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 3 of 9

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is that I wouldn't go to secular people and be like, "You don't have a moral ethical system because it's unjustifiable." Because I already know that mine's unjustifiable. I'm assuming I'm doing dogwatism and they're doing usually infinite regression >> or they're being cowards and they're being like I don't know.

Andrew Wilson>> So then you can't make a justification for why I shouldn't like pull out a machine gun and kill everybody. >> This these are not the same thing. You understand? Yeah. So when I'm talking about foundational beliefs >> pop quiz. What's foundational? Do you know what foundationalism is?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. The it's going to be the pillar in which a belief stands on. >> Yeah. Okay. So not all statements or beliefs for the pop by the way. You're welcome. Well, I don't actually do pop quizzes. They usually ask question style, but go ahead. >> It's not me knowing more information

NotSoErudite (Kyla)than you is not like some some some crazy like maniacal tactic. And in fact, >> when we get to the point where you do, >> this is the issue, Andrew, is it speaks to your insecurity that when I ask you questions about whether or not you know something, I'm asking in genuine good

NotSoErudite (Kyla)faith because they're like esoteric and I don't expect people to know them. But you take it as an insult to like your pride or something like that. Of course, because you think I'm doing something like maniacal when it's like me asking you, "Do you know what a grippers trilma

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is?" isn't to say, "Huh, idiot, you don't know anything about gri won't even talk about philosophy." It's for me to go, "Okay, if you don't, let me explain it to you and then I'm curious how you would reason through it." >> Yeah. I would just reason that I'll

NotSoErudite (Kyla)adopt it and anybody that I decide to impose my will on can't actually say that I'm unjustified. >> Of course, you can. >> How? >> Well, you wouldn't say that your foundations are unjustified, but they would say, for example, here's a list of evidences and arguments as to why I don't think

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, but none of those are justified. They're >> built off of tautologies. >> So what? Everything's built off of tutorials. >> There's no justification. Tell me I can't do anything. >> Wait, do you think math doesn't exist because >> what does that have to do with what we're talking about? >> Math is tautological. >> Oh my god.

Andrew Wilson>> Wait, do you not know that? >> What is the just do you know that math is how can you tell me? You see what I mean? Pop quiz. [laughter] >> Well, I'm doing it now cuz you're just being ridiculous. >> Squirrel brain. Can you tell me?

Andrew Wilson>> I'm pretty focused. Can you tell me tell me how it is then that you can create any justifications that anybody's ever doing anything wrong? >> Logic and reason. You build on top of like tautological axioms that seem reasonable based on kind of assumptions

Andrew Wilsonbut they seem reasonable and you build upon an entire structural of world belief which is what >> none of them are justified >> at a foundational level. No, all beliefs are unjustifiable. >> Well then you you don't >> how do you solve dogmatism when you just

Andrew Wilsontold me then that I can't go to secular people and tell them that their beliefs are unjustified. >> You can't and be co and be consistent. >> So then we should just throw philosophy out. >> No,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> why not? It's not justified >> uh at a rational level. It's just a tautology that we make up >> because people accept tautologies because that's how you think about the world, right? Like math, we just accept tautologies in math. We have to because

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you have no starting point if you don't. So we assume these things and then we build on top of them. And then the beauty of things like math and science in the case of like um you know science realism is you can use math and these things to observe and test and see if you're actually mapping onto the

Andrew Wilsoncorrectness of the world. >> I see. Yeah. So then if I inductive >> So then if I utilize the assumption that God is real, this would >> dogmatism. Yeah. >> Yeah. This would satisfy you because you also use the assumption that God is real.

Andrew Wilson>> I'll just grant it. Of course I always. >> So then if that's if that's the case and we assume that God's real and then we assume God's commands and then we build our case off of that. Yeah. >> That that's justified as justified as something can be.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. >> Okay. Well then I don't know what we're arguing about. We'll just do that. Well, we were arguing because you wouldn't ask for Griffith's dilemma and saying that it wasn't true and coping. >> No, I was asking you if it was true. >> Well, we're arguing this because you were walking me along this thing and

NotSoErudite (Kyla)being like, secular people have no justification for their worldview. And I went, well, we can go there, Andrew, but I'm just going to like jump ahead to a >> trial. I still I still want to get back to the interrogation. >> Okay, but your line of argumentation is going to fall apart because when you go, well, why are you assuming that this is

Andrew Wilsongood? I'll go, we're assuming it. >> Okay, that's fine. But anyway, back to [laughter] Can we get Can we get back to this now? >> Sure. >> Okay. So when we're talking about the issue of secularism, >> yeah, >> or not secularism, I'm sorry,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)liberalism. >> Liberalism is what we're discussing here. >> So we'll pull back up on the notes since we went down that whole train of nonsense. >> It's not nonsense. It's like foundational philosophy, Phil 101. Really, it's kind of important. You like

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to weaponize it for your dumb audience against mean people to like innocent only fans girls to be like see their belief system is justified and it's like no one's name >> a single time when I've done that. uh every time you were on the show. [laughter] >> Yeah. So, give me you got do you have

NotSoErudite (Kyla)one? >> Uh yeah. When you debate any secular person, when you debated Charlie, when you debate Destiny, when you debated Nimo, when you debated Zeno, when you debated like etc etc. >> No, my argument is actually your belief system's unjustifiable. That's a that's

Andrew Wilsona dire thing. Your your beliefs are I do the opposite. I start at the end. I just say if it's the case that it's just preferences, then you have absolutely no criticism for me imposing mine. Uh well most most secular people if they're good

NotSoErudite (Kyla)on philosophy wouldn't say well it's not just preferences right it's it's some mixture of like we use if they're utilitarian they would use utiles preferences >> not really these are like there's no more preferences than you preferring God

Andrew Wilson>> that's my point >> but then all of this is empty >> that's right >> so your arguments wait but then you have to grant that your arguments are just as empty as theirs >> if that's the case then you would have no room to criticize me for imposing my preferences

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> sure we could because then we could just use reason and logic and evidence of what seems to benefit people. >> Your preferences prefer >> I think it's reasonable to assume that I prefer that what like people are well that people experience less harm, right?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I think that's a reasonable preference to have cuz I want it. >> Then it's perfectly reasonable for me to say no. >> I didn't say it's unreasonable. >> Then there's nothing to argue there >> because you're insisting that they're unjustifiable while you are and I'm

NotSoErudite (Kyla)saying no, you're all unjustifiable, but both are actually reasonable. You can have your Christian preferences, but as a Christian, I'm fighting you and saying, "Actually, your preferences are icky and bad for the faith. Don't do it." Also, Jesus wasn't political, so you're kind of going against what Jesus

Andrew Wilsontaught. Also bad to do. >> Okay. So, then back to this when we're talking about liberalism and the system of liberalism and you're appealing to consensus, right? If the consensus is that they want to kill every third baby,

Andrew Wilsonwhich is just part of their like preferences, man, and they assume that it's fine, you don't you can't actually critique that then. >> Of course you can. We do it all the time >> with what?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh you could use util utilitarianism and you could say actually killing babies is bad because it makes a worse world. It harms that specific baby. It probably also harms the mother, which would actually decrease the amount of flourishing and increase the amount of harm, which is why I think it would be bad to do. That's what a utilitarian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)could say >> and then say, "But you would say that that >> God doesn't like it when you kill babies unless he orders you to do it like in the >> Malachites." And which one of you is right? >> Well, we would have to fight. I mean, the issue is like we have to assume at the end of >> fight, right?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. And I would go, I think my argument is more reasonable. I wouldn't say my argument is more justifiable at a foundational level. This is what you do. You try to say, "My beliefs are foundationally justified and yours are not, which is why I'm reasonable and you're not." It's like, that's not true.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Actually, I do the opposite. I start at the end of the argument and say, "I agree with you. It's all practice. >> Just because you the like chronology of how you get there is different. It doesn't change that this is the tactic that you typically utilize when you debate people. >> Listen, I'm doing the same thing with

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you. We're at the end now. >> Yeah. You're like I start at the end and I walk people all the way back to >> a I'm just asking >> and then I go see how silly this is. I'm not silly. And I'm saying [clears throat] you're just as unjustified as

Andrew Wilsona single question here which is that reason and consensus when you're talking about consensus that that's how you want things to be, right? Well, no. This is not an ought. Like a consensus isn't an aught. I think it's the best system

Andrew Wilsonthat's arrived so far. >> So when I asked you a better one, >> when I asked you earlier, this is an ugh and you said yes. That's not the case. >> Uh well, there's a second part to what I was saying, I believe, at the time. >> No, I asked you is consensus how we ought do how Christians ought do things.

