YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Le N ... aufrage de la rationnalité et de la logique. Feat @TonyRhanArchive & @JackLeFouX

Le N ... aufrage de la rationnalité et de la logique. Feat @TonyRhanArchive & @JackLeFouX — Transcript

by Loremlaw · 22,906 words · 3,728 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Hey, how's it going?
0:01Hey.
0:02I'm good. How about you?
0:03I'm good,
0:03it's going well. All good.
0:05So, fundamentally, it's not really a
0:06debate, it's uh, a little exercise, a
0:08game where we look at premises that we
0:10accept or not. So, you tell me if you
0:13accept them or not, and if the whole
0:14thing goes off the rails, well at least
0:16it will help refine the logic or see if
0:18it's flawed. Basically, does that work
0:21for you?
0:22Yeah. I'm fine with that. That's OK.
0:24Wait, I'll let you speak. Uh, well
0:27there, jump, let's go. So, dogmatic
0:30calibration. Well, you're a Muslim,
0:32presumably, unless that's changed in
0:34the meantime.
0:35That's right. So, shall we first define
0:38the attributes that God has? Uh, first
0:41parameter, is He omniscient? By
0:43omniscient, I mean absolute, perfect,
0:45and flawless knowledge of everything,
0:47the past, the present, and the future
0:48of every atom, of the universe, of the
0:50entirety of things that make up the
0:52universe.
0:52Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
0:54OK. Is He omnipotent? And here, in
0:58addition to the definition, I think
1:00you'll agree with it. He can do
1:01everything that is logically possible.
1:04And so, is He capable of interacting
1:06with our world, of creating matter, or
1:07of communicating precise information to
1:09a human? Is He capable of doing that?
1:12Yeah, of course. So, right here, I'm
1:14going to make a distinction so people
1:15understand the difference regarding
1:17omnipotence. It is that, uh, through
1:19omnipotence, when we say that God can
1:22do everything, we mean He can do
1:23everything that is possible, and by
1:26omniscience, we mean He knows what is
1:28possible, but also the impossible and
1:30the non-necessary. But yes, I agree
1:32with the definitions. It's just to make
1:33it a little bit clearer.
1:34That's what I said. Yeah. Can do
1:36everything that is logically possible.
1:37Of course.
1:38Point 3, free will. Uh, does man
1:42possess free will, that is to say, the
1:43real capacity to determine his own acts
1:45without absolute external constraints?
1:53Well, that's not the definition of free
1:55will I have.
1:56OK?
1:57That's not how I define it. For me,
1:58free will is the capacity of a rational
2:00agent, therefore of man, to make a
2:02choice. That's all it is, and there are
2:04no other factors involved. Uh, when he
2:09makes a choice, is it absolutely him
2:11making that choice? I mean, there you
2:15go, that's it, there are no other
2:17factors involved, so he is 100%
2:19responsible for his choice.
2:22He is 100%responsible, of course.
2:24OK. So yes, we are free.
2:27Beginning of the experiment. So, let's
2:29imagine a man named Edouard. Every
2:31morning, Edouard has breakfast and has
2:33a choice between tea or coffee.
2:35Sometimes he has one, sometimes he has
2:37the other. The time box. So now we
2:40enter the thought experiment. One year
2:43before Edouard was born, before he was
2:45even born, God wrote on a piece of
2:47paper the exact choice Edouard would
2:49make on January 10, 2025. He wrote the
2:53paper and locked it in a box on Earth.
2:55The box is indestructible. We assume
2:57that God does not lie. Do you agree
3:00that your God can do that? Uh, yes, of
3:04course. Yes.
3:06Or it's trivial, He can do it.
3:08Basically, that is our position as
3:10Muslims. He has written destiny. Yeah.
3:13OK. It's D-Day, January 10, 2025. We
3:18are the observers. Well, let's stand by
3:19God's side, it doesn't matter. We
3:20arrive, we see the box, and we see that
3:22inside the box, it says "coffee." Uh,
3:27Edouard enters the kitchen, he knows
3:29nothing about the box. He was never
3:31told about the box, he was never, you
3:32know. He doesn't know what's inside or
3:35even that the box exists. At that exact
3:37moment, does he have the real, actual
3:40possibility of choosing tea? Well no,
3:45because then the choice is rendered
3:46necessary by something other than
3:47himself. So no.
3:52Yeah.
3:53OK. If Edouard cannot choose anything
3:56other than coffee because God saw it,
3:58then he no longer has a choice. His
4:04feeling of freedom is an illusion. In
4:06this case, he is executing the script.
4:08We agree. So, so,
4:10we agree that Wait, what does Edouard
4:13choose then? I forgot. Pardon? Well
4:16actually, no, we don't know what he
4:17chooses. But can he choose tea?
4:20Uh.
4:21God, God wrote coffee. Yeah, that's it.
4:23Yes, God. Yes, sorry. God wrote coffee.
4:25Excuse me?
4:25He wrote that he was going to choose
4:26coffee, is that it?
4:27Yeah, God, we know he wrote that he was
4:29going to choose coffee. Well, so, if he
4:31makes the choice, it means he’s
4:32capable of it.
4:34Can he choose the tea?
4:38Uh, well, can he choose? Are you
4:41talking about the possibility in itself
4:43? So, we take the agent Edouard and the
4:45coffee, and we factor into the logical
4:47proposition that God already wrote it
4:49down.
4:50Oh well, God is the thought experiment,
4:51he already wrote it, it’s set in
4:53stone. Ah, in that case, no, it’s
4:54rendered necessary by something other
4:55than himself. No,
4:57so he cannot choose the coffee, the tea
5:00, sorry. In the proposition, if you add
5:04the fact that God wrote he would choose
5:07tea, then no.
5:09OK. So, in those cases, Edouard
5:12didn’t have free will at any point.
5:15Well, that’s why I clearly defined
5:18free will as I understand it and as we
5:20Sunnis understand it. Free will is the
5:23rational agent's capacity to make
5:24choices. But Edouard chose tea, if
5:28I’m not mistaken. Anyway, who cares.
5:31In any case, he makes a choice. Could
5:32he have chosen it?
5:34Well, that’s all.
5:35It’s, it’s yes, he chose it. We
5:38agree that he took the tea.
5:40No, the question was: can he choose the
5:41tea, that’s all? Well, he chose it.
5:44No.
5:45Can he choose it?
5:46He can choose the other thing that God
5:48wrote.
5:48Exactly. That’s it.
5:50Can he choose the coffee?
5:51That’s it. Can he choose something
5:54other than what God said?
5:56Uh, if God wrote that he was going to
5:58choose tea, uh, no, he can’t choose
6:00coffee. No.
6:02So he no longer has free will at that
6:04moment.
6:05Well no, free will is the rational
6:07agent's capacity to make choices. Now,
6:09the rational agent makes a choice, he
6:10chooses the tea. Therefore, if he made
6:12a choice, it means he is capable of
6:14choosing. So he has free will. There is
6:16no contradiction.
6:18But if he chose the tea...If he chooses
6:21tea, well, in that case, God was wrong
6:23when he wrote coffee in the box. But no
6:28.
6:29Is it making a choice if you only have
6:30a single choice?
6:31No, wait, wait, wait. What I said, when
6:33I say he chose tea, I mean—well,
6:34maybe I mixed the two up, but God wrote
6:36—He wrote that he was going to choose
6:38tea. If you want, I’ll—I’ll make
6:40the—the same argument with coffee,
6:41okay? Nothing changed.
6:42So, so, uh, just to go back to the
6:44basis of the thing, God, He knows that,
6:45uh, he is going to choose coffee. So He
6:48wrote coffee on the paper. He locked it
6:50in the box a year before Edward was
6:51born.
6:52Okay. Well in that case, he chooses
6:53coffee. Well, maybe I was confused.
6:54Okay. So can he choose tea at that
6:57moment?
6:58No.
7:00So he no longer has free will.
7:03Uh, if free will is the ability to make
7:05a choice. Look, look, look at what you
7:06told me. You told me Edward, he chooses
7:09coffee. If he makes the choice, it
7:11means he is capable.
7:12Can he choose the because
7:13No, here it was coffee. God wrote that
7:15he was going to choose coffee, so he
7:16chooses coffee.
7:18Well, he doesn't choose the tea.
7:20The—the question was just, can he
7:22choose the tea? You told me no, he
7:24can't. Well, he can't if we take into
7:28account the premise that God wrote he
7:30was going to choose coffee.
7:31Yes. But that is your position as a
7:33Muslim. Did you confirm that? Yes, of
7:35course. And so, it's an internal
7:36critique, isn't it? Because otherwise,
7:37it's not interesting.
7:38Yes. No, that—that is the whole point
7:40.
7:40I don't know. Okay. Okay.
7:42Who can choose something other than
7:43what is written?
7:44No, but basically, basically, let's
7:45move on. Basically, what you are
7:47telling me right now is that since God
7:50knows or wrote my choice, then the
7:52choice is caused by God.
7:55In that case, I don't follow. Okay, I
7:56misunderstood.
7:58That's not what we're saying; it's that
7:59if God wrote the choice somewhere,
8:02the other choice was impossible.
8:04Logically. Ah.
8:06Well, okay, understood. Well, that's
8:08what I said. Now, we must make the
8:10distinction between necessary in itself
8:11and necessary for another. For example,
8:14the choice considered in itself, so
8:16Edward with two alternatives before him
8:19, tea and coffee, he has the capacity
8:21to choose both. Both are not impossible
8:24by capacity. Right, I hear that. I hear
8:26that both choices are not impossible.
8:28There is no logical impossibility.
8:29If God didn't know it, if God didn't
8:31know it, he couldn't choose the other.
8:32Is that what you mean? He could choose
8:34the other. You mean? Is that what you
8:35mean? Basically, it is necessary in
8:39itself or necessary through another.
8:42Meaning that the choice in this case,
8:44well you assume it's contingent because
8:46a priori both choices are logically
8:49valid.
8:49Yeah.
8:50But the fact that God knows it makes it
8:52necessary through another.
8:54Exactly. Yeah.
8:56Okay. So as soon as God wrote it on the
8:59paper, in his box, he made Edward's
9:02choice necessary through another.
9:06Yeah.
9:07Okay. So he deprived Edward of the
9:09possibility of truly choosing something
9:12.
9:13But did you remember the definition of
9:15free will that I gave you?
9:17Tell me again.
9:18Okay.
9:19To make a choice,
9:20you should have remembered it, at worst
9:22. Noted, noted, free will is the
9:24ability of a rational agent to make a
9:27choice. Well, consequently, if...wait,
9:31just a choice, is a choice having
9:33several possibilities? If I only have
9:36one path, is it a choice?
9:39Well, for me, a choice is the
9:41correlation between the will and the
9:45chosen alternative. For me, that is a
9:47choice.
9:48So, an alternative is needed.
9:49An alternative is needed. Yeah. So if
9:51there is only one choice, there is no
9:52choice.
9:54Well, that is a contradiction. You're
9:55saying there's a choice that isn't a
9:56choice. That right there is a
9:56contradiction.
9:57There is one path, there is no choice.
9:58If there is one possibility, there is
9:59no choice.
10:00Look, look, listen to my definition. A
10:02choice is the correlation between the
10:04will and a chosen alternative. Is that
10:05a choice?
10:06Yes, an alternative means there are at
10:08least two paths.
10:10Uh, not necessarily. No.
10:13An alternative is between at least two
10:15possibilities
10:17if you want. Yeah,
10:19if you want. You know what? No, no,
10:20it's not "if I want."
10:21I accept it. I accept it. Let's say
10:23that's my position.
10:23Well, there you go. So God wrote
10:24everything. How many possible paths are
10:26there?
10:28Well, possible in itself or possible
10:29through another?
10:31How many paths did God write?
10:34Since he knows.
10:34What do you mean how many paths did He
10:35write? That doesn't mean anything.
10:37Say He wrote what is going to happen.
10:38Yeah.
10:40How many possibilities did He write?
10:43Well, there's the one that will happen.
10:44So one.
10:45So one, so there is only one path. So
10:49according to your definition, there is
10:50no free will because there is no
10:51alternative. Well, there are others,
10:54it's just that one is made necessary by
10:55something other than itself. Actually,
10:57your argument doesn't hold up. It's
10:59exactly as if I say, look, I'm making a
11:01proposal, I'll say Tony Kh or Tony Han
11:03chooses has the choice. I'll say
11:07Tony Kan, that's a reference to
11:10wrestling I think, between azar Star
11:13that works too. Tony Can has the choice
11:16between a red pen and a blue pen. And
11:18in my proposal, what will I say? I will
11:20say that Tony Can, I I will speak in
11:23the past tense. I will say that Tony
11:25chose red. Well in that case, actually,
11:27the choice will be made necessary
11:29because it already happened but that
11:31changes nothing. It doesn't change the
11:32fact that you had the choice. Do you
11:33see what I mean? Wait, one
11:38Wait, go ahead, go ahead.
11:39Yeah. Once you have chosen, wait, just
11:41repeat that.
11:42Actually, actually, so that you
11:43understand, our position as Muslims is
11:44to say that everything is made
11:45necessary by something other than
11:46itself. Uh, our position is that the
11:49efficient cause of everything that
11:51happens is God. So, uh, actually, you
11:54are inches away from understanding that
11:57humans cause nothing.
11:59No, that's not the point. In any case,
12:01it's important, but an alternative.
12:03Oh well, it's interesting. It's not
12:05interesting. Oh no, but go ahead. Yes,
12:07Tony, but there are two points. There's
12:09the gold one, but there's mine I think.
12:10Basically
12:11yeah.
12:12You gave in your definition of free
12:13will that there must be an alternative.
12:15Yeah.
12:15If God wrote everything 50,000 years
12:16ago, I don't remember exactly.
12:18No, well first off, that's not my
12:19definition of free will. That's the
12:20definition of choice. You've confused
12:22two definitions here. But go ahead,
12:23continue.
12:24What is free will? It's having a choice
12:25.
12:25Free will is the rational agent's
12:27capacity to make choices. Choice is
12:28defined as the correlation between the
12:30will and the chosen alternative.
12:31Exactly. So, in order to make a choice,
12:33there must be an alternative. Therefore
12:35, at least two possible paths. And to
12:38have free will, one must be able to
12:39make a choice.
12:41But actually, from "will," it follows
12:42that an alternative is required.
12:45Actually, I'd like to understand,
12:47because I accept this definition, I can
12:49take it. So you told me that it's
12:50necessary...no, you're the one who
12:52cited it originally. It's not my
12:53position, but I accept it for the sake
12:54of the debate. I'm taking your position
12:56, but I would just like you to clarify
12:57it for me.
12:57Oh no, it's your position. We don't...
12:59Well no, if you really want my position
13:01, I take it from everyday life: it's
13:02the correlation between the will and
13:04the chosen alternative.
13:05Yes, no problem. We'll take that.
13:07If you don't agree with the term "
13:08alternative," you can say "element."
13:09But I, I agree with the term "
13:10alternative." There must be at least
13:12one alternative, meaning at least two
13:14paths.
13:14OK.
13:16Uh, yeah, but I don't necessarily agree
13:18with that. It depends on what you mean
13:19by two paths, because the choice will
13:21be correlated with only one alternative
13:22.
13:24I don't understand what that means.
13:27Well, do you know what a will is?
13:31Yeah, I don't see the connection, but
13:32what is an alternative?
13:35You have to make a choice between two
13:36possibilities.
13:37No, but that term works just fine.
13:39There are two possibilities.
13:40Well, it works fine, but you're telling
13:41me you don't understand it. So if you
13:43don't understand—I understood it, I
13:44understood it, but you changed your
13:46position. An alternative means there
13:48are two possibilities. Ah.
13:50Yeah, because, well yes, but
13:51possibilities in themselves, one can
13:52consider other alternatives. I can very
13:54well, when I'm going to choose tea, uh,
13:56I can very well consider coffee.
13:58There's no problem. God, he wrote...
14:02Yeah.
14:03How many possibilities are there in the
14:05end?
14:07Uh, "in the end," that doesn't mean
14:08anything— "how many possibilities in
14:09the end?" Meaning...
14:10at the moment he is going to choose.
14:12Well, at the moment, already at the
14:13moment he is going to choose, the
14:14choice is already made. So yes, from
14:15the moment the choice is already made,
14:17well, he won't choose anything else.
14:19So there is no alternative.
14:21Actually, you are confusing two things.
14:22You're telling me there's no
14:23alternative because the other one is
14:24impossible. Just because it's
14:25impossible doesn't mean it doesn't
14:26exist. For example, the moment I choose
14:28the red pen, it's not because it's
14:30impossible.
14:31No, but look. Well, yes, of course.
14:33Look. It's not because I
14:35can be impossible to exist.
14:36Can I speak, or
14:39not? Just this point here, it can be
14:40impossible and exist,
14:42huh. But we're not talking about the
14:44existence of the alternative here.
14:46We're talking about the choice of the
14:47alternative.
14:50You just said, it's not because it's
14:51impossible that it exists.
14:52Listen to me, can I speak please?
14:54No, but that point
14:56Yes. Can I explain myself? Well
14:59go ahead.
14:59When I'm going to choose, look, the
15:01moment, look, you tell me the moment we
15:03make the choice, the moment I choose
15:04the tea, the choice becomes necessary
15:06because it is happening. I can't do two
15:08things at the same time. That's a cont.
15:09You aren't explaining when you said
15:10it's not because it's impossible that
15:12it doesn't exist. I didn't understand.
15:13Well yes, look, I have tea, I have
15:15coffee, the existence. Actually, you're
15:17confusing two necessities. You're
15:18confusing the necessity of choice and
15:20the necessity of existence. Do you know
15:22what necessity is? I
15:24I don't see why it's important for you
15:26to explain to me what that means.
15:28Obviously, obviously, the coffee exists
15:30even if I can no longer choose it.
