The Crucible · Panel debate · 0h 34m · Rubric v0.4

Andrew Wilson vs Tim Pool - Heated Debate With Tim Pool on The Nature of GOD

Tim Pool

DEBATE INTEGRITY

Confronted the point77

Argued clean8

Dealt straight18

Let them talk100

evidence: 13 challenges faced · 3,140 words spoken

See every point and finding ▸

Andrew Wilson

DEBATE INTEGRITY

Confronted the point79

Argued clean57

Dealt straight50

Let them talk88

evidence: 12 challenges faced · 2,654 words spoken

See every point and finding ▸

Tim Pool pressed omnipotence hard—"So if God can't do a thing, he's not all-powerful?"—and honestly conceded "Certainly" that an uncreated creator reveals God's nature, but repeatedly killed the exchange by declaring "contradiction exists only within our reality" and branding standard classical theism "the best case argument for atheism."

Andrew Wilson landed clean rebuttals—"Duties aren't rights" and "logic is a transcendental category"—and admitted "I don't know exactly what the limits of all-powerful are," but cut Pool off mid-sentence three times and leaned on a broken flying analogy that simply assumed "would not" equals "could not."

Scored against published DIS Rubric v0.4 — tap any point for the crux, the verdict, and the receiptsSteelmanned

The moments that moved the score · tap any row for the why and the quotes · ◌ = talked around it

Tim -15Logic only holds inside our reality; God is beyond itAndrew confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: defend with argument that the law of non-contradiction fails to apply to God, or concede logic binds any coherent claim about God.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted the point: Wilson confronts Pool's 'logic only holds in our reality' with the counter-argument that logic is a transcendental category binding all things and governing reality, so it applies to any coherent claim about God. [U-082, U-118, U-154 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-082 — “Logic is a transcendental category, and since it's a transcendental category, we know it exists even though it's not physical, but all things bind by it.”

P-07 · importance ×3 · raised by Tim Pool at U-081

−7.5

Rejecting the shared standard (Rejecting the shared standard · Pool) med confidenceBoth sides were arguing via the law of non-contradiction; Pool declares logic simply does not apply to God, deployed to make the exchange unresolvable rather than as an argued epistemic position.

Tim Pool 00:06:11 U-081 — “Logic only exists within the confines of God's Word. God's Word is beyond your comprehension.”

−7.5

Rejecting the shared standard (Rejecting the shared standard · Pool) med confidenceAsserts (without argument) that the law of non-contradiction only holds inside our reality, again to make the dispute unresolvable rather than to make a positive point.

Tim Pool 00:10:23 U-151 — “Because contradiction exists only within our reality.”

Tim -7.5Andrew +5Humans cannot comprehend God's true natureAndrew confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: defend that humans cannot know God's nature at all — explaining how that claim isn't itself knowledge about God — or concede some attributes are knowable.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted the point: Wilson confronts 'we cannot know God's nature at all' by arguing that each incomprehensibility claim (timeless, complex) is itself criteria about God's nature, and via essence-energy that we can know some attributes. [U-172, U-174, U-176, U-126 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-176 — “if you say God is timeless, you've given me criteria for the nature of God. If you say God exists in the 19th dimension, you have now expressed the nature of God.”

P-11 · importance ×3 · raised by Tim Pool at U-123

−7.5

Rejecting the shared standard (Rejecting the shared standard · Pool) med confidenceRather than defend that non-contradiction fails for God, Pool declares the question illegitimate to shut the exchange down.

Tim Pool 00:09:04 U-135 — “God exists outside of the confines of this logic in which you think you exist... To ask if God can lift a rock is asking like Can it? It's a stupid question.”

Common ground / agreement (Common ground · Wilson)Wilson steelmans and concedes part of Pool's incomprehensibility point via the essence\\energy distinction.

Andrew Wilson 00:08:39 U-126 — “I agree with you that I can only participate in the energy of God, but I cannot understand the essence of God. That I agree with.”

Common ground / agreement (Common ground · Wilson) med confidenceWilson agrees humans cannot fully comprehend God's nature\\genuine common ground with Pool.

