Transcription
I think you're an atheist.
Okay. Well, I...
You're making the best you you are making the best case argument for atheism I've ever heard.
That God is what we experience in the universe is what we would describe as God. It is the definition of everything atheists have ever argued to me.
I'm not even making arguments to you right now. All I'm doing is expressing to you that...
God is not all powerful.
No. No. The opposite.
You said God can't create a boulder. He cannot lift.
No. Because...
Every single priest theologian I talked to, I said the opposite.
No. None of them. Their dogma literally would prevent them from defying the nature of God. Not a single theologian on planet Earth who's a priest has ever said to you, Tim, God could create a God more powerful than him. That never happened. It's not possible.
So my question is for Andrew, and hopefully I can at least partially satiate your desire to argue. So this is kind of going back to when you were here with Tim last time, and you were talking about the existence or not of rights.
Yes. And so, um, a friend of mine who is also a fan of yours who showed me some of your videos. So, the first one was your conversation with Dave Smith, we've kind of had a prolonged conversation about the existence of rights, him taking more of your perspective. I'm disagreeing. Um, you know, and then we were both kind of interested to see what you would say with this. So...
Start with what a right is.
Yes. Okay. So, like I'm totally down to agree with you that a right is an entitlement without duty.
Okay. And then my perspective would be that the existence of the obligations that we can both exist necessarily creates rights. We both agree that you have an obligation not me. I have an obligation to not you. You have an obligation to to wherever you are speaking to me speak the truth not lie obligation like you've already you've already made supposed axioms that I don't agree with.
You've already created suppositions that I don't agree with. So where does the obligation that I don't you come from? No, we both do. We not agree that God gives an obligation to both of us. No, he didn't say.
Yeah. Then...
Wait, you have a you have a right to not someone.
No, I Well, he's saying he say he said there's an obligation not to...
Yeah. But is...
Where where Yeah. Where where's this obligation to not do a thing?
Oh, yeah. I would say Exodus.
Um...
Yeah. Okay. So, you're saying you're looking at through the the prism of Christian ethics.
Oh, yeah. Both both of us like we all come from the same perspective. So like all the all the Christian fundamentals like I you know we might have minor doctrinal differences but like I I'm totally good to agree with you on all the Christian fundamental presuppositions. Yeah. So I'm not...
Not disagreeing on that point. My point being that when God goes and gives you an obligation to not me and me an obligation not murder you...
Yes. Sure. Duties. You have a duty to not me. I have a duty to not murder you and so on and you know and similar other things like you to not lie to me, me to not lie to you. These things, these create rights um just by the instantiation of the obligation, by the duty.
That's now well okay if you were to put this in a syllogism that wouldn't actually make any sense, right?
Duties aren't right.
Just because you say if if you say you have a duty, you you were given a duty to not uh me. Uh that does not then instantiate that you have a right to not be by me. That's where you that's where you're making a fundamental mistake. Where does that right come from?
Yeah. So this is where...
I have the obligation but you don't have any right.
They only have the right to defend themselves.
Don't even have a right to do that.
Well [ __ ] can you can defend yourself or has it become a right. So the thing is is like where does the duty form into the right process? That's what I'm asking.
Yeah. It's that you basically can't have one without the other.
How? Why not?
Um yeah. So I would say well I guess I would start with I would say well I have then an entitlement to not be...
And we could go and look at particulars of biblical...
I'll just I'll just say it sounds to me like you're not a Christian.
You're you're you're the argument you're proposing is that Christianity is subjective and only partial. Therefore, the right cannot exist because God's law, God's word is not mandate for all.
Right? Are you asking me?
That's what that's what I hear from you.
Oh, no, no, no, no. The opposite. I'm saying I'm saying that God is giving you a a sequence of duties, not in not any way any rights.
When God says, "Thou shalt not."
That's a duty.
The presumption is that we under God's law are protected from being...
Nope.
What is that presumption?
I don't know if I...
Presumption is that God has ordered you not to...
Yeah, that's right. God has ordered me not to you.
Right? So there's...
Why does that suppose...
My entitlement.
That you're entitled to not get...
Because God told you not to do it.
No, God told Okay, that makes no sense.
Explain.
