DIS RUBRIC · EST. 2026An integrity referee for public debates. We score how each side argued, never who won.
Andrew Wilson vs Tim Pool - Heated Debate With Tim Pool on The Nature of GOD
Every turn as spoken, with every scored moment printed where it happened: nothing here requires trust. Rulings link to their scorecard rows for the arithmetic; timestamps open the recording at that moment.
380 turns · 22 points · 10 scored events
I think you're an atheist.
Wilson's God is the atheist conception. The crux: Wilson's account of God (bound by logic, describable via the universe) is functionally the atheist/Einsteinian conception of God. Defend or refute.
+4 R-2.2 · Contesting opponent's identity in place of the argument · Tim Pool
Okay, well, I think you're making the best—
you are making the best case argument for atheism I've ever heard.
↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-001
How?
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.
I'm not even making arguments to you right now. All I'm doing is expressing to you—
+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption to rebut · Tim Pool
God is not all-powerful.
No, no, the opposite.
You said God can't create a boulder he cannot lift.
Boulder omnipotence paradox. The crux: Can God create a boulder so heavy he himself cannot lift it: i.e. does omnipotence include doing the logically impossible? Defend or refute.
No, because—
Every single priest—
Yeah, do you know what?
Theologians I've talked to have said the opposite.
What theologians say about omnipotence. The crux: Priests/theologians affirm that God can do the logically impossible, or that claiming to know God's limits is arrogance. Defend or refute what they hold.
No, none of them. Their dogma literally would prevent them from defying the nature of God. Not a single theologian on planet Earth who's a priest has ever said to you, Tim, God could create a god more powerful than him. That never happened. They said it's not possible.
↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-013
Wilson refutes Pool's empirical claim about theologians with a reason: that their dogma would prevent affirming a God more powerful than God.
So my question is for Andrew, and hopefully I can at least partially satiate your desire to argue. So this is kind of going back to when you were here with Tim last time and you were talking about the existence or not of rights.
Yes.
And so a friend of mine who is also a fan of yours who showed me some of your videos. So the first one was your conversation with Dave Smith. We've kind of had a prolonged conversation about the existence of rights, him taking more of your perspective. I'm disagreeing. Um, you know, and then we were both kind of interested to see what you would say with this.
So we'll start with my perspective. Start with what a right is.
Yes. Okay. So like, I'm totally down to agree with you that a right is an entitlement without duty.
Okay.
And then my perspective would be that the existence of the obligations that we can both exist necessarily creates rights. We both agree that you have an obligation not me, I have an obligation to not fuck you. You have an obligation to, to wherever you're speaking to me, speak the truth, not lie. I have the same obligation.
Duties instantiate rights. The crux: A God-given duty (not to murder/lie) necessarily creates a corresponding right in the other party: you can't have one without the other. Defend or refute.
No, I don't. I don't believe that. Like, you've already, you've already made supposed axioms that I don't agree with. You've already created suppositions that I don't agree with. So where does the obligation that I don't fuck you come from?
No, we both— do we not agree that God gives an obligation to both of us? No, I didn't say fuck you.
I said Yeah, then wait.
You have a you have a right to not someone?
No, I'm well. I'm not saying he say he said there's an obligation not to. Yeah, but where where yeah where where's this obligation to not do a thing?
Oh yeah, I would say Exodus.
Yeah, okay. So you're saying you're looking at through the the prism of Christian ethics?
Oh yeah, both both of us like we all come from the same place.
Okay, I see.
So so like all the all the Christian fundamentals like I. you know, we might have minor doctrinal differences, but like, I, I'm totally good to agree with you on all—
Okay, got it.
All the Christian fundamental presuppositions. So yeah, so I'm not, not disagreeing on that point. My point being that when God goes and gives you an obligation to not murder me and me an obligation to not murder you—
You mean a duty?
Yes, sure, duties. You have a duty to not murder me, I have a duty to not murder you, and so on. And, you know, and similar other things like you to not lie to me, me to not lie to you, these things, these create rights, um, just by the instantiation of the obligation or by the duty.
↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-021
That's now— well, okay, if you were to put this in a syllogism, that wouldn't actually make any sense, right? Duties aren't rights, right? Just because you say— if you say you have a duty, you were given a duty to not, uh, rape me, uh, that does not then instantiate that you have a right to not be raped by me. That's where you— that's where you're making a fundamental mistake. Where does that right come from? Yeah, so this is where I have the obligation, but you don't have any right.
↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-070
Wilson refutes that a duty instantiates a corresponding right, arguing a duty not to rape does not entail a right not to be raped and asking where the right comes from.
