is giving intel to Iran right now and Trump? They just don't seem to want to talk about that. They've had pleasant conversations in the last week. Rolling out the red carpet. He blamed Vladimir Zalinski. He called him a dictator and he blamed Ukraine for the war. Let me tell you something. If Iran had invaded Israel, I might feel a little differently about this war.

>> Well, here's where we disagree, right? No, I would be anti- Ukraine for sure.

>> Who started the war in Ukraine?

>> Uh NATO.

>> No, that's not true.

>> It is true. Vladimir who invaded all the way back to 2012. NATO was provoking Russia and they did not keep to the the agreements during the Cold War about not expanding NATO.

>> Okay. Who invaded Ukraine?

>> Uh again provoked Russia to invade.

>> Okay. I didn't ask you who provoked who who invaded matters.

>> Who invaded Ukraine?

>> Russia provoked [clears throat] was provoked.

>> Who started the violence?

>> Who put the uh the

Put the bolabs all around? I could provoke somebody to murder the bolabs. Hold on. I could provoke somebody to murder >> geopolitics is false analogy. >> Okay. I can provoke somebody to murder somebody. But I'm not asking you who provoked. I'm asking you who committed the crime. >> Put the bolabs all around Russia as a offensive provocation. >> Nobody forced Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. >> It is a forcing. I disagree with you. Well, again, that Ukraine is actually historically Russia anyway. And it was only Ukraine after Lenon and after World War I. Okay. So Jay, >> so it's not even a real country. It's a country didn't start this war. >> It's a country that was created by the West and by communists to sever that center of power. >> I understand. I understand history. I understand. But Ukraine did not start the war. >> They did not start the war. I disagree. Okay. Well, >> I think that NATO and the West provoked the war so that then they could say, >> you think Zalinsky is a dictator? >> Uh, in many ways he acts like a dictator. What Persian he persuades Orthodox Church and shuts it down. So Zalinsky started the war and he's a dictator. You agree with Donald Trump? >> He didn't start the war. >> Well, Donald Trump said that. Was he lying? >> Uh he may be speaking about for for political reasons. He didn't start the war. I think NATO started the war. Yeah. >> Don't you think it's kind of important if you're the president of the United States to not lie? >> No problem criticizing Trump, [clears throat] but I I will defend the fact that I don't think that Russia started the war. NATO provoked the war. >> I can tell you this. >> Has NATO expanded since the Cold War? >> Well, I No, but I can tell you that. Well, hold on a second. Let me just go back. They've been putting bases and biolabs that that came out that the Pentagon admitted. Yes, there's biolabs in Ukraine. >> But that still doesn't defend. It's not a defense for Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine. >> It's a provocation. >> Okay. So, do you think >> people if let's say people if they started coming into your property and they were saying, "Oh, well, uh, you don't have a right to, you know, react because, you know, we're not actually causing you to react. We're just coming on your property." So, do you think it's appropriate >> for an evil, murderous dictator, which is who Vladimir Putin is? I would hope that we could at least, even though we disagree on this, >> you would agree with me that Vladimir Putin doesn't have a regard for human life. He kills journalists in his own country that disagree with him. If you talk about Vladimir Putin on the phone, there have been instances where you're massacred. He kills. He's an evil dictator. Can we at least agree on that? >> Uh, I mean, I don't I mean, all heads of state operate in a similar way. The US assassinates people all the time. So >> can you tell me where the US assassinated? So a lot >> Oh, yeah, all the time. Ukata is a famous famous journalist who was assassinated in Germany for talking about the CIA infiltrating and using German uh media for Western purposes. And so whether or not Putin himself had the journalist assassinated, I don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised because a lot of journalists are actually also undercover as spies. So >> if anybody listened to my show for 30 seconds, if I was talking about Vladimir Putin that way in Russia, I [clears throat] would be murdered in the United States of America. Even though Donald Trump is trying to take away our first amendment rights to criticize him. He does it all the time. He calls people like me vermin and the enemy within um we still have the right in this country to our first amendment to criticize politicians and the president in Russia. You will be murdered if you do that. That's what makes him a dict. That's part of what makes him a dictator. And the point I was trying to make was was that Donald Trump has and I'm not saying you're a Trump apologist, but Donald Trump has rolled out the red carpet for an evil dictator on American soil. To this day, no Russian sanctions. In fact, they've blamed Ukraine. Now, I know we we I guess we disagree on what's going on uh in Ukraine, but Donald Trump's foreign policy is a joke. The world is laughing at us right now when it comes to tariffs. The 175 billion dollars that he stole from the American people and and and now we were told we were going to get tariff checks and now it's turned into well, you can sue us if you'd like to. Uh, I can go policy by policy with you. ICE I agree that because I'm sure this is a topic that you talk about a lot, which is immigration. I am pro border security. [clears throat] >> I want people to come to this country legally. However, I don't want people that have been in this country for decades that pay taxes that have families here sent to an El Salvador prison. That's happened. Not everybody was nonviolent, but the majority of those people, I think it was over 60% of the people that they sent to an El Salvador prison were nonviolent criminals. I don't want people murdered in the streets. What happened in Minneapolis is a travesty. What happened to Renee Good and Alex Prey is repugnant. It's terrible. And then you had Christine Noom, who is no longer there now, who called them domestic terrorists hours after these shootings without a full investigation. >> Uh and and by the way, the evidence proves it. That's why they took that Bovino [ __ ] out of Minneapolis and they, you know, took out two or three thousand troops. Listen, violent criminals, 90% of the country, Democrats and Republicans agree. If you're a violent criminal and you're undocumented, deported. Absolutely. I'm on board with that. But I have a serious problem with a party that says, "Come on into our country. Just do it the right way. Do it legally. We don't care what the color of your skin is." Which is the party that has made it more difficult for people to become legal citizens. In some cases, it takes 10 or 15 years for people to be naturalized. The Democrat party has tried to come up with a way to make it easier for people to get a pathway to citizenship. And meanwhile, Republicans make it more difficult. Let's make it easier for people. I want them to be vetted, but let's make it a little bit easier for people to become citizens. and let's give them some more incentives. And if you happen to be undocumented and you're nonviolent criminal, which I think is important, then you have to pay a penalty, but let's come up with something that works for the American people. I don't think separating families and murdering people on the streets is good policy. And that's what the Trump administration has done. >> I would actually just say we don't need immigration really at all. I think we have enough uh human resource and capital here in the West in America that we don't actually need uh the replacement of the indigenous people. And that's kind of a war crime in my view. This is a known strategy. You can read Kelly Greenhill's book. She's like she writes for Cornell University, I think. Weapons of mass migration. So this is a known geopolitical strategy uh technique to um to change the the people group specifically with Europe. You have the Keri plan. I read Kudnav Keri. It's real. Uh his book practical idealism discusses this explicitly. uh that plan was adopted by the Royal Society to change the demographics of the European Union and then we have the same situation I think in America where you have the uh flooding of the country with um all kinds of third world people to change the demographics not just for political reasons but I think ultimately for long-term uh socialist international reasons. So, we can give a history lesson on immigration and and we can talk about uh the past, but what I'm talking about right now is the future and where this country is at right now. Will you agree with me that the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Prey were horrible? They weren't handled properly. And we had a woman in Chicago who was shot five times, almost died. And everybody in ICE, including Donald Trump, Christy Noom, Steven Miller, everybody based on text messages were praising this guy for shooting this woman five times. They claimed that Miss Martinez was trying to impeding an investigation. And then all of a sudden, when the body camera footage came out, it said the total opposite. And they retracted the charges. Did anybody apologize? No. Are those officers still out there? Yes. >> That's wrong. Can we agree that that's wrong? >> I mean, and I don't doubt that in some of these situations you have absolutely horrible mistakes like that. I would probably agree with that, but and I don't know the specifics of those cases because I'm more focused on the bigger deal. But you're saying but you're saying, "Oh, we don't need we don't need a history lesson." I actually do need a history lesson because if what I'm talking about is true, then there's a longer broader strategy. >> So you don't want immigrants in here at all. >> Uh there's a long we don't need anymore. No, not at all. >> So you want to just close the borders for everybody? >> Yeah. Sure. >> Okay. Well, obviously I disagree with you on that. >> Okay. But uh that's fine. But uh the the reason that I'm saying that is because there is a real long-term socialist strategy to change the demographics of the entire west. And these documents point to that. This goes all the way back to >> what does it matter to you where they're where someone comes from? Uh, what does it matter if >> you don't think people's heritage and tradition makes sense. All the people who come here does affect >> all the people that come here certainly believe that. What does it what does it matter where somebody was from so long as or the color for example if they have Sunni Islamic beliefs it matters quite a bit. >> Okay. But if they're not breaking the law and they're decent people and they're family people why >> it's more it's way more complex than that because for example in Islam they have the idea and the belief that you pretend to be amenable and affable to the society that you're going into and then over time when you gain power then you overthrow them. That's in the Quran. >> Okay. Well, >> so that's one example. >> Do you have friends that are Islam >> descent >> that are Muslim? >> Yeah. >> You have any friends? >> Um, do I have any friends? No. No. R. >> No, that's [laughter] not what I I know you have. >> I mean, I I've interacted with all of the top Muslims for years. >> But do you do you Interaction is one thing, but like do you do you spend time with Mus people of Muslim? >> Um, not really. >> Okay. So, I have and I didn't I didn't say you didn't have friends. That was that I I misspoke. Um, that's fine. Um, but I can tell you that I know a lot of people that are Muslim that live in this country. Uh, maybe a couple dozen. And they're good people. They're nice people. They're family people. Not every Muslim wants harm on America. Not every Muslim is a terrorist. But there are people on the right that do. Laura Loomer thinks that all Muslims should be deported. She is despicable. She is a racist. Now, I disagree with you on the fact that you don't want any immigrants in this country at all. But I will say this. Every single time Donald Trump says, "Make America great again," it always meant to me, "Make America white again." That's what I believe many in his base believe. >> Well, wouldn't that be racist? >> Yes. Yes. >> But you're saying racism is wrong. >> Absolutely, it's wrong. And I'm saying his slogan and a lot of people that abide by his slogan want America to be white. And and I and I I don't know if that's >> You just said what's wrong with the people coming here having >> I don't see anything wrong with people from Yeah. >> What's wrong with them having their heritage and their tradition? Right. >> Well, it depends specifically what you're talking about. But if they're not breaking the law, then let them believe in what they believe. >> What's wrong with people who are white having their heritage and their tradition if they're not breaking the law? >> Okay. I don't have a problem with that either. But what you're saying to me is you don't want any immigrants in this country. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> But I mean, does Japan have to take in third world people? First of all, what makes do they have to that's that's a different country. I'm talking about the United States. What makes America is this a universal principle? >> Uh no. I believe the United States it's not universal. >> The United States of America was found >> in particular just to America. >> Well, we live in the United States. So I I'm going to speak on what I want here in the country. >> So it only applies to people in America. Number one, it doesn't apply to other countries. So it's relative. >> In a perfect world, >> it's arbitrary. >> In a perfect world, is it arbitrary? I'm answering you. In a perfect world, I would love the entire world to operate in a state of live where you want to live, have the religion that you want, and I don't want people to be judged based on religion or single. >> So, Japan should take third world >> in a perfect world. >> Should they? >> In a in a perfect world, I would want every >> You want to talk about this world? So, should they in this world? >> Yeah. I think everybody across >> every country should take in immigrants. >> I think at untold amounts infinity >> as long as you're vetted properly. Okay. >> In infinity. Well, I mean I mean listen, um I come from a different cloth, I guess. And in my personal opinion, I don't care what you look like. I don't care what the color of your skin is, >> unless you're white. >> I don't care. >> No, you're not letting me finish. No, it has nothing to do with that. I want >> So, it's a double standard. >> No, it's not a double standard. You're not hearing me out. I don't care where you're from. You could be white. You could be black. I don't care. You could be as 100% white like me. >> I want everyone to have the same opportunities as long as you're vetted properly. Yes, I do want border security. I want people to be vetted. But the difference, the fundamental difference here is I don't care where you're from as long as you don't have bad intentions. >> That's great that you don't care about that. But that wasn't the question. The question was about the ethics of an entire country taking in uh massive amounts of other third world migrants. That was the question. >> First of all, it it's dependent upon are they coming in the right way? It's dependent upon are they properly vetted. It's dependent upon where are they going to go? Are they going to be able to provide something to the United States tools and skills that they have? That's part of the vetting process. So, as long as you're doing that properly and we don't have bad people, which I don't want. I don't want bad people coming here. I don't want people that want to do harm to America. I don't want rapists or child molesters or quite frankly people that you support like Donald Trump. I don't want people like that in this country. Uh, and if they're properly I'm being serious, though, I know it's funny, but I'm being serious. I don't want people like Donald Trump here. Orange people like Donald Trump who are 34count felon liable sexual abusers. people that you support like Donald Trump who's named thousands of times in the Epstein files who you know I mean I don't want people like that in this country. I don't care what the color of their skin is like you. I don't care where what country they're from. I don't want people in this country like Donald Trump. And I can give you multiple reasons why >> you voted for a 34count felon. You voted for a liable sexual abuser. Why are you so worried about people from other countries coming here when the guy who you support the president of the United States >> like a fallacy machine? >> No, it's not a fallacy machine. It's logic. I don't Well, you don't actually know what fallacies are because you demonstrated that earlier. You didn't know what appeal to masses was. >> I know I know what someone who is a threat to this country looks like and I know what someone who is not an immigrant. >> You think that massive amounts of people should be able to come into the country. So, I don't think you actually have a good assessment of what threats are. I don't think you have a good your situation would allow for the complete disintegration of this. >> I don't think you have a good assessment of what's good for this country and what's not. You want you you want our borders >> your assessment was based on just purely subjective what you want. >> You want our borders to be closed. You don't want any >> that would be good for the country. So countries that have >> he's voting for Donald Trump but voting for Trump's good for the country. That's good for the country given what he starting ill what he campaigned on. Yes. >> Yeah. So yeah, but he's not doing that. He's who cares what this guy >> that's irrelevant to what you calling me out for for voting for what he campaigned on. >> You want good people. >> You're trying to associate me with a bad guy again, which is >> Well, yeah, because you support him and you voted for him. You have no problem supporting a >> with his policies already. >> What about his behavior? You want good people in this country. You don't want migrants. >> Politicians uh have crazy behavior all the way back. >> Name another politician uh that's ever been the president. That's a 34count felon. That's a liable sexual abuser. Please give me one example, Jay. >> Uh well, I don't know the number of felonies. >> Because you couldn't find that. Because you couldn't find that. Bill Clinton, I don't defend Bill Clinton. You can try the the what about. >> I mean, I'm not what about you asked me how would that be a what about to answer your question. >> Was Bill Clinton a 34ount film? >> I didn't say he was. I said there is probably nobody with 34 counts or whatever. Yeah, you voted for that guy. >> Well, you ask me an absurd question to give a specific person who had 34 felons, which obviously there's not a person that admit that. So, >> with respect, I think it's absurd. >> Okay. >> When you say you want our borders closed and you don't want coming here, why? Because >> Well, when I ask you for the other countries, >> we were founded, I'm telling you, we were founded by immigrants, >> but not with loved about this. >> So, you're going to go back to the founding. Does the founding allow for open borders? >> No, I'm I'm giving you my my full explanation. We were my my personal opinion is that I want >> so it's relative. >> It's the land of opportunity and I believe that if you're vetted and you you know you're not a criminal, >> we should give everybody the opportunity to succeed in this country, you go through the process of becoming a legal citizen. There are a ton of immigrants that have come to this country that have done so many great things for this. >> But that has nothing to do with what I was arguing. >> Well, I mean, you just want the borders to be completely closed, which I think is absurd. Okay. I I'm I'm sorry. I just >> but the countries that do that seem to do well. >> I just disagree with you. I just I just think that and again um you might not like the comparison I'm making here, but I think it's important. >> You seem to have a concern and you think it's bad for the country to have immigrants coming here. >> No. Infinity immigrant. >> Yeah. Well, again, you know, I I think uh maybe there needs to be something put in place, but but you've made the case that you don't want immigrants here at all. You want to close the borders completely, >> right? It's not needed. >> Yeah. Well, I mean there's a lot of things that you might think is not needed, but how does that affect you negatively if immigrants are coming in? >> I'm not arguing for what it effects mean personally. I'm just I'm bad for the country in general. And countries that have homogeneous populations that keep to their traditions and their heritage seem to flourish and function better than those that are demographically changed. Hence why I was referring back to the older strategies of the war college and others that have written about how to do demographic replacement uh which is a form of warfare. You think immigrants uh all undocumented immigrants that are in this country now should all be deported? >> Yes. >> So people that have lived in this country for decades that have children here, how about anchor babies, do you think they should be deported as well? >> Uh I would I would want the law to be changed on that. Yes. >> So you think that if you're a a three or a four-year-old child that was born in this country, they should be deported? >> Unfortunately, yeah, >> you do. Okay. Well, I think that's extremely harsh and I disagree with you. By the way, if you're seeking asylum from a country, you know, from Mexico, for example, and you're going about it the right way and you filled out the right paperwork. It is illegal for the Trump administration to deport you. Do you understand that they're doing that right now? >> It is against the law and they are they're going against what our constitution says. It's happening right now as we speak. You have ICE agents outside of courtrooms when they have filled out the proper paperwork. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, I think these you're focusing on minutia of bad situations that happen to individuals in masses of tens of millions of people when the overall uh net negative for the country is more important than the minutia and uh you know, one person is is a, you know, news story, but the statistics of millions of people get forgotten. So, it's more important for the long-term benefit of the country in general than to highlight as the left often does. I'm not saying you're a leftist, but they highlight specific cases to do emotional appeals. And so like you've done in this debate, it's a lot of emotional appeals which are also fallacy. >> I don't think it's emotional to say that the president is ripping up parts of our constitution and breaking the law. >> Breaking the law is an emotional. >> Those are emotional appeals. >> Does it say that we all have uh what does it say in our constitution? Does it say every citizen has the right to due process or or any every person? What does it say? >> Uh off the top of my head I don't recall, but I was I would assume I would assume it's citizens. >> No, you're wrong. In our constitution, it says any person has the right to do process. This is [clears throat] really fundamentally important. >> But but they also didn't have the idea of infinity open borders at the time. >> Again, you use the term infinity, but you said you don't want any immigrants coming into the country. So that's different than infinity. >> My solution to infinity is the closing of the borders, >> right? You want the borders closed and you don't want any immigrants coming in. And the point that I was trying to make is if you care about our constitution, which I hope you do, I do as well. >> It says in our constitution, our forefathers, it says not any citizen has the right to due process. It says any person and as much as you >> but a person also can be a lawb breaker and people that are here illegally >> Absolutely. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean they don't have the right to due process. That's what it says in our constitution. >> Well, yeah, I wouldn't have a problem trying to vet and do uh due process. >> But they're not doing that, Jay. >> Well, that that's I'm sorry. I mean, I didn't I didn't def I didn't defend that specifically. You just now asked me about that. >> Okay. But you're saying that any child that is born >> I said specifically highlighting certain emotionally charged cases is neglecting the bigger problem. And that's what the left tends to do in this topic is highlight the emotional appeal topics about this child or that child which is unfortunate >> but it's not the big issue. The big issue is is I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, I'm saying in philosophy an emotional appeal is where you cite a specific example and then you expand that to the totality and say that on the basis of how you feel about this specific example, you should sway your opinion. So the reason it's a fallacy is it's not actually based on the logic of the situation. It's based on what what you feel like war propaganda does this where they say, "Look at this child. He was killed in the war. Therefore, be against the war." Well, >> I'm just talking about our constitution and the law. >> No, you weren't. You were [clears throat] talking about specific emotionally charged cases. No, I was specifically talking about what it says in the constitution. >> Well, first you talked about the emotionally charged case, then you asked me about the >> I'm asking you about and I was responding to the law which states if you are from certain countries like Mexico and you're seeking asylum and you come to this country and you fill out the proper paperwork and you're in the middle of that process and you show up in front of a judge, it is illegal >> for the Trump administration to deport you. And the point that I was trying to make is this isn't a one-off or a couple cases. Thousands of people have been deported in the middle of the paperwork process where in our own constitution it says they cannot deport you if you're seeking asylum from certain countries. It's against the law. That's not an emotional argument. It's the law that's being broken. >> Thousands of cases versus 10 20 30 million people that are here illegally in the last few decades. That again it's that's highlighting something that's not the main issue. So it's more important to to save the country than to be overly concerned about >> I don't think these people are are ruining the country and our country needs to be saved. In fact, >> I disagree. >> Okay. Well, do you have a better chance of being the victim of a crime from an undocumented immigrant or an American citizen? >> Uh depends on where you are. I go to certain places where there are no >> there's going to be more crime in certain cities, but as a whole, and you could look this up, FBI statistics, you have a better chance of being the victim of a crime from an American citizen than you do an undocumented immigrant. I think that's very important to note because a lot of people think that brown people and undocumented immigrants coming into this country are going to rape your kids and they're going to kidnap your wife. It's just not the case. There are examples there are examples of undocumented immigrants that do horrible things. I want those people deported. I don't want them here. But the overwhelming majority of these people that are coming into this country that are here already, >> many of them, you know, that are undocumented are not bad people with bad intentions. I want bad people uh thrown out. >> True, but it's still illegal. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. So it's against the law. >> Yeah. So you think so your your opinion is if you break the law, there should be consequences. Is that a fair assessment? Sure. What are the consequences for Donald Trump, the man who you support? [laughter] >> You're laughing, but it's >> Well, I mean, because you're trying to pay me as if I'm some sort of like I support every single policy. >> This isn't about policy. This is about consequences. >> Well, now you're changing between when I told you I was an issues person, you say I'm a Trump apologist, which you admit earlier. >> I did not say you're a Trump apologist. You said the man that you support and I'm like no on specific issues issues person. >> Okay. So let's talk about this >> and I already agreed that I >> let's forget about the fact that you keep bringing up the stuff that we >> because it's hypocrisy. You want people held to the highest Hold on. I I'll explain to you what I mean. And I'm not I don't think you're a Trump apologist. I don't think you are. Based on the 20 minutes I've known you. I don't think you are. >> But you want people to be held to account if it's somebody by the way it's a misdemeanor if you come into this country illegally. It's not even a felony. But but you want people to held to the highest extent of the law in this case a misdemeanor. Okay, fine. >> I believe for the for the maintenance and and safety and health of the country because I think the country will collapse. >> Do you do you agree with me? I disagree with that. But do you agree with me that we should have that same standard held to the highest people in power including Donald Trump? >> Yeah, I think every nobody should be immune to u to or above the law. Sure. Would do you think that standard has held up when it comes to Donald Trump and the 34count felony felonies that he was found guilty of or the Jack Smith case? Uh January 6, let me ask you another question since we're talking about the law. Um do you do you think January 6th happens if Donald Trump doesn't lie about the 2020 election? >> Would January 6th have happened? >> Yeah. If Donald Trump didn't lie, which clearly it was a lie. I don't care what Alex Jones says. Uh if if if Donald Trump didn't lie about the 2020 election because he didn't win, does January 6th happen? >> I have no idea. >> You have no idea. All right. Hypothetically speaking, >> you asked me a lot of questions. I want I want >> Can I just touch on this real quick? >> Sure, but I want to do some interrogation as well because you ask me a million question. This is fine. Go ahead. You can ask me anything you like. >> Last question, Brian. Last question. to this issue. >> Uhhuh. >> You're telling me that if Donald Trump did what every other president did in American history, which was conceded, which he didn't do. You think January 6th still happens and people are trying to overthrow a free and fair election? You can't answer that question. You don't know. >> No, it's just an argument from silence. I don't I don't know what would have happened had this major event not occurred. So, it's >> So, if he conceded and did what every other president did, you still think January 6th happens and they stormed the capital and they're saying >> I'm saying I don't know what would have happened. Maybe it's Maybe it's less likely. >> Who won the 2020 election free and fair? >> Uh, I believe there was manipulation, but I think most elections are manipulated. >> Okay. Who won the election free and fair? Did Joe Biden win a free and fair election? >> No. >> Is there any evidence of widespread voter fraud that you can share with us today? >> Uh, this is my opinion. I don't spend a whole lot of time focusing on voter fraud or voter election issues because I'm not really into day-to-day politics. But um studying the history of the CIA, the way it works, I think that they can easily tap into their techniques for regime change and and throwing elections. They did Donald Trump in dozens of >> Did Donald Trump win the 2024 election free and fair then or would you hold that same standard and maybe Kamla won? >> Uh I no I think that Trump had overwhelming popular support. >> So So it's only free and fair if Donald Trump wins. But >> I just gave you my opinion on >> based on what though? There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud. He had chances in a court opinion on how the CIA rigs elections, but uh that's all that court, but go ahead. >> Um, so a lot of what you've argued, you keep saying my opinion, my opinion, my opinion. I'm just curious like where on what basis ought we go with your opinion >> on what? Which opinion? >> Every topic tonight has come back to your specific >> Well, be specific on what what uh what topic >> in general on the on what basis ought we to choose your opinions. Well, first of all, it's not an opinion, >> but you said >> that the Trump administration is breaking the law. I've already clearly said, >> why no, why ought we do this or that for the country? For example, you said that we ought to have uh certain types of uh immigration that's legal and this and that. I'm saying you this was my opinion, my opinion, my opinion. I'm saying why ought we do that because you didn't apply those things to other places like Japan. So, why ought we only go with your assessment? >> First of all, the United States of America is not Japan. Uh number two, >> so why ought we choose that for here? >> Well, because I care about the country that I live in more concerned about the United States, the country that I >> are the ethics relative or are they universal is the question. >> As I've said, I wish that every government across the world shared the belief of we are going to vet you properly. >> We ought to follow your ethics because you wish it was the case. >> No, I just don't care what the color of your skin is or where you're from. If you're a decent person, I welcome you in my country. I think it's a pretty fair logical >> ought we follow your position because it's logical. >> Um, why ought we follow not being a racist because that's kind of what what I'm following. >> Why is that wrong? >> I think if you don't want anybody from any other country which is what you have said you want our borders completely shut down. I believe that is unamerican. >> Okay. >> Okay. The beauty of this country >> is that we have the freedom >> and others have the freedom to make something of themselves wherever they come from. And I think that's a beautiful thing about the United States. I can't speak for Japan. >> Why ought we follow that though? Because you because you like it. You think it's beautiful. >> Why? >> This country was founded on that. Our freedoms. >> I mean, many country Many countries are founded on all kinds of things that are stupid. So why not? >> Your reasoning is the country is going to go down the crapper if we >> That's a twoqu that's that's your reasoning behind it. And I >> Okay, so fine. My reasoning is dumb, but I want to know why we have to follow yours. >> Dumb. >> I'm just saying I've been seeing it is okay. Why ought we follow yours? >> Uh because we have been following it for decades. And I think we're the best country in the world for for a very very long time. >> That's a circular argument. So we ought to follow it because we've been following it. >> Uh we follow it because I do believe as a whole immigrants have a lot of benefits to the United States of America. >> But you're not telling me why we ought to follow that. >> Well, uh produce jobs that immigrants take that most Americans are not willing to take. Working for wages that and Americans they help the economy. There's no question that it helps the economy. >> Why are those things? So, in other words, you're assuming that there's this good that you have access to that's the basis for >> different cultures I think is good. I think I think learning different cultures and uh I think what's made America great is being a uh for for lack of a better term uh a mix of different colors in the crayon box and being diverse. I think diversity is a good thing. Um and I don't I >> So there's a standard of the good which originally was what you said was your opinion and you think that it works and this and that. What's the standard? >> Brown. Do brown people scare you? So now you're asking questions when I >> Well, yeah, because I don't understand your logic to this. You said America's going to go down. >> You're deflecting away from the fact that your positions are subjective. >> I'm not deflecting. >> Are they relative? Are they subjective opinions? >> Um, not based on on crime and statistics and and the benefits uh that the economy uh has towards towards ethics. Are they subjective? >> Yeah, but I was talking about the economy numbers. >> The ethics, not the numbers. >> What about the ethics? >> Is your ethics subjective and relative or is it objective? Yeah, I think there are people out there that could disagree with me that are maybe don't like brown people. I think there are people out there that have different opinions that think that brown people are are terrible to the country. >> I guess I guess you could make the case. I guess you're not understand. >> I guess you can make the case it's subjective. I guess you can make that case. I mean, some people could say the clan isn't racist. I guess that's subjective, too. You could make the case subjective. You could make the I know what subjective means. I know what it means. I understand what it means. And this is See, this is Sean. >> I'm not sure you do. So, in terms of relativism and eth and and epistemology and ethics, what is that? What do you think that means? >> This is Okay, I'll answer your question, but this is this is the Andrew Wilson approach. >> Um, >> well, I've been doing this debate for 25 years. >> I know. You can be doing it for hundred years. It doesn't mean anything to me. It means dick. Okay. So, let's continue the conversation. >> We don't have to have a basis for ethics. >> No, no, no, no. This is a word game that you're trying to play with me. >> So, all done with all philosophy and ethics are word games. >> Uh, you can say all racism is word games, too. The point that I'm trying >> for the good and you're saying it's a word game. So your position is based on >> I've told you you're not listening. >> First of all, it's a benefit to the economy. >> Why is that? That's begging the question. What's the good? >> Why is it a benefit that it people help our economy? >> You have a reference to the good in all of these assertions. And I'm asking you, what is this good? Because you just keep saying then you said admitted that it's subjective and it's relative. Well, in that case, then there's no reason to prefer to profer that on anyone else. >> Well, I would ask you the same question. Why is it bad? I don't believe in subjective ethics. >> Okay. Well, why is it bad for the country? Why are immigrants bad for the United States of America? Why do you want to close? >> I already argued that because uh a massive influx of other people that are not indigenous to this population replaces the its demographic. >> Don't we have a first amendment right to believe in what we believe in? So, you want to take the first amendment right? >> You want to say that your ethics comes from the constitution and that's fine. You want to take I'm asking you though uh people that are in this country that are not from America >> you don't believe they should have a first amendment right to believe something differently than you when it comes to religion or beliefs or >> you you misunderstood the question. So the question wasn't are there people who have different positions or do they have a right to different position. The question was what's the epistemic basis you have for your ethics which was purely subjective. >> Yeah I mean well then I mean >> so if it's purely subjective then in a debate then you've conceded >> but no I've not conceded anything. What I'm trying to tell you is that when it comes to immigrants that are in this country and your ethics is relative. I'm talking about legal immigrants. I can give you statistics that show you that it benefits. >> But you haven't told me why we ought to follow your position. >> I'm telling you because you don't want our economy to be boosted. You don't. >> No, you don't understand. The question is about why ought we follow it, not just to restate what the position is. >> Why ought we follow it? Because it's relative. >> Why should we? Because you've already said it's relative and subjective. >> Why should we not close our borders? And why does Brian believe that we should allow people from other countries in? As I've told you before and I'll tell you again. >> So again, it's a higher level order of questioning that's about the basis for the ethics. Not to restate your position again, but why ought we follow your position when you then admitted that your position is relative and subjective. >> Uh I I've told you that I don't think immigrants coming into this country as a whole are bad for the United States of America. I've stated my position there, >> which is based on the good, but we don't know what the good is. >> Well, I I've told you already. It's a benefit to our economy. I believe diversity. >> But that's just restating your position. So why ought we So you're saying what is the case? This is the case. This is the case. But why ought we follow your subjective relativistic argument? Because when you come to debate and you admit that it's relative then in well then there's no reason to follow it. >> Well, listen, you come from the cloth of you want our borders to be completely closed and we can play word games. The reason why you are and the [laughter] reason why relativism is >> the reason why I disagree [clears throat] with you instead of getting into a phil philosophical debate which I'm not here to do. I'm telling you that in my personal opinion it's my opinion. I don't have a problem with anybody from other parts of the world from different cultures and different backgrounds and different religions coming into this country so long as they're properly vetted and we know they're not criminals and they have good intentions. I don't think that's a threat to the United States of America. Now, you do. You think it's bad for America. You think it's a threat to America. I disagree with you. I've given you multiple reasons why. First of all, a lot of these people are good for our economy. They're hard workers. They want a better life for it themselves. I think diversity is a good thing. I don't want everybody to look like you and me. I think diversity is good for the country. Now, you can say, well, you know, that's just your opinion and you're not you're not basing it on anything. Well, you can base it on the crime rates. You could base it on how it benefits our economy, the financial numbers. There are a lot of different ways, you know, why should we follow? >> All of those things are assertions about what are the case or fact. >> Well, tell me, why should we follow you? Why should we follow you? I've answered your question. You might not like my answer. Why should we follow you? And why should we close the borders completely? >> If the ethics that you prefer are relative and subjective, then in a debate, that means that anyone can just state the exact opposite and it's just as legitimate as your position. To me, this isn't about winning a debate. This isn't about This is It is We agreed to a debate. >> Okay. But to me, when I come to a conversation, it's not about playing word games. It's not about talking about philosophy. >> Why would you think it's a game? Hold on. Hold on. I don't understand. Hold on. Hold on. Because that's what we're doing now. >> Um, I want you to explain to me why it's so bad. >> So, you just don't