Tim Pool 00:20:23 U-291 — “I do not believe that it is possible for a human to understand the true nature of God.”

Andrew Wilson 00:20:29 U-292 — “Neither do we.”

Andrew -7'Would not' collapses into 'could not'Tim confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: defend that 'God would not violate his nature' settles the dispute, or address Pool's charge that swapping 'wouldn't' for 'couldn't' evades whether God can.

Tim Pool — Confronted the point: Pool confronts Wilson's would/could collapse by rejecting it as a non-argument and pressing repeatedly for a straight can/cannot answer. [U-243, U-249, U-259, U-297 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-243 — “That's not an argument to what I just said.”

P-20 · importance ×3 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-242

−6

Non-mapping analogy (Non-mapping analogy · Wilson) med confidenceCandidate: flying is a physical impossibility for Tim independent of will, whereas whether God can change his nature (vs merely would not) is precisely the contested point; the analogy assumes would=couldn't rather than showing it.

Andrew Wilson 00:18:36 U-252 — “Tim, you couldn't fly, right? ... If you wouldn't fly, you couldn't fly, right?”

−1

Interruption (Interruption · Wilson) med confidenceWilson cuts off Pool mid-sentence to reassert his 'would not' framing.

Tim Pool 00:20:30 U-293 — “And that the assertion that God could not do a thing implies knowledge of God beyond the confines\\”

Andrew Wilson 00:20:37 U-294 — “Would not. Would not do a thing.”

Tim -6Wilson's view is really atheismAndrew half-answered it▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: show your 'God bound by his own logical nature, universe runs on fixed logic' view is distinguishable from atheism/Einsteinian pantheism, or grant Pool it collapses into it.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted part of it: −2.3 DIS Wilson distinguishes his view from atheism by denying atheists' physicalism and asserting an uncreated non-physical creator whose nature includes transcendental logic; he never fully rebuts the pantheism-collapse charge and at one point deflects ('I'm not even making arguments'). [U-182, U-196, U-208, U-186 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-182 — “No, they're physicalists.”

P-01 · importance ×3 · raised by Tim Pool at U-003

−6

Manufactured novelty (Manufactured novelty · Pool) med confidenceWilson's position\\that omnipotence does not include the logically contradictory\\is standard classical theism (Aquinas, C.S. Lewis). Pool brands this mainstream view 'atheism'/self-refuting to avoid engaging it rather than addressing the omnipotence point.

Tim Pool 00:14:50 U-193 — “You're making the best case argument for atheism I've ever heard.”

Tim Pool 00:15:02 U-195 — “That God is\\what we experience in the universe is what we would describe as God. It is the definition of everything atheists have ever argued to me.”

Andrew +6God could change the rules he createdAndrew half-answered it▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: can God change the logical/physical rules he created? Answer can or cannot and defend it, not merely 'he wouldn't'.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted part of it: −2.3 DIS The crux demanded a clear can/cannot answer, not merely 'he wouldn't'. Wilson does at one point answer the modal question ('I suppose God could change his nature') and honestly admits 'I don't know', but largely reverts to the would/couldn't conflation the crux flagged. [U-164, U-233, U-238, U-242, U-248 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-233 — “Yeah, I suppose God could change his nature, but why?”

P-21 · importance ×3 · raised by Tim Pool at U-163

Partial concession (Partial concession · Wilson) med confidenceWilson grants Pool's 'could' on changing nature, softening his own strict position.

Andrew Wilson 00:17:20 U-233 — “Yeah, I suppose God could change his nature, but why? You can't change your nature. You wouldn't change your nature.”

Intellectual honesty (I don't know) (Acknowledged uncertainty · Wilson) med confidenceWilson admits he does not know whether God could change his nature.

Tim Pool 00:17:31 U-236 — “Can he or can he not? Could he?”

Andrew Wilson 00:17:33 U-238 — “I don't know, but I don't think it matters, because your nature is what matters.”

