Andrew Wilson vs. NotSoErudite HEATED MARATHON DEBATE | Whatever Debates 25

Date: 2026-02-21

Duration: 8h 47m

Guests

Brian Atlas

NNotSoErudite >

AAndrew Wilson >

Identified Speakers

SPEAKER_00NotSoErudite (Kyla)(guest)

SPEAKER_01Brian Atlas(host)

SPEAKER_03Andrew Wilson(guest)

Key Moments

IntroBrian introduces debate: Andrew Wilson vs NotSoErudite (Kyla). Four prompts on Christian nationalism.

QuoteAndrew: 'I do hate leftists... God will punish my soul for it'

Key MomentKyla introduces Agrippa's Trilemma - becomes central philosophical battleground

Key MomentKyla spills energy drink on stream equipment

Key MomentRobot claw beer pass disaster - major spillage incident

Key MomentKyla reveals Brian offered her Whatever host position before Andrew

ControversyAndrew tells Kyla her main problem is being 'supremely unlikable'

OtherDebate ends after ~8 hours. After-show segment.

Topics Discussed

Christian Nationalism and American Identity

Whether Christian nationalism is unAmerican. Founding fathers, 1st/10th/14th Amendments.

Agrippa's Trilemma

Central philosophical battleground: all belief systems are foundationally unjustifiable.

Jesus and Political Power

Kyla argues Jesus rejected political power citing John 18, Matthew 4, John 6.

Abortion Ethics

Kyla's pro-choice legal/pro-life personal stance. When ensoulment occurs.

Content Creator Likability

Andrew critiques Kyla's streaming career, argues unlikability is main barrier.

Transcript

Page 2 of 9

Andrew Wilson>> Well, that was silly. It's silly to say that you think that the founders should have found some way that every single indiv independent panrotestant religion would find some kind of unifying creed they would all just suddenly agree to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)rather than them just saying, "We're just not going to impose any religious uh standards on states. You guys can do it yourself." Yeah, I think that if the uh founding fathers actually believed that the merging of church and state was important, they would have found a way

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to write it into the constitution. They >> did via the 10th amendment. They did. >> No, allowing states to have to have choice and purview is not the same thing as writing >> are states are were states allowed to make their own religions or not. >> Yeah.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. That has nothing to do with for example saying that the church doesn't get a hand in states craft which is written exclusively into the >> only at the federal level. >> Yes.

Andrew Wilson>> Because they couldn't they didn't have a unification for things like oaths and other things that all the panroestants would agree to at the federal level. >> They just couldn't think of any they they were like man we really >> they argued about it.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> This is your premise. This is your premise. The founding fathers actually really wanted to write in the merging of church and state. It was something that they really cared about, but they couldn't find a way to federally write these things in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)together. And so, don't interrupt me. And so, instead, what they did is they wrote it out and they just let states do so. They could sneakily blend in their their uh their blurring of church and

Andrew Wilsonstate. That's your argument. >> Truly truly your intellect is dizzying. No, my argument is that >> Are we getting personal? >> That the founding fathers >> Are we getting personal? Because you said no personal when we started this. Do you want

Andrew Wilson>> Wait a second. You said my intellect. You can call me. Yeah, you can call me stupid. So the thing is is like I am so curious about this. I actually don't even understand the >> I just want to be clear that we're breaking the rules.

Andrew Wilson>> So the federal so the federal government was that was that really harsh like truly your intellect is dizzying. That's harsh. That's a movie line by the way that if we want to have a good engagement back and forth we for example agreed to things like not getting

NotSoErudite (Kyla)personal. >> That's not personal. It's from the princess bride. It's a joke. So, you only meant it as a joke. You weren't trying to call me stupid. >> Well, this position's stupid. >> Are you calling me stupid? Cuz when you say my intellect is dizzying, it feels like you're saying >> it is. It is dizzying. But the thing is here, I don't get

Andrew Wilson>> I don't know why I wouldn't just that you're insulting. >> It's like you go you go, "Wait a second, Andrew. It would have been way better for a pan for the panrotestant and Catholics at

Andrew Wilsonthe federal level for them to somehow agree on some kind of unifying creed." didn't say better >> or make more sense that they would agree to some sort of unifying creed. Even though Protestantism can also change,

Andrew Wilsonthey can have like a new denomination which pops up that doesn't agree with this. And so they're like, "Wait a second. Instead of doing that, what we'll do instead is we'll leave it up to the prospective states and then they can

Andrew Wilsonimpose whatever religion. Calm down, Kyla. I just want to finish. Okay. >> Okay. The states can blend and always were able to blend church and state. Yes. >> And yet the federal level can't and

NotSoErudite (Kyla)doesn't. >> That was never in question. >> So what is in question here is by your logic, the founding fathers, >> Yeah. >> they actually secretly wanted the church and state to be blended, but they couldn't write it in because Where did you get that?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Your argument. I never argued that. >> This is the implication of your >> It's not even the implication. It is. You're saying that actually the founding fathers, they did want the blend of church and state. Do you think that >> they wanted the states to be able to blend church?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That the founding fathers wanted America to have a blend of church and state. That they wanted the church. >> It depends on which ones you're talking about. Some of them did. >> You said the majority. You said the majority of founding fathers. >> No, the majority of the founding fathers

NotSoErudite (Kyla)who signed, I said, were not deists. You also said the majority of them were >> like some >> foundational Protestants. >> Yeah. They were they were men of God, right? >> From different denominations. >> And do you think that those men of God

NotSoErudite (Kyla)couldn't have tried to like if they wanted to write in >> that the federal government has a blending of church and state that they couldn't have found a way to possibly do that >> or they just give it to the states perspectively, which makes more sense? >> Why why would they then explicitly write

Andrew Wilsonit out of the federal government? because they wanted it to go to the states specifically so that for purposes of things like oathkeeping and things like that >> make a rule then that says states must maintain some form of Christian religion

Andrew Wilson>> because because that doesn't mean anything if you say uh you have to be a form of Christian who gets to make the determination of who a Christian is >> usually it's going to be the Christian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)people of that state right how does >> exactly that's my whole point it's not your whole point >> yes it is >> no it's not >> who if the founder ers if at the federal level they can't make a determination of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)who a Christian is or isn't and you that's why you leave it up to the state the state determines. >> So by your implication you're saying the founding fathers did actually want church and state to not be separate. However, they couldn't find a way to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)write it in the constitution other than through the 10th amendment which doesn't even talk about this. >> Don't interrupt me. Don't interrupt me. You can correct me after. Just write it down. >> Go ahead. [clears throat] >> Okay. So you're saying the founding fathers by implication, they actually

NotSoErudite (Kyla)did want the church and state to be blended. They actually valued that because you're saying that they wrote it into the constitution by allowing the states to do it. Which is implying then that the founding fathers did want church and state to be blended. They

Andrew Wilsonjust couldn't write it in within the first amendment clause. So they allowed the states to do it as a sneaky way to smuggle in church. >> Lord, this is like the worst straw man ever. No, here's my actual position. The actual position is due to the Articles of Confederation and that not working.