15:32You're confusing the necessity of
15:33choice and the necessity of existence.
15:36So yes, something that is impossible to
15:38choose can be possibly existing. Yes,
15:42an impossible is possibly existing.
15:45Right now, you're building a straw man.
15:46You're confused. Look, we must
15:47I'm repeating what you just said. I'm
15:49sorry. I'm just repeating what you said
15:50.
15:50Yes, the choice, the choice, the choice
15:52is impossible. The moment I make the
15:54choice of tea or coffee, whichever you
15:56want. The moment I make the choice of
15:57coffee, the choice of tea becomes
15:59impossible because my choice is
16:00happening with the tea. No alternative.
16:03Well yes, it exists.
16:05It is impossible.
16:07Tony, look, it's What is What is it?
16:09Look, you know what? I'm going to ask
16:10you questions. What is it that is
16:11impossible? Is it the choice or is it
16:12the existence of the alternative?
16:14I don't know.
16:15Well, I’m going to answer you. I—
16:16I’m telling you, when I choose tea,
16:18coffee exists. It is present, it is
16:19present in the room. The coffee is
16:20right next to me. However, I am going
16:22to choose tea. So here, my choice is
16:23going to be necessary. The existence of
16:25the coffee is possible. The coffee
16:26exists possibly. And in this instance,
16:28it does exist. I hope you can tell the
16:29difference between the two here. Look,
16:30you know what? We’re going to—
16:31we’re going to start from scratch.
16:32What are possibility, impossibility,
16:34and necessity? What are they to you?
16:36When we say something is possible, what
16:37does that mean?
16:38But why bother? I’m just asking you
16:39if there is an alternative. You told me
16:41no.
16:41Well, that is just a lie. I said that
16:44there were several alternatives. But
16:46God, how many possible outcomes did He
16:48give?
16:50That doesn't mean anything. What do you
16:51mean there are several possible
16:52outcomes?
16:53We are talking about God’s
16:54omniscience. Just
16:55in the case of tea and coffee, there
16:56are two.
16:57Yes, but how many outcomes did God give
16:59for what will happen? Well, one. I
17:03don’t know if you realize that a
17:04thing either happens or it doesn't
17:06happen. It can’t happen and not
17:08happen at the same time. That is an
17:09impossibility.
17:10Yes. Okay.
17:12There you go. So when you choose tea,
17:14the other alternative becomes
17:16impossible. And when we say it’s
17:17impossible, it’s the choice. It’s
17:18the choice of that alternative. It’s
17:20not the existence of the alternative.
17:21The alternative does exist. And
17:22actually, you are the one confusing
17:23things. You are confusing existence and
17:26choice. You are telling me that if the
17:28choice...there you go, you understood.
17:30Lorenlo is going to bounce back. You
17:31are saying that, actually, one can—
17:33one can...he has the choice, he has the
17:34alternative between a choice he can
17:36make and a choice...He has the
17:37alternative—that means nothing.
17:39Already, "he has the alternative" means
17:40nothing.
17:40He has the possibility—he has two
17:42possibilities. OK. OK.
17:44Sorry. He has an alternative. There is
17:46an alternative between a choice he can
17:48make and a choice he cannot make.
17:52No, but he—he has an alternative.
17:53What does that even mean? That he has
17:57the possibility between two two
17:59possibilities.
18:00Yes. So, he can ch-OK. OK. He can
18:02choose between two alternatives. Yes.
18:04So between two possibilities.
18:07Uh, yes.
18:08So you told me that one was impossible
18:10and one was possible. Therefore,
18:12it is made impossible by something
18:12other than oneself. Yes.
18:13So, he has no choice.
18:14Yes. Well, actually, you're confusing
18:16relationships. In that respect, yes,
18:17the other alternative becomes
18:18impossible, but the choice, not the
18:19existence. Both alternatives exist. For
18:21there to be a choice, there must be two
18:23alternatives. There are two. One is
18:24made impossible by something else. So
18:26let's go over that again. Go ahead,
18:28please.
18:28I would like to take advantage of you
18:30being here to address the question in a
18:32bit more depth.
18:33Of course, with pleasure.
18:35How, in general, do we know that humans
18:38possess free will?
18:42Uh, good question. Well, what is free
18:45will? It's the capacity to make a
18:46choice. I work on the principle that
18:48the moment we make choices, it implies
18:49we have the capacity to make a choice.
18:51But your choices, in this case, are all
18:54the result of a causal chain.
18:57Uh, that's not my position. No, no, no.
18:59Actually, for me, there is no causal
19:00chain because it is God who causes all
19:02things. So there is no chain. In fact,
19:03it's every existence.
19:05So God causes all your choices.
19:09Well, if you listened closely to my
19:10definition, for me, the choice is not
19:11caused because the choice does not
19:13exist. It does not exist externally. It
19:16is the correlation between the will and
19:18the chosen alternative. So from there,
19:21in fact, the choice will exist
19:22internally, but it's not the
19:23correlation. Correlations are not real.
19:25Is there a heaven and a hell?
19:28Uh, yeah.
19:29OK. In the end, God will judge us to
19:32see if the actions we took—I will
19:34supposedly go to hell and you will
19:36supposedly go to heaven.
19:38We agree on that.
19:40God will judge me based on my choices.
19:43Yeah. Am I the cause of my choices or
19:47is God the cause of my choices?
19:49No, no, we don't cause our choices. And
19:51actually, I just explained it to you,
19:52the choice is not really caused. The
19:53choice will be caused indirectly. It is
19:55the will that is going to be caused.
19:57Choice is the correlation between will
19:58and the alternative. But then,
20:00so it is I who choose, it is I who am
20:02the origin of my will.
20:05Uh, at the origin in the causal sense,
20:07no,
20:08it is God who causes my will.
20:09Of course. Yeah.
20:11What does God What does God not cause?
20:13Everything, he causes everything,
20:14he causes everything.
20:16So the fact that all the choices, all
20:18the will that leads me to hell in the
20:21end, God caused it.
20:23Uh, yeah,
20:24God,
20:24everything that happens, it's simple,
20:25right? It's everything that happens.
20:27That's the principle of occasionalism.
20:28OK. Yeah. So God is the origin of
20:30everything that happens.
20:31Yeah. So yeah.
20:33God is going to judge me for what he is
20:36responsible for.
20:38Well, no. What what is responsibility
20:40to you? What does responsibility imply?
20:43Responsibility implies that I am the
20:44origin and that I am the cause of my
20:46choices. That's what makes me
20:48responsible for my choices.
20:49For us, responsibility is not going to
20:51be implied by the cause but by the
20:52choice itself. It is not the cause that
20:54will determine determine responsibility
20:56, at least in our position.
20:57But the choice is caused.
20:59Yes, the choice is caused. Yes.
21:00By God.
21:02Yeah.
21:02The responsibility is caused indirectly
21:04because, once again, it does not exist
21:05externally but it is caused indirectly.
21:06It is the will that is caused. But yes.
21:09At what point am I responsible for my
21:11acts? Well, one is going to be
21:13responsible. I just said it,
21:14responsibility is implied by the choice
21:16and not by the cause.
21:19So, I am responsible because I made
21:21choices.
21:22Yeah,
21:24exactly. That's it. Yeah,
21:25my choices, I am not the cause of them.
21:27Yeah.
21:28It is God who is the cause of my
21:29choices.
21:31The indirect cause because the choice
21:32is a correlation. But yes.
21:35So, it is God who is responsible.
21:39Well then, look, look. Can I speak? Yes
21:42, go ahead.
21:43What did I say? I said choice is what
21:46will imply responsibility. So
21:48responsibility will be implied by the
21:51choice, not by the cause. God, what
21:53does he do? Does he make the choice or
21:54does he cause it? God, he causes the
21:55choice. So, it is not God who is
21:57responsible. If I take my choice, my
21:59choice will be caused by God indirectly
22:01, once again. But it is this choice
22:04that implies responsibility, not the
22:06cause. It is because I am the one
22:08making the choice. That's it.
22:10Yeah. So there you go. So God causes my
22:14choice, but I am the one making it.
22:17Yeah, exactly.
22:18Okay. The fact that I am making the
22:21choice, is there a why? Is there a
22:24cause for that?
22:27The choice, I told you it is not caused
22:28, at least not directly, because it
22:30doesn't exist yet.
22:31If you have a chocolate eclair and a
22:33coffee eclair in front of you, which
22:34one do you pick?
22:35Personally, I’ll take the chocolate
22:37eclair.
22:38Why?
22:38Coffee isn't good. Because I don't like
22:40coffee. Because you don't like coffee.
22:42So there is a cause. Why don't you like
22:43coffee?
22:46Uh, good question. I don't know, it's
22:48just my tastes, right?
22:49But why do you have those tastes?
22:52Because your taste buds are arranged in
22:55a certain way.
22:56Well, if by "why" you mean a causal "
22:58why," because God willed it. In that
23:00case, it's the same, He is the one who
23:01willed my choice.
23:02Oh, yeah. So God willed my choices. Did
23:06God will for me to make my choices? Yes
23:09.
23:11So there, there, all of this...No, no,
23:13no, because I just used your terms. I
23:15used your terms. Precisely, you say
23:17that what implies I go to hell is the
23:19fact that I make my choices, because
23:21God caused them, but I make them. Uh...
23:23Indirectly, what implies that I go to
23:25hell or not is the responsibility,
23:27which is implied by the choice. Well,
23:28yes.
23:29Which is responsibility based on the
23:30fact that I make a choice.
23:32Yeah.
23:32Okay. Did God will that I do something
23:35else?
23:37Uh, well, no. God wants my choices. Uh
23:41...
23:42Yeah.
23:42Can I do anything other than God’s
23:44will?
23:47Uh, no.
23:48So God willed for me to go to hell.
23:52Well, when you say "can I do something
23:55else?" Sorry. I mean...
23:57Well, if God...
23:58In my example...
23:59Well, you say, for example, regarding
24:00your tastes. So it is God who wants you
24:02to have a taste for coffee, or, well,
24:04for chocolate in this case. It’s
24:06God’s will.
24:07Yeah.
24:08So you couldn't have wanted something
24:10else or had a taste for something else.
24:13Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
24:15So let's assume that the fact of
24:17preferring coffee is what gets you, or
24:19well, preferring coffee, yes, earns you
24:22hell. If God wanted you to have a taste
24:25for coffee, well, he is the one who
24:27implies that you go to hell. It is
24:32God's direct will.
24:34Yes, so he is the one who causes
24:36everything that exists. Exactly.
24:39H
24:40so he will cause my entry into hell. He
24:42will cause everything. But I don't
24:43understand here.
24:44He causes all my desires, actually. He
24:46causes everything.
24:47You are not making the distinction.
24:48Look, look. You are not distinguishing
24:50between cause and responsibility. What
24:51did I tell you? I told you that
24:52responsibility is implied by choice.
24:55Choice is caused indirectly because
24:56choice does not exist in a vacuum. It
24:58is the will that is caused. As you said
25:00, the will is caused by God. Uh, the
25:02choice will be the correlation between
25:04the will and what I am going to choose.
25:05For example, the chocolate éclair.
25:06So I want I want to be caused by
25:08responsibility.
25:09I want to do it, it's caused by God.
25:11The will. Yes. Well yes, the will is
25:13caused by God.
25:14Okay. So I want to do it, I make the
25:17choice.
25:18Is there, is there a contradiction?
25:20Because I've answered a lot of
25:21questions already. I am not pointing
25:22out any contradiction to you. I want to
25:24see what the implications are,
25:25precisely.
25:26It's very important. I mean, I thought
25:27you were making an argument.
25:29Oh no, no, no. Actually, I want to see
25:31what your paradigm of thought implies
25:32because, from what I understand,
25:35I don't know if Tony or Plume
25:37understand something else, but a priori
25:39, uh, everything I do, all my decisions
25:42, are God's will. Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
25:47So, since it's my decisions that, in
25:49the end, dictate that I will go to hell
25:50or that you will go to heaven, it is
25:52God's will.
25:54Yeah.
25:55Even before my birth, finally. Yeah.
25:59So before my birth, God wanted me to go
26:02to hell.
26:03Yeah.
26:04OK. And so that is a just God.
26:09Uh, well there, so then, are you asking
26:11me a question or are you implying that
26:12there is a contradiction with divine
26:14goodness? It's not a contr, well it
26:16could be a contradiction with divine
26:18goodness because I assume that,
26:19precisely, a god who is good
26:21I assume it, but
26:22Well, I suppose a god who is good would
26:23want to make creatures that go to
26:25heaven, because eternal heaven is
26:26pretty cool, after all.
26:27But this is really wild, because your
26:29argument basically—since you're
26:31presenting it as questions—brings me
26:33a conclusion with a term that isn't
26:35even in the premises and hasn't even
26:37been defined. We haven't even heard a
26:39word about divine goodness since the
26:40beginning. No, but is it important, for
26:43a good being, that people go to heaven?
26:47Is it better to go to heaven than to go
26:48to hell?
26:50If you formalize your argument, it
26:51won't be valid because you are bringing
26:52an element, a factor, into the
26:54conclusion that isn't even present in
26:55the premises. So
26:56no, I, it doesn't work.
26:59I, I literally conducted an epistemic
27:00interview. I didn't formulate an
27:02argument.
27:03It's a good thing you didn't formulate
27:04it. Answer. I didn't formulate an
27:06argument. The thing is, what I
27:07understand is that if God created me,
27:09it's because He wanted to create me to
27:10go to hell, that's all.
27:13Well no, it's not just that. No, first
27:15of all, God doesn't create for a motive
27:16, you know. That, once again, uh, God
27:18doesn't create
27:19No, but He's still responsible for me
27:21going to hell. So He created things
27:22needlessly. Well no, there, no, you
27:24didn't understand. Responsibility is
27:26implied by the choice of the rational
27:28agent. It's a good thing I said it at
27:29least four times. So God is not
27:30responsible, because Him being
27:31responsible in everything you said, we
27:33clearly understood that it made no
27:35sense. Because in every step, well in
27:38every step, you validated that
27:39everything was God's will. Everything
27:42is God's will.
27:44So the fact that I go to hell is
27:45strictly God's will, even before I was
27:47born. He condemned me to hell. Do you
27:49see what I mean? Yes.
27:51And, and responsibility is implied by
27:52what? I've said it four times, it's
27:54easy.
27:54I wasn't born yet, I couldn't be
27:56responsible.
27:57No, but responsibility is implied by
27:59what?
27:59He created the universe.
28:01Can I answer? I, I've given you the
28:03answer four times. I, I am going to
28:06tell you what responsibility implies,
28:07it's the fact that I'm not asking you
28:11what it implies, I'm going to tell you
28:13because it's the rational and logical
28:14answer.
28:15That is precisely what responsibility
28:17is: knowing if I am the cause, the sole
28:19cause of my choices. That is what could
28:22imply that I have responsibility, that
28:23no one else can be blamed for the fact
28:25that I did something. If, for example,
28:28I commit a crime or commit a theft, the
28:31responsibility falls on me if no
28:33external factor led me to do that thing
28:36. Except for you, there is an external
28:38factor. The external factor is that God
28:40willed it.
28:40No, but okay, but that is not our
28:41position. You are currently making an
28:43external critique. You are giving your
28:44opinion, but with all due respect for
28:45your opinion, we don't care.
28:47Contradiction in: I, I do care about my
28:49opinion, but I see your paradigm, and I
28:50think it is stupid in this instance.
28:52Well, what? Do you hear that there is a
28:54contradiction?
28:55No, I, I hear that if, if in that case,
28:58the contradiction. Well then, Tony will
29:01give you the contradiction, but I'll
29:02just finish this point. All I'm saying
29:05is that, well, in fact, God just
29:06created everything He wanted to go to
29:08hell. And if in your paradigm, well, uh
29:10, you are going to go to hell, let's
29:12assume, because I don't rule out that
29:13you might end up in hell. Well, God
29:15would have still willed it. OK.
29:18You live in a world where God's will
29:20can exist. And Tony, yes, if you want
29:21to address the contradiction, go ahead.
29:23H
29:23Actually, we've already exposed the
29:24contradiction, except we're going to go
29:25in circles. I'm going to, I'm going to
29:27be very precise for the last time so
29:28that everyone understands. So, free
29:30will, according to the N, is for making
29:33a choice. And making a choice is the
29:38link between consciousness and the
29:40alternative.
29:41No no no, first of all, no, use the
29:43right words. I don't want to make a
29:45straw man.
29:45No, but yes, no, but there's no problem
29:46. I will redefine—it's funny that you
29:48want to formulate an argument when you
29:50haven't even remembered my definitions.
29:51But that, besides that
29:52there are too many complicated words.
29:53That's why it's better if you make a
29:55straw, a straw—go ahead.
29:56What is complicated about the terms I
29:58use? Look, you're going to tell me no
29:59problem.
29:59I don't remember them. I, I am a bit
30:01Yes, but well, take notes. Take notes.
30:03It's still, it's just two definitions.
30:04Two definitions, that's easy to
30:05remember. So
30:05Go ahead, no worries.
30:06Choice—well, no, free will first is
30:08the rational agent's capacity to make a
30:09choice. So the rational agent, let's
30:11say man.
30:11I was right. Yeah, yeah.
30:13Yeah. And, well, you didn't specify "
30:16rational agent," but that's okay. And
30:18choice is the correlation, not with
30:20consciousness, I mean, not between
30:22consciousness but between the will and
30:23the chosen alternative. Exactly.
30:25Oh, yeah, I was way off. I was way off
30:27indeed. So, okay. So, we need will,
30:29it's not the same thing, right? But.
30:30No worries. So we agree that A, B, C,
30:34there must be an alternative for there
30:38to be free will. It's mandatory.
30:41OK. Of course, of course.
30:43An alternative means there are two
30:47possibilities.
