Know More News - Adam Green - Obnoxious Christian WRECKED in Debate with Adam Green of Know More News

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 18, 2022 - Know More News - Adam Green

01:34:00

Obnoxious Christian WRECKED in Debate with Adam Green of Know More News

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome back to the Crucible.
	Tonight, we've got Zen Shapiro versus Adam Green.
	Been looking forward to this debate.
	We'll be right back with our debaters.
	We'll be right back.
	you All right, and we're live, and we've got Adam Green versus Zen Shapiro.
	The topic is Christianity.
	We did put in paganism, but that's because I feel that it'll probably touch on that, probably some other things as well.
	Happy to go through this debate.
	Like I said, been looking forward to it for a little while.
	Adam, why don't you introduce yourself?
	Tell everybody where they can find you.
	My name is Adam Green.
	My website and channel names are No More News, and that is K-N-O-W, like knowledge.
	I've been on the internet making videos focusing on Zionism since 2014.
	So we got lately I've been focusing more on, I've always talked about Christian Zionism, but now I'm focusing on all of Christianity as a basically controlled opposition to Judaism.
	Got you.
	Thank you so much for the introduction.
	Zen Shapiro, go ahead and introduce yourself to everybody where they can find you.
	Yeah, I am Zen Shapiro.
	I'm a paleoconservative and a Christian.
	I'm the in-house right-wing debater on the Crucible.
	I debate right-wing ideas on behalf of the Crucible.
	I've got my own Twitter and YouTube channel where you can find me.
	Just search up Zen Shapiro.
	That's again, Zen Shapiro, where you'll find my exclusive debate content that you won't find on the Crucible or anywhere else.
	So, yeah, and I'm excited.
	All right.
	All right, guys.
	Yeah, I appreciate it.
	So let me just go through the rules real quick.
	They're not that complex.
	You'll both have five minutes for an opening.
	We'll get right into the cross-examination from there.
	We expect the debate to last for between an hour and an hour and a half and then audience Q ⁇ A. Go ahead, Zen, as you were the challenger.
	We're going to let you open.
	Okay, so yeah, the topic is Christianity versus paganism.
	Obviously, I'm arguing in the affirmative of Christianity.
	I'm not sure if Adam's going to invoke paganism or just atheism, but I argue that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for all intelligible facts of the universe, and that all other God concepts fall flat by some means or another.
	And whether it be a pagan God, Muslim God, Jewish God, or Hindu gods, however it may be, they're all going to fall flat.
	And particularly, atheism, if he invokes just not God, will also lack any sort of metaphysical reference point in order to predicate facts and truth from.
	Again, and really, really, my overarching argument is that the Christian God is the only coherent God concept that possesses all of the great making properties of the universe, like ultimacy, omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, relationality, etc.
	And again, all other God concepts fall flat.
	And atheism, just in general, lacks any sort of metaphysical predication.
	So there's nowhere to invoke truth from, morals from, or anything else in between.
	And the argument, I think, I would hope that we're each going to bring arguments to the table, but I often find that the atheists try to burden shift everything onto the Christians because we're the ones making the positive claim or whatever it may be.
	But really, any claim of X or not X are both positive claims in which you're predicting meaningfully.
	So there is a burden of proof on both claims, whether it be God or not God, or pagan God or Christian God.
	So I'm happy and willing to defend the Christian God, and I'm going to be investigating the validity of the pagan God or gods or not God at all.
	And yeah, I think that's the extent of the theological argument that we'll get into if we dry it out, if we beat the horse dead.
	And by that, I mean if I beat him over the head with the theological sword that I'll be wielding, then we can move on to another topic.
	I know he said he's anti-Zionist.
	He's very critical of the Semitic region.
	We can talk about those kind of things.
	But we'll see if we even need to go there.
	But yeah, so that's about it.
	That's the extent.
	Okay, Adam, you're up.
	Five minutes.
	Before I get into my opening statement, I'm just curious.
	Were you raised religious, Mr. Shapiro?
	No?
	And is that your real name, Shapiro?
	Are you Jewish?
	No.
	Okay.
	And you said Jewish God, Muslim God, Christian God.
	Are you under the impression that the Jews and your opening statement?
	We can get in the cross-examination after.
	Give an opening statement on your position and stuff.
	Okay, this is my last question.
	Go ahead, go ahead.
	Do you think the Jewish God and the Christian God are different gods?
	Yes.
	Okay, we'll get into it later, but Paul clearly says that you're worshiping the same God, save covenant, covenant.
	We'll get more into it.
	So, number one, I'm not a pagan.
	And if you've seen any of my videos, I've always been very clear.
	I've never advocated for any paganism or alternative religions to Christianity.
	I see paganism as just a derogatory, pejorative slur for anybody that doesn't believe in Jewish prophecy and worship the God of Israel.
	You also hear rabbis and Jews always talking about pagans as the ultimate villains.
	And that's something that Christians and rabbis have in common.
	And that was really one of the ultimate purposes of Christianity was to replace the pagan world of their gods, the Gentile worlds, and get them to worship the God of Israel.
	This is what the prophecies called for.
	This is what Christianity achieved all over the planet.
	Countless ancestral traditions, myths, religions, gods that people had all replaced with the God of the Jews, the God of Israel, the jealous God that wants to get rid of idol worship and have everybody worship the God that chose the Jews.
	That is their destiny on earth, is to spread the Torah and get the Gentiles to convert to be Noahides.
	Christianity was a step in that direction, even according to the top rabbis throughout history.
	And while it replaced all the pagan religions, it preserved and protected and ensured the survival of Judaism.
	And look at where we're at today.
	Because of Christianity and Christian Zionism and Vatican II Catholic Church and the KGB approved Russian Orthodox Church.
	Sorry.
	Sorry, Andrew.
	It's all control.
	It's all even the anti-Semitic Christians, which is just a small minority.
	Even that ultimately plays into the hands of the Jews and their victim complex and their prophecy of Esau persecuting them to refine them and give them divine atonement so they can be redeemed and returned to the land.
	And it's sad that all of the world has replaced their ancestral traditions and knowledge of their ancestral heroes and replaced it with Hebrew mythical goat herders and fishermen and mythical kings and nonsense, fantastical, absurd, clear mythology in the Old Testament.
	Let's see.
	I didn't even know.
	I wasn't aware that I had a five-minute intro or how it was going to go, but I'm going to.
	You don't need to use the entire.
	You don't need to use the entire time, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	You've got two minutes left.
	Go ahead.
	So the Old Testament, prophecies everywhere about conquering the Gentiles, their Moshiach, their Messiah conquering the Gentiles.
	And this is literally what Paul, the Pharisee, who was the apostle to the Gentiles, targeted the Gentiles to get them to worship the God of the Jews to fulfill the prophecies.
	This is all part of a deception to get the Gentiles to worship an antithetical, to get the whole world Judaized.
	And it has done exactly that.
	Same situation with Islam, also a controlled opposition dialectic.
	You know, online, everybody calls everybody else controlled opposition.
	I see no clearer example of controlled opposition than Christianity.
	It has allowed the Zionists to basically take over America and thus the world.
	They use the Christianity that helped them get the state of Israel.
	Wouldn't have happened without Christianity.
	And now we have millions of evangelicals and all of our political leaders going and bowing down to the wall in Israel and believing that they're cursed if they curse Israel and blessed if they bless them.
	And you'll probably argue, oh, that's just bad interpretation or that's Schofield Bible.
	If the Bible scripture is so flawed that it could be so easily so easily interpreted in a way that totally cucks Gentiles to the chosen people, I'd say it's inherently flawed and it definitely is.
	There's contradictions.
	The gospels are written by anonymous people.
	We don't even know when.
	It's decades after the supposed crucifixion.
	The oldest Christian works are from Paul.
	He never even knew Jesus and didn't even talk about any of the biographical details.
	And it's just basically said he found him from scripture.
	And I'll conclude with that's what the gospels are and what Paul's teachings were.
	They looked for mysteries and connections and hidden codes in the Old Testament and created a new midrash, a new basically Kabbalah fake prophecy fulfillment, sold it to the Gentiles.
	And Christianity has been the ultimate weapon that they've used to fulfill their prophecies for conquering the Gentiles theologically and ultimately fulfilling their prophecies from ruling the world with their Moshiach bin David, which is also what the Christians want.
	Christians and Jews both agree on so much.
	They just argue over who the Messiah was, but they both want a Jewish dictator, king to rule the whole world.
	That's what they have in common with.
	So I just see Christians and Jews as ultimately the same thing.
	They're both Jewish.
	Christianity is on the Jewish paradigm.
	It's a controlled dialectic.
	And I guess I'll leave it there for now.
	Okay.
	Well, it's news to me that my religion is run by the KGB.
	But with that, I'll say, comrades, the floor is open.
	All right.
	Go ahead.
	We expect full contact for this debate.
	That's okay.
	I do expect you to adhere to the moderator.
	It may break you up from time to time if it gets too heated.
	I don't mute people as a general rule, and I'm not going to start tonight.
	But Zen, you have the floor for your cross-examination.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I think the first thing I want to do is establish that the Christian God and the Jewish God are not the same gods.
	Would you like to do that?
	Well, I mean, do you believe you have the new covenant?
	Yeah, I think everybody does.
	Okay, well, who had the old covenant?
	Same God, right?
	Okay, okay, hang on.
	But the Jews of today, the Jews of today, the Ashkenazi, the Orthodox Jews of the modern day, are those that have actually rejected the new covenant and they only hold to the Torah and the Talmud.
	They don't hold to the other 61 books of the Holy Bible, the Christian Bible.
	That's a total misconception.
	So which books would the Jews hold to explain why it's a misconception?
	It's a misconception because the Talmud comes from the Mishnah and that is commentary on the Torah.
	It's just extra fan fiction, extra interpretations, arguing over rulings in the Torah, what the Torah means.
	Same with the Zohar and its other, I think the Bible is a blueprint for Jewish domination of the world with their Moshiach as king.
	And Christianity are carrying that torch for them.
	How could you say it's not the same God?
	Oh, and they rejected Jesus.
	This is part of this.
	That's the big one.
	That's the big one.
	This is the prophecy.
	This is what dupes Gentiles is.
	Oh, they rejected him, so we're going to follow him.
	The only opposition, they got all of their opposition to be following the Jewish Messiah, which the suffering Messiah is meant to be the hidden Messiah that is rejected by the Jews and goes to the Gentiles.
	This is based off the prototype Messiah of Joseph.
	That's why he's the first Messiah Moshi.
	I don't think anything you're saying is accurate.