Andrew WilsonYou said yes. >> No, I didn't. >> Yes, you did. >> No, >> I specifically wrote it down. >> If I did, I didn't mean it. >> You didn't? >> No, I should have clarified. What do you actually want to ask here? >> Yeah. So I want to just ask you about

NotSoErudite (Kyla)consensus. So if if they want to kill every third baby >> okay >> I would oppose this. >> Yeah. But why would they be actually wrong? >> Uh I would for example I would in the case of a pagan I would probably appeal

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to their own moral system. I think that most people for example I believe you probably believe this too that God gives us conscious right. He like puts a spirit inside of us that um God's uh metaethical system emerges naturally out

NotSoErudite (Kyla)of us right? So like what I would do for example is I would probably first of all try to examine that pagan's belief system and I would be like do you actually think killing babies is okay right I would I would I would actually morally question them and one of the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)issues is that this is unobservable we can't truly know whether somebody thinks something is wrong or right but I think the knowledge of wrong or right is really important kind of biblical one might even say so I would question whether or not they know it's wrong or

NotSoErudite (Kyla)right and then I would appeal to things like state so like civic ethic civic ethics for example it doesn't work very well in nations to kill every third baby. You're just reducing your population. Usually the mothers don't like it. Usually the fathers don't like

NotSoErudite (Kyla)it. Doesn't seem to have any good outcome. In fact, most the reasons why people in the past killed babies was to satisfy some sun god. And we would go that's not an overly reasonable argument. It's probably more reasonable to say we shouldn't kill babies. That seems more reasonable. So I could appeal

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to them within their own worldview of secularism or their own worldview of paganism. >> Sure. And they say, "Fuck you. We don't care." >> Are they in my state? >> Uh, no. They're in another country. >> Yeah. I'm just asking why they're wrong.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)[clears throat] Why they're doing something wrong? >> Why they're doing something wrong? >> Why is that wrong? Yeah. >> Because I think it's immoral to kill babies. >> Why? >> Because I think God doesn't like you to kill babies unless he orders it. Like in the Malik. >> Because he assumed you assumed that. >> I assumed God. Yep. >> You assumed it. And so they assume that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, I'm assuming God. Yeah. >> So they assume not God. >> Yep. >> And so they come to you and say, "Well, you're just assuming this anyway." >> And I would say, "So are you." >> And then they would say, "Good. We're going to go back to killing babies." And the problem with that is what? say, "I'm going to use my language and quill to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)convince you that you're wrong and that there's a more compelling and better way to live, and I'm going to appeal to the spirit that I think God puts into all of us to try to pull out of you the fact that murder is actually really bad." >> So, if a Christian nationalist does that within a liberal system, they're not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)doing anything wrong. >> Um, yeah. So, you guys can try to compel people to Christianity, but my issue isn't >> No, we can compel you to we can compel ourselves to the will of the state. Why not? What's wrong with that?

Andrew Wilson>> You just I don't know what you're saying right now. If if Christians take over the entire state, rewrite the entirety of the Constitution within your liberal framework, >> they can in the liberal framework, but as a Christian, I think that they're being uncristian by doing so. >> Yeah, but who cares? You're just assuming it. >> U God cares, and I'm assuming that we're

NotSoErudite (Kyla)all Christian. >> Yeah, but I assume God doesn't care. >> Uh I I would question your Christian theology. >> Oh, why? I just assumed it. >> Scripture. Do you think that like logic, reason, evidence, scripture doesn't exist outside of like foundations?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> It doesn't matter. What matters is what I assume. How would scripture not [clears throat] matter when I'm talking to fellow >> because I just assume things? >> Well, no. You don't just assume things. You're not >> you're equivocating again. So, what

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you're doing? Because you're saying assuming at a foundational. So, when I say assume, I mean at a foundational axiomatic level. That is not the same thing. >> My is that I'm always right >> about everything. Why can't it be an axiom? >> Because it's not talogical.

Andrew Wilson[laughter] >> I'm right because I'm right. That's a tautology. >> Yeah. Now you're now I can go I don't think that's justified and then I would prove you wrong. >> Okay, but who cares? You you just said nothing's justified. >> Sorry. Are we just doing like nihilism

NotSoErudite (Kyla)warp tour? Nobody should care. Nobody should care about you granted me that even at Christianity you granted me that your worldview is just as un uh like unimportant. So how do you make people care? >> Because that makes my point actually.

Andrew Wilson>> So you're hands off. You're like ah none of it matters. My system is just as if it is the case. Now I at least understand what you're saying. So great. If it's the case, >> took uh two hours and 15 minutes, let them get

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. If it's the case that we're just assuming the worldview at a foundational level and it's an axiom, I'm right cuz I'm right. Now we have a tautology, then there's actually no good reason for me

NotSoErudite (Kyla)not to assume that I'm just right about reforming liberalism after my own image. >> So reason can be includes things like inductive and deductive logic. This is the stuff that we build off of our axioms, right? >> Can

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> well that's what we do. That's what all philosophical systems are. That's what you do. That's what I do. >> Well, that's an assumption. [laughter] >> This is crazy >> because foundationally you're assuming it, right? >> Oh, yeah. You're right, Andrew.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Everything doesn't matter anything at all. And in fact, everything that you say doesn't matter and none of your systems are justified and it's all just arbitrary and silly. So then that's what you're saying too >> by your view. Yeah. >> No, no, no. You granted my view. You

NotSoErudite (Kyla)said, "I'll grant you a grip." >> Yeah. That would This is our view now, baby. You said you're joining me. You're in the agrifterm acceptance state. Okay. >> In fact, then if that's the case, >> you're just as arbitrary and just as stupid and we can't assume anything. >> So So if that's the case,

Andrew Wilson>> we shouldn't talk about anything. Why are we here? Let each other finish, please. >> So I just want to know. >> Well, you're in my world. How are you solving that now? >> What would the argument What What now is the argument >> for me to impose Christian nationalism? >> Let me ask that to you. What's your argument for it?

Andrew Wilson>> Cuz I want to. >> You're just assuming that. >> Yeah. But that you're just assuming >> that it's a tautology. That doesn't make it right. >> Exactly. So it's fine to do. So, why are you saying that it's an ought statement? >> Wait a second. I'm assuming, right?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. So, why is it an ought statement? >> Because I want it to be. Cuz I assume it. >> Okay. So, your your system is wholly unjustifiable. There's no reason why Christians should do it. They're just like moving on violence. >> And there's no reason for Christians not to do it. >> Okay.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Right. >> Uh I So, I believe in a I'm a foundationalist. So, I believe in >> Yeah. But you assume your foundations can't be justified. >> Everyone assumes foundations. You've already granted me this. Then if that's the case then who cares what your foundation is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> in philosophy we typically ground foundations to some extent. >> We don't do anything in philosophy. I don't know what you do with philosophy but >> okay Mr. Philosopher in in uh any level of respected philosophy we assume >> which respected philosophers are you are

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you uh are you >> referencing Plato Socrates uh what are some modern ones that I can think of? >> What did Socrates Socrates assumed that you couldn't justify anything? Well, no.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)What he Well, sort of. What we do is we grant assumptions because we understand that at a foundational level, they're all unjustified. >> All you did was destroy the possibility for there to be objective morality. That's it. >> Nope. Because I think God exists.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. But you just assume it. >> So, but non-Christians also assume that he doesn't exist. >> Yeah. So, then if they have an anti-moral realist position, you >> I would use logic and reason to compel them as to why I'm correct. >> Okay. Let's assume for a second I'm a

Andrew Wilsonmoral anti-realist. Mhm. >> Use logic and and reason to compel me when you tell me that your whole worldview is just assumed. >> Sorry, [laughter] you really love that assumed word. Can you rephrase that in a

Andrew Wilsonway that's coherent? >> That was coherent, but I'll do it again. >> Let's assume it wasn't >> foundationally. >> Let's assume. >> I'm a moral anti-realist. Okay. >> Your moral foundations are assumed. >> Mhm. >> And not justified. >> And I would say, how do you solve a grippers trilm?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, no, no, no. You told me the moral anti-realist that. >> Yeah. And then the anti-realist goes, "Well, your opinions are just assumed, right?" And I go, "Yeah, how do you solve a group of >> Why would they need to? They're anti-realists."

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So even even >> you just destroyed the possibility for objective morality, everyone. >> No, I didn't. No, even subjectivists fail a grippers. They fail by infinite regression. >> Okay. Again, who [laughter] cares?

