Ultra-Skeptic Atheist Caught Out (2020-02-03) ​

0:00:00 ikaw our sponsors nature's blend
0:00:03 producers of premium Ethiopian black
0:00:06 seed products if you put her job 10
0:00:09 you'll get 10% off your purchase check
0:00:13 out their links underneath in the
0:00:16 description box or if there is one that
0:00:19 is actually objective which everyone
0:00:21 should be fulfilling I don't see how it
0:00:24 could be objective this is it's nothing
0:00:27 utopian not always it can actually it
0:00:30 doesn't have some utopian so let me tell
0:00:32 you something I always give this example
0:00:34 alright so I want to put it to you say
0:00:37 for example if me and you go to sleep
0:00:39 today yes and we wake up and we find
0:00:42 ourselves say on a plane or let's say on
0:00:46 a train yeah and the people are around
0:00:49 us they're talking to each other yeah
0:00:51 and they're eating food and they're
0:00:53 having a good time
0:00:55 what's the first thing you're gonna want
0:00:57 to know you went to sleep tonight
0:00:59 instead of waking up in your bed you
0:01:01 wake up on a train yeah
0:01:04 so why are you gonna you people around
0:01:06 you eating the conversating what you
0:01:08 want to know what they're eating what
0:01:13 they eat hungry ok so minute so they're
0:01:15 view they've given you some of the food
0:01:16 right so now the train keeps going
0:01:19 forward remember you went to sleep in
0:01:21 your own bed tonight yeah you woke up
0:01:23 and it's on a train I woke up on the
0:01:25 train yes yeah good all right so that's
0:01:27 the first question you're gonna have
0:01:28 right how did I get here and where is
0:01:31 the train wherever it is where is it
0:01:34 going
0:01:34 where is this train going yes I can
0:01:37 someone the train yes so means someone
0:01:39 so what am I doing with a train
0:01:41 I do think these are legitimate
0:01:42 questions it's very legit why why yeah
0:01:46 one song one song I was in my bed yeah
0:01:49 now I'm on a train I get there so he was
0:01:51 thrown into the reality of being on a
0:01:53 train after having not been there before
0:01:55 right but the train in this analogy here
0:01:58 is like life because we've were thrown
0:02:01 into the reality of life okay after
0:02:03 having not been here before and we're
0:02:06 going somewhere we came from somewhere
0:02:08 and we're doing something here you know
0:02:10 I mean yes so we took him when I was a
0:02:13 baby
0:02:14 where was not before I'm saying is that
0:02:18 we've been thrown into life yeah there
0:02:20 was a time where you and I did not exist
0:02:21 and then there was a time where we
0:02:23 existed and we were aware of our own
0:02:25 reality yes so this is analogous to what
0:02:28 I've just explained maybe not exactly
0:02:29 that I just bought this in some extent
0:02:31 insane it's the direct knowledge just a
0:02:33 little bit cool that's all right because
0:02:35 you've been through look one guy called
0:02:37 Martin Heidegger he's a German
0:02:38 philosopher yeah he used his term which
0:02:41 is very interesting it's good
0:02:42 the thoroughness of life he said that
0:02:44 you've been thrown into life you've been
0:02:46 chucked into life yeah because there was
0:02:48 a time where you were not here all right
0:02:51 you did not exist at one point now you
0:02:52 exist and you're in this world and you
0:02:54 can you can put you can conceive of that
0:02:57 reality you can realise your own
0:02:59 existence you I mean there's a big gap
0:03:03 analogy there might be but the analogy
0:03:05 is not going to be perfect but when you
0:03:08 see the questions here right the
0:03:09 question is when you were on the train
0:03:11 whether I come from what am I doing here
0:03:14 or one might go insistant existence your
0:03:16 questions what Karl Popper called the
0:03:18 ultimate questions yeah so now the
0:03:20 questions are still applicable because
0:03:22 now we've come from somewhere yes we're