	So you understand it.
	It's all accurate.
	Anybody that's watching my channel knows that I've a completely different depiction of God than the Jewish God.
	Do you understand that?
	I mean, you have the chance to stand connected to the New Testament.
	Do you literally think that the Christian God and the Jewish God are the same exact God?
	You literally think that?
	I think they're both fictional.
	I mean, there's different interpretations on him.
	But I mean, what do you hold to?
	What do you hold to as your ultimate metaphysical reference point?
	What do you invoke?
	What are you referencing when you invoke truth?
	And you say, oh, they're both false.
	Okay, what's true then?
	Isn't there only one God in your view to begin with?
	So how could there be competing gods?
	Well, because there's competing falsehoods to the one truth.
	There can only be one truth, and that is the Christian triune God.
	And that's, again, the distinction between the Holy Ghost.
	The distinction between the Christian God and both the Muslim and Jewish gods is that they believe in the singular Unitarian depiction of God, whereas the Christians invoke the coming of Christ and his revelation on earth, the incarnation of Christ, as the revelation of the triune nature of God through man's depiction, where we've got the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons of God in one essence, whereas the Jews only believe in one singular person of God, and so do the Muslims.
	They just call him Allah.
	So it's like these are different gods.
	If they're all the same God, why do they all have different names?
	What's the deal with that?
	No, it's Yahweh.
	It's the same God.
	And like, okay, why did Allah have a point probably?
	99.9% of all Christians would not even say that.
	Let him respond.
	Let him respond.
	go ahead adam 99 of christians wouldn't even argue this this side you're taking that it's not the same god i mean you're telling me that the god changed the god of the universe changed from the old testament to the new testament no it didn't change but the jews rejected the revelation of jesus in man and uh so god changed no god did not change man then how did they reject it they were rejecting it because they're suppressing the truth and unrighteousness you have to do such no i'm not doing mental gymnastics it's like it's you
	can you can you can reject that two plus two equals four it doesn't mean that two plus two doesn't what i'm rejecting well no i didn't say that's what you're rejecting but i'm saying that god himself never changed he was always a triune uh being uh father son holy spirit but the jews simply rejected that revelation you understand the jews of today and that's what i mean when i understand that this whole rejection is a con right it's all over the old testament that there would be a rejection just like joseph's brothers rejected him and sold him into slavery threw
	him in the pit sold him into slavery they this and then he ruled behind the throne of of uh egypt this is what the messiah has done this is what the suffering messiah's role always was paul even like directly quotes the old testament paul the pharisee with all the old Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
	Obviously, he's going to quote the Old Testament.
	So, if Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, that means he's the fulfilled, it's the same God in both.
	But then the Jews reject the fulfillment of their prophecies because they're surprised.
	Okay, well, then they're in righteousness.
	They want to do that.
	They want to remain God, then they want to remain like a select elite group of God's chosen people that isn't granted to all the Gentiles, right?
	So the Jews are rejecting him out of their own selfish interpretation of what they want their religion to be, but there doesn't make them correct.
	God never changed, right?
	It's the same.
	The Christian God is the one.
	God never changed.
	I think I see what you're saying.
	Because Christians have the religion right and the Jews don't have it right, they're worshiping the correct God, but the Jews aren't.
	But you could go ask 99% of Christians and Jews, and they'll say, Yes, we're worshiping the same God.
	I will make the same thing on you.
	Can I please?
	Can I hang on?
	Even if that is, even if that is correct, then that wouldn't actually prove your point.
	Just because 99% of people agree on something doesn't make it true.
	But even to just undercut it, like that's not fucking true, dude.
	Like it's like most Christians acknowledge, or at least I would say a good chunk of Christians are going to acknowledge that we've got different God concepts.
	Otherwise, we would just call ourselves Jews.
	Like, why wouldn't I just go be a Jew if I thought you basically do?
	You're saying you are the true Jews, the true Israelites.
	You have the new covenant.
	You're God's people.
	Now, I see all this stuff.
	Christianity, we're grafted in.
	We're God.
	Sloppy seconds.
	I mean, what would have happened if the Jews didn't reject him?
	Would the Messiah came and just conquered all the Gentiles?
	Because that's what the prophecies call for.
	Okay.
	So why do you want to worship a God that ever talked about the Gentiles the way that the Old Testament does?
	Is it your position that all Abrahamic gods are the same singular God?
	Yes.
	I mean, it's a fictional God created by the Jews.
	I understand that.
	Yes, it's all coming from the same source.
	I understand you think that.
	Okay.
	So then, wouldn't it?
	Isn't it funny that the God of the Quran, Allah, forgot his name?
	Isn't that a little bit funny?
	Like, he was labeled as the Tetragrammaton YHWH.
	That's the same thing.
	Now he's calling himself Allah.
	Like, why is he doing that?
	Kind of weird that an omniscient language.
	Different language.
	I mean, they think it's the same God.
	They call the Jews the people of the book.
	They happily accepted the role of the Arabs being Ishmael, which is what the Talmud says that the Arabs were.
	Right.
	And so the way they've created Christianity in Islam and the point is that we're talking about different gods.
	We're just talking about different God concepts.
	You've got the Jewish depiction of God, the Christian depiction of God, and the Islam depiction of God.
	They're all three different God concepts by some means or another.
	Okay, look up Romans 3:29, everybody, and this debate is over.
	Okay, what does it say?
	Romans 3:29.
	Paul says, Is he the God of the Jews only?
	Is he not also of the Gentiles?
	Yes, of the Gentiles also.
	There you go.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So what does that tell you?
	What does that tell you that this God came to?
	This is the difference.
	This is in reference to Jesus and his revelation.
	The founder of Christianity says it's the same God.
	Debate over.
	Hang on.
	Hang on, guys.
	Hang on, hang on.
	Because we're getting to the point where you're talking over to each other.
	The audience can't hear.
	Zen, go ahead, make your point, and then we'll let Adam respond.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, I was going to say that this verse, I mean, I don't know the full context of the verse off the top of my head, but I would say that that is in reference to Jesus' revelation in his incarnation as a man, where he fulfilled the Old Testament that was initially just to the Jews, to the Israelites, the God's people of the time, but now it's fulfilled to be granted to all people, to the Gentiles as well.
	Now we're all God's people.
	The new Israel is the church that was that Jesus.
	I'm not one of the people.
	I don't want to be a slave to the Jewish God.
	That's where you and I differ.
	So the point is this, though.
	God himself never actually changed.
	It's that the Jews of today are the ones that are rejecting the Christian God and his revelation in the New Testament.
	They completely disagree with you.
	They think you're rejecting it and that they're the right one.
	Yeah.
	And hey, do you, okay.
	So If you were actually Jewish, you and I would sit here and have a conversation about why the Christian God is correct and why the Jewish God is incorrect.
	But the problem with this is that you're actually, you reject all God concepts, right?
	I'm not misrepresenting you, right?
	You reject all gods.
	You're an atheist.
	I don't believe anybody can speak on behalf of God.
	For me to believe in a God, I would have to see some type of miracle like we're told about in the Old Testament that just conveniently don't happen anymore.
	I'm not buying it.
	What's more likely?
	All of these ridiculous, fantastical myths and stories in the Old Testament and the New Testament are true, or some ancient Jews myth makers made it up.
	What's more likely?
	The Jews made it up of all of these magical things happening.
	Do you believe that God exists?
	You know, I'm not an atheist.
	I'm an agnostic.
	I don't rule out the possibility of some form of a higher power, but the idea that God chose us and God said this and God wants that and he gave us this land.
	So how could you possibly want to control the possibility of any God without a revelatory nature of this God that told you that he exists?
	Do you understand?
	That's why we've never told me he exists.
	I see proof everywhere that he doesn't exist.
	Okay.
	So then what is okay?
	How about this?
	What is the necessary falsehood of any God concept?
	Not necessarily just the Christian God.
	What is the necessary falsehood of any God?
	Because you don't hold, you hold to some sort of you mean how do I disprove any God?
	How do I prove there's no God?
	How is it the case that there is no God?
	How do you prove that there's no Allah?
	How do you prove it's called a burden of truth?
	I mean, you know this is a fallacy.
	Whether you claim that the burden of proof is on you, how do you prove that God is real?
	Okay, so let's just get very rudimentary here.
	Should be easy to prove it.
	You shouldn't even have to debate it.
	Everybody should just know.
	You don't want to know?
	Go ahead and tell me.
	Let's hear it.
	That's one of my questions.
	We need to get very rudimentary here first because, again, we hold to different definitions of what truth is, what proof is, and falsehood and all the like.
	I hold to, as a presuppositionalist, that all truth necessary derives from and depends upon the Christian God.
	You hold to that that God is false.
	Okay, I understand.
	But by invoking a falsehood of any, of any claim, whether it be of God or that there's not an apple on the counter, you are predicating in reference to some sort of metaphysical ultimacy of reality.
	You're saying, I have the ability to interpret and establish what absolute truth is absent of reference to the Christian God.
	So what is your reference?
	This is just like straight Christian pillpole that I hear over and over.
	No, it's not pill pool.
	I asked you.
	None of this is the God of the Bible.
	What is it that you reference?
	Let him respond, let him respond.
	You could use this to prove anything.
	And they're not good arguments either.
	They're flawed arguments.
	It's not an argument.
	It's a question.
	What's the ultimate metaphysical reference point?
	Of course you'd want to talk about the ultimate metaphysical and my presupposition.
	Yeah, blah, blah, blah.
	But you believe in ridiculous myths.
	Dan, let's start at the time.
	You've got to leave.
	Do you believe Adam and Eve is a no?
	I don't want to talk about Adam and Eve.
	I want to know.
	Of course you don't.
	Of course you're dodging my question.
	You're dodging my question.
	You're dodging.
	Oh, I didn't.
	I did answer it.
	No, you didn't.
	You're dodging mine.
	You dodged.
	You believe in Adam and Eve.
	What's your ultimate metaphysical point?
	Yes or no?
	Do you believe in Adam and Eve?
	Stop dodging.
	Yes, I believe in Adam and Eve.
	Now you're going to answer my question.
	What is your ultimate metaphysical reference point?
	You think how many years are Adam and Eve?
	I don't want to know.
	No, you're dodging.
	Well, hang on.
	Hang on.
	Let's dodging.
	Hang on, let's calm down.
	I'm not dodging.
	I just answered your question.
	Yes, you are.
	Hang on.
	He has asked to be fair multiple times.
	If you can give an answer to it, what is the ultimate metaphysical reference point is what you're asking then?
	Yeah, in terms of what you invoke.
