Jen
Hi everyone. Welcome to the show where Claire and I are going to be discussing logic and argument following Claire's interest or voiced interest in doing that so I'll let Claire actually start it because I've made a little bit of a slide show that we can go over whenever you want talking about what is an actual argument and what is proper logic and just couple of other things but I'll hand it over to you Claire if you had to something a document that you wanted to look over to talk about it.
Claire
I want to keep things really really simple because I want the morons and the vegetables to understand. Some of you may know that Jay Walker and I fell out because he just wouldn't do a very simple thing for me he said it was because I went crazy because I lost the debate with Jen about whether God was impersonal but actually it had it had a history of about a week so basically it started with him saying there was this really good debate between CON OPPS [Controlled Opposition] and Jon Vance and CON OPPS won effortlessly. https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2019/07/survey-who-do-you-think-won-argument.html "He was wonderful, he was superb!" and I said "Really, because I have the opposite view and so I said "Why do you think Con Opps won and he said "Oh, it was just wonderful he didn't even care if he won or not he just he was so dismissive of Jon Vance. He just didn't care if he won or lost him and that's why he won." I just can't tell you how much it offended me so I kept saying "Well, apart from you thinking he won without fighting the fight or even putting in a single argument, could you just tell me why you think he won in terms of arguments and what you think they were talking about, what CON OPPS was trying to say what Jon Vance was trying to say you, could you just tell me who you think won?" and he wouldn't and he wouldn't and he wouldn't and he still doesn't so you know he's on his own channel now complaining about me and how shit I am and how useless I am debating and of course I lost to Jen who was obviously superior to me so, but he still won't do it. On the stream that Jen summoned me to go on when she shouted at me for about two hours and he was there to add to my humiliation and say how rubbish I was, Jen actually said "Look at him: can't you see that he's such a bonehead that he will never understand the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument?"You know he won't know, he won't care, you're just stupid for trying to make him understand, people like him will never know and never care" and I want to prove Jen wrong about Jay.
Jen
All right, let's keep it to just arguments rather than descending into personal conflict trying to keep it away from drama as much as possible. I think I've said my peace as regards Jay so I put together some slides here: what's an argument. I said that it consisted of two parts axioms and logic axioms being postulates which are taken to be true which serve as a starting point for further reasoning and arguments and logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Axioms are like soil and logic is like flowers. Axioms are the substrate upon which logic grows. Axioms can exist without logic. That logic cannot exist without axioms.
Claire
Jen, I fear I think this is too complicated for the vegetables and morons. May I afterwards present my own explanation after you?
Jen
You can do it right now I would ask you to but instead you launched into Jay.
Claire
I was talking and then you stopped me to do this. I'm using something quite simple because because I don't think the morons and vegetables can understand.
I'm saying an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
Now this sounds a bit complicated but it will become clear when I read you the following three sentences - a syllogism.
Elizabeth owns either a Honda or a Saturn.
Elizabeth does not own a Honda.
Therefore Elizabeth owns a Saturn.
So from the first two sentences you get a conclusion.
How is the chat doing?
Jen
I'm sure the chat's doing fine. I think their feelings might have been hurt because you called them vegetables so I'd asked you to refrain from insulting my audience on my channel because it is my channel after all.
Claire
I really was thinking of of Jay. I do apologise.
Jen
It's probably not a good idea to let your feminine emotions interfere with your streaming professionalism so I acknowledge that that's a valid logical position but why is it valid?
Claire
It is valid in the sense that if the two sentences are true ie if Elizabeth owns either a Honda or a Saturn if that sentence is true but it is implicitly saying that it may not be true it could be just something cooked up for the purpose of making an example there is no real person called Elizabeth who owns a Saturn but you know for the purposes of the example it is a hypothetical situation. We can go to a sound argument which is when everything is true and you are in fact relying on undisputed fact that nobody is denying and then you form conclusions from this.
All tiger are mammals.
No mammals are creatures with scales.
Therefore no tigers are creatures with scales.
So that is both a valid argument and a sound one because it corresponds to real life and the truth.
Jen
Oh, WLL2PWER in the chat said valid arguments are logical, sound arguments are when they're valid and also correlate with reality. Does that sound good? So a valid argument is stronger than a sound argument and sound arguments may have a limited range of utility because they don't necessarily describe true things. What's true within the domain of logic isn't the same thing as what's true in reality because you can construct any hypothetical that you want. Basically, you can say if all humans are turtles then I'm a turtle That's what you'd call essentially valueless statement. Valid arguments which are unsound are essentially worthless for any other purpose than teaching people how to do logic so just make that clear. What I keep coming back to is the importance of axioms and that's what is it that you're assuming is true without actually establishing it what is so self-evident that you don't actually say it so is that too complicated or what do you think?
Claire
I was thinking it but for the purpose of this exercise we could go back to the transcript I have made of debate and invite people to find sound arguments in what you and I said. What do you think?
Jen
But I don't think that's a good idea because we haven't actually told people what makes a sound a valid argument. We haven't talked about logic at all. You said what I said in my slide was too complicated.
Claire
I'm just seeing that somebody understood. Will understood what I was trying to say about you Hondas and Saturns and scales and mammals.
Jen
I'd like to go through my slides before we go into the debate because that may take a while so I'll just quickly screen share this. We've talked about the difference between logic and axioms. Just to relate this to what Claire said, the soundness would be the logic part and the valid would be the axioms part, so to go to the next next slide here. Axioms are very important and I would say that the main reason arguments fail is an improper use of axioms. There are three types of axioms that are unacceptable.
Unjustified axioms are basically shielding arguments ...
Claire
I think you should explain what axioms are because it's not obvious.
Jen
I've already explained it once [Not in this stream though!], so I'll explain it a second time which is statements which are taken to be true without actually going into why they're true and an example of an axiom would be causality,
Claire
You haven't given an example of an axiom.
Jen
I just did.
Claire
No, you say such and such is an axiom but that was what I was hoping you would do,
Jen
I said causality is an example of a good axiom. We've been over this numerous times. Claire, I'm wondering if you're just intentionally forgetting these.
Claire
No, I wanted you to explain an axiom.
Jen
There is no better axiom than causality. It's actually the only axiom. When you need the rest it is just aesthetic preferences ...
Claire
I'm saying Jen these are abstract principles and abstract ideas that not everyone necessarily understand so I think you should explain what you mean because it's not obvious and what I think an axiom is that it is an obvious statement that obviously corresponds to the truth. That is my understanding of an axiom. Ideally, it's a position that's self-evident that is so obvious that you don't need to prove it. I think a good example, Jen is the earth is round, so nobody's gonna say "But it's not - it's square, or it's a pyramid," so then you can carry on, but what you just said isn't immediately obvious to the veg ...
Jen
Let's go on with the slideshow. So this is a mistake a lot of people make - they shield their arguments from criticism by making them axioms. Unspecified axioms renders the arguments essentially invalid because you don't really have any basis to form your arguments and this is a big problem when you start to have long lists of axioms. Why the earth is round is actually not a very good axiom. They can contradict each other so the idea with axioms is that if at any point they contradict each other the whole logic is no longer valid because two things can't really contradict each other because something can't be true and false at the same time and this is about the structure of logic so if we're gonna do logic of axioms - let me finish - if we're gonna do logic with axioms, then we have to make sure that the axioms are what you call consistent which means that it's not possible for them to indicate a thing and it's opposite at the same time.
Claire
I hope you will give us examples of of unjustified items unspecified axioms and contradictory axioms. I don't think we can go on to the next stage if you don't give examples.
Jen
Well, an unjustified axiom could be "Jesus Christ is the Lord."
Well, it would be impossible to give you an example of an unspecified axiom by definition.
Claire
Then why do you define it?
Jen
Claire, the second type of bad axiom is an unspecified axiom. If I give an example of an unspecified axiom, I'm specifying it - that would be a contradiction in terms.
Claire
But when would anyone come across an unspecified axiom?
Jen
You would have to infer the unspecified axiom based on how they were using logic.
Claire
What is the utility of this concept of an unspecified axiom?
Jen
It's to try to make the point clear that you should probably specify your axioms before you attempt to make an argument.
Claire
But can you give examples of when somebody refers to an unspecified axiom?
Jen
Well, we don't want to be a contradiction. If you're referring to an unspecified axiom, you're specifying it.
Claire
But Jen, I don't know the relevance of the use of this concept!
Jen
The point is to make it clear that people should specify their axioms before they make an argument.
Claire
Did you specify your axioms before we started our debate, Jen?
Jen
No, I didn't because my axioms are self-evident so I don't need to.
Claire
Because you had to haul me back and shout at me because I wasn't clear for two hours.
Jen
You interrupted me and insulted me for two hours while I attempted to address your slanderous comments against me because you were triggered about losing against me horribly so can we move on to the next one: contradictory axioms. So let's say you say my number one axiom is that the earth is flat and my number two axiom is that causality is true. While those two axioms contradict each other because the Flat Earth violates the laws of causality.
Claire
When you say the laws of causality, are you saying it's obviously untrue that the earth is flat?
Jen
What I'm saying is that you can't construct legitimate physics equation to predict the formation of a flat earth.
Claire
Well, why would you if the earth isn't flat?
Jen
Claire, it was an example that you just asked me for. I'm trying to stay on track here.
Claire
Well, I don't people in the chat are clear about what you're saying because I'm not clear and I am known for my big brain.
Jen
I don't think you're very big brain, Claire, I think you're actually quite stupid. You're good at some things but you're very limited ability to use imagination.
Claire
I know when somebody is not teaching very well.
Jen
I'm a great teacher. You're just an idiot. Axioms are always presumed to be true. Remember two things: axioms can never contradict each other and as few axioms as possible should be used so can we agree on that?
Claire
You know, Jen, you need to you need to go slower for the chat. Jay's in the chat though.
Jen
That's wonderful. Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of hallucinating what the chat is thinking?
Claire
Well, maybe you should ask questions in the chat to see if they understand it.
Jen
I will ask questions once the instruction is over. It doesn't make sense to ask questions before I've taught someone something.
Claire
Can you make sure that Jay understands.
Jen
Well, Jay;s an idiot so I highly doubt that. So are we okay with axioms can't contradict each other and that it's better to use less than more. So these things in a lot of ways are self-evident, I think.
Claire [attempting to say something]
Jen
Get a fucking grip on yourself!
Claire
No, no, I have to stop you there why are you talking about using more than two axioms anyway because the example that I gave about syllogisms that I gave - it's just two statements. There's statement one and statement two and then the third is a conclusion that you deduce from the previous two statements. So why would you be talking about axioms that are more than two? I don't quite get it.
Jen
First of all logical statements aren't axioms.
Claire
Logical statements are arguments, right?
Jen
So you're completely misunderstanding what's going on here. So you do understand that axioms and logical premises are two different things?
Claire
What you're saying is a syllogism consists of three sentences and an argument can consist of just one statement or sentence but that sentence would be based on you those previous two statements from which the statement is derived from. For example,
Statement 1
Statement 2
Therefore the earth is round.
Because you know the earth is round, we can sail from here to the other side of the world and get to India and that would be the argument I guess of Christopher Columbus.
Jen
I'm wondering why you're dragging us into logic when logic makes no sense without axioms. You don't seem to understand the difference.
Claire
That's why I'm stopping you. I do think that you go too quickly and and if you are going too quickly for me, you're probably going too quickly for the people in the chat.
Jen
Might I suggest that you're just not listening to what I'm saying because you're jumping ahead to logic and logic makes no sense. Here are some suggested axioms: causality so that's basically saying that something that happens because it was caused. We don't know what the cause is or there may be multiple causes but we know that there are causes to all facts. The other axiom that's so obvious it wouldn't be worth mentioning it were not for the amount of false ideologies out there, but existence that's another axiom. We exist - we're not a brain in a jar. We're not in a simulation - we exist. I accept science has validated means of determining truth. Of course it's within this context that it has to be used properly, obviously and those are basically it and I have additional axioms which are my own aesthetic preference that I think frames the truth and knowledge in the most effective way so I'll share that in the chat if Claire wants to talk for a few minutes. What are your axioms, Claire?
Claire
Truth, logic and morality - submission to truth, logic and morality and this is what I think every decent human being should share with me. I think it is what makes us human and what makes us gives us human dignity. I don't know if you agree with me, Jen?
Jen
Well, I think you're paying lip-service to concepts you don't really understand and I think the people that claim they represent truth but don't are probably some of the worst sinners in the world and if your posits contradict my own you can't really claim to stand for truth logic and morality because that's what I stand for and my arguments can't be defeated unlike yours so I would invite you to reconsider your position and accept the fact that what you want is power and you're basically willing to do anything to get it and you don't really care about human suffering - you only care about continued existence. Those are different things.
Claire
Tell me what's wrong with wanting to wanting the continued existence of your group?
Jen
Nothing, but it's not it's not enough on its own. You're not talking about the quality of the existence. You're not qualifying it at all.
Claire
How would you qualify the quality of your existence, Jen?
Jen
That's not relevant at all. That's not relevant today. Let's keep it on topic. So we have some examples of different types of arguments that can be made logically.
We have a hierarchy of power associated with different types of logical arguments so an invalid argument is weak because it can be disproven.
A contradiction proving the opponent's position false is weak because it doesn't offer a counter thesis.
A partial truth is better but it's weak because it's incomplete.
A concise truth is good but it may not be self-evident.
A full-on exposition of truth is the best but it sucks because people have short attention spans and it's sometimes hard for them to follow the totality of your argument. I didn't want to go too deep into logic because logic is a really big subject and Claire's really not understanding just how complex logic really is but once you've got your axioms and you're confident your axioms are good to go and you can start to construct logical arguments and when you do you have to make sure that you're using
logic properly.
We've got two examples of logical techniques: one is a transitive relation which is if you say that all As are Bs and all Bs are Cs.
That implies that all As are also Cs so this is basically an associative thing like if if all humans are alive and all living things increase entropy then humans increase entropy - that would be an example of the transitive relation in an application. The less evident one which i've illustrated with the help of a Venn diagram is contra position and contraposition is an important one because it's not self-evident so if P then Q if not Q then not P.
So long as P is full described then this is this relation holds. So, Claire, have you heard of this contraposition.
Claire
No, I'm afraid I haven't. I think you left me behind in the previous slide but I didn't want to interrupt.
Jen
Well, it's pretty self-evident. So contra position if P then Q. So based on this diagram here, can you see why if P then Q?
Claire
But what is a contra position?
Jen
It's the relation. So if P then Q the contra positive of that is if not Q then not P so those two statements are what you call logically equivalent. Based on the Venn diagram here, can you tell why if P then Q?
Because some people can tell. So P is a subset of Q. Do you agree?
Claire
Yes, I do. I can see that.
Jen
So P is within Q.
Claire
Yes I see that since P is within Q.
Jen
All Ps are Qs basically because that's what that diagram is saying. So the contrapositive of that is basically saying that if not Q then not P. So if Q is what's inside this circle not Q is basically everything outside of this circle. Well, it's not quite a circle but you get what I'm saying, right?
Claire
Yeah, I get it.
Jen
So if not Q then also not P because P is a subset of Q. That make sense? So the contra position
relation is very powerful if used properly, but we have to make sure that when what we're describing really is a proper subset right so it's easy to understand in a Venn diagram why this relation holds but when you actually go to apply it, it's not clear what actually is a proper subset so we have to be very careful because the real world is a lot messier than just perfect logic. This is basically what we do we use logic and we use science to make arguments which are valid and that's a process - an active process, It's not a destination because we have something called subjective absolutism where humans are limited in what they can actually perceive. We never want to make the assumption that we've got the full picture of truth. We always want to leave the door open to new information, new ideas and so forth. If anyone has any questions in the chat, if that didn't make sense, please tell us what didn't make sense and we'll go over it again. Basically, the construction of arguments is a two-step process that most people are unaware of.
The first one is axioms.
Two is the actual structure of the argument.
Most people skip over the axioms and what I'm trying to get people to do is to pull back and actually examine and interrogate their axioms.
What are you assuming is true?
What are you using as the basis of everything else that you're forming your arguments on?
If your assumptions are false, all your other arguments are false and that's a waste of time so over to you, Claire, you can take it in whatever direction you want that's basically. All I have to say there is more I've posted a link in the chat about it's about a four thousand word essay that goes into detail about forming good arguments that are logically sound, about how to learn more about logic. It is a big subject with a lot of useless stuff in it. Unfortunately, logic is not the greatest place to start studying if you are interested in this stuff but understand that there are a few relations within logic including this contra position thing that are very important when forming arguments go ahead, Claire.
Claire
What I think would be a useful exercise for anyone to do would be to go to the transcript of what we both said in our debate and invite people who are interested in the subject. I know most of them are not and won't find the will to make a list of them and say that this is a valid argument but not necessarily sound or "Aha, this is a sound argument at last!"
I think that would be very useful. It would help explain to people your ideas and my ideas. So this is the exercise I invite people to do in order to test their understanding of this lesson about valid and sound arguments. I will start with your case for an impersonal God. So you start by saying
I have to read everything because otherwise it won't make sense to the people the chat.
You're just promising to do these things, so we carry on.
"The dawn of human civilization is indistinguishable from the advent of theocracy" - is this a valid argument?
For every statement that is questioned, you should present two statements that will form the syllogism it is based on.
Jen
It cannot be established through deductive logic, it's just true because it can't be disproven. It's more powerful than a logical deduction. There's limitations of power of logical deductions because you need to be absolutely certain that your premises are true in the first place which is almost never the case. You have to do a large-scale study to find patterns and make sure there are no larger patterns that you fail to detect and then draw conclusions based on those patterns and that is the conclusion I drew based on the patterns that I observed. You are unable to disprove this position. No one can disprove this position because it is as close to true as basically you can get.
Claire
So you're saying humans only became civilized because they believed in God, is that what you're saying?
Jen
Just so people can understand what I'm saying: organised human society and organized religion arose at the same time.
Claire
Because all human societies have rules, you could say that the best rules we have are the rules that God gave us, so obey them. Human civilisation can only exist where the rule of law is operating.
Jen
Those conclusions could very easily be defeated. Those would be false conclusions because you're basically saying it doesn't matter what the law system is that you use, if someone said it comes from God then it's good to go and that's categorically false.
Claire
It is good to go and is more likely to be obeyed if they are said to be from God. For the purpose of debate, we will assume that these laws exist and are enforced and do have some sort of effect because obviously whether you think a law is just or not, you would obey it or might obey it or are more likely to obey it because you fear punishment.
Jen
So do you think that that's a valid argument?
Claire
What do you think my argument is?
Jen
The series of sentences you just constructed there: do you think that that's a valid argument?
Claire
I'm just stating a fact that people would wish to avoid punishment and in so doing would avoid breaking the law.
Jen
How come so many people are in jail? How come so many people break multiple laws a day?
Claire
Because they think they're going get away with it or they don't think prison is such a bad thing.
Jen
So your your position has been disproven with evidence so it's not a very strong argument and it's not a valid argument because I just disproved it with evidence.
Claire
No, I'm saying nobody really believes that any law would completely eradicate the undesirable behavior. It can only discourage amd deter but not eradicate it because but that's what I mean, Jen, when I say rules are made to be broken. So when God made issued His Ten Commandments, I think He expected them to be broken.
Jen
You have an invalid argument. You're going on hearsay from Jews. Now can you imagine a possible issue with going on hearsay from Jews?
Claire
I don't know what you mean. I think it's obviously true that rules are made to be broken whether Jews ever existed or not.
Jen
The laws of nature can't be broken so you're all of your arguments are basically not only unsound but also invalid.
Claire
But, Jen, it's different. Physical laws are different to moral laws.
Jen
The definition of laws is different which is an axiomatic thing which is why we should focus more on axioms.
Claire
You're making a category mistake. You're confusing science with philosophy.
Jen
You're confusing crazy nonsense with religion.
Claire
What do you mean? I don't know what you mean. Please explain what you mean.
Jen
You just made the assertion that God revealed the Ten Commandments to man and it didn't occur to you that that was an invalid argument.
Claire
I'm saying people know of using the God example to show that even God himself - if you acknowledge His existence - made these Commandments knowing that they would be broken.
Jen
So they're not really laws, they're Commandments.
Claire
Commandments are laws.
Jen
You're making a category error. That's a different thing entirely.
Claire
How is it different? These actually forbid us from killing and stealing. I'm saying divine Commandments aren't also incorporated into the laws of civilised countries ...
Jen
It would be really nice if we could actually stick to the abstraction cuz I don't want to have the same convo with you that we've had infinite.
Claire
I don't want to have the same convo, I want to it to demonstrate the difference between a valid and sound argument. I'm actually trying to agree with you but you just keep stopping me. I said the first sentence of that paragraph I agree with. I'm saying what you said is true: "The dawn of human civilisation is indistinguishable from the advent of theocracy. I'm agreeing with you that human civilization is only possible where the rule of law exists and the rule of law exists when when the law is being obeyed.
Jen
What about the criminals?
Claire
I'm saying you know if there is a law and if it is enforced there is the rule of law.
What do you want to do now? Do you want me to go to the next sentence?
Jen
That was the plan but you derail ...
Claire
I'm trying to explain what you mean so that people know what you mean.
Now I'm afraid I've forgotten what it means now so I can't really agree or not agree with it. I know
you told me. I know I got stuck here when you were shouting at me but ...
Jen
Oh shut up, Claire, stop playing the victim. Just move on. So you've already forgotten something that happened yesterday. That's pathetic. Do you understand that people can deny a true statementm but it's true because it's based on logical observations that I've made and conclusions that I've come to so what those conclusions cannot be reached through deductive reasoning because there are limits to deductive reasoning. At some point you have to start using inductive reasoning which is another beast altogether and you don't even know how to use archetype canonisers so you're basically stuck at the level of just critical theory.
Claire
I wasn't aware I was practicing critical theory and I didn't catch what you said how about cannons
Jen
Yeah, you've never heard of archetype cannons so let's move on to the next statement. So far what I've said have just been true statements basically statements and there's no way to construct an argument against those positions and that's why I chose them.
Claire
Okay, but can we understand what you mean by "civilisation's view of God is largely determinative of ultimate destiny"?
Jen
I think I spent about 10 20 minutes explaining that yesterday so I'm not going to explain again. Watch the video because it was gone into in depth and I don' really like repeating myself considering how many times I've already repeated myself with you and how dishonest you are misrepresenting my positions. Every time you have attempted to represent my position, you you've misrepresented them. So let's move on to the next argument,
Claire
No, but I didn't even understand the previous one! So can I simply reframe it? "Ultimate destiny" - I remember now. So you were talking about what's going to happen to people in the end if they believe in God and the Abrahamic faith. They believe the Messiah will come, so that's their ultimate destiny as far as they're concerned and in the meantime they go to heaven and hell. OK, I got it. Next one.
Jen
So that's another definition, basically. People can't really disagree with that.There's tons of evidence to support that position and no evidence against it so again it's unfalsifiable.