30:49Yeah. At least two alternatives.
30:51Two possibilities.
30:52Considered in themselves.
30:55Agreed.
30:56Yeah.
30:57OK.
30:58So God wrote that we are going to drink
31:00coffee. It's a possibility.
31:02Yeah, it's a possibility. Of course.
31:04It's the only possibility since God is
31:06necessarily right. Uh, it's the only
31:09possibility from the moment, in your
31:11proposition, you consider the fact that
31:13God wrote it. So it's, it's. Muslim.
31:17But then it's no longer a possibility,
31:18it's a necessity in this case.
31:19It's a necessity.
31:21Yeah.
31:21Which is a possibility.
31:24Well no, a thing cannot be, no, a thing
31:25cannot be necessary and possible. It
31:27depends on whether we have a
31:28distinction: necessary.
31:31And the other, it's impossible since
31:33God didn't choose it.
31:34Possible in itself, impossible by
31:35something other than itself, of course.
31:37There you go, so according to your
31:39definition there must be two
31:40possibilities, and we have one
31:42necessary and one impossible.
31:43There is no free will according to your
31:45definition.
31:45Can I answer?
31:46Now. We're going to go in circles.
31:48No, let him answer, no. You can answer
31:50as much as you want. It's to explain it
31:52to the viewer. That's it. But go ahead,
31:55please. As much as you want. Sorry? So,
31:59that's why I clearly specified the
32:01distinction between possible in itself
32:02and necessary by something other than
32:04itself. I already said, well, I took
32:06your position because I'm nice, but I
32:08did say that for there to be a choice,
32:10there must be two alternatives.
32:11What position? I didn't give a position
32:13.
32:14Oh yes, you're the one who gave the
32:15position. You said that for you, you
32:16need at least two alternatives for
32:18there to be a choice.
32:19By...No, it's you, it's your position.
32:23No problem. Yes, that's my definition.
32:25That is my definition. So, what did I
32:27say? You asked me questions. That is my
32:29definition. That is my definition.
32:31If you have another one, you have to
32:32give it to us, because later you'll say
32:33we didn't refute your position. No
32:34problem. There is no problem. It's my
32:35def, it's my position, and it's my
32:37definition.
32:37Very well.
32:38So, what did I say? When you asked me
32:40questions, I said the two alternatives
32:42must be possible when considered in
32:44themselves. What did you tell me? You
32:46told me that when God writes that I
32:47will choose one alternative, for
32:49example coffee, it implies that the
32:51other is impossible. Except you aren't
32:53making the distinction. It will be
32:54rendered impossible by the fact that
32:56God wrote that I would not choose that
32:58alternative, that I would choose tea.
33:02So in fact, the alternative is
33:04considered, uh, considered in itself it
33:07is possible, and considered with the
33:10factor, uh, destiny, the factor of God.
33:13Then it is rendered impossible.
33:14You're using the excluded middle.
33:15But in fact, oh sure,
33:18is it possible or is it impossible?
33:20Possible in itself, impossible by what,
33:21those are two different respects. There
33:23is no, there is no contradiction, and
33:24it's not the excluded middle, it's the
33:25principle of non-contradiction. You
33:26confused two logical principles, but
33:27that's okay. Excuse me.
33:30No, but I hope, that's why, that's why
33:31I'm making the distinction, right? A
33:32thing can be
33:33a thing can be possible in one respect
33:35and impossible in another respect.
33:36There is no contradiction.
33:38Agreed.
33:39Oh no, but that is the Balzac argument,
33:41applying the principle of
33:42non-contradiction to two different
33:44respects. That doesn't work.
33:46Respect us. So, possible in itself,
33:48what does "possible in itself" mean?
33:50Well, "possible in itself" is a thing
33:52that, when we consider only the thing
33:55in itself without any external factor,
33:57well then it is possible. If we
33:59consider another factor which, in this
34:01case, makes it necessary or impossible,
34:03then its modality changes in that
34:04respect. For example, the*oremlo*, it
34:07is possible for it to exist when
34:08considering it in itself. Now, if I
34:10take it at this instant—I gave this
34:12example earlier—at this instant in
34:142025, it is 11/23 at 10:22 PM, do you
34:17understand? In that respect, we observe
34:19that it exists.
34:20There you go. So, if we consider the
34:22non-existence of the*oremlo*at that
34:23time, there is a logical contradiction
34:24because it would imply that it exists
34:26and that it does not exist. So, for
34:27example, here, it is rendered necessary
34:28by the moment. But in your definition,
34:30in your definition of free will and of
34:32choice, you didn't talk about
34:33possibilities in themselves and
34:35possibilities by other than oneself.
34:37Oh, well, of course I did. You asked me
34:38questions, I told you that alternatives
34:40were possible. Definition, the
34:41definition includes in oneself and by
34:43other than oneself. Let's be clear.
34:45Of free will or choice? Which
34:47definition do you want?
34:48Well, one includes the other. So both.
34:49Okay. Well, I'll give you both. Okay.
34:52So, free will is going to be the
34:53capacity of the rational agent to make
34:55a choice, and choice will be defined as
34:57the correlation between the will and
34:58the chosen alternative. Anyway, there
35:01is not even—well, for my definition,
35:03there isn't even
35:03an alternative
35:04and the alternative must be possible
35:06considering it in itself. There you go.
35:09All right. Considering it in itself.
35:11Okay.
35:12Considered in itself.
35:13Considered in itself.
35:14Yeah.
35:15So the coffee is a—is a necessity.
35:19That's it.
35:20Necessity by other than oneself.
35:21Everything is necessary by other than
35:22oneself anyway from our position.
35:24And the other alternative, what is it?
35:27It is impossible, not possible in
35:30itself and rendered impossible by other
35:32than oneself. Sorry. So look, I'll give
35:36you—I'll
35:37So we can—we can choose it.
35:41Look, I'll give you an example. We can
35:43choose it.
35:43No, there is no "we can choose it." We
35:45can choose it.
35:47Yeah, we can choose it.
35:48So God can be wrong.
35:49Well, if you consider in your own—so
35:51God can be wrong.
35:52No, no.
35:54Well, God said that we were taking the
35:56coffee. God said that we were taking
35:57the coffee. No, but here—here you are
35:59changing the proposition. If you
36:00consider that God wrote that I was
36:01going to choose the tea, then yes, in
36:02that case, I cannot choose the coffee.
36:04No, the
36:04Ah, in that case, in that case, we
36:06cannot. No.
36:07Then why are you telling me there are
36:08two possibilities? Why do you invoke
36:11your stories about "possible in itself"
36:13? Can we choose the the other
36:16alternative? The choice of the other
36:18alternative, is it rendered impossible
36:19by what? I warned that we—I warned
36:21that we would go in circles.
36:23And how so?
36:25God said we're taking the coffee. Can
36:27we choose the tea?
36:29In that case, no. It is rendered
36:30impossible by other than oneself.
36:31So, is there an alternative?
36:32If you don't understand the distinction
36:33, I...well yes,
36:34do you understand? There is an
36:35alternative.
36:36The alternative, it exists right there.
36:38I explained it to you at the very
36:39beginning. No, but I explained the
36:40distinction between existence and
36:42choice 30 minutes ago. You're confusing
36:43the necessity of existence and the
36:45necessity of choice. Please, go ahead,
36:46speak, and then I'll speak.
36:47Yes, yes, you'll speak after. The N
36:49explains that we can make a choice. So
36:52we have an alternative between a
36:54necessary choice and a choice we can't
36:56make. But explain it to us again, with
37:00"in itself" and "by another".
37:02OK. Are you done? Is that your name?
37:04I have finished.
37:05OK. OK. Well,
37:06actually, when words no longer have
37:07meaning,
37:08listen closely,
37:09when we use definitions that bring
37:10nothing to the subject to...
37:12I want to speak.
37:13Yes. No, but I'm concluding, I'll stop
37:14there. When when we add a bunch of
37:16definitions to muddy the waters, it's
37:18very simple. God has written it, there
37:19is no other choice possible, you said
37:21it. So there is no alternative. Or else
37:24it's an alternative between a necessary
37:25choice
37:26and an impossible choice. So it's it's
37:28over.
37:29OK. I...Thank you. Yeah, thank you very
37:31much.
37:33What does Tony Kan tell us? He tells us
37:34, like God—we'll use the coffee and
37:36tea example again—God wrote, for
37:38example, that I would choose coffee.
37:40That implies that I will indeed choose
37:41the coffee. In that case, my choice is
37:43rendered necessary. Now he makes a
37:45confusion. What is he going to say? He
37:47will say, since my choice is rendered
37:48necessary, it implies that the other
37:50alternative no longer exists. Well, for
37:51starters, just because the other
37:53alternative and choosing the other
37:54alternative is impossible, doesn't mean
37:56the existence of the alternative
37:57becomes impossible. He confuses
37:59impossibility or necessity, well, he
38:01confuses the modality of existence and
38:02the modality of choice. Already,
38:04there's a catastrophic confusion, eh.
38:06The tea, even though I can no longer
38:08choose it, the tea exists, eh.
38:10I didn't say it was an—No, no, you
38:12said it was,
38:13that's a straw man.
38:14Ah, well, you're telling me there's no
38:16longer an alternative interpretation.
38:18The choice is, let me re-explain it to
38:19you quickly.
38:20You're confusing the existence of the
38:22tea,
38:22okay? It's a physical entity. We don't
38:24care about that. That's not what we're
38:25talking about. Obviously the tea exists
38:27. Obviously the tea exists.
38:29The choice
38:30Wait, wait.
38:31Exists. You're confusing existence and
38:33impossibility. The choice exists but it
38:36is impossible to make.
38:38Yes. No, but it's
38:39be precise. But be precise because you
38:41might give the impression that I said
38:43something illogical. That's not the
38:44case.
38:44So maybe maybe it's just that I didn't
38:47understand what you said. You're
38:48telling me that when you're forced to
38:50choose coffee, the alternative—I mean
38:52, there is no longer an alternative.
38:54Wait, let me speak. No, I didn't say
38:56the alternative becomes impossible.
38:58There's a recording, there's a
38:59recording. Yes, you said there was no
39:01longer an alternative. I agree with
39:03that. OK. I agree. I agree with the
39:05fact.
39:06The second alternative becomes
39:08impossible.
39:09So by definition, when there is only
39:11one path, there is no longer an
39:13alternative. An alternative is between
39:15two possibilities. Two possibilities.
39:18If there is a necessary one and an
39:19impossible one, there are not two
39:21possibilities. That's your definition,
39:23not mine.
39:24But wait uh Tony Kan,
39:26how is that my definition? Yes, it's an
39:28internal critique. I'm giving you my
39:29definition now.
39:30Uh, is it relevant to tell us it's an
39:32internal critique? Yes, we are in the
39:33process of showing that your your
39:35definition is not logical, it is not
39:37consistent.
39:37Yes,
39:38but your free will and omniscience,
39:41it's no good. It's an internal critique
39:43. Why are you doing an internal
39:44critique?
39:44But the problem is that there is no
39:45contradiction. I will explain to you
39:47why quite simply.
39:48It's and tell me,
39:51I've been explaining it to you for 20
39:52minutes.
39:53OK. Well wait, I'm going to respond to
39:55your so-called argument. So-called
39:57argument. What are you telling me? You
40:00are telling me that since the choice is
40:01rendered necessary by something other
40:03than oneself, then there is a
40:04contradiction because there must be two
40:06possibilities available in themselves.
40:08Except what you don't understand, Tony,
40:10is that you said that, not me.
40:11Yes, of course. But yes, because it's
40:13an internal critique. Please, Tony Kan,
40:15can I answer? Can you stop interrupting
40:17me because otherwise you're just going
40:18to repeat things you've already said
40:19that I didn't say. Yes. And stop
40:21putting words in my mouth. It's a
40:23definition. It's especially that, wait,
40:26beyond that, the the problem is the the
40:27problem is even bigger anyway. The
40:30problem is even deeper anyway,
40:32it's that God is the one who wills
40:34everything in the end.
40:36Yeah, exactly. Of course.
40:38There is no free will. If God wills
40:40everything, can the agents...What's the
40:43defense?
40:44No, you're not going to keep blowing
40:45smoke with your nonsense. But you...you
40:47started from the premise
40:50No, but...you can say it again later,
40:52but no, the criticism
40:55there is...but then you're the one
40:57making fun of Tony and everyone else
40:59the whole time, like "where's the
41:00rhetoric," seriously, talk about it
41:02later then.
41:04No, but in the end God wills everything
41:06, that's it, if that's the case in your
41:09dogma, internal criticism stops there,
41:11it's the only will that exists.
41:14But I agree with that. You're telling
41:15me "God wills everything" like it's a "
41:16wow" moment.
41:17Well yes, trying to
41:19So humans can't will anything since
41:20it's always God who wills.
41:23Ah, okay, very interesting. So, okay.
41:25Can I respond to that?
41:27What are you trying to tell me? You're
41:28telling me that since God wills X, then
41:30another agent cannot will X. Since God
41:33wills all things, then other agents
41:35cannot will those things.
41:37Well, can we will something that goes
41:39against God's will?
41:40Clearly. No, but...well, no, but...
41:43can we do things that are the opposite
41:45of God's will?
41:46But that's not the question. You're
41:47telling me that since God wills all
41:48things, we can't will those things.
41:50That's what you told me.
41:51No.
41:51Ah, well I misunderstood. Well, in that
41:52case, there is no contradiction. Now I
41:54am going to respond to what Tonica said
41:55to me.
41:55Well, the contradiction is this: can...
41:57can we...are there things that happen
41:59outside of God's will?
42:02No. Can I think I want something? Can I
42:07think I want...you can
42:10right now? I'm not speaking, you're not
42:12speaking—yes, don't worry, you're
42:13still talking quite a lot.
42:14Can I think and want something outside
42:17of God's will? Can I do anything,
42:19anything at all, outside of God's will?
42:21It's absurd to tell me that I'm going
42:22in circles and repeating the same
42:23things. You've been asking the same
42:24questions this whole time without
42:25making an argument. But
42:26for me, that's the whole point. Is
42:27there anything I can do, whether in
42:29terms of my will or my actions, that is
42:32outside of God's will?
42:33No, no, no.
42:34Well, thank you. That settles it. And
42:36there is absolutely no free will in
42:37that paradigm. OK. Answer.
42:39There is no choice. Well yes, but
42:41you're just going to loop.
42:42Perfect. There's no problem. So then,
42:44what is Remlo telling us? Loreml tells
42:45us here that there is no free will
42:47because we cannot do things that God
42:48has not willed. However, my definition
42:49of free will—I remind you it is an
42:51internal critique, so he is obligated
42:52to use my definition. When he says that
42:53I'm blowing smoke with definitions,
42:54that's just rhetoric, because in any
42:56case, it's the principle of an internal
42:57critique. You are forced to take my
42:59definitions. So
43:00and we took them with pleasure, even.
43:02Yeah, let me speak, please. So what is
43:03Remlo telling me? He says that since we
43:05cannot will something outside of God's
43:07will, that implies we don't have free
43:09will. However, free will is defined by
43:11the rational agent's capacity to make a
43:12choice. Here, we're not even talking
43:14about will. So, as it happens, it's
43:15irrelevant. Choice is the correlation
43:18between the will and the chosen
43:19alternative. It's not because God
43:21causes my will, and thus my choice
43:22indirectly—because I remind you that
43:24choice does not exist experimentally.
43:25So it is not caused. But let's admit it
43:27, let's even suppose it, it changes
43:28nothing. It is the choice that will
43:29imply responsibility. Consequently, we
43:31are responsible and we have free will.
43:34I—there is no
43:35you say in the same sentence, we're not
43:37talking about will.
43:39Well yes, we're talking about choice.
43:40It's the correlation because of choice.
43:42Well yes, it's not because choice is
43:44the correlation between will and choice
43:45that choice is identical to will.
43:47Please, now Tony Kan, I thank you,
43:49Remlo. That was a very, very fine
43:50demonstration.
43:51Thank you very much. No problem. No
43:53problem. Now, Tony Kan, I am going to
43:55answer your argument. What did Tonican
43:56tell me? He said that for there to be a
43:58choice, there must be two possible
43:59alternatives.
44:00No, no, I didn't say that. You're the
44:01one who said that. That's your
44:03definition.
44:03OK, OK, OK definition. Making it look
44:07like it's me. It's an internal critique
44:08. What I mean is, what I mean when—no
44:11, but okay, well, that's what I said.
44:13But you want to demonstrate that there
44:14is a contradiction in my statements. OK
44:16. Look at what I said. I said, look, I
44:19said that for there to be a choice,
44:21there must be two alternatives possible
44:23in themselves. And you, your argument
44:25is to tell me that when I choose tea,
44:27this choice is rendered necessary by
44:29something other than myself.
44:31You're the one who said that, not me.
44:33No, but you said it too. That's to
44:35demonstrate the contradiction. Yes.
44:36Fine, I'm the one saying it. When I
44:38choose tea, the choice is rendered
44:39necessary by something other than
44:41myself because it is written or caused.
44:43It's already—it's the fact that it is
44:45—no, but wait, let me finish. The
44:46fact that it is written and the fact
44:47that it is caused are not the same
44:49thing; for us, it's not fate that
44:50causes things, it's His will
44:51and His omnipotence. But anyway, so the
44:53choice is rendered necessary by
44:54something other than oneself. But
44:55except that if an element, if we take
44:57an element X and it is rendered
44:58necessary by something other than
44:59itself or impossible by something other
45:01than itself, as you wish, its
45:02impossibility or necessity is implied
45:04by another. That implies that it is
45:06necessarily possible in itself. I hope
45:07you know that. So if my choice is
45:09rendered necessary by something other
45:10than itself, that means it is possible
45:11in itself. Therefore, there is no
45:13contradiction with my definition of
45:14choice, which is that there must be two
45:16alternatives, or three alternatives, as
45:18many as you want, several alternatives,
45:19a plurality of possible alternatives
45:21considered in themselves if they are.