Well, how does it how does how does it follow? You have you'd have to...
Literally God says you can't do it.
Hang on. You'd have to demonstrate how it follows that. If if God says I cannot do a thing, that means you have a right to a thing.
Yes.
Thou shalt not buy a house, but you have a right.
You are you have free will. You can violate God's law you want. If you're not a Christian, which is the argument you're making, people who are not Christians will violate your God's law, God's word.
Well, I there I would even go I would presumption that you're I don't understand what you're trying to say that rights are things that are impossible to happen in the real world.
No, I'm saying that a right is a...
Entitlement.
Entitlement absent a duty.
And I'm saying that the things that...
So if you are a Christian, get me.
Yeah. Yeah. That's a duty. I agree with that.
Yeah. I agree that Christians have duties. What I don't agree with is that Christians have rights. So, there's no real right to life. You could die at birth, right? There's no, you don't really have a right to do this. Uh, and also, God's nature can't be contrary. So...
Babies don't have a right to life.
Well, well, hang on. I'll I'll explain. God's nature can't be contrary. You agree with that, right?
We'll elaborate what you mean by that.
So, God contradicted himself.
Yeah. He can't make a a god more powerful than him.
I disagree with that.
What? I I so you're talking about you know good God create a stone so heavy he himself can it go can do anything.
That's in that's incoherent.
It's not logic only exists within the confines of God's God's word God's word is beyond your...
Comp logic is is a transcendental category and since it's a transcendental category we know it exists even though it's not physical but all things all things bind by it part of God's nature has to...
God.
Yes.
Can can Jesus be able to lift a 5-tonon boulder?
Yeah.
Then...
There's no contradiction there.
So certainly Jesus did perform miracles.
That's but there's no contradictions with those. So those follow the lines of logic. God's nature still has to be logical because it's part of his nature. His ontology is logic.
So my God, you're saying God can make a burrito that's so big he can't eat it.
Of course.
What? That's incoherent. That's like...
It's literally not. It is. It's totally That's literally the definition of incoherence. Totally incoherent.
Literally not.
I'm gonna explain.
How is it not? Okay, go ahead.
So, I can use I can use an example like programming for instance.
Okay.
I can program a video game in which I have absolute authority over the whole thing. I can change the rules at any moment...
Within the confines of this game. I can create a rock that my avatar cannot move.
Sure. I...
I can and I can I can program it so that my mouse can't move it until I go into the BIOS.
Can you both program the video game and not program the video game?
Yes. What do you mean?
What? How do So you can you can make a video game that you never made?
What? What are you trying to say?
Can you make a video game that you never made?
Yes.
What?
I've What do you What do you mean? I've made...
That's a It's a That's...
I literally only make games I've never made.
I I don't make the same game twice.
And you both make a game while at the same time you're not making the game.
Well, I I don't understand.
Can the game exist and at the both same time not exist? There is a there is a p a reality where yes quite literally it's called a paradox. Paradoxes are things that exist within the confines of our logical.
No, that's a contradiction. A paradox is different than a contradiction. Tim, you cannot both be me and you. You can only be you.
You don't know that.
Well, well, yeah, I do. Cuz because it would violate the law of non-contradiction.
So, this is this is where I I feel like you're you're running into a problem. You think you know God. No, I I I only understand that God has to have a nature, an onlogical nature. Like you don't you and and what you think you know of God is telling looking through a keyhole through a 800 bedroom mansion...
Is based on what God tells us his nature is.
Yes. And God can't you you can't comprehend higher dimensions.
Yeah.
This is an energy. What you're talking about is what's called an essence energy distinction. I agree with you that I can only participate in the energy of God.
I...
But I cannot understand the essence of God. That I agree with.
I don't think you're a Christian.
Okay.
You you what?
There's a simple question.
This is Catholic dogma, Tim.
Can...
I don't think you're a Christian because you're disagreeing with me on the nature of the...
Can God create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?
No.
God exists outside of the confines of st of this logic in which you think you exist. God is so far beyond you. You cannot comprehend this. to ask if God can lift a rock is asking like can it it's a it's a stupid question because we are one treachillianth of the universe and you are you are presupposing God lives in your rules that that that is that is that is reductivist earthly one-dimensional thinking.