want to get drilled into your position to give the basis for it. It's not about me being afraid of anything. It's a word [clears throat] game. I want to know why. Your position is based on the good and then moving to the good. It's just relative, bro.

I gave you my reasons why I think immigrants coming into this country as a whole. Well, that's just like your opinion, man. I'm telling you. Well, yeah. That's what this entire thing is about. It's about opinions.

That's not what I'm about. Okay. Well, you you can have a different way of talking to people and you have that right to do that, but I don't play that game. So, I'm asking you why why do you want the borders closed? And why do you think immigrants all over the world are so bad for America? Tell me why.

I argued and explained that earlier that the demographic replacement of a people group is a form of genocide and warfare. So, just like I would just No, I said mass amounts of infinity immigrants, not legalized immigrants and not reasonable, sensible numbers of people. Sure, that makes sense.

But that's not what you said earlier. You want the borders closed. You don't want any immigrants coming. saying now that's the case. I think a wise decision now.

So right now you think it'd be a wise decision to not allow anybody [clears throat] from other countries come into this country legally because you think there would be genocide.

No, I said that bringing in infinity amounts of people is a form of genocide. It's demographic replacement and that's what I disagree with. So that's why I would say that the present policy would be wise to completely in immigration at this stage.

So people that are on student visas, are you would you be against that as well? It's it's I'm talking about the masses of of people and so yes, all of it. I mean, a lot of the, for example, Chinese uh foreign exchange students, a lot of those people are spies anyway. So, yes. So, all of it.

So, didn't Trump say he wanted to bring in 600,000 Chinese because I think that was a mistake because in his first administration, he said, "I want to cut off these uh Chinese students. A lot of these people are Chinese spies. Probably not wise to do."

All right. So, so I guess so. Again, I disagree with Trump reversing on that. [clears throat] That's, by the way, that's another one I disagree with.