0:03:25 doing something I will go in somewhere
0:03:27 yeah okay so where we're gonna go well
0:03:30 first of all the first question is where
0:03:32 did we come from that's an important one
0:03:34 it is so here's what I'll say to you
0:03:36 look you came from your parents and they
0:03:39 came from their parents and so on and so
0:03:42 forth but they couldn't be an infinite
0:03:43 regress of predecessors right so there
0:03:46 had to be somewhere we're all fired in
0:03:48 the same way this universe came from
0:03:50 somewhere there couldn't be
0:03:51 infinite regress of universes or causes
0:03:54 because then the universe wouldn't come
0:03:56 into existence right just like they
0:03:58 couldn't be an infinite regress of
0:03:59 predecessors of eyes you wouldn't come
0:04:00 into existence one second one second yes
0:04:03 yes infinite regress to the universe yes
0:04:07 look if we say that you came from your
0:04:09 parents oh yeah and then they came from
0:04:11 their parents what I'm saying to you is
0:04:13 that they couldn't have been an infinite
0:04:15 regress of predecessors of that people
0:04:17 your parents in Paris in Paris otherwise
0:04:18 you wouldn't have never been existed
0:04:20 right because there had to be a place
0:04:22 where it started isn't it in the same
0:04:24 way they couldn't be an infinite regress
0:04:25 of entities before the universe
0:04:28 otherwise the universe wouldn't have
0:04:29 started in the same way once again is it
0:04:32 the same you see the scale yeah yeah
0:04:36 we're just inferring that's how we
0:04:39 happen that's what an inference but the
0:04:41 question is this is that you've you've
0:04:43 got sorry
0:04:44 so you've you've got you've got options
0:04:47 you've got options in front of you so
0:04:49 you've got option one is that the
0:04:51 universe came from nothing option two is
0:04:54 that the universe created itself or
0:04:57 option three is that the universe came
0:04:58 from somewhere right or something so
0:05:02 we're saying okay option one isn't
0:05:03 impossibility because the universe
0:05:05 couldn't have come from nothing yes
0:05:06 option two is also impossibilities sorry
0:05:09 so options option one knows that the
0:05:11 universe came from nothing yeah and
0:05:13 we're saying that it's impossible for
0:05:15 something to come from nothing
0:05:19 yeah tested all the possibilities that
0:05:21 he could come from
0:05:22 yeah because by definition nothing is
0:05:25 the absence of something right
0:05:27 so mathematically even zero plus zero
0:05:29 could never equal one so from a
0:05:32 mathematical perspective from a logical
0:05:33 perspective from an empirical
0:05:34 perspective we have no evidence to show
0:05:36 that something can come from nothing
0:05:38 that postulation is an absurd one it's
0:05:41 an impossible one so the first option is
0:05:45 that something that we came from the
0:05:46 universe came from nothing the second
0:05:48 option is that the universe created
0:05:50 itself yes okay at the start of the
0:05:56 universe if there was nothing yes no
0:06:06 that's what I'm saying it's impossible
0:06:09 because from although all the testing
0:06:11 methods that we have right whoever is
0:06:13 ontological testing methods mathematical
0:06:15 testing methods empirical testing
0:06:17 methods and all of those paradigms all
0:06:19 those fears now zero plus zero always
0:06:22 equals zero
0:06:23 there's no situation in which we have
0:06:25 been able to perceive or test or
0:06:27 validate or prove that something has
0:06:29 come from nothing with our limit seed
0:06:32 yeah but we have we have been able to
0:06:35 show the opposite everything that we
0:06:37 know about everything shows us that from
0:06:40 nothing nothing comes so if we do we
0:06:43 know everything
0:06:45 Noah says that we know everything so
0:06:47 that's a different thing there be usable
0:06:50 recognition thing it could be well I'm