45:23If the choices are rendered necessary
45:24or impossible by something other than
45:25themselves, it implies that they are
45:27possible in themselves. So there is no
45:28contradiction, in fact.
45:29I'll let you respond, thanks for
45:30letting me speak.
45:31The debate was finished as soon as we
45:33took the side that God was responsible
45:34for everything; that's it in principle.
45:36But go ahead Jack, hello Jack first of
45:38all, I hope you're doing well. I—I
45:39never said that, but there I am being
45:41straw-manned. I never said that. I
45:42never said that God was responsible for
45:43everything.
45:44No, no, you didn't say it, but those
45:45are the implications of everything
45:46you've said from the beginning.
45:47I'll prove it. So
45:48well, actually, when you say nothing
45:50can happen outside of the will of Allah
45:52, Allah is responsible for everything.
45:54It's the same sentence, but it's an
45:56obligation.
45:57So unfortunately, I will have to repeat
45:58my definition for you. Don't worry
46:01about the people, there's the recording
46:02, it will be available on YouTube.
46:03People will listen to it all again and
46:05will see.
46:05No, but it's not like that. Let me
46:06answer. You are making an argument. You
46:08are telling me that since nothing can
46:09you are going to repeat the same things
46:11. You are going to repeat something
46:12else. You are going to say something
46:12different. The implication is false.
46:14Okay. Okay. Well, tell me how the
46:16implication is true. In that case,
46:18repeat it. Look, let's have some fun.
46:20Repeat my definition of free. It's Yeah
46:23. What is the opposite of nothing? What
46:25is it? What is what is the complement
46:26of nothing?
46:28What does that have to do with it?
46:29Listen to me.
46:30Something.
46:31No. No. Nothing.
46:33Yeah.
46:35What is the opposite? What do you mean?
46:37What is the opposite of nothing? The
46:38opposite of void.
46:40Yeah.
46:41That which exists, so that's everything
46:45.
46:47Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
46:49So if nothing happens outside of the
46:51will of Allah, everything happens with
46:55the will of Allah.
46:56Oh, of course. But I already stated
46:57that. Yes, of course. Everything
46:58happens. You just said that you didn't
47:01say that.
47:02Oh, but yes. No. I said that God was
47:04not responsible. Once again, and I said
47:09that at the very beginning of the
47:10debate, responsibility is not implied
47:11by the cause but implied by the choice
47:13itself. It's the choice that implies
47:14actually I am confusing the cause of
47:15saying that God th there are things God
47:16is not responsible for
47:18but that's nonsense. You are confusing
47:20you are confusing the cause of the
47:21choice and the choice, it's the choice
47:22that imp
47:23because there are things God is not
47:25responsible for
47:26but God is responsible for nothing. He
47:28is not responsible.
47:29He is responsible for nothing.
47:31Yeah, he is the cause of everything,
47:32but he is responsible for nothing.
47:34That's very important. And that is
47:35precisely why I specified from the
47:37beginning that responsibility is
47:38implied by the choice and not by the
47:40cause. Causes do not imply.
47:41We heard it all, that makes a lot of
47:43sense.
47:43The choice the choice that we cannot
47:45make because there is no alternative
47:47because there is nothing necessary and
47:49impossible. I understood.
47:50You are going in circles. I already
47:52answered that. But I warned you. I had
47:54made a prediction when we r
47:55Jack, if you wanted to react. Hello to
47:57you.
47:59Hi Jack.
48:00Can I answer or?
48:02Of course, of course.
48:03Okay. Well, so
48:04wait, I already I greeted Jack.
48:06Oh yes, sorry. Yes yes, excuse me. I
48:08thought I didn't have the floor.
48:10Oh hi.
48:12Do you do you want to speak, Jack the
48:13Mad? Do you have something to add or
48:15no? But it's no, I'll let you answer.
48:17OK. OK. Perfect. So, what is the
48:19argument here? It's saying that, uh,
48:22nothing can happen outside of God's
48:24will. Basically, that God is the
48:26efficient cause of everything. Thanks.
48:27That's the Sunni position. And that
48:29would invalidate free will. No, that,
48:32uh, no, no, that's nonsense. That would
48:33imply that God is responsible for
48:34everything. Uh, except that for me, my
48:37position, I remind you that it's an
48:39internal critique, so you have to take
48:40my definitions. You need to stop using
48:43pathos and rhetoric and and and losing
48:45people.
48:46Pathos. An example.
48:48Yes, because it is pathos in the end.
48:50An example.
48:51What do you mean, an example?
48:53An example that proves to us you're not
48:54just using a word at random. What did
48:55we do that was pathos tonight?
48:57Well, I don't know. When you say that
48:58since God causes everything, He is
49:00responsible. You actually need to
49:01justify that. You're manipulating
49:02people with emotions.
49:04OK. OK. Alright.
49:05No, it's a logical implication. If God
49:06causes everything, He is responsible
49:08for everything. It's
49:09OK. It's a logical implication.
49:11No, but please, can I answer?
49:12Well no, of course that's not it.
49:13OK. OK.
49:14Did we did you did we use pathos?
49:17Can I answer?
49:19Did we use pathos? You can admit a
49:21mistake. I promise you, I will admit
49:22mistakes whenever you want. You didn't
49:23use pathos. Come on, come on.
49:25There you go. Thanks. Go ahead.
49:26OK. No worries.
49:27OK. Now, what are you saying? You are
49:29saying that if God is the efficient
49:31cause of everything, then He is
49:32responsible. But what did I say? What
49:34implies responsibility is choice, not
49:36cause. Consequently, your attempt at an
49:40argument doesn't work. It doesn't hold
49:42water. Your syllogism isn't formal.
49:46God
49:46at best, it's formal if you take
49:48another definition, uh, or if you take
49:50another implication of responsibility.
49:52But then, it's no longer an internal
49:52critique. In that case, that
49:53take yours. We'll take we'll take yours
49:55. God is determined.
49:56Well, in that case, it doesn't work
49:57anymore. What do you mean, God is
49:58determined? God is determined.
50:00I mean, by determined, do you mean
50:02caused
50:03by a causal chain? Yes.
50:05Not necessarily. No. No.
50:06There isn't a causal chain in every
50:07case. I already answered that, too.
50:08There is no chain.
50:09I'll change, I'll change, I'll change
50:11how I express myself.
50:13Can He make choices?
50:16Uh, yes, of course. Yeah.
50:19No, but are you—are you kidding me?
50:22Well, why?
50:22If He can make choices, then He is
50:24responsible. That's your definition.
50:25No, but that's a shift in meaning.
50:26We're talking about the choice of a
50:27rational agent. I clarified my—
50:28that’s why I’m clearly defining my
50:29terms. It's the choice of a rational
50:30agent.
50:30God is not—God is not a rational
50:32agent.
50:32No. Well, no. Oh, really? He
50:34a rational agent is human. No, no, He
50:36is not rational.
50:38OK. Well, what do you mean? That's OK.
50:42He is not a rational agent. By rational
50:43agent, we mean an agent that reasons. I
50:45don't reason. I’m not—don’t try
50:47to twist my words and say that I’m
50:49saying His concept isn't rational. I'm
50:51saying He isn't a rational agent. No,
50:52He doesn't reason. No. No, He is
50:54omniscient. Alright.
51:00Uh, well, I don't know, are you done,
51:02Lenan?
51:03Well, so, uh, you don't have any other
51:05arguments, because what exactly is
51:07false in what I said?
51:09Well, everything.
51:09Yes, everything.
51:10Well, tell me, give me an example.
51:14We’re just going to keep repeating
51:15ourselves after a while. arbitrary,
51:18there is no alternative, so I invite
51:20you to re-listen to the debate, it will
51:22be
51:25no, but you are just answering with the
51:27very assertion I'm refuting, that
51:28doesn't work, you're telling me there
51:29is no free—that is the argument I
51:31presented
51:32actually, you are using an extremely
51:34complex and obscure explanation
51:37to—and to hope to confuse people, but
51:39that's it, that's it, He cannot choose
51:41otherwise, you said it yourself, He
51:43cannot choose otherwise, so you invent
51:45a definition, necessary in itself, but
51:47we don't care, He can't choose it
51:50necessary by something other than
51:51itself, possibly, or it doesn't exist
51:53but it does exist. You invented it.
51:55all the definitions we provide exist,
51:56what are you trying to tell me? Are you
51:58trying to tell me free—
52:01no, but okay, what are you trying to
52:02tell me? You're telling me the argument
52:03I presented doesn't work, just to
52:04confuse the audience. But in that case,
52:06is my argument true or false, because
52:08in logic, a ridiculous argument, yes.
52:09Well then, if it's false, I'd like you
52:11to give me the premise or the
52:12implication you reject. I'm listening.
52:14There is no alternative. No, well that
52:18is the very claim my argument refutes.
52:20I refuted it. You can't answer, guys,
52:23I've explained it four times.
52:25No, but I hope, I hope you know that in
52:26an argument, you don't reject the
52:27conclusion. You reject either the
52:29premises or the implication. That's the
52:30basics. I hope you know that.
52:32No, the conclusion is that there is
52:33free will.
52:33No, but here you're talking to me about
52:35alternatives, you're talking to me
52:36about choice. You're on a different
52:37argument now. You told me
52:38that's what I'm criticizing. That's
52:39what I'm criticizing. Call it whatever
52:40you want. I'm not interested. It's this
52:42point here that's wrong. OK,
52:43I'll take your definition, I'll apply
52:45it to our example. So, an alternative
52:47between coffee and tea.
52:49Tonyan, what is an alternative?
52:51We already agreed on your definition.
52:53Guys, you demand, look at what you're
52:56doing. Of course we did. 4 times.
52:59Ah, what is the definition? Well, give
53:00me the definition of alternative, I'm
53:01listening.
53:03It's being able to have two
53:05possibilities.
53:07No, that's a choice.
53:08You're confusing, you're confusing
53:09choice and alternative. The definition
53:11of alternative is what?
53:11Choice? You said four times that it was
53:14the relation.
53:14I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you
53:16for the definition of alternative.
53:17Alternative. Not choice. Not choice.
53:19Not possibility. Do you see what you're
53:21doing? I give you your definition and
53:23you tell me I'm giving you the
53:24definition of choice. Choice. No,
53:26you're lying. You there, you're lying.
53:28It's not bad faith. You're lying right
53:30now just to confuse the issue once
53:31again. Choice, you said it's the, not
53:34the connection, the relation. That's
53:36what
53:36Yes. Yes. But I'm not asking you to
53:38define ch-
53:38ah, sorry. The
53:40no, the correlation between the will
53:41and the chosen alternative.
53:42Listen closely, listen closely.
53:43No, I'll give it to you. That will be
53:45faster. I'll say it again, choice is
53:47the relation between the will and the
53:49alternative. So when I say that an
53:50alternative is having two possibilities
53:52, don't tell me that that's the
53:53definition of choice. You are lying.
53:55OK. OK. No, but look, look, an
53:57alternative is not, the concept of an
53:59alternative is not just having two
54:01possibilities. An alternative
54:02is at least what you said.
54:03No, I never said that. It's the
54:05situation in which there are only two
54:07possible parties.
54:11But an alternative isn't just two
54:12possibilities.
54:13So wait, at least two possible parties.
54:15That's not called two possibilities.
54:17Can you be precise, please. An
54:19alternative is not identical to two
54:21possibilities. It's, it's over. You're
54:24trying to paraphrase to make it seem
54:26like two possibilities isn't the same
54:28as two possible things. Please, N.
54:31But that's a straw man. I never said
54:32that. Seriously, please,
54:34you just said it a moment ago, 10
54:35seconds ago.
54:36Oh, I said that. I said two possibles
54:38is not two possibilities. I said that,
54:40did I?
54:43Alright, Tony Can, now can I make my
54:45argument, please? But
54:47argue what? You're going to explain
54:48that it's not "by something else" blah
54:50blah blah.
54:51Well yes, but that
54:52even though you said he couldn't choose
54:54tea. It's
54:56But anyway, I'm going to present my
54:57argument and you're going to tell me
54:58what's invalid. It's simple. That's how
55:00a debate works. Well, go ahead for the
55:015th time.
55:02Perfect. So here, I have to prove to
55:03you, I have to prove that there really
55:04are several alternatives. We agree.
55:08Some
55:08There are several possible alternatives
55:10.
55:10Yeah, exactly.
55:13So one can choose the, it's possible to
55:15choose tea when God wrote coffee.
55:17Well, it's possible in itself. I made
55:19that clear from the beginning. That's
55:20where you're sliding. In fact, you're
55:22going to slide between "possible in
55:23itself" and
55:24remind us what "possible" is. Remind us
55:26what "possible" is. It's when the thing
55:28considered in itself presents no
55:29logical contradiction.
55:31Well, yes, it does! Ha ha ha ha ha.
55:33That's interesting. That's interesting.
55:35Is it against the will of God? Is that
55:37a logical contradiction?
55:40Well yes, but that's "by something else
55:41."
55:41Well there you go. OK, that's fine. But
55:43by something else. But Tony, Tony, if
55:45you consider the will of God, the thing
55:47is not considered in itself. The thing
55:49is not considered in itself. If you
55:51consider the will against God, it's a
55:53logical impossibility. He said that
55:55choosing tea
55:57was possible in itself.
55:58Yeah.
55:59So that implies no logical
56:00contradiction. However, it makes me go
56:01against God. So you are contradicting
56:03yourself.
56:03OK. You can answer yourself.
56:04OK. OK. You can answer me. But why do
56:07you act as if I didn't debunk your
56:09argument?
56:10Well, no, but here you've presented an
56:11argument. I like that. Now, I'm going
56:13to answer anyway. So you are currently
56:14answering,
56:15that's not an argument. No, no, that's
56:16not an argument.
56:17Oh, well, that's not an argument.
56:18I just pointed out the inconsistency in
56:20your remarks.
56:20Yes. And pointing out an inconsistency
56:22is actually an argument. Well, uh, so,
56:23it's enough just to point out what
56:26you're saying.
56:27Did you state a contradiction? Finish,
56:29finish, and I'll respond after.
56:30Did you state a contradiction?
56:32No. None.
56:33If it is possible in itself, does it
56:34imply a logical contradiction because
56:36it contradicts God? Yes or no?
56:38There is a contradiction in what you
56:39just said. If you consider the thing in
56:41itself, that's what you said.
56:43No, but that's nonsense. Repeat, repeat
56:46.
56:47If you consider a thing in itself, you
56:49cannot consider the will of God. That
56:50is an extrinsic factor to the thing.
56:53So the thing considered in itself,
56:55namely the rational agent choosing tea
56:57or coffee or
56:58we can consider that God does not exist
56:59.
57:01Well, in a logical proposition, we can
57:02do that.
57:04So, so we can really consider that God
57:05does not exist. But here, in this case,
57:07we always start from the principle that
57:08God exists. Because in your paradigm,
57:10God always exists. Precisely,
57:13all right? But that doesn't stop us
57:14from making logical propositions. We
57:15consider only two factors without
57:17taking into account God's will.
57:19So you, you manage to assume a universe
57:21without, without God.
57:24But do you know what a logical
57:25proposition is?
57:26I know, I know what a logical
57:27proposition is. But in this case, when
57:29you, when you assume a universe without
57:31God, that means you assume that God
57:33cannot exist. You, in this case, God
57:36exists all the time. Don't assume a
57:38universe. If you imagine another
57:41universe, you take a possible universe,
57:42a universe where there would be no God.
57:45You, in your idea of your religion, God
57:47exists anyway. Look, actually, what I'm
57:50trying to make you understand is that
57:52there is no possible by other than
57:55oneself or possible in oneself. Meaning
57:58that all choices, no, in the universe
58:00as you conceive it, all choices are by
58:02other than oneself since God is always
58:04there. There is always God in your
58:07equation.
58:07But a choice by other than oneself,
58:08that doesn't mean anything, for that
58:09matter. It really doesn't mean anything
58:10. A choice by other than oneself
58:11doesn't mean anything. There is always
58:13God in your equation. So don't try to
58:15determine whether choice is possible in
58:16the absolute.
58:17That mea that means nothing, Remlo, you
58:18have to stop. What you're saying means
58:19nothing. A choice by other than oneself
58:21, there isn't even, in any case, there
58:23is God. Meaning that
58:24what is a proposition in all cases?
58:27There is, in all cases, there is God.
58:28Oh yeah.
58:29In all cases, there is God. Which
58:31implies all
58:32possible worlds.
58:33What bothers me is that what bothers me
58:35is that here, we aren't raising the
58:36obvious logical contradiction he made
58:38when he claimed there was no way to do
58:40it. But yes, we are. But actually, Tony
58:42, for me, that's the axis, that's the
58:44axiom. It's true that he's talking
58:47nonsense, but go ahead Tony K, for me,
58:49in my axis, that's it. And it's a bit,
58:51well, what we were also talking about
58:53earlier, Tony. But in principle, you
58:55always consider that God is there.
58:57There are no possibilities outside of
59:00God, you said it yourself earlier.
59:02So no matter what happens, there are
59:04possibilities outside of God. Besides,
59:06God is not, not only is God not
59:07possible, but there are possibilities
59:08outside of God. Yes, but those are
59:10possibilities that God—those are
59:12possibilities that God never wills.
59:14Well yes, God willed my existence. What
59:17are you talking about?
59:18Everything that falls outside of what
59:19God wills, God wills. We agree that it
59:21cannot exist. It would contradict what
59:23God wills.
59:24Everything that falls outside of what
59:25God wills cannot exist. Of course it
59:26can. God, but precisely, it's the
59:28opposite. When God wills,
59:29it means that God wills it if it exists
59:32.