Okay. Let's wrap up immigration. Okay. Yeah, I really don't know what else to say. Obviously, I disagree with him. Uh obviously, uh I want people to be vetted properly. I think there's a lot of good people all over the world that make America great. I have a lot of uh friends that come from other countries, uh wonderful people. I have friends that are from the faith of Islam. Um I don't come from the cloth of of judging somebody by where they're from. I judge them on their character. Uh I think Alex Jones is is is just as much of a threat to the United States of America. I think Donald Trump is just as much of a threat to the United States of America than the overwhelming majority of immigrants that come to this country. You ask me, I think we should deport Alex Jones. I think we should deport your buddy to Gaza. I think Alex Jones is a piece of [ __ ] I think we should deport Donald Trump to Gaza. Think he's a piece of [ __ ] These are people that you surround yourself with. This is people that you vote for. I think those people are far more dangerous to the United States of America than a lot of the people that you're talking about that you don't want here. That's my personal opinion. I think there are bigger threats in the United States of America, people that look like you, than anybody that looks brown that comes into this country. Uh, you know, hopefully

Racism was wrong. What's up? Racism was wrong, right? Yeah. How am I being racist? Well, you just divided up your assessments on the basis of racism. Yeah. Because you are very concerned. Racism is wrong. Yeah. Absolutely. Racism is wrong. I have no problem with white people. You're doing a racism right now. No, I'm not. I'm doing orange people. I don't care what the color of skin Donald Trump is or Alex Jones is. Yeah. because you seem to be having a problem with people that come from other backgrounds that differently than you. I think that there are people, all sorts of people of different colors. But racism is also subjective or is it morally wrong? In general, racism is terrible. It's wrong. It's horrible. Everybody, anybody who's a racist. So now you're not a relativist, a subjectivist. When did I ever say that it's okay to be racist? It's another word game. No. What do you either so either something is relative or it's objective and now racism is objectively morally wrong everywhere but your ethics was relativist and subjectivist so you just I've been very very clear and I'll make it very very simple for you racism is wrong on what basis and that was subjective on any basis no what is your basis when you judge people okay based on their skin color when you judge people and treat them different is that universally morally wrong I I believe so Yes. Okay. But now you're not a relativist or subjectivist. Now you're believing in moral universal claims which you said isn't really possible. The point that I was trying to make, Jay, which is it subjective or is it objective? I'm going to give you the the easy background. Is it subjective or I'm going to answer you, but I'm going to give it to you. Well, you're going to yap to get around the question because either it is. No, you because earlier your ethics were subjective and now they're universal. So you can't have both. It's my opinion that when you So it's not universal. So it's not universal. So you just contradicted. So it's not a contradiction what I'm about to say. It's universal. It's not universal. That's a contradiction. What's your definition of what racism is? That's a what about? Do you think it's universal? Quick way. Is it universal? What's I don't I mean I don't know even what racism is technically. So you don't know what racism is. Is that a serious statement? It is a serious state because when people define it, it gets defined in a million different ways. And for example, well your situation, you just did a racism to me. No, I didn't. I'm a bipok person. So I see that. black indigenous person. I'm sure you are. Um, and how dare you so you would want you to be deported then? Um, so let me be clear on this, okay? The reason why I said people who look like you is not an attack on all white people. The reason why I said that is because of my races. The reason why I said that, which I think you're struggling to understand, Jay, with respect, I'm just having fun with it. I don't I mean, I don't think there's anything funny when it comes to racism. Um, but racism is subjective, but also again word games. No, this is just a contradiction. Can I call you in? So wait, word games are so if I say a and non a is that a word game or is that a contradiction? So here's the point that I hold on a second. Calm down for a second. Don't on me. Calm down. So logic is word games. Relax for a second. Is logic. The point that I was trying to make was that you seem to think that if we allow a lot of immigrants coming into this country, Infinity brought up. Yes. It's bad for America. But the point that I was trying the point that I was trying to make is people like your good friend Alex Jones and people who you voted for like Donald Trump to me are probably more of a danger to this country than most immigrants that are coming into this country. But yet you want to be concerned about all these people all over the world that you claim are going to cause a genocide. You assume you assume that I had no other concerns. But I mean, but why is Donald Trump or Alex Jones more of a threat to the country than millions and millions of Well, first of all, first amendment uh first amendment free speech. He attacks people like me on a daily basis with lawsuits, civil suits, uh against you, uh yeah, towards people in the media in general. Uh media members in general. Um when you look at the Pentagon press briefings, I can give you an example there. I know people that are way on the right. uh they don't allow people like me at these press briefings and they don't allow people in Pentagon press briefings unless they're right-wing idiots and if someone gets in there that is on the left or in the middle Pete Hex does not call on them that is against our democracy to begin with anyway I think that's a joke when you look at the White House press briefings and we're just talking about the media right now you asked me about the media when you have idiots like Jack Pobic um and listen I think Tim P I don't think Tim P's an idiot but I think Tim P would agree he's not a journalist he's a talk show host Just like me, talk show hosts and opinionated people should not be in that room. That's not about opinionated people. That should be about strictly journalists doing their job. And I find that an attack on democracy as well. I think that is a threat to democracy. It's a threat to this country. It's a threat what happened on January 6. It's a threat that he still has yet to concede an election. That was not stolen, by the way. There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud. You cannot uh you couldn't articulate that. whatever you said about the CIA or the FBI or whatever you said. I said I had an opinion on you're acting like I couldn't articulate. So all of a sudden now it's okay for you to have an opinion. But if I have an opinion on that, you're playing words. I have the justification for your I asked for the justification for your morals, which is not okay to just have an opinion. Okay, it's fair enough. What's your justification that the 2020 election was stolen? Let's use your same logic. I don't have a hard position on that because I said now you don't have a hard position. It's my opinion based on my justification. Why do you keep interrupting me when you ask me? But because it I don't need a justification for my assessment. That's an opinion. It's a different type of question than what's the grounding for your ethics. Well, I don't need my justification for an opinion. I guess I guess I could use the same logic that you just used. For ethics, not for opinion. Ethics. Again, what about our just case for ethics can't be a mere opinion. Yeah, that was the argument. Now you're conflating two different pos two different uh questions. Okay. By the way, I don't believe in democracy. Democracy is [ __ ] So, you don't think we should have elections? I I think that elections have been kind of a joke for a long time. So I I just don't really care about them. So it doesn't matter to me whether there's election. You don't think we should have elections in this country? Uh I'm I'm more of a I'm more of a monarchist. I believe in monarchy. Okay. Wow. I I didn't expect that. Um you don't care about democracy. I think democracy, like Plato said, is [ __ ] So [snorts and clears throat] democracyy's What do you mean it's gay? Fake and gay. [laughter] Can you help me understand something? I guess we could have a little fun here. I feel like words of MAGA supporters, they use homophobic slurs. I'm not saying you did that on X to attack people. I don't understand that. It's like the way an 8-year-old talks. But but Brian, what do you mean democracy is gay? It's just a joke, dude. If ethics are relative, then I just have a different ethic. But okay, so democracy is gay. Baking gang. Can you you that should be the the title of video. [laughter] So people on social media, some are saying you're a fascist. I didn't say that, but some people on social media are saying that. What would you what would be your response to that? Uh, yeah, I've done a lot of critiques of fascism on my channel. Again, Christian, Orthodox Christianity is not fascist. It's had a history of being monarchist. So if you think that fascism is monarchy, that would be a big historical mistake. Fascism is the joining of the corporate interest together with the state interest. That was Mussolini's definition. Mousolini was originally a socialist leftist who became a fascist. And so, uh, I do think that the history of fascism is bound up with, um, corporate corporatism, and I'm opposed to corporatism. So, I would actually favor a minimalist government that is a form of hierarchy. I haven't said this, but there are people that have accused you of being anti-Semitic. I have not heard anything that you've said in this conversation that would lead me to believe that. Why do you think people say that about you, and what are your thoughts on Jewish people in general? Well, again, I think uh guilt by association. If you go on a podcast of somebody who's critical of Israel, you'll immediately be called a Yeah, I don't think that's anti-semite. As I I'm just saying that you're I'm answering the question as to why might somebody say that. Um I do I do believe that uh the Talmud is uh not good. I don't think it teaches good things. You're a religious person. Mhm. Okay. So I'm giving the answers about uh I I think that uh Zionism was originally a socialist quasi religious movement from Him vitesman, Theodore Herzel, Moses Hess uh and I disagree with Zionism, but I think that uh as an orthodox Christian, we have a duty to love all people. And so we can't hate anybody or specifically pick out certain people, but I do think organized crime syndicates like BB or Jeffrey Epstein should be opposed. But I don't make sense. What does that have to do with Jeffrey Epstein's religion, though? I don't make sin genetic was what I was about to say. Okay. What are your thoughts on Jewish people in general? I think that again we have a duty as Paul says in Romans 11 to love and to pray for the conversion of Jewish people. I think religion is bad for people by the way. Um I think I think in general terms billions and billions of people have died because of their religion, because of their religious beliefs. Um yeah, but what's wrong? What's wrong with that? What's wrong with death? Uh murdering people's kind of if morals are subjective. There's nothing actually wrong. Uh I think murdering people uh and killing Not actually. It's not a universal moral wrong. It's just a personal subjective. Yeah. Well, I think most people would agree murdering is probably not good. Probably not a good thing to kill. That's a fallacy because appeal to masses is a well I'm not going to debate that because it's a you know murder. You want to keep using fallacies. I'm just going to call it. It's not Listen, appeal to masses. You can try to call it what you want. All I'm saying a lot of people have died innocent people because of their faith and religion. And all I'm saying is you're stating what is first of all it's a genetic fallacy. So because these people People haven't died because of their relation. You know what a genetic policy is? Yes, I do. But answer my question. Answer my question. I asked you first. You don't know what it is. You keep ask you keep asking try to to try to I don't But if you're making bad arguments, I have a duty. If we were playing chess and you kept violating the rules, like I would have to say you can't move the pawn like that. No, you're right. Listen, Jay, you're right. Calling democracy gay is a great argument. You're very intelligent. Okay. Well, it wasn't very funny. Um Um Do you care? I'm serious though. Do you care about our democracy? Do you care? Uh, again, I I would like to see America flourish and do well. I don't have any hopes for democracy. I think democracy is a term that's weaponized and used. The CI CIA kind of used this in the Cold War. I don't care what the CIA about history. I'm asking you about your opinions. I do care about history, but I'm asking you about your opinions right now. My opinions come from history and from the books that I read. So, we shouldn't have elections. What book What book did you read that said we should have election? I just said that I don't have a lot of faith in elections. I didn't say we shouldn't have them. And where's your evidence that our elections are being rigged or stolen? I said that the CIA has a long history of rigging elections in foreign countries and general record. So that's why I don't have a lot of faith in elections in general. I think that at the local level people can do a lot more effect they can be a lot more effective in terms of politics than national elections. I mean, unless you're a lobbyist, unless you're part of a pack, unless you have billions of dollars really I don't see that's that's national politics. I understand what you're saying and I would have a problem with that. I understand what you're saying, Jay, but I'm an evidence. I'd like to think of myself as an evidence. Okay. All I said is is But everything I said is not even controversial. Okay. But but Jay, you are not willing to say that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. And my question I said I have an opinion on that, right? You said you have an opinion. And most people that have an opinion base that on actual and I gave you a reference. You didn't give me any specific. I don't think you'd understand the difference between when people have an opinion that they have as a theory or an assessment that they don't have a hard position on versus when they have a hard position. So I have some things that I have hard positions on. Okay. But when somebody tells me that they believe that the election might have been I said it's an opinion based on the way that I know about how the CIA [clears throat] works. That's my opinion. So your opinion is the election might have been stolen because you're based on the way the CIA works. Correct. If you present it in dozens of other countries rigging elections if you are present they rig the elections in talking about other countries that's different well that's the precedence for why it would happen here we're not Iran okay if we are actually okay if because the way the deep state that you asked about at the beginning the way they operate in other countries is the same way that they operate let me try this a different way if I'm a judge right now and your case that you're making that you believe opinion that Joe Biden didn't win a free and fair election what evidence would you be able to present to me other than I know how the CIA works which is not evidence by the way. Well, it is evidence. Okay. Then where is your you have to have something called wide precedence. Okay. You have to have something presented to a judge called widespread. But I didn't come here with a hard opinion again on the 2020 election. So you can have an opinion based on no fact at all. I didn't say note again. You're lying about whether I had uh So tell me, give me something that makes you believe that Joe Biden because I believe that there's a breakaway security establishment that is the quote deep state and the same way that they rig elections inside. I don't care what it sounds like. That's again a fallacy of association which you said you're not going to do. We should keep going. Well, you sound like Alex. You're saying that the That's a fallacy of I'm sorry that you can't do the nuance, but that's a fallacy. You're making a claim that the election. Okay. an opinion that are there things that you have opinions on that you're not hard set on based on based on some theory or gut. Sure. So if I told you that So then why are you trying to grill me on something? If I told you that I have an opinion that Donald Trump is a criminal, I would give you actual cases and evidence to prove that he is a criminal. And my argument was actual cases of dozens of countries where the CIA rigs elections. But I'm not talking about other countries throughout the United States. Yeah, I know. But I'm saying that that's how it would have functioned here. Okay. Can you not get that? So you believe the way the CIA has allegedly rigged other elections countries they do this. You don't know that there's dozens of cases. So you believe like in Iran [clears throat] it probably was rigged. How did they do that here? How did they rig it? Uh again the same way that they do it in other countries. Tell me. There's a lot of different techniques. There's a lot of different techniques. How did they rig it here? Help me understand. Again, it's my opinion that they rigged it probably with pallet stuffing. They can bring in they can Wouldn't there be evidence of ballot stuffing though? Wouldn't you have cameras and footage and dude I don't have a hard opinion on this. So I don't know why you're trying to debate me on like if I had a hard opinion I would say okay I'll be honest with you. I'll tell you why. It's a theory. I'll tell you why. The reason why I'm grilling you on this for lack of a better term is because there is zero let me repeat zero evidence of widespread voter fraud. Does [clears throat] the idea that in other countries that Hold on let me just finish my thought and then and then you have the floor. But do they? Um, there is zero evidence of widespread voter for that. The same position. It's not a position. It's a fact. Earth is not flat. And Donald Trump did not win the election policy. You're just trying to associate. Well, no. I'm just showing how ridiculous your argument is. It's ridiculous. Say that it's No, it's not because I'm saying because you know how the CIA works and they other they do that in other countries. I'm sure it's happened in the past, but that has nothing to do that. So that's the precedent for why I have the suspicion of 2020. So you don't so by your standard you don't believe in any elections. You think any election [clears throat] is every election. Now you're giving a a straw man. I didn't say every election is but 2024 wasn't real. That's a straw man. Okay. So 2020. Yes I do. 2024. Did I argue that all elections are Do you know what evidence is? I can play your word. Yeah. Do you know what evidence is? Do you? Okay. No, I don't. Okay. I can play your stupid word games, too. The 20 The 2024 The 2024 election. You want You keep saying games. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. So, I want to know if the law of non-contradiction, is it a word game? I'm asking you a question. I don't care. I've answered all your questions. Is the law of non-contradiction a word game? Hold on. Hold on. You just say everything's a word game. The 2024 election was not I have a suspicion. Okay. But the 20 You want to debate a suspicion? So, the 2016 election where Donald Trump won you admitted the CIA does this in other countries. So, why are you grilling on a suspicion? I don't have the knowledge of that. So, in 20 which you said it probably did happen. Maybe I don't know. Okay. Well, that's my that's my precedence. Final point on this. I'm not making that claim. All I'm simply saying is in 2016, you believe Trump won. In 2024, you believe Trump won. But it's very interesting that you retort back to the CIA as the reason why you think Joe Biden suspicion, dude. Right. Joe Biden didn't win because you have a suspicion. Okay, I'll let the based on something that you said is possible. I'll let [laughter] I'll let the listeners decide. I want to ask do so if if I say a is the same thing as not a do you think that's a word game or is that the law of non-contradiction? No, I think you're a hypocrite. I think when you use these words and you have these opinion No, I think you're a hypocrite. That's an ad homonym. Okay. No, I wouldn't I I'm not name calling you. I wouldn't say that. But I think Okay. Well, because you say certain things like for example Okay, fine. You think I'm Let's say for the sake of argument hold the same standard. I'm evil in every election. Let him ask. Is a the same thing as non a is that a word game? Is the law of non it depends what we're talking about. Is the law of no I'm asking you about the law of non-contradiction. That's what we're talking about. Yeah. Is that a word game? It depends on the topic that we are referring to. Is the law itself a word game? Dep like I said I'll answer it. Is the law do you know that there in logic you study laws right? What about you think those laws are word games? The laws of logic. Um, depends specifically what you are referring to. The one called the law of non-contradiction. Is that a word game? What about it? No, I wouldn't say that. Okay. Thank you. Not necessarily. So, I'm not playing word games. Uh, but you are a hypocrite. You use a different standard for Donald Trump. You do undoc argue that Donald Trump was uh had a different standard. I actually specifically said that he should be held to the same standard. I don't think Well, that doesn't mean that that's again had nothing to do with what I argued. No, I think I think it has a little to do it. But I do find it interesting. That's not what I argued. When Trump wins, everything must have gone fine in the election. But if Trump loses, the CIA must have been involved. That's an Alex Jones conspiracy theory. That's not what I argued. That is a conspiracy theory. I know what's going on in the CIA. And I don't think Joe Biden say I know. I said I had a suspicion on past evidence and examples that you admitted. So if I said I have a suspicion, but you admit it's all possible. If I said No, if I said I You did. You said the CIA You said the CIA could rig elections in other cases. don't know. I don't have any knowledge. You said it's possible. Uh what I do know is that you said earlier it's possible. What I just because I say something is possible. Okay. Then that's my that's the I didn't say that you did. That's my suspicion. So you just have a suspicion. Sure. With no evidence. You want to grill me on a position. I just [clears throat] think it's it's it's Okay fine. It's hypocrite. But there's nothing wrong being a hypocrite because ethics are relative anyway. Yeah. You guys land off with the files in the deep state or what do you file? Sure. We could talk about that. Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely. You want to go first this time? Go ahead. I'll be a gentleman. You'll let him go. I'll let him [laughter] go first. Um, what's the prompt? Are they Are they real? Are they good? Are they bad? Like, yeah. What would you want to I guess you mentioned Trump's in there a lot, but do you have a hard take on that, Brian, on the Epste files with Trump? Sure. I have some very strong opinions on it. So, you start off. First of all, a lot of MAGA Republicans and even members of Trump uh Trump's well not before his administration. A lot of people that were around Trump campaigned on this the deep state and Hollywood pedophiles and then they had those binders as you know Jay uh Jack Basobic was one of them. I called him out for this and Pam Bondi made them all look like clowns. I agree. Um as you know there's still See, we might agree on this one. There's still three million Well, let me just start with this foundation. You agree with me that what happened to these kids is horrible and people should be held to account, right? to this day the only two people I think there there were a few more arrests right overseas but uh Jizlain Maxwell and um Jeffrey Epste are really the only two people in this country that have been held to account correct what does Donald Trump do Well, the first thing he does is says his former personal attorney Todd Blanch to interview Maxwell couple days later she's sent to a club med facility gez I wonder why they she's still there by the way and when she was asked as you know uh I think it was like a month or two ago she she pled the fifth and she said she'll only answer the questions if Trump basically gives her a pardon. Trump had nothing to say about that and he hasn't ruled out a pardon for her. Donald Trump is mentioned in the files that we've already seen partially thousands of times. In fact, Donald Trump is mentioned more in the Epstein files than Jesus Christ is mentioned in the Bible. Um he doesn't want us talking about it, Jay. He calls people like you and me stupid for even talking about the Epstein file. Even talking about it, my I've been very consistent whether you're a left or a righty, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, I want everyone held to account if you're in those files. Release everything. redact the names of the victims. Uh if Bill Clinton did some horrible things, fine. Hillary Clinton testified. Bill Clinton testified. Why isn't Howard Lutnik testified? This is a guy, this is a guy, as you know, a month ago who said he was never on the Epstein Island. And then a couple, right, of course. And then he lied about it. Trump doesn't want him to testify. Why isn't Donald Trump testifying? If Hillary Clinton, you know what they the Republicans did? They set a precedent. Now Melania should have to testify. She was closer to Jazain Maxwell and Jeffrey Epste than Hillary ever was. So, do I know for sure 100% if Donald Trump committed any crimes in there? No, I don't. I know there are accusations, right? But what I do know is that this is a huge cover up, huge cover up. Um, I want people held to account. Um, this is a huge cover up and that I do believe a portion of the war in Iran, a portion of it is a distraction. I agree. Um, so that's kind of like my Yeah, I uh I covered this pretty extensively on my channel. We live streamed, I think, uh, every day as these were beginning to sort of, uh, drip out. We did about 30 hours of live stream. People can go check all that out where we sort of, uh, archived everything. I thought that was pretty substantial that came out. Uh, I do think absolutely that the rest of the of the file should be uh, released. There should be total uh, you know, they should redact everybody but victims. Absolutely agree with all that. Um, I do think it was a huge huge uh mistake to cover this up and to not allow uh not to push for this to be released when this was a campaign promise. So, um I'm having a hard time figuring out where where we could disagree on this one. Um totally agree. Huge blunder as big as uh any of the other Trump blenders. Um what would it take for you to ad regret your vote if if something came out in the EP? Well, to be honest with you, my vote was just kind of anti. Yeah, you could say that. What was it about Kamla? I know we're kind of because we're we're going to agree on the Epstein stuff. We're not going to argue about that. Only because only because I agree about her. Only because I agreed with what were the majority of Trump's campaign promises. I get that part. Let's talk about Kamla for a moment. I don't really Is there anything about her like you just said I just can't vote for her because of a goober? What in what sense? Like what do you mean? She's a goober. Just in that sense. Define Goober. Like I just mean I don't take political people that seriously anyway. [clears throat] So, um, but is there something about her that said I can't I can't vote for her? Like, what was that? Are you wanting me to say that she's a brown person? That's [laughter] what I believe. Jay, that's not why I'm asking question. Jay, that's not why I'm asking. No, I'm asking the question. I wonder about policies you didn't like. Obviously again the the positions as I said that Trump campaigned upon uh you know no new wars reigning in uh the the more about his promises more than an anti always an issue person but I definitely think that even if Donald Trump went full neocon which I always had the suspicion that he could turn neocon uh I felt like that would it would still be a better bet than Camala but I don't even think that that national what I'm getting from you is it was more of Trump's promises that you thought he would keep which I don't know. Well, it was it was like if I'm going to have to choose between these two, then uh I'm going to at least agree with these campaign promises. But I also don't believe politicians actually ever even if they keep half of their promises, that would be he ran on basically on two things in 2016. He ran on we're going to build a wall in Mexico is going to pay for it. Obviously, that didn't happen. And every campaign stop, he talked about locking up Hillary Clinton and he was going to hire a special prosecutor. So, what would make you think that he was going to keep his promises this time around? Uh, perhaps the the potentiality that he had a lot of u ignorance and naivity about who he staffed as his as his uh as his people. So, there was a lot of neocons, a lot of people that betrayed him. And so my hope was that if he saw that Bolton and these kinds of characters were sort of duplicitous that he might actually take actions to quote drain the swamp and actually not have a bunch of lobbyists and and you know type people. Let me finish it. The last thing I would say is that also I think it had to do with he campaigned originally on not taking GOP money and then I I suspect that there was that he did take GOP money in 2016 and that's why you had so many neocon appointments to his his staff and then I sus I had hoped that uh in 2020 that he would learn from the first mistakes and perhaps at least attempt to not based on his age and where he's from he hasn't learned from any of his mistakes. I would also say unfortunately it seems that way now. Yeah. Jared Kushner when he took 2.1 billion dollars from the Saudis. Donald Trump with his crypto scheme scandal. I disagree with all those. Yeah. Eight times uh more wealth now than he had when he first got into office. I mean, I don't know, man. Uh my whole take on this whole thing and and like I said, we're not going to uh we're not going to disagree on on the Epstein stuff. I'm glad we that's a really important thing. I'm glad we agree on that. Um is that I went to Trump rallies and I was criticized nationally for [clears throat] saying it felt like a clan rally. Now, that might be extreme language. I don't believe everybody that goes to a Trump rally is racist. I don't believe everybody that goes to a Trump rally is a clansman. But in a way, the way you talk sometimes in a joking fashion, right? Um 99% of the people were white. I went to a Kamla rally and it felt like America. It was very diverse. I saw Confederate flags at Trump rallies. Uh I saw a lot of hatred uh [ __ ] Joe and the Hoe uh shirts. Um, it was just like just a lot of hatred, man. And I've never said, and I've never grouped all Trump supporters as one. I wouldn't put you in one. I've never done that ever, and I never will. But I will [clears throat] say this, I don't think uh everybody who voted for Donald Trump is a racist. But I do believe everybody who was a racist voted for Donald Trump. Um, I strongly believe that. And I I could go with policy. Listen, you haven't done this, but a lot of people on the right call Kamala, they've called her a [ __ ] She slept her way to the top. I haven't heard you say that. I'm not accusing you. I didn't even remember that, but I remember people saying that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not accusing you of that. I want to be clear. But well, I'm trying to sleep my way to the top so I could be hypocritical for [laughter] me to call that out. So, that's funny, actually. See, you made me laugh. You're funny. Um, but you know, I hated that rhetoric. You know what I mean? Here's a woman who um she became the attorney general duly elected twice. Even if you disagree with her politics, that's fine. Um, this is a woman who became a senator and then a vice president. Uh, wasn't wasn't my first, second, or third, but let me be very clear. How about this? She's a woman. That's that would be an area where I don't want her in politics. Why? Tell me why. Seriously. Uh, yeah, sure. You don't want women Why? Tell me why. I want less women in politics. Just like I would want less immigration. Um, I don't think women are uh fitted for that. I don't think they're made for that. Why? Tell me. What's your Why would you say women a woman can't be a politician? I don't think they're made for that. Why they can do What are their characteristics that would lead you to believe that? Uh, women tend to be more emotional. They tend to uh not make their decisions based on facts, reasoning, and logic. Typically, doesn't mean that all I don't know that was funny. Like, are you married? Because if you have a wife, like Does that have to do with the question of whether or not it would be good? I'll tell you what, because you're making the case, which I disagree with, that women are more emotional, uh, when the man who is probably more emotional, 10 times more emotional, I would imagine, than most women that are in office right now, who has nicknames for people he disagrees with, he puts on eight layers of orange makeup when he That's all a bunch of comedy. I mean, Trump's a Trump's a comedian. So, the stuff you're talking about there, so you want a comedian to be president over a serious person who happens to be is a serious person. So, you don't think you don't think Kla is a serious person? No. Why do you say that? Again, I don't think most politicians are serious people. I kind of see politicians in general. She's got a law degree. She's a good mother. She's got I see politicians as like well, what's the old uh the adage is that uh you know, politics is Hollywood for ugly people. Okay. So, hold on. You don't think you don't think women should be in elected office? What other jobs do what other jobs do you think are on the front lines? Uh what if they pass a physical the same physical that a man passed? Well, none of them have passed the Navy Seal physical. I'm not talking about Navy Seals, just in general serving. You don't have to be just none of them will pass it. Wouldn't that suggest that they're physically different? I believe that if a woman is able to, and by the way, there are some women that are that are able to pass a the same physical standards that a man pass. Okay. So, why would you have a problem with them serving? Because the the exceptions don't make the norm. I mean, I think that's kind of common sense that just because there are exceptions. We wouldn't want that to be the norm. Why not the norm be just pass this one generic uh uh test that all genders have to pass? Why wouldn't that be why wouldn't that be a good norm? But the test and most women not passing that test would make my point that men and women are fitted and made different they have different It's a case by case basis though as far as physical ability I think you would Again, I agree that you know there have been for example frontline soldiers typically have not been women and there's a reason for that. So, you don't think women should be elected officials? Uh, because they're quote unquote emotional. They're too emotional. Shouldn't be the norm? Um, you don't think that women even if they pass the basic physical that a man has to pass, they shouldn't be able to risk their life. Shouldn't be the norm. I said I know that you you you're not listening. I'm listening to you. The norm, but why can't the norm just be one basic standard physical because that's not all that it is. There's also a push. There's a social engineering push to get, for example, all women in America to go to college, to become career women. I think that's a bad idea. I think women are made to be at home. So women are made to be at home. A lot of people would call that a misogynist statement. Okay. Women are made to be at home. Should women be allowed to vote? Again, I don't think voting I think voting is is dumb. So, okay. But we but what ought to be I didn't ask you what your opinion on voting was. I'm just saying right now where we out of Do you think women should be allowed to vote? Uh I don't think voting makes sense in general. So it doesn't seems like an irrelevant question. You don't like voting, but I don't think women if you want a simple answer, women shouldn't be involved in politics or geopolitics or any of that. It's not what they're shouldn't be allowed to vote. So they're made for being at home. They're just made for being at home. So