	And when you predicate truth or any sort of knowledge claim, what is it that you are referencing as an ultimate?
	What truth am I predicating?
	What knowledge truth am I predicating?
	Well, when you're the one with the presupposition, I got it.
	You're saying God is real and everything I say in a circle back to God is real.
	God of the Bible is real.
	You're in a closed loop.
	The truth that you predicated is that the Christian God is false.
	So when you, when you say that, I'm not convinced.
	I understand that you say it, but you said that it's false.
	You said that it's false.
	That is a positive claim.
	Whether you say X is the case or is not the case, you're still predicting.
	You're still invoking the claims.
	You're the one making the possibility.
	You're still invoking a truth claim.
	You're still invoking a truth claim.
	You know that when you say this God's real, he says this.
	This is his book.
	He chose these people.
	And now I have the new covenant.
	You're making all these claims with no proof at all.
	I don't have to, and you're trying to push, twist the burden of proof on me.
	I mean, we're both logical.
	I literally mentioned this in my opening statement that we're both making truth claims, whether it be God or not God, or even if you're invoking agnosticism, but a false God, and you're saying that my God is false.
	You're still predicting by some means of a metaphysical reference point that you're able to derive truth from, but you're not telling me what that is.
	So, how the hell would I know that you're even telling the truth about anything?
	You're saying, How do I know what is true?
	Yeah, how do you determine that something is the case?
	What is your reference point?
	With my brain, I try to figure out what's truth the best that I can.
	How do you know that the Bible says is truth?
	Yeah, how do you know that your brain is good?
	How do you know that your brain is a valid reference point for truth?
	Dogmatic?
	Because that's the only reference point anybody has is their brains.
	Okay, but it's just an object.
	How, like, it's just molecules clashing into each other.
	It's just brain gas.
	How do you know that your brain gas is truth?
	What's your metaphysical reference point?
	My brain maybe isn't always truth.
	I've listened.
	How the hell would you ever know that you're ever?
	How would you know that anything is the case?
	How do you know that your brain's not just playing tricks on you?
	A lot of people have brains that are playing tricks on them.
	Like, I think yours is one of them.
	I think you're being deceived.
	I got it first.
	Okay.
	How do you get it?
	But you still, okay, yeah.
	Where's your truth come from?
	I already answered this: that my predication of truth derives from the ultimacy of reality, the source of knowledge, the omniscience, triune God of the Bible.
	And how do you decipher from the Bible what the Bible says is true?
	Because there's thousands of different interpretations of denominations, and nobody agrees.
	So everybody thinks they got it right.
	Everybody has their own truth from them figuring out the Bible with their brains for themselves.
	Okay.
	So, again, though, I've answered your question.
	You said, How do you derive truth?
	And I answered it pretty concisely.
	And I just, but I have yet to get an answer to my question.
	What's the ultimate point?
	I'm not playing this game.
	Yeah, because you can't answer the question.
	I've been answering every question.
	You're epistemically.
	Every question.
	Well, okay.
	So hang on.
	I've answered every question.
	No, you haven't answered any.
	You haven't asked me.
	Another Christian tried to do this to me.
	One question.
	I'm doing the same little question now.
	I've answered that question.
	Hang on.
	Hang on.
	Zen.
	Where do you get your truth?
	Hang on.
	You don't need to get your truth from your brain.
	It's the Christian God.
	And how do you know what the Christian God truths are?
	Hold on, hold on.
	How do you know what the Christian God truths are from the Bible?
	In virtue of his revelation.
	So you have revelations.
	God speaks to your brain.
	And you know what the Bible means?
	It's revealed himself to everybody.
	Yes.
	The Bible is open to interpretation, right?
	Yeah.
	And I don't invoke myself as a perfect Bible interpreter.
	So you're not perfect.
	Nobody's perfect.
	There's no real question because Christianity is a man-made deception.
	So, again, again, I'm answering your questions.
	I'm pretty direct and clear with them.
	Still haven't gotten an answer to mine.
	What's your ultimate metaphysical reference point?
	I'm not playing this game anymore.
	You're not answering your question.
	I haven't dodged one question and answered everything directly.
	Are you able to defend your position?
	Well, so this is getting annoying and stupid.
	So what's that because you're afraid to defend your position?
	So hang on.
	So I'm answering the question that I'm asking you, and you won't answer my question.
	This is stupid.
	You're a joke, dude.
	Well, what's going on is this is there's an argument deconstruction going on on both sides.
	So Zen's saying he wants to probe your logic to see if he can get to the bottom of where you derive your worldview.
	And I answer my brain, just like you do.
	We both use our brains to try to decipher what is true.
	Your brain is an object.
	Your brain is an object.
	I'm asking you for your metaphysical, not a physical, your metaphysical reference point in which you derive truth.
	So what's the spiritual?
	What's my magical?
	What's my unmeasured?
	So when you invoke truth, when you invoke the voice in your head, I already answered these twice now.
	And I'm happy to do it again in a second.
	But when you invoke truth, when you invoke any sort of knowledge claim, whatever, those are metaphysical predications.
	They're immaterial.
	Truth is not a material object.
	You can't find truth in a rock.
	That's just an object.
	You can't find truth in your brain.
	Again, just an object.
	But there are the metaphysical reference point.
	There are objective truths, though.
	Like we are on a podcast together right now.
	That is.
	I mean, are you able to predicate that meaningfully?
	I can, because I have faculties of reason in virtue of God's revelation.
	What are your faculties of reason?
	How do you get God's revelation?
	Why do you have revelation and I don't?
	So you're still not going to answer my question.
	Oh my God, dude.
	Why did you ask me this question like five times?
	You're the most annoying person to have a conversation because you can't answer questions.
	We're having a back and forth.
	I'm answering every question and asking you questions.
	You've said it like 20 times now.
	I've asked you this one question like five times because you keep answered it five times from my brain.
	That's a physical.
	That's a physical.
	I'm not asking about your physical reference point.
	I'm asking you your metaphysical reference point.
	I reject your whole idea.
	You don't have a metaphysical reference point.
	Where's your reference point?
	Are you just like making up a term?
	Oh, I got a metaphysical truth.
	Like, where is it?
	Did you want an answer?
	Did you want an answer?
	Where is it?
	Did you want an answer?
	Yeah, my mind.
	Where do you think?
	Here, answer this.
	How do you know?
	How do you derive truth from the Bible?
	Yeah, because, well, the Bible is the true, inherent, written word of God, powered by the Holy Spirit.
	It was written by men.
	You know, yes, yes, but through the power of the Holy Spirit.
	And again, it fulfills the revelation and the incarnation of Jesus.
	Yeah.
	Those special Jews with all their Holy Spirit.
	So you don't want to.
	See, you ask me questions.
	I try to give you mine, and then you interrupt me in the middle of my, come on, dude.
	So, no, really, it's the Bible is the true word of God, and it's in virtue of his revelation.
	He gave us, he made us in his image, gave us faculties of reason to observe his revelation.
	That is the only coherent revelation, again, from the Christian God.
	All other gods are false.
	And this is a this God is an immaterial metaphysical mind.
	This is a this is an intelligible, intelligible mind in which all intelligibility of the universe derives from.
	And that's how we can establish, we as Christians that know our theology, that know our faith, we can establish truth, we can establish facts and where they come from.
	We can establish where the universe came from as well.
	But I'm still sitting here asking you the same question.
	How are you able to establish any sort of metaphysical reference point?
	Because truth is 10 times now.
	I do it with my brain the same way that you do truth.
	You use your brain to read the Bible and listen to your pastor or watch YouTube videos or whatever you do, and you decide by your own mental capacity what you think is true and not true.
	So we both use our brain.
	That's the way I've answered it 10 times now.
	Okay, I'll make I'll give you an easier question.
	It's a softball.
	Is truth an object?
	I'm not doing this anymore.
	No, it's a softball.
	It's a truly question.
	Like I'm still not answering your question.
	Okay, because you're acting like no, you're acting like an object or is it an immaterial concept?
	I would say it's an immaterial concept.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Perfect.
	Immaterial would be the equivalent of saying it's metaphysical.
	It's not physical.
	It's not a physical object.
	So in order to invoke truth as a metaphysical, immaterial concept, you need to be able to invoke your metaphysical immaterial reference point in which it derives from.
	Are you able to do that?
	So you think you're able to, but I'm not.
	That's what I'm hearing the Bible and you can get these revelations and metaphysical truths.
	And you have yet to answer.
	You're asserting that you have this metaphysical reference point.
	Yeah.
	But you're really just using your brain.
	You believe you have a metaphysical reference point because you're using your brain and you convinced your brain that that's using my faculties of reason as given to me by God in virtue of his revelation.
	This is an answer to the question that I'm asking.
	So if you were to spin it back on me and you have, I can answer it.
	Okay.
	So for like the 12th people.
	I'm not convinced by your answer at all.
	Okay.
	Can we move the subject along?
	Like, how long have we been in the Zen?
	I've asked the same question like 15 times.
	You haven't given me an answer.
	You keep trying to.
	So the problem is what he what's going on between both debaters is Zen's trying to make an establishment of if we agree and we did agree that this is a non-physical concept, truth, it's immaterial, then he's looking for the baseline.
	And so he says, if Adam, if you're saying that, hey, this immaterial truth comes from a physical object and there's no other point of reference, and that's your answer, he's saying that there's a problem with that.
	And so he wants, he's trying to dive into that to explain that there's an issue when you use a physical object as a metaphysical reference point.
	Okay, so how does he know that he has a special metaphysical frame of reference, but I don't?
	Well, he doesn't know that.
	He's saying I base my point of reference On this thing that's also immaterial.
	And so he's asking you if you can do the same thing or not.
	That's what his, that's what his query is.
	So you decide what's truth based on God's metaphysical truth.
	Is that what you're saying?
	Like you still use your brain at the end of the day.
	That's the point I'm trying to make.
	Okay.
	But again, I'm invoking my brain and my knowledge, my faculties of reason in reference to God as the ultimate metaphysical reference point who gave me these faculties.
	You're just asserting that, though.
	You have to say that it's the ultimate metaphysical reason.
	Yes, I am just let's just to humor you.
	Yes, I am just asserting that, but that's but a debate is not simply one side asserts their metaphysical reference point and then the other side interrogates it.
	It's that both sides assert their metaphysical reference point and then they interrogate each other.
	But you just keep interrogating me.
	You're not answering the question of what your reference point is.
	How do you get your truth value from your brain, an object, an object?
	How do you get how do you get into it?
	You really need to answer this for the 10th time.
	How am I doing my brain?
