Transcription
I think Bug tried to get in on our last live stream, and we, we, they ran out of time, or I ran out of time. One of the two. How you doing, Bug?
>> I'm good. How are you doing?
Good. Thank you for asking. Bug, are you at least 18 and are you a believer in some kind of a God?
>> Uh, yes, sir. I'm Orthodox Christian. I wanted to run you through my argument for God's existence.
>> Is it the Christian God or a generic God?
Uh, I, I want to start off with a, a generic god that, a, a god that, a conscious, full, uh, pure act being has to exist by necessity.
>> Okay. Okay. So, I'll give you the this. Well, first of all, it doesn't. But second of all, I'll give you the same warning I give all Phil Bros. Uh, which is that if you use words that are not standard in the English dictionary, like words you would only know how you're using them if you didn't read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, then I'm going to instruct you to either provide definitions for those words or use different words.
>> Yeah, of course. That's amazing.
>> Just so you know, this is not a philosophy class, right? So, when you say nonsense things like pure act, not a single person gives a [ __ ] what that means. We don't even know what that means.
>> Yeah. If you need me to define anything, just ask me and I'll, I'd love to define it for you, brother.
>> Okay. So, we'll start with premise number one.
>> All right. Things in the universe are in motion.
>> Premise two is nothing moves itself.
>> Premise two, this is Quinus's motion of it.
>> Okay.
>> Premise three is a China movers. There can't be an infinite regress in a perfect two.
Nothing moves itself. Okay. And premise number three is infinite regress.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. And any others?
>> Yeah, there's uh there's eight total.
Conclusion one is therefore there must be a first mover that isn't moved by anything else.
Okay, let's, let's pause there and address the premises that we have before we go on to more premises and conclusions because I suspect this is a multi-pronged argument.
>> Yeah, it's uh three uh it's eight premises um and there's three conclusions.
>> Okay, so we agree that things in the universe have motion. I think we can just mark that one off.
>> Of course.
Number two is nothing moves by itself or nothing moves itself. And to this, I actually don't think we know that to be the case. For my like limited understanding of how quantum fields produce matter, the way that they produce matter would in fact cause motion and it would like literally quantum fields would produce matter out of non-matter. That that's a very weird thing to think about. But if that is the case, we have no reason to believe why it wouldn't also be in motion when it got produced. So, I don't know if premise number two works.
>> Yeah. Uh, real quickly, do you affirm the law of non-contradiction?
>> Um, as far as I can tell, the law of non-contradiction seems to hold true. I think the the first law of logic works until you get to a quantum level. Um, and even like things like uh causation when you get to the quantum level causation tends to fall apart because there are actually effects that precede the cause within quantum physics and we can even like reverse effects and causes in quantum physics. So while I think that generally the laws of logic are true for the things that normal people can observe, I think quantum physics [ __ ] everything up.
>> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um,
>> I would argue, uh,
>> just just to put a cap on that, just to put a cap on premise number two, I'm going to put an I for I don't know. I don't know that is the case. I mean, you can make a case and and it might be convincing to me, but I don't know if that is the case.
>> Yeah. Um I would argue that the uh law of non-contradictions what we call a self-evident truth and for it to be denied would require it to be true. So for example, let's say you uh let's assume you say um the law of non-contradiction is false. You would be asserting the truth of a proposition like that it's true. Do you believe the law of non-contradiction is false? While denying its opposite, which is the law of non-contradiction is true, which for that statement to hold any truth and to be meaningful would require the law of non-contradiction to be valid. Otherwise, the statement that you believe the law of non-contradiction is false is also simultaneously a statement where you're saying that you believe the law of non-contradiction is true.
>> Yeah, I I hear what you're saying. I I didn't say that I didn't believe in the law of non-contradiction. Okay. So with that being said, the reason motion or moves here as I'm using in premise 2, I'm defining it as the move from a state of potential to actual. Potential I'm defining as something having the capacity to become something else but is not yet that thing. In actuality or actual I'm defining as something is already that thing or state. So the reason something
>> Mhm. So if matter comes into existence via quantum fields um then we could agree we could just say that the movement is caused by quantum fields the initial movement.
>> Yeah. As long as it's not something moving itself.
>> Well the quantum field would be the mover.
>> Sure. Yeah. Um, and just real quickly with with those definitions being said, the reason as to why something can't move itself is it would have it would end up being a violation of the law of non-contradiction because
>> Oh, I don't know about that.
>> Sure. Uh, I I I can explain. So, for something to be moved, something actual is actualizing something else's potential, right? So if you were to move yourself, you would have to be in a state of actuality, meaning you already are that thing or state, and then also be actualizing your potential, meaning you are not yet that thing or state. So you're both that thing and state and also not yet that thing or state in the same time and same respect, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
>> What do you think about chemical reactions? So I I think the reason why I think this is a bad argument, there's a lot of reasons. First of all, because we haven't concluded that it is the case that nothing can move by itself, but also because a lot of things we would say are stationary. But if I put um a stationary uh uh two things in space, right? Like a lump of iron, two lumps of iron, and just set them in space. Push them. I don't move them. They're going to move on their own just because of how gravity works. Okay.
>> So, you don't need anyone to push them. Gravity alone is going to move them.
>> And that that wouldn't be something moving itself.
>> Well, gravity would be moving it. But gravity is not an entity. Like you can't touch it. You can't point to it, right?
>> Uh when when I'm saying like something move itself, it doesn't have to be like an entity or like a being. It can be something like gravity or something that you can't necessarily touch uh or something like that. It's just the the concept is that it's for something to move itself would be a logical impossibility because it violates the law of non-contradiction. What the means at which it gets moved or actualized uh as long as it's outside of itself and doesn't violate the laws of logic is completely fine. That's what I'm saying. Two things that are not moving if you set them in space will in fact move because of how gravity affects mass.
>> Yeah.
>> So you don't need you don't need a person or a thing or something already moving to move them. You have quite literally an immaterial mover and it's not God. It's just gravity.
>> Uh yeah, I'm I'm not saying that everything that's moved is moved by God. Like for example, if I wave my hand, I'm not affirming that God is controlling my hand to wave it.
>> No, I agree. And I'm not making that claim either. I'm just saying I think the reason why this argument is so popular is pe people just assume, you know, any motion is the same as everything in motion, right? So, if we're saying there has to be a first motion, um, first of all, I don't think that is the case. But even if that is the case, if there has to be a first motion, there's lots of ways we can get to a first motion without a god. Like, it could literally just be gravity.
>> Well, yeah. So the I would argue that the gravity couldn't be this um like the first cause or the thing that's actualizing everything else because an aspect uh that's required to be this first cause is to be pure act.