Yeah. So you're saying there's universes where there could be contradictions. I'm saying that...
Could I could I interject here with a question on the the nature of God for Tim Tim do you think that God could be instead of a supreme good supreme evil?
I I don't know that there is such a distinction. God as the creator of all things is not going to be good nor evil. What? I'm not a Christian. But I mean it would Okay. So...
The thing is is like what you're saying what you just said is I understand the nature of God.
I understand that this being who lives in this different dimension that I could never fathom God neither be evil nor good. That's you making a declaration that you understand the nature of God.
No, it's that I would not describe God as good or evil because God exists outside the confines of human comprehension.
Okay. To...
Exist in contradiction.
Because contradiction exists only within our reality. No.
You cannot comprehend what exists outside of the the...
Literally the laws of logic do not actually exist physically in our reality. They're transcendental. They're transcendental categories.
They govern our reality. They don't exist.
Okay. Why? Well, this is all you're saying this is all Christian follow these rules. Period.
No, I'm saying that God has a nature like Tim has a nature. Like for instance, okay, um your nature as Tim, the things that make up you, you have a heart and you have lungs and you have things like this and your heart and your lungs and things like this do work inside of your body that assist your body in moving and functioning and this and that. They're part of what you are. To take all of those things out would change who you are.
Okay, this is the same thing with God. We're just saying that there's a part of God's nature which he has shared with us as part of his nature...
As the logos. The logos part of it is logic.
Only part.
Yeah. But that would mean that part of God's nature is to not violate logic.
Did God create this universe or is this universe a function of God?
God created the universe.
So God could change the rules.
No, that would be illogical. God could not change the rules of the universe.
No, it would it would it would go contrary to So it's like you're what you're asking me is this. What would it be like if fire wasn't hot?
Well, now we've changed the fundamental reality of what fire is.
So I'll simplify it.
Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead.
I believe our comp our reality first of all what we think we know in science there are higher dimensions we can't perceive. This implies as most scientific discoveries in the last 130 years if we choose to believe them. For instance, the uh electromagnetic spectrum. Humans or air is my my favorite example. Humans did not know that air existed because they couldn't perceive it until there was this guy who was showering who realized that there is a there is matter in and all around us. There have been numerous instances where humans realize that things we can't perceive exists.
And that is indicative of humans don't know nearly enough about the universe and that we do know. The discovery of the charged electromagnetic spectrum revolutionized human thought because we didn't realize that what we touch, smell, see, and hear as reality is less than a millionth or a billionth of what reality actually is...
Or a trillionth orth who knows...
And not understanding dark matter. We are a speck in a massive universe on the ass of a mosquito relative to what God is or could be. Humans saying I know the nature of God is arrogance that defies the the the idea of what we know we are limited in thinking that is the average person thinks infinity is a number.
Yeah. But that that makes the average person makes no sense because all the things that you're saying right now and attributes...
Are trying to define the nature of God even though you don't think you are. If you're saying if you so for instance if you say...
Put God in a box I'm saying God is...
No, it's the opposite. So if you say God is so complex you can't understand it. You have actually given me criteria for the nature of God. If you say God is timeless, lack of knowledge.
Yeah. If you say God is timeless, you've given me criteria for the nature of God. If you say God exists in the 19th dimension, you have now expressed the nature of God.
So what we're doing is the same exact thing. I'm expressing to you the biblical nature of God. What God expresses to us is part of his nature.
Atheist argument to me.
It's not atheist.
So...
It's the opposite. It's dogma. Atheists are the ones who argue to me the universe is mathematical, logical, cold, and it is what it is. It is functions as such.
No, they're physicalists. Einsteinian God, which is an atheist view, is the view that there that God is a god of science and that exists as some form of the universe. And then my view of God is that God exists beyond and that our concepts of physics are just components of what God has created. And God is likely beyond our own perception.
God, but now but you've said a bunch of things have entailments. God creates.
Mhm.
So we know that for for sure, right?
And in science, nothing.
So if God So hang on. So if God creates and God was the first thing, then that means God was uncreated.
Yes.
Yeah. So if God was uncreated and God create, now we know something about the nature of God.