	How do you know it's true?
	Is what he's saying.
	How do you know it's true?
	How do I know what my brain says is true?
	Yeah.
	That's what he's asking ultimately.
	I don't always think it's true.
	I think my brain has lied to me before.
	That's what I'm saying.
	How do you say right now is true?
	How do you?
	Because I have faculties of reason that were given to me by God.
	Again, I'm true because God gave it to me.
	But where's your proof?
	So you've evidence for this guy.
	How do you prove that you have this and I don't do you believe in the Christian God then?
	No.
	Oh, okay.
	So then where do you get your truth from?
	You were just being bad faith.
	It shouldn't be there whether I believe in it or not.
	If it exists, it doesn't matter if I believe in it or not.
	Okay.
	I actually, that's like tapping into some type of thing.
	That's actually correct to connect.
	It's like whether you acknowledge the Christian God or not, it is the Christian God.
	He's the only coherent God.
	And that's what I'm invoking, but you deny that.
	In order to deny a proposition, so the proposition here is that the Christian God exists or that the Christian God is true.
	In order to deny that proposition, you have to present its negation.
	You have to present not the Christian God that falsifies the Christian God.
	Yes, you do.
	How do you falsify X?
	You present not X. Your logic here is so flawed.
	It's such circular reasoning.
	But when you say logic, are you talking about the laws of logic?
	Are you talking about the law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, where a proposition cannot be closer to a game?
	You're cutting me off.
	In order to falsify X, you have to present not it's circular reasoning.
	Your presupposition that the Christian God is the one truth, and no matter what argument, you just get to spin it back.
	It's like saying the Bible's real because the Bible says it's real.
	Like, it's sad that that convinces people as like a strong argument.
	I think it's ridiculous.
	And only a gullible fool would fall for some logic like that.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So, so maybe we need to get very rudimentary here.
	Okay.
	No, no, I get to ask a question now.
	Your interrogation.
	Do we agree to the laws of logic, like identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle?
	Do we agree that those are ontologically true?
	I mean, I wouldn't call a law of logic like it's some type of like godly made law.
	Like, it's like it's, it doesn't add up.
	That's not what it is.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	Logic, we just argue and decide what is logical.
	You just obfuscated the question.
	I'm asking the questions now.
	I didn't ask.
	I did.
	You just obfuscated my question.
	You did.
	You just went on one of your little pet subjects that probably everybody that nobody's watching.
	And they all simply answered your question 15 times.
	I just simply asked you.
	Chat saying it's a stalemate.
	They want you to shut up and let me know.
	No, no, I just simply asked you the question.
	Do we both agree with you?
	I don't care what you simply did.
	I'm asking the question.
	No, are you able to answer just this simple question?
	Do we agree?
	Are you able to answer the simple question?
	Do you believe that you're not capable of debate, bro?
	I don't think you're capable.
	You're not capable.
	You're a joke.
	Let him ask you.
	You believe in Jewish, retarded Jewish myths as a useless.
	And you're unable to predicate anything meaningfully.
	You don't even know that we're talking right now.
	You just make, you just make absurd by what?
	Oh, absurd statements.
	Boom.
	Kill shot.
	Zen Shapiro makes absurd statements.
	You heard it here first.
	So, really, though, absurd by absurd assertions as well.
	Yeah, absurd by what metric?
	Yeah, with no proof at all.
	Proof by what metric?
	You can make this argument.
	A Muslim could make this argument and say, this is proof that my proof.
	Okay, so when you say I make absurd statements and that's your kill shot, what is your kill shot?
	What's your metric was like absurd?
	What does it mean for something to even be absurd or false?
	All right, I'm asking a question.
	You've had you had your little interrogation couple of minutes.
	It's my turn for some mentoring.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	Let's hear it.
	All right.
	Start at the beginning.
	Adam and Eve, you believe God just poofed Adam and Eve into existence.
	How many years ago?
	I'm not entirely sure.
	Well, according to young earth creationist Christians and some rabbis, they believe it's 6,000 years ago.
	Yeah, I've heard that before too.
	So I guess I would tentatively agree, but I'm not entirely sure of the exact timeline.
	So but I think humans have been on earth for 6,000 years.
	Yeah, when people talk about young earth creationists, I think I would fall into that camp.
	So yeah.
	You would.
	So you think the earth is 6,000 years old?
	If that's the predication, then yeah.
	You realize we can look the predication.
	Yeah, you can look at the stars that are billions of light years away and that light took a billion years to reach us, but you think that we've only been here for 6,000 years?
	How do you know it took billions of years?
	But by the laws of the speed of light, the laws of the speed don't continue.
	Go on.
	Yeah.
	Telescopes.
	Okay, so you believe that Jesus, let's talk about the basis of Christianity.
	Okay.
	We're following the world.
	I want to hear more about the laws of the speed of light that you know so much about.
	Come on.
	No, no, come on.
	This is your line of questioning here.
	You said exactly.
	That's why I'm asking the question.
	You're essentially arguing that the young earth creation model.
	Okay, you want other examples that the earth all the reasons that the earth is older than 6,000 years old?
	Yeah, you're saying that the young hang on, hang on, let's stick to what your first point was.
	You said that no, the young earth creation.
	Okay, go ahead.
	You said that the young earth model.
	You said the young earth creation model contradicts the idea of stars being billions of light years away in virtue of the laws of the speed of light.
	So are you able to elaborate more on that and establish 6,000 years ago and that's absurd?
	Okay, absurd by what billion years ago.
	Why?
	Why do you think the universe is possibly infinite or trillions of years?
	And it had no beginning.
	Do you understand how absurd that is to think that the universe is infinite and it had no beginning?
	You think God had no beginning and is infinitely.
	So do you want to let me explain why it takes quickly?
	I won't ask you a question, I promise, because you have a really hard time with those.
	I'll just explain, dude, shut up.
	I'll just explain.
	I don't even know who you are, dude.
	You're a joke.
	Nobody's not there.
	I'll just explain.
	I'm just wasting my time with this nonsense.
	I'll just explain the absurdity of believing that the universe is infinite, eternal, and had no beginning.
	It's because we've got something in the universe called causal chains of events, causality, law of causality, if you want to call it that.
	And every time that you invoke any sort of meaningful observation, like I saw a rabbit in the street, you're already presupposing that causality exists because what is an observation?
	It's just, you know, light hitting your retina and then sending a signal to your brain and then you predicating it.
	Well, that's a causal chain of events that occurred.
	But in order for any sort of causal chain of events to occur, there had to have been a first cause to ignite the entire process.
	Otherwise, you end up in eternal reproduction.
	There has to be a lot of first cause.
	So what's the first cause for God then?
	God's just a magical thing.
	It doesn't need a God is the eternal metaphor.
	So you're creating a law and saying, my God, it doesn't have to apply to those laws.
	You don't see the flaw in that law.
	Well, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	The laws are the laws are actually an illustration of God's nature.
	So he doesn't operate outside of those laws.
	God is God is bound by his own nature, and his own nature is not in contradictory, non-contradictory.
	So it's logical.
	It's eternal.
	It is omniscient.
	It's omnipotent.
	So we've got this source of knowledge, source of energy, source of truth, where all other things come from, they derive from and depend upon this God.
	So that's how I, again, this is how I'm able to account for you.
	I disbelieve in dogma.
	This is how I'm explaining.
	If you were raised Muslim, I bet you'd be like a Muslim fundamental.
	No, no, I guarantee I would convert.
	I guarantee I would convert out.
	That's easy to say.
	That's really.
	I mean, hey, look, I thought that's disconnected from reality that you are atheists, dude.
	I grew up an atheist.
	You think I'm just believing in some religious dogma that I was indoctrinated in at a young age?
	Because that's not you to not be an atheist.
	Well, eventually I humbled myself and acknowledged that there's some sort of ultimate truth to reality.
	And the explanations that are proposed by any sort of atheistic worldview, They fall flat.
	They're illogical.
	They're absurd.
	They contradict their own criterions for belief.
	Like it's, it's just, it's just an absurd worldview to hold.
	I mean, and I just explained, hang on real quick.
	And I just explained the account for causality in the God worldview.
	And I'm asking you, like, I will ask you a question here.
	Like, what is your account for the first cause in a worldview where you believe that the universe is eternal and had no beginning?
	Well, I don't know that.
	I don't know that for sure, but neither do you.
	And for you to make a special rule that God doesn't need a first cause, everything is not true and changing.
	But God doesn't.
	It's just the eternal.
	Okay, go ahead.
	You can just say that, but you've got no proof that he's the eternal.
	And convert revelation, like I said.
	Omniscient.
	He's the omni-god, omnipotent, omniscient, all that stuff.
	So, so for prophecy to have to be real, you must believe in determinism.
	Not necessarily.
	I wouldn't put it that way.
	But the point is this.
	God knows everything that's going to happen.
	God knows everything that's going to happen before it happens, right?
	He's omniscient.
	Yeah, it doesn't mean that he acts upon every single event.
	We still have to do that.
	Yeah, but he knows what's going to happen.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	He knows the outcome for sure.
	Okay.
	So he knows the outcome of everything that's ever going to happen before it happens.
	Yeah, I think that's a fair statement.
	So what do you think?
	We're all just NPCs and we have no free will.
	No, I think we do have free will.
	You can't have both.
	That's illogical.
	You can't have both.
	Why not?
	Because if we have free will and we really get to decide what happens, God doesn't know what everything's going to happen before.
	So if I let my dog outside and I have a fenced-in yard and I let him run free within the confines of this fenced-in yard that I built myself, so I'm controlling that and I'm creating this environment for the dog to operate in.
	But I let him run free.
	I let him run free all throughout.
	He essentially has free will within the confines of my creation of the environment, which is the fenced-in yard.
	Would you argue then that the dog has no free will, even though it's able to run around and piss and poop wherever it wants?
	Wouldn't you agree that it still has some degree of free will within the confines of creation?
	Oh, shoot.
	Oh, no.
	Sorry.
	I was just playing with a fish pill and it blew up in my hand all over my shirt and my shorts.
	No, no, it's not.
	That's not the same type of free will.
	God wouldn't know.
	Hang on.
	We had a little bit of a distraction there.
	So let's just rephrase the question.
	I heard the question.
	Come on.
	That's the dog in seconds.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Let him answer your argument.
	Let him answer to it.
	Dude, it's completely different.
	God would know that your dog is going to get bit by a rattlesnake or something before it happens.
	If God is omnipotent, why all the suffering?
	Why does he create people knowing that they're going to not believe in him and go to hell?
