Debate on Monotheism and Reason
a second. I'm sorry.
This prompt-
I think I'm running this right now, and I'm trying to talk to you.
Yeah, and you're being very-
I'm trying to talk to you.
You- And, and what you're doing-
I am trying to talk to you.
Okay.
Thank you.
You can talk, and I'll just ignore what you say.
Go ahead.
Okay. Then we can just shut it down, and everybody-
Sure
... can go home.
Fine with me.
Okay. If you're gonna be like that and you're not gonna respect the moderator
who
is-
I don't, I don't respect somebody-
... trying to negotiate with both of you-
I don't respect somebody who's trying to tell me the most absurd thing I ever
heard, which is that Islamic monotheism, monotheism is true as a
prompt, has to do with whether or not Christ was crucified.
It's absolutely retarded.
But he is trying to have-
And the fact that you're trying to defend that-
Sorry. I'm sorry
... as a moderator means that you're retarded too.
But, no, I'm not defending that.
Yeah, you are.
I'm-- What I am doing right now, right here, is telling you where he
was going.
He was trying to take you-
He went nowhere to the actual prompt.
I'm sorry. Goddamn it. I'm just here to talk.
I'm here to help you.
I-
What do you want me to do?
You're not helping.
Okay.
You're actually making it more difficult-
I'm trying to translate between the two of you
... by making claims that have nothing to do with the prompt.
No, but see, you, you said it had nothing to do with it.
He said, "Oh, I apologize.
I made that presumption." So he maneuvered, and now, now that he-
And he went to something else that had nothing to do with it.
Oh, my fucking God. Can you listen for one second?
Okay. I'm not gonna do it.
He maneuvered, and then you said, "Oh, no, why are we moving to this?"
We'll go, we'll go to the next person-
And then he maneuvered, and then you said, "Oh, no, why did we do the this?"
We'll, we'll go to, we'll go to the next person who actually
wants to debate
whether or not Islamic monotheism is true, or I can leave.
I think I've been doing that the whole time.
You haven't at all.
But the, the thing of it is, is it's still-
I've been trying to attract-
... his arguments to make. It is-
And his argument, I'm responding to and explaining how it has nothing to do
with
the prompt.
All you're saying-- No, all you're saying is,
"That has nothing to do with it.
Move on."
No, but I explained-
"That has nothing to do with it. Move on."
I explained why it had nothing to do with it.
Oh my God. This is frustrating.
I just got fired? Like-
Oh my God.
I explained why it had nothing to do with the prompt.
The fact that you think it's legitimate that it has-
I'm not saying it isn't his. It's all I'm-
Okay. So did I give reasons for why it has
nothing to do with the prompt?
No, hold on.
Yes, I did.
The thing of it is you sat here and said, "Oh, you're delusional if you believe
this, blah, blah, blah."
Yes. Exactly.
But I'm giving you the translation and the description.
No, but you're-
What is happening-
You're defending and say-- You literally said-
I don't give a fuck what his claims are.
You, you literally did.
I don't give-
You literally did.
Oh my God, Jake.
We can play the tape back where you said-
I don't give a fuck what his claims are
... we can play the tape back-
You are not paying attention to what I'm saying.
We can play the tape back.
All I did was sit here. Jake.
We can play it back where you literally said-
All I did was sit here and give you-- Oh my God
... that what he's saying does have to do with
the prompt.
All right. Dude.
Exactly.
All right. Yeah. I'm gonna go take a little break.
I'll step in. I'll step in.
You can step in.
You all right?
That's ridiculous.
No, I'll step in. So what I wanted to do
was to attack the idea of Islamic
monotheism by saying it has to come from either reason or from revelation.
I first tried to attack it from revelation by attacking a central
historical claim about the Quran to say that it cannot be a historical,
reliable sense of revelation, and that he tries to cite this idea of like
if you
take an exam and if you get one question wrong, then that doesn't mean you're wrong
about everything else. And I agree that wouldn't make the Quran wrong about
everything else, but it does mean that that exam that has one question wrong
on it
can't be the answer key. And so the Quran cannot be the infallible
revelation that you've received.
And so I'm first attacking the idea that you cannot get Islamic monotheism
from
revelation from the Quran. Then he says, "I don't get it from revelation.
I got it from reason," to which then I say,
"I don't think you can get it from
reason either. I don't think you can get it purely from
reason." And he starts
talking about how he thinks he can reason to there being just one God because of
the fact of, like, the creation and the, the contradictions between these two gods
if there were two gods and all of that, to which I say that you're talking about a
cause and effect, and I don't think purely from reason alone
you can
get the idea of cause and effect. And I try to cite Hume, and I would make
arguments from Alvin Plantinga and other similar, you know,
thinkers to say that
you need revelation, as, you know, he would even point out ear- in one of the
previous debates, that a lot of the, the Western church tradition has said
that you
need revelation to understand the, the full attributes,
the full details of God.
And so I say, "Do you get it from revelation
or do you get it from reason?" And I
think as the moderator was trying to point out,
he kind of hopscotched between the
two and thought that neither of my attacks on it were reasonable because when
I say I'm attacking the concept of revelation, I'm saying this
is an unreliable
source of revelation, he says it's not relevant,
I get it from reason.
Then when I'm attacking the idea that you can get it purely from reason,
he starts
going back to the Quran, and then he kicked the moderator out.
So to me, that's what I thought happened and
End of transcript · 1,155 words