>> The reason this is is because
>> what do you think pure act means?
>> Pure act I would define as being fully actualized and having no potential which would include
>> Oh. Mhm.
>> So gravity would be pure act, would it not?
>> No, gravity wouldn't be pure act. Uh gravity
>> why
>> an aspect of pure act for example uh which means you don't have any potential in the sense that there is no improvement. You can't get any more powerful any better. You can't increase at all like you're you're the peak right? So for example, if you imagine like a human within the human mind, someone that's pure act could be uh omni omnipotent or omnisient like they all knowing those types of attributes, right? Gravity we would uh wouldn't be like gravity could always be increased, become more powerful, be stronger, right? That would it be uh that would mean it has potential. If it has the uh if it's logically possible for it to change, then it would be it would have potential. If it could get more powerful, it would have potential. If it could change in any way, it would have potential.
>> Yeah. Why I Why do I care? Why Why do I care that gravity isn't
>> has
>> Well, I think it's a meaningless data point.
>> I I think so what happens is like you're you're using words that you think have meaning and they have no meaning in the real world. Like no one cares, right? that like the word pure act only matters in a philosophy classroom. In the real world, no one cares. The reality is gravity does in fact exist and it does in fact move things. Whether or not gravity could be more powerful than what it is today or even less powerful is irrelevant to the fact that we know that it does move things.
>> Yeah. Well, as it pertains to the argument you were positing that gravity could potentially be the first cause, I was just explaining to you how it couldn't be because it's not
>> a pure act.
>> Why does the first cause have to be pure act?
>> Yeah, of course. Um, so within W uh do you know what PSR is?
>> No, I don't I don't I don't study any of this philosophy stuff cuz none of it will ever prove any of the gods or any of the holy books to be true. In fact, the minute even if you had an argument that ended in God being real, you would still completely lose on it being the Christian God. The Christian God absolutely is a violation of the laws of logic. Like you you have to abandon that God at some point.
>> Yeah. We can we can get into that in uh after we like discuss this argument. Yeah. So um PSR is what we call the principle sufficient reasoning. It's the idea that everything that exists has a sufficient reason as to why it exists. Um, and why it exists in that specific way. We it affirms that there aren't things that just exist for no reason. It's something for example like the scientific method and science uh science relies on because if things could exist for brute facts within the scientific field, then there could be things that exist without any explanation or for no reason at all. For example, like let's say this chem if you these chemical reaction occurs, there could be no reason at all why it happens. It just happens and that type of thing which kind of would defeat the purpose of the scientific method and scientific advancements and studying etc. because things could just be chocked up to being brute facts and happening for no reason.
>> But
>> yeah, but you don't have sufficient reason for God existing. So like you can't posit that. And also I don't think that you have to know the sufficient reason to know that something is like I can know that gravity works without having sufficient understanding of how it works.
>> No. Yeah. I'm not saying that this means that everyone will know the sufficient reasoning for everything. Obviously there's things we don't know and that we're still studying and learning. I'm just positing that there's a suffi everything does have a sufficient reasoning what whether it's known or unknown to us at this point in time. Um, and going back to why the first cause would have to be pure act. Uh if the cause had potential then it would have u then it having potential would need a explanation so that it doesn't violate the principle of sufficient reasoning. Um, if it had potential without a reasoning then it would be what we call a brute fact right. Um, which we if you believe brute facts exist that's a different explanation but uh this would mean that
>> but you do you believe in brute facts
>> like you believe in brute facts and things that exist by necessity.
>> I don't affirm brute facts.
>> You don't think God's a brute fact?
>> No.
>> Okay then. I I I don't affirm that God exists just because like for example with this argument that I'm laying out would be actually going against the idea that uh I'm affirming a gods being a brute fact because the purpose of the argument is to deductively prove that God has to exist by necessity and doesn't just exist because he exists and that there's an actual reason.
>> Well, yeah. So, if your only evidence that God exists is an argument from necessity, then I would I could easily just give you an argument from necessity for a non-scentient first cause.
>> Yeah. This just so we're just so we're clear, even if I accepted all three of your premises, it doesn't result in a god. The conclusion's a nonsequittor if you put God in there.
>> Yeah. Uh, no. You couldn't argue that the first cause would be non-concious because of something called the principle or proportionate causality.
>> The principle of proportionate causality. Are you familiar with that term?
>> I'm not familiar with any of these terms cuz I studied like real things in school.
>> Yeah. So, the propens principle of proportionate causality is uh holds that uh something cannot produce an effect out of nothing. if it did produce an effect.
>> Well, that's not true.
>> So, you would affirm that uh things uh can produce effects out of nothing.
>> Oh, what I'm saying is that if you by nothing you mean no matter, then that would be wrong. Uh literally non-matter can produce matter.
>> No, no, not not like within matter. I'm affirming that for example, it in order for an effect to happen, it either has to be within the cause formally, eminently, or virtually. So
>> not according to quant quantum physics. That's what I'm saying.
>> Well, if you were to affirm that it uh a cause can bring out an effect that it doesn't possess formally, eminently, or virtually, it would lead into a violation of the law of non-contradiction because you'd be saying it both doesn't have the ability to create the effect, but at the same time, it does or it did create the effect.
>> Not even close to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that things that exist non-materially do in fact cause material.
>> Yeah, you can that can occur if it uh has the ability to to bring about that. For example, um, when it comes to formally formally meaning like directly either you're like directly material, virtually meaning it has the power to produce it or eminently meaning it possesses it in a higher more superior way. You could say a non-material thing can virtually possess the ability to bring about a material effect, meaning it has the power to produce it.
>> What does it mean to virtually possess something?
>> Uh, virtually uh I I would whenever I'm referring to virtually, I'm I'm referring to it has the power to produce it.
>> Do do you see how like none of these words work in the real world? Like virtually in the real world doesn't mean what you just explained. This is why I instructed you when you came in. You have to actually talk like a real person. Nobody took your philosophy class. I didn't take it. There are thousands of people watching right now that didn't take your philosophy class. If I walked into your live stream and started spitting electrical engineering terms, how far do you think we would get?
>> Uh, I think I think we could get somewhere as long as both parties are defining the terms that the other are confused on.
>> which you're not doing. You're using a a literal litany of words that you've never heard outside of your philosophy class.
