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 9 of 9

Andrew Wilsonlaws of exist outside of mind? >> Yeah. Do you think that assumption can exist outside? How do you know that laws of logic exist outside >> because they're unchangeable? They're not social constructions. They're not changing. They're unchanging. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, can can you make an assumption?

Andrew Wilson>> How do you know that it's unchanging without a mind? >> How do you know that? >> Wait, because you know it's unchanging without a mind. >> It's funny. With a mind, I understand that even absent the mind, this thing

Andrew Wilsonwould be unchanging like the rock. >> Correct. You have an assumption. >> What can be assumed absent of mind? >> Uh these things exist outside of mind.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. What can be assumed? Absent of mind. >> Well, these things exist outside of mind. >> But what can be assumed? >> Well, the mind has to assume it to engage in philosophy. >> Okay. So, this is what the dogmatism is. >> Absent the mind, these things,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> there aren't any assumptions. >> No. No. These things still exist. >> No. Absent the mind observing the laws of logic. What's the word assumption mean? [sighs] >> I I don't I don't have it on the top of my head.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Can you have assumptions absent mind? >> Uh in the like rules, it depends on what we're meaning here, right? >> That's why I just asked you what assumption means. What does it mean? >> Uh it's the mind observing it. So this

Andrew Wilsonwould go to the same question of you. How do you know that logic laws of logic exist infinitely? >> Can you can you >> How do you know laws of logic? >> You're just diverting again. I'm not I'm >> How does a [ __ ] assumption exist

Andrew Wilsonabsent a mind? How? >> Because I think it's objective outside of the mind. >> Okay, that's great. How is it objective an assumption out? Well, first I guess just tell me what an assumption is.

Brian Atlas>> I I don't have a definition. >> You don't know what an assumption is? >> I can Google one for you. >> Google it. I'm actually fine with that. Google it. >> What's an assumption? >> Assumption is a belief, statement, or proposition taken for granted as true without proof or concrete evidence.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)taken for granted without proof. >> What's the first word? Belief. >> Belief. Yes. >> Can you show me a belief abs in a mind? >> Uh, no. I think belief is is fundamental to a mind. But beliefs are not the same

Andrew Wilsonthing as like axioms, right? >> Is there a requirement of belief? >> Is there a requirement of mind for a tutology? >> Is there a requirement of belief >> for what? >> An assumption. >> Yes, I think that's what the >> then how do we have a belief?

Andrew Wilson>> Can a tautology exist outside? >> How do we have beliefs absent a mind? Can a tutology exist outside of mind? >> Uh, a a tautology >> A equals A. >> Oh yeah, I'll answer this. I promise.

Andrew WilsonBut I want to answer my question first. Belief. How does belief exist absent a mind? >> It in the case of this, it doesn't. >> Okay. So then when you say an assumption can exist outside of a mind. If

Andrew Wilsonassumptions require belief, can assumptions exist outside of a mind? >> Uh the assumptions don't. the uh the the objective truth of the law does. >> Okay. My question is >> dogmatism.

Andrew Wilson>> My question is if beliefs are the requirement of an assumption, can assumptions exist outside of a mind? >> I have answered this multiple times. >> Answer it again. Can if a belief

Andrew Wilson[snorts] exists if it exist does do beliefs which are requirement of an assumption can they exist absent a mind or not? >> Beliefs beliefs.

Andrew Wilson>> No. >> And are beliefs a requirement of our law requirements of assumptions? >> Uh, sure. But again, this is a mind observation. >> You contradicted your whole Yes, you did. >> Are you going to answer my question? Are you going to answer my question? >> Sure.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. >> What is But but I just want to make sure we're clear. >> Mhm. >> A belief is a requirement of an assumption. Assumptions can exist outside the mind, but beliefs cannot exist outside the mind. >> Okay. So, >> hang on. I just want to make sure we're

Andrew Wilsonclear. Beliefs can exist. Beliefs equal beliefs cannot exist outside the mind. Assumptions can exist outside the mind. Beliefs require assumptions, but assumptions can exist outside the mind. Is that correct? >> No. That objective reality exists outside of the mind.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, that's not my question. My question is this. You're not answering it. Until you do, we're not moving on until we do. >> I have answered. I have a belief multiple times. >> Does a belief require a mind?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh, a belief does typically. >> Does an assumption require a mind? >> Uh, yes. But the laws Wait, but the law >> Yes. >> No. The laws. No. Do laws exist? Does the law of logic Does the law of logic exist?