Claire
I'll simplify for the people in the chat: it means that some people might think "God is angry, God is jealous, God is pleased with us and that's what you're describing in that sentence. The sentence that I just read means that you think that God has been attributed human qualities in that he feels emotions such as anger and jealousy. That would be an example of anthropomorphism.
Jen
But it wouldn't span the totality of what anthropomorphism is.
Claire
You continue:
I agree.
I take the sentence to mean that that whatever God says applies. If laws are said to come from God people are more likely to obey it than if they are man-made laws so and then you continue:
by turning he other cheek when they are being attacked.
Jen
Not exactly, no. What I mean is what I said which is people and strive to emulate the supreme personality of God in whatever way they understand it and so a lower degenerate disgusting ideal of Go causes lower degenerate disgusting behavior of people and there's tons of evidence to support that and no evidence against it so ...
Claire
Again can you give an example of a lower disgusting degenerate conception of God.
Jen
No, I'd say you have a pretty degenerate perception of God.
Claire
In what way is my perception degenerate?
Jen
Look at your behavior. You're disgusting person. You constantly libel people and slander them.
Claire
In what way?
Jen
I'm not going to answer that. You know full well what you've said. I'm not going to repeat it. It's been said enough times so there's a perfect example you have a terrible terrible God and you are a terrible person and I'm a wonderful person. There's another example.
Claire
I don't see that I necessarily represent the Abrahamic God who is supposed to be unique.
Jen
I'm not talking about the Abrahamic God. I'm talking about your particular subjective conception of God. You deny the Abrahamic God insofar as you refuse to subscribe to His religion.
Claire
I promote Secular Koranism which is as good as subscribing to His religion.
Jen
Promoting a religion that you don't subscribe to is hypocritical.
Claire
I don't think so simply because I see the utility in obeying His laws ...
Jen
But you're beyond that, apparently.
Claire
Obviously, if Secular Koranism ere the law of the land I myself would be subject to it. I wouldn't be able to escape it myself. I can't get away with saying one law for you guys and one for me.
Jen
Yeah, I wouldn't put that past you at all. So can we move on.
Claire
I'm saying I wouldn't do that.
If God can be proven to exist this would certainly strengthen people's faith in God. That was a tautological argument. It's so obvious that it doesn't need to be mentioned.
Jen
I think maybe you should mention it for the audience since you just said the audience was a bunch of mouth breathers so it may be not obvious to everyone so if we're talking about going over logical arguments, you're really skipping over a logical argument. It makes me question how much you can possibly understand logic because that would have actually been a good example. You shouldn't have actually stopped reading until you got to that point.
Claire
I'm saying that that sentence is nonsensical but I skipped over it to kind of spare you the embarrassment.
Jen
I really don't believe you because you would take any opportunity you could to embarrass me.
Claire
What would you like to say about that then?
Jen
How about you judge whether it's an powerful argument or not?
Claire
I could only reframe it in my own toes which is that in if people believed in God then they would obey His laws.
Jen
Where did I say anything in that about obeying laws? You're completely misrepresenting the argument.
Claire
If God can be proven to exist so people actually know He exists rather than believing that He exists then this will certainly strengthen people's faith in God.
Jen
If there's a question as to whether something exists, if you prove that it exists, people can't deny its existence.
Claire
There is a difference between belief and knowledge so you can believe for example that a friend of yours is coming to visit but you don't actually know until he arrives. So you won't know your friend is coming until he actually arrives.
Jen
He exists in your house and therefore you can't deny his arrival.
Claire
I mean in the sense that he arrived at your door so but before he actually arrived you can only believe that he is coming.
Jen
So the lesson in this is that proving the existence of something substantiates the argument that it exists.
Claire
I wish to point out that belief is a lower standard or form knowledge. Knowledge is a higher standard of knowledge, if you know what I mean. In legal circles, if you want to question the veracity of a witness you can say: "You only believe such a thing. but you don't know it, so it's only your opinion that so-and-so who is accused of this crime couldn't possibly do such a thing but in fact he did and you only believe he didn't because he tricked you, he bribed you or whatever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_belief
Jen
We can move on from there.
Claire
Thus we will attempt to prove the existence of of the impersonal God. In order to prove such a thing, we must first define what he what exactly we mean by God and thereby determine what entity if any meets these criteria. We assert that God must be uncreated the creator of all things undisturbed and
eternal as well as perfect.
Why does God have to be perfect and what is the definition of perfect?
Jen
If you want to worship an imperfect god, be my guest, but I don't think there's any sound argument behind that position.
Claire
Of course not. W must worship the most powerful God we can find.
Jen
You changed it around. Notice that you changed it from perfect to most powerful. You turned it around from perfect to most powerful. Notice how you just switch those two things. Is perfect the same thing as most powerful? Were those different things?
Claire
Yes, that's why you have the attributes of the Abrahamic God which is to be unique ...
Jen
I thought we were going to stay off that subject.
Claire
It's important because I think I have to explain to you and I think the people need to know that the
most powerful deity conceivable is the Abrahamic God.
Jen
Prove it. You can't define power. You can't prove your assertion. You've jumped to
a completely false conclusion.
Claire
If you will just bear with me I will go to the Wikipedia entry I hope that is acceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions
Jen
No, it's not. No, no, I don't care about ranting about this volcano God, Claire. Move on.
Claire
What I'm saying very quickly in one sentence is that the Abrahamic God is omniscient and that is part of His attributes.
Jen
Thanks for going against what I asked. Can we move on with the actual debate, please.
Claire
For the purpose is this debate, perfection includes being all-powerful and all-knowing.
Now as always as God can never be like what you said. God can't break His own laws so He's not all-powerful. He's not able to break its own laws it can't do anything conceivable because it would violate an axiom.
Claire
I don't know what you mean.
Jen
We're going over my argument so you're going to have to take my axioms for my argument instead of trying to shoehorn your own dogshit false axioms in, get it. So let's focus on what I actually said. Stop to try to shove words in my mouth and just focus on what it is that I said. Are you incapable of doing that?
Claire
I was actually reading your next sentence.
I said that this was the most powerful God.
Jen
No, no. What did I actually say?
Claire
You assert that God must be uncreated creator of all things undisturbed as well as ...
Jen
You misquoted me. Why'd you say you were reading off what I wrote when I didn't write the next sentence? Inserting your own thing into it saying omniscient blah blah blah I never said any that
stuff. Why'd you try to shoehorn that in, you liar?
Claire
Don't you agree that God is unique?
Jen
Depends on your definition of God. I think we should move on to the next.
Claire
I was moving on then you dragged me back again.
Jen
I'm saying get the fuck out, scammer. Let's just focus on what I said and whether there's sound and logical arguments.
Claire
Is God equal to the Universe or greater than the Universe? I'm saying He's greater.
Jen
You're a fraud and a liar asserting things that aren't real as truth and you have the audacity to claim you stand for truth logic and morality? You're violating the axiom. The definition of universe is everything that exists so if you say there's something outside of that you're defining, you have contradictory axioms right. Can we move on. So it's a contradictory axiom: either the universe is everything that exists or there can exist something outside of the universe. Those two things can't both be true. Do you understand why? Why don't you listen to what I'm saying, you piece of dog shit rather than going off in your own hallucination?
Claire
Repeat the question, please.
Jen
Either the universe is everything that exists or it's possible for something to exist outside the universe. So do you understand how if the definition of the term universe is and everything that exists that it's not possible for something to exist outside of that definitionally?
Claire
Is that your contra position thingy that you were talking about?
Jen
It's definitional. It's not a conta position. It's just definitional. It's the definition of that axiom
Claire
Okay
Jen
So you're not even at the point of making a logical argument yet you're still on axioms and what you're saying is
Number one: The universe is everything that exists.
Number two: The Abrahamic God is outside of the universe.
Those two axioms contradict each other.
Claire
Okay, I know. I don't necessarily want to talk about my ideas so we're just talking about yours. Am I allowed to go on to the next sentence. Shall we do next sentence?
Jen
Well, I'd like you to acknowledge whether what I just said is a valid argument.
Claire
What you saying now is that you have to define God.
Jen
No, it is not God, it has nothing to do with God. What I'm saying is "Do you understand what I just said is a valid argument because what you just said. I have to repeat it for a third time?
Claire
Yeah
Jen
So option one: the universe is everything that exists.
Option two: There exists something outside of the universe.
Those two statements cannot both be true.
Claire
Oh yeah yeah sure I agree.
Jen
So which of them is true?
Claire
If you subscribe to the Abrahamic God, you would have to go for two.
Jen
Oh, so you'd have to have a foundationally contradictory logic.
Claire
Because you'd say Abrahamic God created the universe and is outside of it.
Jen
That's the the definition of the universe:nothing can exist outside of everything that exists - that's the
definition. Your axioms are contradictory.
Claire
No, no, you have to define God. You defined and explained God in your own terms. That's fine. I'm not even saying "Oh, but Jen, you have no right to do that" so can we continue? You're saying this is your your definition of your God and you're going to define it according to your terms so can we continue?
Jen
So long as you accept that anything outside of the universe is axiomatically inconsistent based on the definition of universe.
Claire
But Jen, I was arguing against you so you would expect me to have a different view.
Jen
You used your axioms incorrectly. I'm glad you could admit that. Let's move on.
Claire
No I have a different definition of the same word than you.
Jen
Yeah, we had a debate so we can move on now.
Claire
You have to assume that some people have a different view.
Jen
There's no way to contradict that position. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
Claire
What, are you saying all the adherents of the Abrahamic faiths are lying?
Jen
I'm not speaking to anything other than that sentence, you piece of shit asshole for trying to fuck me over with your dog shit.
Claire
Now Jen, I'm afraid I will admit not to have understood that the sentence then and I don't think I
understood it when you spoke to me about it yesterday. Having read it again, I don't really understand it.
Jen
That's cos you're an idiot.
Claire
Oh, you're not going to explain it?
Jen
No, it's definitional, like I said. This is about burden of proof. If you want to tell me the universe had a creator, show me some proof. I'm going to assert it was always there. It's uncreated because for it to
have been created would require a creator and we have no evidence for that, so as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on you because you're making a statement that can't be validated
through science. I'm simply restating what science tells us.
Claire
Okay, let me um try and make sense of yourself your sentence. So so let me reframe it in my owr words: because the universe was uncreated than whatever that exists in the universe was also uncreated.
Is that what you're saying?
Jen
Yep.
Claire
So you're saying God is the universe and the universe is God and we are also God.
Jen
I'm not saying that at all. Are you equal to the universe?
Claire
No.
Jen
But why are you lying about my position now?
Claire
No, I'm not lying. I was about to qualify and clarify that statement which is to say that we are part of God. Is that okay? We are a subset of God to use one of your phrases.
So when you say procession, do you mean history?
Jen
I mean the unfolding of human history.
Claire
Okay
I can understand. It's sort of moving around because you know we are all mass and we all move around, but I didn't understand the last bit because the mass itself is conserved.
Jen
Yeah, that's a physical law. It's called conservation of mass. Mass can't be created or destroyed. We went over this yesterday.
Claire
I disputed the truth of this because I'm saying that there was once upon a time in human history before the periodic table was created.
Jen
Did the information in the periodic table exist before the periodic table was discovered? It wasn't created by the way, it was discovered. So did that information exist before the periodic table was discovered? If this is an obvious question, you should know, yes?
Claire
No, I wish to make the point that the periodic table is a different thing of a different order?
Jen
What was the information that the periodic table represents? Is that eternal or is that temporary?
Claire
The periodic table simply classifies and organises the elements of the universe?
Jen
Did that order exist before we discovered it?
Claire
Yes, another category error and I wish to point this out. Shall we continue?
Jen
You're going to try to nail me by saying that. The periodic table is eternal. It's pretty clear that what I'm sayin is the information depicted in the periodic table was discovered by humans. It wasn't invented by them, it was discovered, thus implying it was already there, thus implying it was eternal. So if you can deal with that and if you want to spin it some other way, well you can try but other people have had the same type of argument. I don't think you're going to get anywhere by trying to say that the periodic table is somehow a human thing.
Claire
Of course it was human.
Jen
The order of the universe is not a human thing. It exists, we discovered it and we understood it through the periodic table but the periodic table and the information represented in it exists whether or not we're aware of it. Basically, the strongest argument against my position is maybe the periodic table isn't eternal which I think is a semantic sort of argument that doesn't really hold any weight. It's
basically the same as saying "Well maybe we live in a simulation."
Claire
I was actually just going to move on from there. I have lost my place.
Jen
Yeah, right, again what I said "Dead Air Claire". Claire, you're ruining the stream.
Claire
I have lost my place. Shouting at me won't help.
You say because he universe is eternal so is God eternal.
What is this space-time event, Jen?
Jen
The periodic table is the smallest space-time event.
Claire
What do you mean by a space-time event?
Jen
You'll have to look it up. I'm not going to give you another lecture on physics move on.
Claire
So it's not relevant?
Jen
It's not relevant. Everything is a spacetime event. It's not relevant to the rest of the argument. Just move on.
Claire
So anything that ever happens is a spacetime event?
Jen
Yes.
Claire
Well, you could have just said that.
I remember saying they are not obviously symmetric. Looking at it, you showed us your balls and said it was your proof of God.
Jen
When the messenger comes no one will be able to deny the existence of God any more. Certain people prayed for this to happen. They just didn't get it in the form that they were expecting but hey that's karma, bitch. Now no one's going to deny the existence of God because of those shitty little balls that all the idiots and atheists hate so much.
Claire
I don't hate them and thought they were cakes. So you think those balls demonstrate God's existence,
Jen
Not sure where it said that, exactly.
Claire
You implied that.
Jen
Oh, I implied it or perhaps you inferred it because you're a lying sack of shit. Can we move on.
Claire
But you're saying that the utility of the belief in an impersonal God gives you knowledge.
Jen
Can we move on.
Claire
Would you like to explain this?
Jen
What part isn't self-evident, exactly?
Claire
I'll try to rephrase it and then you can shout at me if my understanding is wrong. You think God is
impersonal because you think it's just babyish to say "Oh God is angry, God is jealous."
Jen
I got a question in the chat: can I go over proof of eternal universe again? Yeah sure. So there's no reason to believe the universe isn't eternal because it's filled with mass and that mass came from somewhere.I'm going to turn the burden of proof on you to establish where it came from if it wasn't always there and you'd need to have something to create it and that thing would need to be basically more complex than the universe which would appear to be impossible because there's no evidence to support that, so basically the argument is because mass exists and mass can't be created or destroyed, the mass that exists couldn't have been created because this idea of conservation of mass - this idea that mass can't be created or destroyed. This is something we've observed numerous times in physical and chemical reactions, so that's basically the argument.So this this Big Bang thing which has its origins in Kabbalah has no actual basis. In fact, science has been distorted to justify this false belief and it can easily be contradicted in a number of ways including the isotropic nature of the universal background radiation and the fact that a Big Bang implies a localisation and so you can also disprove it with something called quantum state exclusion which is basically the idea that there's a limit to how dense matter can get so if the Big Bang happened, it basically means that quantum state exclusion was vile and there's no mechanism to violate the laws of the universe and that's why the Big Bang is called a singularity and the definition of a singularity is something which a region in which the laws of physics do not apply and what I am stating is that there exists no such region the laws of physics apply everywhere and for that reason I deny the Big Bang and therefore without the Big Bang you basically have no reason to believe in a created universe and so I think it's pretty self-evident at that point and that's an example of how an ideological bias can make people see things that aren't there. Think about it in your own mind: does it make sense when you look at the sky at night and conceive of all of that crushed into one single point? Of course you can't. It's impossible.
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=21&verse=104
Yeah, I'm done.
Claire
Would you like to explain this again, please, Jen?
Jen
Have you ever heard of people recognizing faces where there are no faces? Have you ever looked at a pattern and recognized a face in it and then upon further inspection you realize it wasn't a face, it was just something that your mind just sort of inferred was there.
Claire
Oh, so you think you simply impose something on it like the house that look like an angry face or something like that?
So it's easy for us to recognize human things. This is why anthropomorphism happens:because we project our qualities onto other things whether or not they're there and so this recognizing faces in places where there actually is no face is an example of why if a personal God were established to be true if you believe in an impersonal God you'd recognize it immediately because it would possess human qualities and we're designed to observe human qualities to the extent that we perceive human qualities where there are none, like some people treat their dogs like kids - that's another example of seeing a face where there is no face. There are tons of examples why this happens and it's because we are personal beings. We project our inner nature onto the universe whether it's real or not.
Claire
We also fill in the blank. There was an experiment of giving people to read a paragraph of words all jumbled up but with the the first letter of every word and the last letter of every word in the right place. It appeared to be gibberish people, but people were able to read the gibberish.
Jen
In other words, humans or pattern recognizers. A pattern is a particular ordering so we try to order the information that comes to us through our senses in a way that makes sense to us and in so doing we recognize patterns. Now a lot of times those patterns are there but sometimes they're not so does that make sense.
Claire
Would you like to explain hard limit because it's a restatement of the earlier position that God is the highest sociological ideal ie it's the limit. We don't expect to exceed whatever God is capable of. Is that what you mean?
Jen
What I mean is we can't conceive of anything higher than God because that's the definition.
Claire
Higher than the Abrahamic God.
Jen
Bullshit, bullshit! Stop trying to derail it for yourself, bitch, and stay on topic.
Claire
But darling haven't you said you're talking about the impersonality of God? He's impersonal.
Jen
So it could have a non-human personality, right?
Claire
But how it can it have a personality if it's not human?
Jen
Yeah, I know this is why you don't really understand my religion cos you think personalities have to be human.
Claire
I'm just talking about the attributes of God. I'm not talking about the personality of God. You can't talk about God as if he was a local personality or a celebrity personality.
Jen
Sure you can and when you don't do that your society goes into the crapper.
Claire
No, I'm saying you're making another category mistake.
Jen
You're making a category mistake by thinking that what you represent is even a religion in the first place.
Claire
I say it is a legal system.
Jen
It's a political cult.
Claire
I do not even want to represent myself as a cult. It is a legal system.
Jen
Shall we move on so?
Claire
You talk about the personality of God after saying that he is impersonal. You know you contradict yourself but you know you're assuming that personality has to be anthropomorphic and it doesn't. I
never said it. I have never said anything of the sort. I've talked about the attributes of God and that was what I was going on about.
Jen
So if God has a non human personality, is that still personal God or is that something else?
Claire
I wouldn't even talk about God in terms of having a personality. Do you understand how much I dispute the words that you use?
Jen
Too bad, get used to it. The personality of God is very important to study if you have a personal God.
Claire
I'm just saying that if you're talking about God being impersonal, it's just a little contradictory to talk about His "personality".
Jen
An impersonal personality isn't a contradiction in terms, isn't it? Part of God's personality is the law of gravity. It's just part of the definition. Let's move on.
Claire
Jen
It's self-evident. You're saying that if you believe in an impersonal God, you are going to be less selfish than somebody who believes in a personal God. But that's not actually what I'm saying.
Claire
Well, what are you saying?
Jen
What I'm saying is that if you conceive of an impersonal entity you can depersonalise your subjective consciousness.
Claire
I don't know what that means.
Jen
It's definitional.
Claire
What you mean by definitional?
Jen
As in what you think about determines how your mind works, so if you're thinking about personal things that's going to manifest one type of mind. If you're thinking about impersonal things, that's going to manifest a different type of mind ie a more impersonal one ie a more objective one because personal is a gradual narrowing of subjectivity. You don't get it because you're an idiot but I'm pretty sure most the audience gets it, so let's move on.
Claire
I think most of your audience got it that you were talking about the personality of God. You are saying that worshipping an an impersonal god makes us more likely to be less selfish.
Jen
Where did I say that?
Claire
Okay, so you don't say that. What do you mean by "thinking beyond the confines of our subjective ego"? I think it's quite important and I don't want to skirt over it.
Jen
Is there anything to consciousness beyond that?
Claire
No, I don't think so.
Jen
Okay, so you're very closed-minded and you have no capacity to understand impersonal consciousness even though you said yourself you've meditated and experienced a calm.
Claire
What do you mean by subjective ego?
Jen
You just defined it.
Claire
So do you mean the ego as defined by Freud?
Jen
Freud was a complete pervert and fraud and drug addict. Let's just keep it to the subject.
Claire
Perhaps you can give me an example of thinking beyond the confines of one subjective ego.
Jen
Yeah, when you meditate it and you got the calm feeling - that's an example - so why you can't understand that is honestly beyond me.
Claire
But you meditate in order to make yourself you calm so so how does that mean you are going beyond this the confines of your subjective ego?
Jen
You haven't gone beyond the confines of your subjective ego. You've begun to prepare your ego for what is required to eventually go beyond the confines of your subjective ego. It's a process and the stilling of the mind is integral to that process.
Claire
You weren't originally in a calm state of mind then you meditate it then you've got a calm state
of mind ...
Jen
... which means you tapped into a source of more calm stable consciousness and that's one of the attributes of impersonal consciousness
Claire
But don't people who meditate also believe in a personal God?
Jen
What in the hell are you talking about? Do they you want me to speak for every single meditator on the planet right now? Is that what you're asking me? That's a retarded thing to ask.
Claire
I suppose I could do a survey of yoga teachers ...
Jen
It is a retarded thing to ask. I couldn't possibly have the answer to it. I wonder why you ask questions that I couldn't possibly know, unless you're trying to catch me lying or something. Is that what you're doing?
Claire
I'm just inviting people to consider that not all people who meditate believe in an impersonal God that's all.
Jen
That's a different statement, isn't it?
Claire
But you seem to be saying that only through believing in an impersonal God would you get the benefits of yoga.
Jen
I never said that. It's possible to get some benefits but there's a difference between a couple of benefits, like you can go to a yoga and feel good afterwards. Does that make you are an enlightened sage? No, because it's a spectrum. You start at the beginning and you go all the way up to enlightenment. So there's a big difference between getting some fringe benefits and actually having enlightenment. do you understand that?
Claire
I didn't know that there was much meditation in yoga.
Jen
Now you get an idea of how much my religion is persecuted - it's represented by whores who stretch in lace in spandex. Now you can see the extent to which my religion is persecuted and misrepresented, pissed all over, insulted and ...
Claire
But you called yoga stretching classes at one time, didn't you, Jen? https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/university-of-ottawa-yoga_n_56536246e4b0d4093a589bd3
Jen
Why are you derailing the conversation? I'm trying to find out what's the relevance of that to this conversation.
Claire
Nothing.
Jen
So why are you derailing the conversation?
Claire
By believing an impersonal God, you get the benefits of yoga - is that what you're saying?
Jen
I said it was a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
Claire
Jen
What exactly is unclear about that? We went over it yesterday in detail.
Claire
Let me see if I can make sense of it.
The process of mind expansion from entirely personal to part personal and part impersonal is integral to the practice of meditation.
Claire
No, I'm afraid I don't know what this means. Please would you explain.
Jen
No. You want to go through the logic of my arguments, fine, but I don't want to give you any teachings.
Claire
This is about yoga meditation and you you don't think it's relevant?
Jen
So what's the argument exactly?
Claire
I'm trying to understand it.
Jen
So that's my argument: that enlightenment is the desirable effect. Do you want to attempt to undermine that position?