Certainly.
Yeah. So this is my whole point. And so so we could say the same thing, right? Same thing here.
I think you're an atheist.
Okay. Well, I I think...
You're making the best you you are making the best case argument for atheism I've ever heard.
How?
That God is what we experience in the universe is what we would describe as God. Is it It is the definition of everything atheists have ever argued to me.
I'm not even making arguments to you right now. All I'm doing is expressing to you...
God is not all powerful.
No. No. The opposite.
You said God can't create a boulder. He cannot lift.
No. Be because...
Every single priest theologian I've talked to said the opposite.
No. None of them. Their dogma literally would prevent them from defining the nature of God. Not a single theologian on planet earth who's a priest has ever said to you, Tim, God could create a God more powerful than him. That never happened. It's not possible.
Claim to understand the power of God is is is arrogance to assert that you know what God...
I'm not saying what the power of God is. I don't know exactly what the limits of all powerful are. No, you're saying this reality is a part of God and is what it is and it's uncontradictory and unchanging.
Yeah. No, I'm just saying that the laws of logic, right? The law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle are part of the nature of God. We know this because this is how God created everything. And how God expressed to us, he creates. So if that is the case, we can understand that that's part of God's nature. He he will not defy his nature because it's his nature. Will not defy the nature of God as you described it is the universe.
No, it's not the universe. The universe had a creator.
Yes. And the...
And that creator had to be uncreated.
And and the universe is a part of God.
No, that's a Gnostic belief.
That's what you just said.
No, I didn't say that at all. That it's a gnostic belief to believe...
That of the universe, the logic is a part of God.
No. No. No. Logic is part of God's nature. You're saying that because the universe is also governed by logical rules that that means that it's part of God. That's that that doesn't even follow.
You said that.
No, the opposite. I'm saying the opposite of that.
So God is illogical.
No, that that doesn't even make sense either. What you're saying, all these things you say, they don't follow from one another. So you have to back up to the beginning.
So you said the logos, God, the logic, God is non-contradictory.
Yeah. What? God cannot create a boulder that he himself cannot lift.
Oh, no. Because it's against his nature.
What does that mean?
It means that you can't do things which defy your nature because otherwise you wouldn't be you.
Explain his nature.
I just did. Part of his nature is the logos and the law of uh logic. That's part of his nature.
That cannot be changed.
Yeah. I I suppose God could change his nature. But why? You can't change your nature. You wouldn't change your nature.
God can't change his nature.
You wouldn't change your nature. That's the right way to phrase it. You wouldn't change your nature.
Or can he not?
Could he? Yes.
I don't know. But I don't think it matters because your nature is what matters.
So, you agree with me?
No, I don't agree with you. What you're saying is antithetical to actual dogma.
No. The beginning of the conversation was me saying that God could change the rules as he's created them and you said he could not.
No. Because because the entailment of could is a violation of nature. So, if it's a violation in nature and you wouldn't, you might as well say couldn't.
That's an argument to what I just said.
It is an argument. If I can't I can't make words I can't make Tim not be Tim because Tim has a nature. Could Tim if I gave Tim a different nature do a different thing than his nature? Yeah, sure.
So...
But what does that have to do with anything?
You think God is limited and and in in his in his capability?
Well, you you would have to tell me how that's limited. He he God cannot affect the rules of his universe in a way that would defy your view of...
Wouldn't and if he wouldn't then he couldn't because he wouldn't.
That is not an argument. It well not only is it an argument but Tim...
You are literally saying nothing.
Tim you couldn't fly right you whether whether or not you would fly okay or could fly if you wouldn't fly you couldn't fly right.
You're not saying anything.
Bro what am I not saying?
Can God do thing is a...
That are outside the violation of his nature he won't do them no.
What is his nature?
Part of his nature would be logic.
Okay.
So what you're saying is there is a logical structure to God that he cannot change.
No, could change. When you say would not...
When you say potentiality for could, right? It's irrelevant to the view of will not.
He can do it. He doesn't want to do...
Possible. I don't know because I don't understand the limitation of all powerful. It just my first point.
Yeah. But it just doesn't matter.
To assert that God could matter because it...