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. >> Objectively? >> What's that? >> Does laws of logic exist objectively? >> Absent the mind, absent the mind, they exist. Yes. >> How do we How do we know that that's true? >> We can use inductive inference. So, we would know from inductive inference that if I was dead, the rock would still

NotSoErudite (Kyla)exist. >> How do you use inductive inference? Doesn't that require a mind? >> Of course. Oh, so you require the mind to even engage in observing >> objectivating the idea of >> objectivity requires subjectivity? >> No. >> Oh, it seems like that's what you're saying. >> We're saying that.

Brian Atlas>> So, how do you use inductive reasoning without a mind? >> I'm explaining. >> Okay. >> The rock. Is the rock material or is it immaterial? >> It's material. Can >> Can I ask one clarifying question? Are you referring to the professional

Brian Atlaswrestler or the like the the >> the geological object? >> Okay, fine. We'll get to the [ __ ] chats, Brian. >> No, sorry. [laughter] No, no, no. Keep going. Sorry. I was just curious. >> No, no, no. We'll get to your [ __ ] chats. >> No, no, no. No, no, keep going. Keep going.

Andrew Wilson>> So, how do you know that moral laws exist objectively? >> Well, we're not talking about moral laws here. Here, we're just >> laws of logic. >> Here, we're just talking about laws of logic. >> Moral. >> If a thing is a social construction is

Andrew Wilsonchangeable. If a thing is not a social construction, it would be unchangeable almost definitionally. Theoretically, some things that are non social. It is the case that I could change here in material reality a law of logic. It

Andrew Wilsonwould stand to reason that I could not change the >> How could you know that it can't be changed? >> Because any application to change the thing would appeal to the thing to change it. >> So it how do you change it without

Andrew Wilson>> you can't >> wait how do you observe this though? >> We don't need to. The observation is in the rationalization. So the idea, >> how is rationalization not requiring >> because the idea Well, hang on. I'm

Andrew Wilsonexplaining to you >> and I've I I just did, but I'll do it again. The laws of logic are unchanging. And I know that they're unchanging because I have to appeal to the laws of logic in order to change the laws of logic. >> How do you know the laws of logic? Isn't

Andrew Wilsonit your mind? >> No, these are discoverable. >> They're discoverable through what? >> They're discoverable as a thing which would exist absent the mind. Because nothing which is material, how do you

Andrew Wilsondiscover them? Because anything which is material, anything which is material if we agree would exist absent us. Then it would be the case that they cannot exist inside of contradiction.

Andrew Wilson>> Are the lawic material? >> Well, no. They're transcendental, >> right? They're not material. So, how do you know that those are objective? >> Well, hang on. They're observing through logic and reason. >> They're transcendental. I didn't say

Andrew Wilsonmaterial or immaterial. They're transcendental. They're discoverable. >> We're talking about laws. It's possible. It could be possible, right? >> Is it discoverable through a mind? >> Well, it would Yes, it's discoverable through a mind, but it would exist absent that. >> I agree.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. >> But this is to assume that it is discoverable outside of a mind. >> Is that a justified true belief? >> It would be unjustified because we're assuming that it is discoverable outside of the mind. >> Then change it. >> That that isn't a reputation.

Andrew Wilson>> You can't >> that isn't a reputation. can't change it because the very thing you're appealing to is the very thing you're trying to change, which is hilarious to me. Your

Andrew Wilsonwhole dilemma here is [ __ ] hilarious. You're like, "Hey, Andrew, >> wait a second." >> So, you agree that it's not a justified It's not a justified true belief to

Andrew Wilsonbelieve that the laws not even to believe to say and state it as a fact that it is justified that the laws of logic cannot be changed even absent human minds. >> How do you know that? You say to me, >> how do you know that? >> Well, because I would have to appeal to

Andrew Wilsonthe thing to change the thing. >> You'd have to appeal with the mind. You know what's appealing? >> But absent the mind, what's doing the appealing? >> How can a thing be discoverable if it doesn't exist? Absent minds. >> How can something be discoverable if it exists absent minds?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> If it doesn't exist absent minds, >> it would it sorry, I feel like I'm not understanding this question. How would something be discoverable? Yeah. >> Absent minds. >> No, no, no, no, no. I'm asking you this question.

Andrew Wilsonmathematics, >> right? The laws of mathematics. Yeah. Do those exist absent minds? >> Yes. >> So they're discovered. >> Which means they exist absent minds. >> Correct. >> Okay. So then when you make the appeal

Andrew Wilsonto a thing, you're saying the laws of logic are discoverable. >> They are discoverable, which means >> what's discovering them? >> Sure. A mind. There's no there's no discovering it. >> Oh, through the laws of rationality.