Andrew Wilson>> You forgot about that one, didn't you? >> That doesn't hurt my argument. >> Yes, it does. I if I'm an anti-realist, a moral anti-realist, I say there are no moral facts and I that is completely and totally in line with a gria's trilmma.

Andrew Wilson>> Uh so a group of trilmma would say how do you solve for infinite regression? >> Why would I need to? >> Because it's a fallacy. [laughter] >> So thinking is a fallacy. >> No, infinite regression is a fallacy. >> Okay, but everything's going to reduce

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to infinite to an infinite regress, right? >> So what's comes before thinking? >> Well, that's that would be transcendentals would come before thinking. Okay. What comes before that? >> Well, we would make the justification of God, right? >> So, you assuming So, no secular

NotSoErudite (Kyla)anti-realist you. >> No, not me. >> You don't assume God. >> I do assume God, but we were talking about moralist. Andrew, respectfully, we should probably I don't think you're ready for this conversation. I don't think

Andrew Wilson>> No, I'm having a good time with this one. I just want to make sure that me, the moral anti-realist, >> right, that you are telling me that objective morality is real, right? Mhm. And I would use reason and logic and

NotSoErudite (Kyla)argumentation and I would build off of my foundational axioms that a good faith moral anti-realist would just grant me. So they'd be like, "Well, why do you believe God?" And I'm like, "I just assume him." And they're like, "Okay, well, I can't really contend with that. It's just assumed." And then I build my entire case for why I think morals are

NotSoErudite (Kyla)rejected because I think God instilled them outside of us and that they are in every person. And I say, "You can see this in the universal ways in which morals consistently emerge. We see this trajectory of humankind moving towards greater and greater moral systems, right? free speech and respecting one

NotSoErudite (Kyla)another and treating everyone kindly. And what you'll notice most importantly is not only are those morals objective, but they're the Christian ones because God is real. My God specifically is real. That's how I would do that argumentation. >> Okay. So, are there moral facts?

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. Yes. >> That and are they just assumed? >> Uh yeah, at a foundational level. >> Okay. So then any moral facts that I assume at a foundational level are equivalent to any moral facts you assume

NotSoErudite (Kyla)at a foundational level? >> No, not equivalent. I didn't say these are all equivocal. >> What would make them different? >> My my use of inductive and deductive logic is better. I use better reason. I have more evidence for my >> better. Hang on. What does better mean here?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Better means like more coherent, more consistent. Like >> why is that better? >> Uh because it seems to produce uh better thinking. It seems to uh >> That's a tutology. >> Yes. >> It's better because it's better. >> Yeah. Tautologies. Welcome to Welcome to

Andrew Wilson>> Philosophy. So So then I just want to make sure. So, so you're just going to endlessly be in a case of infinite regress and tutology. >> Sweet of you. I appreciate that. >> And then and then there's no moral facts or just assume. >> Just let me pour my energy drink to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Brian respectfully and then we'll get back into you really struggling with philosophy. >> Oh, I'm having I'm having a struggle. That's true. >> You are. [laughter] >> It's very This has been very difficult

NotSoErudite (Kyla)for me. I agree. I mean, hey, you've at least accepted my the reality that your beliefs are just as unjustified as everyone else that you mock, which is great. >> So, might makes right.

Andrew Wilson>> No. >> Yeah, it does. [laughter] >> Yes, it Why wouldn't it? >> Uh because of things like coercive power versus legitimate authority. >> Who cares about that [ __ ] You're just assuming it. >> No. So, again, >> just at its foundation, whatever

NotSoErudite (Kyla)arguments you have, >> like all of this around me just doesn't exist because I'm assuming it. >> Wait, wait, wait. material things. >> Yeah. >> Is philosophy material? >> Yeah, it can be. >> How >> pragmatism is often >> how >> pragmatism is often interested in like

NotSoErudite (Kyla)material effects. >> That's not material. >> That's you're just saying what it's >> I am so sorry. >> Hold on. >> Party foul. Uh >> you were so sweet to remind me and then I destroyed your tech. Did we get all

Brian Atlasthe tech out of the way? >> Uh can we get paper towels? Yeah. Just uh pass them to Kyla there. Little spillage. It's okay here. No, no, no. It's all good. We I'll I'll take care of it. You guys continue with the debate. It's all good. Don't worry about

Brian Atlasit. I'll No, it's all good. >> Let's get on your stream deck first, though, so it doesn't get any worse. >> Yeah. Yeah. Here, let me take care of it, though. You guys can continue on with the conversation. It's all good. It's all good. >> I'm so sorry about that. >> It's okay. I'll continue. >> So,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> when I knocked that over, did that happen materially or did we just all assume that it happened? >> Well, I would say that that happened in material reality. >> Oh, and so, how do we think about that? like how do we decide that actually it fell because of gravity versus like God

Andrew Wilsontrying to push it down? >> Uh we would probably run an experiment or something like that. >> Yeah, we would use like reason and logic to build up a belief system. >> Well, the thing is though is like

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> that wouldn't make philosophy material. >> So not all of philos so philosophy like the uh art of loving wisdom isn't material but it commentates on material as well. >> Yeah. But you just said it was material. >> Well parts of it can be material. Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> Which parts? the the part that is your brain thinking about things. >> Is your brain not material? >> Okay. So, is the philosophy itself material >> or is the brain material?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> The brain's material. >> Okay. So, then not the philosophy again. >> I don't know why you think that this is a dunk. Um saying that I said philosophy can engage in the material. Of course, >> but you you said >> and then I said, for example, one of the schools is pragmatism.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, but that's not material. >> Sure. Okay. >> Okay. >> You win. That's all. >> You're so smart, Andrew. You got me. I don't know. No. Hey, you're way better at this than me. Help me out, though. Um I'm actually fine. Uh kind of staying right here.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So, you accept that your belief system is just as unjustifiable. >> Oh, sure. Especially for the purpose of this conversation. >> No, no, not for the purpose of this conversation. Don't be like bad faith and it is bad faith to presume things that you don't actually believe. Don't

NotSoErudite (Kyla)purport Do not do not purport to me that you believe in things that you don't believe. That is definitionally bad faith >> uh by self-d delusion or selfdeception or in this case explicit deception saying yeah I believe this and it's like no you don't you literally don't >> got it

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> or do you >> do I what >> do you believe that agria's trilmma means that all >> one you convinced me >> okay so now I I'm not I don't know what to do with this I guess falling into snark is your way of solving your bad philosophy

Andrew Wilson>> how am I falling into some snark >> because you are either being genuine >> you convinced me >> I'm rude [clears throat] >> you convinced me all moral moral foundations are completely unjustified. And since all moral foundations are

Andrew Wilsoncompletely unjustified, any facts we build off of those are not going to be justified. >> Uh well, they're not going to be exematically justified, but they can be reasonable and coherent. >> So it's still they're still unjustified. >> Yeah, but we seem to like value these

Andrew Wilsonthings that seems to produce good outcomes. >> You could never say we seem we seem we seem it seems to me like I that men could collectivize and just beat the [ __ ] out of women, stuff them in cages, too. That seems to me like a possibility. Sure. The issue is that

Andrew Wilson>> what would the There's no >> other men wouldn't like that because men are a class. >> A lot of men would love it. They did it for years. Half the world enslaves half the women. What do you mean? >> Okay. Men also freed a lot of women, right? >> And they also enslave them. >> Okay.