	Why does he allow children to be born by Christian parents that pray and pray and pray for the health of their child and they get a terminal disease and die?
	All the suffering for this.
	Either God doesn't care, he doesn't have the power, or he's evil.
	Those are your only options.
	Are you invoking, is this like some sort of like low tier problem of evil or whatever, logical problem of evil?
	It's a reddit tier, bro.
	It's reddit tier.
	Yeah, it kind of is.
	Walking trucks.
	It's like literally, if God realizes that.
	Turning to snakes is totally no, really, really though.
	It's like, okay, so the answer is that in order for free will to exist, and it does, then there has to be an option of not God, not in accordance with God's will.
	And that's what evil is.
	So in order to love his creation, in order to enact his benevolence upon his creation, he has to give it the choice to love him.
	And he also has to give it the choice to deny him and not go in accordance with his will.
	So babies have the choice to love him and get brain cancer or not?
	Well, there are just bad things in the world.
	There are just natural disasters.
	That's all explained by the original sin and the corruption of our creation.
	So God made us that way.
	God made us flawed so that we'll burn in hell and that we can worship him.
	He gave us obvious slave to a Jewish God.
	We're not slaves.
	We have free will.
	You are a slave.
	It says you're slaves.
	And if you believe in determining determinism, we have free will.
	Look, you're just trying to bastardize the faith.
	Paint it in the worst possible light.
	That way you don't have to justify your own belief structure.
	No, no, no, no.
	That's not the problem.
	You can possibly get back to you justifying where you get metaphysical knowledge from a rock.
	We're not going back to your metaphysical because you've got no argument.
	That's what it destroys your arguments.
	Let's go back to.
	Yeah, go for it.
	I've argued on every single point.
	the chat's going to see that.
	Well, we're coming down to about 15 minutes or so before we get to the QA.
	So I want to start with Adam.
	You've got the floor, Adam.
	Okay.
	So you believe 6,000 years ago there was no humans on earth, and all of a sudden God just poofed Adam and Eve into existence.
	I believe.
	And then he created the devil, knowing that the devil would supposedly turn against him and he created hell for all the people to go burn for eternity that don't believe in Jewish prophecy.
	Like you, you believe in staffs turning to snakes, a woman turning into a pillar of salt, walking on water, turning water to wine.
	Do you know who it was?
	All of these magical, impossible things.
	And you believe that.
	Impossible by what metric, dude?
	Impossible by what metric?
	You have nothing.
	It violates the laws of nature.
	Laws, where did those?
	Okay.
	You just invoke the laws of nature.
	I would imagine there's some sort of law.
	Prescriptive or descriptive laws, not prescriptive.
	Well, where did they come from?
	How are you able to invoke them meaningfully?
	You're saying, like, where did this rock come from?
	Like, no, no, where do the laws of nature comes from?
	Where do the laws of nature?
	There's no miracles.
	There's no proof of God anywhere.
	Why do you have to learn about God from an ancient Jew's book?
	You're not answering any questions.
	This is my interrogation.
	I'm not so many of your questions, dude.
	Okay.
	Why is that God hiding?
	Hold on.
	He's not hiding.
	He's revealed himself.
	He is hiding.
	You suppress truth.
	Show to me then.
	Prove this.
	Literally all of creation, the fact that you're able to meanfully is an illustration of God.
	So you think Jesus?
	Okay, so you deny that in virtue of what?
	So what is creation driven about?
	What is the universe derived about?
	Where'd it come from?
	You think Jesus has to be Satan.
	All right.
	You're just not letting me talk.
	Yeah, because you're not answering my question.
	No, you're not answering my question.
	You just denied my interpretation.
	You're making a fool of yourself.
	All of creation is of God as it is an illustration of his nature.
	So you know, in virtue of what?
	What is creation an illustration of and where did it come from?
	You don't know and I don't know just the same.
	How do you know that I don't know that?
	How do you know that?
	Because I know you've read the Bible, but that doesn't, that's not real answers.
	Okay, so how do you know that I don't know?
	Can I go back to my interrogation?
	Because you're trying to just gasp.
	That's what I'm invoking.
	You're filibustering is what you're doing.
	No, I'm trying to get to the bottom of your.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	You're a filibuster.
	That's very false to what I'm invoking.
	In virtue of God.
	Jesus is floating in heaven, looking down, waiting to come and save us.
	What do you think Jesus is going to do in the end times?
	Float down from a cloud?
	I don't know.
	I don't know how that works.
	That's what it says.
	He will come back as he left, floating in a cloud with a soul.
	I mean, he's going to reveal himself to the point where nobody hang on, hang on, where every eye will lay eyes on him.
	Every eye will see him, and every knee shall bend.
	I mean, this is also statement.
	You want the whole world to bow down to a Jewish king.
	No, I want the whole world to bow down to God, the true God.
	The true God is the God of Israel that once chose the Jews.
	You don't see how you're cucked?
	Yeah, you understand that these Jews in the Old Testament that you keep referencing are the Christians of today.
	You understand that?
	That sounds so.
	You understand that Adam and Eve.
	We're the real Jews.
	Well, do you understand?
	This is why Christians controlled opposition.
	I'd never be a Jew.
	I don't claim to be a Christian.
	You'll never be able to speak.
	You understand that Adam and Eve were communicating with the Christian.
	Zen, you've got to let him respond.
	Go ahead.
	You mean his non-answers?
	Go ahead, dude.
	What do you have to say?
	Let's hear it.
	Dude, I've been answering everything.
	I've been knocking every one of your bullshit.
	No, you're not.
	You have not done that.
	Do you think Jesus is going to float down from the cloud and save the day like a magical Marvel Jewish superhero?
	No, I think he's going to do it like in the way that he's going to be.
	Preposterous.
	It's the original QAnon trust the plan.
	And not to mention, the Jews want the same thing.
	They want a Jewish king, the Davidic king, to come and rule the whole earth.
	And you want the same thing.
	You're basically a Jew.
	You're basically a rabbi.
	All you disagree on is that Jesus, the first coming, was the Messiah.
	And a lot of Jews.
	Do you have any actual arguments?
	Are we just going to keep calling me a Jesus?
	He's a rabbi.
	A Jew.
	You're not.
	These are arguments.
	No, they're not arguing out the absurdity.
	These are low-tier atheist talking points.
	They're so not engaging.
	Whenever we point out all the absurd things you believe, you say low-tier.
	It's reddish.
	It's extremely low tier.
	Because You can't cope with that.
	You believe in total fairy tale nonsense.
	Okay, so again, you're invoking.
	You believe in blood magic.
	You're invoking me.
	You believe in the power.
	You want an answer?
	You want an answer?
	Yeah.
	Why do you believe in blood magic?
	So you invoke that it is false, what I believe in.
	You're saying it is objectively.
	I'm not getting into your mind.
	Metaphysical bullshit again.
	Yeah, because you've got no standing on an epistemic baseless foundation.
	You're trying to dodge all of the stupid shit you believe.
	You've got nothing to assert knowledge.
	You've got nothing to.
	Shut up.
	You've got nothing.
	Shut up.
	You've got nothing but a dogmatic Jewish book.
	You've got nothing but Jewish fairy tales.
	It's extremely low tier.
	You're not willing to answer any sort of metaphysical questions.
	And that's the flaw in any sort of atheistic worldview.
	Yeah.
	Good luck getting any debates with anybody after your performance here, dude.
	You believe in blood magic.
	You believe in Yom Kippur.
	You believe in the Passover.
	You believe in all of these things.
	You claim to be so.
	You can validate all of these Jewish lies.
	You couldn't even refute the Talmud, dude.
	You're sitting here fucking bankrupt in your worldview.
	You can't refute anything, dude.
	You've got no foundation that you're actually arguing from.
	Metaphysically, you've got nothing.
	In your mind, unless you say that the Christian God is the truth, you can't have any truth.
	You're in a closed loop, circular reasoning, brainwashed, really.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Delusion.
	Let me explain and unpack that.
	Okay.
	So you say that I'm standing in a loop where the Christian God is the only truth.
	Everything else is false.
	That is correct.
	And I'll explain why.
	Because when we say truth, when I invoke truth, I'm invoking absolute truth, objective ontological truth.
	You say so.
	You can't say that.
	Hang on.
	And do you think that's true?
	But that's just it.
	Do you understand this simple concept?
	Do you understand this simple concept?
	Hang on.
	Do you understand the simple concept that there can only be one truth?
	And if something is established to be the truth, all else is false.
	All else in relation to that proposition are false.
	Is that why do you only want to talk about pill pull stuff instead of the nonsense you believe like blood?
	It's just simple.
	It's just a simple.
	Why do you believe in Jewish blood magic?
	Simple question.
	We only have a few minutes before the questions.
	Why do you believe in Jewish blood?
	Do you understand there can only be one truth?
	Funny.
	Yeah, your truth.
	Let me guess.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	I'm true because I say I'm true.
	That's literally your logic.
	Yeah, in virtue of God's revelation.
	Stop dodging my questions.
	Why do you believe in blood magic?
	I'm not even sure what you're referencing, dude.
	Washed in the blood of the lamb?
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, I believe that Jesus died for our sins and our Jesus' blood washes away your sins.
	You believe that?
	You believe that scapegoat atonement rituals like Yom Kippur.
	Notice I'm answering questions.
	Yep.
	I believe in all that.
	What's the problem?
	You believe that God needs to sacrifice animals.
	What's the problem?
	I want to know.
	I want to know.
	Do you believe in burnt offerings?
	Are you able to provide the defeater?
	Do you believe that burning animals to God pleases him?
	Look, dude, I don't know every specific thing that you're referencing here, but let's just talk about the blood magic.
	What a Christian doesn't know about the Holocaust, the burnt offerings.
	Let's just talk about the blood magic.
	Let's dodging stuff.
	Let's talk about the blood magic.
	Let's just talk about the crucifixion, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who died for our sins.
	The one man who is God incarnate that was sinless, who washed all of man of their sins with his blood.
	And I believe in that.
	I believe that that is true and that he is our Lord and Savior, and he will have a second coming one day as he was resurrected.
	And he reveals that he's saving you from.
	Hang on, hang on.
	He's saving us from evil.
	Okay.
	So who created evil?
	Who creates evil?
	God created evil.
	So he's saving you from God.
	God says, well, God, you're going to burn in hell forever.
	How can you love a God that threatens you with eternal punishment if you don't love him?
	That's not real.
	There's got to be some sort of abused battered white person.
	There's no consequences.
	There's no judgment.
	That's Stockholm syndrome.
	You want to be a slave.
	You want to be a sheep.
	Sad.