Andrew Wilson>> How do you know laws of rationality exist? Because there these are things which in order to change you would have to appeal to the thing to change. >> Assume you have to assume that they exist. >> There's no assumption. >> Of course it is. In fact, >> how do you know that they exist?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Wait, what? >> How do you know that they exist? >> Oh, I would know that they exist through me >> through your mind. >> That's the only way I could know. >> So your subjectivity is required for objectivity to exist. >> No. >> How how does how is

Andrew Wilson>> because the rock exists if you are necessary for observing the objectivity. the rock still exists even if I'm dead and I know this I know this because if you die the rock is still there

Andrew Wilson>> I agree >> then if that's the case then a social construction could be >> but how do you know this >> I well the grounding of my epistemology >> well I mean in this case it's very

Andrew Wilsonsimplistic if I can change the laws of logic because there are social construction then I would not need to appeal to the social construction to change it >> in the case of the laws of logic

Andrew WilsonI cannot change them and would even need to appeal to them in order to change them. >> But how do you know them? >> I Well, for me, I know them through the mind. >> The mind. Yeah. >> But they would exist absent the mind and would have to.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I agree. >> But they would actually have to absent an assumption. There's no assumption necessary here. >> The the assumption is that anything exists, that God exists. That's the assumption. >> Yeah, we're not even assuming God. We're

Andrew Wilsonnot assuming any of this. >> Well, we're assuming something. We could you could you could make no assumptions and still make the inference that the laws of logic exist absent you. >> Sure. I I agree. This is would be

NotSoErudite (Kyla)objectivity. >> There's nothing there to fight about. >> You're actually agree with me. You're doing agreeing with me. >> No, you're [laughter] just saying what I would say is I can observe through my mind that logics are unchangeable.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Objectivity. And you're saying my mind can use reason and logic. My mind to observe that these things are objective. I think that's true. But you assuming your mind or you assuming that logic

Andrew Wilsonexists incorrect is still the mind. Let's say all minds are gone. >> Do the laws of logic still exist? >> Yep. Because I believe they're objective. >> No. No. Well, you you're not here to

Andrew Wilson[ __ ] believe it. So, we're going to assume nobody's here to [ __ ] believe anything. We already established belief require. It's my turn. I just answered five of your questions. Yeah,

Andrew Wilson>> you already established belief requires a mind that assumptions require belief. You're [ __ ] dead and so is everybody else. >> Are the loss of logic still here? >> Yes. Objectivity. >> Then there's nothing here to argue

Andrew Wilsonabout. >> You're right. We're all enga you and I are engaging in dogmatism. >> So you are you assuming that they're going to be here or are they going to be here? I'm using my mind of logic and

NotSoErudite (Kyla)reason to argue that it would exist outside of us irrespective of us. I'm I'm assuming that this would exist outside of us. That's what I'm granting. >> So it's an assumption still. >> Yes, there's an assumption there somewhere.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. Can you change that assumption? >> But doesn't again. >> Can you change that assumption? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can you change the laws of logic? >> I would say no. >> No. No. Can anybody change them?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I would say no because I think they're objective. Just show me anybody changing them. >> I don't need to because I >> because they can't be changed. >> Yes, they are objective. Andrew, good job. But again, how do you know that they're objective? >> I know that they're objective because I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)would have to appeal to them. >> Your mind? Yes. >> Well, I would have to appeal to them to change them. >> EP epistemically, you use uh logic and reason to ascertain that morality is objective. But at some point, you're

Andrew Wilsonassuming something. You must just grant an assumption. You must grant that A equals A. So let me ask you this. Is [snorts] it the case that it's subjectively true that we would need to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)use a grippa trilmma? >> I don't know what this means. Is it >> that it that it requires minds for us to use grippa trilma? >> Uh in the same way that it requires

NotSoErudite (Kyla)minds to engage in logic. But I think that logic would be true. The laws of logic would be true outside of us. >> Great. >> Would it be true? >> Same answers as you, by the Would it be true? >> I would say so. Yeah, that's

Andrew Wilson>> not you. You're not here. >> That doesn't change the rock. >> No, but is it still in existence even if you're not here? >> Yep. >> Okay.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Thank you. True. But I'm assuming that I am here and that everything exists. >> Then you're making the assumption >> that this thing is true >> even absent you here. >> I I don't know. I don't know how much

NotSoErudite (Kyla)longer you want to circle this. Is it true? Absent assumption. >> We Andrew, so for all this audience, Andrew and I think the same way about this? >> No, we don't. >> Yes, we do. No, we don't. Yes, we're both engaging in dogmatism. We think

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that objectivity, moral objectivity exists outside of us and we assume some sort of uh tological fact like law of identity. We assume it. We assume A equals A because we can't think of anything else where A would not equal A.