Andrew WilsonWe knew that we needed to have a federalist nation. Otherwise, we couldn't have currency, a standing army, anything like this. Because of that, the states who were completely distrustful of having a federal government, cuz they had just fought off a massive [ __ ] kingdom, uh were very distrustful. And

Andrew Wilsonso, they needed to sell it to them. The way that they sold it to him is they were like, "Well, since it's all pan Protestantism, we can't figure out our foundationalism. We will take a secular approach at the national level and and what we'll do is institute the 10th

Andrew Wilsonamendment and each of you can put in your own religions if you want to. That was the compromise. It has nothing to do with the motivation of the founders at the federal level wanting it, not

Andrew Wilsonwanting it, loving it, not loving it. It has to do. Okay, that's great. But it you just said what you're saying is which infers that's my argument and it's

Andrew Wilsonnot. My argument is there's a compromise between the states and between the feds. And the compromise was that the feds were not going to tell the states what religions they could or couldn't have. Period.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> And was the compromise why are the fathers were the founding fathers compromising? Because they had a hope that the church and state would stay connected. They just couldn't write it in. Is that what you're saying? >> At which level?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So they were hoping that the nation broadly would stay Christian within the statecraftraft. that there would be no separation of church and state. However, they couldn't write it in. >> No, they they wanted at the national

Andrew Wilsonlevel >> to uh to adhere to the the idea that only the states could impose uh whatever their religious value structures are. >> I'm asking does is it more reasonable to conclude that the founding fathers

NotSoErudite (Kyla)wanted a separation of church and state or that they did not want a separation of church and state? At >> you have to explain express at which level. >> I'm assuming that if they felt it at the federal level, they probably felt it at the statehood level. I don't know why a founding father would be like I don't want it at the state level but I

Andrew Wilsonactually do you said compromise right >> Jefferson Jefferson didn't like that states had religions and he made that clear but other other presidents made it clear they were fine with it >> so the majority of the founding fathers do you think that they wanted separation of church and state >> at the national level that was the

Andrew Wilsoncompromise yes >> do they want it though >> I don't know I can describe you each of their motivations >> what's your presumption >> some of them did and some of them didn't >> do you think most of them did or most of them didn't >> I don't know if it's most do you >> well you said well you said a majority of the founding fathers. Well,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> theist I said weren't >> deists. >> No, you also said that they were loyal Protestant Christian boys. So, my argument would be that these good old Christian boys all agreed that separation of church and state mattered. That's why they wrote it into the constitution

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> at the federal level. >> They didn't even prescribe states having a state religion. They just didn't take the states right. >> They just didn't take the states right away from them doing so. That's not the same.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So, the state So, they allowed the states to implement their own religions. at at a state level, but they would not at a federal level. >> Then what are we arguing here? >> We're arguing about whether or not the founding fathers wanted a separation of

Andrew Wilsonchurch and state or not. >> At the federal we Okay, I don't know how else to make why would they want it not at the federal level. >> At the federal level, they did not want a federal religion because states make a religion.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Why didn't they want a federal religion? >> Compromising with the states. >> Sure. But do you think that overall if they didn't have to compromise they would have preferred a a a federal religion? >> Well, there wouldn't even the whole framework of the nation would be so different. I don't even know how to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)speculate. >> You're right. It would be completely different America if we didn't have separation of church and state because the founding fathers despite mostly being Christian, despite being loyal Christians, they understood the necessity of separation of church and state.

Andrew Wilsondifferent America because there wouldn't then be states rights, the 10th amendment. There wouldn't be I the whole system would be totally different. >> We're 10 minutes over. >> So I don't I don't have any idea what you're even referencing. >> If you want to like rewrite absurdism

NotSoErudite (Kyla)into it, that's totally fine. But it's pretty obvious that if the founding fathers wanted to have no separation of church and state, they could have done something. They could have employed in some direction. >> I don't even know what she's arguing. How about this? We're >> stealing over time on this prompt. You

Andrew Wilsonseem to be saying that >> you guys want to do >> I don't >> was it the motivation if it was the case that there was no states would the founders have preferred no religion >> so I've made already an affirmative claim which I said well the founding

NotSoErudite (Kyla)[snorts] fathers despite being dominantly Christian despite valuing their Christianity despite most of the nation being either Protestant or Catholic went out of their way to write

NotSoErudite (Kyla)religion out of a federal nation grounding America at a nation level as a nonreligious nation. nation state. In fact, so non-religious. >> So non-religious. Hold on. I'm not done.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> Really quick before you go. Uh we are a bit over time on this prompt. >> It does give them some time to tantrum. So you can read your TTS if you want. >> Well, do you guys >> What tantrum? I'm just sitting here. >> You're eye rolling and like getting

Brian Atlasupset, which is totally fine. Like it's a it's an impassion. >> I actually don't understand what the [ __ ] you're even talking about. >> That's kind of the >> I really don't. Do you guys want to continue on this prompt or do you want to move on to something else? >> I just want to speak to that specific

NotSoErudite (Kyla)thing you said. That's kind of one of my issues with Andrewism is you're not attempting to understand what I'm saying in any way. And usually >> I just tried to steal man. You cut me off. >> When I was trying to steal man your position, you cut me off. >> I corrected you cuz you were steel

NotSoErudite (Kyla)maning me incorrectly. >> Okay, got it. So here's the thing. >> Well, if you're going to steel man me, you should probably be correct faith conversation. I want to understand you and you want to understand me. So let me summarize your position.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay, go ahead. My understanding of your position is that you don't know, you're agnostic as to whether or not the founding fathers wanted uh uh you know, church and state to be blended, but you believe that essentially they allowed the states to do it so that the states

NotSoErudite (Kyla)could stay religious and they wrote it at a federal level because they recognized that they would have to compromise and they couldn't find a compro uh a good compromisation amongst the states because they were of different religions. Correct? >> No. >> How is that incorrect? >> Well, the first part is what you're

Andrew Wilsonmessing up. >> Okay. It's irrelevant whether or not the signers of the uh constitution themselves would have ascribed for a state religion or not. >> I think the founding election

Andrew Wilson>> is important. What's relevant is what they actually did with the states. The state itself, the perspective states are as much of import as the federal government. That's what anti-federalist

Andrew Wilsonthought. You have a federalist mindset for some reason. You keep on the I understand the disconnect. disconnect is you keep thinking that federal systems are as just are more important than state systems. >> No, no, no. They're definitely not finish

Andrew Wilson>> there. Hang on. Not only are they definitely not, but that's where the disconnect is. Here's what's actually happening. There was a compromise that was done. The compromise was that there was no possible way that Catholics over

Andrew Wilsonhere were going to recognize the oaths of Protestants over there. Not if the federal government was making the demand that you had to be ex thing in order to swear an oath or do a thing. So what they did instead was they said, "What

Andrew Wilsonwe're going to do is we're not going to implement a nationalized religion. The perspective states instead are going to be able to implement whatever religious institutions that they want." They were perfectly fine with them blending church

Andrew Wilsonand state. Yes. Perfectly fine with it. >> Do you think they preferred it? >> Many of them. Yes. >> So why didn't they write it into the federal constitution? >> I liter I don't know how else to explain it. Like I I >> So you're just saying the >> I don't know. I don't even know how to explain it.

Brian Atlas>> Maybe a prompt switch. Maybe a prompt switch. I think we should probably do it. I want to clarify. Maybe a prompt switch could be good. Maybe >> Sure. The issue is I don't know if you want to have a good faith conversation or not. It seems like the answer is no.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Because in a good faith conversation, we're both trying to understand the most like coherent version of one another's opinions. We're trying to actually understand. >> Why did you just ask me explain it to me when I just explained it to you? >> What

Andrew Wilson>> you said? Then explain to me why they did that. And I'm like, I just explained to you why they did that. So again, then I was going to say my next argument against that, >> right? Which is that you're telling me that the founding fathers and all of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)their intelligence and all of their battling and their ability to do so much like found America, they couldn't figure out a way to compromise amongst the religions if they actually all dominantly preferred a blending, a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)church uh and state blending. They they just did find a way to do that. >> So you're saying they actually did do that sneakily through the 10th amendment. >> It wasn't sneakily. It was up frontally. >> Why wouldn't they just write that in the first amendment? Why would the first

Andrew Wilsonamendment bar the union of church and state? >> Because at the okay, >> if they wanted at a federal level, >> federal level, what they did

Andrew Wilson>> was they said, "Okay, we're not going to implement any religiosity on independent states. We're not going to do that ever." Because each independent state

Andrew Wilsongets to have their own religion as part of the compromise that they made with the federal government due to the Articles of Confederation >> or there's no or yes the well the or

NotSoErudite (Kyla)here is the more reasonable assumption. The founding fathers wrote in an explicit separation of church and state at a federal level because that's what they wanted. They understood that when

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you blend church and state, it corrupts not only the nation, which they had just separated from a corrupted nation that was utilizing state craft and religion. And they recognized that it also corrupted the religion, which there was