59:32Yeah, exactly. So God—everything that
59:36exists is necessarily the will of God.
59:38Exactly. But here we are going in
59:41circles because I've already answered
59:42that, but no, this is what is
59:43absolutely important to understand,
59:45that you speak of what is possible in
59:46itself versus what is possible through
59:48another. It doesn't matter, who cares.
59:50What matters is
59:51there is no "possible through another."
59:52"Possible through another" does not
59:53exist.
59:53What No, but who cares. What matters is
59:55that, in any case, you consider that
59:57you exist. That's, that's where Tony's
1:00:00whole point is, that when there is tea
1:00:02or coffee, when there is an agent who
1:00:04must choose between tea or coffee, in
1:00:05any case in your paradigm, it's...stop
1:00:07laughing like a hyena every time! In
1:00:10any case, when there is the choice
1:00:12between tea or coffee, since you
1:00:14consider that God exists, any choice
1:00:16other than what God wants is impossible
1:00:18in this universe where your God exists.
1:00:21There is no free will since all the
1:00:22choices that God does not want are
1:00:24impossible under all the definitions
1:00:26you provide. Jack, do you want to say
1:00:29something?
1:00:29No, go ahead Jack the Mad if you want
1:00:31to add something. But I can respond.
1:00:36No, I can wait for the end of your
1:00:38debate, it's not finished
1:00:40so. Uh, oh, go ahead, sorry, sorry. Oh,
1:00:42I thought you were going to
1:00:44I I beg you. Go ahead, Jack, because
1:00:46well we're going to keep going in
1:00:48circles so please.
1:00:48Yeah, because it's going around a bit
1:00:50in circles. I get the impression that
1:00:51Oh, for 20 minutes now,
1:00:52doesn't understand you. Yeah. I would
1:00:56like to give the opportunity to the
1:00:58guest because I don't think he has ever
1:00:59had this opportunity and I would like
1:01:01to give it to him. Plus, there are many
1:01:04Muslims listening to us, so out of
1:01:06respect for them too. Uh, can you make
1:01:09your demonstration, please? You start
1:01:14from the necessary being and you arrive
1:01:17at at Allah. That's how you do it.
1:01:21Well then,
1:01:22I'm taking notes.
1:01:24Is that Jack the Mad? That's not the
1:01:25subject here. I'm talking about free
1:01:27will with Loreml and Tony Can. And they
1:01:28have already put forward two arguments
1:01:30for me.
1:01:30Yes, I no, I heard that you were
1:01:31finishing. So uh
1:01:33But actually, we haven't finished, you
1:01:33didn't understand. I don't know why you
1:01:35...
1:01:35Yes yes, we have finished. We finished
1:01:3720 minutes ago.
1:01:37Actually, I’m saying we aren’t
1:01:38finished.
1:01:40Take this question. I’ll I’ll tell
1:01:42you why I’m asking this question.
1:01:43Because
1:01:44it’s not because you haven’t
1:01:46managed to refute me, Jack. Wait, Jack
1:01:47is going to finish what he wants to say
1:01:48. We can both finish if you want in a
1:01:50minute or two because I can finish and
1:01:52then Jack, I’m also interested in
1:01:54the demonstration. So actually, I’d
1:01:57like
1:01:57Ah, finish up, Jack. Go ahead. You
1:02:00didn’t understand, Jack the fool,
1:02:01it’s my turn to speak. There.
1:02:02No, no, it’s Jack’s turn, he’s
1:02:04finishing his opening statement. Then
1:02:05it’s the two of us, N and then
1:02:07Yeah, because I’d like to demonstrate
1:02:09, yeah. My question aims to demonstrate
1:02:12something very important because this
1:02:15type of debate on free will, the
1:02:18necessary being, and all that follows
1:02:21does not concern the gods that human
1:02:24beings have imagined, created, and whom
1:02:27they make say things. There, so that
1:02:29it’s clear, there is no logical
1:02:31connection between the two. And it is
1:02:33very important to demonstrate that. And
1:02:37for me, it means all these arguments
1:02:40that N repeats and others too, they are
1:02:43actually very old arguments and
1:02:46generally they are not Islamic
1:02:48arguments. And I’ll say why. I’ll
1:02:51say why. Because the most important
1:02:54thing to know if these are Islamic
1:02:55arguments or not is precisely to answer
1:02:57the question I asked, starting from the
1:02:59necessary being, and you’ll see that
1:03:01at first the arguments for the
1:03:02necessary being will have a semblance,
1:03:04a semblance of consistency. I am indeed
1:03:07speaking of a semblance and not a true
1:03:09consistency. But the further we advance
1:03:13, the closer we get to Allah and the
1:03:15Prophet, there only remains the word of
1:03:18Muslims. We will realize that we are
1:03:22really swimming in nonsense. Literally.
1:03:26It means it will no longer make any
1:03:28sense and there’s nothing rational
1:03:30left, nothing logical left. And I
1:03:32really would like to demonstrate that.
1:03:35That is to say, if you need 10 minutes,
1:03:3815 minutes, 30 minutes, or even an hour
1:03:40, I am ready to turn off my mic, turn
1:03:43off my mic, and for you to start from
1:03:45the necessary being and arrive at Allah
1:03:48, the Prophet, and why we must execute
1:03:51apostates. I’m very interested in
1:03:53that. Alright, make your point, all of
1:03:56your arguments, and we'll see if I can
1:03:59really respond because right now I see
1:04:02the consistency in responding to Thanks
1:04:05a lot.
1:04:06No, no, it's no, no, there isn't much
1:04:08there. It's very clear.
1:04:09I agree with Jack. I have never seen
1:04:11the demonstration in full.
1:04:12But you said, you said that after him I
1:04:14could speak, please.
1:04:15Uh, yes, you wanted us to finish the
1:04:16demonstration together. No.
1:04:18No, no, I wanted some speaking time.
1:04:20It's my turn to speak. It's, it's my
1:04:21turn. So.
1:04:22So I was speaking, well. I'll give you
1:04:24a minute, and then if that's okay with
1:04:25you, I'd really like you to answer
1:04:26Jack's question. There's an argument to
1:04:29prove that there are indeed
1:04:30alternatives, an argument to prove that
1:04:32there is no contradiction.
1:04:33No, but you're going to, we know you're
1:04:34just going to repeat the same things.
1:04:35So.
1:04:36But that's it. If you want, in one
1:04:37minute, I can finish this alternative
1:04:39story.
1:04:39Really, I'll give you a minute, and
1:04:41then if you don't mind, you answer the
1:04:42question, perfect. I'm going to answer
1:04:43that. So, Remlo says what to me? Remlo
1:04:45says to me, "We know you're just going
1:04:46to repeat the same thing." Actually,
1:04:47it's normal because I present arguments
1:04:49, and they just make an unsubstantiated
1:04:51claim. They respond with the very
1:04:52affirmation that I am refuting. I'm
1:04:54going to, I'm going to give a very
1:04:55simple example. When I try to prove, I
1:04:56don't know, that water is wet, I
1:04:58present an argument, and you respond to
1:05:00me with the affirmation that I'm
1:05:02refuting, namely that water is not wet;
1:05:04consequently, it's going to go in
1:05:06circles. Why? Because I'm going to have
1:05:08to represent the same argument, and
1:05:09you're going to answer me the same
1:05:10thing, and that's when it goes in
1:05:10circles. So it's not going in circles
1:05:11because of me; it's going in circles
1:05:12because of you. Next, Jack the madman,
1:05:14you're giving us a speech that is not
1:05:15only off-topic, not only are you making
1:05:17an unsubstantiated claim as well,
1:05:18because you are saying
1:05:20we don't care, it's a different
1:05:20question
1:05:21it was a different question, but I
1:05:22answer everything, I answer everything
1:05:23but it's not a question he asked you
1:05:27no, he's just telling you that he'd
1:05:29like to see this demonstration and see
1:05:31how it's necessary
1:05:33for a while now, I'd really like to
1:05:34calculate the speaking time you've had,
1:05:35and the best go ahead, go ahead, speak,
1:05:37no worries
1:05:37I let people speak, unlike
1:05:39you'll be able to speak, no worries, uh
1:05:41No one muted him I hope, because you
1:05:43Leen, we muted you. Unmute your mic.
1:05:45Sorry if we muted you.
1:05:46It was me. It was me because I'm
1:05:47letting him speak.
1:05:48No, no worries. Thank you. Uh Jack, he
1:05:50just wants to know how, starting from
1:05:52the necessary being, one makes a
1:05:54logical construction that leads
1:05:56inevitably, logically, and rationally
1:05:58to whipping people and to the apostasy
1:06:00penalty.
1:06:00That's what we want to know next.
1:06:02Oh boy. Yes, because I won't hide from
1:06:04you that for a while now the debate,
1:06:06the debate isn't...because it's it's
1:06:08misleading. The debate is misleading
1:06:10for the people listening to us. The
1:06:12people listening to us have the
1:06:13impression that it's a debate between a
1:06:15Sunni Muslim and two atheists, when
1:06:16that's not the case.
1:06:17I agree.
1:06:18It's a debate between a deist, a deist,
1:06:21and two atheists.
1:06:22And and I consider I consider, well,
1:06:25that that it's misleading, that it's
1:06:27manipulation. A Sunni Muslim is not
1:06:30just a deist. A deist believes in the
1:06:33God he believes in. A Muslim has the
1:06:37word of God. That means this way of
1:06:41avoiding wearing the real coat and
1:06:43wearing another coat that well that
1:06:46isn't yours. I'm sorry, you aren't a
1:06:48deist, or you aren't simply a deist.
1:06:50You are a Muslim. That's why the floor
1:06:53...
1:06:54we'll give you all the time necessary
1:06:56and no one will cut you off. Give us
1:06:58the whole demonstration. It interests
1:07:00me to the highest degree. Either you
1:07:02want to do it or you're going to keep
1:07:03explaining to us why you don't want to
1:07:05do it.
1:07:06Perfect. OK. Can I answer
1:07:09by giving the demonstration that was
1:07:10asked of you? Yes.
1:07:11Well, no. I still haven't answered your
1:07:14two arguments. So
1:07:15that's not the subject of the debate.
1:07:17You presented me with arguments, I must
1:07:18answer your arguments. No, answer
1:07:21answer their arguments when you're
1:07:23finished. Answer my question. Take all
1:07:26the time necessary. Take all the time
1:07:27necessary. There's no...we have time.
1:07:29But, in that case, I still need a bit
1:07:30of speaking time. I'm not lying to you
1:07:31because that's a lot of questions, but
1:07:32I will answer everything. So
1:07:34firstly uh, let me remember everything
1:07:37well. So already, Jack le Fou, to
1:07:38answer you quickly, you did make two
1:07:40unfounded assertions. Uh, you told me "
1:07:43answer our arguments" and then you go
1:07:44on to Jack L. OK, well, I'll answer you
1:07:46first, no problem. OK.
1:07:47There, let's close this chapter. There.
1:07:50Okay, we’ll start, we’ll start then
1:07:52with Tony Kh who told us that there
1:07:54were no alternatives when making a
1:07:56choice. Um, so I'll reiterate, I will
1:07:59restate my definitions. Choice is the
1:08:01correlation between the will and the
1:08:03chosen alternative. Free will is the
1:08:06rational agent's capacity to make a
1:08:08choice. For a choice to exist,
1:08:11therefore, there must be alternatives
1:08:12according to my definition. The
1:08:14alternatives must be possible when
1:08:15considered in themselves. Now, what did
1:08:17Tonikan tell me? Tonikan told me that
1:08:19if God wants me to choose, for example,
1:08:22alternative A and not alternative B,
1:08:24then this choice is made necessary by
1:08:26God's will. But actually, um, when a
1:08:29choice is made necessary by something
1:08:30other than itself, it implies that it
1:08:31is possible in itself. Actually, well,
1:08:33anyway, it’s the alternative, we
1:08:34won’t say the choice because, once
1:08:35again, the choice doesn’t really have
1:08:36a modality, knowing it doesn't exist
1:08:37outside the mind. Anyway, so, it
1:08:39implies that the alternative is
1:08:41possible considered in itself. Next,
1:08:44what did Sal Remlo tell me? He told me
1:08:46that if everything that occurs is
1:08:48caused by God, which is our position,
1:08:51um, God causes all existing things, it
1:08:53implies that free will is false. Well,
1:08:55that is a false implication. There is
1:08:56no implication between the two. Free
1:08:58will is the rational agent's capacity
1:08:59to make a choice. What implies
1:09:01responsibility is the choice. So, first
1:09:05of all, God is not responsible because
1:09:07He does not make the choice and is not
1:09:09a rational agent. Rather, He is not a
1:09:12rational agent. Um, so God is not
1:09:14responsible, and in no way does this
1:09:17invalidate free will. Knowing that, um,
1:09:19even though our choices are caused by
1:09:21God, well, we still make a choice. Next
1:09:24, um, what does Jack Le Fou tell us?
1:09:26Jack Le Fou tells us, um, yes, the N is
1:09:28a deist, he is not a Muslim. So
1:09:30just before, we concluded the first
1:09:32debate. I thank you. We answered those
1:09:35arguments. There will be a recording.
1:09:36There will be a recording. People will
1:09:38form their own opinion. We answered
1:09:39your arguments. You answered ours.
1:09:40People will form their own opinion. I
1:09:41thank you for having answered, um, on
1:09:43the Jack Le Fou question now.
1:09:45OK. Well, let’s assume they have
1:09:47answered. Anyway, it's a shame we
1:09:49aren't continuing this debate, because
1:09:51once again, these are baseless
1:09:53assertions; you're responding with
1:09:54claims that I refute.
1:09:56Alright, stop. The rhetoric and the
1:09:57answer to Jack the Mad.
1:09:59How is that rhetoric?
1:10:00They have their opinion. I already
1:10:02explained that it’s being recorded,
1:10:03it’s over. It’s
1:10:04No, you’re saying I’m using
1:10:05rhetoric when it’s rhetoric.
1:10:06You’re stalling for time. You
1:10:07you're commenting on the debate. You're
1:10:09commenting on the debate, we don't care
1:10:09. Go ahead, answer Jack.
1:10:10And we’re zipping it now. Hop,
1:10:12we’re
1:10:12OK, perfect.
1:10:13You have all the time you want.
1:10:14We will note, however, that Tony Kh and
1:10:16Loreml want to flee this debate on the
1:10:18Arbit. No problem. We’re going to
1:10:19answer Jack the Mad. So Jack the Mad
1:10:21made a little introduction with two
1:10:23baseless assertions. So, first of all,
1:10:25what does he tell us? He tells us, "God
1:10:27was created by men." Well, when you
1:10:29make a claim, you have to prove it.
1:10:31Jack the Mad. If, moreover, you start
1:10:34by saying that God does not exist and
1:10:36you ask me to argue and to provide a
1:10:37demonstration and prove that He exists,
1:10:39well, in that case, God obviously
1:10:41doesn't exist because you have already
1:10:42set as an axiom that He doesn't exist.
1:10:45So, obviously, I’m not going to prove
1:10:46the opposite. That would be a logical
1:10:47contradiction. Secondly, you made a
1:10:48second baseless assertion, a second
1:10:49claim that you did not prove. If you
1:10:51don't know what a baseless assertion is
1:10:52, that's it. It's claiming things
1:10:54without proving them. So, you told me
1:10:56the Nulman is Sunni, but he’s a
1:11:01theist. So now I’m going to do what I
1:11:02did last time, because remember, Jack
1:11:04the Mad, you’re coming back 6 months
1:11:05later. Remember, you and I already
1:11:07debated, and you had already made
1:11:08baseless assertions, and when I asked
1:11:09you to prove your claims, you ran away.
1:11:11So today, I hope you won't do the same
1:11:13thing. You made two claims. Since I’m
1:11:15nice, I’ll let you, I’ll give you
1:11:16the choice. You prove whichever one you
1:11:18want. You prove either the fact that I
1:11:20am not a Sunni and that I am a deist,
1:11:21or the fact that God does not exist.
1:11:23And if you manage to do that, well,
1:11:26bravo to you. There you go, you pick
1:11:28whichever one you want, it's your
1:11:29choice. Let's go.
1:11:32He didn't understand my question, I
1:11:34think.
1:11:34No. Well no.
1:11:36Or maybe it's not Dram, he thought you
1:11:37were saying he was a deist and not a
1:11:39Sunni. No, he said you were a Sunni and
1:11:41not a deist.
1:11:41I said that you were more than a deist.
1:11:44There. It's dishonest to argue.
1:11:48You you claimed
1:11:49you acted like a deist on the live
1:11:51stream but you aren't a deist. We know
1:11:53you aren't a deist.
1:11:55Ah well then prove that I don't exist
1:11:56and that he is created by men. Go ahead
1:11:58.
1:11:59Thank you very much. Uh you know I I
1:12:01will answer that question quickly. Do
1:12:04you know Zeus? Do you know him or not??
1:12:08Argument. Don't ask me questions. Make
1:12:10your argument. Do your syllogism and
1:12:11let's go.
1:12:12Yes yes that's it. That is my argument.
1:12:13That's a question. Do you know him or
1:12:15not?
1:12:15No no, I want a syllogism. I don't want
1:12:16questions. A syllogism. Premise.
1:12:18Premise. Zeus is a god
1:12:22invented by men. Yes, men invent gods.