Claire
Not at all. I'm trying to understand your position. I need to understand this very long sentence. You do talk about the cessation of suffering. It is a very long sentence. I want to make sure that everyone
understands it. You can't just say "Move on" when we're actually examining the validity and the soundness of your arguments. It would suggest that you are not wanting me to examine it. Now I will examine what the definition.
As I said, the argument I'm making is that enlightenment is a desirable thing. You want to attempt to undermine that position because ...
Claire
I even agree with it.
Jen
So you're saying that meditation is necessary for men manifesting perfect consciousness and love. Perfect consciousness means enlightenment. Its effects would be socially desirable even if it won't lead to the cessation of suffering.
Claire
Is that what you are saying - it wouldn't lead to the total cessation of suffering.
Jen
It would diminish suffering though and that's desirable, that's what I'm saying, okay?
Claire
So you're saying India is superior to the rest of the world?
Jen
Did I say that?
Claire
I don't know. Were you implying it?
Jen
I wasn't implying it. Why were you inferring it, bitch?
Claire
Because if you were saying it, I would have to invite you to expand on your sentence.
Jen
What exactly would you like me to expand on?
Claire
Which societies have made more significant contributions to philosophy and science?
Jen
I think I said India made more significant contributions to philosophy and science and they had a concept of an impersonal God whereas the people with the personal God didn't really make much of a contribution to anything.
Claire
Well, I did read about Hindu scripture and it is suggested that they don't believe in an impersonal God but that the majority of Hindus believe in a personal God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god#Indian_religions
Jen
Ad populum fallacy. Can we move on.
Claire
Okay, so you're saying that India has made more significant contributions to philosophy and science than the rest of the world. That is indeed what you're saying? I just need to confirm it.
Jen
So let's go to this question in the audience. We have too many undefined concepts here. How are we
defining enlightenment perfected consciousness? Donald Robertson: "How are we defining time as the transcendent element of the space-time event?" Time is what goes in the forward direction and I think for most people time is pretty self-evident. When I use time I mean it in the same sense that you do ie if you look at your watch it appears as though time's going by but really what's happening is a little bit more complicated but for the purposes of this discussion we can just assume that space and time are independent even though technically they're not.
How are we defining God?
I'm defining God as equal to the universe.
Claire is defining God as something else, but we're talking about my particular arguments defending an impersonal God.
How are we defining eternity?
All of space and all of time.
I hope that answers your question. To continue, enlightenment is not wisdom. Claire, you don't get to redefine enlightenment.
Claire
It doesn't include wisdom, Jen?
Jen
Well, you tried to equate it to wisdom.
Claire
Can an enlightened person be unwise?
Jen
No, you could say wisdom is a necessary condition for enlightenment but not a sufficient one so you can't equate them.
Donald Robertson asks how are we defining perfected consciousness? Yoga is a cessation of the fluctuations of the mind so in other words there's no more suffering: there's no more changes to the inner perfection of your own mind relating to enlightenment when you don't have it. It is pretty much impossible so the only way to really start to understand it is through metaphor and practice and at some point you need to simply take it on faith that enlightenment as possible. It may not be possible to convince people, but people have different standards of evidence and at the end of the day, you need to ask yourself: do I think it's possible to have a perfected state of consciousness or not?
But I can tell you that if you want a perfected state of consciousness, you have to believe that it's possible. It is not death. Donald Robertson, it is the death of suffering. You go on living forever through reincarnation. It's actually not possible for your mind to die. However, when you're enlightened, you can choose when you take birth if you're actually able to use yogic powers. There's levels of enlightenment. It's a pretty complicated subject, so we won't go into all the levels of enlightenment today, but it's not death. Claire, over to you.
Claire
You continue:
Would you like to expand on this sentence, please?
Jen
No, I would not. I would like you to evaluate whether it's a valid argument.
Claire
You're saying that the Abrahamic God contributes to undesirable consequences ie supremacism and imperialism.
You seem to be saying in this sentence that the Abrahamic God promotes supremacy.
Jen
Did I mention the Abrahamic God?
Claire
You don't.
Jen
But why do you infer that? Are you trying to paint me as some sort of hater of Abrahamic traditions as you frequently slander me on your blog with generally and trying to do so again? Why don't we just stick to the arguments rather than you trying to misrepresent my position with your pathetic dog shit. I would like to focus on my arguments on why they or weren't valid. You're trying to spin it in your selfish disgusting degenerate way.
Claire
You can just explain what you meant in that sentence.
Jen
No, you're gonna tell me if that's a valid argument.
Claire
It's only valid if it's logical and only sound if it is true and logical. There is no proof of what you say.
Jen
Have you any evidence against it? Yes or no? Have you any evidence against that position?
Claire
I'm saying that we cannot measure supremacism, imperialism and hatred of God. How can we?
Jen
Just have a look at who's done the most imperialism in the last three thousand years. Have a look at who has the most supremacist religion? Have a look at who's the most atheistic people because they hate God.
Claire
That is just the nature of a declining Empire.
Jen
Bullshit, bullshit. You suck at causality. Why don't you just focus on the argument itself? So have you any evidence against my position?
Claire
I would certainly say that great civilisations are great empires.
Jen
Yet another axiom I don't accept. Can you actually answer?
Claire
I'm saying neither you nor I can measure supremacism, imperialism or hatred of God.
Jen
Sure I can.
Claire
Go on then.
Jen
People who think that they're better than other people talk to a bunch of people in different religions
get a feel for how they feel towards others. We can draw a conclusion and a working hypothesis and go from there.
Claire
No, I didn't say define it, I said measure it.
Jen
Sure, measure it by talking to people. It's very easy to do you talk to people from a bunch of different religions and see which of them have supremacist views and look at the evidence from there.
Claire
But you can't talk to every single person.
Jen
No, but you can talk to enough that you get a convergence. What you want is to have is enough evidence to be able to make a reasonably good hypothesis with it and that's a very good hypothesis because no evidence exists against it and tons of evidence support it.
Claire
May I explain my position?
Jen
I'm not interested in your position. Let's examine the arguments. That's what this stream is supposed to be about I'm tired of you, selfish and wailing like a teenager.
Claire
It would make yours clearer. It would actually make yours clearer because you accused me of supremacism and imperialism, that's what you're saying: that the Abrahamic religion causes ..
Jen
You are supremacist and you are an imperialist. Are you denying that?
Claire
I acknowledge that great civilisations are great empires and I don't see imperialism as necessarily evil.
Jen
Do you deny that you're a supremacist and an imperialist?
Claire
I don't see that imperialism is necessarily evil and believe it makes sense to worship the most powerful God.
Jen
But don't you see your ideology as the best? Why are you trying to turn this round on me? I just asked you a simple question? Why are you refusing to answer a simple question and then ascribing motive to me? Why are you doing that?
Claire
What was your question again?
Jen
So now I have to repeat it for the third time.
Claire
If you shout at me I'll forget.
Jen
If you try to derail it for your own stupid agenda you confuse yourself and end up looking like an idiot. How about that? Because now you're forcing me to repeat something for the third time. So all I said was: do you deny that you're a supremacist and an imperialist?
Then you went off on a tangent and then I went through the definitions individually and you said yes to both but on second you try to sort of wiggle your way out of it by asking me the same question so I'm wondering why can't you just have a direct frank honest discussion is it because you hate logic,
truth and morality and have to rely on dishonest debate tactics because what you represent is a load of bullshit.
Claire
Answering your question now about whether I'm a supremacist: I want global Secular Koranism. Does that make me a supremacist?
Jen
I would say yes.
Claire
Don't you want global acceptance of your ideas?
Jen
What I want is to prove the Vedic origin of knowledge and I've already done that so I don't really do anything. Anyone who denies my knowledge is superior is either lying or a fool and therefore their opinion is not validated. Our thing is to protect innocent people from predators like you.
Claire
On whom have I preyed?
Jen
Let's move on to the next part of the debate which is after all what this stream is supposed to be about. You are actually an anecdotal piece of evidence in support of my thesis Moving on.
Claire
But you haven't said on whom I prey.
Jen
But I insist you continue.
Claire
Jen
You're a perfect example. You have a very hard time conceiving of the impersonal God because in your mind God is personal and you're having a very hard time understanding the impersonal God. You yourself are an anecdote old piece of evidence in support of my thesis.
Claire
Only because I disagree with you because I defined the personal God.
Jen
It's not that you disagree with me, it's just that you don't even understand my position because you're biased by your personal ego and your concept of a personal God. It's inconceivable for you that the God is impersonal.
Claire
But I'm saying that the Abrahamic God ...
Jen
Claire, don't start this nonsense. Nobody cares, no, nobody cares, nobody cares. If you attempt to derail this again ... Let's stick on topic. We're talking about whether my argument's valid, so let's go on. Either we're going to establish if this one's valid or we're going to move on to the next one.
Claire
I'm still not clear about what you mean by a personal ego and search for God.
Jen
Well, our egos are what allow us to know things. If we think God is personal, are we going to be able to perceive an impersonal God? Can you conceive of something you don't believe in?
Claire
Yes.
Jen
No, you can't.
Claire
Of course you can. You can conceive of pink unicorns, a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Of course we can conceive of these things. Of course we can. I know you believe in an impersonal God, but just question its utility, that's all.
Jen
So all that knowledge I have is just without any utility.
Claire
No, I'm not questioning your knowledge. I'm questioning it for the rest of the world. People want to believe in it. People want to believe in a personal God because a personal God is more powerful than an impersonal God.
Jen
I'm not going to go into that right now because it's not worth my time. Let's focus on what we actually are doing this stream, which is evaluating whether my arguments are valid or not. So do you
have any way of contradicting the argument that I made that you just read?
Claire
Yes.
Jen
Go ahead.
Claire
Let me read to the end of it so you know for the sake of completeness.
This is again a difficult sentence so can you explain it.
Jen
What exactly is unclear about it?
Claire
You seem to be saying that unless people share your beliefs, they won't be able to understand the nature of cause and effect.
Jen
Did I say that?
Claire
Well, it seems to me that you are and if you're not could you explain to us precisely how we've been confusing two things.
Jen
Okay, saying I reached enlightenment through knowledge is not the same thing as saying it is impossible to reach enlightenment unless you have knowledge. You do realise that one is an anecdote and one is a generalisation so I wondering why you try to turn anecdotes into generalisations? Is it
because you're trying to slander me again?
Claire
I'm seeking clarification, Jen.
Jen
I don't believe you. I think you're just trying to get me to say something that you can use against me on your tabloid blog which is unilaterally fixated on me for some reason.
Claire
But you are my greatest opponent.
Jen
You're not my greatest opponent.
Claire
Who is?
Jen
I don't really have any competition. Anybody who could potentially be a rival ends up becoming
a devotee. I don't have rivals. If I did they wouldn't look anything like you.
Claire
What do you mean?
Jen
You aren't on my level of knowledge. You can't rival me. Your knowledge is a subset of my knowledge. You can't be a rival if your knowledge is a subset of my knowledge. It's just how it works. It's like beating up a five-year-old ...
Claire
... and boy do you beat me up.
Jen
You deserve it. What you're doing is extremely immoral.
Claire
How am I immoral?
Jen
I think you know that it is immoral. You're telling lies. You know what you're doing. I think you're paid for what you do. I think you're paid.
Claire
What am I doing?
Jen
Promoting that which is false and I hope it's clear to the audience. What I'm saying is necessarily true, therefore anywhere you deviate from what I'm saying you're preaching something false.
Claire
Have you shown it to be true? Have you any my position with a valid argument?All your arguments are invalid and I've explained that today many times.
Jen
All the time you misrepresent what I'm saying,
Claire
Jen, I read everything you said in your proposition and I slowed down I asked you to explain yourself and sometimes you choose not to.
Jen
So do you want me to tell me where I think you go wrong? What would be nice is if you could construct a valid argument against my position - something no one has been able to do, not Blundertry not Jon Vance, not anyone, no one because what I'm saying is closer to the truth than anyone else ....
Claire
You're saying, Jen, aren't you and correct me if I'm wrong, that your belief in an impersonal God is more useful than any belief in a personal God.
Jen
Depends what you mean by useful.
Claire
Yes and you're you're saying usefulness is not promoting supremacism and not promoting imperialism.
Jen
I think it's premise is Abrahamism. They have their uses but that's not really the answer.
Claire
So you are sometimes an imperialist but not all the time?
Jen
You do realise there's a difference between something being useful and something being the supreme truth, right?
Claire
Sure.
Jen
So I wonder why you're trying to equate the two.
Jen
No, I'm trying to sum up your argument, Jen, and you are saying that believing in an impersonal God is more useful than believing in a personal God and the usefulness of this is as follows.
According to you, believing in an impersonal God would contribute to science and philosophy and discourage supremacism and imperialism. Is that right?
Jen
I didn't say that. No, I'm not going to say that that's correct at all because it's a lot more complicated than what you're making it to be.
Claire
But you do say that believing it in personal God would stop us from being so selfish. Is that what you say?
Jen
Did I say that?
Claire
This is what I imagined you to be saying.
Jen
Why are you where you're putting words in my mouth then?
Claire
Because I'm trying to translate you're very obscure use of the language in two sentences so that people can understand and that's why I rephrase them and invite you to agree with them with me on how I've rephrased them.
Jen
I see it as your rephrasing what I'm saying in order to trap me into a false duality and I'm just not going to fall for it so let's focus on what I actually said. Now you said you can just prove my argument so I'm wondering why you haven't done that yet.
Claire
I'm going to do it now. What do you say that is not true is this thing you described when you say:
impersonal God has made significant contributions to philosophy and science.
I don't think you can prove that simply because the rest of the world is more scientifically advanced than India.
Jen
Prove that.
Claire
Simply because it was the West that first landed on the moon or do you deny the moon landing?
Jen
If you're going to use that as your evidence in support of your position, it's pretty weak.
Claire
We can only judge using objective facts. How many people do you know deny the moon landing?
Jen
The answer is fuck off, build a better argument. Should be easy, right?
Claire
So lots of people who deny the moon landing subscribe to your channel?
Jen
Bullshit. Claire, everyone in the chat can tell you're lying, just proving my point over and over and over again that you're subversive, you're a shill, you're a fucking liar and and I'm really glad that you're here because you just keep proving my point over and over again. I find you disgusting. It's like with Con Oppos - I find you both disgusting. Can you defeat my argument because that would be
really cool because it would be the first time anybody ever defeated my argument.
Claire
How would you measure scientific achievement then?
Jen
That's funny. It doesn't sound like you're disproving my argument at all. So you do that first, do it, let's go, just the argument do it, Claire, okay?
Claire
How would you measure scientific achievement if not by actual events?
Jen
That doesn't sound like a disproof of my argument.
Claire
The periodic table - who discovered that, Jen? Was that an Indian man?
Jen
Chemistry was well known in ancient in India.
Claire
So who discovered the periodic table, Jen?
Jen
According to Western science, we were told that the first person to formalise it was Dmitri Mendeleev. India was able to make statues that still haven't decayed out of metals so they had an advanced knowledge of metallurgy. Whether they had the actual periodic table or some other form of it is not really relevant. What's relevant are the results of that knowledge and India's history speaks for itself: superior architecture, superior culture, superior wisdom, superior philosophies, superior science - the West owes everything to India. Why this whole east-west divide was made was to
deracinated descendants from Indians so if you want to keep saying you know all our science in the West, that's a very easily disproven argument. I myself am the proof that Westerners don't really understand science all that well. They have good technology but that's not science nor is it philosophy.
Claire
What's the nationality of the man who discovered the periodic table?
Jen
Not relevant and we can't even establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's the one who discovered it so can we actually move on to you disproving my argument because right now you're in really shaky ground. Yu think you can disprove my argument and I'm really excited to hear your counter thesis cos it'll be the first time anyone's ever disproven my argument. I can't wait.
Claire
I'm just a little curious as to the nationality of Mendeleev.
Jen
Not relevant. Disprove the argument, you idiot, now. Disprove the argument, please. Oh wait, you can't.
Claire
It was the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, okay? It's on record. Do you think he's Western? European, anyway.
Jen
I'm not going to credit him with the discovery of chemistry.
Claire
Why would you take that away from Western Man?
Jen
This is because he doesn't deserve it. He stole it from India. I'm just correcting the record, Claire.
Claire
You have a very poor understanding of history.
Jen
Why don't you defeat my argument because I'm getting kind of bored of listening.
Claire
He came from a Russian Orthodox background, to be fair. Did he ever go to India to steal stuff from them?
Jen
This doesn't sound like an argument at all.
Claire
You're saying that he meant to steal stuff from India.
Jen
I'm just saying he's not the first person to come up with the idea of chemistry.
Claire
I'm sure chemistry or questions about chemistry came up from time to time and place to place
Jen
But you hate Indians because of an inferiority complex.
Claire
No, I don't hate India and Indian was not even on my radar until I met you, Jen.
Jen
Oh really? Well you don't know much about them and you seem to have a pretty low opinion of
them. You called them a fallen civilisation when really if the rest of the world stopped parasitizing over India, it would recover within 10-15 years so I wonder why the rest of the world needs to parasitise off of India these via the East India Trading Company, the hundred year occupation and parasitism and theft by the idiotic disgusting degenerate mouth-breathing Anglos and their Jewish masters and it continues to this day through a usurious extortion so yeah I do think you have a bit of an inferiority complex, to be honest. Next to the Indians, everybody basically has an inferiority complex that's why there's so much we was Kangs and larping because people are trying to steal what
the Aryas did because they basically did it all and anything anyone does is just a cheap imitation of what the Aryas originally did. The artists came from India and a lot of people just can't deal with that so yeah I'm really glad that I upset people who deny this self-evident fact and I'm also very sad that you haven't just proven my argument yet.
Claire
Well, I've proven that a lot of the things you say are not based on sound fact.
Jen
I think you're lying and I'd like you to actually disprove my argument for the millionth time now.
Claire
You're saying that an impersonal God encourages more morality than belief in a personal God but then you can't measure scientifically achievement or morality and then you contradict yourself by talking about the personality of God when you have been arguing that God is impersonal so I think that defeats your argument.
Jen
You have no evidence against my position and not all personalities are personal, that's your own personal personality ....
Claire
Can you describe what this could possibly mean? You are talking nonsense again. What's the personality of the universe? Only persons can have a personality.
Jen
That depends on your definition of personality, doesn't it?
Claire
Who can have a personality other than person, Jen?
Jen
It depends on your definition of personality doesn't it?
Claire
Give me an example of an impersonal personality.
Jen
I just did.
Claire
What?
Jen
I'm not gonna repeat it so I'd really like you to just present evidence against my position. Do you have a different civilisation that came up with something better than what India did?
Claire
Yeah, lots of empires. The Roman Empire came up with the rule of law.
Jen
There were laws in India. Rome collapsed, you know.
Claire
Eventually all empires collapse and they probably collapse for the same reason: when they break their own rules.
Jen
So I've disproven your position that having laws somehow means something. Anything else?
Claire
The Romans declined because they broke their own laws. They also changed their religion in order to break their own laws.You don't really need a philosophy of science, you just need your scientific and technological advancements. Well, this is very Western isn't it? The medium through which we are communicating is Western and if you want to talk about human consciousness, perhaps the internet could be equated with the sum total of human thought.
Jen
So computers are equal to human thought?
Claire
Well, they concentrate human thought in one place and allow it to be accessed by other humans. This is a pretty big achievement. Did the Indians do that? No, they didn't, so how are Indians better at science?
Jen
The Internet is not a scientific development. It's a technological development. You're making a category error, Claire.
Claire
They go together like horse and carriage.
Jen
What are you talking about?
Claire
Science and technology go together.
Jen
Point to me the superior scientific discoveries of any other civilisation than India.
Claire
Well, what are the Indian scientific discoveries then tell us that?
Jen
Everything I've done is more than anything any European has done. You take the sum total of European science and philosophy, you take the sum total of my science and philosophy ...
Claire
I'm afraid I don't know what your scientific achievements are, Jen, I'm sorry.
Jen
Yeah, it's because you're an idiot. They've been explained to you numerous times.
Claire
No, you have to list it for the people listening to this video, don't you understand?
Jen
No, I don't. They can just read the blog.
Claire
And if they don't believe it then they can try to contradict you,
Jen
You can't contradict my position because it's true. Do you want to move on. You haven't disproven my position yet. You try to equate technology to science so I'm wondering why you haven't given me one anecdote of superior philosophy to India.
Claire
Well, I don't know what Indian achievements there are in science and I'm ...
Jen
That's right - you don't know.
Claire
I'm not aware of any Indian scientific achievements so please would you tell us what they are.
Jen
No.
Claire
Why not?
Jen
Because it's not worth my time. Your continued denial of my scientific achievements is dishonest on your part as I've already explained to you how my model predicts the star formation. My model is a complete transcendent model. We've been over this many times. I've explained to you how my
model predicts nuclear reactivity so I'm wondering why you choose to purposely forget things. I've repeated to you probably in the dozens of times now.
Claire
No, I just want you to tell me which blogpost you list the scientific achievements of the Indians and which demonstrate Vedic knowledge is superior.
Jen
I took birth in the West, you utter half-wit, to prove that exact point.
Claire
Wait, I don't understand why you're being born where you were born proves that Indian scientific achievements are greater.
Jen
Imagine a great sage wanted to prove that they were the best at knowledge - how do you think they might go about doing that? Do you think they might go about doing something that? Nobody else can do such a thing as taking birth among their descendants as the opposite gender. Can you think of a greater feat of yogic powers than that?
Claire
That has to be proven.
Jen
If you know that a particular sage was going to reincarnate 100 years after they were killed for the same reason they're being persecuted in this life.
Claire
Theoretically, that would be a wonderful demonstration of superior knowledge, Jen.
Jen
Answer the question. The question is can you think of a better feat than that in terms of demonstrating superior knowledge.
Claire
But I don't think you have demonstrated superior knowledge. Your scientific achievements have not been noted or rewarded. The problem is that people won't believe you.
Jen
I don't care. I'm still right. Truth is truth, whether or not people accept it. So you still haven't managed to think of a greater feat of demonstration of knowledge so I guess I do have superior knowledge.
Claire
I don't know. You haven't convinced anyone.
Jen
Maybe stop trying to speak for other people because you don't know what they're thinking.
Claire
Why don't we do a survey and see how many people believe?
Jen
Ad populum fallacy. So you've been unable to give any examples of superior science or philosophy? Computers wouldn't work without Vedic math so any computer is based on Vedic math, right? I know this because I know how computers work so would you like to try again?
Claire
I'm saying that you can't measure imperialism or supremacism.
Jen
Those are your axioms, not mine.
Claire
Well, they are relevant.
Jen
Because they're not my axioms, I don't have to validate your axioms.
Claire
I'm saying in order to measure the different supremacism and the different imperialism, you have to measure it by something. I have listed Western scientific and technological achievements and you have so far cited nothing about Indian scientific and technological achievement.
Jen
The best thing you can come up with is the periodic table and the internet.
Claire
I've got the periodic table and it was done by a Western chemist.