Andrew Wilson>> And so who cares? It's like if that's the case, if all it is is a reduction to the idea that there are no moral facts, >> things that are unjustifiable does not mean that things don't matter. >> Well, it means that there's no moral facts.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, it doesn't. >> Yes, it does. No, because you have to assume. >> You're assuming there's moral facts. >> Do you know what a fact is? >> Yeah. >> What is it? >> A fact is uh something that is real and true. >> Okay. So, you're making a truth claim? >> Yeah. I'm making a truth claim that God

NotSoErudite (Kyla)exists >> and that he has made a real objective world with real objective moral systems. Are you not doing the same? You're assuming it. >> Are you not doing the same? >> I am. I'm I'm here, baby. I'm right here with you. >> So, what do you think that you can't

Andrew Wilsonstate moral facts now? I think that anything that I would state as being a moral fact now becomes unjustified. And since it's unjustified, I can do whatever the [ __ ] I want. >> Okay?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> And there can be no actual objection to that now. We've destroyed we've destroyed all possibility for objective morality now. >> No, because people have accepted that trilmma exists for a long time and we still object one another because whether

Andrew Wilsonor not So you and I assume the same >> those aren't moral facts anymore. You don't have moral facts. You just have assumptions. Sure you do. Because God exists, we're assuming that God exist. >> No, no, no. That's an assumption. >> It has to be. >> Then if it is and has to be, there are

Andrew Wilsonno moral facts. >> Nope. That's incorrect because we're assuming moral objectivity. >> Okay. Give me a stance independent reason for the existence of God. >> Sorry. A stance independent of reason. >> Stance independent reason. Sir,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I don't know what that means. Sorry. >> So give me other than because Aerodite believes it, God is real. >> Um, yeah. So I'm kind of a Thomasist in this way. I think that like God demonstrates and shows himself in every part of the world. I think that he is in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the design of the the trees and >> that's a stance. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I need a stance independent reason. >> So all right. So you want me to not use any logic or reason for >> just something outside of you which

NotSoErudite (Kyla)would demonstrate this. >> Uh the Cambrian explosion >> that Okay. And that demonstrates God. >> I think it does. Yeah. >> Okay. And that's a stance independent reason. >> Yeah. Because the Camrian explosion

Andrew Wilsonliterally happened. >> So therefore it's a stance independent reason. >> Yeah. >> Are you sure? >> Sure. >> Okay. I just want to make sure. So your stance independent reason is there's an explosion and that proves God. >> I think that's one of the proofs. Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. Got it. And that's not your stance of that. >> Uh you're just doing like word games now. >> No. >> You are. >> Nope. I'm just asking for a stance independent reason. >> So how do you how do you >> But it does has nothing to do with me.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> We get to do like >> I I'm with you. There are no stance independent reasons for God. >> Okay. So, what you're doing, I guess I need to just be meta again cuz we can't engage in any [ __ ] substance in this conversation. >> This is the most substantive it's been.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> It's literally not substance for you to go, um, I guess I'm assuming the same thing as you. So, you're just assuming and you're just assuming and you're just assuming and reason and logic don't exist. It's like, no, of course reason and logic exists. I would object. >> Where do they exist?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Um, out there. You can. But mathematies, humans don't create mathtologies. They exist regardless of whether or not I want to engage with them. >> Where? >> 2 plus 2 equals 4 always. Where >> out there? >> Where's there? >> Two ducks and two ducks equals four ducks.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah, but where's that? >> Uh the material world >> in the material world. >> This is what I mean, by the way, when I say that he's just trying to do word games now. Cuz >> how is it a word game? >> It's necessarily a word game because everything that I am saying is completely reasonable, coherent. You're just trying to make it seem absurd.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)That's what you're attempting to >> How am I making anything seem absurd? >> This is obviously what you're attempting to do because you a will not allow me to internally critique you in return and show the audience. For example, >> I you convinced me. What do you mean? No, you're I have not convinced you and

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I'll I'll just take it. I'll just grant that I've convinced you. But but you're not letting me internally critique you now. >> Go ahead. Internally critique me. >> Okay. So, how do you uh believe like why do you believe in God? Why do you think what do you think is good? >> Because I assume him. >> Okay. But why do you assume that it's good?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Because I assume it. >> So, you just assume it. >> Yeah. >> So, it's just preference. Yes. >> So, nothing there's no like uh moral objective fact. Correct. >> So, you don't believe in any moral objectivity? Yeah. >> Okay. So, when other Christians insist that there's moral objectivity, what would you say to those Christians? I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)would say that they're wrong. >> Oh, okay. Is that what you're actually going to say to people going forward? >> Of course. >> Okay. So, you're looking at the counter right now and you're telling all of your Christian followers that >> has convinced me that the Christian position is that there are no moral

NotSoErudite (Kyla)facts. Yes. >> Okay. Wow. Um I don't believe that there's no moral facts, but that's fine that you Yeah, I assume that there are. >> Oh, and be you assume that there's moral facts. >> Yeah.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So, therefore, there are >> um by the word games that you're playing now. Sure. So you assume that there's moral facts. So therefore there's moral facts. >> Um I believe that God is real. I assume God is real and I don't think that God lies.

Andrew Wilson>> So you believe that there's moral facts. >> Mhm. >> Because you believe there's moral facts. >> Mhm. And I have evidence for that. >> What? >> Uh math. >> Math has is an evidence of a moral fact. >> Mhm. >> How? >> Because it exists outside of us. >> How would that be evidence of a moral

Andrew Wilsonfact? >> Because something that's objective has to occur outside of my mind. So regardless of >> how would that show a moral fact though? Even if you could demonstrate math occurred uh outside of the human mind. >> We were talking about facts but sure in a in the case of like a moral fact I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)would point to say for example emergent universal values seems like over time universally what has emerged as people valuing sanctity of life and I think that that comes from God because I think God is good. >> Okay, got it. But that's just an assumption, right?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Um that one >> energy. >> Thank you so much. >> How would that be a moral fact if the foundation's assumed? Um because you can build on top of your axioms.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, sure. [clears throat] But they're just assumed. So how could it be a fact? >> Uh because I think that God objectively exists. >> Yeah, but that's just assumed. Again, >> how do you solve this? >> How could that be a moral? I just told you I'm a Christian now a Christian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)moral anti-realist. You convinced me of that through your argumentation. >> So I think facts exist and I can point to evidences like math, like tautologies. >> Yeah, but that doesn't prove that there's moral facts. to talk. So I think there are also moral facts like uh kindness is good.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> How is that a moral fact? >> Because I think that no matter where you look, kindness is viewed as good. We appreciate kindness. Um I think that it is something that God decrees >> if if everywhere you looked people were like molesting children. Would that then

Andrew Wilsonbe a moral fact that you should do that? >> No. Andrew, are you tracking this conversation? >> I'm trying to. >> And why then why would you ask that question? Because when you just say I observe that that people some people reciprocate kindness. That doesn't demonstrate how kindness is a moral fact.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I didn't say that some people reciprocate kindness. I said that kindness seems to emerge as a value overall. And I think that God specifically likes things like >> so kindness is an emergent property >> of uh God's will. Yeah. >> Okay. How is kindness a moral fact? You

NotSoErudite (Kyla)ought be kind >> because God decrees it. >> But you just said God's assumed. >> Yeah. You have to assume God at some point. But I think that he's objective. So then if you assume God, >> look, you're the you're the Christian anti-realist. I'm not. >> Yeah. But you haven't you haven't told

NotSoErudite (Kyla)me why I'm wrong. >> Yeah. So I believe in God because of a process mostly of like personal experience, right? He has shown himself to me, which is why I assume this preference of God is a fact. You're saying I well if I can't prove God, I guess what do you think he doesn't

Andrew Wilsonexist? >> Well, no. I just don't think that there's any moral facts because we're operating assumption. >> That could be a moral fact, right? >> No, that wouldn't be a fact. So you don't think God exists. >> Those would be when you're talking about

Andrew Wilsonuniversals like moral facts, right? You're saying that this is indeed universally always true. >> No, that's an thing as a moral fact. >> Okay. What's a moral fact? >> So a moral fact would be something like justice exists and we can >> that would be a universal claim

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> outside of us. Yes. >> That's a universal claim. >> No, that's not an absolute claim. That's a >> I didn't say absolute. I said universal. >> Yeah, universal is the same thing as absolute, right? So the way [laughter] Well, hold on. the way that justice looks in different contexts are

Andrew Wilsondifferent, right? Justice in the case of somebody >> different contexts are different. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I was a little like redundant when I said that, but yes, the the point still stands. >> Okay. So, I'm I'm confused. You need another beer.

Andrew Wilson>> When you say justice exists, >> are you saying that justice you're saying that's not a universal claim? >> Um, I'm going to put this as far away from my pen as possible. >> Keep it Keep it far [laughter] away. Keep it far away. >> Say that again. >> A moral a moral fact would be universal,

Andrew Wilsonwouldn't it? Uh, nope. >> Then how would it be a fact? >> Because something can be objective and relative. >> Welcome to Aristotle. >> Okay, so help me out here. When you say something is a moral fact, what does that mean?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> What I mean is that God created it. Um, and it exists outside of us because >> and people adhere to what God says. >> H >> and ought people adhere to what God says. >> Ideally, yeah, I would like that. But they don't all agree with God. >> Okay. >> But my preference is God obviously.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. But it is a moral fact that they ought to. >> Um, yeah. based on your assumption of God. >> Okay. >> So I I just don't understand how we got to understand how we get to you're

NotSoErudite (Kyla)making that very clear that you >> how do we get to moral realism from this? >> Okay. Because I think God is true. >> Do you think God is true? >> Sure. >> Do you think God exists outside of you? >> Sure. >> If you didn't exist, God would still exist. >> I think that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Me too. >> Great.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> There's there's your first that's your understand though how we get to moral realism. >> Well, because if God then says um love exists >> Yeah. >> Okay. then love must exist because God said love exists. So our axiom is God

NotSoErudite (Kyla)exists >> and from that God says love exists. So unless we think God is a deceiver which would be a different belief system but you and I don't think that we think God is telling the truth then love exists. But the way love looks hard to know. We

NotSoErudite (Kyla)have to do a little bit more work to figure out what love looks like. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Like what does loving how are we getting to moral facts though? >> Love is a moral fact. >> How? >> Uh because it's based because God says

Andrew Wilsonthat love is good. Okay. So the thing that you assume becomes a fact because you assume it. >> Well, it's a fact because God part of the assumption is that God exists outside of me.