>> And you know that you know you know hold on you know for a fact that the majority of these words you're hearing you've never heard them until you took philosophy. But you're assuming that we should know what they are. And I just think that's silly. Which is why I started the conversation with if you want to have a productive conversation just use normal people words. I can do it. I do it all the time. I I debate these philosophy concepts all the time. Being a complete amateur, I have no idea. I I didn't take any of your philosophy classes. Just using logic and I can use normal people words and not bore the entire audience to death by spending endless amounts of time explaining the definition of this specialty word that I didn't learn until I took philosophy class. Like, you could do that. You could make that decision right now.
>> Yeah. Well, that's not what I'm doing at all. If you go back on your stream at the start, I said, "If there's any words that you want me to define or you're confused on, please ask me and I'll define it." And so far, every word you've asked me to define.
>> Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna stop you every time you start talking then.
>> Well, if you don't understand something, I'd gladly appreciate to define it in order for conversation to be fruitful.
>> So, we'll try this again. That's why I said I don't go into filro spaces using electrical engineering terminology and expect you to know electrical engineering terminology. That's stupid. That's a dumb thing to do. So, what you shouldn't do is going into non-filosophical classrooms and expect us to know all your philosoph. No one cares.
>> I don't expect you. That's why I offered to find anything you're confused on.
>> It's It's not useful. It's still not useful. If I walked into your room and said, "I'm going to use a bunch of electrical engineering words. Just stop me if you don't know one." That's still useful. that are useless cuz I'm going to use a [ __ ] ton of words that you've never heard before and the entire conversation is going to be bogged down. No one's going to learn anything. You'll never reach your conclusion. You'll spend an hour and a half just defining terms. It's boring. No one cares about it. If you can't use normal people words, you're going to bore my audience and then I have to move on to the next guest. So, just just use normal words. I don't want to stop you every 30 seconds and ask you for the definition of a word because it sounded great in philosophy class, but you've never heard it in the real world yet.
>> Yeah, of course. I understand where you're coming from. But if you are going to bring up the topic of challenging us to prove God and prove you wrong and then limit the ways in which we can go about proving that only to expertise, I would argue that's intellectually dishonest.
>> I'm not limiting the way. You're limiting me. What I'm saying is to use philosophy.
>> What I'm saying is that you're using you're using specialty jargon to try to find an advantage in the conversation. That's what you're doing. But you don't have to do it. That's my point. You could use normal people words and say the exact same thing and not waste your time and not not waste my time. That's all I'm asking. Don't waste my time. Don't waste the audience time by making me force you to define all the words that aren't proper jargon in modern-day non philosophy English.
>> Sure. Okay. So, from where we left off, you wanted the meaning of virtually.
>> We're still on premise number two.
>> Yeah.
>> Just so we're clear, I'll put it back on the board. We're on premise number two. Oops, wrong button. Premise number two,
>> which is nothing moves itself. That's still where we're at. I have no reason to believe that this is the case.
>> Did Did you understand how it leads into for something to move itself, it would lead into a violation of the law of non-contradiction?
>> No. What I'm saying is something can be moved that is immaterial when it becomes material. And something can be moved that is material by gravity. Now, that doesn't mean it moved itself, but what it does mean is that there's an immaterial mover that's moving the thing.
>> That's fine.
>> And we first of all, first of all, we still >> we don't we still don't have any conclusive reason to believe that something couldn't move itself.
>> We don't know that to be the case.
>> Okay. I brought up the explanation that if for something to move itself, it would violate the law of non-contradiction on that explanation. Yeah. So it would to move to move like I define motion as moving from the state of potential to actual and in order for something to move from potential to actual something has to actualize its potential. So if something were to move
>> well no why no you've defined that into existence. So what you've said is my claim is true because my definition includes the conclusion that's circular. You can't include your conclusion in the premise.
>> Yeah, I can explain I can explain as to why something actual would need to actualize something's potential for it to move from a state of potential to actual. If you
>> No, that that's what you're saying though. Your your claim is that something can't move itself. And the the premise to support that claim is that something can't move itself. That's essentially what you're saying.
>> That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that literally what you're saying. I was explaining to you how some things move from potential to actual. Now, as to why something can't move itself, if potential is defined as something uh something being capable of being a uh a specific state, but you're not yet that state and then actuality means uh something is already that state, then you would both be already that state and at the same time not yet that state in order to move yourself because you're actualizing your own potential, which would violate.
>> Yeah. But that doesn't fix the problem. It doesn't. So, we'll try this again. So, the law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with whether or not a thing can actualize its own movement. That's what I'm looking for.
>> So, the
>> is there is there a reason why a thing can actualize its own movement?
>> Do you see the P and not P?
>> No. Okay.
>> We haven't given it yet.
>> Uh on your notepad, put P. Uh uh something is that state
>> is what state?
>> It is that state. I'm not saying a specific state.
>> Well, I need to know what the state is.
>> For example, let's say like ice is moving itself. Ice is um
>> so something is moving
>> is a solid.
>> Is a solid or is moving?
>> It is a solid.
>> Okay. Ice is a solid. Yep.
>> And then not P is ice is not a solid. So in this scenario,
>> yeah, we we agree that this is a contradiction. You can't have contradictions, but that doesn't address what we were talking about.
>> So this in this scenario, ice itself to go from a state of not being a solid to being a solid. And as I defined you would it would be actualizing its potential. So it it have the potential of not being that thing or state and at the same time be actual meaning it is that thing or state which would be a violation of law of non-contradiction because P you are that thing or state and not P you're not that thing or state and that's at the same time same respect
>> but we're talking about things that are moving we're not talking about states of matter
>> motion as they move from a state of potential to actual
>> I'm talking about moving like a motion like something is moving through space See, again, this is the problem.
>> How I define motion. That's not what I mean. I
>> I know that's the problem. Bug is everybody here. Bug, stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Bug, stop.
>> Everybody here, right? There are over 2,000 people watching and every last one of them knows what it means to move. Right now, you've got a weird definition of move that doesn't mean actual movement. Right? So now I have to stop the conversation and explain to you that the word move means to locate something in one position and then into another position. It means a transllocation. Now you've got a different definition of move that probably isn't even in the dictionary. What's your definition?
>> Uh I defined it as move from state of potential to actual and that's the definition I gave you at the very start of the conversation.
>> Okay. And again that's a meaningless definition.
>> How is that meaningless? Because actual means it's moving.
>> Actual means it's already that finger state. For example, if we take a seed, a seed's potential is to become a tree. So for a seed to be actualized, it is a tree. But we're talking about movement. This is the argument from motion. Premise number one, things in the universe have motion. We're not talking about its states of being. What we're talking about is whether or not something is in motion and how it might have found itself to be in a state of motion. Right? And now you're talking about states of matter.