Women shouldn't be out there in society, in the office place. They shouldn't be able to have their own careers. They shouldn't be allowed to be teachers and doctors. When, when you make that attempt to make that a norm for society, it undoes society.

So, without getting personal here, and I don't mean to be personal, you're a married. Well, I'm, I'm not trying to go there with you. That's why I'm asking you first.

You're a married man, right? So, you tell your wife if your wife wants to have a career, she wants a job. Maybe she wants to do what you do. She wants to be a podcaster. You would tell her, "No, your your job is to be."

We do that together, so we have a good dynamic. If she said, "That's great. I'm happy to hear that." But if your wife said to you, for example, you know, um, Jay, I've been thinking, I really want to be a teacher or a doctor. You would tell her no.

Typically, careerism, no, is not good for women. So, women shouldn't have the choice.

There could be, there could be. I also recognize that we live in a world that's not that's not that way. So, people are forced into situations. So, I don't blame them for what they were taught, what they were indoctrinated with growing up. But, I don't think that that's the best way for women to live.

No, but that's your opinion. Why not let? That is not my opinion. Why shouldn't a woman be able to decide for herself what's good for you? Why should I decide for them?

They can do that in this society, and I think they can observe the negative effects of doing that. My view is based on traditional Christian morals. So that's why that's the.

So Christian morals say that women shouldn't be allowed to have careers? Generally. Yeah. Jesus Christ would have said that women shouldn't be allowed to have careers? Correct. Proverbs 31.

Okay. Well, uh, again, I, I, I'm, I'm unaware of Jesus's teachings of saying that women shouldn't be allowed to have careers. Jesus appointed St. Paul, and Paul says that women are, uh, made to be, uh, subject to the husband and to have children and to be at home. So Jesus appointed Paul to teach.

What if a woman doesn't want to have a child? They don't want to have a child. Yeah. If they don't want to be a mother, and they just want to, they want to be a career person. Is, is that wrong?

I mean, again, you have the ability to do that, but again, I'm [clears throat] saying that I don't think that. But in your world, you don't think they should have that ability. Uh, well, I don't have the. I don't think that we have the ability to enforce some sort of like, uh, Handmaid's Tale situation.

Of course you don't. But in your world, you would want women. But I also believe in, I believe in a degree of freedom in society.

What about all the women that are teachers, professors, very successful doctors, surgeons, brain surgeons? What about all the women in this country that are? What does that have to do with what? That's like saying that because people do things that these women are not qualified because they're too emotional? I said that they shouldn't be the norm.

It shouldn't be the norm. Right? So, for example, I know one woman who is extremely, uh, proficient in history. She knows geopolitics very well. She's an outlier. So, it's not the norm for that domain for women to be in that.

The fact that we have that in modernity and that it's common doesn't mean that it ought to be the case.

This is why I don't live my life based on religion. I don't live my life. Live it based on subjective what just? I don't live my life based on what something is said in a book. I'm not a Bible thumper.

But it's just based on what Brian says. Um, no, it's, you're just based on what Jesus Christ says. Well, that's a better basis than just what Brian says.

I would, I would first of all, I would respectfully disagree with you. Jesus, that Jesus Christ, uh, doesn't want any woman to have a career and be forced to stay home. I think that's a misogynistic opinion. In my. Well, I mean, can you give a place in the Bible where Jesus implies that that's okay?

I don't live my life. I don't live my life. But you said Jesus wouldn't say that. [clears throat] I'd like to think that. Where would Jesus say that? So, Jes, so you're telling me in the Bible say. Paul says that, who was taught by Jesus and Jesus.

So women should stay at home and they shouldn't. You made the argument that Jesus wouldn't say that. So I'm asking where? Uh, well, I'm asking you where does it say? Why are you asking me when you made the assertion?

Well, tell me what's, where does it say, where [clears throat] does it say in Jesus says to Timothy that women should not be teachers and that they should not be outside of the home. They should be at home. Okay. So, I would have to take a look at that.

It's in First Timothy. But, uh, you said Jesus wouldn't say that, and I'm saying, but he does say that. So, well, I, I'll tell you what I think about the Bible, and I'll tell you what I think about religion in general. Um, you can believe in the tooth fairy. You don't know if there's heaven and hell. You have no idea if there's a God.

You can believe it. I don't think there's anything wrong with you believing it. I, I actually am not an atheist. I'd like to believe that there's something out there, a higher power. But we don't know. You know, you don't know if there's hell or life after death. You don't know any more than I know. And guess what? We won't know until we're dead. But what I don't like about religion is people that push their beliefs on other people. And I believe that's what you're doing.

But you push your beliefs right now. No. I want women to do whatever the hell they want to do. But you're pushing that belief.

Give me an example of me. Are you pushing that belief? Give me an example of me pushing a belief and forcing other people or treating other people. You don't have to. Pushing a belief does not equate to forcing people to do it because you've been arguing your positions the whole time. My whole position is I want people to live their lives and I want people to do what they want.

That's a position that you're pushing on people. I want people to have the freedoms to have a career regardless of what's between their legs. I don't give a [ __ ] what's in the Bible. I want to live their life.

Okay. But you say, "Oh, I have all these Muslim friends. They don't believe that." I'm going to ask Sean a question. Okay, Sean. So, you're not going to answer this? No, no, no. This is important. This is important.

Sean, I hate to bring you into this. Is it ridiculous for somebody to think, do you disagree with when a man says that a woman should have her place, not having a career, but should be at home? Is that a misogynistic view? Am I wrong in thinking what's wrong with misogyny?

I want to know what Sean is. I trust. He is referencing a Bible verse, so I think he's approaching it from that point. But is, but would you say that's misogynist? And a lot of people would consider. Ethics are relative, so there's nothing wrong with racism or misogyny.

You're telling an entire group of people what to do, what you think they should do. Like you've done this whole debate where you said that every white man in the in America must accept your form of liberalism. I never said that. And I'm not a liberal and I never said that. When did I say?

Well, you're a liberal. You're a classical liberal. I'm a classical liberal. Okay, let's go with that. Uh, and we had this conversation before, and and this is what happens when we have these conversations. But you've been arguing that the people in America should accept your positions. So, you're doing the same thing you're.

I'm not asking you to accept any of my positions. I'm just disagreeing with the debate's over. I thought debates were about trying to convince people of your position. You're not [clears throat] doing that. Are you trying to convince people? I know that I will never convince somebody like you about anything.

You are stuck in your views and your Christianity. That's fine. I'm bad. But what about the audience? Are you trying to convince the audience? I didn't say you were bad. I'm just saying, whatever. Let me be very clear. When I wake up in the morning and I do my radio show, I'm never trying to convince anybody. What you're going to get is my beliefs and my opinions. I don't show up somewhere and say, "Boy, you know, I saw that Jay Dyer guy and he thinks all women should be in the kitchen. So, I'm going to show up to that debate and I'm going to try to convince him that women should have their own careers." The debates, debates are about the audience.

I'm never going to convince you because this is the way you believe, but it's the audience that you're trying to convince. Okay. Well, listen. Anybody who's watching this, chances are if they're a fan of yours, they're going to agree with you. If they're a fan of mine, they're going to agree with me. I'm not obsessed with audience. I'm not obsessed with changing people's minds because in most cases, I think a lot of people that are on the right that are Trump supporters, it is impossible to convince them virtually about anything. Occasionally, I get a caller who calls in and says, "You know what, Brian? I made a mistake. I regret voting for Trump. It could be the Iran war. It could be the Epstein falls, whatever." But I'm not trying, Jay, to convince anybody. That's why we are fundamentally different.