Andrew Wilsonmany issues with the corrupted religion of the Anglican and then Catholic and then Anglican uh Britain British Church. >> No, that's not what happened. What happened first of all, they had not just

Andrew Wilsondone this, okay? They had the Articles of Confederation first. That happened first and what happened is they were just not able to govern as because each state was like a mini

Andrew Wilsonkingdom and they wanted their own currency and their own militaries. Okay. And so for like the common defense, they wanted to have some sort of federalism in order to do this. >> Did they unify under one currency? >> That was one of the primary reasons they

Andrew Wilsonwanted unification was because of a currency. >> So why couldn't they unify under one religion? because uh what you wanted was you wanted to have trade between each state, >> but when you're talking about their

NotSoErudite (Kyla)religions, they were this was uh pan Protestant. So there was no unification there. >> So they were willing to unify on a whole bunch of stuff, but they just couldn't for the life of them figure out a way to unify the religions because they

NotSoErudite (Kyla)actually did want the church and state to be blended. They wanted the church to have weight and say on state craft. They just couldn't write it in at the federal level. So they just let state >> Well, who's the church? >> The church would be the Christian church.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Who? >> The Christian church. >> Who's that? >> The Christian church. >> Who? >> Uh there's multiple branches of it. >> Oh, there are. >> Yep. >> Okay. So because of that, were there multiple branches which had different states they were in?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh probably to some degree, although I imagine a lot of states mostly had a lot of everything. I suspect that a lot of states had >> a lot of them had a lot of one thing. >> Really? >> Really? >> Okay. So there was just like the Quaker state. >> I mean it was mostly brought up like

Andrew Wilsonthat >> the Mormon state but it didn't >> there was some there was some delineation but no. So the thing is no. So the thing is is like look >> uh when you look at it because of pan

Andrew Wilsonpan Protestantism each state independently is going to have their own religion. That had nothing to do with them being able to coordinate trade under one currency. >> So say if one of those states happened to be Muslim do you think that they would have been like woo they get to have their own religion. Do you think

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that would have been okay or >> No, I think I I don't think so. No. >> So, they did want a Christian nation. >> Well, no. I think that they were banking on white immigrants not being not being Muslim. >> Sure. But they probably did want a Christian nation and they had some

Andrew Wilsonfeelings about the Catholics, but they recognized that they were more united than they thought that most of the immigrants coming in would be Western Europeans and so not Muslims. >> Gotcha. So they had no So but say say

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the founding fathers did have an expectation that a lot of that a branch or a sect of paganism was about to be popularized in America. They'd be okay with a state just being some pagan religion, some Nordic pagan religion that a bunch of these white Europeans

Andrew Wilsonwere appealing to. >> There was I don't even think that at that time they could have even indig hypothetically though if there was would they have been okay with that? >> I think that you I don't think there would have been a state federal compromise if that was the case. >> Oh interesting. Why? >> Because I think that the states would

NotSoErudite (Kyla)have been like we're not going to allow a Muslim state. So the federal government would have imposed a religion on them except >> they wouldn't have imposed a religion necessarily. >> They didn't do that. In fact, the federal government explicitly wrote that out. >> That would make my point. >> That would make my point.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> How would it make your point? >> Because if the federal government wouldn't be okay with a Muslim government, then they probably should have written in that you have to be a Christian government in some way. They probably could have found something

Andrew Wilsonconnected amongst all the Christians to ensure racialism. >> Okay. [laughter] If that's what you want to. >> Were they importing a bunch of brown people from Muslim countries when I wasn't looking or something? >> Importing a bunch of black people for

NotSoErudite (Kyla)slaves? Yeah. >> You mean the Christians? [laughter] The ones that they turned into Christians. >> A lot of them had pagan religions and African religions that actually a lot of people. So it >> and then they put them all in churches and made them convert. >> Yeah. Forced them to convert. That

NotSoErudite (Kyla)worked super great. That's awesome. >> Well, whether it worked or not, they still were banking on Christian. Yes. >> Yeah. They were forcing them in. But >> And by the way, they didn't even see blacks as being a people at the time. >> You're right. So why? So one of the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)issues is for example they write about this. They don't want for example uh black people voting because they were some of the states were worried about other religions getting in. >> Yeah. Because a lot of the black people held to pagan religions.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Wait. Okay. Who wrote about this? >> Uh I believe uh I believe this would have been in like Connecticut. There was a bunch of issues specifically in Connecticut around suffrage of women and suffrage of black people.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> When I think like 1818. I don't have it on the top of my head. So long after what we're talking about, >> like 30 years after what we're talking about. >> So long after what we're talking about? >> Not really. I don't know why they really Why would you think that that's not relevant? >> Because what? How would that have any

NotSoErudite (Kyla)relevance? >> Because the founding fathers at the time obviously would have known that the black slaves had their own pagan religion. Wouldn't they be worried, for example, that the slaves? >> Why would they be worried about the slaves?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> They were constantly worried about tyranny of any form. They were constantly worried about select interest groups rising up and taking away power from other people. >> And that's why they put in the three-fifth clause. >> Okay.

Andrew WilsonWait, what? Sorry. What are the three-fifth claws? Why don't you tell me? >> Or is that a pop quiz? >> That that black people only count as three-fifths of the vote, >> right? Oh, three-fifths. I heard I heard a different word. I heard three I didn't

Andrew Wilsonhear three-fifths. >> Yeah. Problem solved. And they were banking on whites coming in from basically western European nations, >> right? So they actually were a little bit worried about black pean tyranny. They just wrote it out of the constitution.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, they were worried about southern states being able to outvote northern states. >> They were worried in general. So this goes back to suffrage, right? If you look, for example, at Hamilton's writing of suffrage, which is really important. It's one of the founding documents. >> I don't know what the [ __ ] this has to do with what we're talking about.

Andrew Wilson>> Voting. >> Yeah. What does this have to do with the fact that you still haven't acknowledged that the whole reason that there was this compromise which happened and that the federal government said from our

Andrew Wilsonperspective we're going to leave this up to the states via the 10th amendment is literally because they wanted to allow the states to to put in whatever religious institutions they wanted. >> Theoretically no religious institutions, right? The federalist

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, they weren't they they they didn't have the perview to tell the states that. >> Yeah. So the federal government would have been opposed. Is that what you're saying? they would have actually been opposed to a secular uh state. Like if a state just got rid of um all the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)religious clauses that it had, they would that be okay. >> Under the purview of the 10th amendment, states could do that. >> Yeah, you're you're right. It's almost like the founding fathers didn't care about blending church and state. They actually cared about separation of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)powers. So if you want to ask me about the suffrage stuff, the reason why the suffrage stuff is relevant is because when they were talking about voting, voting is really important as far as like stakeholders. This is what uh Hamilton Hamilton and Madison talk a lot

NotSoErudite (Kyla)about, right? The voter has to be somebody with a high stakeholder in the country. And they were constantly afraid that votes could get utilized in such a way that select interest groups could tyrannize other interest groups, right? Which is why they had lots of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)separations of power like the separation of church and state >> at the federal level, >> which they cared a lot about >> at the federal level. You're right. The thing not in dispute. >> Yeah. So when we're talking So the thing

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that's in dispute here is I'm saying America and the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state >> at the federal level. >> Yep. >> So what >> uh I think the federal level is pretty important. Is America important? Is

Andrew WilsonAmerica federal? >> It's both. >> So it what it matters what matters more when we're talking the system completely doesn't work unless you have both state. >> Does the federal government have hierarchy over the state? >> No.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. on everything that the federal government has decided has hierarchy over the state. >> Yeah. So the hierarch so the federal government has hierarchy over the state over everything. The federal government has the powers of hierarchy over the state >> has decided to have power. >> So by that same logic does the state have hierarchy over the federal

NotSoErudite (Kyla)government. >> No because if the federal government for example decided to overimpose on the state they would fight it in courts. Technically the federal government has rule. It's obviously >> no that's not the that's not even how the system works. The states perspectively can override the federal