Andrew Wilson>> So you assume God and so therefore because you assume God now we have actual moral realism. >> I assume the existence of God. Correct. Yes. >> So if somebody assumes not God, >> then I would fight with them.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. I get that you would oppose that, but you How do you do that with an unjustified axiom? reason. >> Yeah. [laughter] Reason. Yeah. Why? If reason reduces, >> you think reason just stops existing

Andrew Wilsonbecause exist? >> If reason reduces down to cannot be justified, then why do I care? If we're when we get to your pillar, you just say cuz I assumed it. >> I'd say it's obvious that you care, man.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Look in your soul. God put it there. You do care. You do care. >> Gotcha. >> That's why we're all here. That's why we're talking about what's right or wrong. Is every human has this universal predilction to seek right and wrongness. And in fact, even when moral anti-realists insist that there's no

NotSoErudite (Kyla)such thing as truly right or wrong, and they insist on these things, the moment that you put them in a pragmatic situ situation where they have to act as though that's true, they don't. They act as though moral facts exist. And that would be my evidence of saying, see, moral facts do exist. I'm more right than you are. I'm more reasonable than you are. My argument is more compelling

Andrew Wilsonthan >> so it just comes down to what most people would do. >> Nope. Well, if it's a moral fact and you say most people would just do this thing and so it seems like an emergent property back. Do you think that God put his spirit in us?

Andrew Wilson>> That's your view. >> I'm asking do you agree? >> Why does it have to do with me? >> Cuz I'm assuming that we both agree to this. >> I'm saying there's no moral facts at all. There can't be because any pillar I have to base them on is completely

Andrew Wilsonunjustified. >> So you don't think God exists? >> No. I if I assume that God exists, >> right? And this is my and then I assume that assumptions cannot be justified. >> Well, one of your prompts, what is one

NotSoErudite (Kyla)of your prompts here? Christians uh Christian ethics is superior. How is it superior? >> Oh, I just think it's better cuz it's better. >> How though? >> Yeah, because it's better. >> Can you make an argument for >> sure? Cuz it's better. >> In what ways? >> The ways in which it's better.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> What's What do you mean by better? >> The same thing you meant by better. >> No, not necessarily. Can you >> Whatever that is. >> What What do you mean by better? >> I don't know. I think outcomes for people, they like it better. >> Okay. Well, then why did Christians why did Christians like power get sherked off by the people?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> It didn't. What do you mean? >> Well, most of >> right now there's a bunch of people who are proposing that Christians retake power. What are you talking about? >> Yeah. And there's not a lot of political will, thank goodness, behind them, right? But >> but if there was, why I still haven't actually heard an objection for it. >> Yeah. I would say that people did want

Andrew Wilsonto sherk it because of Western liberal democracy. >> But western liberal democracy allows the conditionals for Christians to do it. >> Yeah. Then Christians still >> So then I still don't I've never ethical

Andrew Wilsonfor I guess I guess back to the heart of it now that we're tying it all back in. >> What is the objection to Christians utilizing the framework of the constitution to take over and amend the constitution? >> It's uncchristian. I've already said

NotSoErudite (Kyla)this. >> Oh, why is it uncchristian? >> Because I think that uh that the faith itself Jesus was not political. I think there is a typological argument for over time we see a complete reduction of statehood and priesthood and it separates entirely to the point that in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the typology of Jesus we see him rejecting being a king rejecting statesmanship and refusing to make a physical kingdom on earth and we have it through multiple verses which we can get to if you want to. >> Okay. Well, let's let's get to them. >> Okay. So, John 18 is a good example. My

NotSoErudite (Kyla)kingdom is not of this world. If it was, my servants would be fighting. And this is when he's talking to Pontious Pilot. >> Okay. So, that's a good example of him saying, I'm not a politician. I'm not a king and if I was there'd be civil war

NotSoErudite (Kyla)but I'm not this thing. So Jesus says I am not a political figure. >> Was is Jesus God? >> Yep. >> Okay. So when God anointed >> assume that >> when God anointed kings

NotSoErudite (Kyla)um was he doing something wrong? >> Uh nope. >> I'm super confused. Why would Jesus anoint kings? >> Jesus didn't >> Jesus is God. So why why did he because

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I don't think humans were ready for uh a secular state, a state where Christianity is separated from church and state. I think it took us a long time to get there. >> So God was anointing kings and putting them in charge of entire kingdoms

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> based on the fact that he thought that humans weren't ready to not have kings. >> Yeah. For the same reason that like before we get to like certain parts of the Old Testament, men could have many many wives and over time that got reduced cuz God's like, "Look, you were blind then. Now you know better. Now you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)can't do this thing." Right? Right? We've seen this. So why was it permissible for people to have multiple wives for some time and then at some point in the Old Testament that got barred? Do you know why? >> How come post post Jesus we still had kings and Christian lands?

Andrew Wilson>> If God had changed his mind about, you know, having kings, why did he continue to allow there to be kings? >> Uh because humans can sin. >> So it's sinful to have a king. >> I I would say it's like it's uh heretical to engage in politics. Yeah.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)As a Christian. >> As a Christian. >> Well, >> do you engage in politics as a Christian? >> Yeah. Yeah. Let me correct that statement. Not engage in politics specifically to rule from a Christian ethics to say I am God and or inspired

Andrew Wilsonby God and therefore my rules come from God and you must listen to my Christian rules. I think that that's wrong for Christians. >> So when someone's a politician who's a Christian, they shouldn't make any legislation based on their actual moral purview of Christendom. >> Um they can do it on their moral purview, but they shouldn't do things

Andrew Wilsonthat blend uh that like merge church and state together. So saying >> Well, hang on, hang on. That's now you've just made a different statement. You just before said that it's sinful sinful to rule from Christian ethics.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. In specific ways. Yeah. >> So why would it be sinful for So it would be sinful for a politician to utilize Christian ethics to promote legislation. >> No, I said in specific ways. So one specific way would be, for example,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)forcing non-Christians to um observe uh the Sabbath or Lent, forcing non-Christians to do that from like a a state level. I think that that would be wrong for Christians. >> Yeah. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. >> That's what I'm talking about.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. But what Okay. So there are so there are are forms of Christian ethics which that you can impose on people. >> Um well you shouldn't impose it because it's specifically Christian ethics but you might have >> uh because again uh you shouldn't impose

Andrew WilsonChristian ethics on non-Christians. >> Why not? >> Uh Jesus doesn't do it. >> Wait a second. I'm confused. You're saying that the apostles that when they

Andrew Wilsonwere uh like let's take um Paul for instance. Okay. When Timothy, you obviously you've read Timothy, right? >> Are you familiar with uh with what happened with Timothy and the cult of Artemis? >> Is this like pop quiz style debating or

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is this okay? >> No, I'm actually asking. Are you familiar with what happened with the cult of Artemis? >> Nope, I'm not. >> No. Okay. So, they >> Do you want to tell me though? >> I'm going to tell. Yeah, I'll tell you. The the cult of Artemis, >> by the way, that's how you react to these types of questions is normally and

Andrew Wilsonadmitting when you don't know things. >> So, anyway, [laughter] >> just as a heads up. >> Okay. Anyway, the the cult of Artemis was a fertility cult and it was essentially really pissed off that

Andrew WilsonChristianity was taking off >> and it was because they had a silver trade and that silver trade they were making basically mock statues of their religious figures. >> Okay? And so they were doing everything

Andrew Wilsonthat they could do to undermine Christianity. And a lot of them because it was a fertility cult had priestesses and they were trying to subvert Christianity, which is where you get uh second Timothy saying that I don't like

Andrew Wilsonit when women speak in church. Right? The whole idea there was that a lot of these women were fertility cultists and Timothy was asking for help. But at that