0:06:53 saying to you is that we we we don't
0:06:55 know everything that is but we can know
0:06:56 some things which can never be Janice
0:06:58 Ani
0:06:59 so we might not be able to know
0:07:00 everything that exists in the world but
0:07:02 we can eliminate things that could
0:07:04 potentially exist for example if I say
0:07:06 look a squared circle that's a
0:07:08 contradiction it can't exist right why
0:07:11 do we know that it doesn't exist because
0:07:12 there are two opposite things together
0:07:14 right which cannot coexist and at the
0:07:18 same time life we find out that you
0:07:21 could square a circle because the thing
0:07:25 is this is that how would you come about
0:07:26 trying to find that out you'd have to
0:07:28 reinvent the rules of logic if you
0:07:30 wanted to to delete the law of
0:07:31 non-contradiction I'm being put down see
0:07:34 yeah we could do that but with the thing
0:07:37 is we can't do that smoogle is here it
0:07:39 will be a circular thing because if you
0:07:41 try to disprove logic with logic I mean
0:07:44 I think about it the laws of logic here
0:07:47 the laws of logic that we know now for
0:07:49 example laws of non-contradiction some
0:07:51 of the laws of mathematics somebody even
0:07:53 some of the axioms your answer
0:07:55 no no problem go ahead
0:08:02 it's just like sprinklers Dorner
0:08:23 well can I can I finish off for
0:08:24 obscenity yeah but just to finish off on
0:08:27 a wrapper okay how do you know that was
0:08:29 your door on the other side of the phone
0:08:31 say the name and the phone yeah and are
0:08:34 you are you convinced that I showed or
0:08:36 how Sheree about that and how did you
0:08:40 know that that was definitely a door
0:08:41 couldn't have been someone that sounded
0:08:44 like Eudora Tsuda alright so how do you
0:08:46 how are you aware and how are you sure
0:08:48 that is your door wicked nonce in her
0:08:51 voice
0:08:51 so you employed a probabilistic type of
0:08:54 reasoning you said based on the
0:08:55 variables that I have at hand my
0:08:57 daughter's voice the fact that my
0:08:58 daughter's name appeared on the screen
0:09:00 with the number underneath that I'm
0:09:01 pretty convinced would you say you're
0:09:03 certain that was a reasonable it was
0:09:05 reasonable to believe that was motive it
0:09:06 was reasonable would you say you're
0:09:07 happy to live your life knowing that
0:09:09 that was your door on the other side of
0:09:10 the phone yes all right you see your
0:09:12 standards of and this is something I
0:09:14 want to say about not yourself but
0:09:15 generally about atheism and agnosticism
0:09:17 and skepticism your standards for
0:09:19 recognizing truth when it comes to daily
0:09:22 interactions and transactions it's quite
0:09:25 reasonable I would say you're employing
0:09:26 a probabilistic standard yeah now I want
0:09:29 you to employ such a reasonable standard
0:09:31 when it comes to knowing where you came
0:09:33 from what you're doing here and where
0:09:35 you're going because let me tell you
0:09:36 something if you employ a reasonable
0:09:38 standard for those three questions you
0:09:40 come to the conclusion that there had to
0:09:43 be something with no beginning that
0:09:45 started you you'll come to the
0:09:46 conclusion that you came from that thing
0:09:49 with no beginning uncaused cause the
0:09:51 necessary being existence etc because
0:09:53 it's impossible for that to be an
0:09:54 infinite regress of courses and it's
0:09:56 impossible for there to be an infinite
0:09:57 regress with the Pend of things you will
0:09:59 come to that conclusion
0:10:01 refute that you're still skeptical
0:10:04 yeah I'm skeptical that that was your
0:10:05 door on the other side of the phone you
0:10:07 can't because you don't know yellow you
0:10:09 don't know what hate the thing here's
0:10:10 what I'm saying to you is that you need
0:10:12 to be as consistent with your standards