Andrew Wilsongovernment on all sorts of issues. when it comes to the 10th amendment, that's what it's there for. That's that's the separation of powers you're talking about. What you just said was incoherent. If it's the case that the

Andrew Wilsonthat you say the federal government, yes, they have authority over the states based on everything they have the authority over the states with, it's like, sure, but the same thing applies to the state. What you're talking about

Andrew Wilsonwhen you say more or less important, that's not even a coherent question. That wouldn't even be the same system. It would be a completely different system. So, if the federal government decides to go to war and draft people,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)can the states do anything about that? >> Uh, under the current law, I don't think they can. >> Okay. Gotcha. And if the federal government, for example, decided to send the National Guard into Minnesota, have

NotSoErudite (Kyla)they been able to do that? >> Uh, only to federal buildings. Yes. >> Well, there's more than that, but yeah. >> No, where >> the National Guard has been set in to just control riots generally across California. I mean, this year

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> only to federal buildings. I mean they they go into crowds and disperse crowds like outside >> in front of federal buildings. >> Okay. Gotcha. So the government the federal government just can actually impose into a state

Andrew Wilson>> in on federal property >> in like limited ways. Yeah. Of course. >> Can they go in can the federal government go occupy the state building? >> No. >> Okay. Then what the [ __ ] are you talking about?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I'm talking about a hierarchy of two things. Number one, the American ethos. >> Yeah. >> Right. This is where we all started. I was saying the American ethos is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)ingenuity, creation, right? All these things. And you said, "Where is that?" And I said, "Well, in the Declaration of Independence as a start and what the founding fathers values." >> No, I didn't say where is it. I said, "What is it?" >> You also said, "Where?"

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. What is it? >> And okay, I'm not quickly. >> What is the philosophy of it? And you still haven't told me. >> Well, you still haven't told me what an Irish ethos is, cuz all these things are searching. I did. Well, the liberty is the foundational piece.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. So, you're just referring So, liberalism is just a reference back to a system. And if it's just a reference to a system and I can change the first amendment liberalism and I can change the system within the confines of

Andrew Wilsonliberalism, you shouldn't have an objection because if I can change the first amendment, the only thing you would be appealing to that I shouldn't is not the system. It's just your preference. >> Uh, well, I would be appealing to what the American ethos is. Yeah. I I do not think America

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> which is what >> free speech is one of them. Right. The separation of church and state is a second one of them. >> Also amending the constitution is one of them. >> Yeah. With extremely high bar. And what's amazing is that Americans would probably agree with me that it would be

Andrew Wilsonunamerican to remove free speech. Right. >> Unless we're go 20 years in the future where they don't. >> Those people aren't American. >> Okay. Do you think that the >> Wait, do you think most people agree with me that free speech is American? >> Right. At this current moment, sure. Do

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you think most Americans listening would go, "Of course, free speech is American at this current future, 40 years from now, if our childrens don't believe that they they've lost what it means to be America." >> Then how come they didn't have the same reference to it 55 years ago?

Andrew Wilson>> What do you mean? What? >> Yeah. So, how come it wasn't, you know, if we're looking just a hundred years ago, we're talking about things like the first amendment, second amendment, various things like this. You could go into a western town, they could strip you of your guns. That was totally

Andrew Wilsonlegal. That was a violation of the second amendment, right? But the way in legal when you're talking about presentism, >> it was a violation of being America, but they could just physically do it. >> Well, at the time it wasn't ruled as a violation, was it? >> Okay. Gotcha. So, but do you think it's

Andrew Wilsonmore American to have access to guns? >> I think that when you say more American, it's incoherent. And here's why. Of course not. >> You're just focusing on uh what do present people within the liberal system think is American? >> No, I'm I'm actually creating.

Andrew Wilson>> Do you think in 1800 they thought it was very American to let women vote? >> No, probably not. >> Okay. Well, I don't Do you think that right now that if I asked, "Do you want to take the right of women away to vote?" That people would say that that was unamerican. Thank you. Thank you.

Andrew Wilson>> Wait, so do you think Wait, so you're just saying America is nothing. America doesn't mean anything. >> From the liberal perspective, it's just a system. >> No, from your perspective, America. >> Actually, you know what? I guess from my perspective, too, it is the case that

Andrew Wilsonliberalism that the liberal identity, which is America, is just reduced to systems. >> So, America doesn't mean anything to you. I think that it might have if you had something if you had some sort of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)like cultural glue or you had some foundational glue or something that we could appeal to >> distinct American culture that we could point at not just point to but see it historically I did life liberty pursuit of happiness

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> those are slogans >> no these are these are foundational values then how is it that if I change uh so in England do they have life liberty in the pursuit of happiness >> I think they well they don't have those specifically but they do seem to have adopted a lot of liberal things like

Andrew Wilsonfree speech. Uh they have like >> they don't have free speech. [laughter] >> Okay. I'm not getting into UK uh like >> can you you can go to jail for for insulting someone via text message.

Andrew Wilson>> Gotcha. So you would say that English people don't value free speech. >> I'm just asking if they have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. >> I said no, they don't. That's that's they probably have different >> is America the only place that has life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. >> No, I think lots of cultures can have

NotSoErudite (Kyla)overlapping values. Which ones? >> I mean the same way that you just said that the Irish ether >> Just tell me which one. >> No, you stop and answer my question. Which one? >> No, I'm going to answer your question. I am going to answer your question, but I'm going to answer the question the way that I would like to.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> You're not going to answer it. >> Do you just want to have temper tantrum after temper tantrum? >> Answer the question. I'm asking. >> Okay. I'm going to answer your question and then I'm going to have a meta conversation with you because I thought that we were going to have a good faith conversation because it's crazy. My favorite debate that I've ever had was

NotSoErudite (Kyla)with you when we passed a bunch of rules in the hallway. the one where we said, "Would you agree to being good faith?" And you said, "Yes." >> Yeah. The [laughter] So, >> so you're just agreeing that you're being bad faith.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Bri, you know, Brian was there. That's not how the conversation went. >> I said specifically that I was concerned about you making personal attacks about my husband and that you're not going to be good faith. >> Yeah. But here's the thing that's funny about that. I went back and reviewed that conversation, right? It was no

NotSoErudite (Kyla)different the one I'm having with you right now. The only difference is that I'm actually holding you to the things you say. The difference is that in the So for people who are unaware when I say bad faith, I just want to be clear. >> Forget the medical. Answer the question. You offiscated not going to answer it. >> I will answer it afterwards.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> You're just not going to answer. >> No. No. Write it down. >> Just answer the [ __ ] question. >> Write it down and I'll answer it afterwards. You can be an adult. >> That's good faith. Is that good faith? >> Yeah, it is good faith. >> It is good faith. >> Yeah. I said I will answer your question afterwards. Write it down. >> Just where else do they have life,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)liberty, and pursuit of happiness? >> I imagine lots of countries value things like liberty. I think most Western liberal democracies value liberty for example. So, western liberal democracies have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. >> I didn't say life, liberty, and pursuit. I said liberty. >> So, I'm I didn't ask you about liberty.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I asked you about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What other nations have that? >> Uh, for example, so they wouldn't have the exact language, but liberty is held by most Western liberal democracies. Life, for example, is also in some version of the way that they would

NotSoErudite (Kyla)describe it also valued by most Western liberal democracies because America's so great. We kind of set the tone of what the ethos of a western liberal democracy generally looks like. In the same way, for example, that you said the ethos

NotSoErudite (Kyla)between Ireland and Spain is both Catholic and then their different culture. You're doing this like so when here's the sneak I want to finish. The

Andrew Wilsonthing is is you didn't actually tell me if all western nations have just answer your question. >> No, if you say all countries have because you did not say >> all western western

Andrew Wilson>> I said most western liberal democracies share some give me one name. I said Canada. >> Okay. Canada has life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Do they have free speech? >> I said liberty. >> Which I want a country that has life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I didn't say that. Every single country shares every single >> countries share that. >> Yeah. >> Which one? >> So in the case of liberty, >> no. All of them together. >> All of them together in the way that it's phrased is a uniquely American thing. >> So [laughter]