Andrew WilsonWe think that's that's reasonable. That's true. If that's the case, then from a subjectivist view, you should be able to internally critique this. Show me how you can violate the law of non-contradiction from a subjectivist

Andrew Wilsonperspective. >> I don't need to do that. >> Yeah, but that's not what I asked you. Can you show me how? >> Why? Why would I need >> Can you show me how to violate the law of non-contradiction? >> I'm not a >> Can you show me from a subject in subjectivity? >> Can you show it to me?

Andrew Wilson>> I don't believe in subjectivity. >> You can't, right? >> I don't need to. Yeah, but you can't >> What do you mean I can't? >> You can't actually show me from a subjectivist position how you could violate the law of contra non-contradiction. >> Well, a subjectivist would say that none

NotSoErudite (Kyla)of these laws even exist if the minds don't exist because nothing is in existence without the minds observing them. >> Gotcha. So, >> but I would say they do exist outside. >> Right. From the subjectivist perspective,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)can you show me how you could violate the law of non-contradiction? >> If none of our minds exist at all, then laws and logic and all this stuff, none of it exists. Now, so it doesn't matter >> cuz nothing exists.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So everything's mind dependent or not? >> I don't view hold this view. >> What view do you hold? >> I'm an objectivist. >> So then nothing's mind dependent. >> Correct. I do not think the laws of logic require a mind to be true. I think they are true irreg irrespective of the

Andrew Wilsonmind. >> Okay. But you're assuming that. >> Yep. >> Okay. So if it was the case that we would take this assumption away, would that still be true? >> Yep. >> Okay. Yes. Objectivity, dogmatism.

Andrew Wilson>> Gotcha. >> Yes. >> So then we can bypass the trilma. >> Nope. This is just dogmatism. >> You just said that if we remove assumptions, then it would still be true. >> Yeah. Because I think it's objectively

NotSoErudite (Kyla)true. But dogmatism, this this mess assuming that it would just be true is the dogmatism. >> You just assuming that it would be true. >> Yeah. Me asserting that it would exist outside of me and it would be true

Andrew Wilsonoutside of me. So then you're not so then you're not bypassing the assumption. >> Correct. Nobody can bypass a grip of trauma that I've seen thus far. >> Then if the assumption did not exist,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)this would not exist. >> Uh I think it would exist. >> You're now bypassing the assumption. >> Huh? >> Then you're not bypassing the assumption.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Correct. I'm not bypassing dogmatism, but I still think objectivity is true. >> All right. >> Yeah. In the same way you do. >> Not in the same way. >> Yeah. you. I said, "Do you think laws of logic are true irrespective of mind?" You said, "Yes." And I said, "How do you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)know this?" And you said, "Well, I can use laws of logic and reason." I said, "Things like your mind." >> Yeah. But I'm appealing to an unchanging faucet. You're not. You're appealing to a >> I am appealing to an unchanging thing. I think the laws of logic are true forever. >> You see how you say you think

Andrew Wilson>> objectively true. >> You think? >> Yes. I think my perspective just like you think. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Dogmatism. >> The question is, are these things true absent you think? >> I believe so. Yes. >> Yeah. But you see how you said I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)believe. My question >> are these things? Yes. >> But it's dogmatism to assume that. >> Okay. So then you don't believe that or you believeism. >> It is dog. It is both. I believe that

Andrew Wilsonand it is dogmatism to assume that. Yep. >> Okay. So uh it's objectively true only it. So this requires a mind. >> Um can I cap this circling of the drain

NotSoErudite (Kyla)for like two more minutes cuz like we're not moving anywhere. You're saying the same thing I am. You just don't. Yep. >> Does the law of logic exist outside of the mind? >> Mhm. >> How do you know that?

Andrew Wilson>> Oh, wait a second. I'm confused. From a subjectivist perspective, how can you appeal to the laws of logic without using them? >> What do you mean subjectivist? Isn't that like a specific branch of of of belief?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> It's not like objectivism. It's not >> subjectivist is an entire branch of philosophy. You mean subjectivity, right? >> Well, no. In this case, I actually mean subjectivist. >> You mean the entire branch of philosophy

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that I don't appeal to. Well, I'm I'm sorry. You are appealing to it. >> Nope, I'm not. I'm I believe in objectivity. >> You believe? >> Yeah. >> Is that subjective? >> No. >> Oh. What makes it true objectively?