Andrew Wilsontime, Timothy had a massive flock and was definitely because they were diametrically opposed to the government, was persecuting Christians, was definitely ruling the Christians. Definitely ruling them.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Are you saying so they rejected Roman occupation? They were sherking it and [laughter] they were only imposing Christian law or were they telling Christians how to act? Because telling Christians as is is state is totally fine. A church like the pope telling

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fellow Christians how they should conduct oneselves is exactly what the church should be doing. But the church should not be going, "Hey, secular people, you have to do this same stuff too." That's not what the

Andrew Wilson>> So when when there's a policy like women cannot speak in this church, >> they can't do that. >> Okay. Is that a command? >> From what?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Is that a command from a bishop or a priest or something like this? >> Uh it might be. >> How are you not ruling? >> Because it's not your church is an estate. Like you can just leave that church, right? You can say I'm not of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the faith anymore. I reject this. Whereas if the Roman occupation says you must pay your taxes, >> what happens if you don't pay your tax? >> What happens if the Roman emperor converts to Christianity? >> Then he began to impose Christian ethics

NotSoErudite (Kyla)through fiat, which I think was wrong. >> Yeah. Why? But what would make it wrong? >> Uh I don't think that I think that like the whole principle of of the faith is uh regeneration. And I don't think that regeneration and legitimate salvation

NotSoErudite (Kyla)occurs when fiat imposes Christian ethics on you. Which is why I actually think that um blending church and state is so bad for the faith because I think what it does is that a when you force it upon people, it makes people hate faith

NotSoErudite (Kyla)and b nobody gets to actually personally know and understand God by and large because they're being forced to it. This is actually what makes Christians very different than like Muslims. Muslims believe, for example, that you can act according to the faith and you can be

NotSoErudite (Kyla)saved. Christians would say you can do every single thing you were told to to act like a Christian, but if your heart isn't regenerated, if you don't believe in God and have a personal relationship, you are not saved. >> So, let me just talk briefly. >> Sure. >> I just want to make sure that I [snorts]

Andrew Wilsonbecause I'm not strawmaning your position. I want to make sure I got it right. >> Appreciate that. >> Christians are in power. They should not directly appeal to Christian ethics for the things in which they prescribe in policy. >> Didn't say that. They can't appeal to

Andrew WilsonChristian ethics. What they can't do is impose specific Christian ethics onto non-Christians. >> Okay. So, they can't if they had a law, for instance, like um Oh, I don't know, no prostitution. >> Mhm.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> And that's purely informed from their Christian ethics, not from empirical data or anything like that. They should not actually impose that in law. >> Uh they should they can impose it if they think it would actually be good for the betterment of people, but I don't think that they should impose it if like there's a large consensus of the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)population that violent that like vehemently opposes that and would not elect for it. Okay, but let's just assume it's not a democracy. >> I am assuming it's a democracy. >> Yeah, but let's assume it's not. >> Okay. In an authoritarian regime, are

Andrew WilsonChristians acting ill? >> If a Christian says >> Yeah, I think that would be bad. >> Yeah. Okay. So, a Christian says there's no prostitution allowed. >> Yeah. I think theocracies are bad. >> Yeah. Okay. But anyway, so if he says

Andrew Wilsonanswering your question, if he says no prostitution's allowed, >> right? >> Let's say you agree with everything else that he says, right? Why what would make you specifically disagree with him appealing to Christian ethics for the imposition of no prostitution?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, as a Christian, I probably wouldn't disagree with him, right? Because we share the same Christian ethics. The issue is that there may be a non-Christian in that state that does disagree and is now being forced to do it only and exclusively because of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Christian ethics. Now if the Christian found uh like states craft argumentation for why we shouldn't have prostitution like for example it leads to high levels of STI and the abuse of women then that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)might be something that could be in my case collectivized and worked towards to uh oust but again I don't really believe in authoritarian governments I think they're very bad just generally. Yeah. >> So do you agree that fathers and mothers have rule of their household?

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. >> Yeah. Would you advise then that a father who had no empirical data to tell his daughter not to be a prostitute but only relied specifically on Christian ethics to say that to her and then impose that as a rule is doing something

NotSoErudite (Kyla)wrong. >> What's the difference between a father and a state? >> Yeah, I'm I'm going to >> No, I'm asking you. That's my response. >> Oh my god. And your response is a question. >> My response is this is disanalogous. What's the what's what's disanalogous between these two things? >> Well, because I asked you about

Andrew Wilsonpoliticians, you said no. >> Sure. I'll say fathers aren't statesmen. >> Uhhuh. So that's okay for them to do it >> potentially. Yeah. Within their household. Yeah. As long as it's not abusive. Yeah. As long as they're not being abusive. >> Why is But why is it wrong for them to do it at the state level? >> Because at the state level, that's not

Andrew Wilsonwhat the church is for. States craftsman is for politicians and church things. >> The state is also there or the church is also there to help with moral information. >> Eastern Orthodox agrees with me, right? Symphonia. >> Yeah. Symphonia is a blending actually.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)It's a blending of church and state. >> Okay. So, you're saying they don't disagree with me, which would probably explain why like the Russian Orthodox Church is such a bastardization of the faith, >> the Russian Orthodox Church.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. I mean, we know, for example, um what Kirill is, uh in bas like not excommunication, but he's basically just not talking to the church because they allowed Ukrainians to have their own Orthodox church, the ecumenical

NotSoErudite (Kyla)patriarch, right? And the reason that they did this is because Kurill, who's just an exKGB agent, is insisting that the Russian war is a holy war, right? So yeah, if if it's the case that Eastern Orthodox actually is for this and they want to go back to the Byzantine, I'd

NotSoErudite (Kyla)say, well, makes sense why Eastern Ornodox is such a um it's such a weak branch of of Christianity. >> Okay, but I don't >> and Russian Orthodox is the worst for >> I don't know what this has to do with the view except >> Okay, Russian Orthodox is a great

NotSoErudite (Kyla)example of why church and state shouldn't be blended, right? So what happened to the Russian Orthodox Church when uh the Zar was there? He was good about respecting the church. >> Communist killed him. >> Not just killed them, replaced 50% of the clergy with KGB members.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. after they killed them. >> Yeah. Which is awful, right? >> And were the communist secularists, >> but then but then the communists used secularist. >> Hold on. He doesn't want to get to the last point. The communists used the Russian Orthodox Church because they actually put in place clergy that are

NotSoErudite (Kyla)KGB members and they warped the Russian Orthodox Church. And unfortunately, because the Eastern Orthodox Church is so traumatized by the schism between Catholics and them, they wouldn't even excommunicate the Russian Orthodox Church that had been completely >> You saying that there was KGB agents at

Andrew Wilsonthe time of Zar Nicholas? >> No, I didn't say Zar. I said in communism. Yeah. So then the communists killed Zar Nicholas and then imposed communism after that. >> They also >> they were not infiltrating the church

Andrew Wilsonwith KGB agents at the time of Zar Nicholas. That was not happening. >> Zar Nicholas wasn't when communist exist. Communism existed. >> Communism definitely existed. Yes, it did. It was all Marxism. And yes, that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)ideology existed. I don't know what you're talking about. Yes, it did. >> Wait, the ideology existed. Stalin like when we're talking about communism, we're talking about Lenin Stalinism, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So Stalin, I believe it was Stalin that killed 50%.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> We're also talking about Marxism. >> Well, when I'm talking about Marxism as like a state, I'm talking about this specific state. >> Yeah, but we're talking about the ideology of Marxism. >> No, I'm talking about the Russian state that >> Yeah. The Russian state which was secular came from communist killed Zar

Andrew WilsonNicholas >> killed 50% of the clergy and then replaced that clergy with their own people because they recognized that >> after they killed them secularists killed the Christians not the other way around >> but then they used the church and

Andrew Wilsonimplanted their own state members into the church. That's a bad that's a good example of how the state corrupts church. The reason that no that would be the opposite. What happened is that the the church was doing what it was

Andrew Wilsonsupposed to do and they [ __ ] killed them and then replaced the people within that structure. True and still replaced to this day because Kurill was found to be an exK. First of all, first of all, he absolutely was.