>> So
>> this is why these arguments are silly. So I'm going to short circuit the argument and explain to you why everything in this fails. First of all, we have no evidence whatsoever that something can't produce its own motion. That's a problem. You're not going to be able to provide an argument for that. Premise number three, you have no way of demonstrating that infinite regresses are impossible. Never going to happen. I I've already done this argument with thousand people before you. You'll never prove infinite regresses are impossible. Conclusion, not only is it nonsequiter, we can also just say that it's natural. Whatever it is, it's natural by necessity. We have no reason to believe that whatever the prime mover is that it's sentient. So the only premise you have in this whole syllogism that works is premise number one. That's it. Yeah.
>> So, um, once once again, you are you're imposing your own definition of motion when I've made it explicitly clear numerous times what I mean by motion and what I'm defining motion as. I feel like
>> the definition of motion
>> it's not. We'll just try this again. So, the definition of motion is the action or process of moving or being moved. That's what it means to be in motion. So I I define motion in the in this metaphysical argument as referring to the move from state of potential to actual. I'm not referring to motion in the sense that of the word that you brought up on your screen just now. That's a different kind of
>> and and again bug nobody knows what the [ __ ] that means. Nobody cares either
>> whether people care or not.
>> We're talking about we're talking about the word motion. Nobody nobody knows what it means to be potential to actual. If that's the case, then we could just say potential to actual motion.
>> Like what does it mean? And potential to do what?
>> So potential I I'll define it again is something has the capacity to become something else but is not yet that thing. For example, a seed, a seed's potential is to become a tree, but it's not yet a tree. It's still a seed. An actual is it's something is already that thing or state. So for a seed, it's being actualized would mean that the seed is now a tree. I got you. Okay. So, so what you mean to say so what you mean to say is that the un things in the universe have a state.
>> Say that.
>> That's what you mean to say. You got to change premise number one. Premise number one needs to say things in the universe have a state.
>> No. The term the term here as like I'm uh as like Aquinus and Arisatilian toistic metaphysics uses it. It refers to
>> no one cares what that means. It doesn't matter how many big words you use. Every time you use like big words, no one cares.
>> I I've once again I've offered numerous times to define any words that don't
>> No one cares bugs. No one cares.
>> Kind of like dismissive at that point.
>> If you understood how rhetoric works, you would not be forcing your audience to ask you for definitions. In fact, when I took when I took my preaching classes in seminary, they told us they f told us, "Don't use big theological jargon. Don't [ __ ] do it. I don't care how smart you think it makes you feel, don't do it. Your audience doesn't know what you're talking about. They have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to win over an audience, if you want to win the hearts and minds of people, you have to use the words that they know. Now, you're not in the philosophy classroom. This sounds great. I'm sure in your philosophy classroom, it sounds stupid outside of your philosophy classroom. If you want to have a productive conversation with me or anyone here, even convince the audience, you got to start using words either in the way they show up in the dictionary or the way they're used in society. No one cares that you came with all your own new definitions. No one cares.
>> Yeah. Uh so these I'm using these most simplified uh version of these words. Obviously, if I wanted to pretend to be smart or ego people, I could use the Latin terminology and start saying qua and all these other terms, but I'm using the most simple barebones versions of the words and I'm clearly define them for you every time you've asked in numerous times outside of that. Uh what I if you're just if you're going to continue to say that like I can't for example I can't use these words because no one understands it. It would be really an appeal to if you're just
>> what I'm saying is that it's bad it's bad rhetoric. What I'm saying it's bad rhetoric right? If your goal here is to convince people of your viewpoint this is a bad method. This is called bad rhetoric. Rhetoric needs to match the audience and the interlocular. Which is why I told you I will never go into somebody else's space and use a bunch of electrical engineering words. Nobody knows what it means. Sure, there might be five engineers in the audience that thinks, "Oh, this is really cool. He's using electrical engineering words." No one gives a [ __ ] You You're not in a philosophy classroom. If you can't use words that normal people use, you're wasting your time. So, don't don't make me stop you every time you use a word that you only learned in philosophy class. If it's a word that you never knew what it meant until you took philosophy, we don't know what the [ __ ] it means either. So stop using it.
>> So I would understand good rhetoric as like someone who's communicating clearly uh and truthfully and uh
>> well we disagree in a logically coherent way.
>> I would disagree. You you don't think good ric rhetoric would include communicating clearly and truthfully?
>> Good rhetoric is not limited to truthfully and clearly and you're not communicating clearly. You cannot communicate clearly if you intentionally use words that other people don't know which is why I don't do them. I have two degrees in theology and biblical studies and I never I never use theological words. I learned all kinds of fun words in seminary. I would never use them on this live stream cuz nobody knows what they mean. It's a waste of my time and it's a waste of your time. It's a waste of the audience time. No one cares. Use words that people know or alls you're doing is wasting your time and my time. So, we started with an argument for motion. As it turns out, there's a way to do the argument for motion without using a single philosophical word. In fact, I just talked to a guy with a PhD recently. We had a 2-hour conversation about philosophy. He didn't have to say he didn't explain a single definition. Not once a two-hour conversation for a full two hours we talked and he didn't have to explain one word. And the reason is because he's an educator. He's a teacher and he knows in order to communicate your ideas, you have to communicate in the words that normal people know, not in a secret language that you only know if you took philosophy classes.
>> Right? So that's why it's bad rhetoric.
>> I don't see how I'm obuscating and not communi communicating clearly when I offered to define every any word that you said you didn't make sense to you clearly. I have I already told you I already that you didn't even ask for.
>> Bugs already address this.
>> I'm not going to stop you every 30 seconds and ask you for definitions. If you can't use if you can't use what's between your ears and use normal people words, you know what normal people words are. You do. You know what they are. You're choosing to not use them. And that's the annoying thing. That's why right now I'm stopping you because you're intentionally using words that you've only learned in philosophy class. Before you took a philosophy class, before you heard a single philosophical argument, have you ever used the word pure act
>> outside? Uh yes. It's very common within like the or
>> No, no. Before No, no. Be before Before you You ever learned about any philosophy, you've never used the word pure act, have you?
>> Well, neither [ __ ] have we. None of us. We don't care. We're We're not in philosophy class. If you're using words that you only ever learned because you someone taught you philosophy or you learned some doctrine, nobody cares. We didn't learn that. We don't care. We We know what's in the dictionary. We went to school. We took grammar. We took English. We know what's in the dictionary. We don't know anything in your philosophy class. The same reason why you don't know anything in electrical engineering. I'm I'm presuming I assume you didn't take electrical engineering. Again,
>> I can't come into your space and expect you to stop me every time I use an electrical engineering word you've never heard of. That's stupid. That's irrational. I'm not going to stop you every 5 minutes to explain words that we would only know if you took your philosophy classes. No one has time for that. Now, this argument is not a good argument. The Aquinus's argument for motion or whatever variant you have of it doesn't work for the reasons I've already articulated. Do you want to know why this argument is useless and why I know that your god doesn't exist?
