Transcription
Do they have any money? >> The answer is it's a flawed analogy and I can explain why. >> I just need you to answer the question. If one person has zero dollars, do they have any money? >> Because you because you're forcing me to answer. >> Oh my goodness. >> Congrats, bro. >> I'm going to I'm going to give you a I'm going to answer a flawed analogy with. >> Hey, get him out of here, bro. Whoever was begging me to argue with this dude, whoever that was in the chat, I hope you see that's your man's right there. That's your man's.
What's up? >> What's it doing? I just wanted to wanted to have a chat. You know, he was having [clears throat] some good conversations. Wanted to hop in. >> Oh, perfect. Uh, so are you Christian? >> No. >> Why aren't you Christian? >> Uh, I don't think there's any compelling evidence external evidence of a God. Therefore, I don't think there's any external compelling external evidence of Christianity. >> Okay. Um, so you just want me to pro provide an argument that God exists? >> Uh, I would like to an external argument. Yeah. Compelling external argument. like just a logical argument that God exists. >> One external of the self. Yeah. >> Okay. So, you're saying that we can't use facts like change exists? >> No, it would just need to be external from you. I think most people who are Christian tend to say, "Well, I believe in God because I had some experience of God." >> Yeah. No, I'm saying >> and that's an internal that's an internal claim. >> Yeah. I'm just going to start from change exists. >> I don't think change is evidence of God. I think it's just evidence of change. >> Okay. Does it exist? Does change exist? Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. And do you know what we mean when we say change? >> Yes. >> Okay. So change being the actualization of potential exist. >> Yes. >> But a potential can't actualize itself. >> Sure. >> Therefore, whatever is actualized is actualized by something else. >> Possibly. Yes. >> That's not possible. >> Unless it's unless it's unless No. Not not necessarily. Like unless it existed outside of time. Therefore, there it could not >> change if it exists outside of time. >> No, the actualization could the actualization could not exist outside of time. >> Okay, we're we're talking about just change. If a potential can't actualize itself, that means whatever is actualized necessarily is actualized by something else. >> Yep. And that's what but unless the actualization the thing that's actualizing it exists outside of time, that can't exist. >> So, you're just you're just saying that right now, but we'll we'll get to that. Okay. So this leads to a chain of actualizers each depending on the previous member to cause its change. Right now >> if you're going if you claim that all actualizers are stacking. Yes. But I don't believe all actualizers would be stacking. >> I don't know what that means. >> So act so you could also have actualizers that are in rings. So they all they all actualize themselves together. There's no first thing holding any of these things up. That would require you to believe that potential can actualize itself. >> No. >> Yes, it does. >> It would just require you to believe that the potential doesn't have to hold itself up by like one specific. >> What do you think potential is? >> Potential would be the likelihood something has to do anything. >> Okay. So, if a potential is just going to refer to the capacity in a thing to to be otherwise. >> So, >> that's what I just said. Yes. >> So in regards to a potential, right, if you're saying that A actualizes B and B actualizes C and C actualizes A, it's going to require a potential to actualize itself. It's not going to just be able to be circular. >> Again, that's if you're using this. This is one of the biggest uh contentions of Thomas Aquitus is he uses stacking hierarchies. If you're not stacking, then no, it wouldn't require this. >> Yeah. So there's certain there's certain causal series right where if you mean by stacking you mean a hierarchical causal series it's there are just hierarchical causal series. So there are linear causal series or per accidents causal series and then there are hierarchical causal series. >> No I don't mean hierarchal um hierarchal would imply that it's happening one after the other. I mean uh when it's all it would all be simultaneous would be what Thomas Aquinus argues. is an argu hierarchal hierarchy simultaneous. >> Yeah. So, we're talking about simultaneous actualization of potential, bro. >> Yes. That's why I'm saying this only applies if you're talking >> about as if it's what we're going to be talking about, bro. >> Yep. I don't believe this proves a god. >> That doesn't matter right now. Right now, what matters is that this leads to that type of causal series. >> Possibly. Yes. >> Okay. An infinite series of such actualizes is impossible. >> Why? >> Because if in in this series each member depends on the previous member to cause its actualization right now but doesn't have that actualization in itself and receives it from the previous member on to infini onto infinity. There's nothing in the chain that actually has the power to give actuality. >> Yep. Why would that be an issue? because then nothing would be actualized. But you're saying that things are actualized. >> I'm saying things can have been infinitely actualized. >> Even if that's