Andrew WilsonSo just to make sure that answer, did you? >> I just want to make sure I got this right. Only America, only in America can you pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >> That's not what I said. And you know that that's not what I'm saying. >> Where else can you do it? >> Now, we're going to have the conversation about good faith versus bad

NotSoErudite (Kyla)faith. So, one of the things that has to happen when you have a good faith conversation is you have to actually try to understand the person. So, >> lecture the chair. I'm going to go off. Perfect. Actually, that's even better. >> Really quick, let me let the two super

SPEAKER_02uh TTS come through while we have you. All right, guys. Uh we have Hail Pope. Thank you. >> Hail Pope donated $200. It's Lent, so I'll be nice. She's

SPEAKER_02confusing the Apostles Creed and the Nyine Creed, which would also be wrong. Neither of those were unanimously accepted by the founders or their states populations. >> Me when I make things up, I guess. Good

Brian Atlasjob, Hail Pope. >> Thank you for your message. We have one more coming through here. Uh, give me just one moment, guys. If you want to get a TTS in, that's streamlabs.com. >> Oh, it triggered.

Brian Atlas>> Hail Pope >> a second time. He's gonna pay double for that. >> You got to send in another one. [laughter] Hail Pope. Thank you. Thank you for Thank you, Kyla. We have uh one coming in from not Professor Dave. We

Brian AtlasThere's a bit of a delay now because the Hail Pope one uh caught up our system. >> Hail Pope. >> Hail Pope. >> He's getting He's raking in all those dollars. >> There. There it is. There it is. But if you guys do want to get a TTS message

SPEAKER_02in, you can do so. Streamlabs.com/ whatever. $199. There it is. Thank you. Not professor Dave donated $200. Two truths, one lie. Attack of God is a

SPEAKER_02social construct with an unverifiable existence. Ran through Rachel Wilson has a double-digit body count. Smoking increases the risk of lung disease and premature death.

Brian Atlas>> I did not. >> That's just in a Rachel attack, >> guys. Rude. >> Don't be rude to Rachel Wilson. Okay. >> Rude. Professor. I sorry. I'm sorry. I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)didn't read it first. >> That's between you and him. >> Can I have a smoke now? >> Yeah. Yeah, of course. >> Okay. >> Of course. >> We can talk a little bit about good faith versus bad faith. >> Are you done your TTS? >> You want Yeah. Yeah. We're all done.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I'm going to talk to the crowd. I mean, I can talk to you, too. Um, so one of the things that you're seeing me get frustrated by is that typically when you have uh good faith engagement, which the previous debate that we had with Andrew, that was one of the requirements that I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)talked about is specifically I was like, I don't really want to just do a debate with somebody who's just bad faith for like 6 hours straight. It's not super enjoyable. So when we say good faith, I just want to be clear when I say somebody's bad faith or good faith, it's not like moral condemnations. People are bad faith all the time. I'm bad faith

NotSoErudite (Kyla)some of the time. He's bad faith some of the time. But good faith typically means you're trying to hear the genuine version or what's reasonable conclu to conclude from what they're saying and grant the and like grant some of their presumptions to build out whether or not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that idea has flesh or not. So what happens though is that Andrew Wilson will often do this technique where he'll kind of straw man and pillary over like a couple of unique words and then refuse to actually understand what I'm

NotSoErudite (Kyla)saying. Right? So the obvious argument that I'm saying is wouldn't it make more sense? It seems a little funny that >> I don't know if it's fair. He can't respond. >> He said, "I got to do it when I want." He said, "I don't want to do this. I'm going to walk away." He didn't grant it.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Right? So, when I say, for example, uh, in the case of States versus Federal, he's saying, "Well, the federal government did want church and state to be united, they just couldn't write it in because they couldn't find a unifying clause of of faith." That's what he's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)saying. And therefore, they allowed it in through uh allowing states to make decisions. But the 10th Amendment doesn't say states should make a religion. It just allowed them to because at the time that the constitution was written almost all

NotSoErudite (Kyla)states had a religious clause for holding office. The issue is that if the federal government wanted who which is absolutely America wanted to establish some sort of uh you don't want to you don't want to be on screen when I say

NotSoErudite (Kyla)this, right? [laughter] I said you don't want to be on screen when I say this. Hey, um >> what do you mean? >> Oh, you just you just swapped it over to >> that's just a better angle. >> Okay. um when uh when there's there

NotSoErudite (Kyla)there's a reasonable argument here to be made of what did the founding fathers intend what was their actual vision and principle because I think it's a pretty good principle and if their principle was they actually wanted no separation of church and state they would have found a way to write it into the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)original constitution even at a federal level but they didn't in fact not only did they not they explicitly wrote it out so just because they allowed states to continue the practice that they rejected at a federal level is not them

NotSoErudite (Kyla)saying we want church and state to United. They said explicitly in both this document and at multiple points throughout the uh Declaration of Independence, especially the original version that TJ wrote that there is a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)strong intention of separation of church and state. This is talked about in the federalist papers. This is something valued by many religious people. And part of why so many religious people, the majority of whom were founding fathers that signed, signed this and

NotSoErudite (Kyla)agreed to the separation of church and state is because they had seen what happened in England. They saw the erasure not just of the state but also of the faith in the in the bonding of these two things which is bad. It's bad for the religion and it's bad for the

Brian Atlasstate. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Good times. Good times. Uh I just wanted to say uh Rachel Wilson if you're watching. I'm very sorry. I apologize

Brian Atlasfor letting that TTS go through. Usually if there's something that's insulting to overly insulting to one of the guests, I will hide it. But that was a mistake. I

Brian Atlasdidn't read the whole thing. I got I got baited and [laughter] I read the first sentence. I was like, "Oh, it's probably pertinent to the discussion." Uh Rachel, if you're watching, sorry, let that one

Brian Atlascome through. I'll have to Andrew is back. Andrew is back. >> Yeah. Why is there confusion? I think >> What do you mean confusion?

Brian Atlas>> There's no confusion. >> I'm I'm not confused. Oh, what do you mean? Uh, I was [clears throat] saying uh apologies for letting that TTS come through. I didn't >> Yeah, he was apologizing to you for the TTS coming through.

Brian Atlas>> I didn't read it prior. I read the first sentence. I was like, it's probably fine. >> Whatever. >> I apologize. So, sorry, Rachel. Guys, Debbie's in the chat for Rachel. Um, shall we switch prompts or do you guys want to continue? We've been on it for

Brian Atlasan hour and 30 minutes. No, >> we can at this point. Let me read you at least before we if you do choose to dive in the other prompts that we do have. Modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity. Sec another prompt,

Brian Atlassecular states are destined to likely revert back to religiously informed governments because atheists have no no moral basis for which to govern. And then the other prompt, Christians should attempt to maintain political power in

Brian Atlasthe US and rule through Christian ethics as it is the superior system, which maybe we talked a bit about in from the first prompt. We've I think that's what the prompts are a little bit like slidy

Brian Atlasbetween them all cuz they're they're decently related. >> Interrelated. Yes. >> Um yeah, but I'm I'm happy to pick up wherever Andrew would like to pick up. >> Andrew, do you have any insight on >> whichever one you want to go with? >> It's up to you, boss.