	Did you want an answer?
	Liberate yourself from the Jewish gods.
	Listen to the answer.
	Listen to the answer of your question.
	Okay.
	You said, why would you believe in a God that threatens you with like eternal damnation if you don't follow him?
	Well, because in order for there to be justice, there's God's sake.
	Then he hides from you too.
	And gives you terrible things.
	He has revealed himself.
	He has revealed himself.
	No, he hasn't.
	But in order to, in order to if he revealed himself, everybody did you want an answer?
	did you want an answer?
	Or you just say absurd things.
	I got to interject.
	I'm sorry.
	Did you want an answer?
	Please, I'll be quiet.
	Go ahead.
	So I was saying that in order for there to be justice, there has to be consequences for somebody imposing evil.
	So when God creates good and God is good, when he creates evil and he gives us our free will, he gives us his commandments and he wants us to glorify him and love him, but he gives us the option not to, in order for there to be true justice there.
	Is it really an option?
	There has to be these positions.
	There has to be a really an option.
	In accordance with God, yes.
	Is it really an option?
	If I tell my wife, hold on.
	If I tell a girl, I go out to the bar and I tell her, hey, I shouldn't say anything too crazy, actually, because I'll get quoted.
	They'll clip it.
	If I say, hey, you better do this, otherwise I'm going to beat you.
	Is that true love?
	That's the same scenario.
	It's extortion.
	Well, no, these and it's fear-based mind control.
	You're like, I don't want to go to hell, so I believe in the Jewish prophecies.
	Well, it depends on if it's in accordance with God's will or not.
	That's what I'll tell you.
	God's will is whatever the consequences are, whatever reaction is.
	You believe in Jewish magic and Jewish magic.
	Like, I would tell you, or you burn in hell.
	You think that's just morality?
	That's nonsense.
	Well, this is what I would tell you.
	Then maybe just as a closing, a closer here, like to the, to make it like an actual analogy, is like, I would tell you that you ought to believe in and believing in the true God and repenting your sinful nature.
	Otherwise, you are risking eternal damnation at the time of judgment.
	Like, that's a true, like, you ought to this or else here are the consequences.
	That's what justice is.
	I mean, that's then this is the God of the Bible.
	Well, I guess that settles it then.
	It's the God of the Bible.
	The Bible says it's true, so it must be true.
	You think it's more plausible that the Bible is real instead of that ancient Jews just made it up?
	I find that so irrational.
	Okay, no, I think it's true.
	Like, I mean, when we talk about the Bible, what is it?
	It's made up of like 66 books.
	I believe that's the number.
	And depending on denominations, there's more and less, whatever.
	But the general Holy Bible, the King James Version, has 66 books in it.
	And they were written over the course of like hundreds or thousands of years by dozens of different prophets.
	And from beginning to end, it tells the story of the Old Testament, New Testament that was scientifically ahead of its time.
	And it is self-referencing tens of thousands of times throughout, and it's free of contradiction throughout.
	So you can't.
	I would argue, I would anybody argue what you just said.
	That document is a revelation of an eternal omniscient mind than it is just made up by some guy.
	It's significantly more convincing to me that this document is.
	This is the problem with Christians.
	They think that God speaks to the world through the Jews.
	If you've bought into that, you're theologically conquered.
	And that was the role.
	Paul.
	You've got no reason.
	You're unable to actually establish that claim.
	You haven't done that.
	Dude, you don't establish any of your claims.
	You just say, it's the truth.
	It's my truth.
	I establish why it's the truth.
	You say it's the truth because it's the truth because the Bible says it's the truth.
	I say it's the truth because it's in virtue of God's revelation and God is the truth.
	You said something right before the contradictions part that I wanted to comment on and I forgot it.
	I wish I could rewind and hear it.
	Well, longer before questions.
	Well, we're basically wrapping it up.
	I'm going to give both of you guys five minutes uninterrupted to make a closing statement and then we'll get right into the QA.
	Adam, I'll start with you and then we'll move over to Zen as he opened first.
	Go ahead.
	So I just want to again reiterate how even Paul, the Pharisee who was approved to go teach Noahide laws to the Gentiles, says that he found the gospel of Jesus in the scriptures.
	All over the New Testament, it just says, oh, this scripture, this prophecy was fulfilled.
	Ancient Jews just went and cherry-picked a bunch of different prophecies about the Messiah or not even about the Messiah and constructed a new mythology and sold it to the Gentiles With the intention, Romans 15, 18, KJV, to make the Gentiles obedient.
	They wanted the Gentiles.
	And remember, the Romans were conquering and destroying Judea.
	They were occupied by the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Egyptians.
	And now, because of Christianity, they've gotten half the world obedient to their God.
	Mission accomplishments.
	In Genesis 49, 10, it says, obedience of the nations shall be his.
	It says, all of the flesh of the world will worship our God, the jealous God who wants to replace all the other gods.
	You as a Gentile, now worshiping the God of the Jews, the Old Testament says stuff like that the Jews shall reign over the nations over the Goyam with usury, but they shall not reign over thee.
	It says, you will suck the milk of the Gentiles.
	This is the God that you want to worship that would ever choose the Jews?
	Not to mention the whole covenant is so absurd with Abraham and the cutting up the animals and the torch being brought through.
	I mean, this is laughable that anybody in this day and age would take that serious.
	Romans 15, 12, as it Paul says, as Isaiah said, self-referencing, there shall be a root of Jesse, that's the Messiah, that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles.
	In him shall the Gentiles trust.
	To him shall the Gentiles seek.
	This was all a con all along.
	This rejection goes to the Gentiles.
	It's all part of the script.
	The scripture is a blueprint for world domination of the chosen ones.
	Also, Isaiah 11, 10 says, to him the Moshiach will the Goyim seek.
	This is all part of the plan to get you to worship the God of the Jews, that the Torah is the word of the law, that salvation comes from the Jews, following the commandments, all of the things the Jews wanted.
	You are willingly being their useful idiot slave.
	And I go over much more verses like this, showing how it's a deception in my video, the Christian hoax exposed.
	It says, Paul quotes Psalms 110.2 and says, The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion.
	Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
	That's what Jesus is doing from the Jewish perspective.
	Like Joseph, ruling in the midst of their enemies.
	Thank you.
	Oh, sorry.
	I thought you were.
	One last point.
	One last point.
	The idea that Jesus isn't the most successful Jew of all time that ultimately benefits the Jews.
	I mean, he's the Jewish king that the nations adopted.
	This completely plays into the hands of the Jews and their end times agenda.
	And we see that playing out with all of the completely obedient, subservient Noahide, cursed if you curse them, blessed if you bless them, Christian Zionists all throughout America and the world.
	I mean, I don't even see how you can deny that it was controlled opposition and ultimately failed.
	And now it's completely serving the Zog agenda.
	I'll leave it there.
	Okay.
	Thank you for that closing statement.
	Adam, go ahead, Zen.
	Okay.
	Well, first and foremost, I can see why Jay Dyer never debated this guy.
	I see 100%.
	Shut up.
	I should have never debated you.
	And J. Dyer is scared as shit.
	110%.
	And he's a little.
	No, no, no.
	So what are we all doing?
	Hang on.
	Hang on, Adam.
	It's his closing statements.
	Control yourself, bro.
	I know you're big.
	You got all this tea, but come on.
	Control yourself, man.
	Tea?
	Testosterone.
	Come on.
	You're a big guy, right?
	I'm like, drinking tea, caffeine.
	Okay.
	I mean, you might be.
	I don't know.
	Anyway, yeah, so, I mean, really, I see why I didn't want to bother because all we really heard for the past hour or so was just a bloviation of his absurd worldview where all he's doing is rejecting the necessary truth claims that come from Christianity, the establishment of any sort of metaphysical predication, the establishment of the laws of logic, laws of nature, possibility, impossibility of the universe, how things came to be, how it's possible that we're even able to conceptualize any of it.
	All he did was bloviate all over that and call it absurd, call it stupid, cite Bible verses, cite blood magic, and just say that it's wrong without actually establishing it, without actually establishing the falsity of it.
	All he's saying is my metaphysical reference point is my brain.
	It's just brain gas.
	It's just molecules floating around up here in this region that allow me to determine the truth of the universe, apparently, or the falsehood of what claims to be the truth of the universe.
	Again, without actually establishing why that is the case.
	I've got a brain that says that the Christian God is true.
	You've got a brain that says it's not.
	How do we establish which one is correct?
	Well, I'm saying in virtue of what is true, the Christian God, he is saying, actually, I don't know because he never answered the question.
	All he says is that his physical brain is the ultimate metaphysical reference point for the universe and for truth.
	And that really makes no sense.
	It doesn't follow.
	And I think anybody with an honest, an honest, and unbiased interpretation of what went down here, they saw me answering the questions, albeit they were bad faith questions, me answering pretty much every question that was put to me and him answering pretty much none.
	So I think I'll leave it.
	You're delusional, dude.
	You're seriously delusional.
	So we do.
	And the fact that you wanted to die on this hill.
	Yeah, you got fucking destroyed, dude.
	Go ahead, Andrew.
	Okay, well, sure.
	So we do things a little bit differently at the Crucible.
	When the closing statements are done, we consider the debate over.
	The moderators can then ask their questions.
	We move right into the audience questions after that.
	Adam, I did just want to get one clarification for you, and then I have one for Zen as well.
	You do know, I do know that Jay Dyer, and you have, or you've had some tit for tat with him or something like this.
	I'm not sure what the details are, but he, you know, he is a presuppositionalist.
	Yeah, I was just wondering if you were aware he's a presuppositionalist as well.
	Oh, that's exactly what I've heard him talk about that before.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Well, so the presuppositionalist's entire line of logic for God is trying to establish what is true.
	And so they're making, you know, they're making a truth claim.
	You're making a truth claim.
	And I think that it, I think that it probably would end up being almost the same debate because you're walking in with a precept.
	That's what it is.
	So I was just curious if you knew he was a presuppositionalist or not.
	Oh, yeah.
	I've heard him.
	I've heard him always talk about that.
	I don't watch him a lot, but the times I have watched him, he definitely talked about that a lot.
	Yeah, you know that you presuppose things too, right?
	Do you know that?
	I think everybody does has some presuppositions.
	And that's what the argument effectively is: is that you have to ground your presuppositions that everybody's presupposing some sort of foundation of reality.
	We presuppose the Christian God of the Bible.
	You didn't really establish what you presuppose.
	So that's why I kept hitting you with this.
	Like, what is your foundation for reality?
	I did, though.
	I told you over and over again.
	My brain is how I decipher things.