1:12:25Do you want it or not? There are we
1:12:27have the divine pantheon of human
1:12:30beings including tens of thousands of
1:12:33gods. If if you don't know that human
1:12:36beings imagine and invent gods, well I
1:12:39can't do anything for you. Now, my
1:12:41initial question was clear. I would
1:12:44like you to demonstrate it from the
1:12:45beginning, really from the start to the
1:12:47end, because you settle every time—
1:12:49when I say "you," it's not out of
1:12:51respect, it's because there are several
1:12:53of you. You really settle for limiting
1:12:56your argumentation, which is the same
1:12:58argumentation as deists or even, I
1:13:01would say, of some Christians or I
1:13:03don't know what, because you don't want
1:13:05to get to the bottom of things; because
1:13:08the further you go, the more you get to
1:13:10the bottom of things, the more the
1:13:12ridiculous, truly ridiculous,
1:13:14irrational, and illogical side will be
1:13:17more visible. So every time, you settle
1:13:20for being or wearing the cloak of a
1:13:22deist when you are more than deists. I
1:13:25repeat that a deist doesn't rely on a
1:13:28divine word. For example, me, being an
1:13:31atheist, I don't have a problem, for
1:13:32example, with a deist. And when I say I
1:13:34don't have a problem, it's not in the
1:13:35sense of what they believe. No, that
1:13:37deist will never come to me and tell me
1:13:39you have to vote for this law or you
1:13:41have to do this or you have to wear
1:13:43that. When I ask him why? He tells me
1:13:46because I have the divine word. Doesn't
1:13:49have that. Absolutely does not have
1:13:52that. So that's why you, and when I say
1:13:55you again, because there are several of
1:13:57you, you are not just deists. You are
1:13:59more than deists. So please, for the
1:14:02last time, we are giving you all the
1:14:04time you need. There, I really ask, I
1:14:06ask Lauremlo, Tony, and Plumette not to
1:14:09interrupt you at all, even if you talk
1:14:12too much, even if you talk for an hour,
1:14:15even if you talk for an hour just to
1:14:17show us the necessary being and how you
1:14:20get to Allah, to the prophet, and why
1:14:23we must, for example, whip human beings
1:14:25just because they made love outside of
1:14:28marriage. Show us this demonstration,
1:14:31please. We are all ears. There, I'm
1:14:33turning off my mic. Go ahead, let's
1:14:35start. Well, uh, you still haven't
1:14:37refuted, well, you still haven't proven
1:14:39your claim. Sorry, I'm losing my words,
1:14:41it's just, you make so much noise, so
1:14:43much racket. You talk a lot, you think
1:14:44you're on Skyrock. Uh, Jack the Mad,
1:14:47you claimed, you presupposed that God
1:14:49was created by humans. I would like you
1:14:52to prove it. If what you said there,
1:14:55the fact that he's created by humans,
1:14:57is an attempt at an argument, it
1:14:59doesn't imply that there is no God in
1:15:01reality. Just because concepts are
1:15:04created by humans doesn't mean there
1:15:06aren't other existing concepts. There,
1:15:07that is a false implication. So now,
1:15:09before I can make my demonstration, you
1:15:12will first have to prove what you
1:15:13presupposed. So now, I am asking you to
1:15:16present your proof. Otherwise, I cannot
1:15:17make my argument. In fact, if you
1:15:19presuppose that God does not exist,
1:15:20well, I can't prove to you that he does
1:15:22if that's set as a fact. Come on, I
1:15:26so
1:15:27once again, I will repeat myself
1:15:27because I have the feeling you don't
1:15:29understand. So, my argument will be
1:15:31very simple once again, and so that you
1:15:33understand that it's not a trap
1:15:35argument, I will ask the same question
1:15:37to Loramloi and to you. Is it possible
1:15:40to believe in God and not believe in
1:15:42Shiva? Floramelo
1:15:45Yes, it is possible to believe in God
1:15:46and not believe in Shiva.
1:15:47Thank you. Is it possible, Tonikan, to
1:15:50believe in God and not believe in Mazda
1:15:53?
1:15:54Uh, yes,
1:15:55it's possible. Thank you. Is it
1:15:57possible to believe in God and not
1:15:59believe in Allah? No. Thank you very
1:16:05much. No, but okay, well, then it's my
1:16:10turn to speak. Great! Well, Jack the
1:16:13Mad, for the third time please, you
1:16:16made a presupposition, you asserted
1:16:18that God was created by men. The only,
1:16:21well, the two attempts at argumentation
1:16:23you made there are catastrophic. There
1:16:25isn't even a premise, there isn't even
1:16:26a conclusion. So in any case, it is
1:16:28invalid. So if it is posited as an
1:16:30axiom, tell me. But in that case, the
1:16:31debate no longer makes any sense,
1:16:32because you can't just pose it as an
1:16:33axiom. For example, if I posit as an
1:16:35axiom that Jack the Mad doesn't exist,
1:16:36well, I can't prove that he exists,
1:16:37obviously. Uh, so, either it's posed as
1:16:40an axiom and you say so directly, or
1:16:42you give us an argument, please. It
1:16:44would be, it would be good. Well, the,
1:16:47people understood what Jack meant.
1:16:50Clearly, you didn't understand it. But
1:16:51at the end of the day, it doesn't
1:16:52matter. It's not
1:16:53No, no, I think he has comprehension
1:16:54problems. It's not, it's not normal,
1:16:56I'm telling you. This isn't normal.
1:16:58Either you put him in such cognitive
1:17:00dissonance right before I arrived,
1:17:01because this is just not possible, I'm
1:17:02telling you. It's not normal. Someone
1:17:05who says it is not possible to believe
1:17:07in God without believing in Allah.
1:17:08Meaning, for him, Christians don't
1:17:10exist. I don't know, Hindus don't exist
1:17:13. All those people don't believe in
1:17:14Allah. The Allah that is cited in the
1:17:16Quran, to be mistaken, not to exist.
1:17:17You are confusing two things, once
1:17:19again, it's really catastrophic. Well
1:17:22Not that you...So I'm going to go even
1:17:24further. In Arabic, we say...I'm going
1:17:29to use the basics so that you manage to
1:17:31understand, because I get the
1:17:33impression there is a comprehension
1:17:35issue. For...that means the guy who is
1:17:38Hindu, right, who believes in Brahma,
1:17:39he doesn't believe in the Allah, the
1:17:41Allah of the Quran, who is cited in the
1:17:43Quran; for him, the Allah cited in the
1:17:44Quran was created by human beings.
1:17:47Imagined by human beings, invented by
1:17:49human beings to impose things. In the
1:17:53same way that the Muslim who believes
1:17:55in Allah does not believe in the Brahma
1:17:57that is in the Sanskrit texts; for him,
1:17:59that god was invented and created by
1:18:00those human beings. Do you understand
1:18:03what that means, or is even that
1:18:05complicated for you? And once again,
1:18:08and I promise you, I promise, I promise
1:18:10, this is the last time I will speak
1:18:12here. I am waiting for a demonstration
1:18:16of the necessary being leading to Allah
1:18:18. And why? Why must we cut off the
1:18:20thief's hand? Why must we accept that a
1:18:23husband strikes his wife? Can you give
1:18:25us this demonstration, or are you
1:18:27incapable of it? I won't speak anymore.
1:18:31Okay, great. Well, Jack Leou, please,
1:18:33for the 4th time, you have presupposed
1:18:35the existence of God, I would like you
1:18:36to prove it, because in fact, I
1:18:38understand very well what you are
1:18:40telling me. Don't worry, I'm not an
1:18:41idiot, when you tell me "yes, if it was
1:18:43created by men," okay, but the problem
1:18:44is that it does not imply the existence
1:18:46of God. There, I understand very, very
1:18:47well what you are saying. It's just
1:18:49that it doesn't prove your conclusion.
1:18:51If I ask you to prove that God doesn't
1:18:52exist and you tell me "I live in Canada
1:18:54," you're just telling me about your
1:18:55life. And actually, Jacques London is
1:18:56not at the therapist's. Now, I would
1:18:57like you to present an argument, I
1:18:59would like you to present a syllogism
1:19:00that will prove your claim. And then I
1:19:02will argue. If you ask me to prove
1:19:04claims I haven't made when you are the
1:19:06one who affirmed them, you are using a
1:19:08fallacy. You are reversing the burden
1:19:10of proof. So I'm listening, Ja, he's
1:19:11gone.
1:19:11He won't turn his mic back on. He said
1:19:13no, that's not possible. You know what?
1:19:16If God, if God exists, does that imply,
1:19:18does that imply that it is Brahma?
1:19:23No, no, thank you. If God exists, does
1:19:26that imply that it is Allah?
1:19:29Well, first of all, the proposition
1:19:30means nothing. It's not because God
1:19:31exists. Were you able to answer? Can
1:19:34you answer regarding Allah now, please?
1:19:36But
1:19:36you didn't understand. Both are
1:19:37identical.
1:19:38No, no, no, you were able to answer
1:19:39regarding Brahma. So you can answer
1:19:40regarding Allah. No, there is no
1:19:42implication. These are two terms that
1:19:43designate the—No, but you were able
1:19:44to answer regarding Brahma. Why don't
1:19:46you answer regarding Allah?
1:19:47I am answering you. There is no
1:19:48implication. No.
1:19:50So even if God exists, that doesn't
1:19:52imply that Allah exists.
1:19:54Yeah. Thank you very much. That means
1:19:56all your arguments to prove the
1:19:58existence of God. Do not imply that we
1:20:01must execute the apostate. There is no,
1:20:03there is no implication. There's no
1:20:04connection, though. I'm at 4%. Wait,
1:20:06wait.
1:20:07Please, so now I'm asking you, please
1:20:09show us this implication. Start from
1:20:12the existence of God with the necessary
1:20:15being and arrive at Allah, and arrive
1:20:17at why one must follow and apply the
1:20:20Sharia. It's a simple enough question.
1:20:23I think I know where it's stuck while
1:20:25it's charging.
1:20:26Ah, it's good, it's good. Wait, I just
1:20:27plugged it in. I hope I can be heard
1:20:28clearly.
1:20:29Yeah, can you hear me well? Yeah, we
1:20:30hear you well.
1:20:31But
1:20:32Actually, what I don't understand, just
1:20:34, just for, in 2 seconds, to make your
1:20:36demonstration, when you are with other
1:20:38people who use the argument of
1:20:40contingency, all of that, you know well
1:20:42that, in the world, there are people
1:20:44who have other hypotheses, other
1:20:46theories. Just because people have
1:20:49other hypotheses, other axioms, or
1:20:51other theories doesn't mean you can't
1:20:53make your demonstration. What is the
1:20:56connection between you showing us your
1:20:59demonstration and Jack having to talk
1:21:01about his axioms or his own hypotheses?
1:21:04We don't give a damn about Jack. We
1:21:06want to see your demonstration.
1:21:09What does Jack have to do with this?
1:21:10I'm not even
1:21:11He claims things
1:21:13but we don't care. Well no, Jack will
1:21:15have his turn later; after all, he's
1:21:17the one who first said that when one
1:21:19makes claims, one must prove them.
1:21:21Let's look at it differently. I am the
1:21:22host of this live stream, I am
1:21:24omnipotent, and I have omniscience.
1:21:25Jack is wrong, the necessary being
1:21:27exists. There, so now we want the
1:21:29demonstration to know how we go from
1:21:31the necessary being to reach Allah.
1:21:33Because if I bring up another Christian
1:21:35, well, he will also start from the
1:21:36principle that the necessary being
1:21:38exists. Now you are a Muslim, we want
1:21:40to know why. But then not only
1:21:43I would have liked to have it all, but
1:21:44if you want to start from the necessary
1:21:46being, if it bothers you to do the
1:21:47necessary being.
1:21:48All of it. Me too.
1:21:49Yes, all of it. Well go ahead, all of
1:21:51it.
1:21:51Go ahead. You have everything
1:21:54not only, not only, not only were we,
1:21:56we were debating free will and you
1:21:58replied by
1:21:59you don't want to do it. You tell
1:22:00everyone I don't want to do the
1:22:01demonstration, it's over. There's no
1:22:02sausage. If you don't want to do it,
1:22:04I'm not going to do it because it's a
1:22:05fallacy of shifting the burden of proof
1:22:06. He is the one making the claims, it
1:22:07is up to him to prove his claims. Do
1:22:09you hear me to provide the
1:22:12demonstration, if I believe, you know,
1:22:14I think you don't know what it means to
1:22:16affirm the existence of God.
1:22:18No, but he he can, but there are two
1:22:19things here. We have two people. We
1:22:21have it's I feel like I'm teaching my
1:22:237th graders. I'm sorry, really, for
1:22:25someone who isn't trying to be
1:22:27disagreeable, but at some point, it's
1:22:29complicated. There are two people here,
1:22:31Jack Le Fou and Leen. Le N claims that
1:22:35Jack Le Fou has a demonstration of the
1:22:37non-existence of God. Very well. It is
1:22:39totally disconnected from yours. Your
1:22:42demonstration doesn't take into account
1:22:44the existence of Jack Le Fou and
1:22:46doesn't take into account the existence
1:22:48of a demonstration of the non-existence
1:22:50of God. It it has nothing to do with it
1:22:52.
1:22:53Yeah,
1:22:53it has nothing to do with it. We don't
1:22:55give a damn about Jack's demonstration.
1:22:57Breathe, breathe. But you need to stop
1:22:59getting worked up.
1:23:00Stop. You talk a lot about guys and
1:23:02rhetoric for someone who uses a lot of
1:23:04it, actually. Strange, strange. I'm
1:23:06going to confess a secret. I'm going to
1:23:08I'm going to confess a secret anyway.
1:23:10I'm going to tell you why I asked that
1:23:11question. It's also for what I said
1:23:14before, but it's not just that. I also
1:23:16wanted to have a good laugh. There,
1:23:18that's why I asked that question.
1:23:20But don't worry, but you already had
1:23:22why. You don't want to provide the
1:23:23demonstration? You have the chance, you
1:23:25have the chance to be able to show the
1:23:27demonstration that made us laugh too.
1:23:29Jack,
1:23:29you can even, you, uh, we don't care
1:23:31about playground insults. You even have
1:23:34the opportunity, you even have the
1:23:35opportunity, you even have the
1:23:37opportunity there to be good; there are
1:23:381,400 people listening to us, and
1:23:40certainly a large portion of them are
1:23:41atheists. Now, if you have the proof
1:23:44that Allah is God,
1:23:46therefore that there is a God and that
1:23:47Allah is God, go ahead. And no one will
1:23:49interrupt you as soon as you start your
1:23:51demonstration. That's a promise. You
1:23:52can lay it out in full. We won't
1:23:54interrupt you.
1:23:55We are never going to cut you off, no
1:23:57matter how ridiculous your
1:23:59demonstration is.
1:24:00We won't interrupt you.
1:24:02OK,
1:24:02you can speak, but provided you give
1:24:04the demonstration if you have it, if it
1:24:06exists. In addition to having trouble
1:24:07remembering my definitions, you have
1:24:08trouble remembering everything I say,
1:24:10actually, all my assertions. Jack Le
1:24:11Fou made an assertion. Now, in a debate
1:24:13, the one who makes an assertion must
1:24:15prove their assertion. I am not the one
1:24:17who made a claim. Sorry, I didn't make
1:24:19a claim. So Jack the Fool, you claimed
1:24:21the non-existence of God. Now I am
1:24:22asking you for an argument. It is not
1:24:24up to me to argue when I haven't made a
1:24:25claim. And it was, it was the same
1:24:27thing last time. And Jack the Fool,
1:24:28remember that you ran away and you
1:24:30you don't want to prove God, do you?
1:24:31You have a proof, you don't want to
1:24:32share it with 1400 people. You don't
1:24:34want to do it. Yes, yes, in general I,
1:24:36I want to. Now,
1:24:38I remind you that I haven't made any,
1:24:39any claim on this live stream. None. I
1:24:41came on, I asked my question, I closed
1:24:43my
1:24:44to make a claim right now because he
1:24:46knows it doesn't hold up. He knows it,
1:24:50he knows that his only way to defend
1:24:52Islam is to not talk about Islam and to
1:24:54wear the coat of a deist because it's
1:24:55more respectable. And, and on that
1:24:58point, I agree with you, the coat of a
1:25:00deist, it is much, infinitely more
1:25:05respectable than the coat of a Sunni
1:25:07Muslim, the one you refuse to wear. The
1:25:11one that makes you ashamed, and I am
1:25:14really, I agree with you, but I would
1:25:16still like it to be visible how much,
1:25:19how much you absolutely do not want to
1:25:22wear, to wear the clothes that are
1:25:24yours, those of a Sunni Muslim. You
1:25:29just want to be a deist on this live
1:25:30stream because it's more respectable.
1:25:33So keep attacking me, keep setting up a
1:25:35straw man, I have, claim whatever you
1:25:36want. The bottom line is, he doesn't,
1:25:39he doesn't want to take responsibility,
1:25:42he doesn't want to own, well, the, the,
1:25:44the belief of Sunni Islam because it is
1:25:46, well, indefensible, for that matter.
1:25:50So Jack the Fool is on the verge of
1:25:51understanding what an internal critique
1:25:53is. So maybe you weren't there, but
1:25:54I'll explain it to you. The debate of
1:25:55the live stream was free will, huh.
1:25:57It's the debate, by the way, that was
1:25:58started by Tonyan and Remlo
1:25:59and we concluded it
1:26:01we didn't conclude it because you
1:26:03didn't answer
1:26:04we let you make your conclusion. Oh no,
1:26:06but it doesn't, it's not a conclusion,
1:26:08it was arguments. I think the trick, I
1:26:10think we are dealing with a trick,
1:26:11actually. Let me speak! You have to,
1:26:14you have to prove your thing. Let,
1:26:16there we go. No, it's been 30 minutes
1:26:18that I haven't been allowed to speak.
1:26:19If you have...if you are afraid, if you
1:26:21have this point, wait, wait, wait, if
1:26:24Jack demonstrates the claims.
1:26:26If he succeeds, are you going to do
1:26:27your demonstration?
1:26:28And if he fails, are you going to do
1:26:30your demonstration?
1:26:34Can I speak now? It's okay, it's my
1:26:35speaking time.