Andrew Wilson>> No, the Eastern the Eastern Orthodox Church the Eastern Orthodox Church has determined that the Russian church is in communion with them. >> In communion, but the issue so that they are willing to still talk to them. The

NotSoErudite (Kyla)issue is that the patriarch curel will not talk to them because what happened is the um the patriarch what is it Bartholomew the first I think right now >> Bartholomew and the ecumenical council whatever >> Bartholomew >> yep they they gaveille to the Ukrainian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)orthodox church which means self-governing for those who are not like eo words um and this made Kurill so mad because he's so in line with Putin and insisted that the Ukrainian war is a holy war that he stopped talking to all

NotSoErudite (Kyla)of them but all the the ecumenical they oppose what Russia's was doing in in so far as they allowed Ukrainians to self-govern away from the Russian Orthodox because they recognized that there was a problem here. >> Yeah. But this >> this is a good example of why church and

Andrew Wilsonstate >> I don't understand your your example of why church and state is bad is because secularists can come in and kill the members of your church and then replace them with people who aren't real Christians. >> My argument. >> That's your argument?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No. Do you want to do you want to steal manu? Do you need me to >> Yeah. Here's your your steel man argument is you're about to straw man. No. Stop. Stop. You're you're a straw man. How how do you know I >> Your tone your tone I can tell I can tell. [laughter]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay, >> here's the [snorts] actual argument that I'm making. I'm not saying that the state was bad, that the the blending of church and state is bad because the state came and killed. I said what's bad is that they later then used the church

NotSoErudite (Kyla)as an arm of the state. So they blended church and state. They used Kurroll and other people to impose theological law that was just sympathetic to communism

NotSoErudite (Kyla)because the state utilized this. And what happened is when 50% of the clergy got killed and replaced by statists which were not clergymen then the Eastern Orthodox Church wouldn't even excommunicate that church despite the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fact that their theology changed dramatically significantly and has maintained that to such a point that Eastern Orthodox didn't even send people in to correct the theology. Do you think that the church would remain what it is supposed to be? Yes, I'm moving my hands. Very exciting, Andrew.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> [snorts] >> Um, do you think that the Russian Orthodox Church would be what it is if the KGB hadn't killed 50% of it and removed it? This is why, by the way, the separation of church and state is valuable. It protects the church and it protects the state. >> How is how is the separation of church

NotSoErudite (Kyla)and state protect us from communism? >> Because it doesn't allow communism to utilize the church as a statecraftraft. >> It doesn't need to. It can just take over the state. >> Yeah, that would be bad. >> Yeah, but it can do that within your liberal framework. No problem.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> It No, cuz liberalism is opposed to No, liberal liberalism. ism iso opposed to uh tyranny. >> Okay. >> Inherently first of all >> particularly of monarchy >> your liberal framework has amendments in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)it >> and these amendments can be at any time changed by >> con liberal framework the constitution or is it a framework of of no it's political philosophy the constitution isn't my >> political philosophy. Yeah, if we're

Andrew Wilsontalking, what would we be using if >> and I want to make sure that your political philosophy isn't kind of important when we're talking about liberalism, >> but I thought your political philosophy was just life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. >> No. >> Oh,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> that was something I pointed to as like a central American ethos. >> So, what is the liberal foundational philosophy then? >> Uh, typically it's going to be uh maximizing like freedoms and and and rights of people. So, giving people both

NotSoErudite (Kyla)uh rights um and what's the other one? When it's not rights, it's like privileges. I forget the word. I'm I'm blanking right now. Uh it gives them access to rights. It has strong institutions. And in more modern forms

NotSoErudite (Kyla)of liberalism, which I like, by the way, it believes in a uh social safety net. >> Entitlements. >> Entitlements. >> No, there's like a Phil there's a political phil word where it's like you have both rights and oh, I don't know

Andrew Wilsonwhy I can't think of this word right now. My brain is like uh you could probably look it up. >> Right. Liberties. Rights and liberties. >> Okay. And >> liberties are the things that you get that aren't your right. The problem you have here is that your foundation here

Andrew Wilsonis is democracy, right? >> Uh well, a liberal system I think works best with a democracy. I think a liberal democracy is >> so within the confines of a democracy as long as people vote out the liberal system. The liberal system literally

NotSoErudite (Kyla)lets them do that, right? >> Yeah, I agree. But this is why I think that the founding fathers did a really good job of setting up like girding principles against this. Right. I'm not maximal for democracy. I actually like liberalism more than I like democracy, right? So I want my democracy to stay

NotSoErudite (Kyla)within the confines of liberal values. That's nice. So, let's >> It is nice for sure. It's made all of this. It's made the best countries on the earth. America, the country you hate apparently and don't think stands for

NotSoErudite (Kyla)anything. You must You want to go back to a time before America existed? You want to go back to the Byzantine Empire? >> When When did I say >> You said this multiple times. I've listened to you say, "I've known you for three years. I've known you since the big public."

Andrew Wilson>> You like to put $1,000 on the fact I've never said anything like going back to the Byzantine Empire. I'll bet you >> said the Byzantine Empire was great. Never even said that. >> Really? You don't like the Byzantine Empire? >> I Whether I do or don't doesn't mean I ever said that we should go back to it,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)does it? >> Wait, do you believe this is >> Wait, wait, wait. No, no. I'm not doing No, I'm not doing a bet with you. >> Yeah. No, of course not. >> Because I'm having a Wait. Well, first of all, I'm poor, so if I lose, I literally can't pay you, so there's no point. But second,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> 500. >> I I probably literally don't have 500. >> 250. >> I could maybe spend 100, but I'm not interested in making a bet with you. >> Well, now I understand. Well, this is this is the reason why I'm rejecting the bet is because you're doing the thing

NotSoErudite (Kyla)again where you're trying to catch me on like a couple of key words when I'm trying to talk about an idea. And so it's like if I say a few key words that like you don't like, we can correct them. But I would ask you, do you think the Byzantine Empire was good? Do you like it? Do you think that there's some level of what that empire was that we

Andrew Wilsonshould try to adopt? >> I think all systems have things which are valuable. >> Do you think that we should try to adopt it into the American system? >> No, not the Byzantine Empire. No, of course not. >> What What empire would you like to see? >> Well, I don't see You see how you just loaded that? Why would I Why would I

Andrew Wilsonwant to see an empire? >> I can I can unload it. What uh states craft would you like to see? >> Yeah. So, I'm glad that you asked. Now that we understand I feel like after letting you talk here for a while, I actually understand a much broader base for your position.

Andrew Wilson>> Took three hours for you to get there. Congrats. >> Well, you don't stop talking. >> I made it. I stopped talking lots and I've made it pretty simple. You just >> I've been I've been letting you go and go and go. So, now we can get to the [laughter] I have I've been letting you

Andrew Wilsongo and go and go. I just asked you a few questions, right? I mean, I've tried to internally critique you. I don't really want it. Keep running away from it. >> And then being bad faith and being like, "Oh, yeah. I actually don't think God exists. Let's all assume."

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I I know I'm terrible, but >> Well, I don't think you're terrible. >> So, now we've gotten to Christian. >> Just so it's clear. I just want clear. I don't think Andrew is >> Can I Can I say a word? >> Well, I don't want people walking around thinking, >> "Can I say anything in this debate?" >> Do you think that I think you're

Andrew Wilsonterrible? >> No. Eerite, who cares? >> You said it. >> Oh my god. Can we get back to the debate? >> You said it. >> Okay. Can we get back to the debate? Well, do you think that I think you're terrible? >> Oh my god, who cares? >> You said it. >> Yeah, I do. I think you think Smoky Man bad. Yes.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. I don't. >> Okay, great. So, anyway, back to the debate. I just want to make sure cuz you haven't actually answered this question. If Christian nationalists change the amendments of the Constitution, they changed them. >> Mhm.