	And that's the foundation of reality.
	This is why these debates can't go anywhere is because you're in a closed loop.
	And you're just in your brain.
	The only truth is you're going to be in a closed loop and you're literally coming from your brain as the foundation of reality.
	Just an object that is that's what's happening with you, too.
	Regardless if you say that it's coming from God, it's still coming from you.
	So the critique that you're – According to me, on my worldview, can also apply to your worldview.
	So you're violating your own criterion for disbelief in something.
	Dude, the pill pull that you guys do to try to get wrecked.
	Get fucking wrecked.
	All right, we can move on.
	No, there's no, there's no wreck.
	Get wrecked.
	Okay.
	Get wrecked.
	Real mature.
	So, so this question for you, Zen Shapiro, you guys got kind of hung up on an interesting point, which is I've heard this from both the atheists and the Christian apologists.
	I think it's a fairly good counter from the atheist perspective.
	When you say God is the beginning, can't the atheist presuppose that the universe also had no creator and just always existed?
	Why would there be a logical penalty for that, but not a logical penalty for you saying that God has always existed?
	Right.
	Because that's why I invoked causal chains of events, like the law of causality.
	One thing happens, another thing happens, another thing Happens all as a result of each other.
	Well, the only way to truly ground that and say, why is it the case that we have causality is that there was a first cause that was uncaused himself.
	I mean, this is like just a very basic, like unmoved mover argument or like the Aristotelian theory of Aquinas.
	And yeah, yeah, Aquinas is another one.
	And we can just say, Aquinas debunked and see still answering the question.
	Okay, so without having this unmoved mover, this uncaused cause, we end up in what's called an eternal regression, an infinite regression, which is considered a logical fallacy.
	And the problem is, is that you never actually get to the beginning of what caused everything.
	So that's kind of, that's kind of why.
	And you just make a special rule and say God did it.
	So God is the uncaused cause.
	God doesn't need a cause.
	Okay.
	Well, why does the universe need a cause if God doesn't need one?
	That's because Andrew is the metaphysical.
	That's God is the metaphysical ultimacy that transcends into the physical world.
	You see, though, we were debating, we weren't debating pagan versus Christianity.
	We were debating if Christianity is real, and you did nothing to prove that.
	The arguments you made for God and they could prove that I think I did pretty good.
	I don't.
	It's one of the worst Christian debates I've done.
	And there's been some bad things.
	That's why you couldn't answer any questions.
	Yeah.
	That's why you're at a loss for words.
	Nobody's going to watch that and believe anything.
	No, I think they definitely will.
	All right.
	They're just going to be annoyed.
	I don't really care.
	I don't really appeal to God.
	They're going to be annoyed that you just wanted to.
	I don't really appeal to majority like you do.
	It's a very feminine.
	You believe in Adam and Eve and the world is 6,000 years old and blood magic and all the stupid miracles from the Bible.
	So people are really going to take 99 people.
	If 99% of people said that Adam Green is a pussy, does that make you a pussy?
	Yeah, I think so.
	Not necessarily, but it could be a good indication.
	Not necessarily.
	Okay.
	You just undercut your own fucking criteria for belief, dude.
	You're an idiot.
	So this question, well, whatever question.
	This question comes in for Adam.
	The question is, I get you hate Christianity and Judaism.
	I don't know if that's true that you hate it or not, but I definitely argue against it.
	But what is your worldview and how do you justify it epistemologically?
	What's your epistemology?
	I know that my worldview is right.
	And I have the same worldview as anybody, minus all of the Jewish myths.
	Anybody that reads the Bible, reads the Bible with a lens and interprets it a certain way and uses their brain to come to conclusions from it.
	I use my brain in the same way.
	I just don't believe in this fictional book written by ancient Jews.
	That's the only difference.
	I'm not proposing like, oh, secular humanism or some kind of other label on it.
	I mean, maybe a lot of people need to have some type of a security blanket, and it's comforting to think that they have some special metaphysical truth or something.
	But, you know, I don't have a label for my worldview.
	I'll just put it simply like that.
	This question comes in from a super chatter for $5.
	Thank you so much.
	And he asks, when you invoke absolute truth, does it require a quick spell like Kala, Mazoo, or is there a switch?
	I don't know.
	Well, I mean, yeah, kind of.
	So he's saying, like, look, isn't it all hocus pocus when you say absolute truth anyway?
	No, I think invoking that there is no absolute truth is even more hocus pocus because it's a self-contradictory, self-defeating statement.
	But no, in order to invoke anything meaningfully, in order to invoke that I'm wearing a hat right now is an absolute statement of truth.
	But you need a, again, you need a reference point in order to predicate that statement of truth.
	And the hocus pocus, the kalamazoo, is my faculties of reason that have been given to me by God.
	That's the switch.
	Atheists don't have that.
	I don't have faculties given to me by God like you do.
	Well, no, no, you okay.
	Maybe I should rephrase.
	You're unwilling to accept and acknowledge that.
	But you do, but you do claim.
	I just don't, I don't think I can make the baseless claim that I have some special truth through God.
	You're just kind of like deciding or you're convinced that you have that.
	And I just don't see it.
	Why is God hiding?
	Why are we not having this debate?
	Why do we have to rely on ancient books?
	Why doesn't he just come down, boomy voice, speak to everybody clearly in their own language or speak into their hearts so they all know what the law is?
	He's real.
	This whole like hiding game, God's hiding, and you just have to have faith is so ridiculous.
	You understand?
	You understand he will do that one day.
	And at that point, it'll be a plan.
	He'll come one day.
	It'll be a little late for you, bud.
	At that point, oh, I'm trembling in my boots.
	Yeah, you're controlled by fear.
	Well, that's the first step.
	Knowledge starts at the fear of the Lord.
	So I'm actually, I'm actually, you know, actually happy to hear that you're scared.
	You have like a genocidal madman deity of the Jews that you fear.
	Nope.
	And you want to bow down on your knees and serve and worship him.
	I mean, don't you just doesn't that just feel like a little slavish?
	No, because you have that.
	You're just misrepresenting it.
	No, that's exactly what it is.
	Come on.
	No, it's not what it is.
	You're just misrepresenting it because you're unwilling to understand it.
	But again, my true knowledge starts with fear of the Lord.
	So, you know, I hope you repent.
	I hope you're liberated from the Jewish matrix.
	Let me move on to these other questions, or we'll never get to them.
	I'll this from Spartan up north.
	Adam, do you know the difference is between the Pharisees?
	It looks like Sadducees and Essayans.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Gotcha.
	This is just okay.
	This was his question to you.
	He didn't elaborate any more than that.
	This one comes in from base FRQ to Zen.
	Can you show that you understand Adam's theory that Christianity is a Jewish con?
	Yeah, have you seen any of my videos on this?
	No, I don't watch that kind of nonsense.
	But that kind of nonsense.
	Are you dogmatic and you're willing to be ignorant?
	The question is nonsense.
	It's not in your safe space echo chamber, so you don't even want to research where I'm coming from with all the videos I've done.
	Hang on, hang on, calm down.
	Control yourself.
	I should have asked that.
	Control yourself.
	Okay.
	So can I show that I understand it?
	I mean, I'll give like a rough overview.
	And I think maybe I used to hold some similar preconceived notion that like the Christian God and the Christian Bible, because it says the word Jew, the Jews so many times that it references the Gentiles and Israel and the Israelites and God's chosen people.
	And we share the same first five books, the Torah, that would point in because they call their God Yahweh.
	And I think they might even just call him Elochim because they're afraid to say his name because they're bastardizing his nature.
	But I can see why you might think that it's the same religion because it uses the same language, but there are clear distinctions.
	And one of them being in our theology, like we believe in the triune nature of God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
	They believe in a singular person of God and that Jesus is not the Messiah.
	So they, it's just not the same.
	But I can see why you might think that if you don't look into it deep enough, or if you look into it with that preconceived notion and just try to run with it.
	So, yeah.
	So you're going back to it's a different God.
	What was the one true religion and the one true God before Jesus was on earth?
	The second it was still Christianity.
	It was the Christian triune God.
	So when God's chosen people, the Jews, were sacrificing their goats in the temple, that's the Christian God, you're saying the Christian God has always been in the beginning.
	In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
	That is the Christian God.
	God created Adam and yourself.
	God blew the blew the or breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils after he raised him from the dust on the earth.
	That was the Christian God.
	When he told them not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that was the Christian God.
	So the Christian God decided to choose the Jews.
	Again, the Jews of that time are not the Jews that we're referencing when we say Jew today.
	You understand that, right?
	No, I don't.
	Okay, so I've tried to argue that.
	You don't think there's people alive today that were in that area that were Pharisees in that area at the time?
	The Jews of Hold on, answer that question.
	I don't, I don't.
	Go ahead.
	What's your question?
	Are there no Jews around today that are descendants of the Pharisees in Judea around the second temple in the first century?
	I mean, I'm sure that there are descendants, yes.
	So there are real Jews from that place then.
	Hang on.
	But again, we're talking about the belief system.
	Like you can have Semitic blood or you can have African blood or Brazilian blood.
	It doesn't matter where you come from or what you're doing.
	It doesn't matter what Jews believe.
	It doesn't matter what your descendants.
	It doesn't matter what your descendancy is because we're all God's people now.
	And again, the New Testament has fulfilled the Old Testament and it's been revealed to everybody so that we're without excuse.
	And that's the point that the Jews of today, the Ashkenazi and whatever other Jews there are, they reject the fulfillment of their prophecy.
	That's the cornerstone of their belief.
	We acknowledge that fulfillment.
	This is what you believe.
	Our God is your God too, but he has chosen us.
	Why would you ever want to worship the God of Israel?
	Like, I don't know what your ancestry is.
	My DNA is from Northwestern Europe, and my ancestors would have never wanted bowing down and worshiping the God of a foreign land means you're theologically conquered by those people.
	Okay, well, I worship the God of the universe, the God of Earth, the God of the God of Israel, the God that Zion in his image.
	That's the God I worship.
	I don't worship any of these false gods.
	Okay, moving on to this super chat.
	This is for Adam says for $11 from Friar or FR Liam.
	It says, I was a believer in Revelation and Zen Shapiro, but Adam won me over tonight.
	The blinders have been removed.
	Thank you, KMN.
	Can't believe I was cucked for so long.
	Now you're a KMN cuck.
	Now you're an Adam Green cuck.
	So anybody that agrees with me is a cuck, but what?
	They're chatting.
	You're a cuck.
	You're a cuck.
	If they wouldn't have to do that, you're a cuck to yourself worship.