Andrew Wilson>> Let's do modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity. >> Oh, we're going to the last one. Okay. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, if again, if you guys have a preference over something, >> that one's fine with me. >> Sure. >> So, there are no Christian values in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)modern liberalism. It's just an appeal to a system. Sure, but the system doesn't have to be. So my argument basically say I don't think that Christian uh rule should be utilized as statecraftraft. I think separation of church and state is one of the most

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fundamentally important things not just for a state but more so for a Christian. >> That's an claim. You agree? >> Sure. >> Okay. Were you driving that? >> Uh from my faith. >> So your faith tells you that Christians

Andrew Wilsonshould be liberal. >> No, I said that the separation of church and state. >> So your Christian values tell you that Christians should not be in charge of states. Yeah. >> Okay. And um do you think that Christians who were in charge of states

Andrew Wilsonbefore were wrong? >> Yeah, >> you do. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Which ones? >> Um all the ones that came after Jesus and did it. >> So you you think that historically they just got it all wrong?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. I I think that like if you look for example at like if you I mean we can get into the typological argument here but if you look at like all of the history of the Bible for example um what we see over time is when we go from the Old Testament to New Testament and for

NotSoErudite (Kyla)those cuz I'm not trying to do a pop quiz just for those who are listening that don't know what a typological it's just like a type we're looking at types typically from Old Testament to New Testament it's a pretty standard like apologetics or a theological argument that kids made. So when you look for

NotSoErudite (Kyla)example through the Old Testament, we have multiple periods that I'm sure you would agree to. Judges, kings, priests. Agreed? >> Mhm. >> Okay. So what we see is basically a blending a high blending of of state

NotSoErudite (Kyla)craft and faith that gets reduced over time with the uh final answer of Jesus who actually actively and aggressively rejects statethood, rejects politics, and rejects any kingmanship. In fact,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that's a large reason, not the only reason, but a large reason why the Jews felt that he was not the Messiah is because they didn't see a physical political kingdom unifying um the northern and southern kingdoms.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So, back to the O claim, Christians ought not uh be in charge of governments and government systems. >> It depends on what you mean when you're saying that.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, you said that uh that Christians ought not do that, right? I don't think that Christians should try to push for a blending of church and state. >> Okay. And does state need to be a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)nation? >> When I say state, I mean a nation. >> So how come it's only at the n national level? >> Well, I it would be at the I guess when I say so when I say nation, I guess I should say governmental level. I don't

NotSoErudite (Kyla)want uh and when I say this, I don't mean that Christians can't be a government official. Christians should not impose Christian ethics into rule of law. I have not I don't know I don't haven't thought about tribes

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> but there's governments right >> not really not like meaningful >> why is that not meaningful >> I would not say that anyone who's like a political philosopher would look at a tribe and call that a government usually when we mean government we mean post the invention of the nation

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> what about a nation city >> yeah nation state >> that's not well a nation city let's say >> the city itself >> if there's like a formalized Roman like to some degree like if there's a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)formalized actual government not just like a Sure, potentially. But again, I would need to know what we're talking about here. I need like more specific examples. >> Like you have a city that has 100,000

Andrew Wilsonpeople in it and they they have a government there, right? That government should not uh mix church and state. >> Yeah. They shouldn't rule with Christian ethics as a thing that makes laws.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. What should they rule with? >> Uh consensus. Cuz I like democracy. >> Consensus. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And and more importantly, laws have to be what works. >> And what happens when the consensus says kill babies? >> Well, that would be against like what works, right?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No. >> Yeah. It's a nation is not going to work very well if they kill other babies. >> A nation would work just fine if they kill other people's babies. >> Uh no, cuz that nation would be then a target for probably war, not just from that nation, but probably neighboring

Andrew Wilsonnations because it seems like in general most people have this emergent value of not killing babies. >> Okay. I don't understand. Let's say that for like 100 years a nation kills every third baby that comes up in the nation. It's like overpop populated. So they

NotSoErudite (Kyla)just take a rock and bash its [ __ ] brains in. I don't have China as an example. >> How's that not working? >> Oh, it seems like it was really really bad for China. It seems like it was really bad for the fact that people don't like seeing dead babies cured everywhere. Uh it seems like it crushed

Andrew Wilsontheir population. >> As long as the nation though consents to that. >> Well, it's not just about what the nation consents to, right? >> Yes. You said and your exact words, I wrote them down. They should rule via consent because I like consent because I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)like democracy. >> Yeah. So when I say rule by consent, that doesn't mean that states craftmen aren't imposing laws that are reasonable and work, right? The law is about like what makes a state work. >> Yeah. But there's no contradiction in

Andrew Wilsonhow the state would not work if they killed every third child. >> How would that state logistically work? I feel like that state >> it would work fine. They used to do it all the time. They used to sacrifice children all the time inside of Rome, inside of many states. Sure. And it worked just fine.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, not really. Like I would argue Well, I would argue a lot of the Where are Where are those nation states? >> They lasted a lot longer than America, some of them. >> Where are they?

Andrew Wilson>> Well, are you saying that? So, that's a facious argument. You're saying because this didn't continue in perpetuity, that means it didn't work that I could just say, well, don't you agree that America

Andrew Wilsonas it exists right now is not going to exist in perpetuity? Therefore, it doesn't work. >> Probably because there theoretically and hopefully there'll be better systems that emerge. >> Okay. So, then it doesn't work. >> Uh, by and large, no. Not by what I mean. [laughter] >> What? Okay. So, I just want to make

NotSoErudite (Kyla)sure. >> So, Rome didn't fall, right? Just because of one thing. But when we look at, for example, a nation that kills every third baby. >> Can you grab me another beer while you're up? >> This probably wouldn't work for a number of reasons. Number one, citizens don't like killing their babies. >> But if they did,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> they don't. >> Yeah. But if they did, >> they don't. Yeah, but if they did, >> what what what person enjoys killing their babies? >> Like a pagan nation, let's say. >> I I would basically argue that they don't enjoy killing their babies either. Usually, like even when you look at pagan nations where babies are killed,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)right, often times when you can find evidence for it, the mother of that child, for example, or the father of that child are completely opposed to it. It's usually forced upon them, right? They don't enjoy it necessarily. And usually the child sacrifice was occurring. >> But if there's consensus, what grounds

NotSoErudite (Kyla)would you oppose the consensus? >> What makes the state work best for most of the people? >> Yeah. And most people have now given you consensus that this is working best for us. >> They you can't give consensus that this is working for us. We actually have to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)look at like material like outcomes, right? So for example, how we know that America's law system works pretty well although there are problems is the fact that our military is the strongest, we have the most amount of scientific output, which is awesome, right? That we

NotSoErudite (Kyla)are the number one currency in the world, the largest like thing. So we know, okay, the system that we consentally kind of erected around for the most part works pretty well. It's a pretty competitive system. >> Okay. But that's post hawk. Does do you

Andrew Wilsonagree with me that it takes time for you to gather data on a system which is implemented? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. So we've seen over history. So for 5 years we have a consensus that we kill every third baby and the people

Andrew Wilsongo along with it and they adore it. They think it's great. We don't have the data to show them how wrongheaded they are yet. >> I don't think that would emerge. >> So okay, but it has emerged. >> I I think it's >> But it has No, it has not. >> Yes, it definitely has. There's

Andrew Wilsondefinitely been many nations where they kill their children, including China. So, I don't know what you're talking about, >> but it didn't work. In fact, one of the >> Yeah, it you that's post hawk. That's you post hawking. It didn't work after the fact. We're talking about in the fact >> that's how you develop state

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> in the fact though. >> In when it's happening. >> Yeah. >> What are you appealing to to oppose it? >> Me personally. >> Yeah. >> Oh, me personally. Well, I'm a defined command theorist. I would say that murdering babies is wrong.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay, gotcha. >> Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong >> uh against my morals. Yeah. >> Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of

Andrew Wilsondualism. >> Uh no this is it would be relativism. >> Well d well not really >> not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better. >> Relativistic perhaps but it's this

Andrew Wilsonsounds like dual ethics. >> No it's just relativistic. >> Well why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good. >> Okay, good. So, >> I think it makes the most I think for the most part Well, I can answer you.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> All right, >> breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world

NotSoErudite (Kyla)outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history. >> So the grounds that you would oppose a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right? >> Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it. >> Well, >> the reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. Gotcha. >> Do you think it's wrong to murder babies? >> If there was a consensus Well, yeah, of course. But if there was a consensus, you said that's the thing that we should run things by is by consensus. >> That might become state law. But I'm

NotSoErudite (Kyla)saying to you a I think that would fall out of state law very quickly. And I would probably be a person who would advocate strongly against that state law cuz not all state laws are moral >> based on your morality >> to some degree. But I wouldn't be imposing my morality.