0:10:15 of truth with the ultimate questions in
0:10:19 life which determine what you're doing
0:10:20 here as you are in your daily
0:10:22 transactions and dealing with for
0:10:24 example getting a phone call from your
0:10:26 door I don't think so
0:10:29 well that's fine you don't have to think
0:10:31 so but what I'm saying is then that
0:10:33 would mean that you're basically
0:10:35 employing different standards for
0:10:37 different truths do that look here's one
0:10:41 that you can do that if you want no
0:10:42 problem but you're deceiving us that is
0:10:44 in my opinion there's over skepticism
0:10:46 when it comes to the ultimate questions
0:10:47 which you don't employ in other spheres
0:10:49 in my view is indicative of inner
0:10:53 psychological reasoning behind it maybe
0:10:56 you want to be agnostic maybe it's more
0:10:59 of a want then something will share
0:11:02 philosophize the reason to get on
0:11:04 Francaise so use my reasonable logical
0:11:09 mind and if I think that the existential
0:11:14 question at the beginning of the
0:11:15 universe
0:11:16 yes it's not there to be seen I'm not
0:11:19 gonna hang more hats but your door
0:11:20 wasn't there to be seen but I can hear
0:11:23 oh no but hold on this is a double
0:11:25 standard here yeah if you see the
0:11:27 effects of the universe and you can
0:11:29 reason lookyou that could have been
0:11:30 someone other than your daughter yes yes
0:11:33 [ __ ] nine see the facts of the of the
0:11:37 you meet Lu here here's the problem okay
0:11:39 you just said I could hear her okay now
0:11:43 you're using one of the five senses to
0:11:46 determine it it's a determiner but you
0:11:49 couldn't see her there's other senses
0:11:50 that were not applicable in that
0:11:51 equation all right but you still came to
0:11:54 the conclusion and there was they could
0:11:55 be reasonable skeptical doubt that I can
0:11:57 employ if I was to philosophize as a
0:12:00 skeptic and say look hold on that could
0:12:02 have been an alien that was speaking to
0:12:04 you on the phone yes that could have
0:12:05 been your wife pretending to be odd or
0:12:07 your husband either you know pretending
0:12:09 to be your door yeah or it could have
0:12:11 been someone else your other door could
0:12:13 have been
0:12:13 you know her friend could be this
0:12:15 reasonable it wasn't empirical it was
0:12:18 reasonable I mean why is that reasonable
0:12:21 why it's original reason to mean why why
0:12:23 because I heard mitosis voice several
0:12:27 many times okay I understand but what
0:12:29 I'm saying to you there is that it can
0:12:32 still be doubted yes okay but you still
0:12:35 you over you override that down yes
0:12:38 because you have enough data to conclude
0:12:41 in your mind probabilistically that it
0:12:42 was your daughter
0:12:42 criticism yeah okay fine some some
0:12:45 degree of empiricism
0:12:46 yeah which can still be doubted because
0:12:47 of the reasons I've just told you major
0:12:49 percentage okay why I'm saying to you is
0:12:52 this yeah in the same way as you've been
0:12:55 able to reason probabilistically that
0:12:57 your doors on the other side on the
0:12:58 phone yes I'm saying to you if we have
0:13:01 now inference to the best explanation
0:13:02 you have different options either the
0:13:05 universe came from nothing and in fact
0:13:07 this idea the postulation that something
0:13:10 can come from nothing it's so absurd
0:13:12 that actually let me tell you from
0:13:14 reading a lot of philosophy no one has
0:13:16 said it and the moment some fool tried
0:13:18 to say it Krauss he was refuted by his
0:13:21 own physicist friends so fantastical yes
0:13:25 it's ridiculous it's it's absurd it's
0:13:27 it's not witnessed by anyone it's not
0:13:29 empirical all of the standards that you
0:13:32 wish to have in order to make a reasoned
0:13:35 judgment about the truth or falsehood of
0:13:37 something were not present in the