Yeah. Because wouldn't here is what we're we're focusing on. So, how do you know that God wouldn't do a thing?
Because he told us.
When what did he say?
Uh, inside the Bible, he he's very specifically...
Yeah, he's very descriptive about his nature and how it operates.
Tell me what he said.
We'd have to pull up the Bible so we could go over it.
Go over which part of the Bible?
Oh, we would have to start with Genesis and then go through the entire nature expressed through the the Trinity.
So, you don't know?
Yeah. Yeah, I do know. So, like God is the alpha and the omega. He's the beginning and the end. We know that, right?
Yep.
Okay. So this this would infer timelessness.
It I suppose, right?
Yeah. If you're if you're both the beginning and the end...
I don't know that it...
If you're both those things are the same thing, then time can't apply to you, right?
Not necessarily.
How could time apply to you if you're the beginning of it and the end of it?
If it has a beginning as has an end, it has time.
No, not if you're the beginning and the end at the same time.
Is that what it says?
Yeah. If you are the beginning and the...
End. My point is uh I do not believe that it is possible for a human to understand the true nature of God.
Neither do we.
And that the assertion that God could not do a thing implies knowledge of God beyond the...
Compound to do a thing.
But that that's that's a that's makes no sense.
Yeah. It makes total sense. It's a basic ontological argument. The idea that you can't you will not go beyond the confines of your nature whether you could or not has no has no bearing on anything. So if God can't do a thing, he's not all powerful. It's...
Not can't. You keep on using the word can't. If...
If I could if I could interject here with with an example, and this is why I asked the question about God being the ultimate good or ultimate evil.
One example that I would give is God cannot be the ultimate evil. um kind of for what Andrew would say is this is a logical contradiction because if God was the ultimate evil then that would mean he is ultimately...
Uh like he's the maximal being in all sorts of negative attributes one of them being selfishness another one being anger selfishness to the point of wanting to be the only being in existence but anger to the point of wanting other beings to exist to torment them arbitrarily.
Why does anger exist? Why does anger exist?
Yes.
It's it's just it's just a nonsequittor. It has nothing to do with his argument. He just said...
Like it's an attribute.
Right? He's explaining that God can't be angry. So, I'm asking what is what is anger? Why does it exist? He didn't say that.
That's not what I said. What I said is God cannot be the ultimate evil...
Because to be the ultimate evil anger you would have to be you would have to be the maximal being in certain negative attributes that are going to conflict with each other.
Like what?
So so imagine for okay so so like you're a comic book guy so imagine that you had the ultimate red lantern meshed with the ultimate orange lantern those two character traits conflict with each other.
Do you this is a bad example because you know about the white lantern core Yeah, I'm I'm not saying that comic books are are coherent are coherent logically. I'm saying you have two character traits...
Colors...
That as the maximal being in the in both of these attributes cannot simultaneously exist.
That but that's they...
It's a bad example because a white lantern core is the merger of all the attributes into one. They all simultaneously coexist.
Guys, our our discord preacher uh he wrote down his name is Slick uh Malaki 36. His name is the name Malachi 36. For I am Yeah. Malachi. Thank you.
For I am the Lord. I I don't read the Bible. For I am the Lord. I do not change. Therefore, you are not consumed. Zero sons of Jacob.
Do not change. That's part of his nature.
And so the question...
How does that do with the right to life that we started out with?
Do we do we know 100?
That is a great question.
Do we know God so absolutely that we we can perceive him in full?
No. Not it.
No. But we can know particular traits. So for example, Jesus in John 14 says that he is the way, the truth, and the life.
So this is saying that Jesus as God is the ultimate being in a positive attribute that being truth.
If we if we can't conceive of God in its in in its his entirety, then we can't know everything other than what knowledge was bestowed upon us.
Yeah. But that's a knowledge but that's a knowledge claim which presupposes God to begin with because it's a knowledge claim. God told us what he is and through the Bible.
That's that's part of revelation. Yeah.
And that's that's a Christian view. I'm not a Christian.
How does it do?
Well, how do Well, I mean, but wait a second. Whether you're a Christian or not, it would still have to be your view that God reveals himself to you somehow. That would be some form of revelation.