	Yeah, you're a cuck.
	You're a narcissist.
	That's what that means.
	Okay, this one for $5 from Night Nation Review.
	We appreciate that.
	Night Nation, he's been on the program a bunch of times debating.
	Friend of the Crucible says Zen's a good debater and knows his Christian theology pretty well.
	And we appreciate that.
	Moving into some of these other questions, for the purpose of time, I'm going to try to get through as many of them as I possibly can.
	I understand you guys are going to have some back and forth, and that's okay.
	Big man asks, The Crucible, can you try to explain the problem of the one in the many to Adam?
	Zen?
	It'll be interesting to see the outcome.
	Yeah, okay.
	So, and disclosure, disclaimer for everybody, I'm not an expert at this, but I do have a pretty good grasp of it.
	It's called, it's the philosophical problem of the one in the many.
	And what it essentially proposes is that we've got in our universe distinct concrete particulars, and we've got universal abstractions that unite them.
	So, just an example: Adam and I are both persons, and those are our distinct particular states of personhood, but we are unified by the abstraction of personhood.
	So, we are two distinct persons, but we're both unified by being persons.
	So, we've got distinct particulars of ourselves, and then our abstraction of person, of person-ness.
	So, what does this mean?
	It means that we've that in order to make sense of it, we can deduce it down to its ultimacy to just one single sentence.
	And it's that all things are being, all things, all particulars are in a state of beingness, whether they're living, non-living, whatever, all things are being.
	And that is a true statement.
	It's not very informative because it's very broad, but it is a true statement.
	And that's pretty much the ultimate deduction of this problem of the one and the many and how we derive our truth value from it is that the ultimacy of reality is a universal abstraction that is a distinct plurality within itself.
	And that's where we come to the Christian depiction of God, which is a triune nature.
	Father, Son, Holy Spirit, three distinct plural particulars of God that is one essence, one abstraction of God.
	And that's why all other God concepts, like the Islam and Jewish gods, fall flat because they are just singular Unitarian depictions of God, and there's no plurality within.
	But we know that creation is an illustration of God's nature.
	So, God must be distinct, unified within himself.
	And that's essentially the problem of the one in the many.
	It's a very vague, quick overview of it, but I think I did pretty well.
	Sounded like verbal diarrhea and mental gymnastics to me.
	Yeah, because you're an idiot.
	You have like a 90 IQ, dude.
	Good one.
	Good one.
	Yeah, I mean, if you can't grasp it, it's just because you're dumb, really.
	I didn't say I didn't grasp it.
	I just said it sounded like bullshit.
	Okay, then why don't you be a person?
	Another person's a person.
	Why don't you reconstruct it?
	Therefore, the Christian God?
	Why don't you reconstruct it?
	See, yeah, you didn't listen at all.
	I'd rather not.
	Yeah, because you're an idiot because you're an idiot.
	You're an idiot.
	Yeah, you are.
	You've embarrassed yourself.
	I looked on Twitter and it looks like everybody's laughing at you right now.
	No, no, it's because you can't grasp either basic.
	You're a Christ-hard, useful idiot dude.
	You're even the stupidest Christ cook.
	I don't know where my faculties of reason get from completely Christian.
	To the Jewish Messiah that's meant to rule over you and reign over you.
	And you're happily, I'm a sheep.
	I'm following the Jewish shepherd.
	And you still don't get it.
	My faculties of reason come from my brain.
	Look at me.
	I'm Adam Green.
	Like, dude, come on.
	You're an idiot.
	Dude, that's where they come for everybody.
	Nobody thinks outside of their brain.
	That's interesting.
	Very interesting.
	Yeah, you're a great representation of a good Christian with all your name-calling, by the way.
	Okay.
	I mean, name-calling is not anti-Christian for the record.
	This question comes in from Made by Jim Bob, another friend of the Crucible.
	I don't know if anybody who's watching this with Adam Green right now has ever seen his comics, but they're nothing short of hilarious and wonderful.
	He basically holds a mirror up to society so that we can laugh at it, right?
	And he asks, Adam, is Jewish world domination even immoral?
	And if it is, why is it?
	One group of people that think they're chosen by God and destined to rule over the nations and have all the nations rule the God that chose them.
	Is that immoral?
	Is that a serious question?
	Do you want to be a Noahide slave like the top rabbis in Israel say that the Gentiles were born only to serve us?
	You don't see anything immoral with that, with enslaving the other people.
	The Bible condones slavery.
	So did the New Testament didn't speak against it.
	But yes, I can use my brain to decide that that's immoral and I don't want to live in a world with a Jewish dictatorship with some Davidic king ruling the world and genociding much of the planet and ruling from Jerusalem in the third temple.
	Yes, that's immoral.
	And I don't need the Bible to decipher a metaphysical truth for me to determine that that's immoral.
	It is.
	He just needs brain gas, everyone.
	Well, can you all you have is brain gas, dude?
	Can you bump in the head?
	You wouldn't be saying anything.
	You wouldn't be able to grasp your metaphysical truth without your brain cells firing, buddy.
	But it would still be metaphysical truth.
	Oh my gosh.
	So if you say so.
	I think that you spoke to the first part of Jim Bob's question pretty well, but the second part he's asking, why do you think it's immoral?
	So I think we established that you do think it's immoral.
	Because it'll harm other people.
	To say that God chose one person over another is immoral just right there, let alone all of the other end times domination of the world.
	Gotcha.
	This question is for both of you for $5 from say no way to Yahweh.
	Hell of a name there, say no way to Yahweh.
	Presuppositional metaphysical grounding of reality is semantic circle jerkery to dismiss your opponent's point of view without establishing anything concrete yourself.
	Zen, do you agree with that assessment?
	No, I think that's cope.
	That's atheist cope.
	But even like that statement in and of itself, it's a metaphysical predication.
	It's like, oh, you're invoking some sort of truth claim without grounding it.
	That presupposes that we ought ground our metaphysical assertions.
	Whenever I say something is the case or it's not the case, I ought to ground that.
	And he's saying, oh, it's meta, it's or it's just word salad circle jerkery because he doesn't understand it.
	But I would imagine that his responses to the questions that I ask would be very similar to Adam's.
	This is the best Christian cope.
	He doesn't understand it.
	I saw that under the tweet.
	Wouldn't you?
	Yeah, you don't understand anything.
	He doesn't understand Christianity.
	Yeah, it's just basically the cope.
	I'm not even that good at it.
	Rationalizing that because I don't believe it, I must not understand it.
	Yeah.
	All the illiterate, retarded people all over throughout history that did believe it, they're all smarter than me.
	I just can't wrap my head around it.
	You know, I don't know how to read or do research.
	Well, I mean, hey, not everybody can grasp it.
	I mean, I can't.
	How old are you, Shapiro?
	26.
	26.
	Okay.
	Did you go to college?
	I don't think that's relevant to the conversation.
	Okay.
	So to say the say no way to Yahweh question to you as well, Adam, do you agree that presuppositional metaphysical grounding of reality is semantic circle jerkery to dismiss your opponent's point of view without establishing anything concrete yourself?
	I do.
	I've expressed that many times tonight.
	It's circular logic.
	It's saying you're starting with the presupposition that the Christian God is the only truth and everything that goes along with it.
	So you always just circle back.
	You're like in a circular system where you can't get out of it.
	It's always just going to go back to Christian God is the truth.
	Yes.
	Is that a problem for you in principle?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	That's okay.
	So then when you derive your truth from your brain, you're always going to have to be constantly circling back and referencing your brain.
	So now you're violating your own critique again.
	No, because I've changed my mind on things.
	Just like people have changed interpretations.
	But you're always referencing your brain for truth.
	You're always referring to your brain.
	Morals don't come from the Bible.
	Okay.
	The Bible is immoral.
	But you're always going to be referencing your brain gas for truth, right?
	Just like everybody else.
	Isn't that circular?
	Isn't that circular?
	No.
	Okay, so when you predicate from your brain and then it circles back to your brain, wouldn't that be circular?
	All I'm saying is that all we can, all everybody realizes is use their brains to try to figure out the truth.
	All right, we can move on.
	You can go ahead and finish, Adam.
	Oh, I did finish.
	And I said the same thing several times already tonight.
	Okay, gotcha.
	That's the last of the QA within the confines of the time that we have.
	We're roughly an hour and a half into this debate.
	We expected it to go about an hour, hour and a half, something right in there.
	We appreciate both people for coming on.
	Can you take a minute, Adam, one more time and shout your channel out to everybody?
	Tell them where they can find you again for all the newcomers coming in.
	No more news is where you can find me.
	That's K-N-O-WnomoreNews.org.
	And thanks for inviting me on, Andrew.
	I thought you were a very good moderator.
	And we're going to be having a debate next month.
	I forgot when.
	Next month.
	Next month.
	Sometime.
	On the Kill Stream, right?
	On the Kill Stream.
	Yeah.
	We'll be doing one there.
	I'm very much looking forward to it.
	In the interim time, something interesting comes up.
	Of course, I'll give you a hit up.
	Until then, I hope you have a great week.
	Hope you have a great month.
	Hope you have a great year, man.
	Take good care of yourself.
	Zen Shapiro, you want to shout yourself out real quick?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I am Zen Shapiro.
	If you don't already know that, I'm the in-house right-wing debater on the Crucible.
	You can find me on Twitter and on YouTube.
	Just search up Zen Shapiro.
	It should pop up.
	And if you enjoyed the conversation, if you enjoyed my personality, I encourage you to go follow and subscribe to my channels.
	And really, Adam, I just, I do want to say this.
	Like, I understand things get heated in the debate and all that.
	But like, I don't hate you as a person.
	I don't think you're a bad guy.
	I think we all have corrupt, sinful nature.
	That's my worldview.
	We're all going to make mistakes.
	We're all going to lie.
	We're all going to sin.
	We're all going to cheat and steal all that.
	And you're doing it just as much as I'm doing it, but we're all trying to seek the truth in the end, seek salvation in the end.
	So I hope you make it there just like I do.
	Thanks.
	And I always respect anybody that's willing to publicly and put their face on camera and talk about such hot topic issues.
	And I hope you someday liberate yourself from the Jewish mind control.
	Thank you.
	Hey, one, one, just a quick last thing before you go.
	Make sure everybody to like and subscribe to our Odyssey.
	Sometimes we can only have these kinds of debates on Odyssey, and we do like to have controversial figures like Adam come on.
	And we always enjoy these types of chats.
	You can also find The Crucible on YouTube.
	As long as we still have a YouTube anyway, we're going to continue to try to stay in these arenas.

▲