the case, right? If you're saying that, oh, this this goes on infinitely. If nothing in the chain has the ability to actualize that potential, right, in and of itself, but it receives that actualization, >> the thing prior has the the thing prior has it. And because it's infinite, there is infinite number of prior. There is no start because it's an infinite number of priors. There wouldn't be a start. >> So listen, >> so in a per se causal series, each member receives its causal power right now from the member before it, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. If there's no first member with causal power in itself, then no member in the series has causal power >> because it's infinite. So there wouldn't there would be no need for a first because it's infinite. Okay. So, I'm going to give you an analogy. Okay. >> Sure. >> If I I plug my phone >> Yep. >> Okay. into I I have a charger on my phone and I plug it into an extension cord that's not plugged into anything else. Will my phone be charging? >> No. Because there's no infinite power. >> We're not talking about infinite power. >> The problem The problem that's happening right now is your argument entails that there could be no infinity. Now I'm saying there could be I'm just I'm just right now I'm just asking you a question. >> Okay. >> Yes. Not related to Infinity. Yes. This would not be able to have power. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. That doesn't >> Okay. Fantastic. Right. So if I plug this phone into an extension cord that's not plugged into anything else, then it won't be charging. If I plug it into another extension cord that's not plugged into anything else, will it be charging? >> No. >> What if I do that in at infinity? just a whole infinite amount of extension cords that's not plugged into anything else but other extension cords. Will my phone be charging? >> Possibly. >> So, so what's the what's the change? What's the change from it goes from the extension cord that isn't plugged into anything else >> is not able to charge my phone, but now because we have an infinite number of extension cords that does that isn't plugged into anything else. Why does the problem become the problem becomes when you ask that hypothetical? You're presupposing that there is no power to start. >> That's your presupposition. >> So no, wait a second. This is pointless. >> No, that's Do I get That's incorrect. That's incorrect. What you're saying to respond or not? >> What you're saying is incorrect. I don't want you. >> That's not You're implying there's no power. You're implying there's no power. >> Do you want to Do you want to say Go ahead. Hold on. Because I don't want you I don't want you to waste your breath and you say something and I'll be like, "That's not what I'm talking about at all. idiots. But okay, >> so all I'm saying is that the member in these series receive actualization. That's it. So the extension cords are pretty much we're just using the extension cords as an analogy for an a member in a chain that doesn't have actuality in itself, but receives this actuality from the previous member. The extension code is just easy to visualize. That's it. >> Yes, but you're not receiving the actual actuality in this case. The Proper example would be if I had an a phone that was plugged into a wall exerting power and that plug in the wall was plugged into another wall that was exerting power and that was plugged into another you would be be asking hey where does the initial power come from but if it's an infinite regress there is no initial it goes on per infinity >> no so if you're saying that the wall hold on listen if you're saying that the wall in this example >> doesn't have power in and of itself But it receives power from the previous member. >> Then it's the same thing as me saying that the extension cord doesn't have power in and of itself, >> but it receives >> you're saying the extension cord is plugged into another phone. >> No, I'm saying that it's plugged into another extension cord. The same way that you're saying that the wall >> Okay. So here in your analog, you're not arguing with the contention of the point. >> Wait, in your analogy, right? >> Okay. Does the wall have power in and of itself? >> It receives power from another wall. >> Okay. So, it doesn't have power in and of itself. It receives power from another wall. Does the extension cord have power in and of itself? >> No, it's receiving the power from the wall. >> It's the same thing. So, so literally the analogy you. >> The analogy that I'm giving you to a wall. >> The analogy that I'm giving you. So the the reason why you're running into this this this problem, right, is because >> there's no problem. I'm saying infinity can exist. You're saying it can't. There's no problem, >> brother. Brother, this argument, you can say that the universe is infinite. It's eternal. It doesn't have to be. >> Fantastic. Doesn't matter for this argument. I don't care. That doesn't that doesn't matter to me. >> It would absolutely matter. I You're Hold on. Listen. You're You're trying to give me compelling evidence for God. If you're saying the universe being infinite doesn't matter for the argument, then where's the evidence of God? >> So listen, >> where's the creation if it's infinite? >> If you listen, if you listen. Great. Right. >> So in the causal series that we're talking, I'm