I believe that we have the capability to observe that God exists through math, science, and observation.
Yeah. Why are those attributes of God?
Which ones?
Are those attributes of God? Math, science. I would say the mathematics part is just the logic.
I I I would I would say simply put outside of doctrine, you can look at the universe and then calculate based on the rules that there is a creator.
Yeah. It's just the watchmaker argument. So you just say, well, if you were a person who had no understanding of technology, but you found a watch on a beach and you picked it up, you would infer creation just by the way that the watch operates. It's the same argument. Yeah.
It's literally not.
Yeah. Or you can say that mathematically if you changed even one little teeny tiny thing, the entire universe would be thrown into disarray. What's the argument? The argument is that there is negative entropy, entropy and there is entropy and that entropy only exists in greater elements of entropy. And what we end up finding throughout the universe again assuming you trust modern science is that energy coalesces and disperses I would say at a rate similar to the golden ratio. So it's so it's a gradual uh uh...
And if you threw that off it would throw everything into disarray.
Not what I'm talking about. So when you take a look at the the basis components of the universe in some degree they coalesce. So we can take a look at quarks atoms uh uh denser u uh hydrogen becoming helium etc etc.
Mhm.
You can see that so long as there is more entropy outputed from a system entropy is possible. This scales up exponentially and mathematically which is what humans have traced so far. Again if you believe modern science because there's a lot we don't know. And you find that everything skews towards the creation of higher complex systems so long as they create more disorder in the creation of complex systems. What that ultimately leads to is simply put atoms become uh uh elements become uh compounds become molecules all finding other ways to interact become increasingly more complicated in organizing free energy in the universe into a complex system. This is a fact. I'm not sure how this isn't like an explanation or descriptor of your obser of the observation of revelation of God for you. So what we see is that once you get to the point of self-replicating proteins, molecules come to a point where and this is a a gap for for human knowledge, we don't know why at some point molecules will become self-replicating proteins. I don't think it's all that complicated because the question of why elements become compounds is the same thing. We don't care. Uh oxygen bonds with with carbon uh two oxygen carbon dioxide. These things occur and we can track the signs of them. At a certain point, self-replicating proteins emerge if the chemical conditions are are correct. Self-replicating proteins eventually become single cell life. Single cell life eventually becomes multisellular life. Within those complex systems, multisellular life eventually creates ecosystems. Now they're creating complex systems outside of physical energy and into abstract concepts which only exist in our thoughts. Eventually you'll end up with multisellular organisms.
But your thoughts do exist. You think.
They to some degree they do because I think therefore I am.
Yeah. Where do they exist though?
That's the interesting question that humans don't really know because this is the abstract complex dynamic system created by the highest iteration of life as we know it which is ourselves unless there is an imperceivable higher form of life which all mathematics pro uh predicts does exist. And so what we end up seeing with the universe is first you get organis first you get chemicals that coalesce you get organisms that reproduce all of it collecting free energy and organizing into more complicated systems. Eventually you get a squirrel. Squirrels a random example. But squirrels create more than just themselves by collecting free energy. They eat food. They make babies. That's replication. Squirrels create ecosystems.
I don't I actually don't understand right now though. I'm squirrels are planting nuts which create trees. A new abstract system emerges. A complex system between life's life that is beyond just a physical component. It is now including a physical component but it has an abstract element to it. interactions between two objects that accentuates further into the manipulation of an environment which a lower life form would probably be a beaver.
Yeah. But how is any of this I don't what I don't understand right is...
I those systems you just described you've observed.
So so beavers...
Those you've observed.
Start manipulating their environments and creating complex systems outside of life itself where they're actually building dams. Dams interact with the environment in a way that's not necessarily life but it collects free energy. Ultimately we arrive to humans where humans do something interesting in the creation of complex systems. They not only self-replicate, they not only create ecosystems, but they create abstract concepts in to an extreme degree of complexity. And they not only do that, but they create internal micro simulations, which is computers and technology. All of this mathematical trend predicts higher forms of life beyond the capability to create abstract concept uh complex systems. Mathematically and probabilistically through observation we could conclude the likelihood that life that exists beyond us that has the capability to create systems of the universe itself is more likely than not. So that in and of itself is a simple view of modern scientific observation into there is in most likelihood uh a a life form of some sort or or some something beyond life that is a complex system that exists beyond us that has the capability of not just creating abstract complex systems but of creating complex systems itself. the singularity, the math points to a singularity of one ultimate power that has the capability to...