Andrew Wilson>> So, now Christian Christian nationalists go first amendment, that's gone. >> Right. >> Gotcha. What the [ __ ] is wrong with doing that if it's in it if it's actually in the confines of the American system to do that?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So, as a Christian, I say it's uncchristian to do. >> That's nice. I'm asking about the political philosophy. Remember, >> so uh the sure within the political philosophy, I would say I don't believe in absolute democracy. I believe in democracy that serves liberalism values because I think liberalism is the best

NotSoErudite (Kyla)political philosophy we received. So if a nation state would vote in an authoritarian which has actually happened many times I think that's bad and I think the nation state has failed in that case and I think that we should do our best with democracies to prevent the uh overtaking of radical >> that doesn't actually answer my

NotSoErudite (Kyla)question. >> Sure it does. Liberalism provides girds against that. I'm not for absolute democracy. So in my liberal system I would say >> so who shouldn't vote? >> What >> who shouldn't vote? >> I haven't said anything about who shouldn't vote. >> Well when you say absolute democracy

NotSoErudite (Kyla)what does that mean? So, uh, like popular vote, like I don't want, um, just because somebody gets the most votes of people, I don't think that that should be the leader cuz like cities are more popular than Rome. >> Utilizing the system, which is

Andrew Wilsonliberalism and is the American framework, Christian nationalists can get amendments passed in order to tailor things to Christianity. >> They can. I just think that that's wrong for Christians to do. >> Yeah, that's nice that you think that, but from a political philosophy, when

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you're talking about political philosophy, it is just utilizing liberalism. >> Sure. But I would say that it's also unamerican to do because I think >> yeah how we've tried amendments against all of this [ __ ] >> because we can go back to the beginning because I said the American ethos is built on things like ingenuity, life,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I think when you take over the first a as a Christian nationalist and you make it so that people don't have free speech, they can only praise God for example. I think that's unamerican because I think the uh founding fathers wrote it in intentionally to separate these things. They did not want to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)impose religion on other people. I think that that's good and I think it's an American >> Why are they putting in an amendment system? because uh they recognize that over time they're like un like technology and development occurs. So there are things that they haven't even thought of that might be relevant for

Andrew Wilsonexample stakeholdership they recognize >> or like for example people are rejecting the status quo and they want to move outside of the idea of liberalism. >> I think the founding fathers probably thought that democracy was good no matter what and that we should definitely try to stay.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That's really funny because they basically let nobody vote. >> Well why if you want >> they didn't trust the electorate >> by their Yes. Oh yes. >> No. Oh, we have 10,000%. >> Okay, we can just go to Federalist number two. You're very wrong about this.

Andrew Wilson>> Oh, no. I'm very right. The Federalist papers even are specific about this. There's a reason that they demanded that there be stakeholders in the nation. They actually did not trust the electorate. Even the stakeholders they had a large amount of distrust for

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, the issue what they actually had is they recognized that um different so when we say stakeholders, we mean like people that have some stakes in the country, right? Yeah. >> Okay. So the reason that they recognized is that different people would have different stakes in the country and so

NotSoErudite (Kyla)they were very concerned about people with very low stakes in the country to uh which was most people >> but the stakes so land most people >> so land owning was used as a proxy because they they thought if anyone is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)going to want to see America continue and America to flourish irrespective of what they personally want >> then most people couldn't vote >> it would be land owners. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So most people couldn't vote. >> I agree. >> Yeah. For a reason. Well, I would say

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the reason was built on bad premises, right? They were concerned, for example, that the landless man would be less invest in invested in the country. And I would say there's a lot of people that don't own land. Very patriotic. You got to interrupt me cuz I'm cooking, don't you? >> Yeah. And under the Well, I got you got

Andrew Wilsonto be able to talk, too. >> You have lots. >> I've barely said a word. For an hour, I've just let you prattle. It's my turn, too. >> First of all, for the last hour, you've insisted on internally critiquing only me, and you wouldn't let me internally critique.

Andrew Wilson>> You can internally critique. you you can internally critique. But here's my question to you. I'm just curious because I still don't understand why it would be that if we changed an amendment that's anti-democratic or anti-liberal >> anti-democratic. I said that it would be

Andrew Wilsonunamerican. >> It's not unamerican. >> Yes, it is because the first >> we've changed how many amendments? >> Uh we've added a number of amendments. Yeah. >> And changed them. >> Sure. That's fine. >> Like for instance, we added we added women's suffrage. We had an amendment

NotSoErudite (Kyla)for prohibition and then we got rid of the amendment for prohibition. We've added and taken away many many amendments. The American system is actually a hodgepodge, isn't it? >> Yeah. And I think that's one of the beauties of it. But I think like one of the things that are central to the American dream, the thing that makes

NotSoErudite (Kyla)America stick out, which makes it the unique country that it was. so unique actually that when other monarchies fell they adopted similar structures to us is things like free speech like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers looked at at the world and said we need a government system that's for the common man and reduces the capacity >> built into liberalism built into the

Andrew Wilsonliberalism the idea of the guardrail bumpers right checks and balances >> if the population gets the right to vote which it now has it has almost totally universal suffrage except in very

Andrew Wilsonminimal cases. Then passing these amendments becomes much easier based on the agenda of the people. That's within the minds because at that point you can consolidate power blocks in parties which was an emergent property of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)universal suffrage. >> Um so the issue is when you have these two parties, why would you be more likely to pass an amendment when amendments actually require a large amount of votes? Right? You can't just it's not just 50/50, right? And I don't remember what you said. >> Because if you have two parties, you're

Andrew Wilsonprobably going to have a lot of your politicians under one party flag or the other, >> right? You want them to work together. It's a separation of >> No, unless one has overwhelming control, which can easily happen. >> Yes. But it's actually interesting when

Andrew Wilsonyou look at like the creation of the United States. They went back and back to this. I just want to make sure >> you don't want to deal with any facts of the reality. >> When you have if you have an overwhelming amount of a single party who's in charge, right, then getting

NotSoErudite (Kyla)things passed is much much easier. >> Sure. It absolutely is much easier. But this is why, for example, we've done things like splitting the Senate so that you need like 60 votes to try to prevent like true partisan voting. >> They can end they can end the filibuster. >> They could they probably won't, which is

Andrew Wilsonunfortunate, but they could. >> They may. And the thing is they can also pack the court. That's all within the confines of liberalism. >> I agree. And the very idea here that we can't utilize liberalism to remove parts of li of the liberal framework that we

NotSoErudite (Kyla)don't like that >> is then there can be no. It's not unamerican. I would say it's unamerican to reduce get rid of some of the most foundational things which is like the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I think

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that if we do things like that, >> it's not it's not getting rid of any of those. >> Hold on. You can do that. But if for example, Christian nationalists took power and they wanted to get rid of the first amendment, I would say that that is a violation of life liberty. That's a big violation of liberty, which would be

NotSoErudite (Kyla)unamerican. I would say those Christian nationalists are unamerican. They don't believe in the ethos that made the state great, which was the common man gets a say that he has his rights protected. say the same thing about the Second Amendment. >> Uh yeah, I actually like the Second Amendment.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Great. So I I should be able to own a bazooka. >> Uh potentially. I just think like all of the like natural limits to it are >> What are natural limits? >> Uh most people can't afford it. Um they like storage for example. I think to store it >> they're Yeah, they're within the confines.

Andrew Wilson>> Sure. But I think a state would regulate a lot on like what you can like do with it. >> Wait a wait a second. I'm a >> Wait, are you against 2A? >> Are you saying Are you Are you against 2A? >> Are you saying No, no. I'm a big Second Amendment support. >> So should you be able to own a bazooka? >> Sure. >> Okay. Why?

Andrew Wilson>> Absolutely. Well, because it's within the confines of the right. >> Why does that matter though? What if we voted to get rid of that? >> Yeah. I believe in the right of self-defense. >> Well, what if we voted to get rid of that? >> Then that would be within the confines of the liberal framework. >> Would that be okay with you? >> Okay. No. >> I would object on different grounds

Andrew Wilsonthough. I'm not a liberal. >> Sure. Yeah. Of course I would. >> The liberal though, right? That's within the confines of the framework to completely eliminate the Second Amendment. >> Sure. I I've never rejected that. I've said that it would be unamerican.

Andrew Wilson>> How's that unamerican? Because I think like 2A for example, gun gun culture is extremely American. It's a deeply deeply American value. >> Sure, I would agree with that. But what's not unamerican is removing amendments that Americans don't like. That's the most American thing.

Andrew Wilson>> Um, sure. >> The most American thing is Americans introducing things and amendments that they like. It's getting rid of amendments that they don't like. It's doing things that they [ __ ] want based on what it is that they want. And

Andrew Wilsonso if Americans say we want Christian nationalism and we'll impose various amendments for Christian nationalism, that is the most American thing. >> I think if America goes back towards like a more theocratic state, I think it is fundamentally now have become

NotSoErudite (Kyla)something that isn't America anymore. I would be the person running around like Trump said based on what we need to make America the last 40 years the founding fathers and the entire >> founding fathers gave the states the ability to the entire point of the revolutionary war which was to break away from tyranny and to separate power

Andrew Wilsonso that the common man had a chance to exist and have a right to have a right to speak to those who was great sloganering but the truth is the revolutionary war was about money the very first thing George Washington

Andrew Wilsondid was implement a tax very first thing he did was institute and it led to the whiskey rebellion he put a tax on whiskey. Do you think that like our founders who wanted

Andrew Wilsontaxes directly abortion taxes wanted us in any way to have a [ __ ] income tax because that is against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? We're the most taxed country on planet Earth. One of the most taxed on planet Earth.

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next