They only have the right to defend themselves.
Don't even have right to do that. Well, shit, you can, you can defend yourself, or does it become a right? So the thing is, is like, where does the duty form into the right process? That's what I'm asking.
Yeah, it's that you basically can't have one without the other.
↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-021
How?
Why not?
Um, yeah, so I would say Well, I guess I would start with, I would say, well, I have, then, an entitlement to not be murdered. And we could go and look at particulars like biblical— Yeah, OK.
↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-021
But I'll just say this, it sounds to me like you're not a Christian. The argument you're proposing is that Christianity is subjective and only partial, therefore, the right cannot exist because God's law, God's word, is not mandate for all.
Wait, are you asking me?
That's what I hear from you.
Oh, no, no, no, no, the opposite. I'm saying that God is giving you a sequence of duties, not in any way any rights.
↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-070
When God says, thou shalt not—
+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption to rebut · Andrew Wilson
That's a duty.
The presumption is that we, under God's law, are protected from being—
Nope.
Where's that presumption?
The presumption is that God has ordered you not to—
Yeah, that's right. God has ordered me not to kill you.
Right, so there's—
Why does that suppose—
My entitlement?
Because God told you not to do it.
No, God told— okay, that makes no sense. Well, how does it follow? You would have to literally—
God says you can't do it.
Hang on. You'd have to demonstrate how it follows that if God says I cannot do a thing, that means you have a right to a thing.
Yes.
Thou shalt not buy a house, but you have a right to.
You have free will. You can violate God's law all you want if you're not a Christian, which is the argument you're making. People who are not Christians will violate your God's law, God's word.
Well, so then it's not a right there.
I would even go— I would—
the presumption that you're— I don't understand what you're trying to say, that rights are things that are impossible to happen in the real world?
No, I'm saying that a right is an entitlement absent a duty. And I'm saying that the things that—
So if you are Christian, you can't fuck me.
Yeah, yeah, that's a duty. I agree with that. Yeah, I agree that Christians have duties. What I don't agree with is that Christians have rights. So there's no real right to life. You could die at birth, right? There's no— you don't really have a right to do this. And also, God's nature can't be contrary.
No rights, only duties (no right to life). The crux: God's commands impose only duties, not rights, so there is no genuine 'right to life' (even a newborn has none). Defend or refute.
Wilson defends his own position that God's commands impose duties not rights, affirming there is no real right to life ('you could die at birth').
Well, hang on, I'll explain. God's nature can't be contrary. You agree with that, right?
Elaborate what you mean by that.
So God—
Can't contradict himself?
Yeah, he can't make a god more powerful than him.
I disagree with that.
What?
So, you're talking about, you know, could God create a stone so heavy he himself couldn't lift it? God can do anything.
↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-009
That's incoherent.
Wilson denies that omnipotence includes doing the logically impossible, rejecting the boulder paradox as incoherent and grounding the refusal in logic being part of God's nature: a reasoned refusal the crux allows.
It's not. Logic only exists within the confines of God's Word. God's Word is beyond your comprehension.
Pool refutes the proposition that logic binds God, asserting logic is only internal to created reality and God stands outside it: a direct denial with a reason.
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. Part of God's nature has to—
Logic is part of God's nature. The crux: The laws of logic (the Logos) are part of God's nature, so God will not act contrary to them and cannot create a contradiction. Defend or refute.
Is this God?
Yes.
Can— would Jesus be able to lift a 5-ton boulder?
Yeah. There's no contradiction there.
So certainly Jesus did perform miracles.
That's it. But there's no contradictions with those. So those follow the lines of logic. God's nature still has to be logical because it's part of his nature. His ontology is logic. So my point is— You're saying God can make a burrito that's so big he can't eat it?
↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-082
course. What?
That's incoherent. That's like—
It's literally not.
It is.
It's totally—
that's literally the definition of incoherence. Totally incoherent.
Literally not.
I'm gonna explain.
How is it not? Okay, go ahead.
So I can use— I can use an example like programming, for instance.
Okay.
I can program a video game in which I have absolute authority over the whole thing. I can change the rules at any moment. Within the confines of this game, I can create a rock that my avatar cannot move.
Sure.
I can— and I can— I can program it so that my mouse can't move until I go into the BIOS.
And you both programmed the video game and not programmed the video game?
Yes.
What do you mean? What? How do you— so you can, you can make a video game that you never made?
What are you trying to say?
Can you make a video game that you never made?
Yes.
What?
I've—
what do you mean?
I've made— That's a contradiction.