And that's what you believe is God.
I believe that it is suggestive of a God. My view of God is probably slightly beyond that into when I when I think of God, I bump into the limits of our our ability to comprehend higher dimensions in visual uh in visualizing uh uh higher dimensions in two dimensional planes because we can't even do it in three dimensional planes. And then you come to the ultimate point where we would conclude there is a higher power than us that likely created us, created everything we experience, has the ability to create, destroy, and do whatever it wants. Even though in our reality we cannot create or destroy and we cannot comprehend the true power and true nature of what that is.
Okay. Could you induct then that that thing had to be created?
Nope.
Why not?
What do you mean?
Why wouldn't you induct that that thing had to be like using inductive reasoning? What would you have to base on from actual observation that anything which created anything else was not itself created?
We if we go by the standard laws of thermodynamics that nothing is created or destroyed only changed. Yeah. But but...
So we're going to pass the case the energy which you're destroying or creating, right? God doesn't need to be created. He He always existed, right?
And we we were not we were not uh created in the sense of we manifested. We were created in the sense that...
The universe was created by God. The the structure, the energy, all of it was created. Whether it's finite or not is is a determination of God that we don't know.
Well, do you think this thing has consciousness organized?
Absolutely.
Okay. Okay. So it's doing it on purpose.
Absolutely. So...
With a purpose.
Uh presumably. So consciousness we we are in the universe and we are components of the universe and what we experience as conscious entities is a component of the universe which also implies the universe itself with us within it and within its confines and laws experiences consciousness either through us or there is a very I believe obvious observation that if simple consciousness the neurons firing in our brains which we think is what's generating consciousness exists then obviously there is a calculation of a higher power consciousness beyond hours. What does it want?
I don't know.
Why did it put you here?
There's a couple there's a couple ideas that I have on that. One is you can describe it as a sorting algorithm, I suppose. Why do heaven and hell exist? Well, the the Christian...
You think hell exists, too?
Absolutely. But I wouldn't describe it as fire and pits of inferno. I I would describe it as if we look at the if we look at the universe and we look at the choices we are given free will and we take a look at I I would say trying to learn off Christian uh uh or just general religious dogmas cuz I do believe that humans and life has a general understanding until it's socialized out of them or they they they're broken from it. I do believe people can know God exists but society today tries to make you erase that from your mind.
Well, this is really strange though. You think we have free will too?
Yes, absolutely.
You don't think that you don't think it's predetermined?
There's gradients. Yeah. No, it's not predetermined. Uh there's an element of predetermination in that some things will will happen and then how we function within them is ultimately the function of reality. Now I don't know that obviously but I would say based on what I what what I've read, what I've seen, what I've experienced, a simple way to describe it is we are here as sort of a test. We are given choices. We are given free will. We are giving given opportunity. We are given struggles and we make choices on how we exist within these things. Do you choose to be evil for self gain to burn things down and destroy? If life, all life is functioning towards the creation of complex systems that it would seem to defy God's will to be a a force of entropy. So when you look at Antifa burning things down, destroying that, I describe that as evil. When you look at Democrats exploiting to steal and and and make gains for themselves, they are empowering a small system at the destruction of a larger system. I would call that evil. If the purpose of a person or if the function of a person is to create more complicated systems, i.e. create life, protect life, and expand upon life, that seems to be God's will, as that is what life does. So, there's a sort of yin-yang of the universe. I don't believe it's balanced like yin-yang. I believe it's more like the golden ratio spiraling towards negative I'm sorry, towards entropy with life functioning as negative entropy. And thus, simply put, there is a god, we are here for a reason. We are here to protect, to organize, to create and develop and expand.
So what if you end up in a situation where you have Aztecs who are cutting the...
Stop them.
Oh, hang on. Cutting, sacrificing it to their god. Okay. But when they do, they're are way more likely to breed.
You have now expanded life.
Nope.
Yes. Yinyang.