0:13:39 postulation that something can come from
0:13:40 nothing and therefore can be rejected
0:13:42 yeah yeah it can't be rejected it can be
0:13:45 Richard tryna ash and it shall be
0:13:47 rejected and it shall be rejected but
0:13:49 don't think so okay look here's the
0:13:51 thing
0:13:51 what's the evidence
0:13:54 okay see you look this is it's a slight
0:13:57 look what you have here is some kind of
0:14:00 a motorcycle I'm not a psychiatrist yeah
0:14:02 I'm not here to you know you know give
0:14:04 you a little drink and and tell you tell
0:14:06 you what your hands
0:14:07 yeah sit on the couch and psychoanalyze
0:14:09 your behavior but if I were if I were
0:14:12 I'd say something I diagnosed you of
0:14:14 some kind of cognitive dissonance you
0:14:16 look you're I say literally you might
0:14:22 have cognitive dissonance because the
0:14:23 reason why I think you might have
0:14:24 tumbled into business because you live
0:14:26 your life one way but your beliefs in
0:14:28 relation to the ultimate questions are
0:14:30 completely contradictory to the way in
0:14:32 which you act you understand my point so
0:14:35 your reason your your faculties and your
0:14:37 instruments of reasoning become
0:14:39 completely like you become an extreme
0:14:42 skeptic when you're dealing with the
0:14:43 ultimate questions and you're not
0:14:45 willing to be that same skeptic when
0:14:47 you're dealing with daily transactions
0:14:49 and interactively transactions we see
0:14:51 all the time the quite benign but
0:14:53 they're not benign you could it could be
0:14:55 a life or death situation right now it
0:14:57 could be yeah if a doctor came to you my
0:14:59 friend and said to you let me ask you a
0:15:01 question right now yeah if a doctor came
0:15:03 to you let's say God forbid here but
0:15:06 your doors on a hospital she needed some
0:15:07 kind of a transfer of blood yes well
0:15:09 let's say she even needed a lung
0:15:11 transplant run and the doctor came to
0:15:13 you and said your daughter needs a lung
0:15:16 transplant and you're the only guy that
0:15:17 can that has matched her you know
0:15:19 whatever and you need to give that would
0:15:21 you get what you give it you would give
0:15:23 it but hold on that doctor he could be
0:15:26 making a mistake my friend yes she could
0:15:28 so I would say to the doctor is there
0:15:30 any other way now he'd say no and my so
0:15:33 he gonna do he go to someone else
0:15:35 there's no time he's saying you've got
0:15:37 one hour yeah she's so intensive care
0:15:40 yes yeah yeah I would acts upon my
0:15:42 instincts
0:15:44 yeah and so undo this thing and save my
0:15:48 daughter's life okay you think you're
0:15:49 saving your daughter's life yeah how do
0:15:51 you know you're saving your daughter's
0:15:52 life because I recently believed the
0:15:54 doctor you said but hold on hold on hold
0:15:57 on hold on yeah hold on no but you think
0:16:02 it's life and death this is after life
0:16:04 and death
0:16:05 he said look you see here the point
0:16:07 you're willing to put your own let's say
0:16:10 it takes it could put your own life on
0:16:12 the line yeah you're willing to
0:16:13 potentially put your own life on the
0:16:15 line and I did anything for your
0:16:18 daughter but this the methods of
0:16:21 skepticism that you are employing in the
0:16:23 ultimate questions that we were talking
0:16:25 about well completely thrown out when
0:16:29 you were dealing with that inquiry
0:16:30 submission it's emotional you said it
0:16:33 was instinctive it's instinctively
0:16:35 emotional not no problem is emotional
0:16:37 and and there's no contradiction between
0:16:39 a good emotional argument and a good
0:16:41 rational one human beings are emotional
0:16:44 creatures find but you still believe the
0:16:46 doctor that so you believe the doctor
0:16:49 because you trust in the doctors
0:16:51 credentials and authority yes because
0:16:53 you have enough you have enough reason