1:26:37Yeah, but that's it, that's what you're
1:26:39going to do, you're going to come up
1:26:41with all your excuses, we're going to
1:26:42do something, I'm proposing something,
1:26:44Loreml and uh and Tony, let's mute our
1:26:45mics, let's say nothing more, really
1:26:47nothing more. Great.
1:26:49If he also wants to mute his mic and
1:26:51say nothing, let him do it. I want to
1:26:54speak.
1:26:55OK. Well, so I'm going to give my
1:26:57conclusion. It's been 30 minutes now,
1:26:59if not more, right? It's an
1:27:00approximation, it's subjective that I
1:27:02have no speaking time, I can't express
1:27:04myself. We were debating free will, but
1:27:06given the low level of Tonikan and
1:27:07Loreml, who don't even know how to
1:27:09distinguish between a necessary in
1:27:10itself and a necessary by something
1:27:11other than itself. They fled and
1:27:13decided to end the debate to then bring
1:27:15back their best friend Jack Le Fou so
1:27:17he could come and use rhetoric and uh
1:27:19win back the audience a bit, right, to
1:27:21get them through emotions. Slavery, oh
1:27:23yeah, there we go, so we all cry and we
1:27:25pretend that we're smarter. Uh well, I
1:27:29uh I'm not going to waste my time any
1:27:31longer. Uh we were debating free will,
1:27:34I brought two arguments, you didn't
1:27:36even respond even though that was the
1:27:37topic, it was still free will. Uh you
1:27:40weren't capable, all your attempts at
1:27:42argumentation were catastrophic. Uh and
1:27:44then Jack Lefou comes to add another
1:27:47layer. Now that, I wasn't expecting
1:27:49that one. Uh I really wasn't expecting
1:27:51it. It's, but honestly, it's pretty
1:27:53bold after the beating you took from
1:27:55Van R. Uh but there you go. Also,
1:27:57you're really bold to say that you came
1:27:59here just to have a laugh. It's, it's
1:28:02bold, huh, when you claimed the
1:28:04universe is the set of all sets, etc.
1:28:06We had a good laugh too. Uh anyway,
1:28:08that's that. And then to finish, well,
1:28:11they're going to close. I'm predicting
1:28:13that when I leave, they're going to say
1:28:15, "Yeah, the guy ran away." Uh not only
1:28:17will that be bold and not only will
1:28:19that be rhetoric, I didn't run away,
1:28:20quite simply. I've been here for 30
1:28:23minutes waiting for arguments because,
1:28:25once again, in a debate, the one making
1:28:27the claim is the one who must prove it.
1:28:30Jack Le Fou makes claims. He even said
1:28:31that, and I didn't even push back on it
1:28:33. He said, "I didn't make a claim."
1:28:34Well, first of all, when you say that,
1:28:36that in itself is a claim. And yes, you
1:28:37did assert that God was a human
1:28:39creation, you asserted it several times
1:28:41. There's a replay, people are going to
1:28:42see it, and you weren't able to prove
1:28:43your claim. At the same time, that
1:28:45doesn't surprise me. Uh, and, you two,
1:28:47Loreml and Tony Kan, I hope we'll have
1:28:49the opportunity to talk about free will
1:28:51again, to start another live. Uh, so we
1:28:55can discuss it. And I hope this time
1:28:57you won't, uh, flee the debate and
1:28:59bring your buddy Jack Le Fou because
1:29:01you need help. With that, I wish you a
1:29:04good evening.
1:29:05Where can we get the full proof, since
1:29:06you don't want to provide it?
1:29:08Well, I don't know, eventually we could
1:29:10redo a debate. We could redo a debate,
1:29:12but it can't, it can't be now. That's
1:29:14it.
1:29:15Well no, because in this debate already
1:29:17, I was nice enough to agree to change
1:29:18topics and
1:29:20so if we cut the live and go to my live
1:29:21, will you give us the full
1:29:23demonstration or not?
1:29:24No, you're trying to glitch. You want
1:29:26to pull a glitch. You just ran from
1:29:28free will, then Jack Le Fou ran from
1:29:29his debate, both of you ran away and
1:29:31now I have to, I have to do the debate
1:29:32you want.
1:29:33What do I have to do? What do I have to
1:29:34do to hear the full demonstration?
1:29:36We don't want any more debates. We just
1:29:37want a demo.
1:29:38It's simpler. What do I have to do for
1:29:39us to hear it? What do I have to do?
1:29:42We're simply going to conclude, it's
1:29:44no, I don't need your subscription. We
1:29:46are simply going to conclude the debate
1:29:48on free will and Jack Le Fou's debate
1:29:49on the existence of God.
1:29:50No, no, that's not the question. What
1:29:52do I have to do? I don't care about
1:29:54Jack. What do I have to do to hear the
1:29:55demonstration from beginning to end?
1:29:57We're concluding on free will.
1:29:59Uh, fine, you won. We've concluded then
1:30:01. It's fine.
1:30:02Ah, perfect. Well, perfect. Well, that
1:30:04makes me happy. And look, we can do it
1:30:07when you want.
1:30:08I'm just explaining. I'm just
1:30:10explaining.
1:30:10I want to now. No, just breathe, I'm
1:30:13just explaining that I don't actually
1:30:15do debates, I'm not a robot, I'm not
1:30:17here to debate for free. I came to
1:30:19debate, I'm asking you what I have to
1:30:21do to hear the proof from start to
1:30:22finish, from the necessary being to the
1:30:24whipping of
1:30:26I personally think he doesn't have it.
1:30:28I think he has no proof, so he doesn't
1:30:29even have good reasons to believe. No,
1:30:32no, I think, no, at some point you have
1:30:33to call things as they are for someone
1:30:35who hasn't been able to prove their
1:30:36claim for 6 months. You make claims.
1:30:38You make claims, and as soon as we ask
1:30:39you to prove them, you run away. You've
1:30:41got some nerve.
1:30:42Do you remember, Jack the Mad, when you
1:30:43ran away from my live stream or not?
1:30:44Because we asked you to prove your
1:30:45claims. Jack runs away, that implies
1:30:47that you don't.
1:30:48Well, no, because actually in a debate
1:30:49these are two mutually exclusive
1:30:50propositions. It's either Jack or it's
1:30:52you. That's how it works. What do I
1:30:54have to do to hear this demonstration
1:30:56from start to finish? Actually, I'd
1:30:59like to set the conditions so we can
1:31:01hear it once and for all.
1:31:02But Tonyan, I just humiliated you on
1:31:04free will, and you've already brought
1:31:05this up to change the subject. We can't
1:31:07, we can't be judged by the
1:31:11so, never. What are the conditions to
1:31:13hear the demonstration from start to
1:31:14finish?
1:31:16Well, I want to conclude, because
1:31:18you're saying you say I won, but it's
1:31:19ironic. If we conclude, no, wait, the
1:31:21conditions to have the demonstration.
1:31:23If we conclude, will you give the
1:31:24demonstration from start to finish?
1:31:26Well, yeah, but we have to conclude on
1:31:27free will and the existence of God.
1:31:29Yeah, you're you're right, and the
1:31:30existence of God, Jack is wrong. Is it
1:31:32is it is it that hard to stand up for
1:31:34Islam, the H? Is it that hard to stand
1:31:36up for
1:31:37It's called debate ethics. Jack the Mad
1:31:38, well, since you're a golem, you don't
1:31:40know anything, but in debate ethics,
1:31:41when you make claims, you prove them.
1:31:43Why are you insulting me? I didn't
1:31:45understand.
1:31:46You've got some nerve, Mad one. You've
1:31:48got some nerve.
1:31:48Why are you insulting me? I
1:31:50it's subjective. When I call you a
1:31:52golemon, it means I think you're not
1:31:53very smart.
1:31:55It's not, if you want. Very well. Is it
1:31:58difficult? Is it that difficult to
1:31:59stand up for Islam?
1:32:01But Jack the Mad, we debated with Von
1:32:03R. No, he humiliated you on it.
1:32:04But why are you talking about V?
1:32:05If you want, everyone humiliated me. Is
1:32:07it that hard?
1:32:08No, humiliated, not humili-ated. Once
1:32:09again, that means nothing. You have to
1:32:10stop using terms that mean nothing.
1:32:11I'm sorry, I'm Yeah, I'm it's my
1:32:13Algerian accent.
1:32:16But you're an honorable guy N, it's
1:32:17incredible. That makes me happy. It's
1:32:20not good to [mock] people's accents,
1:32:22huh?
1:32:22It's it's over. We'll never get the
1:32:24demonstration. You only know how to
1:32:26conclude?
1:32:28Yes. An accent, you know, an an an
1:32:30accent is something that belongs to
1:32:32someone. It's like it's like it's like
1:32:34skin color. You're not going to you're
1:32:36not going to mock someone's skin color.
1:32:37That doesn't make sense.
1:32:41If you don't want to give us the
1:32:42demonstration that you have Islam, is
1:32:44Islam that hard to stand up for?
1:32:46But I came here to defend Islam. He was
1:32:48talking about free will, he wasn't
1:32:49talking about Islam at all. How can you
1:32:51defend Islam when you didn't talk about
1:32:53Islam at all, at all?
1:32:55But we were talking about free will,
1:32:57you can't even conceptualize the fact
1:32:58that one can believe in God and not
1:33:00believe in Allah. Even that, you can't
1:33:03conceptualize. There is a problem.
1:33:05There is a problem.
1:33:08Are you done? Are you done crying,
1:33:11my friend? You, who've been crying this
1:33:13whole time looking for a reason to
1:33:14leave. Are you really because I am I am
1:33:18very kind.
1:33:19I'm much more do you do you want me to
1:33:24do you want me to take you off the live
1:33:26? I'm making it easy for you, no
1:33:28worries. No, actually, I'm really I'm
1:33:31offering you this way out. Do you want
1:33:33me to take you off?
1:33:34No, that's not my wish. No.
1:33:36Very well. Then stay and tell me, is it
1:33:38that hard to stand up for Islam? No,
1:33:41it's not
1:33:41why do you believe in Allah yourself?
1:33:43Tell me why you believe in it? How did
1:33:44you how did you how did you reason? How
1:33:47did you how did you how did you process
1:33:49? What are the reasons that lead you to
1:33:52believe in the Allah of the Quran? So
1:33:54you have to apply his word. How did you
1:33:56reach that conclusion? Have you ever
1:33:59thought about it or never?
1:34:00That means you stopped your thinking at
1:34:03deism.
1:34:04You're babbling, huh. It's fine, it's
1:34:08fine. Can I speak? OK. Well, I I I
1:34:13think I can speak then. No, I didn't
1:34:16stop my reflection at deism. That's
1:34:17actually, that's why, there's a mic
1:34:19glitching. There's noise.
1:34:22OK. Thanks.
1:34:24That's that's why I offer arguments on
1:34:26my account. It's precisely because I
1:34:28don't stop at deism. Now Jack the Fool
1:34:29still hasn't understood. I joined, it
1:34:31was talking about free will. I heard
1:34:33arguments from Lauremlle, from Tony Kan
1:34:35, I answered those arguments and they
1:34:37they answered with the assertions I
1:34:39refute. There you go. So basically,
1:34:41they are groundless assertions. Uh now,
1:34:43they brought you uh you made other
1:34:46assertions, I was already nice enough
1:34:49to stay uh and agree to discuss with
1:34:52you. Now you, you made other assertions
1:34:54and like your colleagues, they were
1:34:55groundless assertions because you
1:34:57didn't prove them. Yet, uh in a debate
1:34:59in a debate when one makes assertions,
1:35:01one must prove them, Jack the Fool. So
1:35:04since you made the assertions, I am
1:35:05waiting for you to prove them. Is that
1:35:07clear or not? Thanks. Thanks. Is the is
1:35:14the creator God Allah if you are in the
1:35:16Quran, the 1?
1:35:19Yeah.
1:35:20Very well. That is an assertion. So
1:35:22prove it, I'm listening.
1:35:24You just said when one makes an
1:35:25assertion, one must prove it. That is
1:35:27an assertion. Go ahead, prove it. I'm
1:35:29listening.
1:35:29But you asserted you asserted before me
1:35:31. Jack the Fool. That's not how it
1:35:32works. But you are crazy, you. Jack the
1:35:35Fool. you asserted before me. Uh I too
1:35:37can assert things and but I will prove
1:35:38them to you when you have proven your
1:35:40assertions. No problem. No, but I hope
1:35:42you realize that this looks like a
1:35:44school playground. Thanks. It's good.
1:35:48You have no you there is no
1:35:49argumentation, I can't move forward
1:35:51because it is up to you to argue.
1:35:53Thanks. Am I telling you, me
1:35:55do you know what the burden of proof is
1:35:56or not? Actually, I was I was that's
1:35:58convenient, that's what I was going to
1:36:00explain to you. If I tell you that I,
1:36:02since you just asserted that the
1:36:04creator God is Allah who is cited in
1:36:05the Quran. If I tell you I don't
1:36:07believe you, I don't believe it. Hm
1:36:09hm.
1:36:10That's an assertion.
1:36:12Yeah.
1:36:13Who has the burden of proof here? The
1:36:16one who asserts that the creator God is
1:36:18Allah who or the one or the one or the
1:36:22one who doesn't believe,
1:36:24it's the one who makes the first claim.
1:36:28I No, but it's not possible, the
1:36:29question, really listen to the question
1:36:31carefully
1:36:33if the one who claims that Allah is the
1:36:35creator, the one cited in the Quran is
1:36:37the creator, or is it the one who
1:36:38doesn't believe it who has the burden
1:36:40of proof here
1:36:41the one who claims it first, for the
1:36:44second time
1:36:45It, it doesn't work like that. I really
1:36:48think, I think you have huge, huge,
1:36:51really huge issues regarding logic and
1:36:54rationality. And to explain it to you
1:36:56differently, I'm going to bring up the
1:36:57principles. Logically, what are the
1:36:59principles, logical principles? I'm
1:37:01going to bring up, I'm going to bring
1:37:04up, I'm going to bring up what
1:37:05principles by.
1:37:09I'm going to bring up what logical
1:37:11principles logic can I finish can I
1:37:13finish please
1:37:15no, but I'm asking you a question
1:37:16can I finish
1:37:17go ahead finish
1:37:17I'm going to explain to you why you're
1:37:19talking. Can I, or are you
1:37:20going to interrupt me? But you don't
1:37:21even know what logic is. We're going to
1:37:24we're going to see precisely if I tell
1:37:27you that I If I tell you that I I claim
1:37:29I claim that there is an invisible pink
1:37:32dragon that speaks Kabyle that lives 50
1:37:34billion light-years away from us.
1:37:37Yeah.
1:37:37I claim the existence of that dragon.
1:37:39Of course.
1:37:40Do you believe me?
1:37:41No.
1:37:43You don't believe me? Who has the
1:37:44burden of proof here? It's you who
1:37:46doesn't believe me. Who has to prove it
1:37:48? No it's you.
1:37:49It's me. Why? For why is it me?
1:37:50Because you claimed it first. Very so
1:37:55you're telling me that in logic it says
1:37:57it's the one who claims it first who
1:37:58has the burden of proof.
1:37:59Yeah. It's not in logic, it's in the
1:38:01logic of the debate. Let's say it's
1:38:03logical. It's
1:38:03what logic is that? What logic is that?
1:38:05It's not logic, it's in the debate.
1:38:07It's the rules. It's the ethics of
1:38:08debate.
1:38:09In in what ethics of debate? Where does
1:38:11that even exist? You just invented it.
1:38:15So now, I'm going to explain to you, my
1:38:17friend.
1:38:17The one who has the burden of proof,
1:38:19the one who has the burden of proof is
1:38:21the one who makes a claim. It's not the
1:38:23one who doesn't believe. In Arabic, we
1:38:25say the burden of proof. Meaning when
1:38:30you claim something, especially when
1:38:31it's something extraordinary. For
1:38:33example, me, claiming the existence of
1:38:35this pink dragon, I am claiming
1:38:36something extraordinary. My friend, you
1:38:39are the one claiming something even
1:38:40more extraordinary. That means Allah,
1:38:43who is cited in the Quran, is God. And
1:38:46when we ask how you reached such an
1:38:49extraordinary conclusion, you can't
1:38:51tell us why, and you try your hardest
1:38:54to shift the burden of proof onto the
1:38:56one who doesn't believe you. I'm coming
1:39:00back to
1:39:01the person listening to you sees that
1:39:03what you're saying makes no sense, but
1:39:04you do everything you can to make them
1:39:06do the arguing. You know that's not how
1:39:09it works. Take any religion. If a Hindu
1:39:12is here, if there is a Hindu here and
1:39:14they claim they believe in Brahma, it's
1:39:15not up to you to prove that Brahma
1:39:17doesn't exist. It's up to them to prove
1:39:19that it exists. And if they can't, then
1:39:22we won't believe it. That's called
1:39:25being rational and logical. Now, that
1:39:27has nothing to do with logic. You don't
1:39:29even know what logic is. But can I
1:39:30answer or not? Just let me answer, then
1:39:31you can speak. Go ahead.
1:39:32What makes—what makes you believe in
1:39:35Allah? What makes—don't flee to
1:39:37another subject, don't move on to what
1:39:40you...
1:39:41But let me speak! You're the one
1:39:43fleeing here by not letting me speak.
1:39:44Okay, what is Jack the Madman telling
1:39:45us? He says that the burden of proof
1:39:47lies with the one making the claim. So,
1:39:50I agree with that so far. Then he says,
1:39:51even more so if it's an extraordinary
1:39:53claim. Well, first off, let me teach
1:39:54you something. Jack the Madman, the
1:39:55content of the claim has no influence
1:39:57on the burden of proof. The burden of
1:39:59proof is triggered only by the claim,
1:40:00not by the content of the claim. That
1:40:02is just catastrophic. So, I agree with
1:40:04you that when I claim, for example, the
1:40:06existence of a red dragon in the sky,
1:40:08it will be up to me to prove my claim.