Andrew Wilson>> What if the consensus is that you're not allowed to oppose the consensus? >> Like an authoritarian regime? >> Well, no. That wouldn't be authoritarian. That would be democratic. Uh, how so?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Because you can democratically vote in laws which are oppressive. >> Sorry. So I I feel like you're just making something into democracy that doesn't exist. Could you explain it more?

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. If everybody votes tomorrow in a democracy that Kyla can never say another [ __ ] word or else I don't know, she gets beat to death with a rock. >> I would have due process. >> Okay. Well, the thing is >> and I could argue free speech. That

NotSoErudite (Kyla)violates my amendment. >> Hang on. You didn't say due process. You said consensus is how we should rule. >> Consensus is typically how we select for like electoral people and then electoral people are hopefully although not always

NotSoErudite (Kyla)supposed to be educated in such a way that they can make state craft policies that brings about most good for citizens because I don't think state craft is in and of itself moral. >> Okay. So we're not actually appealing to consensus for how we should run things then.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well to some degree because the stakeholder is the voter. So to some degree you have to appeal to what stakeholders believe. What's preventing what's preventing voters in a liberal democracy from voting in laws which go against your morals?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, I would basically I would argue that God puts like a sense of conscious within each of us. And I don't think that almost anyone actually emerges in such a way that they say it's good to kill babies. I think for example, pagan

NotSoErudite (Kyla)institutions did erect very historically and you will notice that they don't exist anymore because they don't work very well and people don't like them. And I also would argue that they were immoral at the time, right? And so in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the case of state craft, we would use consensus to vote in elected representatives and these elected representatives would impose laws. But if we don't agree with those laws, then we can oust that person. We have federal court.

Andrew Wilson>> That's not my question. My question is what actually prevents inside of a liberal society from people utilizing consensus in order to pass laws which are immoral

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> from your view? >> Immoral from my view? Yeah. >> Nothing. But I don't think that every Wait, I don't think that all of my moral system should be rule of law. >> I understand. >> Do you think that >> all I'm doing is is making sure that I get the that I get it right. >> Can I ask you a question?

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. >> Do you think that >> Before you do, I'm going to interrogate the position. Then you can interrogate mine. >> I would just like to have some back and forth. >> That's the fair way to do it. But the problem is is you just divert. >> Wait, no, that's not true. The the first conversation we had, the first like segment.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I don't care about the meta. Just let me finish the interrogation dropping the meta because you're doing some you're doing like the sneaky bad I want. How's it bad faith to want to interrogate >> I haven't said you can interrogate my position. I said can you wait for a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)second so I can ask you some questions because in the case I was interrogating your worldview with the first prompt. I also allowed you to interrogate my worldview in return. >> Let's let me do the interrogation first and then you can do your second. >> Okay. So do you think that we should

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No. No. I said let me do my interrogation first. You can do your second. I'm saying I would like a back and forth. >> But all that does is derail from the questions I have. >> Uh derails from the dunk that you're trying to lead me into. I understand that it does that. Well, because what

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you're trying to do is to get to some foundational thing of being like, see, it's born on nothing. It's like, okay, Andrew, >> that's what's bad faith. >> Do you want to not allowing your position? >> Everyone knows that this is what's happening. >> Wait, you're So you're saying that your

NotSoErudite (Kyla)position when it's interrogated foundation is going to be incoherent? I would say every single foundation of any worldview normative or meta ethics is unjustifiable. Yes. This is what axioms are. >> Oh, really? >> They all fail a grippa trilm. Yes.

Andrew Wilson>> Because of a grippa trilmma. >> How do you not fail a grippa trillemma? >> Oh, man. That's really weird. What? Tell me again. What does a grippa trillemma say? >> It's dogmatism. All all justification systems fail at a foundational level

NotSoErudite (Kyla)because they will fail in one of three ways or all of three ways. Dogmatism, infinite regression, and circular reasoning. >> Is that position justified? No. >> Okay. So, anyway, back to this. >> Wait, so you run away from a [laughter] gri

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay, but you know what? >> I ran I ran away from it. >> Yeah. >> You just said that a grippa's trilmma is not a justified position. >> Well, what do you mean by justified? >> Well, whatever you mean by it in a grippa trillemma. >> Well, it's a it's an internal critique

NotSoErudite (Kyla)of justification systems. A grippa what do you mean is a grippa trillemma unjustified? It is a philosophical tool that we can utilize to understand that at a foundational level no belief systems. How do you solve a grippa triuth? >> How do you solve a grius

Andrew Wilson>> dilemma? Well, it's self-refuting. This has been known for a thousand years. I don't know if you know this or not. It's a self-refuting. A grippa trilm is self-refuting. If >> so, how do you not engage in dogmatism? >> If all things are axiomatic, right?

Andrew WilsonAssume >> the reduction to a aimatic. Are we making a truth claim? >> Uh, you are making a truth claim. >> Okay. And is that truth claim justified? >> No. >> No. >> Yeah, cuz you assume. Wait, are you not making a truth claim? >> It doesn't matter. >> Of course it does. Are you not making truth claims?

Andrew Wilson>> Oh, wait a second. >> Does your moral system not utilize truth claims? >> Did you posit an argument to me? >> Which was a Grippa's trilmma? >> Yep. >> And was that argument justified? >> Uh, no. >> No. More than any Wait, is your

NotSoErudite (Kyla)arguments justified? >> That What does that have to do with you? >> I'm internally critiquing you this. >> You can internally critique me with your argument. >> How are you not? Yeah. So, I said, "How do you not fail a Gria's trillemma?" And you said, "A Grippa's trilmma doesn't

Andrew Wilsonmatter." That's not how you solve a grippa matter. You said it's unjustified. >> Well, it's self-refuting. >> How is it self-refuting? >> Because if you claim that there you're you're making a truth claim that's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)unjustified, then you're not making a truth claim. >> Sure, you are. >> You're just assuming I guess engages in dogmatism. >> It's not justified. >> Yeah. So, a grippa trillem I suppose engages in dogmatism itself. But how is

Andrew Wilsonit self-refuting? >> You just explained it. >> Every single system is self-refuting them by this law. >> Is that a truth claim? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And does that fail because of a Grippa's trilmma? So, should I take anything you say? Seriously? Because >> give me give me a single truth.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I don't have to make your argument. >> Going to run from this one again. Watch. Give me a single truth claim that doesn't fail a Grippa's trilmma. Go. >> Okay. First of all, back up. Whose argument is this? >> Give me a single truth claim that doesn't fail a Griff. I knew you were

Andrew Wilsongoing to weasel on this one. I'm just going to stay here. >> Okay, stay here. Whose argument is it >> right now? Both of us. We're both Wait a second. >> Are we both having a conversation? I didn't argue that a grippa triillemma is true. You did.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I said it's true in like an assumed way in the way that all things are assumed >> in. >> So, is it true or not? >> Uh, it's true in like a I suppose like Yeah. True in the way that we mean true for everything else that's true. >> What does that mean? >> Well, give me an example.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah, it's not my argument. You don't get to interrogate me for your argument. >> No, no. I'm asking you for a counterfactual to prove. >> I don't need to. It's your argument. >> My argument is nothing is nothing is this thing you're saying. Can you provide me a counter? >> So nothing's true.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I didn't say nothing's true. I said truths are true. Truths are assumed. >> Taies. >> Truths are assumed. Tautology. >> Do you know? Yeah. No. Truths are assumed. They're tautologies. >> Truths are tautologies >> oftentimes at a foundational level.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Yeah. >> Often or are >> so is a grippa trilmma a truth tutology? >> It's not an axiom. It's a philosophical system and it's a philosophical like uh equation how you test your own thinking. So how do you and so okay I'm super