not saying that a series of events can't go into the past for in an infinite amount of time. I'm saying that this series of actualizers actualizing potential right now can't go on at uh at infin item. So, in regards to the analogy, okay, I I plug my phone into a wall that's plugged into another wall that's plugged into another wall and it's receiving energy all the way back. They don't have power in and of themselves, they are not able to charge my phone if there is no actual power source that receives like that gives actuality. You're you're not. If it is infinite, there can be no first. If the power think about it this way, if I have a stack of dominoes that goes on for infinity and the domino previously always knocks down the first do the domino that comes next there. There may never be because it's infinite. There was never a first domino falling. They've just been at infinite ex like infinite and always falling. >> Yeah. So that's what >> you're saying. This is what >> I mean there's an issue with this. >> Yeah. >> You have to you have to now disprove infinity which you can't do. >> We don't no one's trying to disprove infinity. We're just saying that the series is not possible for this series to regress infinitely. >> So based on what the series that you're talking >> based on the fact that each of the members don't have the power in themselves to actualize anything, right? And so the multiplication of something that doesn't have power doesn't have power. >> Take it outside of the sub. Put it into the context of our universe. >> That's what >> and our and and energy >> of your context of our universe. >> So this is what I'm asking you. Where's your evidence that energy can't have always existed? >> So first of all, that's not >> No one is saying anything about energy always existing or not. We're saying things that [laughter] power. >> Yeah. So when you're when you're saying something >> that's not an argu then you're not actually listening to our argument. >> Yeah. When when you're saying that this thing doesn't have power in itself, right? But it receives power and then we're just going to multiply that at infinity and all of the sudden that's going to explain the power that we have. That makes absolutely no sense. >> You're pretty much saying that. You're pretty much saying that if we if I multip if I multiply zero by infinity, how much do I have? >> Wait, let me let me let me Do you believe there was a first cause for the universe? >> That has nothing to do with the argument right now, bro. >> I know. I'm trying to actually loop it into the actual conversation. >> No, cuz that's not the conversation that we're having. I don't care what you believe about the where the conversation is going. It's 100% where the conversation goes. >> It's literally not. you're using first cause to claim that the first cause >> no one is talking about >> no one is no one's talking about that if you would actually just sit back and listen then you'll be able to follow argument but right now it's looking like you're lost because you don't know what you're talking about. So if you just take a little minute to just sit back and listen you might actually be able to like follow along and look like you know what's going on in this conversation. Do you want to look like you know what's going on? >> Go ahead. Keep saying what you want to say. I guarantee it's going to lead where where I know it's going to lead. >> Okay, cool. Well, if if I had to depend on your guarantees, I'd be a broke dude. So, look, >> can I wait, could I say something real quick? >> Yeah. >> So, in a hierarchical series, as we said earlier, each member doesn't have the power by themselves to actualize anything, right? And so the argument is that multiplying the number of members that don't have power is never going to it's never going to result with any sort of actuality which requires power. It would be like saying that a chandelier can be held up with nothing but chains as long as you have an infinite amount of them. >> Great. Let's say let's say chain has to exist. >> Chains here we go. Change has to exist analogy. I I get where the analogy is going. >> Well, can I change it, though? >> Sure. It's We're just wasting time. >> Chains by themselves don't have the power to hold anything up by themselves. And so, if all you do is multiply the number of chains, you're still not going to get the power to hang anything up because they don't have >> unless it goes on for infinity. >> Why? Why would >> So 0 time infinity equals equals something, right? >> If it goes on for infinity, there is never going to be a stop. It will never stop. It will always be in a state of flux. >> Oh my god. >> No one is talking about stopping. >> I don't think you understand what I mean when I say what's going on. >> Hey, let me let me ask a question. Let's say change exists. Let's say I agree change exists. Now get to me to the external proof of >> actualization requires power, does it not? >> Great. Get to me to the to the proof of God from there. >> And the things the members in this change do not have the power by themselves. Correct. >> Great. Now get me to god from there. >> Okay. So if I have a million members that don't have power, do I have power? >> Sure. Let's say you don't. Now get me to a god. >> Now what if I have 10 billion members that don't have power? Do they have power? >> Sure. Let's