Andrew Wilson>> Uh >> that you believe it. >> It exists outside of me. >> Oh, is that true? >> Yeah. >> Objectively? >> Yeah. >> There's no assumption. >> There is an assumption. >> Then is that true? >> Yep. >> Objectively? >> Yep.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Without assumption. >> How do you do this? Is it true objectively? Is it true objectively? >> Yes. >> How do you know it? >> Uh because I would appeal to an unchanging standard. >> And how do you know it's unchanging? [cough] >> Because absent my mind, it would still exist.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> And how do you know that? >> I know that through inference. >> Inference like using the mind. >> There's no assumption there. >> Of course there is. >> What's the assumption? >> Uh the the existence of laws of logic, the existence that your mind is here. Those are all assumptions.

Andrew Wilson>> Everywhere you look, when a person dies, does the stuff that they leave behind remain? What >> if it's the case that you're dead tomorrow >> and I walk over and like pluck the cross

Andrew Wilsonfrom your chest, >> right? Do you agree with me that that would be the case? That if you were dead, >> the things that you live leave behind are still going to be here materially.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, I believe in objectivity. >> No, that's not objective. >> Yes, I think it would be here materially. >> Okay, it' be here materially >> for some some amount of time. >> Got it. So then I could come over and take all that [ __ ] right?

Andrew WilsonNo, I would say you when I'm dead. >> Yeah, you're dead. >> My next of kin. >> Okay. Yeah, sure. They could take all that [ __ ] >> Sure. >> But all that shit's going to be here. >> Mhm. >> Regardless of whether or not your mind [snorts] is here, >> correct? Just like the laws of logic

NotSoErudite (Kyla)exist outside of my mind. >> Is that just an assumption? >> Yeah. >> So the So you're just assum So you're just like moving into simulation theory. That's what Well, I'm not I'm granting

Andrew Wilsonexistence. But yes, simulation theory can't be proved. >> Hang on. You're granting or is true. >> Both. >> Okay. But how can you make a truth claim by >> Just so you know, one minute left. I'm not circling the drain with him forever. >> Okay. But this is not circling the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)drain. This is >> Yes. I've already granted, for example, that one of the ways that you could try to refute the dogmatism of existence, of believing that existence is true, is saying we could all just be in a simulation. >> And I said, I don't think that. I don't

NotSoErudite (Kyla)think it's even useful to think like that, but you could. And then laws of logic don't actually exist. They were just things imposed by the simulation onto us. And we don't actually know what's actually true. They're actually maybe is nothing truly true. >> Maybe nothing's truly true. >> Well, I think that something is truly

Andrew Wilsontrue. >> Okay. Are you assuming that? >> Yeah. >> Is that true? >> I'm I'm assuming objectivity. Yep. >> So, it's true that you're making an assumption. >> Yes.

Andrew Wilson>> Are you assuming that, >> bro? I'm asking are you assuming asked an answer? >> Are you assuming that you're not doing this anymore? [clears throat] Are you assuming asked an answer? >> Are you assuming it's true that you're making an assumption? >> Aren't you using logic and reason?

Andrew Wilson>> It doesn't have anything to do with me. Are you assuming what what would it have to do with me if you're >> assuming is your buzz word for the mind? But you're also using your mind to use inference. >> The buzz word for the mind is mine. But

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the thing is is are you assuming that it's true? >> Yes. that you're assuming? >> Uh, am I assuming it's true that I'm Am I assuming that my existence is true?

Andrew WilsonYes. >> No. Are you assuming that it's true that you're making assumptions? >> Uh, I suppose so. Yes. >> But is it also objectively true without assumption? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> That exists outside of the mind. >> That's P.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> But I use my mind. >> But that's P. >> It's the exact same thing that you do, which is that >> Do you think that uh laws exist outside of the mind? >> Yes. Do you think what do you use to determine that? >> I would I would use the fact that

Andrew Wilsonnothing could be appealed to to those laws except those laws. >> Therefore, they must objectively be real. >> They must objectively be real because you can't appeal to anything else. >> Yes, >> you must assume that a equals. >> There's no assumption there. There's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)just nothing else. It's it's impossibility to the contrary. There's an impossibility to the contrary. >> There's a theoretical world where it infinitely regresses where a doesn't equal a and it goes down and it goes down goes down. what a theoretical world

NotSoErudite (Kyla)looks like where contradictions can exist. >> Where contradictions can exist in a simulation where contradictions are allowed to exist. >> Okay. What does that look like? >> Uh it's hard to imagine for us cuz we're stuck in this. >> So you can't actually >> but that doesn't mean that it's not

Andrew Wilsonlogical. But you just said that that A could equal B. >> You just literally said that you can envision a world where contradictions can exist. When I ask you in a simulation what that vision looks like, you say I don't know. So >> yeah, I don't live in that simulation.