Jen
We can determine that ancient India must have known something about chemistry so it's really not a good argument. I am the one who actually discovered the correct form of the periodic table.You don't even know what Vedanta is
Claire
Why don't you tell us a bit about Vedanta?
Jen
Your anecdotes have been falsified by me. Use of the Internet is not science. The Internet wouldn't exist without computers and computers wouldn't exist without Vedic mathematics. Some guy coming up with a periodic table when I came up with a better structure for the periodic table doesn't prove
anything. You can't disprove my argument because you don't even know my argument is.
Claire
Yu do express yourself in a very obscure way, Jen.
Jen
It has nothing to do with Anglos not wanting to fuck my ancestors as you have hypothesized.
Claire
What?
Jen
I said I have a chip on my shoulder and it has nothing to do with Anglos not wanting to fuck my ancestors as you have hallucinating.
Claire
I don't even know what you're accusing me of.
Jen
I believe you accused E Michael Jones and I of having a chip on our shoulders because we're Irish and were mad that the Anglos wouldn't fuck us.
Claire
Marry you, I think.
Jen
So yeah I just wanted to make sure everyone understands just how dumb you are. So philosophy: what's the best philosophical achievement of anything outside India? Let's hear what you've got, Claire.
Claire
Well. I don't know. I think you have to prove to us that the Indian philosophy is is better than Western philosophy and the Abrahamic faiths.
Jen
What's the best thing in any of that? Just show me tell me what the best thing is and I'll prove why mine's better. Let's hear it.
Claire
Well, I think the wisdom contained in the Abrahamic faiths is far superior to anything anywhere.
Jen
Really? Got any evidence to support that?
Claire
The continuing existence of the most powerful tribe in the world.
Jen
You know, cockroaches exist - it doesn't mean anything about their philosophical achievements.
Claire
Well, Jews exist.
Jen
And I'm saying that their existing doesn't actually mean anything because cockroaches exist. It doesn't mean they have an advanced philosophy. I'm looking for an actual answer to my question.
Claire
I'm surprised that you don't know that Spinoza was also a pantheist.
Jen
Because some Jew happen to believe something that maybe somewhat resembles some subset of Indian philosophy, that means something? I'm asking a very simple question. Tell me what philosophically. Give me the exact example. Say this particular idea, not these religions exists. I want an actual anecdote.
Claire
I think it's quite an achievement for Jews being kicked out of their country for 2,000 years and then to get back their homeland.
Jen
Claire, evidence suggests Jews have controlled the Middle East since antiquity. Can you stop trying to derail it. Answer the question.
Claire
What is the question?
Jen
The question is: tell me the best philosophical achievement of literally anything outside of India that is not your Abrahamic God because that is not a philosophical concept. So let's get an actual philosophical concept.
Claire
Well, all the wisdom that flows from these religions such as Ten Commandments.
Jen
You haven't established how that's wisdom and nor how it's philosophy so can you give me an example of the philosophy that doesn't come from India that you think is the best one. You can't just say "The Abrahamic tradition is." Give me the actual philosophy itself.
Claire
You know I'll keep going back to Judaism because it is the idea that keeps Jews in existence. Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism and those religions created empires.
Jen
You've given me nothing philosophical at all.
Claire
What do you mean by philosophical?
Jen
The philosophical has to have purpose. It has to have utility and has to have achievements.
Claire
So the idea is God - the Abrahamic God, omniscient ...
Jen
We're all tired. Can you actually give us the concrete evidence? Give us the actual philosophy. Give us the philosophical results, not the usury empire, okay? We all know the unifier is what binds them together, okay? Can you actually answer my question?
Claire
Patriarchy.
Jen
Patriarchy comes from India and the Jews being matrilineal are more of a matriarchy than any other any European patriarchy or your Indian patriarchy, so can you answer my question about philosophy, please?
Claire
Philosophy is wisdom.
Jen
Who are supposed to be the wisest of all?
Claire
Well, I suppose people think the Chinese are wise ....
Jen
You're the fucking counter-evidence to that position! Oh God, what a joke. Can you actually give me a philosophical truth like tell me literally anything philosophical, literally anything - you could say the Socratic method, like you could literally say "I can think of a bunch of things." Why aren't you coming up with any actual philosophy?
Claire
What I'm saying is that different civilisations have rules. Jen, we don't know what your rules are and you're refusing to tell us.
Jen
So just let the record show Claire is constantly derailing because she has no evidence of philosophy or science that's better than what India has, so would you like to try again, Claire.
Claire
I have answered your question: the connected wisdom of the Abrahamic faiths is greater than yours
Jen
So can you give us any evidence to support that?
Claire
Empire is evidence of philosophy - it is evidence of the wisdom that you need to acquire empire.
Jen
So why can't you give me any philosophical anecdotes.
Claire
I don't know if you know that the Athenian worshiped Athena the Goddess of Wisdom and War. You
need to a Philosopher King. The wisest man should be your leader because you can only survive as a nation if your policies are wise.
Jen
Show me the philosophy, tell it to me, Claire. What is it the wisdom?
Claire
It is simply that of continuing existence.
Jen
Oh, so cockroaches are wise because they exist.
Claire
No, but if cockroaches divided themselves into nations then we could examine the relative successes different cockroach nations. That is how we would assess the wisdom of cockroaches. We may be the equivalent cockroaches. We live and we want to do stuff and want we have our little groups. Humans divide themselves into nations and this fact is acknowledged in the scripture of the Abrahamic faiths.
Jen
Why can't you provide me with any philosophical evidence. All these ideologies are just a smokescreen for a monopoly on usury.
Claire
Usury is the source of Jewish power,
Jen
That's parasitism and therefore very unstable because it eventually collapses so I'd like to know once again what is this superior philosophy you allege exist? Can't you tell me in words what it is rather than shifting the goal posts to empire and wealth and other things that are temporary?
Claire
I already answered your question. I said the wisdom is contained in scripture. Do you understand what I mean by scripture?
Jen
Give me a citation.
Claire
Well, the Ten Commandments and the Noahide laws. I'm saying that the continued existence of the Jew as the most ancient and most powerful tribe in the world is evidence of the wisdom of their religion.
Jen
Can you understand that by the same logic the continued existence of cockroaches is evidence of their superior philosophy?
Claire
I refer you to my previous answer.
Jen
Which is that we don't judge the superiority of something that just continues to exist.
Claire
If you want to be judging cockroaches as creatures of wisdom. You would have to observe their behavior and if cockroaches divided themselves into nations and had empires and then you would be observing what rules they observed in order to acquire empire and how they would lose their empire and I'm saying humans do this and when they lose their empire they break their own rules and I'm also saying that you're more likely to follow your rules if you believe that they were created by the Creator of Creation ie the Abrahamic God.
Jen
Got any evidence to support that because I've got tons of evidence against that.
Claire
I was just going to say that these rules all contained in the Koran.
Jen
I don't care, okay? Support your position.
Claire
The evidence to support my position is the continuing the existence of the Jews who are the most ancient of tribes.
Jen
Indians have existed far longer.
Claire
You have to compare like with like.
Jen
What's the difference between a tribe and a race?
Claire
You can have different types in one race.
Jen
The Indian race has existed for longer than the Jews, so what's your point? Why do you keep lying so much?
Claire
A good example would be Jews as a tribe and the Chinese Empire. They've been around for about the same length of time.
Jen
Do you think China's much older?
Claire
Obviously.
Jen
China's probably the second oldest after India.
Claire
Are you sure, Jen? How long do you think India has existed?
Jen
I'm not going to speculate on that. All the evidence suggests that that's the oldest civilisation. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
Claire
There is Mesopotamia, you know.
Jen
Yeah, that's part of the concerted effort to rewrite the historical record.
Claire
So you don't think civilization started from ancient Mesopotamia? What about Egypt?
Jen
Well, Egypt was originally an Indian colony.
Claire
So everybody's Indian.
Jen
No, I think the Chinese actually originally came from Africa. Indians came from Africa. Well, we all originated from Africa but we diverged before the dawn of civilisation so it's not really relevant. The supreme origin of humans is Africa so there was Africa and then there was a divergence. There was Africa and India and then everybody else is basically out of Africa or out of India and I think the next divergence would have been the Chinese or like what later became the Asians from Africa and then
much later the Europeans left India and everybody else is just a mix-up between those original populations.
Claire
So what would the best thing to do now that we are stuck with each other in whatever nation we happen to be in. Shouldn't we just all get along?
Jen
It depends what you mean by get along. I don't want you to change me to a false ideology.
Claire
Why I would do that? Why is it false ideology? Why would patriarchy be a false ideology?
Jen
Did I say patriarchy was a false ideology?
Claire
Well, I'm saying that the West is a matriarchy and a lot of people in the West feel that the rules aren't fair so we change the rules back to patriarchy. Simple, isn't it?
Jen
I just want the record to show that Claire was unable to show any philosophical superiority. She tried to shift the goalposts to other things because she doesn't really have a leg to stand on. You can't even give me one thing of actual philosophy.
Claire
I answered the question many times in different ways. You're just refusing to acknowledge that.
Jen
Do you do realize that existence and philosophy are two different things?
Claire
You would be wise to avoid the things that might threaten your existence.
Jen
We don't compare ourselves to cockroaches.
Claire
Why do you want to compare humans to cockroaches?
Jen
I'm demonstrating your fallacious argument. Why can't you actually point to the philosophy itself?
Claire
I've told you: the philosophy is wisdom.
Jen
Why can't you point to the actual philosophy and wisdom itself? Why don't you just open up your Talmud or your Torah and point to me what is the wisest thing to come out of that? Why can't you do that?
Claire
The Ten Commandments: everybody observes some of it whether they want to.
Jen
They don't all observe the Ten Commandments.
Claire
It's kind of agreed that is probably a good idea to criminalise murder. Even murderers acknowledge the usefulness of a law forbidding murder.
Jen
So do you think there were laws against murder before the Ten Commandments?
Claire
Probably in some place.
Jen
Exactly. So you're saying that forbidding murder is indicative of superior philosophy - is that your position?
Claire
My position is that how you collate information in one accessible book is evidence of wisdom. It's like the periodic table you keep going on about - the genius of the person who discovered the periodic table was how he chose to organise it and how useful it was to two scientists.
Jen
It doesn't matter, I did it better so it's not evidence. My periodic table is better because it predicts nuclear reactivity. You've got a periodic table which doesn't even work because my periodic table is better. I've asked you to demonstrate philosophical superiority and you failed to do that. Does anybody in the audience think there's a superior philosophy that didn't originate in India? Anybody at all? Go ahead in the audience.
Claire
I think the Chinese are going to be wiser than the Indians.
Jen
That is Chinese inferiority. Imagine having to make up IQ and lie about it in order to make yourself feel better because you're such a failure your country's polluted shithole and you never came up with anything. The best philosophy you ever had came from India/
Claire
Are you not aware of the Mandate of Heaven? Have you not heard of Confucius?
Jen
Have you not heard of Buddha? If you've not heard of Vedanta, let's hear your superior philosophy.
Claire
We don't want to encourage evil behavior and we want to encourage good behavior, therefore we need wise leaders. This is what Plato himself said and I think everybody wants wise leaders.
Jen
I can't deny that but I can deny that you you've demonstrated any wisdom. All I'm asking one tell me one anecdote. You said the periodic table which is disproven by my periodic table and you said the Ten Commandments which isn't actually philosophy - it's law. So can you try again and give us a philosophy. Haven't you read the Torah and the Talmud? Shouldn't you be able to just come up with these things off the top of your head?
Claire
I can and if you don't keep interrupting me I will make my point. The best thing you can do is to continue to exist. Since we are all mortal and die we can only live through our descendants and if our descendants live in a particular nation we can test out the viability of our ideas through posterity and our descendants. Obviously, if we are wise, we would build upon the wisdom of the past and build on the technological, cultural, legal and philosophical achievements of the past and therefore we shouldn't have them destroyed. It can get destroyed in war but we find methods of preserving them or recreating them and so science and technology are needed and also wise leaders to avoid ruinous wars.
Jen
So it sounds like you can't give us any philosophy.
Claire
I just told you so.
Jen
None of that is philosophy.
Claire
It is obviously wise to avoid ruinous wars and I'm afraid the nature of empire when they are declining is that they wage reckless ruinous wars. That's how the British Empire ended and I fear America is going to do the same thing. I think it is because they no longer believe in their religion their religion
is Christianity which is idolatrous. They should dump it for a Secular Koranism. That would be wise because it would restore the patriarchy in the West and save the West from descending into chaos and disorder and it is time that they admitted that their religion and their political system is most unwise. I think in this matter you agree with me, don't you, Jen?
Jen
I'm not going to agree with you on anything because I think it's just a setup for you to try to misrepresent my views. I'll give you an example of philosophy: the Socratic method - you could have proffered that that's an example of a philosophy that was outside India.
Claire
Yes.
Jen
Why didn't you use that as an example? Why did you start on a rant about the Ten Commandments? I want you to tell me the best philosophy that came out of not India.
Claire
The Socratic method, thank you for mentioning it,
Jen
Yeah well. the Socratic method is subversive and only works if the teacher is enlightened.
Claire
I think I'm fairly enlightened.
Jen
Oh wow okay and on that note I guess I'm gonna end the stream because I've taken about as much bullshit as I can, I think my bullshit uh reservoir is full.
Claire
Don't rage-quit on me, Jen!
Jen
I just don't have anything else to say to you.
Claire
Don't you want to use the Socratic method on my my proposition?
Jen
No, I don't need to dignify that. It's not a substantiated position. Why would I want to believe in what you believe when you can't even give me one single anecdote of superior science knowledge or philosophy.
Claire
Well, obviously it's wise to remain in existence as a group and the smallest group viable group is a tribe and obviously the biggest group you can possibly have is empire and the one in between is nation.
Jen
So thanks everyone for tuning in. I've had a really good time exposing all Claire's lies and showing that her idea of philosophy is the existence of cockroaches. I'm very happy. Did you have any last words, Claire?
Claire
Well, I'm very disappointed that you're not going to apply the Socratic method to my proposition that God is personal. Iit's most disappointing. I thought you would do me the honor of trying to undermine my ideas and won't have to keep stopping to say "What can Claire possibly mean?"I really actually I beg you to do that to my case for the personal God. Shall I give you the link now?
Jen
No, I'm not interested because you haven't convinced me so why I should give a shit. It would require you to give me either superior knowledge, superior philosophy or superior science and you fail to do that?
Claire
What what about your your rebuttal of my position? Can we do that now?
Jen
Maybe another time. I'm about full of bullshit for now, I'm gonna have to tap out for the time being but thanks everyone for tuning in.
Claire
Thanks, Jen.
Jen
So we'll let's just reiterate Claire has derailed the conversation more times than I can count, failed to answer my questions to my satisfaction, failed to give any indication of philosophy knowledge or science coming from anywhere other than India. If anyone wants to come on and defend their position against mine I'd love to hear it because that would be awesome because being proven wrong would be a first for me and a lot of people have tried. OV made a complete ass of himself on Luke Ford and then he doubly made an ass of himself when he tried to use me as an example of a good person to troll and that was pretty funny, so have fun with that and have fun with fact that now everyone knows what you're all about and no one's ever going to trust you again or anyone else that you're associated with or were associated with for that matter. So yeah, anyone wants to hop on and defeat my positions as Claire's failed to do time nand time again by dishonestly shifting the goal posts, show me the superior philosophy. That they exist ergo they must have a superior philosophy which if applied to cockroaches would imply that they have a superior philosophy because they exist. The link's been in the chat for a while so I don't think he can come on and he is probably a little tired after all the ass whippings he's gotten this week so I don't really blame him and yeah no one else is coming on because no one can do it. Everyone has been exposed as a we was kangs larper who wants to steal the accomplishments of Aryas because their accomplishments pale in comparison to theirs and yeah that's pretty much was my point.
Mitchell Porter asks do I have anything to say about the personalist tradition in India like Krishna consciousness. Dayananda's view is that Krishna was an enlightened man but not the incarnation of God because according to our tradition the supreme does not take birth.
So can the periodic table take birth?
No, because it's not really a personal thing. Am lot of people have wanted to worship personal gods in India and elsewhere and there have always been reformers who have fought against this tide because it's a symbol of degeneracy.
Apparently, Jay wants to come on. I don't know where he is but yeah if you want to pop on Jay ...
I really don't think you can defeat my arguments because I don't think you understand them but go ahead and give it a try. If you don't get on in the next like 30 seconds ... I'm probably going to shut it down pretty soon.
Claire
Oh, what a shame I was hoping you would do the same thing to mine.
Jen
You don't seem to realise that me acknowledging an argument gives it a certain status and I'm not really going to do that because the burden of proof is on you to establish why I should give a shit about your position. I completely destroyed you.
Claire
Well, I don't think so. The only people who voted were your cronies who were always going to vote vote for you. I don't think you proved anything at all. The force of your personality got the people to to say that you won but these people are morally suspect: they have something to gain from you.
Doooovid for example delights in a platform that you give him on Sundays and you let him dominate your stream. You have fun kicking people around so why would he say anything to upset you. Of course I lost.
Jen
Yeah, you lost because you didn't actually make any good arguments in support of your position so maybe take a lesson from that and come back next time, oh wait, you've already decided you won't do any more formal debate because you cannot have the appearance of winning with our being able to use your illegitimate and subversive conversational strategy.
Claire
People follow the arguments better in a Socratic dialogue because what happens is that you say you say things and it sounds so good coming from you and nobody even cares about the meaning of the words and then I have to deal with the mess that I just had to untangle.
Jen
Now you blame me for your inferior knowledge.
Claire
No, I'm saying that you didn't convey your ideas in a logical coherent way in the first place and now that I want to challenge you, you're saying no.
Jen
You've tried to challenge me but I don't think you've succeeded in undermining any of my arguments. Which arguments have you undermined exactly?
Claire
The one about you saying that it is better for us to worship in the way that you do.
Jen
I have evidence to support my position, you don't. I've yet to be convinced that there is any civilisation outside India. You still have to convince me of that, because what I see is a bunch of parasites, a bunch of crypsis, a bunch of bullshit, a bunch of usury but I don't actually see a civilization so if you want to try to substantiate that this is a civilisation, I'm open to that,
Claire
Civilisation is just a gathering of humans who are advanced enough to live in a city. You have the Greek city-states of Sparta and Athens as well as Rome. Civilisation started off with citizens living in cities. You and I should be talking about the history of India.
Jen
So you can shit all over it?
Claire
Oh, not at all.
Jen
You just claimed that the first city was in Babylon, which is moronic.
Claire
I don't know. Obviously, I don't know. I can't remember offhand what historians collectively agree is the first city of the world.
Jen
It wouldn't matter because you can't trust modern education system because it doesn't serve the purpose of truth. It serves the purpose of maintaining power. That's the whole point of the Aryan invasion theory. You can't trust really any of it all. The fact that it's written is actually evidence in support of the position that it's not true.
Claire
Look, it doesn't matter where the first city was in human history. All that we need to know is that with concentration of people living in a city you need rules you need laws and that is what requires wisdom men. I guess for Westerners, the most famous city state would be Athens and the wisdom of the ancient Greeks. They failed and so after Athens there was Rome and after Rome was the Holy Roman Empire and then I guess the British Empire and then the American Empire.
The Chinese used usry when they just discovered paper money and then they crashed and burned.
Jen
That's not really the point though, is it?
Claire
What is the point?
Jen
People live: they want to have fun.
Claire
Creating money out of thin air is sounds like a lot of fun, People can't resist it and neither do nations.
Jen
Why are you telling me about this? I don't care. You don't know how to run a non-usurious banking system. Islam is a vehicle for usury. You don't know how to run a non-usurious bank.
Claire
Well, maybe you can run it for me, Jen.
Jen
So you have to parasitise off my knowledge. Why would I want to help you who wants to enslave my people in the service of this? You want to force my people to worship a volcano God. Basically, we need to tell them to believe in anything. They just have to follow the rules and the rules will be good for them. It'll prevent them from falling into matriarchy. We have no evidence for that position, of course.
Claire
Sexual morality is measured by marriage by how many sluts and bastards you have.
Jen
Yeah, I'm not really too interested in your degenerate take so thanks everyone for tuning in and we'll see you again.
*********************
It has been subsequently reinstated.
Hi everyone. Welcome to the show where Claire and I are going to be discussing logic and argument following Claire's interest or voiced interest in doing that so I'll let Claire actually start it because I've made a little bit of a slide show that we can go over whenever you want talking about what is an actual argument and what is proper logic and just couple of other things but I'll hand it over to you Claire if you had to something a document that you wanted to look over to talk about it.
Claire
I want to keep things really really simple because I want the morons and the vegetables to understand. Some of you may know that Jay Walker and I fell out because he just wouldn't do a very simple thing for me he said it was because I went crazy because I lost the debate with Jen about whether God was impersonal but actually it had it had a history of about a week so basically it started with him saying there was this really good debate between CON OPPS [Controlled Opposition] and Jon Vance and CON OPPS won effortlessly. https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2019/07/survey-who-do-you-think-won-argument.html "He was wonderful, he was superb!" and I said "Really, because I have the opposite view and so I said "Why do you think Con Opps won and he said "Oh, it was just wonderful he didn't even care if he won or not he just he was so dismissive of Jon Vance. He just didn't care if he won or lost him and that's why he won." I just can't tell you how much it offended me so I kept saying "Well, apart from you thinking he won without fighting the fight or even putting in a single argument, could you just tell me why you think he won in terms of arguments and what you think they were talking about, what CON OPPS was trying to say what Jon Vance was trying to say you, could you just tell me who you think won?" and he wouldn't and he wouldn't and he wouldn't and he still doesn't so you know he's on his own channel now complaining about me and how shit I am and how useless I am debating and of course I lost to Jen who was obviously superior to me so, but he still won't do it. On the stream that Jen summoned me to go on when she shouted at me for about two hours and he was there to add to my humiliation and say how rubbish I was, Jen actually said "Look at him: can't you see that he's such a bonehead that he will never understand the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument?"You know he won't know, he won't care, you're just stupid for trying to make him understand, people like him will never know and never care" and I want to prove Jen wrong about Jay.
Jen
All right, let's keep it to just arguments rather than descending into personal conflict trying to keep it away from drama as much as possible. I think I've said my peace as regards Jay so I put together some slides here: what's an argument. I said that it consisted of two parts axioms and logic axioms being postulates which are taken to be true which serve as a starting point for further reasoning and arguments and logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Axioms are like soil and logic is like flowers. Axioms are the substrate upon which logic grows. Axioms can exist without logic. That logic cannot exist without axioms.
Claire
Jen, I fear I think this is too complicated for the vegetables and morons. May I afterwards present my own explanation after you?
Jen
You can do it right now I would ask you to but instead you launched into Jay.
Claire
I was talking and then you stopped me to do this. I'm using something quite simple because because I don't think the morons and vegetables can understand.
I'm saying an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
Now this sounds a bit complicated but it will become clear when I read you the following three sentences - a syllogism.
Elizabeth owns either a Honda or a Saturn.
Elizabeth does not own a Honda.