Well, in a debate, you, I am trying to do that because debates are about trying to convince people. That's what that's what a classic debate is. Okay. Well, well, again, when you make a statement that you believe all women, in your opinion, should be in the kitchen, most people would, okay, most people would define that as extremely misogynistic. And let me tell you something, I don't have a problem. Neither do I. But, but I can tell you that if a woman is capable and she's smart, then I have no problem with her being a politician. I think there are people in DC that are women that are very good at what they do. I have no problem with them. I think a lot of people like you didn't vote for Kamala because they're women. And I think that's wrong. And I think that's wrong. And I think it should be about your intelligence and your merit and what you've done in your life. And Hillary Clinton, listen, I didn't even vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But I'll be the first one to admit she was overqualified for the position based on what she's done in her life. Donald Trump is a [ __ ] reality TV show host. You voted for a reality TV show host guy with no, uh, no experience on campaign policy. He was given a half a billion dollar company from his dad when he was like a teenager. This is a guy that was a TV reality star. So if you want to talk about people that are not qualified, I would say maybe we shouldn't put reality TV stars as the leader of the free world more than what's between their legs, which it sounds like you're a little bit obsessed with. I'm sorry. It does sound that way. You would never vote for a woman. It's clear, right? You would never vote for a woman ever, right? Ever, because they're a woman.

We. There could be some extenuating circumstances where there's, you know, less of two evils. That's possible. Okay. Good. If there was glad to hear that if there was a woman running, uh, in a local election that I thought my vote would have some effect on.

Sure. So, you would be okay with a woman being a political. Brian, I said the whole time, the norm, and you wanted to make it like expansive universal claims was just what I said. Well, you made the case, and we could rewind the tape, that women are not shouldn't be programmed. Women shouldn't be politicians.

The norm. That's a generalization that. But a generalization can include exceptions, which I said, for example, emotional. For example, in the case of Nenah, as a friend of mine, she's a PhD in history, geopolitics, translates, uh, foreign languages. I mean, she's an outlier in terms of a domain that's typically male-dominated. I think there's a reason why STEM courses and things like that are dominated by men, geopolitics, because that's the domain that men are better fitted for.

I think in general, every human being is different. Some are more emotional than others. In general, doesn't matter what's between your legs, in my opinion. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are more capable than others. Some people are stronger than others. There's plenty of women that would kick my ass. And I said that to Myron Gaines, who is.

Exceptions. Those are all exceptions, Brian. Okay. But you're making a generalization. You don't believe any women should be politicians. But you're trying to make a a generalization on the exceptions, and I'm doing the opposite.

Okay. But there, every single human being is different. And I don't speak for women, but some women. There's still generalizations. Some women don't want to have kids. Some women don't want to be moms. Some women put their career first.

None of those were relevant to what you asked me was the best fit generally speaking. I mean, listen, going back to my original statements earlier, I don't like government involvement in our lives. I don't. That's my biggest, uh, criticisms of religion is that too many people tell other people I'm right and you're wrong. No, my religion is right and your religion is wrong.

But don't you think in this debate, you think you're right? Um, when it comes to what? Religion. I think anybody. All the positions. Okay. Well, let's, well, let's talk about religion. I'm just saying, like, you don't believe that about yourself. What do you mean? Don't you believe that all your positions are correct? You're doing the very thing that you're talking about when it comes to.

I, let me put it this way. I believe everybody's religious. Even you. You have a religious commitment to your positions. You just don't believe that it's a God. You're basically just your own God. And you're saying that all my positions are what I say, and that's my opinion, and I dictate. I'm not forcing it down your throat. I'm not making law. You don't have to physically force things. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm telling you my opinions of how I feel. You're trying to convince the audience.

You're telling half the. I'm not trying to convince anybody. You're telling you're. No, I'm not. Uh, so you're coming to a debate. You're coming to a debate and not to debate. I'm. Okay. I'm coming to a debate or discussion to tell you how I feel about different topics, how I might agree or disagree.

How you feel about it's a very feminine thing. Well, [laughter] that's fine. You can call me. I guess I guess Jay thinks I'm in the kitchen then. I, you guess I'm not Jay. I got bad news for you. I'm not cooking you dinner tonight. But, um, you're not going to make a sandwich. Everybody, everybody is different. Every human being is different. Everybody has different skills.

What does that have to do with what I already? Because you're making a generalization about women, how they should all be in the kitchen. And I find that to be extremely misogynistic. I think it's. Generalizations are not again on your wrong. It's on your basis.

The women in your life, and I'm just making. If you tell them, I think you, you all belong in the kitchen. What would they say to you if you said that? How is that relevant to? It's another emotional appeal. Because, because I'm curious. This is an emotional appeal again.

Okay. But, but I want to know the people in your life, your mom or or sister or whoever, when you say, "Hey, you guys shouldn't be." My mom was an outlier, actually. She was a very qualified, uh, editor of scientific journals.

I think that's great. So why can't other people like your mom, who I'm sure was a nice person? In this society? They can, but that doesn't mean that it's the best for society. So the question was, what's the best for society? Not can they actually physically do it. So that's two different. Do you think it's best for society to get all the brain surgeons and the teachers and the politicians and every woman?

Say all I said, generalizations typically, it's not the best for society for women to have what are classically male-oriented positions and jobs. Wouldn't that be a case-by-case basis based on the person? No. If you're asking me about what's generally better for society.

What about the individual? Does that matter too? What's best for the individual? Uh, well, I have a Christian ethic and belief. So, I think that that's the best for society and for individuals.

So, I would assume you think that gay people are all, uh, sinners. Uh, you're against gay marriage because of your religion. I believe that those are actions, not a state of being or an identity.

So, you think everybody chooses to be gay? Do you think Richard Simmons was born straight? Uh, because I think that's ridiculous. So, there are many people when they're four or five, when they're four or five years old. I actually had a conversation. I actually had a conversation with George Santos about this the other day. We're actually friends, believe it or not. And George told me he knew he was gay when he was like four or five years old. And, and it's not a choice. And I think a lot of people who are.

Because I talk to these people and they tell me, and they're honest. That still wouldn't. That that's not how you would know that. So Richard Simmons was born straight. I. I'm just saying that I, I'm saying that what you answered with would not prove the way that you know that.

Do you think being gay is a choice? Yes. There, there can be so epigenetic or sometimes. Let me finish. There can be epigenetic or societal factors that can influence people's, uh, proclivity. Sure. But I, I think there's still a degree of human volition involved. Yeah. So let's go with that logic for a second. You think men in society who are once straight wake up one day and say, "Hey, I think I like penis now." That's the way you think it works? You think it's a choice?

I think there's, there's probably in most cases a continual progression of moving in a certain direction. I don't think it happens overnight. Said that you're just a bunch of straw man. I never. No. Well, here's another one for you. I believe that sometimes in society, people hide behind their religion to hide their bigotry. And when people judge somebody based on sexuality, or in this case, what's between their legs, I believe it's a form of bigotry. And you say, "Well, this is what my religion tells me." No, this is who you are. You decide to think that way. You decide to think that if somebody is different than you, I assume you're straight. If somebody is different, if somebody is different.

Decide this, but gay people don't. What do you mean? Well, I mean, if. I just told you agnostic. Couldn't everything be conditioned then to. Could I be [clears throat] conditioned to my. There are people who are. Could I be conditioned to my religion? Could you be? I, I don't, I, I don't know. I have no idea.

So, why would I be held guilty or accountable on your world? Because when I talk to people about homosexuality, you don't even understand the argument I'm making. If, if it's genetic, if it's genetic with gay people, and if my religion is genetic, then why am I guilty and gays aren't? And you're. You think religion is genetic? I'm saying if that's the case in your view. Religion is genetic. Religion is a choice.

I do not understand the word. I do. Religion is a choice. Why can't I be conditioned to my religion? Okay. Because sexuality is different than religion. You see, for example. Why can't I be conditioned? You're an atheist, right? Or an agnostic. You're an agnostic, right? I believe that there's a higher power. Okay. But. It goes back to what I said earlier. But, but if I'm raised in religion from my earliest days, being taught, bapt, say I'm baptized as an infant, let's say I'm brought up in in Sunday school from, you know, age four or whatever. Why would I not be conditioned in the same way?

First of all, I believe that's wrong. My worldview on that is not the question. Second of all, why would it be? Here's why. Here's why. [clears throat] Because I think most people who are gay would tell you. And by the way, I am a straight man. I don't speak for gay people, but I think most people gay would tell you it's a little bit different. The fact that again. Hold on, hold on. It's a little bit different to switch a religion or say, "By the way, I know people in my life." One woman who was a pastor, she's now an OnlyFans model. She's a great person. None of this is answering the question. She made a choice to get out of that lifestyle and that religion and go live her life. Okay. Most people who are gay would tell you it's not just a snap of the finger. If you're born, I believe, gay and you want to turn straight. So those choices are conditioned and they're not actual free will choices. But do. You not believe in biology? My. You're not even letting me finish it because this is a killer for your argument and I never even noticed this until literally in this debate. So you can be conditioned to believe, uh, or to have those proclivities. But even though I go through the exact same situation, I'm guilty for the choice that I made for the religion, which is identical to the conditioning according to you. No. Well, so why is one of them free will and the other one not? I'm going to be very clear again. Here's where I think you're guilty of, and this goes for any religion and anybody. When you judge somebody.

What's wrong with judging? Okay. I think it's wrong to judge people. Well, that's great, but your ethics are relative. Okay. So, when you judge an entire group of people. Because they are different than you, because of what the way they look or their sexuality. That is what bigotry is. What's wrong with being a bigot? Well, I think that makes you an [ __ ] if you're a bigot. Well, [snorts] but I mean, those are just your own personal. Well, you're right. Bigots are great people. That's a great argument. No, I'm just saying that bigots are. No, you're right. Bigots are wonderful people. I shouldn't judge bigots.

This is why philosophy is good because if you learn philosophy, you. This is why religion is bad because he's trying to defend. I didn't make a rel. I never made a religious argument. All I said was that. Judge. Why is it so hard for you to admit that? If my judgments are my conditioning, then I'm not morally accountable on your worldview. Doesn't the Bible say not to judge? If, but if your worldview is correct. Does the Bible say? If your worldview is correct, my choices are my conditioning. So I'm not liable or accountable. Does the Bible say not to judge? It says judge with righteous judgment.

Yeah. Exactly. So you think this is righteous taking all group of people. Yeah. Because I have, I have a consistent basis to judge actions, not the people group. I believe God judges. I believe God can judge people. I don't know what God. Whatever God would know. Then how would you know he judges people?

Okay. Well, it's a saying, okay, but I will tell you, I don't even know if God exists. I don't know. And you need to know. How do you know he judges people? How do you know it's wrong to judge people? A statement as what you would say a joke. How do you know that nobody knows that God exists? How do you know that? We don't know for sure. Nobody knows.

Now, it's a universal claim. How do you know that no one knows? Where's your evidence that God exists? How do you know that? No. I didn't make a universal claim. You did. How do you know that no one knows? There is no direct evidence that there is a God. But how do you know that no one knows? Because no one's presented it. At that point. So, do you know what a universal claim is? Yes. Nobody's presented it. What's a universal claim? Universal claim is what I just said. Which is what? Nobody has direct evidence that God exists. And it's what about all states, all people at all times. That's a universal claim. Sure. Do you have access to universal states of affairs? If you disagree with me, then tell me your evidence that God exists. Do you have access to universal states of affairs? Give me your evidence that God exists. Do you?

You could make a me. So philosophical questions are word games. Even though you admitted that the law of not contradiction does exist, not a word. Your Christianity does go God exists, right? Where's your evidence that God exists? The transcendental argument. Oh, I see. Okay. So, so that's direct evidence. Uh, yeah. It's a logical argument. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully. Um, you have the free will, I'll use your terminology, to believe in what you want to believe in. You have the free will to believe in your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in common with some of these people. I think it's a mental illness. That's my opinion. [clears throat] Now, if you form and live your life based on your religion, you have the right to do that.

But nobody knows if there's heaven or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're making the case [clears throat] that there's a heaven or hell. I'm not making that case. What I'm saying, Jay, is that there might be. Argument for a universal claim. Jay. I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell. I don't know. No, no, no. You said no one knows. Those are two different claims. I don't know. That's the way I answer. Said, "No one knows." And now you're saying, "I don't know." Those are two different things. Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Nobody knows. Going back and Jay. There might be heaven and hell. I don't know. I don't know. Is it? Is it I don't know or no? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can. In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being. How do you know that? Nobody. Because nobody's presented direct evidence. That's why. That doesn't. That's not a proof that no one knows. That just means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that. So you don't actually know if no one knows.