NotSoErudite (Kyla)confused. >> Give me a truth claim that doesn't solve you don't have to make your argument. >> This isn't my argument. My argument is all arguments foundationally will fail a grippa dilemma. >> Okay. So you are making an argument. >> You're saying that's not true.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I didn't say anything like that. I asked you how it was true. >> Wait. So you're agreeing with me that no truth claim. >> I didn't agree with anything. >> So you have those are the options. >> I don't have to do anything. You're making an argument. >> I guess you could be a coward and you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)could run away. >> Cowardice. Do you posit that there's that grippa trilmma is true? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And I'm saying that's assumed because all things are at a foundational level are assumed. And I said, can you give me an example where true? >> Yeah. God is dogmatism. >> Okay. So you think

Andrew Wilson>> assuming God exists is true. >> So when I ask you does God exist and you say yes that's not true. >> It's true and I'm assuming it. >> How is it true? >> Uh it's true because I believe it's

Andrew Wilsontrue. I'm a divine command theorist. >> So okay. So I just want to make sure I got this right. How do you He's just going to run. >> When you when you posit Well, you >> have to pay like 10 bucks to force this question.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> How do you [laughter] posit the arguments and then I I have to answer to the argument? >> So, if I pose an argument and I give you the justification for my argument and it seems like the way that you're acting is that you think that that is incorrect,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)then you have to pose me a counter. So, I said, if I'm wrong, Andrew, you can just prove me wrong like that. Find me a truth claim that isn't fundamentally unjustifiable. >> Go ahead. How do you find me one truth thing that doesn't fail?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> First of all, >> who posits Agrippa's trilmma is true? Andrew or or Aerodite? >> Agria's trilmma uh isn't it? This is like this is like saying youthro Uthifro dilemma is true. Is Uthifro's dilemma

NotSoErudite (Kyla)true? >> Okay. Again, you Why are you asking me questions about your argument? >> Because what you're doing I think you're I can't tell I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand a Grippa's trilmma maybe or if you're being bad faith. Those are the only two. Oh, am I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)being bad faith when you pause an argument and I ask you about it? >> Relax, Andrew. I said there's two options. You genuinely don't understand or you're being bad faith. >> Well, there's a third option, which is maybe you don't understand. >> I do understand how dilemmas work in philos. >> Okay, then let's

Andrew Wilson>> Are trolley problems true? >> If a grippa's trilmma >> is like a trolley problem. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure a grip >> a philosophical test of logic. >> Okay, I got it. So, when you're talking about agria's trillemma, would you have a any criticisms for your for this

Andrew Wilsonargument that you're making? >> I I can't solve it. That's the that's the point of the dilemma. >> Okay. So when you say that the grip when I ask you is a grippa trima true >> I can't solve it. >> Is it true though?

Andrew Wilson>> Is a trolley problem true? Is the fro's dilemma true? What are we doing right now? >> Yeah. I think I think philosophically you can you can say that conclusion is true or false? >> No. No. The agria's trma isn't a conclusion. A grippa's trma is a

Andrew Wilsonproblem. It's a philosophical problem. Is Uthifro's dilemma true? >> Wait wait wait. I'm not talking about I'm talking about a grippa trlemma. Yeah, it's a problem in the same way that you u youthro's dilemma is. >> Okay, so problem is true. >> Walk me through a grippa's dile dilemma.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I'll make sure I understand it. >> Okay, grippa's trilmma posits that no beliefs are justifiable foundationally because they will fail one of three ways. Dogmatism, infinite regression, or circularity. And I'm saying, can you find me an example of a truth claim that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)doesn't fail a grip? >> Well, that sounds like that sounds to me like you're positing propositions in a conclusion. I'm giving you something similar to like a euthifer dilemma or a trolley problem to see if you can solve it logically. >> Yeah. Yeah. But that has nothing to do with with a grippa's trilmma which we're

Andrew Wilsontalking about. So >> it has everything to do with because you're asking if it's true which is like asking me if trolley problems. >> No, it's not. Are trolley problems true? >> If it's a if it's propositional, this sounds like propositional logic to me.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)You're actually giving me premises and a conclusion. Is the conclusion true? >> This is not what's happening. It's a dilemma. Is the Euthifro dilemma true? Well, that's a that's a whole different thing. But I'm talking onetoone comparison. This is the comparison I'm trying to make because I feel like you're not understanding what a dilemma

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is. >> Write it out for me. >> I I don't need to. Do you Wait. How do you solve euththero dilemma or do you think >> right now I just want it written out so I can see if this is a non-propositional problem. >> Okay. I'm just going to write out what I've said.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. >> Okay. All foundational

NotSoErudite (Kyla)beliefs.

Brian Atlas>> Private chat. Nathan, if you want to pull that valuable Yeah. Get get the TTS in here. Make Brian some money. Okay. >> Oh, no. I was going to pull up a Grippa's trilmma. >> Oh, so it's on screen >> so people know what the heck you guys

Brian Atlasare talking about. Uh, go F11 with it. Nathan, do you have it? >> Uh, okay. Can you It also goes by Munchhousen Trillemma. Uh, I guess >> uh I would I would just look up specific

Brian Atlasa Grippo's trilmma. >> Well, scroll down. >> Just finish it while writing it. I want to see if it's proper. >> Scroll down. Yeah, continue. Continue on though. Go ahead. Scroll down. >> Uh, keep going.

Brian AtlasIt says the name. Scroll down. It says so Munchhousen trillemma is also known as a grippa's trilmma. So I guess it's just a different name for it. Scroll back up. >> Yes.

Brian Atlas>> Okay. So I'll read this here. Keep working on this. But the circular argument in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition. The regressive argument in which each proof requires a

Brian Atlasfurther proof at infinitum. The dogmatic argument which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended. >> The trillemma then is having to choose one of the three equally unsatisfying

Andrew Wilsonoptions. >> Hopefully you can read that. >> Sorry if you can't just tell me if you need me to rewrite something. >> Uh circular argument, infinite regression or dogmatism. So then you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)believe in objective truth, right? >> Uh I believe in objective morals. Yeah. And like uh scientific realism. >> Are they objectively true? uh morals. Well, objectively like they exist outside of me.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Is that true? >> Yeah. >> Okay. What makes it true? >> I'm assuming. >> So, is everything you assume true? >> No. But everything I assume is true cuz I'm really good at philosophy. [laughter]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> How do you solve All I'm asking >> has nothing to do with me. >> It does. >> You can't. You don't believe. >> So, here's what's happen. >> How do you solve Uifro dilemma? >> Why does that Why do I need to solve your problem? If I'm posing youthro's dilemma, a philosophical problem, you

Andrew Wilsoncan't go, who's the problem true? That's not that's >> I'm not even asking about that. That's sidestepping the conversation. >> If you if you believe that this is correct, and you also believe that objective morality is correct. >> Yeah. Correct. Correct in the way that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)we're assuming a griffus. Correct in the way that like trolley problems are good at testing. >> So, we're just both making assumptions about everything. >> Everyone is Well, that are your infinitely regressing. Those are your two Well, there's your circular reasoning, which is just tautology. So

Andrew Wilsoneveryone's kind of doing tutology. >> So we're just assuming God. >> Yeah, of course. >> Okay. >> How do you how are you not? >> So all these things all of these things in philosophy are just going down to these three categories for you.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, not these these aren't categories. These are ways in which you're facious. Your thinking is facious. So it's saying all beliefs, all meta ethics, norative frameworks are fundamentally unjustifiable >> because they can't solve for one of these three things. Thank you.

Andrew Wilson>> I see. >> And I'm asking you how do you solve for >> I can't I'm going to adopt it. He's like, "Euthther's dilemma. I don't know. Can't find an answer." >> No, no, no. I'm going to adopt it. You're right. I'm just going to every I'm just going to assume everything's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)true because I assume it. >> That's That's fine. But now >> that's what you said. >> Now you're in line with like So this is one of your issues. >> That's what you said. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that's fine. Welcome to my world. Okay. Yeah. I'm in your world. >> We're based over here. Okay. The issue

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next