>> Of course, I want to know why this argument is useless.
>> Okay? Because it doesn't matter if you have an argument that lands in some deistic [ __ ] that created the universe. The reality is your god does not exist. Your god is full of contradictions. Your God is full of failed prophecies. Your God is full of uh promises that literally don't come true. It never will come true. So, we can literally just start by uh looking at we could start like something as silly as the Trinity. Now, you're Orthodox. I know you've applied your philosophy to the Trinity, haven't you?
>> Yes. I I just want to say I feel like what you're committing an appeal to convenience in the sense of saying just because you don't feel like uh asking me to define words that therefore I'm in the wrong or I can't use them or it's like kind of anti-intellectualism.
>> It's not convenience. What I'm telling you is I'm hosting a live stream, okay? I've got almost a,000 people on one channel. I've got a,000 people on another channel. I've got 500 people on TikTok watching. There are 2,500 people watching right now and none of them there are five [ __ ] people in my audience that have a clue what you're talking about cuz we didn't take philosophy and we don't care. We don't care cuz it you can give a million philosophical arguments and none of them will ever land in the Christian God that here cuz we don't care if there's aistic God that kicked things into motion. It's meaningless to us. Not only can you not prove it, it doesn't mean anything. The reality is the God of the Quran, the God of the Bible, the God of Judaism, the God of the Hindus, the multiple gods of the Hindus, none of those are defensible gods. That's what we're here for. That's why mine my claim is that your God is imaginary. Not a deistic God, not a um immaterial, you know, uh non-thinking first moving agent. Your God, the Christian God, that [ __ ] is imaginary. I I think what you're saying is a little contradictory. If you're saying that you do not care about God or deistic God at all or anything like that, but then you focus your time on running multiple live streams uh and spending thou thousands of hours debating on this theistic God and whether he exists or not. That's a little contradictory. Are you not running a live streaming the existence of God while you're saying that you don't care?
>> I'm debating the existence of your God right now. I'm debating the existence of the Christian God at this moment. And if you're a Muslim, I'd be debating the existence of the Muslim God. Again, my live stream does not say the deistic God doesn't exist. It says your God doesn't exist. And the reason why I can do that is because people who believe in theistic gods don't get up on this stage. They don't give a [ __ ] if I believe in their god. You do. That's why you're here.
>> Okay. Ultimately rooted
>> that that's why no one cares about these boring philosophical concepts that not only don't end in your specific god, they don't even end in a deistic god. You've got to do all this like uh all this work. You you've got to read five dictionaries of philosophy just to understand the premises and then premises don't even support the conclusion. I I would I would say that just saying that no one cares and like therefore like uh I shouldn't be arguing with it or using it or uh is just
>> I didn't say you shouldn't like an adopulum in some sense in
>> I didn't say you shouldn't.
>> So
>> I said I don't care.
>> Okay.
>> So essentially
>> I'm saying I don't care because you're on my platform and I'm allowed to run my platform the way that I run my platform. There's a reason why a hundred people up to this point has been saying over and over again, "Move to the next guest. He's boring. Move to the next guest. He's boring. Move to the next guest. He's boring." Because this is boring. We've heard this argument a thousand times. You can't believe that you're the first person up here that gave the argument from motion. Please tell me you don't think that.
>> I don't think that, but I think that for
>> So, why do you think this is going to work?
>> For for it to come to something where it's a topic that you don't understand as well. Um, and you don't understand the term, so therefore I'm not allowed to use it or I'm wrong for using it or I didn't say you're wrong for using it.
>> Kind of like uh an appeal to incredul where you're rejecting.
>> No, no. Listen to what I'm saying, Bug. You are in my space. There are rules in my space. I set the rules in my space. You don't have to follow them. You can leave if you don't want to follow my rules. The same reason why if I came into your space for the hundth [ __ ] time, if I did nothing but use engineering jargon, you would say, "Justin, stop using engineering jargon. I don't know what the [ __ ] it means." I would say, "Okay, I'll use normal words. I'm in my space now. You're in my space now. We don't know your dumb jargon. We don't know it. And we don't want to stop you and make you spend an hour explaining it to us. If you can't explain it in normal words, you don't have a good argument. What happen in normal words?
>> Everything. Again, I told you I'm not going to I'm not going to stop you every time you use a word that you only found in philosophy. I'm not going to do it. Alls it does is bog down the conversation. Now, we can try again. We can start from premise one. I can give you a shot to do all of your premises and your conclusion without using philosophical jargon that nobody knows. I can give you that opportunity, but I'm not stopping you. every 30 seconds to define your terms. You have to put your big boy pants on and say, "Hey, when I'm talking, is this a word that I would only know if I took this specific philosophy class?" And if the answer is yes, don't use it.
>> Okay. So, are you saying that I'm not being clear or that you don't feel like have asking me to define words over and over again?
>> Both. Not only are you not clear and also I'm not going to waste my time and the audience's time to force you to define words that you know you only learned when you started learning philosophy.
>> Okay. So then can you like for examp give me an example of a word that I've not been clear on with my definition so that I can define clearly any word any word that you never learned about until you started learning philosophy and you know what those words are. You know what those words are. I'm not in your head. When those words come to your lips, think, hey, would a normal person know what these words mean? And if the answer is no, don't use it.
>> I I I think that
>> so stop stop reading from your script, Bug. Throw your script away. We don't need it. I heard you turning pages. I know I know you have a script. I know you have a script. I know you want to go through it. Throw your script away and just have a normal human being conversation.
>> I think that's changing what you said. It's moving from me not being clear to me using words that you don't feel like asking fine
>> again it's both whether I'm clear or not bug it's both
>> it's both and I've already
>> bug not only is it both I explained to it I explained to you five times why it's both five times and now you're crying about it
>> I've explained to you if you're using words that are in a specialty field in order to communicate to people that are not in your specialty field, then that is your problem. If a nurse comes in here and wants to have a conversation with me and does nothing but use endless words that she learned from nursing school, it's a useless conversation. I don't give a [ __ ] You're You're no better than an engineer forcing engineering terms on people. You're no better than a nurse forcing nursing nursing words on people. No one get No one studied the [ __ ] that you studied. No one is in your specialty other than the friends that you know. So stop using those words. One day you'll figure this out and you can have an effective conversation and you might even win some people over. But all you're doing is mental masturbation at this point.