Andrew WilsonBut theoretically, if this simulation creatision then is it that you can't envision a world where that's the case, or is it the case that you just can't explain the world you're envisioning? >> I would argue that it's objectively not true. >> What? >> That there is like some other alternate

Andrew Wilsonuniverse where the laws of logic. >> Yeah, that's great. But my question is is like if it's the case that you can envision a world where contradictions can exist, can you tell me anything about that world? >> Nope, because I'm not in that one. >> Nope. Okay. All right. >> How would I tell you anything about that world?

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, of course you can't. You can't tell me anything about the because you would have to appeal to the very thing that you say is subjective in order to appeal to the thing that you're claiming is objective. >> That's objective. I would appeal to the object reality that we are in this reality. I think that this reality is

Andrew Wilsontrue that it does exist and I am assuming that. >> But if that's an assumption, is that true? >> I think it's true. Yeah. >> But is it? >> I would say objectively yes. >> Okay. But outside of your assumption, is it still true?

Brian Atlas>> Yep. >> Are you assuming that? [clears throat] >> No. Andrew, I'm not. >> You're not assuming. Now you're not assuming. Okay. >> No, I'm not assuming it. All right. >> No, it's existing outside my mind. >> We have We have a few chats. Let's just blast through them while I still have you guys here at the table and then

Brian Atlaswe're going to get this wrapped. Uh really quick, guys, if you can like the video. Get it to We're I don't know 500 likes away from 8,000 likes. Just get this to uh 8,000 likes, please. It uh helps with the algorithm. Warm storm,

Brian Atlasthank you for the Canadian hundred conspiracy theory. some bulk of confrontation in the con convo was why she hasn't gotten popular or famous has all the hallmarks to make it then handed

Brian Atlasa piece of pizza and expected to eat it to gain popularity with the audience she refused to quote unquote eat the pizza wait I don't understand why is there quote

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I don't know why I think eat the pizza doesn't need to be in quotations [laughter] >> that's what I was wondering yeah but >> you should at least [snorts] take one bite just >> I will feel you right at the end. I promise. Pink Pinky swear. >> Um, pound. >> Sure. Pound it.

Brian Atlas>> Pound it. >> All right. Uh, thank you, Mr. Northumberland for that. Uh, we have the TTS coming through here. We have revolutionistic. Thank you. Appreciate it. Get them in. This is final call.

SPEAKER_02Donated $69. Truth can be simplified or expanded upon infinitely beyond our understanding. stating this is true can be true but may not be the full explanation of that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)truth. >> Thank you for your message. >> You want to engage with that because that's to you. >> That's I don't think it is to me. >> Yeah. This this is about assumptions, right? What he's basically saying is that like you must assume that it's true

Andrew Wilsoneven though there is a theoretical possibility that truth is beyond what you even >> that's be that's beyond you. You're saying objective. So you're taking that out of the equation. >> Uh nope. I'm not. >> Yep. You are.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No. Because truth can exist like I can know lots of objective truths and there's more truth to know that I don't know. >> I'm not asking what you know. I'm asking what there is. >> Is there objective truth? >> Yes. >> Then it doesn't matter if you know it. You're just saying that it is the case

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that there is. >> Of course it is. I have to assume the truth that I have is true. That the existence of truth is true. And that the truth that I know isn't going to be held in contradiction to the truth that I don't know. >> So you're assuming there's objective truth.

SPEAKER_02>> Okay, bro. >> Yeah. Okay, girl. type [snorts] [ __ ] Um, >> Justin Martins donated $50. >> Thank you, Justin. >> At this point, I'm genuinely rooting for

SPEAKER_02Kyla to understand what Andrew is saying. She'll get there eventually. Maybe. >> No. Because of Grippa's trilmma. >> No, we're saying the same thing. >> Andrew and I are saying the same $50. >> Thank you, Pope.

SPEAKER_02>> She said subjective. I love you, Andrew. You tell her. >> Pope. Thank you very much for that. We have Chaw coming in here. Comment.