Andrew +2Essence–energy distinction ◌Tim talked around it▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: does the essence–energy distinction (we know God's energies, not his essence) reconcile Pool's incomprehensibility point with knowable attributes? Defend it as Catholic dogma.

Tim Pool — Talked around it: −2.6 DIS Wilson offered essence-energy as a reconciliation; the crux (does essence-energy square incomprehensibility with knowable attributes) was never addressed by Pool, who deflected to 'I don't think you're a Christian'. Low stakes (demandsResponse false). [U-126, U-127]

What the crux required was never addressed.

P-13 · importance ×2 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-126

Common ground / agreement (Common ground · Wilson)Wilson steelmans and concedes part of Pool's incomprehensibility point via the essence\\energy distinction.

Andrew Wilson 00:08:39 U-126 — “I agree with you that I can only participate in the energy of God, but I cannot understand the essence of God. That I agree with.”

Tim -4Video-game programmer analogyAndrew confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: show your video-game-creator analogy actually maps onto God doing the logically contradictory (existing and not-existing at once), not merely a creator setting hard rules.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted the point: Wilson shows the video-game analogy fails to map onto a true contradiction: a creator setting a hard rule (an avatar that can't move a rock) is not the same as a thing existing and not existing at once, and he distinguishes paradox from contradiction. [U-103, U-116, U-118 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-118 — “A paradox is different than a contradiction. Tim, you cannot both be me and you. You can only be you.”

P-09 · importance ×2 · raised by Tim Pool at U-100

−4

Non-mapping analogy (Non-mapping analogy · Pool) med confidenceCandidate: offered to show God can do the logically contradictory, but a creator setting a hard rule (an avatar that cannot move a rock) is not a true contradiction (a thing both existing and not existing at once), which is the proposition at issue. Reconciliation to confirm mismatch.

Tim Pool 00:07:09 U-100 — “I can program a video game in which I have absolute authority over the whole thing... Within the confines of this game, I can create a rock that my avatar cannot move.”

Andrew +3God not all-powerful / boulder paradoxAndrew confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: is a God who cannot make a stone he can't lift still omnipotent? Defend that this limit is compatible with omnipotence or concede it is a limitation.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted the point: Wilson defends the classical-theism line: an inability to do the logically incoherent (a stone he can't lift) is not a genuine limit on omnipotence because the request is a non-thing. He also honestly hedges he doesn't know the exact bounds of 'all-powerful'. [U-080, U-088, U-227, U-204 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-080 — “That's incoherent.”

P-02 · importance ×3 · raised by Tim Pool at U-009

Intellectual honesty (I don't know) (Acknowledged uncertainty · Wilson) med confidenceWilson concedes the limits of his own knowledge about omnipotence.

Andrew Wilson 00:15:34 U-204 — “I'm not saying what the power of God is. I don't know exactly what the limits of all-powerful are.”

Show all 30 tracked points ▾

±0An ultimate-evil God is logically impossible ◌Tim talked around it▸

THE CRUX — Defend that maximal selfishness and maximal wrath logically conflict so an ultimate-evil God is impossible, or show these maximal negatives can coexist.

Tim Pool — Talked around it: −2.6 DIS Pool addresses the logical-conflict claim by asserting all attributes can simultaneously coexist (White Lantern), but rests it on a comic-book model OTHER had already ruled out, so the response engages the conflict claim without a sound demonstration. [U-308, U-310, U-314]

What the crux required was never addressed.

P-17 · importance ×2 · raised by Clip/other at U-299

±0Malachi 3:6 — 'I the Lord do not change' ◌Tim talked around it▸

THE CRUX — Given 'I the Lord do not change', state whether God can alter his nature/rules — does scriptural immutability settle the could-change-the-rules dispute?

Tim Pool — Talked around it: −1.3 DIS The crux asked whether Malachi 3:6 'I do not change' settles the can-God-change-his-nature dispute. Pool responds by pivoting to whether we can know God fully ('Do we know God so absolutely...'), never addressing whether scriptural immutability resolves the could-change question. [U-317, U-319, U-321]

What the crux required was never addressed.