Therefore Elizabeth owns a Saturn.
So from the first two sentences you get a conclusion.
How is the chat doing?
Jen
I'm sure the chat's doing fine. I think their feelings might have been hurt because you called them vegetables so I'd asked you to refrain from insulting my audience on my channel because it is my channel after all.
Claire
I really was thinking of of Jay. I do apologise.
Jen
It's probably not a good idea to let your feminine emotions interfere with your streaming professionalism so I acknowledge that that's a valid logical position but why is it valid?
Claire
It is valid in the sense that if the two sentences are true ie if Elizabeth owns either a Honda or a Saturn if that sentence is true but it is implicitly saying that it may not be true it could be just something cooked up for the purpose of making an example there is no real person called Elizabeth who owns a Saturn but you know for the purposes of the example it is a hypothetical situation. We can go to a sound argument which is when everything is true and you are in fact relying on undisputed fact that nobody is denying and then you form conclusions from this.
All tiger are mammals.
No mammals are creatures with scales.
Therefore no tigers are creatures with scales.
So that is both a valid argument and a sound one because it corresponds to real life and the truth.
Jen
Oh, WLL2PWER in the chat said valid arguments are logical, sound arguments are when they're valid and also correlate with reality. Does that sound good? So a valid argument is stronger than a sound argument and sound arguments may have a limited range of utility because they don't necessarily describe true things. What's true within the domain of logic isn't the same thing as what's true in reality because you can construct any hypothetical that you want. Basically, you can say if all humans are turtles then I'm a turtle That's what you'd call essentially valueless statement. Valid arguments which are unsound are essentially worthless for any other purpose than teaching people how to do logic so just make that clear. What I keep coming back to is the importance of axioms and that's what is it that you're assuming is true without actually establishing it what is so self-evident that you don't actually say it so is that too complicated or what do you think?
Claire
I was thinking it but for the purpose of this exercise we could go back to the transcript I have made of debate and invite people to find sound arguments in what you and I said. What do you think?
Jen
But I don't think that's a good idea because we haven't actually told people what makes a sound a valid argument. We haven't talked about logic at all. You said what I said in my slide was too complicated.
Claire
I'm just seeing that somebody understood. Will understood what I was trying to say about you Hondas and Saturns and scales and mammals.
Jen
I'd like to go through my slides before we go into the debate because that may take a while so I'll just quickly screen share this. We've talked about the difference between logic and axioms. Just to relate this to what Claire said, the soundness would be the logic part and the valid would be the axioms part, so to go to the next next slide here. Axioms are very important and I would say that the main reason arguments fail is an improper use of axioms. There are three types of axioms that are unacceptable.
Unjustified axioms are basically shielding arguments ...
Claire
I think you should explain what axioms are because it's not obvious.
Jen
I've already explained it once [Not in this stream though!], so I'll explain it a second time which is statements which are taken to be true without actually going into why they're true and an example of an axiom would be causality,
Claire
You haven't given an example of an axiom.
Jen
I just did.
Claire
No, you say such and such is an axiom but that was what I was hoping you would do,
Jen
I said causality is an example of a good axiom. We've been over this numerous times. Claire, I'm wondering if you're just intentionally forgetting these.
Claire
No, I wanted you to explain an axiom.
Jen
There is no better axiom than causality. It's actually the only axiom. When you need the rest it is just aesthetic preferences ...
Claire
I'm saying Jen these are abstract principles and abstract ideas that not everyone necessarily understand so I think you should explain what you mean because it's not obvious and what I think an axiom is that it is an obvious statement that obviously corresponds to the truth. That is my understanding of an axiom. Ideally, it's a position that's self-evident that is so obvious that you don't need to prove it. I think a good example, Jen is the earth is round, so nobody's gonna say "But it's not - it's square, or it's a pyramid," so then you can carry on, but what you just said isn't immediately obvious to the veg ...
Jen
Let's go on with the slideshow. So this is a mistake a lot of people make - they shield their arguments from criticism by making them axioms. Unspecified axioms renders the arguments essentially invalid because you don't really have any basis to form your arguments and this is a big problem when you start to have long lists of axioms. Why the earth is round is actually not a very good axiom. They can contradict each other so the idea with axioms is that if at any point they contradict each other the whole logic is no longer valid because two things can't really contradict each other because something can't be true and false at the same time and this is about the structure of logic so if we're gonna do logic of axioms - let me finish - if we're gonna do logic with axioms, then we have to make sure that the axioms are what you call consistent which means that it's not possible for them to indicate a thing and it's opposite at the same time.
Claire
I hope you will give us examples of of unjustified items unspecified axioms and contradictory axioms. I don't think we can go on to the next stage if you don't give examples.
Jen
Well, an unjustified axiom could be "Jesus Christ is the Lord."
Well, it would be impossible to give you an example of an unspecified axiom by definition.
Claire
Then why do you define it?
Jen
Claire, the second type of bad axiom is an unspecified axiom. If I give an example of an unspecified axiom, I'm specifying it - that would be a contradiction in terms.
Claire
But when would anyone come across an unspecified axiom?
Jen
You would have to infer the unspecified axiom based on how they were using logic.
Claire
What is the utility of this concept of an unspecified axiom?
Jen
It's to try to make the point clear that you should probably specify your axioms before you attempt to make an argument.
Claire
But can you give examples of when somebody refers to an unspecified axiom?
Jen
Well, we don't want to be a contradiction. If you're referring to an unspecified axiom, you're specifying it.
Claire
But Jen, I don't know the relevance of the use of this concept!
Jen
The point is to make it clear that people should specify their axioms before they make an argument.
Claire
Did you specify your axioms before we started our debate, Jen?
Jen
No, I didn't because my axioms are self-evident so I don't need to.
Claire
Because you had to haul me back and shout at me because I wasn't clear for two hours.
Jen
You interrupted me and insulted me for two hours while I attempted to address your slanderous comments against me because you were triggered about losing against me horribly so can we move on to the next one: contradictory axioms. So let's say you say my number one axiom is that the earth is flat and my number two axiom is that causality is true. While those two axioms contradict each other because the Flat Earth violates the laws of causality.
Claire
When you say the laws of causality, are you saying it's obviously untrue that the earth is flat?
Jen
What I'm saying is that you can't construct legitimate physics equation to predict the formation of a flat earth.
Claire
Well, why would you if the earth isn't flat?
Jen
Claire, it was an example that you just asked me for. I'm trying to stay on track here.
Claire
Well, I don't people in the chat are clear about what you're saying because I'm not clear and I am known for my big brain.
Jen
I don't think you're very big brain, Claire, I think you're actually quite stupid. You're good at some things but you're very limited ability to use imagination.
Claire
I know when somebody is not teaching very well.
Jen
I'm a great teacher. You're just an idiot. Axioms are always presumed to be true. Remember two things: axioms can never contradict each other and as few axioms as possible should be used so can we agree on that?
Claire
You know, Jen, you need to you need to go slower for the chat. Jay's in the chat though.
Jen
That's wonderful. Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of hallucinating what the chat is thinking?
Claire
Well, maybe you should ask questions in the chat to see if they understand it.
Jen
I will ask questions once the instruction is over. It doesn't make sense to ask questions before I've taught someone something.
Claire
Can you make sure that Jay understands.
Jen
Well, Jay;s an idiot so I highly doubt that. So are we okay with axioms can't contradict each other and that it's better to use less than more. So these things in a lot of ways are self-evident, I think.
Claire [attempting to say something]
Jen
Get a fucking grip on yourself!
Claire
No, no, I have to stop you there why are you talking about using more than two axioms anyway because the example that I gave about syllogisms that I gave - it's just two statements. There's statement one and statement two and then the third is a conclusion that you deduce from the previous two statements. So why would you be talking about axioms that are more than two? I don't quite get it.
Jen
First of all logical statements aren't axioms.
Claire
Logical statements are arguments, right?
Jen
So you're completely misunderstanding what's going on here. So you do understand that axioms and logical premises are two different things?
Claire
What you're saying is a syllogism consists of three sentences and an argument can consist of just one statement or sentence but that sentence would be based on you those previous two statements from which the statement is derived from. For example,
Statement 1
Statement 2
Therefore the earth is round.
Because you know the earth is round, we can sail from here to the other side of the world and get to India and that would be the argument I guess of Christopher Columbus.
Jen
I'm wondering why you're dragging us into logic when logic makes no sense without axioms. You don't seem to understand the difference.
Claire
That's why I'm stopping you. I do think that you go too quickly and and if you are going too quickly for me, you're probably going too quickly for the people in the chat.
Jen
Might I suggest that you're just not listening to what I'm saying because you're jumping ahead to logic and logic makes no sense. Here are some suggested axioms: causality so that's basically saying that something that happens because it was caused. We don't know what the cause is or there may be multiple causes but we know that there are causes to all facts. The other axiom that's so obvious it wouldn't be worth mentioning it were not for the amount of false ideologies out there, but existence that's another axiom. We exist - we're not a brain in a jar. We're not in a simulation - we exist. I accept science has validated means of determining truth. Of course it's within this context that it has to be used properly, obviously and those are basically it and I have additional axioms which are my own aesthetic preference that I think frames the truth and knowledge in the most effective way so I'll share that in the chat if Claire wants to talk for a few minutes. What are your axioms, Claire?
Claire
Truth, logic and morality - submission to truth, logic and morality and this is what I think every decent human being should share with me. I think it is what makes us human and what makes us gives us human dignity. I don't know if you agree with me, Jen?
Jen
Well, I think you're paying lip-service to concepts you don't really understand and I think the people that claim they represent truth but don't are probably some of the worst sinners in the world and if your posits contradict my own you can't really claim to stand for truth logic and morality because that's what I stand for and my arguments can't be defeated unlike yours so I would invite you to reconsider your position and accept the fact that what you want is power and you're basically willing to do anything to get it and you don't really care about human suffering - you only care about continued existence. Those are different things.
Claire
Tell me what's wrong with wanting to wanting the continued existence of your group?
Jen
Nothing, but it's not it's not enough on its own. You're not talking about the quality of the existence. You're not qualifying it at all.
Claire
How would you qualify the quality of your existence, Jen?
Jen
That's not relevant at all. That's not relevant today. Let's keep it on topic. So we have some examples of different types of arguments that can be made logically.
We have a hierarchy of power associated with different types of logical arguments so an invalid argument is weak because it can be disproven.
A contradiction proving the opponent's position false is weak because it doesn't offer a counter thesis.
A partial truth is better but it's weak because it's incomplete.
A concise truth is good but it may not be self-evident.
A full-on exposition of truth is the best but it sucks because people have short attention spans and it's sometimes hard for them to follow the totality of your argument. I didn't want to go too deep into logic because logic is a really big subject and Claire's really not understanding just how complex logic really is but once you've got your axioms and you're confident your axioms are good to go and you can start to construct logical arguments and when you do you have to make sure that you're using
logic properly.
We've got two examples of logical techniques: one is a transitive relation which is if you say that all As are Bs and all Bs are Cs.
That implies that all As are also Cs so this is basically an associative thing like if if all humans are alive and all living things increase entropy then humans increase entropy - that would be an example of the transitive relation in an application. The less evident one which i've illustrated with the help of a Venn diagram is contra position and contraposition is an important one because it's not self-evident so if P then Q if not Q then not P.
So long as P is full described then this is this relation holds. So, Claire, have you heard of this contraposition.
Claire
No, I'm afraid I haven't. I think you left me behind in the previous slide but I didn't want to interrupt.
Jen
Well, it's pretty self-evident. So contra position if P then Q. So based on this diagram here, can you see why if P then Q?
Claire
But what is a contra position?
Jen
It's the relation. So if P then Q the contra positive of that is if not Q then not P so those two statements are what you call logically equivalent. Based on the Venn diagram here, can you tell why if P then Q?
Because some people can tell. So P is a subset of Q. Do you agree?
Claire
Yes, I do. I can see that.
Jen
So P is within Q.
Claire
Yes I see that since P is within Q.
Jen
All Ps are Qs basically because that's what that diagram is saying. So the contrapositive of that is basically saying that if not Q then not P. So if Q is what's inside this circle not Q is basically everything outside of this circle. Well, it's not quite a circle but you get what I'm saying, right?
Claire
Yeah, I get it.
Jen
So if not Q then also not P because P is a subset of Q. That make sense? So the contra position
relation is very powerful if used properly, but we have to make sure that when what we're describing really is a proper subset right so it's easy to understand in a Venn diagram why this relation holds but when you actually go to apply it, it's not clear what actually is a proper subset so we have to be very careful because the real world is a lot messier than just perfect logic. This is basically what we do we use logic and we use science to make arguments which are valid and that's a process - an active process, It's not a destination because we have something called subjective absolutism where humans are limited in what they can actually perceive. We never want to make the assumption that we've got the full picture of truth. We always want to leave the door open to new information, new ideas and so forth. If anyone has any questions in the chat, if that didn't make sense, please tell us what didn't make sense and we'll go over it again. Basically, the construction of arguments is a two-step process that most people are unaware of.
The first one is axioms.
Two is the actual structure of the argument.
Most people skip over the axioms and what I'm trying to get people to do is to pull back and actually examine and interrogate their axioms.
What are you assuming is true?
What are you using as the basis of everything else that you're forming your arguments on?
If your assumptions are false, all your other arguments are false and that's a waste of time so over to you, Claire, you can take it in whatever direction you want that's basically. All I have to say there is more I've posted a link in the chat about it's about a four thousand word essay that goes into detail about forming good arguments that are logically sound, about how to learn more about logic. It is a big subject with a lot of useless stuff in it. Unfortunately, logic is not the greatest place to start studying if you are interested in this stuff but understand that there are a few relations within logic including this contra position thing that are very important when forming arguments go ahead, Claire.
Claire
What I think would be a useful exercise for anyone to do would be to go to the transcript of what we both said in our debate and invite people who are interested in the subject. I know most of them are not and won't find the will to make a list of them and say that this is a valid argument but not necessarily sound or "Aha, this is a sound argument at last!"
I think that would be very useful. It would help explain to people your ideas and my ideas. So this is the exercise I invite people to do in order to test their understanding of this lesson about valid and sound arguments. I will start with your case for an impersonal God. So you start by saying
I'll be presenting the position that God is personal.
I have to read everything because otherwise it won't make sense to the people the chat.
I will first explain the importance of the God concept in social engineering then I will demonstrate the existence of an impersonal God and finally argue in favor of the effects of the belief in an impersonal God.
You're just promising to do these things, so we carry on.
The dawn of human civilization is indistinguishable from the advent of theocracy, that is all human cultures have historically had some type of religion along with precipitating shared worldviews and ideological convergence, religion gives shared ideals to a people and the highest among is that of God.
"The dawn of human civilization is indistinguishable from the advent of theocracy" - is this a valid argument?
For every statement that is questioned, you should present two statements that will form the syllogism it is based on.
Jen
It cannot be established through deductive logic, it's just true because it can't be disproven. It's more powerful than a logical deduction. There's limitations of power of logical deductions because you need to be absolutely certain that your premises are true in the first place which is almost never the case. You have to do a large-scale study to find patterns and make sure there are no larger patterns that you fail to detect and then draw conclusions based on those patterns and that is the conclusion I drew based on the patterns that I observed. You are unable to disprove this position. No one can disprove this position because it is as close to true as basically you can get.
Claire
So you're saying humans only became civilized because they believed in God, is that what you're saying?
Jen
Just so people can understand what I'm saying: organised human society and organized religion arose at the same time.
Claire
Because all human societies have rules, you could say that the best rules we have are the rules that God gave us, so obey them. Human civilisation can only exist where the rule of law is operating.
Jen
Those conclusions could very easily be defeated. Those would be false conclusions because you're basically saying it doesn't matter what the law system is that you use, if someone said it comes from God then it's good to go and that's categorically false.
Claire
It is good to go and is more likely to be obeyed if they are said to be from God. For the purpose of debate, we will assume that these laws exist and are enforced and do have some sort of effect because obviously whether you think a law is just or not, you would obey it or might obey it or are more likely to obey it because you fear punishment.
Jen
So do you think that that's a valid argument?
Claire
What do you think my argument is?
Jen
The series of sentences you just constructed there: do you think that that's a valid argument?
Claire
I'm just stating a fact that people would wish to avoid punishment and in so doing would avoid breaking the law.
Jen
How come so many people are in jail? How come so many people break multiple laws a day?
Claire
Because they think they're going get away with it or they don't think prison is such a bad thing.
Jen
So your your position has been disproven with evidence so it's not a very strong argument and it's not a valid argument because I just disproved it with evidence.
Claire
No, I'm saying nobody really believes that any law would completely eradicate the undesirable behavior. It can only discourage amd deter but not eradicate it because but that's what I mean, Jen, when I say rules are made to be broken. So when God made issued His Ten Commandments, I think He expected them to be broken.
Jen
You have an invalid argument. You're going on hearsay from Jews. Now can you imagine a possible issue with going on hearsay from Jews?
Claire
I don't know what you mean. I think it's obviously true that rules are made to be broken whether Jews ever existed or not.
Jen
The laws of nature can't be broken so you're all of your arguments are basically not only unsound but also invalid.
Claire
But, Jen, it's different. Physical laws are different to moral laws.
Jen
The definition of laws is different which is an axiomatic thing which is why we should focus more on axioms.
Claire
You're making a category mistake. You're confusing science with philosophy.
Jen
You're confusing crazy nonsense with religion.
Claire
What do you mean? I don't know what you mean. Please explain what you mean.
Jen
You just made the assertion that God revealed the Ten Commandments to man and it didn't occur to you that that was an invalid argument.
Claire
I'm saying people know of using the God example to show that even God himself - if you acknowledge His existence - made these Commandments knowing that they would be broken.
Jen
So they're not really laws, they're Commandments.
Claire
Commandments are laws.
Jen
You're making a category error. That's a different thing entirely.
Claire
How is it different? These actually forbid us from killing and stealing. I'm saying divine Commandments aren't also incorporated into the laws of civilised countries ...
Jen
It would be really nice if we could actually stick to the abstraction cuz I don't want to have the same convo with you that we've had infinite.
Claire
I don't want to have the same convo, I want to it to demonstrate the difference between a valid and sound argument. I'm actually trying to agree with you but you just keep stopping me. I said the first sentence of that paragraph I agree with. I'm saying what you said is true: "The dawn of human civilisation is indistinguishable from the advent of theocracy. I'm agreeing with you that human civilization is only possible where the rule of law exists and the rule of law exists when when the law is being obeyed.
Jen
What about the criminals?
Claire
I'm saying you know if there is a law and if it is enforced there is the rule of law.
What do you want to do now? Do you want me to go to the next sentence?
Jen
That was the plan but you derail ...
Claire
I'm trying to explain what you mean so that people know what you mean.
Thus a civilizations view of God is largely determinative of its ultimate destiny.
Now I'm afraid I've forgotten what it means now so I can't really agree or not agree with it. I know
you told me. I know I got stuck here when you were shouting at me but ...
Jen
Oh shut up, Claire, stop playing the victim. Just move on. So you've already forgotten something that happened yesterday. That's pathetic. Do you understand that people can deny a true statementm but it's true because it's based on logical observations that I've made and conclusions that I've come to so what those conclusions cannot be reached through deductive reasoning because there are limits to deductive reasoning. At some point you have to start using inductive reasoning which is another beast altogether and you don't even know how to use archetype canonisers so you're basically stuck at the level of just critical theory.
Claire
I wasn't aware I was practicing critical theory and I didn't catch what you said how about cannons
Jen
Yeah, you've never heard of archetype cannons so let's move on to the next statement. So far what I've said have just been true statements basically statements and there's no way to construct an argument against those positions and that's why I chose them.
Claire
Okay, but can we understand what you mean by "civilisation's view of God is largely determinative of ultimate destiny"?
Jen
I think I spent about 10 20 minutes explaining that yesterday so I'm not going to explain again. Watch the video because it was gone into in depth and I don' really like repeating myself considering how many times I've already repeated myself with you and how dishonest you are misrepresenting my positions. Every time you have attempted to represent my position, you you've misrepresented them. So let's move on to the next argument,
Claire
No, but I didn't even understand the previous one! So can I simply reframe it? "Ultimate destiny" - I remember now. So you were talking about what's going to happen to people in the end if they believe in God and the Abrahamic faith. They believe the Messiah will come, so that's their ultimate destiny as far as they're concerned and in the meantime they go to heaven and hell. OK, I got it. Next one.
In general the God concept ties together the idea of a supreme source of creation, life and consciousness with the idea of anthropomorphism which is the attribution of human qualities to God.
Jen
So that's another definition, basically. People can't really disagree with that.There's tons of evidence to support that position and no evidence against it so again it's unfalsifiable.
Claire
I'll simplify for the people in the chat: it means that some people might think "God is angry, God is jealous, God is pleased with us and that's what you're describing in that sentence. The sentence that I just read means that you think that God has been attributed human qualities in that he feels emotions such as anger and jealousy. That would be an example of anthropomorphism.
Jen
But it wouldn't span the totality of what anthropomorphism is.
Claire
You continue:
The concept of a personal God thus necessarily represents some degree of anthropomorphism.
I agree.
Within a religion, the qualities of God express the highest sociological ideals whether people are aware of it or not.
I take the sentence to mean that that whatever God says applies. If laws are said to come from God people are more likely to obey it than if they are man-made laws so and then you continue:
They strive to emulate the qualities of the Supreme personality of God. This is why Hindus imitate he personality of Krishna who is the god of compassion and Christians imitate the personality of Jesus.
by turning he other cheek when they are being attacked.
There is nothing beyond God and so the God ideal is the most important sociological ideal because it constrains a range of human achievement.What constrains the range of human achievement in that we can do nothing that is more than what God can do. That's what you mean.
Jen
Not exactly, no. What I mean is what I said which is people and strive to emulate the supreme personality of God in whatever way they understand it and so a lower degenerate disgusting ideal of Go causes lower degenerate disgusting behavior of people and there's tons of evidence to support that and no evidence against it so ...
Claire
Again can you give an example of a lower disgusting degenerate conception of God.
Jen
No, I'd say you have a pretty degenerate perception of God.
Claire
In what way is my perception degenerate?
Jen
Look at your behavior. You're disgusting person. You constantly libel people and slander them.
Claire
In what way?
Jen
I'm not going to answer that. You know full well what you've said. I'm not going to repeat it. It's been said enough times so there's a perfect example you have a terrible terrible God and you are a terrible person and I'm a wonderful person. There's another example.
Claire
I don't see that I necessarily represent the Abrahamic God who is supposed to be unique.
Jen
I'm not talking about the Abrahamic God. I'm talking about your particular subjective conception of God. You deny the Abrahamic God insofar as you refuse to subscribe to His religion.
Claire
I promote Secular Koranism which is as good as subscribing to His religion.
Jen
Promoting a religion that you don't subscribe to is hypocritical.
Claire
I don't think so simply because I see the utility in obeying His laws ...
Jen
But you're beyond that, apparently.
Claire
Obviously, if Secular Koranism ere the law of the land I myself would be subject to it. I wouldn't be able to escape it myself. I can't get away with saying one law for you guys and one for me.