SPEAKER_02Thank you, Chaw. >> Chaw XD donated $50. Brian, I love you and love the channel and debates, >> but when I have to skip through an ad every 10 minutes during a live debate as

SPEAKER_02a channel member, it makes me want to drive to SP and throttle you. >> Hang on. Hang on. I'm going to answer this. In Brian's defense, let the guy raise some cash, right? He has to pay

Andrew Wilsonpeople's fees to come out here. He puts on the great entertainment. You know, most people don't send in super chats. It's always the threshold of people who do that make channels like this possible. So, if you he's got to run

Brian Atlassome ads, watch the [ __ ] ads. It cost you nothing to watch an ad. >> Yeah. >> And if you have YouTube Premium, he makes good money from that ad. >> That is Yeah. So, I guess you >> channel memberships that doesn't do anything on for ads.

Brian Atlas>> It does on Twitch. >> On Twitch, yes. If you have like a if you have a tier one or what do they call they're not memberships on Twitch, they're subscriptions. Yeah, on on Twitch subs, it'll stop the ads. Not the case on YouTube. YouTube, you just need

Brian Atlasto have premium. But uh yeah, you know, look, this is we're we're not exactly getting uh Athletic Green sponsorships every single episode here. We don't We're viewer supported uh ad supported

Andrew Wilsonto a degree. So, uh you know, and >> just think about this. All the people who are like, "I'm too [ __ ] broke to send in a super super chat, but would love to support the channel." Here's a good way you can support the channel. Watch the ads.

Brian Atlas>> Watch the ads. >> It costs you nothing. It literally cost you nothing. >> And that's a great way where you don't have to spend any money, but can still support the channel. >> Yeah. And you know the thing with uh our

Brian Atlasoperation it's I'm not exactly sitting in front of my desktop computer playing Fortnite where you know it's very you know low uh production cost to do

Brian Atlassomething like that studio renting the studio space I've got I've got a big team I've got an apparatus around me uh you know paying for appearances etc etc so you know there are definitely

Brian Atlasexpenses related to uh putting on a show a production like this. I'm not just, you know, streaming from my bedroom playing video games. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the uh

Brian Atlasproduction cost for doing something like this is substantial. The yearly costs are in the six figures to do a show like this. So, um that was I'm not going to

Brian Atlasget too far into the details on my expenses, but yeah, it's a lot. It it's >> it is in the six intricately. >> It's a lot. I'm spending the past every

Brian Atlassingle year uh not not just total like every year for the p since 2023. Well, even since 2022 when I when I was in the red, I was 100,000 in the red. It's six

SPEAKER_02figures uh a year in expenses to put on the show. So, uh we have Christian imperialist with looking like the final >> Christian imperialist donated $50. If I use your logic to assume your husband's

SPEAKER_02fidelity, which means it's only subjectively true because it requires our mind to pretend it's true. Does your marriage survive a grippers trma? >> Good one.

Brian Atlas>> Oh, no answer. Okay. Uh, we have Yeah, we're Andrew's getting Andrew will be getting hamburgers. Uh Devon, thanks

Brian Atlasfor the gifted five podcast for cheeseburgers. Are you a cheese den? >> Actually, I'm definitely getting cheeseburgers. Remember >> me and people like me got to get the cheeseburger. >> Me and Andrew are actually going to get Mexican food. >> Does he know that?

Brian Atlas>> He knows that. >> You're out of your [ __ ] mind. >> No, we're actually uh we're actually getting Mexican food. >> I promise you 30 minutes. >> No, no, no, no. Don't worry. Don't worry, Andrew. Don't worry. But >> [ __ ] off. I'm going, bro. No, we're go

Brian AtlasI'm taking you but to get We're going to get a different We're going somewhere else. >> Okay, whatever. >> Don't worry. Don't Don't worry. I got you. I got you, Andrew. >> You [ __ ] >> Okay, I think this is the final one.

SPEAKER_02This is the final $49. >> Did Einstein's predictions demonstrate anything of substance here? >> And who has the bigger ego here? You'll think >> Kyla. >> Definitely Brian. >> Huge.