say you don't. Now get me to a god. >> What if I had an infinite amount of members that don't have power? Will I have? >> I've already said let's say you don't. I'm >> Well, then in that case, an infinite god for these members is impossible. >> Great. Now get me to a god. Perfect. >> So now we've established that the chain that the the regress is not infinite, it's finite. >> Exactly. >> Now to go if it is finite. >> Perfect. If it is finite, that means that it terminates in a a first or it terminates in something. This first actualizer must have no potential or is purely actual. A being of pure actuality is what we mean when we say God. Therefore, God exists. So God exists because he would have had to been the first actualizer to actualize the rest of the universe. >> Nope. Not what I said. Did you ever hear me say universe? >> Sure. To actualize anything. >> So all that which is actualized all that which is actualized. So the moment that you said that change exists, you unknowingly are already agreeing to the fact that God exists. >> So hold on, hold on, hold on. >> Congratulations. But you're a theist. You claim to me, I guess I guess you don't want to have a conversation cuz you want to just keep talking, but it's fine. You claim to me this wouldn't end up in any sort of first cause, but what you're saying to me is in order for anything to actualize, there must be a first what? >> Actualizer. >> Who does what? >> Who sustains all that which exists right now. >> Okay. So you're saying God is the ba battery and God has to power everything else. >> Why is it God >> in order for change? >> Why is it God? >> Because this first actualizer must have no potential or it's purely actual. >> That doesn't that doesn't tell me why it's God. What if it is legit? What like >> here is defined as the purely actual actualizer. Yeah. >> Right. >> And this first actualizer has to be purely actual because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be the first. And Elijah can explain that further. >> Yeah. >> Again, unless it's an infinite regress. >> You just conceive. >> Unless energy that it's not. >> No, I did. I said we'll say it is to get to the God. Do you understand of looking at something? I'm looking at it from you guys. You guys >> So, so your stance your stance is that Hold on. Wait. So, the questions that Abraham Great >> Yeah. The question. That's fine. >> Okay. Cool. the questions that Abraham always asked you for like your answer to them. If you're saying that they these things that don't have power in themselves if we multiply them all of a sudden could have power by no means you haven't explained how that's possible. Just multiplying them at infin item doesn't all of a sudden explain how they have power. >> Yes. Because what we're doing is we're analyzing your premise. I wasn't giving I was saying yeah let's say it does to analyze your premise. Do you know what? Like how that works? >> Yeah. But I'm asking you if you were to believe the contrary, that wouldn't make any sense. >> I would say that energy is eternal. >> Bro, this has nothing to do with whether energy is eternal. >> Nothing to do with that, bro. Please lock in. >> Anything. The only way anything can actualize is with energy. There's quite literally no way to actualize without energy. Energy is at the core of actualization. >> Do you agree? Yes or no? Does our argument state energy is not eternal in any of the premises? >> Did I say your argument? Did I asked you a question? >> Okay. So then you're attack you're attacking things that our argument has nothing to do with. Bro, I need you. Please lock in. >> Lock in. >> So just deal with the premises that I'm bringing to you. If I don't say the word, if I don't say the word universe, don't bring up the word universe. If you're saying if you're saying that there's an infinite in a per se causal series, this can go on forever, right? Then you're you're essentially saying that if we just multiply the members that do not have any power in and of themselves, but always receive power and we just oh, we just sit here and we just do it. When Abe just asked you the question, oh, if I do this one time, if I do it 10 million times, if I do it 20 million times, will anything have power? You're saying no. But now all of a sudden if we just continue multiplying it, it has power. That makes no sense. >> I'm saying without presupposing in the argument like you guys are doing. >> No one's presupposing an argument. I'm giving you a deductive syllogism. >> You're not actually. >> Do you know what a deductive syllogism is? >> Yes. It's a syllogism that you use to deduce reasoning. Yeah. Obviously actualization. actualization [clears throat] has no I'm I'm going to say it again. There's an infinite It's infinite. Disprove the infinite regress. You haven't disproven it. By the way, >> what I was trying to tell you what I was trying to >> I won't talk this time. No, it's cool. No, go ahead. >> You mean that what I was trying to disprove and you just said, "Well, let's just concede for the sake of the of the >> So, you just proved that that whole thing was a waste of our time because now you now you're going back to the >> Oh my god. It's called It's called internal critiques. So then it's a little internal critique. So then you're presenting a side and I'm critiquing it. >> Actually answer the actually answer the questions with