All you're doing is using a bunch of cool words that I learned in philosophy class. And it makes you feel good because it gets you to the end of your script, but it doesn't get the audience to the end of the script. Your goal here is to convince me and to convince the audience not to feel special that you know big words.
Once again, as I said, I'm using the simplified terms and I I've offered I've done it consistently where if there's a word that is uh that you guys don't understand, stop repeating yourself. I've already addressed this five times.
So at this at this point, so bug bug this bug, this is what's going to happen. You're going to stop crying and you can address your premises without using jargon or we can move on. Okay, I'm giving you the opportunity. You can go through the entire argument right now, but I'm not stopping you to define all of your dumb philosophical terms.
Okay? So, I want you to do it. Go through the premises without using special philosophy jargon. Do it. I want you to do it. Prove me wrong. I'm I'm confused now because it seems like one thing it's that I'm intentionally being unclear. I'm asking you to give the argument bug.
Provide the argument. Okay. And it once again is it that I'm being unclear or is it that you don't feel like asking for definitions like clear the provide the argument.
Okay. So where do you want to start? Do you want to start from the very beginning? Premise number one is on the screen. Things in the universe have either a state or motion. You got to pick one. Which is it?
Things in the universe are in motion. Motion being defined as the move from a state of potential to actual.
That means nothing. Try again.
How does that mean nothing?
Cuz we don't know what those words means. Try again.
So I I'll define potential and actual. Potential is means something has the capacity to become something else but is not yet that thing. Actual means something is already that thing or state.
Okay. So, what you mean to say is things in the universe are in a state of change.
Change or motion? Yeah, I would say this.
Is there a reason why you couldn't say that?
Well, I I just defined it as the same thing. If you.
Bug, is there a reason why you couldn't say that?
Say change instead of motion?
Yes. Is there a reason why you couldn't say things in the universe are in a state of change? Is a reason why you couldn't say that?
I I I can say change.
Is there a reason why you couldn't say that the first five times you gave the premise?
There isn't a reason.
Okay. So, you could have said that and you chose not to. That you're proving my point. You're only using words. One, because they're on your script and it makes you feel special because you know these specialty words. No one gives a [ __ ]. Premise number one, things in the universe are in a state of change. That's the actual premise. Which means the entire time we've been walking through this argument, you and I have been talking about two completely different things. And the reason is because you thought using philosophy terms makes you sound cool, but it doesn't. What it means is that you're talking about something that I'm not talking about. I was talking about motion the entire time. You were talking about change the entire time. And that's why this is bad rhetoric. So premise number two then isn't nothing moves itself. Premise number two needs to be nothing changes by itself. Do you agree?
Yes. Uh once again the disconnect it's I feel like you're shifting it as my fault when I defined motion clearly and then you went back. You can cry all you want, bug. No, no one's here for your tears. No one's here for it.
What we're here for is you to make the argument work. That's what I want. I want you to make this argument work.
I'm rooting for you. I'm on your team. I want you to give me the premises in a way that actually [ __ ] work.
Okay. So, you still disagree.
Premise number two, nothing changes by itself. Can you support that?
Yeah. So, we change I define it the same way as motion in this scenario. So, we don't have to reread that. Um.
Okay. What's No, what's the support though? How do you support the claim that nothing changes by itself?
Yeah. Uh, so to in order for something to change itself, it would have to be actualizing its potential.
Again, nobody bug, nobody gives a [ __ ] what that means. Nobody cares. I'm not going to ask you for that definition. Use different words.
There there isn't a different word that I could use for act that's going to change anything. It's still going to be defined the same way. It's not going to get any clearer.
Okay. So what you mean to say is nothing can cause its own change.
Nothing changes by itself. That would that.
Yeah, that's what it means. Nothing can cause its own change. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Support the premise. That's what I'm looking for. How do you support the premise?
Yes. So it would in order for it to even potentially cause its own change or change itself, it would need to actualize its own potential. Actual refers to being in uh that something is already that thing or state and potential refers to something uh having the potential to become that thing or state but is not yet that thing. So it would end up being a violation of the law of non-contradiction because you'd be saying P it is that thing or state and not P it is not that thing or state and.
And that would be wrong because even fundamental particles in the universe can decay. That's self-change. That's self self-actualization of potential. So the premise fails. It doesn't matter what philosophy jargon you tie to it. It fails because fundamental particles in the universe in fact decay.
All right. And can you like objectively show that this is a self motion? Like do we know for sure or is.
No, it's it's not it's not motion. It's decay. It's change. Again, stop using the word motion. It doesn't fit the argument.
I. Is this change is this something we just observe or is this like objectively provable? That is something changing itself.
It is. Yeah.
Okay. And like what's the what's the objective grounding that this is something like objectively changing itself?
Because unstable elementary particles in fact transform and decay because they're unstable. That's the nature of it. So yes, things do change on their own because they're unstable particle unstable particles. And what what particle for example like is decaying is changing itself like is there a specific particle that you have in mind or like specific.
There's there's more than one there's more than one it's a well-defined concept in particle physics though like you can go to leptons baryons bosons all a bunch of fundamental uh fundamental particles decay.
And like within quantum physics right is this decay um it's completely by its own by the particle by itself or does it happen in accordance to like uh certain conditions or frameworks or systems?
No, it it's internally unstable.
Okay. And it what's are is there partic like are there parts of this particle within itself that are internally unstable that cause the decay? A a particle is the smallest unit of thing. There there's no there's no smaller particle inside of a elementary particle. That's why it's elementary.
Okay.
Or fundamental. That's why it's a fundamental particle.
Yeah. And can you uh once again can you provide like the objective grounding that this it's this particle by itself that can't.
Objective grounding?
Well, it it once once again like with science I.
I love that they can't use real words. No, I think we can both agree that with when it comes to science things as we uh get smarter and pro uh like progress, especially technologically, we learn and some things that we uh expected to be a certain way previously change um as we get smarter and have better tools to work with as we see with like the shape of the earth, the orbit of the solar system, etc. I'm asking how do we know that's not the case with this um and that it's actually this is fully the way and it's not something that could change in the future.
I have literally no idea what you're asking. What we know from particle physics is that particles decay. It's it's just a fact of physics.
And this is some this our understanding of this cannot change or adapt at all.
Listen, if we find new information, we'll adapt our understanding. But all the data we have right now shows that that is the case.
So this it's not an it's not objective. This case is not objective that it's moving itself. It's just based on what we've observed at the moment and information we have to us at this moment.
Well, what I'm saying is we have observed particles decay. We know that it happens.
I I would I Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I I would argue then that as from what we understand with the law of non-contradiction, it being a self-evident truth that um that this it couldn't be a violation of the law of non-contradiction. It is just something that's more of a human limitation.