Brian Atlas>> Kyla has the biggest ego for sure. >> I do not have a large ego at all. >> All right, final shout outs here. Uh, if you want to support the show, >> giant ego, >> huge. >> If you want to support the show, Venmo,

Brian AtlasCash App, whatever, pod. Uh, Nathan, if you can, uh, twitch.tv/ whatever, drop us a follow and a prime sub. Uh, on your way out, guys. Uh, pull it up, Nathan. Uh, there it is. Yep. Uh, drop us a follow, drop us a prime sub. Thank you

Brian Atlasfor the support over there on Twitch. You can join our Discord, discord.gg/ whatever. I post my hate mail, stream schedule, uh, post a bunch of cool stuff on there that's exclusive to the Discord. Guys, like the video, please. I

Brian AtlasI I don't know if we've hit 800 or not 800K, 8,000 likes, but if you can do so, please. Uh, debateuniversity.com if you want to learn how to become a master debater. And then here, I'll just

Brian Atlasread this real quick. Are there truths that are in principle unknowable? If so, how is that claim itself justified? And if not, why think agrippa's trilmma shows justification?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)If possible, is impossible. Excuse me, my bad. We've been through this a million times because because all justifications of knowledge fail in uh three unsatisfying ways. Infinite regression, circular

Andrew Wilsonreason. >> Is there knowledge which is unknowable? >> Thank you, Chop. >> Uh possibly. I'm not sure. >> Is there I >> I said possibly. I'm not sure. I haven't thought about it. >> This one. >> Oh, you haven't thought about it. That's just a way for her to duck the the question.

Andrew Wilson>> It's literally not. I'm not sure. >> We're playing it to a grippa trilm. According to a grippa trillemma, would know would there be knowledge which is unknowable? It has nothing to do with a grippa trillemma. I don't even know why you would

Andrew Wilson>> because that would be that would be a claim which would be a universal dog. >> It would be a universal actually that there's knowledge which is unknowable. >> Universal has nothing to do with a group of

Andrew Wilson>> tri I'm not asking you about wait >> I'm I'm asking you this question. If we apply the idea that there's some knowledge which is unknowable to a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)grippa's trilemma there is some knowledge which is unknowable >> generally. Yeah. Could it could it show that grippa's trilmma is falsifiable and you can solve a gria's trilmma theoretically? Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> No, that's not what he's asking. He's asking I is it true that there's knowledge which is unknowable and if so is that justified? Uh

Andrew Wilson>> can you justify that there's knowledge which is unknowable? Uh theoretically, yeah. >> Can you though? >> I I don't know. I haven't thought about unknowable truths. >> But a grippa trillemma would say no. Right. >> A grippa trillemma wouldn't comment on

Andrew Wilsonthis. >> Yes, it would because if you make a claim that says there's knowledge which is unknowable and then your claim from a a grippus trial is

Andrew Wilsonthat everything reduces to something which is non-justifiable. Then that claim that there's some knowledge which is unknowable would be an unjustified claim, right? >> Sure. But >> okay, sure.

Brian Atlas>> Then yes. Okay, that's his question. >> Uh, left-handed assassin. Thank you for the 50 man. The mind is inherently energetic in nature. Immaterial energy cannot be created or destroyed. The mind

Brian Atlasis eternal as the almighty God, Jesus Christ, is eternal. >> Wait a second. That's [snorts] not justified. Uh, Cody, thank you for the soup chat. >> It's assumed. >> All right.

Brian Atlas>> Assumed. >> Yeah. >> Uh, guys, like the video. Uh, we're going to wrap this up here. >> I'm going to have a smoke real quick. >> Oh, I'm I'm just going to wrap it now. If you want to just set the table. Yeah. Uh, guys, thank you for joining the

Brian Atlasstream. Uh, we're going to be live again Sunday, uh, 5:00 p. p.m. Pacific. Andrew will be joining us for our dating talk panel show. That's going to be a very good one. We have other some really fantastic panelists joining Andrew. So,

Brian Atlasbe sure to tune in. That's Sunday 5:00 p.m. Pacific here on uh the Whatever Podcast Dating Talk panel. Uh that was a that was a uh marathon debate there. You guys are uh I want to thank both of you for coming.

Brian Atlas>> Sure. >> That was a really good debate. I I enjoyed it. It was fun. You guys were >> fantastic. So thank So thank you guys both so much. Um I think it's always fair at the end if you guys want to do a

Andrew Wilsonlittle plug or shout out if if you want. My name is Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible. You can find me over on The Crucible. A >> little bit obese, but still. I'm [ __ ] entertaining and hilarious and a fantastic

Andrew Wilson>> You're cuddly, Andrew. You're cuddly. >> Fantastic debater. >> So, make sure you go over there and you like, share, subscribe, all that stuff, and send me all of your money. Not some of it, all of it. >> Anything for you?

Brian Atlas>> Yeah, you can find me at Not So Aerodite everywhere. >> Okay, perfect. All right, guys. 07's in the chat. 07's in the chat. Thank you guys so much for watching tonight. It was an epic uh debate, epic stream. I hope you you guys have a great night,

Brian Atlasgreat weekend, and we'll see you guys on Sunday. Good night, guys. Good night.

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9