what you believe. >> Okay. You don't you don't have the the work. You provided Hold on. >> So we're going to we're going to provide the argument. Listen listen. >> We've been providing the argument. >> Jesus. Listen. You are presenting the argument. So it doesn't matter what I believe. All that matters is the logical foundation of your argument. >> You're not locked at all. >> But dude, I you said you were going to provide an argument for the for God. So it doesn't matter what I believe true or not about the argument. What matters is is your argument logical. >> It's an internal critique of your >> argument. The argument the argument is going to be valid. You're rejecting a premise based on your reasoning and you're asking >> you have to so disprove infinite. Disprove that infinite can't exist. >> That's not the point of the argument. Please. >> Yes, it is >> here. Can you can you explain what the argument for motion? >> If there are infinite actualizers, then there need not be a first. >> That's not the point of the argument. >> Holy Is the point of the argument not to say that God would have to be the first actualizer? >> The point of the argument is to say that a series of actualizers essentially ordered cannot regress infinitely. Not that they would need any series whatsoever cannot regress a first actualizer. We're talking about actualizers, right? >> We're not talking about just any actualizers. That's the whole point. We're talking about those essentially ordered. >> This is sick. You're you're lost. Oh my god. You have >> What is essentially ordered? When you say essentially ordered, what do you mean? >> You haven't been listening at all. >> That each one >> What do you mean? >> What do you mean essentially ordered >> on something else for the their power to actualize something else? >> Great. Now prove that infinite cannot exist to an essential order. >> Okay, >> that's what I did like 5 minutes ago. Yes, he didn't. >> Yes, he did. >> Yeah. I asked you if I multiply something that does not have power by a million, will I ever get power? You said no. And then I asked you by 10 billion. You said no. I asked you if I did it infinitely. You said no. And and we established that in order for something to actualize anything, it requires power. >> Wait, unless it's getting power from the previous thing. >> That's the point. We're saying is it possible for such a series to have power in the first place? >> Yes, if it's infinite. >> Okay. So if a thing if a thing if one thing doesn't have power, right? Is that thing able to actualize anything >> on its own? No. >> Okay. Now if 10 things in the chain don't have power of themselves, is that able to actualize anything >> on their own? No. >> Okay. If a billion things don't have power >> on its own, no. But the second you go to infinite, yes. >> So if an infinite amount of things don't have power in and of themselves, >> infinite. >> So it's is infinite just like this magical power. >> Wait. So does the number of of members matter? >> None of them have power at all. >> Because if it's not, it means there would be a stop. >> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. No, no, wait. Can I ask a question? Can I have a ask a question? Yeah, go. >> Okay. If I If I have zero dollars one time, >> do I have >> Do I have any money? >> What? >> If I have zero dollars one time, do I have any money? >> It's unrelated. >> No, that's not even good. >> One person has zero dollars, do you have any money? >> It's not even a good analogy. >> Oh, yeah. If one person has no money, do you have any money? >> No, it's a bad answer. Answer the question. Answer the question. If one person If one person has zero flawed analogy, >> if one person has zero dollars, do they have any money? >> The answer is it's a flawed analogy and I can explain why. >> I just need you to answer the question. If one person has zero dollars, do they have any money? >> Because you because you're forcing me to answer here. >> Oh my goodness. >> Congrats, bro. I'm going to I'm going to give you a I'm going to intro a flawed analogy with. >> Hey, get him out of here, bro. Whoever was begging me to argue with this dude, whoever that was in the chat, I hope you see that's your man's right there. That's your man's. One person got zero dollars, got money now. That's your man's. Follow him. Follow him all the way to contradiction land. That's your man's. Go ahead, bro. Go ahead. That's him. That's him. That's That's the guy, right? Okay. One person, zero dollars. >> That's your man's. All right, bro. >> Yeah. The whole point of this being that if if any for any given object if they lack something whether it be money, whether it be power, whether it be uh hair, multiplying the number of those things which lack money, power, hair is not going to result in somehow magically granting you money, power or hair. >> Yeah. >> Which is what the whole question established. If you have one, do you have any power? No. If you have a 100 million, do you have any power? No. Because the how many you have is irrelevant. So it doesn't matter if you have an unending amount of them. >> If I have a million bald guys, I they're still all bald. But if I have an infinite amount of bald guys, then we'll then we'll grow some hair. >> Exactly. To him. To him. The more as soon as you hit that infinite mark, all of a sudden we get to say whatever we want, bro.