No one cares about the laws of non-contradiction here. We're talking about whether or not particles decay, and they do.
And and.
It's just a fact. The law of non-contradiction is relevant here because it's relevant. It's relevant in the case of something changing itself and why it's not possible.
Well, then the law of non-contradiction is wrong on the quantum level, which is what I said at the beginning of the conversation. The laws of logic go [ __ ] all when you get to quantum physics. They don't they don't work in quantum physics. They just don't. They only they only work in the material universe that you and I are interacting with.
I that was the beginning of the conversation.
So to even to even state that they don't apply to the quantum realm requires the law of non-contradiction to be true for that statement to make sense and be rational.
No, it literally wouldn't. You're saying that's the that's the entire point is is the world that we live in the the law is not something to be obeyed. The law is a description of reality and it just happens to be that it only describes reality on the non-quantum level. Particles decay. That's a fact. That's a fact of quantum physics. Okay?
It doesn't matter what it doesn't matter what you believe about the the three laws of logic. That is a fact.
Okay? So the reason it's a self-evident here.
Is because you it is true that you you're making a true statement that.
It's not self-evident.
You are making a true statement that you believe it's a fact that happens in quantum physics.
Is that.
It is it's a fact that happens. Yeah.
Which means that there's uh that it's false that you believe uh that it is not a fact. There's a distinction between true or false here. What I'm saying is contradictions of.
We'll try this again bug. The reason why I'm saying you're not listening to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this law of logic, the three laws of logic apply to the material universe that you and I are capable of observing. That's what it applies to. They aren't un.
They aren't universal to in fact quantum physics and they don't exist transcendentally. They're descriptions. They're not transcendental laws that the universe is obeying. They are descriptions of how the world around us works. We invented them. They're a language that we invented. And so when I say that this law only works in the material universe, but it doesn't work in quantum physics, that's not a I'm not contradicting anything. I'm just saying there is a space in which the laws of logic work, and there's a space in which they don't work. and they don't always work on the quantum uh level. They just don't. You don't have to like it, but it's true. It's already been proven. It's not even a question in quantum physics.
Now, listen, Bug, we've we've wasted an hour, almost an hour and a half on this nonsensical argument, and you're only on premise two. You're never going to get premise three. I I'm not going to waste another two hours on premise three. I've had this this same argument a thousand times about how infinite regresses aren't possible. You'll never do it. You're not smarter than the thousand people who came before you. You're not smarter than than the Islamic philosophers who came before you. You're not smarter than the the other professional philosophers that came before you. There's no argument to solve the problem of the infinite regress. There's no reason to say that they're impossible. So, first of all, you can't get premise premise number two and you'll never get premise three. Therefore, this argument, this premise one, premise two, premise three, conclusion number one, this this argument that you've laid out, I'm I'm done with it. It's not going to work. And I'm not going to spend any more time on this discussion. I want to move on to discussions that our audience actually cares about. And they've been asking me for an hour to move on to the next guest. So, I'm going to move on to the next guest. But, thank you for at least being kind. I gave you a lot of [ __ ] I even made fun of you, and you took it really well.
Of course. Appreciate it, brother. Thank you for having me up.
All right. Cheers. Keep searching.
Okay. Um, so let me explain something to you. Okay.
Cheers. Keep searching.
Um, let me explain something to you guys.
I will I will.
Uh, so here's what I've been trying to explain to him with the self-refuting thing real quick. So the the thing is with to make the state the statement he's making that the laws of logic don't apply to quantum physics is a self uh refuting claim. Here let me turn off my screen real quick just so I can log on the Google um and pull up make a Google doc for this. Okay, look. So he's making the statement that laws of logic don't apply to quantum physics. Okay, this is self-refuting because for this state for you to make this statement, it assumes that there's logical coherence. Now what what do I mean by that? I mean that this statement is meaningful and not both true and false. It is true that you believe that the laws of logic don't apply to quantum physics. If the laws of logic for example like the law of non-contradiction uh was not actually true and this contradiction could exist then it also be simultaneously false that you believe the laws of logic don't apply to uh to quantum physics which means that any rational and any rational and coherent conversation is thrown is completely thrown out uh out the door because there's no difference between you there's no distinction between your you saying it that you believe this and that you don't believe it. It's both true and true that you believe and don't believe this statement despite the fact you said this. Uh any rational conversation is completely thrown out the way. It's uh thrown out the door. It's completely incoherent. Right? Um and even then if you're allowing rash uh irrationality and uh meaninglessness to exist then no statement uh including the person that's making it uh can be trusted or coherent. Saying that things can be r irrational and not meaningful like uses language and concepts and the laws of logic etc. for that statement that you uh that you're saying things can be irrational not meaningful to make sense. All pre all that statement presupposes the laws of logic being true. If you're uh if you're forfeiting that um irrational things things are all irrational and meaningless then you yourself can't be trusted cuz your statement that all things are irrational or meaningless and that you believe that is also a statement that you don't believe everything's irrational and meaningless. all conversation structure uh communication etc is completely thrown out the door because every single thing you say you're also simultaneously affirming affirming the opposite right there's no way you could even communicate anymore at this on top of that you it even gets crazier to for example the computer I'm typing on this computer is also simultaneously not a computer or this computer exists and at the sim uh simultaneously doesn't exist do you see how everything in like the entire universe just becomes completely irrational and and silly, right? See how it just doesn't make sense? That's what I'm trying to explain to him. And I'm sorry. And I'm I hope he understands now. And I hope he eventually understands what I'm trying to uh what I was trying to say. This is what we call a self-evident truth. Now what is a self-evident truth? A self-evident truth is essenti uh denying it uh requires it to be true or the denial is an affirmation. That's what we call self-evident truth. So when he's denying it being a self-evident truth, it's illogical because once again, denying the laws of logic requires that the laws of logic to be true for your statement that it's true that uh that you believe the laws of logic don't exist to be true to have any meaning. That's why its denial requires it to be true or requires you to use it, which is why it's a self-evident truth. And that's also why this claim is uh this claim up here is a self-refuting claim. Do you all understand that? You not get it is because you do not understand that you spiritual deficiency. There's no way people can understand this. You know, I think the funniest I might like cut cut that out like cut that part of the live stream, the debate, and put it in um as a YouTube video. Um uh I dude, some of the comments, I don't know if you saw, but I was like replying to them just so I could see them later on uh and so y'all could see them. Some of them were so funny, dude, that were trashing me. Uh, I'll go back on the stream and I'll get like a couple screenshots of some of this silly