P-23 · importance ×1 · raised by Perceptual Jonathan at U-317

Tim +2God creates and is uncreated — so his nature is knowableTim confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: you grant God creates and is uncreated — concede this is knowledge of God's nature (contradicting 'we know nothing about God') or explain the difference.

Tim Pool — Confronted the point: Pool concedes the crux: that God being uncreated and creating is knowledge of God's nature ('Certainly'), cutting against his own incomprehensibility thesis, before reframing toward 'the universe is part of God'. [U-188, U-189 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-189 — “Certainly.”

P-19 · importance ×2 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-186

Partial concession (Partial concession · Pool) med confidencePool concedes we can know something of God's nature\\a genuine concession that cuts against his incomprehensibility thesis.

Andrew Wilson 00:14:35 U-188 — “if God was uncreated and God created, now we know something about the nature of God.”

Tim Pool 00:14:41 U-189 — “Certainly.”

Tim +2Alpha and Omega entails timelessnessTim confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: does 'God is the beginning and end simultaneously' entail timelessness? Pool: defend 'not necessarily' or grant the inference.

Tim Pool — Confronted the point: Pool confronts the timelessness inference with a counter-argument: a thing with a beginning and an end has time, so 'Alpha and Omega' need not entail timelessness. He also honestly hedges 'I don't know though'. [U-283, U-285, U-287 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-287 — “If it has a beginning and has an end, it has time.”

P-24 · importance ×2 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-282

Intellectual honesty (I don't know) (Acknowledged uncertainty · Pool) med confidencePool admits uncertainty on the timelessness inference rather than bluffing.

Andrew Wilson 00:19:57 U-282 — “this would infer timelessness? I suppose, right?”

Tim Pool 00:20:04 U-283 — “I don't know though.”

Andrew -1Duties necessarily create rightsAndrew confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Does a God-given duty not to murder necessarily instantiate a correlative right not to be murdered? Defend the entailment or show duties can exist without rights.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted the point: Wilson directly denies the entailment with reasons: a duty is not a right, so being ordered not to rape does not instantiate a right not to be raped. [U-036, U-070 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-036 — “Duties aren't rights, right? ... that does not then instantiate that you have a right to not be raped by me. That's where you're making a fundamental mistake.”

P-03 · importance ×3 · raised by Clip/other at U-021

−1

Interruption (Interruption · Wilson) med confidenceWilson interrupts Pool's sentence.

Tim Pool 00:04:29 U-049 — “The presumption is that we, under God's law, are protected from being\\”

Andrew Wilson 00:04:33 U-051 — “Where's that presumption?”

Andrew -1Duties do not entail rightsaside — nothing demanded▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: justify that God giving a duty not to rape confers no right not to be raped — that rights never follow from duties — or concede the inference holds.

P-04 · importance ×3 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-036

−1

Interruption (Interruption · Wilson) med confidenceWilson cuts off Pool mid-sentence.

Tim Pool 00:04:26 U-047 — “When God says, thou shalt not\\”

Andrew Wilson 00:04:27 U-048 — “That's a duty.”

±0Right to life / babiesAndrew half-answered it▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: you said there is no real right to life — state whether babies have a right to life, and defend 'no rights under God' or concede it.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted part of it: −1.6 DIS Wilson affirms the core proposition (no real right to life, 'you could die at birth') but when asked specifically whether babies have a right to life he says 'hang on, I'll explain' and pivots to God's nature, never returning to the babies question. [U-070, U-072 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-070 — “So there's no real right to life. You could die at birth, right? ... you don't really have a right to do this.”

P-05 · importance ×2 · raised by Tim Pool at U-071

±0God's nature cannot be contraryTim confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: can God create a being more powerful than himself / act against non-contradiction? Defend that he can, or grant Wilson it is incoherent.

Tim Pool — Confronted the point: Pool takes the crux's offered branch head-on, denying God's nature constrains him ('God can do anything') and grounding it in logic being bounded to our reality. The grounding is bare assertion (separately charged R-2.8), but he clearly confronts rather than changes subject. [U-077, U-079, U-135 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-079 — “God can do anything.”