Jen
Yeah, I wouldn't put that past you at all. So can we move on.
Claire
I'm saying I wouldn't do that.
If God can be proven to exist this will certainly strengthen people's faith in God. Thus we will attempt to prove the existence of the impersonal God. In order to prove such a thing we must first define what exactly we mean by God.
If God can be proven to exist this would certainly strengthen people's faith in God. That was a tautological argument. It's so obvious that it doesn't need to be mentioned.
Jen
I think maybe you should mention it for the audience since you just said the audience was a bunch of mouth breathers so it may be not obvious to everyone so if we're talking about going over logical arguments, you're really skipping over a logical argument. It makes me question how much you can possibly understand logic because that would have actually been a good example. You shouldn't have actually stopped reading until you got to that point.
Claire
I'm saying that that sentence is nonsensical but I skipped over it to kind of spare you the embarrassment.
Jen
I really don't believe you because you would take any opportunity you could to embarrass me.
Claire
What would you like to say about that then?
Jen
How about you judge whether it's an powerful argument or not?
Claire
I could only reframe it in my own toes which is that in if people believed in God then they would obey His laws.
Jen
Where did I say anything in that about obeying laws? You're completely misrepresenting the argument.
Claire
If God can be proven to exist so people actually know He exists rather than believing that He exists then this will certainly strengthen people's faith in God.
Jen
If there's a question as to whether something exists, if you prove that it exists, people can't deny its existence.
Claire
There is a difference between belief and knowledge so you can believe for example that a friend of yours is coming to visit but you don't actually know until he arrives. So you won't know your friend is coming until he actually arrives.
Jen
He exists in your house and therefore you can't deny his arrival.
Claire
I mean in the sense that he arrived at your door so but before he actually arrived you can only believe that he is coming.
Jen
So the lesson in this is that proving the existence of something substantiates the argument that it exists.
Claire
I wish to point out that belief is a lower standard or form knowledge. Knowledge is a higher standard of knowledge, if you know what I mean. In legal circles, if you want to question the veracity of a witness you can say: "You only believe such a thing. but you don't know it, so it's only your opinion that so-and-so who is accused of this crime couldn't possibly do such a thing but in fact he did and you only believe he didn't because he tricked you, he bribed you or whatever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_belief
Jen
We can move on from there.
Claire
Thus we will attempt to prove the existence of of the impersonal God. In order to prove such a thing, we must first define what he what exactly we mean by God and thereby determine what entity if any meets these criteria. We assert that God must be uncreated the creator of all things undisturbed and
eternal as well as perfect.
Why does God have to be perfect and what is the definition of perfect?
Jen
If you want to worship an imperfect god, be my guest, but I don't think there's any sound argument behind that position.
Claire
Of course not. W must worship the most powerful God we can find.
Jen
You changed it around. Notice that you changed it from perfect to most powerful. You turned it around from perfect to most powerful. Notice how you just switch those two things. Is perfect the same thing as most powerful? Were those different things?
Claire
Yes, that's why you have the attributes of the Abrahamic God which is to be unique ...
Jen
I thought we were going to stay off that subject.
Claire
It's important because I think I have to explain to you and I think the people need to know that the
most powerful deity conceivable is the Abrahamic God.
Jen
Prove it. You can't define power. You can't prove your assertion. You've jumped to
a completely false conclusion.
Claire
If you will just bear with me I will go to the Wikipedia entry I hope that is acceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions
The Abrahamic God in this sense is the conception of God that remains a common attribute of all three traditions. God is conceived of as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and as the creator of the universe. God is further held to have the properties of holiness, justice, omni-benevolence and omnipresence. Proponents of Abrahamic faiths believe that God is also transcendent, meaning that he is outside space and outside time and therefore not subject to anything within his creation, but at the same time a personal God, involved, listening to prayer and reacting to the actions of his creatures.
Jen
No, it's not. No, no, I don't care about ranting about this volcano God, Claire. Move on.
Claire
What I'm saying very quickly in one sentence is that the Abrahamic God is omniscient and that is part of His attributes.
Jen
Thanks for going against what I asked. Can we move on with the actual debate, please.
Claire
For the purpose is this debate, perfection includes being all-powerful and all-knowing.
We will now show how defining God as equal to the universe ...Jen
Now as always as God can never be like what you said. God can't break His own laws so He's not all-powerful. He's not able to break its own laws it can't do anything conceivable because it would violate an axiom.
Claire
I don't know what you mean.
Jen
We're going over my argument so you're going to have to take my axioms for my argument instead of trying to shoehorn your own dogshit false axioms in, get it. So let's focus on what I actually said. Stop to try to shove words in my mouth and just focus on what it is that I said. Are you incapable of doing that?
Claire
I was actually reading your next sentence.
I said that this was the most powerful God.
Jen
No, no. What did I actually say?
Claire
You assert that God must be uncreated creator of all things undisturbed as well as ...
Jen
You misquoted me. Why'd you say you were reading off what I wrote when I didn't write the next sentence? Inserting your own thing into it saying omniscient blah blah blah I never said any that
stuff. Why'd you try to shoehorn that in, you liar?
Claire
Don't you agree that God is unique?
Jen
Depends on your definition of God. I think we should move on to the next.
Claire
I was moving on then you dragged me back again.
Jen
I'm saying get the fuck out, scammer. Let's just focus on what I said and whether there's sound and logical arguments.
Claire
We will now show how defining God as equal to the universe satisfies these criteria.
Is God equal to the Universe or greater than the Universe? I'm saying He's greater.
Jen
You're a fraud and a liar asserting things that aren't real as truth and you have the audacity to claim you stand for truth logic and morality? You're violating the axiom. The definition of universe is everything that exists so if you say there's something outside of that you're defining, you have contradictory axioms right. Can we move on. So it's a contradictory axiom: either the universe is everything that exists or there can exist something outside of the universe. Those two things can't both be true. Do you understand why? Why don't you listen to what I'm saying, you piece of dog shit rather than going off in your own hallucination?
Claire
Repeat the question, please.
Jen
Either the universe is everything that exists or it's possible for something to exist outside the universe. So do you understand how if the definition of the term universe is and everything that exists that it's not possible for something to exist outside of that definitionally?
Claire
Is that your contra position thingy that you were talking about?
Jen
It's definitional. It's not a conta position. It's just definitional. It's the definition of that axiom
Claire
Okay
Jen
So you're not even at the point of making a logical argument yet you're still on axioms and what you're saying is
Number one: The universe is everything that exists.
Number two: The Abrahamic God is outside of the universe.
Those two axioms contradict each other.
Claire
Okay, I know. I don't necessarily want to talk about my ideas so we're just talking about yours. Am I allowed to go on to the next sentence. Shall we do next sentence?
Jen
Well, I'd like you to acknowledge whether what I just said is a valid argument.
Claire
What you saying now is that you have to define God.
Jen
No, it is not God, it has nothing to do with God. What I'm saying is "Do you understand what I just said is a valid argument because what you just said. I have to repeat it for a third time?
Claire
Yeah
Jen
So option one: the universe is everything that exists.
Option two: There exists something outside of the universe.
Those two statements cannot both be true.
Claire
Oh yeah yeah sure I agree.
Jen
So which of them is true?
Claire
If you subscribe to the Abrahamic God, you would have to go for two.
Jen
Oh, so you'd have to have a foundationally contradictory logic.
Claire
Because you'd say Abrahamic God created the universe and is outside of it.
Jen
That's the the definition of the universe:nothing can exist outside of everything that exists - that's the
definition. Your axioms are contradictory.
Claire
No, no, you have to define God. You defined and explained God in your own terms. That's fine. I'm not even saying "Oh, but Jen, you have no right to do that" so can we continue? You're saying this is your your definition of your God and you're going to define it according to your terms so can we continue?
Jen
So long as you accept that anything outside of the universe is axiomatically inconsistent based on the definition of universe.
Claire
But Jen, I was arguing against you so you would expect me to have a different view.
Jen
You used your axioms incorrectly. I'm glad you could admit that. Let's move on.
Claire
No I have a different definition of the same word than you.
Jen
Yeah, we had a debate so we can move on now.
Claire
By equating God to the universe, the laws of God therefore become the laws of physics. We start off with the uncreated universe is itself uncreated.
You have to assume that some people have a different view.
Jen
There's no way to contradict that position. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
Claire
What, are you saying all the adherents of the Abrahamic faiths are lying?
Jen
I'm not speaking to anything other than that sentence, you piece of shit asshole for trying to fuck me over with your dog shit.
Claire
The universe is itself uncreated. Because the universe contains mass and mass is subject to the law of conservation, whatever mass exists within our universe must be uncreated for if it were created it would require a creator, and we have no evidence for such.
Now Jen, I'm afraid I will admit not to have understood that the sentence then and I don't think I
understood it when you spoke to me about it yesterday. Having read it again, I don't really understand it.
Jen
That's cos you're an idiot.
Claire
Oh, you're not going to explain it?
Jen
No, it's definitional, like I said. This is about burden of proof. If you want to tell me the universe had a creator, show me some proof. I'm going to assert it was always there. It's uncreated because for it to
have been created would require a creator and we have no evidence for that, so as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on you because you're making a statement that can't be validated
through science. I'm simply restating what science tells us.
Claire
Okay, let me um try and make sense of yourself your sentence. So so let me reframe it in my owr words: because the universe was uncreated than whatever that exists in the universe was also uncreated.
Is that what you're saying?
Jen
Yep.
Claire
The totality of the mass and the universe is uncreated and therefore so is God.
So you're saying God is the universe and the universe is God and we are also God.
Jen
I'm not saying that at all. Are you equal to the universe?
Claire
No.
Jen
But why are you lying about my position now?
Claire
No, I'm not lying. I was about to qualify and clarify that statement which is to say that we are part of God. Is that okay? We are a subset of God to use one of your phrases.
God is the creator of all things because through God's immutable laws the universe creates all observable things.So you're saying the universe is equal to God and therefore everything that we see is God. The laws of the universe being God's laws certainly exist so you're talking about physical laws.
The laws of chemistry and physics predict the changes observed in all matter. Thus all things that are observable are observable because of God's laws, for instance the mechanism of star formation mentioned in the article article displayed it can be demonstrated to be a confluence of laws of uncertainty and gravity God's laws. Nothing is truly created or destroyed. The universe and its laws are uncreated and the laws of the universe dictate the procession of all things that emerge within the universe.
So when you say procession, do you mean history?
Jen
I mean the unfolding of human history.
Claire
Okay
So we have proven that God is a creator of all things in the universe because all things created in the universe are changes to the mass distribution of the universe because the mass itself is conserved.
I can understand. It's sort of moving around because you know we are all mass and we all move around, but I didn't understand the last bit because the mass itself is conserved.
Jen
Yeah, that's a physical law. It's called conservation of mass. Mass can't be created or destroyed. We went over this yesterday.
Claire
Now we will prove that God is eternal and unchanging due to the conservation of mass. A mass in the universe cannot be destroyed and so the mass comprising the universe is eternal and the periodic table does not change with time and so is also eternal.
I disputed the truth of this because I'm saying that there was once upon a time in human history before the periodic table was created.
Jen
Did the information in the periodic table exist before the periodic table was discovered? It wasn't created by the way, it was discovered. So did that information exist before the periodic table was discovered? If this is an obvious question, you should know, yes?
Claire
No, I wish to make the point that the periodic table is a different thing of a different order?
Jen
What was the information that the periodic table represents? Is that eternal or is that temporary?
Claire
The periodic table simply classifies and organises the elements of the universe?
Jen
Did that order exist before we discovered it?
Claire
Yes, another category error and I wish to point this out. Shall we continue?
Jen
You're going to try to nail me by saying that. The periodic table is eternal. It's pretty clear that what I'm sayin is the information depicted in the periodic table was discovered by humans. It wasn't invented by them, it was discovered, thus implying it was already there, thus implying it was eternal. So if you can deal with that and if you want to spin it some other way, well you can try but other people have had the same type of argument. I don't think you're going to get anywhere by trying to say that the periodic table is somehow a human thing.
Claire
Of course it was human.
Jen
The order of the universe is not a human thing. It exists, we discovered it and we understood it through the periodic table but the periodic table and the information represented in it exists whether or not we're aware of it. Basically, the strongest argument against my position is maybe the periodic table isn't eternal which I think is a semantic sort of argument that doesn't really hold any weight. It's
basically the same as saying "Well maybe we live in a simulation."
Claire
I was actually just going to move on from there. I have lost my place.
Jen
Yeah, right, again what I said "Dead Air Claire". Claire, you're ruining the stream.
Claire
I have lost my place. Shouting at me won't help.
Now we will prove that God is eternal and unchanging to you: the conservation of mass. The mass in the universe cannot be destroyed and so the mass comprising the universe is eternal. The periodic table does not change with time and so is also eternal. Therefore God is eternal.
You say because he universe is eternal so is God eternal.
Now we will prove that God is perfect. We have to define what perfect means first off and so I use the quality of symmetry, the quantum mechanical periodic table. The smallest space time event is certainly symmetric and so satisfies this criterion.
What is this space-time event, Jen?
Jen
The periodic table is the smallest space-time event.
Claire
What do you mean by a space-time event?
Jen
You'll have to look it up. I'm not going to give you another lecture on physics move on.
Claire
So it's not relevant?
Jen
It's not relevant. Everything is a spacetime event. It's not relevant to the rest of the argument. Just move on.
Claire
So anything that ever happens is a spacetime event?
Jen
Yes.
Claire
Well, you could have just said that.
Since humans find symmetry to be beautiful the periodic table is also be beautiful because it is symmetric.
I remember saying they are not obviously symmetric. Looking at it, you showed us your balls and said it was your proof of God.
Jen
When the messenger comes no one will be able to deny the existence of God any more. Certain people prayed for this to happen. They just didn't get it in the form that they were expecting but hey that's karma, bitch. Now no one's going to deny the existence of God because of those shitty little balls that all the idiots and atheists hate so much.
Claire
I don't hate them and thought they were cakes. So you think those balls demonstrate God's existence,
This officially makes me a pantheistic panentheism psychist monotheist, technically. It was only through the worship of an impersonal God that I was able to deduce this depiction of the periodic table in its true form. Thus my knowledge is evidence in support of the utility of the belief in an impersonal God.
Jen
Not sure where it said that, exactly.
Claire
You implied that.
Jen
Oh, I implied it or perhaps you inferred it because you're a lying sack of shit. Can we move on.
Claire
But you're saying that the utility of the belief in an impersonal God gives you knowledge.
Jen
Can we move on.
Claire
Next we'll go to the pragmatic reasons why an impersonal God is a superior belief. The main reason why God should be viewed as impersonal is because attempting to personalise something that is not necessarily personal will impede someone's ability to observe its true nature.
Would you like to explain this?
Jen
What part isn't self-evident, exactly?
Claire
I'll try to rephrase it and then you can shout at me if my understanding is wrong. You think God is
impersonal because you think it's just babyish to say "Oh God is angry, God is jealous."
Jen
I got a question in the chat: can I go over proof of eternal universe again? Yeah sure. So there's no reason to believe the universe isn't eternal because it's filled with mass and that mass came from somewhere.I'm going to turn the burden of proof on you to establish where it came from if it wasn't always there and you'd need to have something to create it and that thing would need to be basically more complex than the universe which would appear to be impossible because there's no evidence to support that, so basically the argument is because mass exists and mass can't be created or destroyed, the mass that exists couldn't have been created because this idea of conservation of mass - this idea that mass can't be created or destroyed. This is something we've observed numerous times in physical and chemical reactions, so that's basically the argument.So this this Big Bang thing which has its origins in Kabbalah has no actual basis. In fact, science has been distorted to justify this false belief and it can easily be contradicted in a number of ways including the isotropic nature of the universal background radiation and the fact that a Big Bang implies a localisation and so you can also disprove it with something called quantum state exclusion which is basically the idea that there's a limit to how dense matter can get so if the Big Bang happened, it basically means that quantum state exclusion was vile and there's no mechanism to violate the laws of the universe and that's why the Big Bang is called a singularity and the definition of a singularity is something which a region in which the laws of physics do not apply and what I am stating is that there exists no such region the laws of physics apply everywhere and for that reason I deny the Big Bang and therefore without the Big Bang you basically have no reason to believe in a created universe and so I think it's pretty self-evident at that point and that's an example of how an ideological bias can make people see things that aren't there. Think about it in your own mind: does it make sense when you look at the sky at night and conceive of all of that crushed into one single point? Of course you can't. It's impossible.
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=21&verse=104
Yeah, I'm done.
Claire
If you presume God is impersonal and later determine God to be personal based on your validated evidence you can easily change your mind. Our minds being personal themselves recognize personal entities far more easily than impersonal ones.
Would you like to explain this again, please, Jen?
Jen
Have you ever heard of people recognizing faces where there are no faces? Have you ever looked at a pattern and recognized a face in it and then upon further inspection you realize it wasn't a face, it was just something that your mind just sort of inferred was there.
Claire
Oh, so you think you simply impose something on it like the house that look like an angry face or something like that?
So it's easy for us to recognize human things. This is why anthropomorphism happens:because we project our qualities onto other things whether or not they're there and so this recognizing faces in places where there actually is no face is an example of why if a personal God were established to be true if you believe in an impersonal God you'd recognize it immediately because it would possess human qualities and we're designed to observe human qualities to the extent that we perceive human qualities where there are none, like some people treat their dogs like kids - that's another example of seeing a face where there is no face. There are tons of examples why this happens and it's because we are personal beings. We project our inner nature onto the universe whether it's real or not.
Claire
We also fill in the blank. There was an experiment of giving people to read a paragraph of words all jumbled up but with the the first letter of every word and the last letter of every word in the right place. It appeared to be gibberish people, but people were able to read the gibberish.
Jen
In other words, humans or pattern recognizers. A pattern is a particular ordering so we try to order the information that comes to us through our senses in a way that makes sense to us and in so doing we recognize patterns. Now a lot of times those patterns are there but sometimes they're not so does that make sense.
Claire
In fact some people go as far as to say that an impersonal God is inconceivable. If you instead perceive God as personal you will have no way of understanding what it means for God to be impersonal and thus unable to accept this truth even if it is proven as the concept of God introduces a hard limit to our idealism.
Would you like to explain hard limit because it's a restatement of the earlier position that God is the highest sociological ideal ie it's the limit. We don't expect to exceed whatever God is capable of. Is that what you mean?
Jen
What I mean is we can't conceive of anything higher than God because that's the definition.
Claire
Higher than the Abrahamic God.
Jen
Bullshit, bullshit! Stop trying to derail it for yourself, bitch, and stay on topic.
Claire
The personality of God is the supreme ideal and there's nothing we can conceive of which is beyond that
But darling haven't you said you're talking about the impersonality of God? He's impersonal.
Jen
So it could have a non-human personality, right?
Claire
But how it can it have a personality if it's not human?
Jen
Yeah, I know this is why you don't really understand my religion cos you think personalities have to be human.
Claire
I'm just talking about the attributes of God. I'm not talking about the personality of God. You can't talk about God as if he was a local personality or a celebrity personality.
Jen
Sure you can and when you don't do that your society goes into the crapper.
Claire
No, I'm saying you're making another category mistake.
Jen
You're making a category mistake by thinking that what you represent is even a religion in the first place.
Claire
I say it is a legal system.
Jen
It's a political cult.
Claire
I do not even want to represent myself as a cult. It is a legal system.
Jen
Shall we move on so?
Claire
You talk about the personality of God after saying that he is impersonal. You know you contradict yourself but you know you're assuming that personality has to be anthropomorphic and it doesn't. I
never said it. I have never said anything of the sort. I've talked about the attributes of God and that was what I was going on about.
Jen
So if God has a non human personality, is that still personal God or is that something else?
Claire
I wouldn't even talk about God in terms of having a personality. Do you understand how much I dispute the words that you use?
Jen
Too bad, get used to it. The personality of God is very important to study if you have a personal God.
Claire
I'm just saying that if you're talking about God being impersonal, it's just a little contradictory to talk about His "personality".
Jen
An impersonal personality isn't a contradiction in terms, isn't it? Part of God's personality is the law of gravity. It's just part of the definition. Let's move on.
Claire
By imagining an impersonal God, the perceiver can start to think beyond the confines of their subjective ego.Please would you explain this.
Jen
It's self-evident. You're saying that if you believe in an impersonal God, you are going to be less selfish than somebody who believes in a personal God. But that's not actually what I'm saying.
Claire
Well, what are you saying?
Jen
What I'm saying is that if you conceive of an impersonal entity you can depersonalise your subjective consciousness.
Claire
I don't know what that means.
Jen
It's definitional.
Claire
What you mean by definitional?
Jen
As in what you think about determines how your mind works, so if you're thinking about personal things that's going to manifest one type of mind. If you're thinking about impersonal things, that's going to manifest a different type of mind ie a more impersonal one ie a more objective one because personal is a gradual narrowing of subjectivity. You don't get it because you're an idiot but I'm pretty sure most the audience gets it, so let's move on.
Claire
I think most of your audience got it that you were talking about the personality of God. You are saying that worshipping an an impersonal god makes us more likely to be less selfish.
Jen
Where did I say that?
Claire
Okay, so you don't say that. What do you mean by "thinking beyond the confines of our subjective ego"? I think it's quite important and I don't want to skirt over it.
Jen
Is there anything to consciousness beyond that?
Claire
No, I don't think so.
Jen
Okay, so you're very closed-minded and you have no capacity to understand impersonal consciousness even though you said yourself you've meditated and experienced a calm.
Claire
What do you mean by subjective ego?
Jen
You just defined it.
Claire
So do you mean the ego as defined by Freud?
Jen
Freud was a complete pervert and fraud and drug addict. Let's just keep it to the subject.
Claire
Perhaps you can give me an example of thinking beyond the confines of one subjective ego.
Jen
Yeah, when you meditate it and you got the calm feeling - that's an example - so why you can't understand that is honestly beyond me.
Claire
But you meditate in order to make yourself you calm so so how does that mean you are going beyond this the confines of your subjective ego?
Jen
You haven't gone beyond the confines of your subjective ego. You've begun to prepare your ego for what is required to eventually go beyond the confines of your subjective ego. It's a process and the stilling of the mind is integral to that process.
Claire
You weren't originally in a calm state of mind then you meditate it then you've got a calm state
of mind ...
Jen
... which means you tapped into a source of more calm stable consciousness and that's one of the attributes of impersonal consciousness
Claire
But don't people who meditate also believe in a personal God?
Jen
What in the hell are you talking about? Do they you want me to speak for every single meditator on the planet right now? Is that what you're asking me? That's a retarded thing to ask.
Claire
I suppose I could do a survey of yoga teachers ...
Jen
It is a retarded thing to ask. I couldn't possibly have the answer to it. I wonder why you ask questions that I couldn't possibly know, unless you're trying to catch me lying or something. Is that what you're doing?
Claire
I'm just inviting people to consider that not all people who meditate believe in an impersonal God that's all.
Jen
That's a different statement, isn't it?