conver uh comments. Oh, there's one right here. Hold up. Where is it? Hold up. Uh, I'm trying to find some of them. There's like there was some funny ones, but yeah. What are you saying? Hold up. I saw you say something. He's a total server. Seems like this should go without saying. I don't get how people can be so dumb, but I appreciate you explaining this, buddy. Yeah, of course. And you you'll notice this. I say this all the time. Even if you get absolutely destroyed or you know you're don't know anything you're talking about, your viewers will always glaze you. You notice like those people, there was probably 400 people in that uh in that live that were all glazing him and acting as if I was a [ __ ] or being unclear. And by the way, I was trying to challenge him on this. Great rhetoric, like if we look up what is great rhetoric. That's what I was trying to point out. The art of effective and persuasive communication accompany the skillful uh skillful use of language to inform, persuade or uh engage in an audience. Right? Great rhetoric would include communicating clearly, being intellectually honest, not being facious, defining your terms when asked. This is examples of great rhetoric. He is saying I'm having bad rhetoric, which means I'm not communicating clearly. Uh, and specifically, I'm he's not accusing me of being doing this. uh he he's accusing me of being intellectually dishonest and I'm like not being clear on my definition for terms. Now, as I said maybe 45 times in that live, I said if you don't if if you don't understand a term, I will just tell me and I will gladly define the term for you so that we're on the same page and clear. And also notice how he was committing a straw man. He at the towards the end of the conversation he said that there was a disconnect with the word motion because he was using motion in the sense of like the dictionary definition. Uh and I was using motion in this uh definition uh and I was using motion in the sense of like how I defined it as change in the move from a state of potential to actual. Right? And that was the disconnect. This was him unintentionally admitting to straw manning me because earlier in the debate I'd said like have I not been clear on the definition of motion? I'm defining motion as the ch the move from a state of potency to act and he cut me off and he says I understand that. I know that's what you're defining that as. So he actually unintentionally affirmed that uh affirmed that he was intentionally strawmaning me and intentionally using the dictionary definition of motion despite clearly knowing that I wasn't referring to motion in the dictionary definition but was referring to motion as the move from a state of potency to actuality or act. So, he was he literally just self-reported that he was intentionally strawmaning me. And then he claims that I'm being unclear despite the fact that when I asked how like if he could give me an example on like a term that could be unclear that I was being unclear on or not defining, he couldn't.
Okay. Um, I don't know if y'all can hear me. Uh, okay. Okay. Sorry about that. My Wi-Fi crashed. Um, anyways. So, anyways, so an appeal to convenience is when someone rejects an argument uh because it's inconvenient. uh he they uh it's tiring they uh tedious etc. Right? That's what he was committing right by saying that he doesn't feel like asking for a definitions is an appeal to convenience. It's not me being um it's not being me being intentionally unclear. It's his it's more of an act of laziness or not feeling like debate debating that. Right. Also, I would argue that this is something called anti- uh he was committing something called anti-intellectualism. It's that this is more of a uh rhetorical tactic, but it's like when someone criticizes you um criticizes you using like uh intellectual language or precise language. This is that that's also another thing he was comm uh he was committing, right? It's like exactly it's boring. Like appealing to boredom is so like that's not a debate tactic or saying like it's boring. Also, I called him out on this because he said that he has no uh he does not care about uh de debating whether God exists or for a deistic god or anything like that. when he put he his entire job and what he does for thousands of hours is debating whether God exists and deistic gods, Christian gods, Muslim gods, etc. Right? He's also, you could argue that um he was committing like an more informal uh informal version of a burden shifting fallacy where he's uh like saying that I'm at fault for using precise language rather than um him taking responsibility. Right? Now, this wouldn't be kind of burden shifting if I was using a um precise language and I wasn't defining it or I was being unclear or something. That's what we call an obscurantist. Uh, and that's just obscurantist and that's just intellectually dishonest, right? But that's not what I was doing. I offered 40 plus times to define any terms he he uh he wanted to find. I did. So I even defined them when he wasn't asking just so that he wouldn't even have to ask. I was being very very clear. So he's really just appeal saying that I'm at fault burden shifting on the fault. He's uh committing a personal incredul. He uh I don't I don't I can't spell right now. You get what I'm saying? Uh he's committing PIS. He's also doing something um which you don't really hear often. It's called a dismissive ad homonym. Um, this is essentially when someone's like dismissing an argument by like by downplaying or mocking the person. Or for example, this would an example of this would be saying uh nobody cares about that. Nobody cares uh nobody cares about what that uh that means. Nobody cares about what you have to say, etc. Right? This is what we call a dismissive ad homonym. It's uh apathehatic. I got I got you. I got you at some point. Some point we'll do another stream soon. He couldn't contend with your arm at all. Also, when he said you're using unconvincing rhetoric, I call that concern. I mean, yeah, that too. that. I mean, that's purely subjective. What I was trying to get at with him, too, on the what I said about um the quantum physics, what what what I was getting at is what he's saying essentially is that this it's based on what we presently like have observed and present information, right? If he's saying going to make the claim that quantum physics violates the law of non-contradiction, then he would have to objectively show that this is the case. So what I was asking for was an object like what's the objective grounding and basis that what we observe in the information here is absolutely the case and isn't changing. Right? Because as we've seen historically, which I brought up historically, we have uh made uh held positions that have been completely false. For example, lightning uh being from God, uh universe orbiting the earth, the sun orbiting the earth, the earth being the center of the solar system, etc. Right? These are all things that as time goes on, as our knowledge increase, as more tools become available, have been proven false. Right? And the reason that this uh the only way that this could be uh that he could really argue this as being authoritative since the law of non-contradiction objective truth and despite the fact that this would literally be literally impossible to even for the quantum physics to violate the law of non-contradiction would be to objectively show that because since the law of non-contradiction is a self-evident truth and is objective and to say it um it say it doesn't exist or isn't true is self-refuting. That would mean that despite us subjectively viewing quantum physics uh as violating LNC, it isn't actually violating it. It just appears that way, right? It's just an appear. It's the grounding is purely subjective and based on what we presently observe. This is also like some arguments for God lead into what we call a gods of the gaps fallacy which is essentially when you say there's no ex no explanation for this uh in science so therefore god right or it appeals to what we call it's an argument from ignorance where you're basing your argument based uh not based upon like an objective justification but based on subjective things or our current lack of knowledge. cuz our current knowledge knowledge might show that quantum physics violates LNC but to say that now that equals object uh this is an objective thing is an argument from ignorance because it's based on our current information you would have to show that there's absolutely no way that this can change later on or won't change with advancement in knowledge uh tools et studying etc.