0:16:56 to believe that that doctor was actually
0:16:57 trained and can analyze the data yes
0:17:00 so you see here look I want you to use
0:17:04 that same method of reasoning when we're
0:17:07 dealing with the ultimate choice because
0:17:08 you said something very important you
0:17:09 know what he said you said it was a
0:17:12 matter of life and death yes let me tell
0:17:14 you something my friend honestly yeah
0:17:15 this these ultimate choice questions are
0:17:18 not a matter of life and death
0:17:20 you know they are they are a matter of
0:17:22 life and afterlife yes and you know what
0:17:25 let me tell you something that's an even
0:17:26 more hefty inquiry so you have to let me
0:17:29 tell you one of evidence of this
0:17:30 constant do you have any evidence that
0:17:32 your doctor was actually being come in
0:17:34 this analogy that is a jarful evidence I
0:17:36 have enough evidence as a doctor had I
0:17:38 have looked yes I do do you know why let
0:17:41 me tell you why let me explain let me
0:17:44 show you how let me explain you know why
0:17:47 did you trust the doctor when he was
0:17:48 telling you to do X Y Z once again he's
0:17:50 quite benign it's not benign this was
0:17:52 laughing death
0:17:53 life and death - this is life and death
0:17:57 you trusted him putting your own life at
0:17:58 like why do you trust him people eat
0:18:00 trust look after our health well why did
0:18:04 why did you trust him you trusted him
0:18:05 you trusted him good a person of
0:18:07 authority yes and your mind you reason
0:18:11 it was it was it was an appropriate
0:18:13 action a responsible action to trust his
0:18:17 judgment yes so in other words you
0:18:19 vested Authority in the doctor yes now
0:18:22 what I'm saying is this why do I have as
0:18:24 much conviction as I do that there's an
0:18:27 afterlife because I vest authority in
0:18:30 the authorship of the last and final
0:18:32 message to humankind which I believe is
0:18:34 the Quran have you seen this entity what
0:18:39 I've seen the doctor yes okay you have
0:18:42 certification but you haven't seen what
0:18:44 he has seen horror no but in this
0:18:46 analogy right your doctor who you've
0:18:48 seen it's telling you that there are
0:18:50 certain dysfunctionality is in your
0:18:52 saying your daughter's health that you
0:18:54 have not seen but you've instead only
0:18:56 witnessed the testimony of the doctor
0:18:59 but you have as much conviction in the
0:19:02 testimony as you probably would have if
0:19:04 he had shown you x-rays so I have an
0:19:06 interaction with another human being yes
0:19:09 but you've vested your in now you've
0:19:11 given that human-being authority if the
0:19:13 doctor said look listen to me carefully
0:19:17 listen what's your name again sorry
0:19:19 Charles
0:19:19 Charles he says listen Charles you need
0:19:21 to give your land right now because
0:19:23 you're the only one who went I'm not a
0:19:24 doctor I don't know I'm talking about my
0:19:26 you need to give it it could have an
0:19:28 impact on you yes but it's a life in
0:19:30 that situation and then he says this he
0:19:33 says come into my office I'll show you
0:19:35 all of the reasons why I came to my
0:19:37 conclusion if you would like but that
0:19:39 could slow the process down and it could
0:19:42 also endanger your daughter's life what
0:19:44 would you do would you go to the office
0:19:45 or not
0:19:49 to go
0:19:50 is that what you said to the doctor man
0:19:53 I want to check it what do you see what
0:19:55 I'm saying yeah I think you do think
0:19:58 about it deeply I know this down we
0:20:00 dance I know you sit down
0:20:02 I don't know meat on the bone though you
0:20:04 just review the video when it comes out
0:20:06 think about it twice three times have a
0:20:08 tea think about it fourth time and then
0:20:10 you'll know what I'm talking about how
0:20:12 many times maybe five actually
0:20:14 okay guys you know