Claire
But you seem to be saying that only through believing in an impersonal God would you get the benefits of yoga.
Jen
I never said that. It's possible to get some benefits but there's a difference between a couple of benefits, like you can go to a yoga and feel good afterwards. Does that make you are an enlightened sage? No, because it's a spectrum. You start at the beginning and you go all the way up to enlightenment. So there's a big difference between getting some fringe benefits and actually having enlightenment. do you understand that?
Claire
I didn't know that there was much meditation in yoga.
Jen
Now you get an idea of how much my religion is persecuted - it's represented by whores who stretch in lace in spandex. Now you can see the extent to which my religion is persecuted and misrepresented, pissed all over, insulted and ...
Claire
But you called yoga stretching classes at one time, didn't you, Jen? https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/university-of-ottawa-yoga_n_56536246e4b0d4093a589bd3
Jen
Why are you derailing the conversation? I'm trying to find out what's the relevance of that to this conversation.
Claire
Nothing.
Jen
So why are you derailing the conversation?
Claire
By believing an impersonal God, you get the benefits of yoga - is that what you're saying?
Jen
I said it was a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
Claire
This process of mind expansion from entirely personal to part personal and part impersonal is integral to the practice of meditation which is a necessity for the manifestation of the perfecting of consciousness or enlightenment and this is certainly a desired sociological effect because enlightenment is the cessation of suffering.Now this is a very difficult sentence and I hope you will explain it?
Jen
What exactly is unclear about that? We went over it yesterday in detail.
Claire
Let me see if I can make sense of it.
The process of mind expansion from entirely personal to part personal and part impersonal is integral to the practice of meditation.
Claire
No, I'm afraid I don't know what this means. Please would you explain.
Jen
No. You want to go through the logic of my arguments, fine, but I don't want to give you any teachings.
Claire
This is about yoga meditation and you you don't think it's relevant?
Jen
So what's the argument exactly?
Claire
I'm trying to understand it.
Jen
So that's my argument: that enlightenment is the desirable effect. Do you want to attempt to undermine that position?
Claire
Not at all. I'm trying to understand your position. I need to understand this very long sentence. You do talk about the cessation of suffering. It is a very long sentence. I want to make sure that everyone
understands it. You can't just say "Move on" when we're actually examining the validity and the soundness of your arguments. It would suggest that you are not wanting me to examine it. Now I will examine what the definition.
As I said, the argument I'm making is that enlightenment is a desirable thing. You want to attempt to undermine that position because ...
Claire
I even agree with it.
Jen
So you're saying that meditation is necessary for men manifesting perfect consciousness and love. Perfect consciousness means enlightenment. Its effects would be socially desirable even if it won't lead to the cessation of suffering.
Claire
Is that what you are saying - it wouldn't lead to the total cessation of suffering.
Jen
It would diminish suffering though and that's desirable, that's what I'm saying, okay?
Claire
Societies that had a concept of an impersonal God have made more significant contributions to philosophy and science than those that did not.
So you're saying India is superior to the rest of the world?
Jen
Did I say that?
Claire
I don't know. Were you implying it?
Jen
I wasn't implying it. Why were you inferring it, bitch?
Claire
Because if you were saying it, I would have to invite you to expand on your sentence.
Jen
What exactly would you like me to expand on?
Claire
Which societies have made more significant contributions to philosophy and science?
Jen
I think I said India made more significant contributions to philosophy and science and they had a concept of an impersonal God whereas the people with the personal God didn't really make much of a contribution to anything.
Claire
Well, I did read about Hindu scripture and it is suggested that they don't believe in an impersonal God but that the majority of Hindus believe in a personal God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god#Indian_religions
Jen
Ad populum fallacy. Can we move on.
Claire
Okay, so you're saying that India has made more significant contributions to philosophy and science than the rest of the world. That is indeed what you're saying? I just need to confirm it.
Jen
So let's go to this question in the audience. We have too many undefined concepts here. How are we
defining enlightenment perfected consciousness? Donald Robertson: "How are we defining time as the transcendent element of the space-time event?" Time is what goes in the forward direction and I think for most people time is pretty self-evident. When I use time I mean it in the same sense that you do ie if you look at your watch it appears as though time's going by but really what's happening is a little bit more complicated but for the purposes of this discussion we can just assume that space and time are independent even though technically they're not.
How are we defining God?
I'm defining God as equal to the universe.
Claire is defining God as something else, but we're talking about my particular arguments defending an impersonal God.
How are we defining eternity?
All of space and all of time.
I hope that answers your question. To continue, enlightenment is not wisdom. Claire, you don't get to redefine enlightenment.
Claire
It doesn't include wisdom, Jen?
Jen
Well, you tried to equate it to wisdom.
Claire
Can an enlightened person be unwise?
Jen
No, you could say wisdom is a necessary condition for enlightenment but not a sufficient one so you can't equate them.
Donald Robertson asks how are we defining perfected consciousness? Yoga is a cessation of the fluctuations of the mind so in other words there's no more suffering: there's no more changes to the inner perfection of your own mind relating to enlightenment when you don't have it. It is pretty much impossible so the only way to really start to understand it is through metaphor and practice and at some point you need to simply take it on faith that enlightenment as possible. It may not be possible to convince people, but people have different standards of evidence and at the end of the day, you need to ask yourself: do I think it's possible to have a perfected state of consciousness or not?
But I can tell you that if you want a perfected state of consciousness, you have to believe that it's possible. It is not death. Donald Robertson, it is the death of suffering. You go on living forever through reincarnation. It's actually not possible for your mind to die. However, when you're enlightened, you can choose when you take birth if you're actually able to use yogic powers. There's levels of enlightenment. It's a pretty complicated subject, so we won't go into all the levels of enlightenment today, but it's not death. Claire, over to you.
Claire
You continue:
Personalizing God leads to numerous undesirable consequences such as supremacism, imperialism and hatred of God because God's personality is not manifesting the way you would like it to because God does not have a human personality and ultimately atheism.
Would you like to expand on this sentence, please?
Jen
No, I would not. I would like you to evaluate whether it's a valid argument.
Claire
You're saying that the Abrahamic God contributes to undesirable consequences ie supremacism and imperialism.
You seem to be saying in this sentence that the Abrahamic God promotes supremacy.
Jen
Did I mention the Abrahamic God?
Claire
You don't.
Jen
But why do you infer that? Are you trying to paint me as some sort of hater of Abrahamic traditions as you frequently slander me on your blog with generally and trying to do so again? Why don't we just stick to the arguments rather than you trying to misrepresent my position with your pathetic dog shit. I would like to focus on my arguments on why they or weren't valid. You're trying to spin it in your selfish disgusting degenerate way.
Claire
You can just explain what you meant in that sentence.
Jen
No, you're gonna tell me if that's a valid argument.
Claire
It's only valid if it's logical and only sound if it is true and logical. There is no proof of what you say.
Jen
Have you any evidence against it? Yes or no? Have you any evidence against that position?
Claire
I'm saying that we cannot measure supremacism, imperialism and hatred of God. How can we?
Jen
Just have a look at who's done the most imperialism in the last three thousand years. Have a look at who has the most supremacist religion? Have a look at who's the most atheistic people because they hate God.
Claire
That is just the nature of a declining Empire.
Jen
Bullshit, bullshit. You suck at causality. Why don't you just focus on the argument itself? So have you any evidence against my position?
Claire
I would certainly say that great civilisations are great empires.
Jen
Yet another axiom I don't accept. Can you actually answer?
Claire
I'm saying neither you nor I can measure supremacism, imperialism or hatred of God.
Jen
Sure I can.
Claire
Go on then.
Jen
People who think that they're better than other people talk to a bunch of people in different religions
get a feel for how they feel towards others. We can draw a conclusion and a working hypothesis and go from there.
Claire
No, I didn't say define it, I said measure it.
Jen
Sure, measure it by talking to people. It's very easy to do you talk to people from a bunch of different religions and see which of them have supremacist views and look at the evidence from there.
Claire
But you can't talk to every single person.
Jen
No, but you can talk to enough that you get a convergence. What you want is to have is enough evidence to be able to make a reasonably good hypothesis with it and that's a very good hypothesis because no evidence exists against it and tons of evidence support it.
Claire
May I explain my position?
Jen
I'm not interested in your position. Let's examine the arguments. That's what this stream is supposed to be about I'm tired of you, selfish and wailing like a teenager.
Claire
It would make yours clearer. It would actually make yours clearer because you accused me of supremacism and imperialism, that's what you're saying: that the Abrahamic religion causes ..
Jen
You are supremacist and you are an imperialist. Are you denying that?
Claire
I acknowledge that great civilisations are great empires and I don't see imperialism as necessarily evil.
Jen
Do you deny that you're a supremacist and an imperialist?
Claire
I don't see that imperialism is necessarily evil and believe it makes sense to worship the most powerful God.
Jen
But don't you see your ideology as the best? Why are you trying to turn this round on me? I just asked you a simple question? Why are you refusing to answer a simple question and then ascribing motive to me? Why are you doing that?
Claire
What was your question again?
Jen
So now I have to repeat it for the third time.
Claire
If you shout at me I'll forget.
Jen
If you try to derail it for your own stupid agenda you confuse yourself and end up looking like an idiot. How about that? Because now you're forcing me to repeat something for the third time. So all I said was: do you deny that you're a supremacist and an imperialist?
Then you went off on a tangent and then I went through the definitions individually and you said yes to both but on second you try to sort of wiggle your way out of it by asking me the same question so I'm wondering why can't you just have a direct frank honest discussion is it because you hate logic,
truth and morality and have to rely on dishonest debate tactics because what you represent is a load of bullshit.
Claire
Answering your question now about whether I'm a supremacist: I want global Secular Koranism. Does that make me a supremacist?
Jen
I would say yes.
Claire
Don't you want global acceptance of your ideas?
Jen
What I want is to prove the Vedic origin of knowledge and I've already done that so I don't really do anything. Anyone who denies my knowledge is superior is either lying or a fool and therefore their opinion is not validated. Our thing is to protect innocent people from predators like you.
Claire
On whom have I preyed?
Jen
Let's move on to the next part of the debate which is after all what this stream is supposed to be about. You are actually an anecdotal piece of evidence in support of my thesis Moving on.
Claire
But you haven't said on whom I prey.
Jen
But I insist you continue.
Claire
We cannot change the nature of God because God is unchanging. If we accept God as personal we will always be hindered by a personal ego in our search for God.Could you explain what you mean by being hindered by a personal ego?
Jen
You're a perfect example. You have a very hard time conceiving of the impersonal God because in your mind God is personal and you're having a very hard time understanding the impersonal God. You yourself are an anecdote old piece of evidence in support of my thesis.
Claire
Only because I disagree with you because I defined the personal God.
Jen
It's not that you disagree with me, it's just that you don't even understand my position because you're biased by your personal ego and your concept of a personal God. It's inconceivable for you that the God is impersonal.
Claire
But I'm saying that the Abrahamic God ...
Jen
Claire, don't start this nonsense. Nobody cares, no, nobody cares, nobody cares. If you attempt to derail this again ... Let's stick on topic. We're talking about whether my argument's valid, so let's go on. Either we're going to establish if this one's valid or we're going to move on to the next one.
Claire
I'm still not clear about what you mean by a personal ego and search for God.
Jen
Well, our egos are what allow us to know things. If we think God is personal, are we going to be able to perceive an impersonal God? Can you conceive of something you don't believe in?
Claire
Yes.
Jen
No, you can't.
Claire
Of course you can. You can conceive of pink unicorns, a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Of course we can conceive of these things. Of course we can. I know you believe in an impersonal God, but just question its utility, that's all.
Jen
So all that knowledge I have is just without any utility.
Claire
No, I'm not questioning your knowledge. I'm questioning it for the rest of the world. People want to believe in it. People want to believe in a personal God because a personal God is more powerful than an impersonal God.
Jen
I'm not going to go into that right now because it's not worth my time. Let's focus on what we actually are doing this stream, which is evaluating whether my arguments are valid or not. So do you
have any way of contradicting the argument that I made that you just read?
Claire
Yes.
Jen
Go ahead.
Claire
Let me read to the end of it so you know for the sake of completeness.
If we accept God as personal we will always be hindered by a personal ego in our search for God. However, if we accept God is impersonal, we open ourselves up to true realizations about the nature of reality and causality.
This is again a difficult sentence so can you explain it.
Jen
What exactly is unclear about it?
Claire
You seem to be saying that unless people share your beliefs, they won't be able to understand the nature of cause and effect.
Jen
Did I say that?
Claire
Well, it seems to me that you are and if you're not could you explain to us precisely how we've been confusing two things.
Jen
Okay, saying I reached enlightenment through knowledge is not the same thing as saying it is impossible to reach enlightenment unless you have knowledge. You do realise that one is an anecdote and one is a generalisation so I wondering why you try to turn anecdotes into generalisations? Is it
because you're trying to slander me again?
Claire
I'm seeking clarification, Jen.
Jen
I don't believe you. I think you're just trying to get me to say something that you can use against me on your tabloid blog which is unilaterally fixated on me for some reason.
Claire
But you are my greatest opponent.
Jen
You're not my greatest opponent.
Claire
Who is?
Jen
I don't really have any competition. Anybody who could potentially be a rival ends up becoming
a devotee. I don't have rivals. If I did they wouldn't look anything like you.
Claire
What do you mean?
Jen
You aren't on my level of knowledge. You can't rival me. Your knowledge is a subset of my knowledge. You can't be a rival if your knowledge is a subset of my knowledge. It's just how it works. It's like beating up a five-year-old ...
Claire
... and boy do you beat me up.
Jen
You deserve it. What you're doing is extremely immoral.
Claire
How am I immoral?
Jen
I think you know that it is immoral. You're telling lies. You know what you're doing. I think you're paid for what you do. I think you're paid.
Claire
What am I doing?
Jen
Promoting that which is false and I hope it's clear to the audience. What I'm saying is necessarily true, therefore anywhere you deviate from what I'm saying you're preaching something false.
Claire
Have you shown it to be true? Have you any my position with a valid argument?All your arguments are invalid and I've explained that today many times.
Jen
All the time you misrepresent what I'm saying,
Claire
Jen, I read everything you said in your proposition and I slowed down I asked you to explain yourself and sometimes you choose not to.
Jen
So do you want me to tell me where I think you go wrong? What would be nice is if you could construct a valid argument against my position - something no one has been able to do, not Blundertry not Jon Vance, not anyone, no one because what I'm saying is closer to the truth than anyone else ....
Claire
You're saying, Jen, aren't you and correct me if I'm wrong, that your belief in an impersonal God is more useful than any belief in a personal God.
Jen
Depends what you mean by useful.
Claire
Yes and you're you're saying usefulness is not promoting supremacism and not promoting imperialism.
Jen
I think it's premise is Abrahamism. They have their uses but that's not really the answer.
Claire
So you are sometimes an imperialist but not all the time?
Jen
You do realise there's a difference between something being useful and something being the supreme truth, right?
Claire
Sure.
Jen
So I wonder why you're trying to equate the two.
Jen
No, I'm trying to sum up your argument, Jen, and you are saying that believing in an impersonal God is more useful than believing in a personal God and the usefulness of this is as follows.
According to you, believing in an impersonal God would contribute to science and philosophy and discourage supremacism and imperialism. Is that right?
Jen
I didn't say that. No, I'm not going to say that that's correct at all because it's a lot more complicated than what you're making it to be.
Claire
But you do say that believing it in personal God would stop us from being so selfish. Is that what you say?
Jen
Did I say that?
Claire
This is what I imagined you to be saying.
Jen
Why are you where you're putting words in my mouth then?
Claire
Because I'm trying to translate you're very obscure use of the language in two sentences so that people can understand and that's why I rephrase them and invite you to agree with them with me on how I've rephrased them.
Jen
I see it as your rephrasing what I'm saying in order to trap me into a false duality and I'm just not going to fall for it so let's focus on what I actually said. Now you said you can just prove my argument so I'm wondering why you haven't done that yet.
Claire
I'm going to do it now. What do you say that is not true is this thing you described when you say:
By imagining an impersonal God, the perceiver can start to think beyond the confines of their subjective ego.You're saying this is good - it is good to think beyond the confines of one's subjective ego and to do this we will cease to suffer at all or suffer less and then you go on to say that belief in an
impersonal God has made significant contributions to philosophy and science.
I don't think you can prove that simply because the rest of the world is more scientifically advanced than India.
Jen
Prove that.
Claire
Simply because it was the West that first landed on the moon or do you deny the moon landing?
Jen
If you're going to use that as your evidence in support of your position, it's pretty weak.
Claire
We can only judge using objective facts. How many people do you know deny the moon landing?
Jen
The answer is fuck off, build a better argument. Should be easy, right?
Claire
So lots of people who deny the moon landing subscribe to your channel?
Jen
Bullshit. Claire, everyone in the chat can tell you're lying, just proving my point over and over and over again that you're subversive, you're a shill, you're a fucking liar and and I'm really glad that you're here because you just keep proving my point over and over again. I find you disgusting. It's like with Con Oppos - I find you both disgusting. Can you defeat my argument because that would be
really cool because it would be the first time anybody ever defeated my argument.
Claire
How would you measure scientific achievement then?
Jen
That's funny. It doesn't sound like you're disproving my argument at all. So you do that first, do it, let's go, just the argument do it, Claire, okay?
Claire
How would you measure scientific achievement if not by actual events?
Jen
That doesn't sound like a disproof of my argument.
Claire
The periodic table - who discovered that, Jen? Was that an Indian man?
Jen
Chemistry was well known in ancient in India.
Claire
So who discovered the periodic table, Jen?
Jen
According to Western science, we were told that the first person to formalise it was Dmitri Mendeleev. India was able to make statues that still haven't decayed out of metals so they had an advanced knowledge of metallurgy. Whether they had the actual periodic table or some other form of it is not really relevant. What's relevant are the results of that knowledge and India's history speaks for itself: superior architecture, superior culture, superior wisdom, superior philosophies, superior science - the West owes everything to India. Why this whole east-west divide was made was to
deracinated descendants from Indians so if you want to keep saying you know all our science in the West, that's a very easily disproven argument. I myself am the proof that Westerners don't really understand science all that well. They have good technology but that's not science nor is it philosophy.
Claire
What's the nationality of the man who discovered the periodic table?
Jen
Not relevant and we can't even establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's the one who discovered it so can we actually move on to you disproving my argument because right now you're in really shaky ground. Yu think you can disprove my argument and I'm really excited to hear your counter thesis cos it'll be the first time anyone's ever disproven my argument. I can't wait.
Claire
I'm just a little curious as to the nationality of Mendeleev.
Jen
Not relevant. Disprove the argument, you idiot, now. Disprove the argument, please. Oh wait, you can't.
Claire
It was the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, okay? It's on record. Do you think he's Western? European, anyway.
Jen
I'm not going to credit him with the discovery of chemistry.
Claire
Why would you take that away from Western Man?
Jen
This is because he doesn't deserve it. He stole it from India. I'm just correcting the record, Claire.
Claire
You have a very poor understanding of history.
Jen
Why don't you defeat my argument because I'm getting kind of bored of listening.
Claire
He came from a Russian Orthodox background, to be fair. Did he ever go to India to steal stuff from them?
Jen
This doesn't sound like an argument at all.
Claire
You're saying that he meant to steal stuff from India.
Jen
I'm just saying he's not the first person to come up with the idea of chemistry.
Claire
I'm sure chemistry or questions about chemistry came up from time to time and place to place
Jen
But you hate Indians because of an inferiority complex.
Claire
No, I don't hate India and Indian was not even on my radar until I met you, Jen.
Jen
Oh really? Well you don't know much about them and you seem to have a pretty low opinion of
them. You called them a fallen civilisation when really if the rest of the world stopped parasitizing over India, it would recover within 10-15 years so I wonder why the rest of the world needs to parasitise off of India these via the East India Trading Company, the hundred year occupation and parasitism and theft by the idiotic disgusting degenerate mouth-breathing Anglos and their Jewish masters and it continues to this day through a usurious extortion so yeah I do think you have a bit of an inferiority complex, to be honest. Next to the Indians, everybody basically has an inferiority complex that's why there's so much we was Kangs and larping because people are trying to steal what
the Aryas did because they basically did it all and anything anyone does is just a cheap imitation of what the Aryas originally did. The artists came from India and a lot of people just can't deal with that so yeah I'm really glad that I upset people who deny this self-evident fact and I'm also very sad that you haven't just proven my argument yet.
Claire
Well, I've proven that a lot of the things you say are not based on sound fact.
Jen
I think you're lying and I'd like you to actually disprove my argument for the millionth time now.
Claire
You're saying that an impersonal God encourages more morality than belief in a personal God but then you can't measure scientifically achievement or morality and then you contradict yourself by talking about the personality of God when you have been arguing that God is impersonal so I think that defeats your argument.
Jen
You have no evidence against my position and not all personalities are personal, that's your own personal personality ....
Claire
Can you describe what this could possibly mean? You are talking nonsense again. What's the personality of the universe? Only persons can have a personality.
Jen
That depends on your definition of personality, doesn't it?
Claire
Who can have a personality other than person, Jen?
Jen
It depends on your definition of personality doesn't it?
Claire
Give me an example of an impersonal personality.
Jen
I just did.
Claire
What?
Jen
I'm not gonna repeat it so I'd really like you to just present evidence against my position. Do you have a different civilisation that came up with something better than what India did?
Claire
Yeah, lots of empires. The Roman Empire came up with the rule of law.
Jen
There were laws in India. Rome collapsed, you know.
Claire
Eventually all empires collapse and they probably collapse for the same reason: when they break their own rules.
Jen
So I've disproven your position that having laws somehow means something. Anything else?
Claire
The Romans declined because they broke their own laws. They also changed their religion in order to break their own laws.You don't really need a philosophy of science, you just need your scientific and technological advancements. Well, this is very Western isn't it? The medium through which we are communicating is Western and if you want to talk about human consciousness, perhaps the internet could be equated with the sum total of human thought.
Jen
So computers are equal to human thought?
Claire
Well, they concentrate human thought in one place and allow it to be accessed by other humans. This is a pretty big achievement. Did the Indians do that? No, they didn't, so how are Indians better at science?
Jen
The Internet is not a scientific development. It's a technological development. You're making a category error, Claire.
Claire
They go together like horse and carriage.
Jen
What are you talking about?
Claire
Science and technology go together.
Jen
Point to me the superior scientific discoveries of any other civilisation than India.
Claire
Well, what are the Indian scientific discoveries then tell us that?
Jen
Everything I've done is more than anything any European has done. You take the sum total of European science and philosophy, you take the sum total of my science and philosophy ...
Claire
I'm afraid I don't know what your scientific achievements are, Jen, I'm sorry.
Jen
Yeah, it's because you're an idiot. They've been explained to you numerous times.
Claire
No, you have to list it for the people listening to this video, don't you understand?
Jen
No, I don't. They can just read the blog.