P-06 · importance ×3 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-076

±0Logic is transcendental, part of God's nature (Logos)Tim confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: defend that logic (Logos) is part of God's immutable nature such that he will not violate it — and that this does not amount to limiting God.

Tim Pool — Confronted the point: Pool confronts the 'this does not limit God' claim by arguing precisely that it does limit God / make him not all-powerful. [U-197, U-245, U-297 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-297 — “So if God can't do a thing, he's not all-powerful?”

P-08 · importance ×3 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-082

±0Paradox is not a contradictionTim confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: can a thing both exist and not exist in the same sense at once (a true contradiction, not a paradox)? Defend that God transcends non-contradiction or concede the distinction.

Tim Pool — Confronted the point: Pool takes the 'God transcends non-contradiction' branch the crux allows, affirming a thing can both exist and not exist and that contradiction only holds within our reality. Bare assertion, but a clear position on the proposition. [U-117, U-119, U-151 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-117 — “There is a reality where yes, quite literally. It's called the paradox.”

P-10 · importance ×2 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-118

±0Calling God incomprehensible is itself a claim about GodTim half-answered it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: your statements ('God is timeless / beyond comprehension') are themselves nature-claims about God — reconcile that with 'we can't know God's nature' or concede we can know it.

Tim Pool — Confronted part of it: −2.3 DIS Pool attempts to reconcile the self-refutation charge by reframing his incomprehensibility claims as statements about human epistemic limits ('a lack of knowledge') rather than positive nature-claims, but never fully resolves that 'God is beyond comprehension' is itself a claim. [U-173, U-175, U-291 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-175 — “That's a lack of knowledge.”

P-12 · importance ×3 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-172

±0Wilson isn't a real ChristianAndrew confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: name the doctrine that disqualifies Wilson as Christian, given he cites Catholic dogma, or withdraw the 'not a Christian' charge.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted the point: Wilson rebuts the not-a-Christian charge by grounding his position in Catholic dogma (essence-energy distinction), i.e. showing the view is orthodox rather than disqualifying. [U-130, U-132 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-130 — “This is Catholic dogma, Tim.”

P-14 · importance ×1 · raised by Tim Pool at U-127

±0Could God be supreme evil rather than good?Tim confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: could the creator be maximally evil rather than good? Answer whether an ultimate-evil God is possible and defend the answer.

Tim Pool — Confronted the point: Pool answers the possibility question directly by rejecting the good/evil distinction for the creator, defending that God is neither. [U-139, U-147 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-139 — “God as the creator of all things is not going to be good nor evil.”

P-15 · importance ×2 · raised by Clip/other at U-138

±0God is neither good nor evilaside — nothing demanded▸

THE CRUX — Pool: defend that the creator is neither good nor evil, and reconcile that with your claim we cannot comprehend God — or concede it too is a nature-claim.

P-16 · importance ×2 · raised by Tim Pool at U-139

±0White Lantern: all attributes can coexistaside — nothing demanded▸

THE CRUX — Pool: does 'all attributes merge coherently' (White Lantern) actually show conflicting maximal evils can coexist, or does it dodge the logical-conflict claim?

P-18 · importance ×1 · raised by Tim Pool at U-314

±0How does this connect back to rights?Andrew both moved on▸

THE CRUX — Connect this God-nature/omnipotence dispute back to whether rights (e.g., right to life) exist, or concede the tangent left the original rights question unresolved.

Andrew Wilson — Mutually dropped: Jonathan tried twice to steer the God-nature tangent back to the original rights question; nobody connected it back and the conversation moved on to cosmology. The rights thread was abandoned by all parties rather than dodged by one. [U-320, U-331, U-321]

What the crux required was never addressed.

P-22 · importance ×2 · raised by Perceptual Jonathan at U-320

±0Entropy/ectropy trend proves a singular creatorAndrew half-answered it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: does the entropy/complexity trend in modern science actually establish a single ultimate creator, or only local increases in complexity? Defend the leap to God.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted part of it: −2.3 DIS Wilson engages the entropy/complexity case by reducing it to the watchmaker argument and probing entailments (must the creator itself be created), but never directly confronts the specific leap from local complexity trends to a single ultimate creator. [U-337, U-345, U-355, U-359 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-337 — “it's just the watchmaker argument.”