1:40:10Not because my claim is extraordinary
1:40:12as you say, but simply because I am the
1:40:13one claiming it. I agree with you on
1:40:15that. But who came up here to make a
1:40:17claim, namely that God does not exist?
1:40:19You are the one who came up here. Now,
1:40:20what did we say? A claim implies a
1:40:23burden of proof. You made the claim, so
1:40:25the burden of proof falls to you. So
1:40:26not only do you have to prove your
1:40:27claim, which is what I've been waiting
1:40:29for this whole time, but apparently
1:40:30you're incapable of it, because
1:40:31otherwise you would have already done
1:40:32so, just like last time when you ran
1:40:33away from my live stream. And not only
1:40:35that, but when you tell me that I'm
1:40:36reversing the burden of proof, it's
1:40:37very bold because I didn't make an
1:40:38assertion. So now, I'm listening to you
1:40:40. Come on, let's go. Prove to us that
1:40:42God does not exist. We're listening. So
1:40:46you don't want to talk about Islam,
1:40:48right? No problem at all. Just tell me,
1:40:51that's all.
1:40:52The burden of proof is back on you. I'm
1:40:54waiting for your argument. Uh, Jack the
1:40:55Fool.
1:40:55Yes, yes, yes. We're going to...so I
1:40:57can start to argue that God does not
1:41:00exist. We're not going to talk about
1:41:01Islam, agreed? Present your argument.
1:41:05So, we aren't going to talk about Islam
1:41:06. Where am I supposed to talk about
1:41:08Islam?
1:41:09Either you have an argument, or tell me
1:41:10straight out.
1:41:11But that is my argument. You can't seem
1:41:12to understand my argument. That is my
1:41:14argument. By argument, I mean a
1:41:15syllogism or premises, not questions.
1:41:17My friend. Seriously, you still haven't
1:41:19understood my argument?
1:41:21Well, present it then. Well, I'd like
1:41:23you to formalize it then. Give me the
1:41:24premises.
1:41:24I just did. I just did. OK.
1:41:27You didn't feel anything?
1:41:28No, but seriously, you didn't feel
1:41:29anything.
1:41:30An argument isn't something you feel.
1:41:32Then I'll repeat it for you. You want
1:41:34us to debate the existence of God right
1:41:36now? So we aren't going to talk about
1:41:38Islam. There are no questions in a
1:41:42syllogism. Jack the Fool, are you aware
1:41:44of that? You still haven't felt
1:41:46anything. I'm going to repeat it slowly
1:41:48. You want us to talk about the
1:41:50existence of God, so you don't want us
1:41:51to talk about Islam?
1:41:54There are no questions in a syllogism.
1:41:56Jack the Fool.
1:41:58Thank you very much. Thank you very
1:42:00much, really, I think there's no
1:42:03problem. I've seen some dancers and
1:42:06dribblers in debates, but I think if we
1:42:09had to make a ranking to give out, I
1:42:11don't know, a gold medal or something
1:42:13like that, you really have a shot. You
1:42:16have a real shot. Now, I'm going to say
1:42:18why, because obviously he doesn't want
1:42:20to. I am going to say why. Why doesn't
1:42:22he want to talk about Islam? Why
1:42:24doesn't he want to talk about Allah?
1:42:25Why doesn't he want to talk about the
1:42:27prophet? Because it's very important,
1:42:30and I first noticed this in Arabic
1:42:32debates. I don't know if you've noticed
1:42:35this, Tony or Laoramlou, when there's a
1:42:37debate between a Muslim and an atheist,
1:42:39there are always atheists listening and
1:42:40there are always Muslims listening.
1:42:44Well, the Muslim wants the person
1:42:45defending Islam to win. Well, the
1:42:48atheist wants—the atheists listening,
1:42:50or the non-believers, the non-Muslims,
1:42:51they want the atheist to win.
1:42:53That's beside the point.
1:42:54How do we do it?
1:42:55How do we do it? How do we do it? How
1:42:57do we do it? How do we make Muslims
1:43:00listening to us believe that the Muslim
1:43:02won when debating an atheist? Really,
1:43:06there are rules to follow, and they're
1:43:09always the same. It's to ensure the
1:43:11debate isn't about Islam. It's to
1:43:14ensure the debate stays focused on
1:43:16stupid questions that an atheist and a
1:43:18deist would have. I'm sorry. I, I
1:43:21consider these to be stupid questions,
1:43:23and in fact, to make sure that when the
1:43:25Muslim listens to the person defending
1:43:27Islam, they get the impression......the
1:43:30subject wasn't raised by...I didn't cut
1:43:34you off, I didn't cut you off, I gave
1:43:36you all the time to argue even more.
1:43:39I'm going to explain some things.
1:43:41I'm going to explain some things, if
1:43:43you'll allow me, thank you very much,
1:43:45so that the Muslims listening to us, we
1:43:47treat them like fools. That way, they
1:43:49have the impression that the person
1:43:51defending Islam is defending something,
1:43:53and indeed, he is defending something,
1:43:55but it's absolutely not Islam. Because
1:43:57what is Islam? I'm going to tell you
1:43:59what Islam is. What he doesn't want—
1:44:01doesn't want—well, that Muslims
1:44:03listen to, and I think even he doesn't
1:44:05want to hear this. What is Islam? Islam
1:44:09is a religion. It's a religion like
1:44:13thousands of others that exist, like
1:44:15thousands that have existed, and like
1:44:17others—there will be new religions
1:44:19that appear. And these religions are
1:44:23always, always, always, in 100%of cases
1:44:26, until proven otherwise, explained by
1:44:29the conditions of the human beings at
1:44:31the time the religion was invented,
1:44:34conceptualized. That means it's human
1:44:38beings from a certain era, a certain
1:44:41place, who invent rules to follow. And
1:44:44to have a certain authority regarding
1:44:46those rules, they accompany them with
1:44:48the ultimate authority. And what is the
1:44:51ultimate authority? God, as Bakunin
1:44:54would say, uh, all, all, all authority
1:44:57flows from the authority of God. We
1:45:02need God as a perfect authority so that
1:45:04other types of authorities can flow
1:45:06from it. So to impose laws, to impose
1:45:09respect for the laws of those regions
1:45:12at that time, for example, when talking
1:45:14about Islam, it would be the 7th, 8th,
1:45:179th century in the Arabian desert. When
1:45:19talking about another religion, it will
1:45:21be a different law in another time. And
1:45:23so to impose those laws, to give them a
1:45:26divine authority so that people respect
1:45:28them, we say it comes from a god, and
1:45:30it is always accompanied by rewards and
1:45:33especially punishments. And these
1:45:35punishments will be punishments that
1:45:37are completely caricatured and
1:45:39exaggerated,
1:45:40and and and there will be a lot of
1:45:42description regarding these these
1:45:44punishments. The problem that arises
1:45:47here, because I am I am an atheist, I
1:45:48am a materialist, I am a humanist. When
1:45:52I see the laws that Allah put in place
1:45:54with the prophet and all the companions
1:45:56and all and and all the Muslims of the
1:45:58time, well, they did what they could
1:46:00with what they had back then. They they
1:46:03worked with the knowledge of that time.
1:46:05That is why we find many things that
1:46:08are completely inapplicable today,
1:46:10which make no sense today. Why? Because
1:46:14there has been almost 1,300 or 1,400
1:46:16years of accumulated knowledge. Meaning
1:46:21we have evolved as as as human beings,
1:46:23as humans, we have evolved, we have
1:46:25managed to accumulate enough knowledge,
1:46:27we have come to understand reality
1:46:30better, we have adapted, we have
1:46:32managed to limit injustices as much as
1:46:34possible. And when I speak of injustice
1:46:36, well, I will really I will give
1:46:38examples so that people understand.
1:46:40There were there were injustices at the
1:46:42time that were perfectly acceptable.
1:46:44For example, slavery, for example, the
1:46:46status of women, who were completely
1:46:48disregarded in their rights and
1:46:50disregarded as human beings simply. Man
1:46:53was considered superior. But that was
1:46:56what people thought at the time. Today,
1:46:591,400 years later, we have evolved on
1:47:01these issues, and good thing, thanks to
1:47:03our knowledge, thanks to our
1:47:05accumulated experiences, we have
1:47:07evolved. So when we compare what Allah
1:47:11and the prophet ordered or what they
1:47:13wanted as a society, we realize that
1:47:16this society wanted by Allah with with
1:47:18his Sharia is completely archaic, it is
1:47:20completely barbaric compared to us. And
1:47:25it's this point here really, it's this
1:47:27point here that the, the, the
1:47:28proponents of Sunni Islam or those who
1:47:30see themselves as proponents of Sunni
1:47:32Islam, because that's not always the
1:47:34case, do not want the average Muslim to
1:47:36hear. Because I am going to tell you,
1:47:39in your opinion, in your opinion, who
1:47:41is really going to order, who is going
1:47:43to order the whipping of human beings?
1:47:47Who is going to order human beings to
1:47:49be whipped just because they made love
1:47:52outside of marriage? Is it a creator
1:47:55god? Here, we must think, here we must
1:47:58think rationally and logically. Is it a
1:48:00creator god?
1:48:02The one who created everything, all
1:48:03or is it, or is it, I have a lot of
1:48:05things to say, contrary, yeah, but you
1:48:07have a lot of things to say. A lot of
1:48:09things to say. I have a lot, a lot of
1:48:10things to say.
1:48:11If you want to cry, this isn't the
1:48:12place. I came here to debate. Basically
1:48:13, it was about free will. I remind you,
1:48:14I saw you, I came here to debate. I am
1:48:15not crying, I am arguing. You asked me
1:48:18to argue. I am arguing. I am arguing
1:48:20why your god does not exist.
1:48:22I am arguing why your god does not
1:48:24exist. You asked me for that, I'm
1:48:26answering you if you want. I'm
1:48:27summarizing your argument.
1:48:28I am not summarizing my argument. I
1:48:30don't need any help. I, I am going to
1:48:32do it.
1:48:32A little bit, anyway.
1:48:33Thank you very much. I am going to do
1:48:35it. Thank you very much. I am arguing
1:48:37why your God does not exist. Thank you.
1:48:40So who is really going to ask to whip
1:48:41human beings? I remind you, it's
1:48:44whipping. That is to say, we gather, we
1:48:46gather as human beings. Imagine the
1:48:49scene, we gather, there are, I don't
1:48:51know, tens or hundreds of people, we
1:48:54put a couple in the middle and we start
1:48:57whipping them. Or even worse, we start
1:49:00stoning them. That means we are going
1:49:03to dig a hole, put them inside and pelt
1:49:05them with stones until they die. Who
1:49:08would order that? Do you really think
1:49:10it's a creator God? If you believe in
1:49:12God, do you believe that is really the
1:49:14God you believe in who would order this
1:49:16to be done? Or is it ignorant Bedouins
1:49:19or Quraish from the 7th century who
1:49:22wanted that practice? The same thing
1:49:26when they say that a husband is
1:49:28superior to his wife. So the woman, the
1:49:31man is superior to the woman and the
1:49:33woman owes him obedience and if she
1:49:35doesn't obey him, if she does not obey
1:49:37him. I'm going to end up turning off
1:49:39your microphone. I have a lot of things
1:49:40to say. You had the opportunity,
1:49:43you had the opportunity to express your
1:49:45point.
1:49:45I will I will let you speak later if
1:49:47you want to make an emotional appeal
1:49:49later, no problem. I I am giving you
1:49:51concrete facts. So in your opinion, who
1:49:54would say that the man is superior to
1:49:56the woman and the wife owes him
1:49:58obedience and if she does not obey him,
1:50:01he hits her. That means the husband has
1:50:04the right to hit his wife. Once again,
1:50:06imagine the scene. You are at home.
1:50:11Your father is hitting your mother. Who
1:50:14would say that this is normal? It's
1:50:17acceptable, it's correct. Who would say
1:50:19that?
1:50:20A creator God, the God you believe in,
1:50:22the God of good you believe in if you
1:50:24believe in God, or is it ignorant,
1:50:26misogynistic, and patriarchal Bedouins
1:50:28from the 7th century.
1:50:30And all religions, all religions, all
1:50:32religions without exception are exactly
1:50:34the same thing by chance. And I will
1:50:37conclude with this, is it just a
1:50:39coincidence? If you believe in Allah
1:50:42because you were born into a family in
1:50:45a place that believes in Allah. If you
1:50:48had been born in a place or a family
1:50:50that believes in Brahma, you would be
1:50:52there defending Brahma. If you had been
1:50:55born in a place or a family that
1:50:57believes in Ahura Mazda, you would be
1:50:59there defending Ahura Mazda. Well, it
1:51:02turns out you were born into a family
1:51:04that believes in Allah. Oops, sorry, I
1:51:08received a call. It turns out you
1:51:11believe in Allah just by chance, by
1:51:12chance of birth. I say this because it
1:51:16can be proven. You can take a world map
1:51:19and divide regions by religion
1:51:22completely. Meaning these are
1:51:24hereditary religions. So, please,
1:51:28respect your intellect, respect your
1:51:31intelligence, and above all, respect
1:51:34your dignity, and stop thinking and
1:51:37saying and claiming that a perfect word
1:51:40is a word that says it is perfectly
1:51:42acceptable to hit your wife, perfectly
1:51:45acceptable to marry off little girls,
1:51:48and perfectly acceptable to own slaves.
1:51:53But it is unacceptable to eat pork.
1:51:59Okay, I would like I would like to
1:52:01respond. It won't take me as much time,
1:52:03don't worry. It's going to be really
1:52:04short. So, I'm going to respond. I'll
1:52:07summarize for those who don't have time
1:52:08, because I can understand, it was a
1:52:10bit long. So, the argument, to
1:52:12summarize it, if I have to make a
1:52:14syllogism, it's P1: Boo-hoo, I'm crying
1:52:17. P2: I'm being emotional, I'm using
1:52:18pathos. Therefore, Islam is false.
1:52:20There you go, that's the argument. Uh,
1:52:21well, I think it's obvious. It's pretty
1:52:23clear that the argument is ridiculous.
1:52:25So, I'm going to conclude. I'll remind
1:52:27you from the start because, oh wait, I
1:52:29wanted to address something. Jack Le
1:52:30Fou told me that Muslims intentionally
1:52:32debate topics—supposedly to run away,
1:52:34to pretend we know about things—that
1:52:36have nothing to do with Islam. I'll
1:52:38remind you that I was the one who
1:52:40joined a live stream about free will.
1:52:42So, was the topic set by me or by you?
1:52:44The topic was set by you, it's you who
1:52:46set free will as the topic, not me. Uh,
1:52:49so there we go, we debated free will.
1:52:54Uh, I presented arguments. Like Loreml
1:52:57and Tony Kan, they were completely
1:52:58stressed out. They brought out the
1:53:00joker card, the Jack Le Fou who came to
1:53:02do his rhetoric and his pathos. Since I
1:53:04have no more arguments. Aisha, slavery,
1:53:05win win. There, we all cried. Thank you
1:53:08very much for this evening. I hope
1:53:10we'll have the chance to debate again,
1:53:13but in rational debates, please, not
1:53:16emotional ones. We're not at the
1:53:18therapist's; I'm not here to listen to
1:53:19people's emotions. I wish you all a
1:53:20good evening. In any case, it was funny
1:53:22. I had a good laugh. And, well, that's
1:53:25it, have a good evening.
1:53:26Goodbye. Thanks to you.
1:53:28Thanks, Len. Well, a comment. I prefer
1:53:34not to redo the debate, but yeah, go
1:53:36ahead. Check. No, my argument is a
1:53:40rational argument.
1:53:42Yes,
1:53:42I think he doesn't know what rational
1:53:44means. That's why he thinks that when
1:53:46we denounce a barbaric practice, it
1:53:49means we are being emotional. You need
1:53:52to think a bit before you speak. It is
1:53:54a rational argument that explains why
1:53:56all these practices are in the Quran.
1:54:00Because it corresponds to its time. I
1:54:02told you it was a historical
1:54:04materialist view of religion. It means
1:54:07that in their era, these practices were
1:54:10perfectly acceptable. That is why Allah
1:54:12accepts them. It's, well, it's Q.E.D.,
1:54:16if you will.
1:54:17But it's
1:54:18And if there were proof, if there were
1:54:21proof to contradict us, pardon me Raml,
1:54:23if there were proof to contradict us,
1:54:25to tell us why those words truly come
1:54:27to us from a god, you would have
1:54:29presented it. You had nothing to
1:54:32present as proof, nothing. You had
1:54:34nothing to present as an argument,
1:54:35nothing. There, you wanted once again
1:54:38to wrap yourself in the cloak of, of,
1:54:41of the deist because it is much more
1:54:43respectable and it literally is. The
1:54:46cloak of deism is much more respectable
1:54:48than the cloak of Sunni Islam, or
1:54:50Christianity, or Buddhism, or Hinduism,
1:54:53or Zoroastrianism. It is, because I and
1:54:57, and I and the deist, I think that
1:55:00Laureml and Tony will agree with me.
1:55:04When we debate our societal project,
1:55:07the deist, the deist will never, ever,
1:55:10ever invoke a book or a divine word as
1:55:13an argument from authority to decide
1:55:16what we should do for a societal
1:55:18project. The deist just makes a
1:55:24profession of faith regarding, I don't
1:55:27know, a necessity or a first cause, and
1:55:29that's where it ends. I'm sorry, my
1:55:33friend, you are much more than a deist.
1:55:35You possess the divine word, it's just
1:55:37that it shames you. In any case, we
1:55:43won't have had the opportunity to know
1:55:44if he was much more than a deist.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Le N ... aufrage de la rationnalité et de la logique. Feat @TonyRhanArchive & @JackLeFouX by Loremlaw, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 22,906 words across 3,728 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.