Claire
And if they don't believe it then they can try to contradict you,
Jen
You can't contradict my position because it's true. Do you want to move on. You haven't disproven my position yet. You try to equate technology to science so I'm wondering why you haven't given me one anecdote of superior philosophy to India.
Claire
Well, I don't know what Indian achievements there are in science and I'm ...
Jen
That's right - you don't know.
Claire
I'm not aware of any Indian scientific achievements so please would you tell us what they are.
Jen
No.
Claire
Why not?
Jen
Because it's not worth my time. Your continued denial of my scientific achievements is dishonest on your part as I've already explained to you how my model predicts the star formation. My model is a complete transcendent model. We've been over this many times. I've explained to you how my
model predicts nuclear reactivity so I'm wondering why you choose to purposely forget things. I've repeated to you probably in the dozens of times now.
Claire
No, I just want you to tell me which blogpost you list the scientific achievements of the Indians and which demonstrate Vedic knowledge is superior.
Jen
I took birth in the West, you utter half-wit, to prove that exact point.
Claire
Wait, I don't understand why you're being born where you were born proves that Indian scientific achievements are greater.
Jen
Imagine a great sage wanted to prove that they were the best at knowledge - how do you think they might go about doing that? Do you think they might go about doing something that? Nobody else can do such a thing as taking birth among their descendants as the opposite gender. Can you think of a greater feat of yogic powers than that?
Claire
That has to be proven.
Jen
If you know that a particular sage was going to reincarnate 100 years after they were killed for the same reason they're being persecuted in this life.
Claire
Theoretically, that would be a wonderful demonstration of superior knowledge, Jen.
Jen
Answer the question. The question is can you think of a better feat than that in terms of demonstrating superior knowledge.
Claire
But I don't think you have demonstrated superior knowledge. Your scientific achievements have not been noted or rewarded. The problem is that people won't believe you.
Jen
I don't care. I'm still right. Truth is truth, whether or not people accept it. So you still haven't managed to think of a greater feat of demonstration of knowledge so I guess I do have superior knowledge.
Claire
I don't know. You haven't convinced anyone.
Jen
Maybe stop trying to speak for other people because you don't know what they're thinking.
Claire
Why don't we do a survey and see how many people believe?
Jen
Ad populum fallacy. So you've been unable to give any examples of superior science or philosophy? Computers wouldn't work without Vedic math so any computer is based on Vedic math, right? I know this because I know how computers work so would you like to try again?
Claire
I'm saying that you can't measure imperialism or supremacism.
Jen
Those are your axioms, not mine.
Claire
Well, they are relevant.
Jen
Because they're not my axioms, I don't have to validate your axioms.
Claire
I'm saying in order to measure the different supremacism and the different imperialism, you have to measure it by something. I have listed Western scientific and technological achievements and you have so far cited nothing about Indian scientific and technological achievement.
Jen
The best thing you can come up with is the periodic table and the internet.
Claire
I've got the periodic table and it was done by a Western chemist.
Jen
We can determine that ancient India must have known something about chemistry so it's really not a good argument. I am the one who actually discovered the correct form of the periodic table.You don't even know what Vedanta is
Claire
Why don't you tell us a bit about Vedanta?
Jen
Your anecdotes have been falsified by me. Use of the Internet is not science. The Internet wouldn't exist without computers and computers wouldn't exist without Vedic mathematics. Some guy coming up with a periodic table when I came up with a better structure for the periodic table doesn't prove
anything. You can't disprove my argument because you don't even know my argument is.
Claire
Yu do express yourself in a very obscure way, Jen.
Jen
It has nothing to do with Anglos not wanting to fuck my ancestors as you have hypothesized.
Claire
What?
Jen
I said I have a chip on my shoulder and it has nothing to do with Anglos not wanting to fuck my ancestors as you have hallucinating.
Claire
I don't even know what you're accusing me of.
Jen
I believe you accused E Michael Jones and I of having a chip on our shoulders because we're Irish and were mad that the Anglos wouldn't fuck us.
Claire
Marry you, I think.
Jen
So yeah I just wanted to make sure everyone understands just how dumb you are. So philosophy: what's the best philosophical achievement of anything outside India? Let's hear what you've got, Claire.
Claire
Well. I don't know. I think you have to prove to us that the Indian philosophy is is better than Western philosophy and the Abrahamic faiths.
Jen
What's the best thing in any of that? Just show me tell me what the best thing is and I'll prove why mine's better. Let's hear it.
Claire
Well, I think the wisdom contained in the Abrahamic faiths is far superior to anything anywhere.
Jen
Really? Got any evidence to support that?
Claire
The continuing existence of the most powerful tribe in the world.
Jen
You know, cockroaches exist - it doesn't mean anything about their philosophical achievements.
Claire
Well, Jews exist.
Jen
And I'm saying that their existing doesn't actually mean anything because cockroaches exist. It doesn't mean they have an advanced philosophy. I'm looking for an actual answer to my question.
Claire
I'm surprised that you don't know that Spinoza was also a pantheist.
Jen
Because some Jew happen to believe something that maybe somewhat resembles some subset of Indian philosophy, that means something? I'm asking a very simple question. Tell me what philosophically. Give me the exact example. Say this particular idea, not these religions exists. I want an actual anecdote.
Claire
I think it's quite an achievement for Jews being kicked out of their country for 2,000 years and then to get back their homeland.
Jen
Claire, evidence suggests Jews have controlled the Middle East since antiquity. Can you stop trying to derail it. Answer the question.
Claire
What is the question?
Jen
The question is: tell me the best philosophical achievement of literally anything outside of India that is not your Abrahamic God because that is not a philosophical concept. So let's get an actual philosophical concept.
Claire
Well, all the wisdom that flows from these religions such as Ten Commandments.
Jen
You haven't established how that's wisdom and nor how it's philosophy so can you give me an example of the philosophy that doesn't come from India that you think is the best one. You can't just say "The Abrahamic tradition is." Give me the actual philosophy itself.
Claire
You know I'll keep going back to Judaism because it is the idea that keeps Jews in existence. Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism and those religions created empires.
Jen
You've given me nothing philosophical at all.
Claire
What do you mean by philosophical?
Jen
The philosophical has to have purpose. It has to have utility and has to have achievements.
Claire
So the idea is God - the Abrahamic God, omniscient ...
Jen
We're all tired. Can you actually give us the concrete evidence? Give us the actual philosophy. Give us the philosophical results, not the usury empire, okay? We all know the unifier is what binds them together, okay? Can you actually answer my question?
Claire
Patriarchy.
Jen
Patriarchy comes from India and the Jews being matrilineal are more of a matriarchy than any other any European patriarchy or your Indian patriarchy, so can you answer my question about philosophy, please?
Claire
Philosophy is wisdom.
Jen
Who are supposed to be the wisest of all?
Claire
Well, I suppose people think the Chinese are wise ....
Jen
You're the fucking counter-evidence to that position! Oh God, what a joke. Can you actually give me a philosophical truth like tell me literally anything philosophical, literally anything - you could say the Socratic method, like you could literally say "I can think of a bunch of things." Why aren't you coming up with any actual philosophy?
Claire
What I'm saying is that different civilisations have rules. Jen, we don't know what your rules are and you're refusing to tell us.
Jen
So just let the record show Claire is constantly derailing because she has no evidence of philosophy or science that's better than what India has, so would you like to try again, Claire.
Claire
I have answered your question: the connected wisdom of the Abrahamic faiths is greater than yours
Jen
So can you give us any evidence to support that?
Claire
Empire is evidence of philosophy - it is evidence of the wisdom that you need to acquire empire.
Jen
So why can't you give me any philosophical anecdotes.
Claire
I don't know if you know that the Athenian worshiped Athena the Goddess of Wisdom and War. You
need to a Philosopher King. The wisest man should be your leader because you can only survive as a nation if your policies are wise.
Jen
Show me the philosophy, tell it to me, Claire. What is it the wisdom?
Claire
It is simply that of continuing existence.
Jen
Oh, so cockroaches are wise because they exist.
Claire
No, but if cockroaches divided themselves into nations then we could examine the relative successes different cockroach nations. That is how we would assess the wisdom of cockroaches. We may be the equivalent cockroaches. We live and we want to do stuff and want we have our little groups. Humans divide themselves into nations and this fact is acknowledged in the scripture of the Abrahamic faiths.
Jen
Why can't you provide me with any philosophical evidence. All these ideologies are just a smokescreen for a monopoly on usury.
Claire
Usury is the source of Jewish power,
Jen
That's parasitism and therefore very unstable because it eventually collapses so I'd like to know once again what is this superior philosophy you allege exist? Can't you tell me in words what it is rather than shifting the goal posts to empire and wealth and other things that are temporary?
Claire
I already answered your question. I said the wisdom is contained in scripture. Do you understand what I mean by scripture?
Jen
Give me a citation.
Claire
Well, the Ten Commandments and the Noahide laws. I'm saying that the continued existence of the Jew as the most ancient and most powerful tribe in the world is evidence of the wisdom of their religion.
Jen
Can you understand that by the same logic the continued existence of cockroaches is evidence of their superior philosophy?
Claire
I refer you to my previous answer.
Jen
Which is that we don't judge the superiority of something that just continues to exist.
Claire
If you want to be judging cockroaches as creatures of wisdom. You would have to observe their behavior and if cockroaches divided themselves into nations and had empires and then you would be observing what rules they observed in order to acquire empire and how they would lose their empire and I'm saying humans do this and when they lose their empire they break their own rules and I'm also saying that you're more likely to follow your rules if you believe that they were created by the Creator of Creation ie the Abrahamic God.
Jen
Got any evidence to support that because I've got tons of evidence against that.
Claire
I was just going to say that these rules all contained in the Koran.
Jen
I don't care, okay? Support your position.
Claire
The evidence to support my position is the continuing the existence of the Jews who are the most ancient of tribes.
Jen
Indians have existed far longer.
Claire
You have to compare like with like.
Jen
What's the difference between a tribe and a race?
Claire
You can have different types in one race.
Jen
The Indian race has existed for longer than the Jews, so what's your point? Why do you keep lying so much?
Claire
A good example would be Jews as a tribe and the Chinese Empire. They've been around for about the same length of time.
Jen
Do you think China's much older?
Claire
Obviously.
Jen
China's probably the second oldest after India.
Claire
Are you sure, Jen? How long do you think India has existed?
Jen
I'm not going to speculate on that. All the evidence suggests that that's the oldest civilisation. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
Claire
There is Mesopotamia, you know.
Jen
Yeah, that's part of the concerted effort to rewrite the historical record.
Claire
So you don't think civilization started from ancient Mesopotamia? What about Egypt?
Jen
Well, Egypt was originally an Indian colony.
Claire
So everybody's Indian.
Jen
No, I think the Chinese actually originally came from Africa. Indians came from Africa. Well, we all originated from Africa but we diverged before the dawn of civilisation so it's not really relevant. The supreme origin of humans is Africa so there was Africa and then there was a divergence. There was Africa and India and then everybody else is basically out of Africa or out of India and I think the next divergence would have been the Chinese or like what later became the Asians from Africa and then
much later the Europeans left India and everybody else is just a mix-up between those original populations.
Claire
So what would the best thing to do now that we are stuck with each other in whatever nation we happen to be in. Shouldn't we just all get along?
Jen
It depends what you mean by get along. I don't want you to change me to a false ideology.
Claire
Why I would do that? Why is it false ideology? Why would patriarchy be a false ideology?
Jen
Did I say patriarchy was a false ideology?
Claire
Well, I'm saying that the West is a matriarchy and a lot of people in the West feel that the rules aren't fair so we change the rules back to patriarchy. Simple, isn't it?
Jen
I just want the record to show that Claire was unable to show any philosophical superiority. She tried to shift the goalposts to other things because she doesn't really have a leg to stand on. You can't even give me one thing of actual philosophy.
Claire
I answered the question many times in different ways. You're just refusing to acknowledge that.
Jen
Do you do realize that existence and philosophy are two different things?
Claire
You would be wise to avoid the things that might threaten your existence.
Jen
We don't compare ourselves to cockroaches.
Claire
Why do you want to compare humans to cockroaches?
Jen
I'm demonstrating your fallacious argument. Why can't you actually point to the philosophy itself?
Claire
I've told you: the philosophy is wisdom.
Jen
Why can't you point to the actual philosophy and wisdom itself? Why don't you just open up your Talmud or your Torah and point to me what is the wisest thing to come out of that? Why can't you do that?
Claire
The Ten Commandments: everybody observes some of it whether they want to.
Jen
They don't all observe the Ten Commandments.
Claire
It's kind of agreed that is probably a good idea to criminalise murder. Even murderers acknowledge the usefulness of a law forbidding murder.
Jen
So do you think there were laws against murder before the Ten Commandments?
Claire
Probably in some place.
Jen
Exactly. So you're saying that forbidding murder is indicative of superior philosophy - is that your position?
Claire
My position is that how you collate information in one accessible book is evidence of wisdom. It's like the periodic table you keep going on about - the genius of the person who discovered the periodic table was how he chose to organise it and how useful it was to two scientists.
Jen
It doesn't matter, I did it better so it's not evidence. My periodic table is better because it predicts nuclear reactivity. You've got a periodic table which doesn't even work because my periodic table is better. I've asked you to demonstrate philosophical superiority and you failed to do that. Does anybody in the audience think there's a superior philosophy that didn't originate in India? Anybody at all? Go ahead in the audience.
Claire
I think the Chinese are going to be wiser than the Indians.
Jen
That is Chinese inferiority. Imagine having to make up IQ and lie about it in order to make yourself feel better because you're such a failure your country's polluted shithole and you never came up with anything. The best philosophy you ever had came from India/
Claire
Are you not aware of the Mandate of Heaven? Have you not heard of Confucius?
Jen
Have you not heard of Buddha? If you've not heard of Vedanta, let's hear your superior philosophy.
Claire
We don't want to encourage evil behavior and we want to encourage good behavior, therefore we need wise leaders. This is what Plato himself said and I think everybody wants wise leaders.
Jen
I can't deny that but I can deny that you you've demonstrated any wisdom. All I'm asking one tell me one anecdote. You said the periodic table which is disproven by my periodic table and you said the Ten Commandments which isn't actually philosophy - it's law. So can you try again and give us a philosophy. Haven't you read the Torah and the Talmud? Shouldn't you be able to just come up with these things off the top of your head?
Claire
I can and if you don't keep interrupting me I will make my point. The best thing you can do is to continue to exist. Since we are all mortal and die we can only live through our descendants and if our descendants live in a particular nation we can test out the viability of our ideas through posterity and our descendants. Obviously, if we are wise, we would build upon the wisdom of the past and build on the technological, cultural, legal and philosophical achievements of the past and therefore we shouldn't have them destroyed. It can get destroyed in war but we find methods of preserving them or recreating them and so science and technology are needed and also wise leaders to avoid ruinous wars.
Jen
So it sounds like you can't give us any philosophy.
Claire
I just told you so.
Jen
None of that is philosophy.
Claire
It is obviously wise to avoid ruinous wars and I'm afraid the nature of empire when they are declining is that they wage reckless ruinous wars. That's how the British Empire ended and I fear America is going to do the same thing. I think it is because they no longer believe in their religion their religion
is Christianity which is idolatrous. They should dump it for a Secular Koranism. That would be wise because it would restore the patriarchy in the West and save the West from descending into chaos and disorder and it is time that they admitted that their religion and their political system is most unwise. I think in this matter you agree with me, don't you, Jen?
Jen
I'm not going to agree with you on anything because I think it's just a setup for you to try to misrepresent my views. I'll give you an example of philosophy: the Socratic method - you could have proffered that that's an example of a philosophy that was outside India.
Claire
Yes.
Jen
Why didn't you use that as an example? Why did you start on a rant about the Ten Commandments? I want you to tell me the best philosophy that came out of not India.
Claire
The Socratic method, thank you for mentioning it,
Jen
Yeah well. the Socratic method is subversive and only works if the teacher is enlightened.
Claire
I think I'm fairly enlightened.
Jen
Oh wow okay and on that note I guess I'm gonna end the stream because I've taken about as much bullshit as I can, I think my bullshit uh reservoir is full.
Claire
Don't rage-quit on me, Jen!
Jen
I just don't have anything else to say to you.
Claire
Don't you want to use the Socratic method on my my proposition?
Jen
No, I don't need to dignify that. It's not a substantiated position. Why would I want to believe in what you believe when you can't even give me one single anecdote of superior science knowledge or philosophy.
Claire
Well, obviously it's wise to remain in existence as a group and the smallest group viable group is a tribe and obviously the biggest group you can possibly have is empire and the one in between is nation.
Jen
So thanks everyone for tuning in. I've had a really good time exposing all Claire's lies and showing that her idea of philosophy is the existence of cockroaches. I'm very happy. Did you have any last words, Claire?
Claire
Well, I'm very disappointed that you're not going to apply the Socratic method to my proposition that God is personal. Iit's most disappointing. I thought you would do me the honor of trying to undermine my ideas and won't have to keep stopping to say "What can Claire possibly mean?"I really actually I beg you to do that to my case for the personal God. Shall I give you the link now?
Jen
No, I'm not interested because you haven't convinced me so why I should give a shit. It would require you to give me either superior knowledge, superior philosophy or superior science and you fail to do that?
Claire
What what about your your rebuttal of my position? Can we do that now?
Jen
Maybe another time. I'm about full of bullshit for now, I'm gonna have to tap out for the time being but thanks everyone for tuning in.
Claire
Thanks, Jen.
Jen
So we'll let's just reiterate Claire has derailed the conversation more times than I can count, failed to answer my questions to my satisfaction, failed to give any indication of philosophy knowledge or science coming from anywhere other than India. If anyone wants to come on and defend their position against mine I'd love to hear it because that would be awesome because being proven wrong would be a first for me and a lot of people have tried. OV made a complete ass of himself on Luke Ford and then he doubly made an ass of himself when he tried to use me as an example of a good person to troll and that was pretty funny, so have fun with that and have fun with fact that now everyone knows what you're all about and no one's ever going to trust you again or anyone else that you're associated with or were associated with for that matter. So yeah, anyone wants to hop on and defeat my positions as Claire's failed to do time nand time again by dishonestly shifting the goal posts, show me the superior philosophy. That they exist ergo they must have a superior philosophy which if applied to cockroaches would imply that they have a superior philosophy because they exist. The link's been in the chat for a while so I don't think he can come on and he is probably a little tired after all the ass whippings he's gotten this week so I don't really blame him and yeah no one else is coming on because no one can do it. Everyone has been exposed as a we was kangs larper who wants to steal the accomplishments of Aryas because their accomplishments pale in comparison to theirs and yeah that's pretty much was my point.
Mitchell Porter asks do I have anything to say about the personalist tradition in India like Krishna consciousness. Dayananda's view is that Krishna was an enlightened man but not the incarnation of God because according to our tradition the supreme does not take birth.
So can the periodic table take birth?
No, because it's not really a personal thing. Am lot of people have wanted to worship personal gods in India and elsewhere and there have always been reformers who have fought against this tide because it's a symbol of degeneracy.
Apparently, Jay wants to come on. I don't know where he is but yeah if you want to pop on Jay ...
I really don't think you can defeat my arguments because I don't think you understand them but go ahead and give it a try. If you don't get on in the next like 30 seconds ... I'm probably going to shut it down pretty soon.
Claire
Oh, what a shame I was hoping you would do the same thing to mine.
Jen
You don't seem to realise that me acknowledging an argument gives it a certain status and I'm not really going to do that because the burden of proof is on you to establish why I should give a shit about your position. I completely destroyed you.
Claire
Well, I don't think so. The only people who voted were your cronies who were always going to vote vote for you. I don't think you proved anything at all. The force of your personality got the people to to say that you won but these people are morally suspect: they have something to gain from you.
Doooovid for example delights in a platform that you give him on Sundays and you let him dominate your stream. You have fun kicking people around so why would he say anything to upset you. Of course I lost.
Jen
Yeah, you lost because you didn't actually make any good arguments in support of your position so maybe take a lesson from that and come back next time, oh wait, you've already decided you won't do any more formal debate because you cannot have the appearance of winning with our being able to use your illegitimate and subversive conversational strategy.
Claire
People follow the arguments better in a Socratic dialogue because what happens is that you say you say things and it sounds so good coming from you and nobody even cares about the meaning of the words and then I have to deal with the mess that I just had to untangle.
Jen
Now you blame me for your inferior knowledge.
Claire
No, I'm saying that you didn't convey your ideas in a logical coherent way in the first place and now that I want to challenge you, you're saying no.
Jen
You've tried to challenge me but I don't think you've succeeded in undermining any of my arguments. Which arguments have you undermined exactly?
Claire
The one about you saying that it is better for us to worship in the way that you do.
Jen
I have evidence to support my position, you don't. I've yet to be convinced that there is any civilisation outside India. You still have to convince me of that, because what I see is a bunch of parasites, a bunch of crypsis, a bunch of bullshit, a bunch of usury but I don't actually see a civilization so if you want to try to substantiate that this is a civilisation, I'm open to that,
Claire
Civilisation is just a gathering of humans who are advanced enough to live in a city. You have the Greek city-states of Sparta and Athens as well as Rome. Civilisation started off with citizens living in cities. You and I should be talking about the history of India.
Jen
So you can shit all over it?
Claire
Oh, not at all.
Jen
You just claimed that the first city was in Babylon, which is moronic.
Claire
I don't know. Obviously, I don't know. I can't remember offhand what historians collectively agree is the first city of the world.
Jen
It wouldn't matter because you can't trust modern education system because it doesn't serve the purpose of truth. It serves the purpose of maintaining power. That's the whole point of the Aryan invasion theory. You can't trust really any of it all. The fact that it's written is actually evidence in support of the position that it's not true.
Claire
Look, it doesn't matter where the first city was in human history. All that we need to know is that with concentration of people living in a city you need rules you need laws and that is what requires wisdom men. I guess for Westerners, the most famous city state would be Athens and the wisdom of the ancient Greeks. They failed and so after Athens there was Rome and after Rome was the Holy Roman Empire and then I guess the British Empire and then the American Empire.
The Chinese used usry when they just discovered paper money and then they crashed and burned.
Jen
That's not really the point though, is it?
Claire
What is the point?
Jen
People live: they want to have fun.
Claire
Creating money out of thin air is sounds like a lot of fun, People can't resist it and neither do nations.
Jen
Why are you telling me about this? I don't care. You don't know how to run a non-usurious banking system. Islam is a vehicle for usury. You don't know how to run a non-usurious bank.
Claire
Well, maybe you can run it for me, Jen.
Jen
So you have to parasitise off my knowledge. Why would I want to help you who wants to enslave my people in the service of this? You want to force my people to worship a volcano God. Basically, we need to tell them to believe in anything. They just have to follow the rules and the rules will be good for them. It'll prevent them from falling into matriarchy. We have no evidence for that position, of course.
Claire
Sexual morality is measured by marriage by how many sluts and bastards you have.
Jen
Yeah, I'm not really too interested in your degenerate take so thanks everyone for tuning in and we'll see you again.
*********************
It has been subsequently reinstated.
And is no longer available again.
No comments:
Post a Comment