P-25 · importance ×3 · raised by Tim Pool at U-340

±0Pool's argument is just the watchmaker argumentTim half-answered it▸

THE CRUX — Wilson: is Pool's entropy/complexity case simply the watchmaker/fine-tuning argument restated? Pool: show how it differs ('it is literally not') or accept the equivalence.

Tim Pool — Confronted part of it: −1.6 DIS Pool denies the equivalence ('it is literally not') and elaborates a mechanistic entropy/ectropy complexity account intended to distinguish it from a bare design inference, though he never crisply states the structural difference from the watchmaker argument. [U-338, U-340, U-342, U-346 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-340 — “The argument is that there is negative entropy, ectropy, and there is entropy, and that ectropy only exists in greater elements of entropy.”

P-26 · importance ×2 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-337

±0Must the creator itself be created?Tim confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: by your own inductive reasoning, must the ultimate creator itself have been created? Defend that it is uncreated without special pleading.

Tim Pool — Confronted the point: Pool defends the creator as uncreated by appeal to conservation (energy neither created nor destroyed), answering the regress challenge without obvious special pleading. [U-360, U-362, U-364 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-362 — “If we go by the standard laws of thermodynamics, that nothing is created or destroyed, only changed.”

P-27 · importance ×2 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-359

±0The universe is part of GodAndrew confronted it▸

THE CRUX — Is the universe part of God? Pool defends the identity; Wilson: defend labeling it Gnostic/pantheist and that only logic, not the universe, is part of God's nature.

Andrew Wilson — Confronted the point: Wilson confronts the universe-is-part-of-God identity: he distinguishes logic (God's nature) from the universe, labels the identity Gnostic, and denies that shared logical governance entails the universe being part of God. [U-208, U-212, U-218 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-218 — “logic is part of God's nature. You're saying that because the universe is also governed by logical rules, that that means that it's part of God. That doesn't even follow.”

P-28 · importance ×2 · raised by Tim Pool at U-207

±0Free will, hell as sorting algorithm, life as a testAndrew half-answered it▸

THE CRUX — Pool: defend your model that hell is a 'sorting algorithm' and life a free-will test — is this consistent with your claim God is beyond good and evil?

Andrew Wilson — Confronted part of it: −0.8 DIS Point demands no response (Pool's exposition). Wilson engages the free-will/test model with probing questions and mounts a pointed counterexample (Aztec sacrifice) testing the 'expand life = God's will' criterion, though he never targets the specific beyond-good-and-evil consistency tension in the crux. [U-375, U-377, U-379 · survived hostile review]

The confronting sentence U-379 — “So what if you end up in a situation where you have Aztecs who are ... sacrificing it to their god ... but when they do, they are way more likely to breed. You have now expanded life.”

P-29 · importance ×1 · raised by Tim Pool at U-374

Intellectual honesty (I don't know) (Acknowledged uncertainty · Pool) low confidence · excluded from scorePool hedges appropriately on God's purpose; weak/ambiguous attribution so low confidence.

Andrew Wilson 00:31:30 U-371 — “What does it want? I don't know. Why did it put you here?”

Tim Pool 00:31:33 U-371 — “There's a couple ideas that I have on that.”

±0Aztec sacrifice counterexample to 'expand life = God's will'Tim ran out of time▸

THE CRUX — Pool: if God's will is to expand/create life and Aztec human sacrifice correlates with higher breeding, does your criterion endorse it as good? Defend or revise the criterion.

Tim Pool — Out of time: Wilson's Aztec counterexample lands in the final seconds; Pool's reply ('Yes. Yin yang.') is a fragment and the transcript ends before he can defend or revise the criterion. [U-379, U-380]

What the crux required was never addressed.

P-30 · importance ×2 · raised by Andrew Wilson at U-379