Okay. If you know for sure that. So you're asserting things that you don't know. Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But the fact that they haven't exist, but the fact that they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because you can't justify the universal claim. Jay, help me understand that. You believe that heaven and hell exist. Can you provide me some evidence? I'm waiting for you to give a good argument. No, you didn't. So, I'm ask [clears throat] right now, Jay. Prove me wrong right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your belief. That heaven and hell exist. Please. The argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. My question wasn't about worldview. The argument is a worldview argument. My question wasn't about worldviews. I'll ask it again. My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask me the question, I'm going to respond based on religion. So based on your worldview. I believe that logic is based in religion. Okay. So give me that logic. What is your evidence that would lead you to believe from your world? This is a logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument.

Okay. It's just a belief. I believe in the tooth fairy. It's a logical. And hell and heaven exist, right? Yes. Yeah. Where's your evidence of that too? Because it's part of the worldview. Gotcha. So your worldview, you know for sure. And if I say. I have the highest degree of certitude that one could have. Okay. You can have the highest degree. It doesn't make it true. But. I didn't say it did. We don't know if heaven or hell exists. I don't know. You don't know. But you, and for you to make that claim, I think is insane. But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge that no one knows that, and you can't know that even on your own position. So you're going out, out of the bounds of what you can even do on your world. There is no more e ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev ev evidence that god exists.

That's great that you keep saying that. But. You don't have the evidence. No, but I didn't make the claim that no one knows. You did. Your entire life based on your religion. Your entire life is based on your religion, which I think is a fairy tale, quite frankly.

That's great. But you haven't given an argument for the fair, the fairy tale that you believe in, like free will. I, I have actually. You have. How do you? What's the proof? You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in. I'm not denying you. If I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, maybe I'm just conditioned to think I have free will, and all choices are determinist.

Again, you have. How do you know that free will exists? Okay. What do you mean you have? How do you know that it exists? Because you believe in metaphysical things that you can't justify. You want me to justify? Listen, there's a, there's the problem with saying to a theist that you have to justify it. You believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like free will.

So, Jay, so you don't. You're not going to answer that. I'm going to answer it. Do you believe in free will? I'm going to answer it the way I want to. Okay. Okay. It has to be a good answer. You have the freedom. Well, in your estimation, I mean. No, in anybody's. That's how a debate works. No, I, I. Okay. Well, if you want to use fallacies, you can't. I understand. I understand how a debate, debate works. Jay, just because you've been doing it for 25 years doesn't mean you have to be condescending. So, what's free will? I understand that there's a lot of people on the left that are very nice to you when you debate them, and you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me. So, you don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to you considering the circumstances.

I'm just asking for free. Um, and, and I'm asking you to let me answer in the way I want to answer it respectfully.

to me. Why do you believe?

>> We can keep talking about free will or you could listen to my question. You said that's what makes me liable for my religious beliefs.

>> Jay, just let me get this out. When you, when you use your religion and treat people in a negative fashion because of it, okay? It's bad for society. Now, in this debate, you've talked about what you think is bad for society.

>> You believe in, in tooth fairy things.

>> Okay. I, I was making a joke about that and how ridiculous.

>> No, I'm saying that it's, it's equated to that. It's the flying spaghetti monster is free will is a flying monster.

>> I understand what you're saying, Jay, but in my society that I would like, in free will, Jay, you can believe whatever you want.

>> No. Why should I believe in your worldview and free will?

>> I think if you're a decent human being, you probably should treat people with respect and dignity regardless of whether they're gay or whether.

>> justification for free will.

>> Okay, I'm just telling you right now. I want justification.

>> I want. Well, I'm going to give you my.

>> Just. Okay, but that's fine. But that's not, that's not a good argument.

>> Give you. Well, in your subjective, in your opinion, it's not a good argument. But a lot, I think.

>> No, in logic, if you make a subjective argument, it's not a good argument.

>> In your opinion, it's not a good argument. Okay. But in my.

>> Is it your opinion that everything's opinion?

>> Excuse me. What? Is it your opinion that everything is an opinion?

>> I don't think everything is opinion. There's fact and there's fiction that goes along with it. Like Trump didn't win the 2020 election. That's a fact. That's not an opinion, Jay. That's a fact. Trump did not win in 2020. So, I think you're the one who can't spell the word fact. With that being said, when you take an entire. Yeah. Yeah, I know you're shaking your head. Makes sense. No, it actually makes a lot of sense. Uh, the, the earth is not flat, Jay. And Donald Trump did not win the 2020.

>> No, you were, you were arguing that Trump Trump. You think Trump won the 2020 election. So if you're going to talk to me about fact and fiction, totally straw man stuff that has a straw man whatsoever, it's actually completely relevant.

>> I never argued anything about the physics of the earth. I asked you about free will and you had no answer as to what that is.

>> Again, you're, you're missing the entire point.

>> You believe in fairy tale things. I'm just trying to figure out why you believe. What do I believe? What do I believe that's fair? Tell me what you think free will is, Jay, give me.

>> I believe that we're made in divine, in God's image and we have the ability to choose things freely, morally, uh, good or evil or, uh, this thing or that thing. That's what free will is. Now, I'm just trying to figure out if you don't believe in fairy tale things like God, why is free will any different than a thing like God?

>> I never said I don't believe in God. What I said was.

>> But you said, "I don't know if there is one. We don't know what it is."

>> I don't know whether there's a God.

>> But you said my belief is.

>> Wait, you said what?

>> I never said that there's no God.

>> But then you said my position was fairy tale. Well, what I'm saying is when you make cases and and you talk about homosexuality and you. No, listen to me. When you make those are mutually exclusive claims, when you make generalizations about people.

>> Well, there's no.

>> That are bigoted positions. Well, I think there's something wrong.

>> Well, that's great, but you haven't given a moral basis for why it's universally wrong.

>> Are we not all created as equals, or is that not.

>> No.

>> We're not all created as equals.

>> I mean, am I equal to Kobe Bryant when it comes to physical ability?

>> That's that's athletic ability. Um.

>> Well, that would have to do with creation in our worldview. So.

>> Okay. Well, I thought we were all created as equals. Uh, but maybe.

>> We're equal before law, but not in physical physical abilities. We don't have all the same IQ.

>> Again, um, going back to what we said earlier.

>> Let's wrap this up.

>> Final points. Final points.

>> What's the matter, J?

>> I know it's just uh it's it's just going to.

>> We're at two hours 20.

>> We are going. We are going. We are going a little bit in circles. I I would [clears throat] agree with you.

>> Closing statement, Brian, and then I'll let Jay close off.

>> Sure. Um, I'm glad we agree on um the Epstein files. I think that's extremely important. Obviously, I would never vote for the orange turd. I I disagree with you on um uh you haven't given me really any reasons why other than you thought Donald Trump what he did what he what he said he was going to do here here and here and obviously he didn't do a lot of those things which clearly you're frustrated on. Um, you didn't really give me many reasons other than Kla Harris is a woman and clearly you don't want to vote for women. [clears throat] Yeah. I mean, you know, I I you know, you didn't really give me any reasons for that. Um, the reason why I'm not an extremely religious person is because of this conversation today. Um, I believe especially in Christianity, people make judgments on other people [snorts] based on their religion because people don't look like them or they they don't have the sexuality that they have or they're a woman. I also don't like the fact that women and men are separated in synagogue. I don't like that either. I don't like it in any religion. I'm not. That's why I'm not an extremely religious person. It comes down to me wanting to just treat people the same and with respect regardless of what religion they are. I don't like to judge people even if you're wearing a MAGA hat. Okay? [clears throat] I'm not going to immediately assume that you're a racist or atrocious human being. Um.

>> And I think it's important in society if you want to talk about society falling. I'm less concerned about immigrants in this country documented or not and more concerned about people that judge other people or people that are so upset and I'm I would assume you were one of them that was so upset at what Don Lemon did going into that church and disrupting a church service. Well, okay. I I don't condone people protesting on private property. I think that's wrong. It's against the law. But I find ICE agents murdering people in the streets a little bit more upsetting. We need to have the separation between church and state, which clearly we don't have in Washington DC right now. And I think the people that want the ten commandments in classrooms are people that don't abide by the ten commandments themselves. They break those commandments themselves. Hence the word hypocrite. I did not come here to change your mind or try to convince you on anything. I understand that's your objective when you go to debates. Um, I came here to to give you my opinions, my views on a number of different issues. Some we agree on, obviously a lot we disagree on. I think we've um stopped listening to other people. This is why I do enjoy doing these kinds of things, but I think as a whole, we stop listening to other people, people that look differently than you and me, people that have different pathways in life, um, people that have, you know, been brought up differently in different cultures, different backgrounds. I'd like to think as a whole, most human beings are good people. And then when we have issues and bad things that happen like 9/11 and other issues that the country comes together, even if it's only a week. Um, but this is what I do and this is what I preach and I'm not trying to change people's opinions. People can have their own opinions and judgments about this debate. If you're a fan of Jay Dyer, they're going to agree with you. If they're a fan of my show, they're going to agree with me. That's why I don't really care about that stuff. Other people do. Um, uh, it's just not me. I'm glad, like I said in closing, land my plane. Sorry. U, I'm glad we agree on the Epstein files. I'm glad we agree on some of the Trump stuff. That's refreshing. Um, obviously we disagree a little bit on religion, but here's the difference. Like I would never tell you what to do. I would never tell you what to believe. I would never tell you um that you can't think of something. Even though I might hate the way you think. Even though I might hate your opinions on certain things. I would never say, "Jay, you are not allowed to think like that." Even though I hate the fact that you think women should be in the kitchen, I would say, you know what, we have something called freedom of speech in this country. And if women, you're you're clearly a married man. Clearly, it's working out well for you, I would assume, which which is great. But, um, you know, I would never tell you that you can't think that way. I think that's fundamentally very important. So, anyway, uh, thanks Jay for doing this. I hope it wasn't discussion. I hope it wasn't too torturous for you. And I don't think you're a bad guy.

>> No, it was a civil, lively discussion. Yep. I enjoyed [clears throat] it. Um, go ahead. Closing. Shut up.

>> I would just say uh yeah, I appreciate Brian coming. It was a great discussion. Thank you Sean for this opportunity. It was good.

>> Um, yeah, I feel like uh, you know, there was common ground with the Epstein stuff with uh, you know, criticisms of Trump's turn war in Iran, all that was was good. Um, I would just, you know, again stress that when it comes to debate, my take on debate is that it's more like a chess game. Not in the sense of it being frivolous or a game, but that it has rules and it has boundaries and it has limitations, uh, that define it being chess and not checkers or some other game. So when we come to debate, we have to be able to abide by the rules and those are the laws of logic, which are essentially the laws of critical thinking. The laws of logic dictate debate because that's how we know when somebody's not playing chess anymore and they're doing something else. So we have to play by the rules. I think that Brian didn't play by the rules for the most of the debate when it came to the issues of justifying the morals or when it came to the issues of, uh, say free will being a metaphysical, uh, claim, which again, to me, is no different than the type of claim that God's existence is.

>> So, uh, that's when it gets into the domain of philosophy. So, um, again, I'm not used to political debates. This is probably, I think, my first political.

>> Politics debate. So again, glad for Brian to be here. It's almost always, I think so. I can't think of another one. Done a lot of, you know, he's done a lot of things.

>> We've done Islam, atheism, but I don't think I've debated politics until now. But.

>> Can you do me a favor? Tell Alex I said hello.

>> Okay. [laughter]

>> Uh, anyway, um, Jay Dyer, you can find me on YouTube. You can find me on Twitter, Instagram, all those.

>> Check them out, guys. We'll link everything below. Comment below who you want to see next. See y'all next time.

>> Peace.

>> Oh, [ __ ].

>> Good job, guys.

>> How long was that? Two hours.

>> Two hours and a half. Holy [ __ ]. That was my longest debate.