I literally only make games I've never made. I don't make the same game twice.
No, no. And you both make a game while at the same time you're not making the game.
But I don't understand—
Can the game exist and at the same time not exist?
There is a, there is a reality where yes, quite literally. It's called the paradox. Paradoxes are things that exist within the confines of our logical framework.
No, that's a contradiction. A paradox is different than a contradiction. Tim, you cannot both be me and you. You can only be you.
You don't know that.
Well, yeah, I do, because it would violate the law of non-contradiction.
So this is where I feel like you're running into a problem. You think you know God.
God's nature is incomprehensible. The crux: It is impossible for a human to comprehend God's true nature, so asserting 'God cannot X' overreaches human knowledge. Defend or refute.
No, I only understand that God has to have a nature, an ontological nature.
You don't. And what you think you know of God is looking through a keyhole through an 800-bedroom mansion.
↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-121
Which is based on what God tells us his nature is.
Yes, and God can't— you can't comprehend higher dimensions. It's physically impossible.
Yeah, this is an energy— what you're talking about is what's called an essence-energy distinction. 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.
Wilson grants the essence of God is incomprehensible via the essence-energy distinction, then denies the conclusion that this bars all nature-claims, distinguishing revealed nature from essence. Engages the proposition, agreeing in part and refuting the overreach.
+4.5 C-2.1 · Named common ground and built on it · Andrew Wilson
I don't think you're a Christian.
Okay. What?
Simple question.
This is Catholic dogma, Tim.
Can—
I don't think you're a Christian because you're disagreeing with me on the nature of God.
+6 R-2.2 · Contesting opponent's identity in place of the argument · Andrew Wilson
Can God create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?
↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-009
No.
God exists outside of the confines of this logic in which you think you exist. God is so far beyond you, you cannot comprehend this. To ask if God can lift a rock is asking like Can it? It's a stupid question because we are one trechillionth of the universe and you are presupposing God lives in your rules. That is reductivist, earthly, one-dimensional thinking.
↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-121
↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Tim Pool · ruling prints at U-081
Yeah. So you're saying there's universes where there could be contradictions?
I'm saying that—
Could I interject here with a question on the nature of God for Tim? Tim, do you think that God could be, instead of a supreme good, supreme evil?
I don't know that there is such a distinction. God as the creator of all things is not going to be good nor evil.
God is neither good nor evil. The crux: God is neither good nor evil because he exists outside human moral comprehension. Defend or refute.
What?
I'm not a Christian.
But I mean, it would— okay, so the thing is, is like what you're saying, what you just said is, I understand the nature of God.
Wilson does not directly affirm or deny that God is beyond good/evil; he refutes it as self-undermining, arguing the claim is itself a declaration about God's nature. Engages the proposition by attacking its consistency.
importance ×2 × (1 − 0.5 earned) = 1 of 25 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −1.8 DIS
No.
I understand that this being who lives in this different dimension that I could never fathom—
I'm saying God doesn't—
—can neither be evil nor good. That's you making a declaration that you understand the nature of God.
↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-142
No, it's that I would not describe God as good or evil because God exists outside the confines of human comprehension.
↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-139
Okay.
To a certain—
And can exist in contradiction?
Because contradiction exists only within our reality.
No.
You cannot comprehend what exists outside of the—
Literally, the laws of logic do not actually exist physically in our reality. They're transcendental. They're transcendental categories. They govern our reality, but they don't exist. I don't think you're Christian. Okay, why? Well, this is all Christian doctrine.
↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-082
You're saying God doesn't follow these rules, period.
No, I'm saying that God has a nature like Tim has a nature. Like, for instance, okay, your nature as Tim, the things that make up you, you have a heart and you have lungs and you have things like this, and your heart and your lungs and things like this, do work inside of your body that assist your body in moving and functioning and this and that. They're part of what you are. To take all of those things out would change who you are. Okay? This is the same thing with God. We're just saying that there's a part of God's nature which he has shared with us as part of his nature.
Only part.
As the Logos. The Logos, part of it is logic.
Only part.
Yeah, but that would mean that part of God's nature is to not violate logic.
Did God create this universe, or is this universe just a function of God?
God created the universe.
So God could change the rules?
Can God change the universe's rules. The crux: God can change the logical rules of the universe he created. Defend or refute.
Well, no, that would be illogical.
Wilson denies that God can change the universe's logical rules, calling it illogical and contrary to God's nature (the fire-isn't-hot illustration).
God could not change the rules of the universe?
↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-163
No, it would go contrary to— so it's like, what you're asking me is this: what would it be like if fire wasn't hot? Well, now we've changed the fundamental reality of what fire is.
↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-164
So I'll simplify it.
Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
I believe our reality, first of all, what we think we know in science, there are higher dimensions we can't perceive. This implies, as most scientific discoveries in the last 130 years, if we choose to believe them, for instance, the electromagnetic spectrum, humans— or air is my favorite example. Humans did not know that air existed because they couldn't perceive it. until there was this guy who was showering who realized that there is matter in and all around us. There have been numerous instances where humans realize that things we can't perceive exist, and that is indicative of humans don't know nearly enough about the universe, and that we do know. The discovery of the charged electromagnetic spectrum revolutionized human thought because we didn't realize that what we touch, smell, see, and hear as reality is less than a millionth or a billionth of what reality actually is.
Or a trillionth or a zillionth. Who knows?
And not understanding dark matter. We are a speck in a massive universe on the ass of a mosquito relative to what God is or could be. Humans saying, I know the nature of God, is arrogance that defies the idea of what we know we are limited in thinking. That is, the average person thinks infinity is a number.
↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-121
Yeah, but that makes no sense because all the things that you're saying right now and attributes are trying to define the nature of God, even though you don't think you are. If you're saying— if you— so, for instance, if you say—
Incomprehensibility is itself a claim about God. The crux: Calling God incomprehensible/timeless/beyond logic is itself a claim defining God's nature, so Pool cannot avoid attributing a nature to God. Defend or refute.
You want to put God in a box, I'm saying God is beyond a box.
Pool rebuts that describing incomprehensibility is itself a nature-claim by recasting it as absence of knowledge rather than positive attribution. Brief and does not address Wilson's timeless/dimension examples.
importance ×2 × (1 − 0.5 earned) = 1 of 15 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −3 DIS
No, no, it's the opposite. So, if you say God is so complex you can't understand it, you have actually given me criteria for the nature of God. If you say God is timeless—
↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-172
That's a lack of knowledge.
↳ evidence for the P6 verdict on Tim Pool · ruling prints at U-173
Yeah, 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. So, what we're doing is the same exact thing. I'm expressing to you the biblical nature of God. What God expresses to us is part of his nature.
↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-172
It's not atheist.
Wilson denies his account is the atheist conception, distinguishing his view (dogma) from atheist physicalism and the Einsteinian view. Reasoned denial.
So—
It's the opposite. It's dogma.
↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-178
Atheists are the ones who argue to me that the universe is mathematical, logical, cold, and it is what it is. It functions as such.
↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-001
No, they're physicalists.
↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-178
They would argue the opposite. And Einsteinian God, which is an atheist view, is the view that God is a God of science and that exists as some form of the universe. And then my view of God is that God exists beyond, and that our concepts of physics are just components of what God has created, and God is likely beyond our own perception and comprehension.
↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-001
But you've said a bunch of things here that have entailments. God creates. So we know that for sure, right?
And in science, nothing can be created.
So if God creates, and God was the first thing, then that means God was uncreated.
The creator must be uncreated. The crux: The creator of the universe must itself be uncreated. Defend or refute.
Yes.
Pool grants Wilson's proposition that the creator must itself be uncreated, affirming it and proceeding from the shared ground. Credited as common ground (E-A9).
Yeah, so if God was uncreated and God created, now we know something about the nature of God.
↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-186
+1.5 C-2.1 · Named common ground and built on it · Tim Pool
Yeah, so this is my whole point. And so, so we could say the same thing, right? Same thing here.
Okay, well, I think so too.
You're making the best case argument for atheism I've ever heard.
↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-001
How?
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.
↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-207
I'm not even making arguments to you right now. All I'm doing is expressing to you that—
God is not all-powerful.
No, no, the opposite.
You said God can't create a boulder he cannot lift.
↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-009
No, because—
Every single priest and theologian I've talked to has said the opposite.
↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-013
+2.5 R-2.3 · Appeal to authority offered in place of argument · Tim Pool
No, none of them. Their dogma literally would prevent them from defying the nature of God. Not a single theologian on planet Earth who's a priest has ever said to you, Tim, God could create a god more powerful than him. That never happened. It's not possible.
↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-013
↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-014
No, they said the claim to understand the power of God is arrogance. To assert that you know what God is capable of.
↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-013
I'm not saying what the power of God is. I don't know exactly what the limits of all-powerful are.
+3 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty where a confident answer was available · Andrew Wilson
No, you're saying this reality is a part of God and is what it is, and it's uncontradictory and unchanging.
Yeah, no, I'm just saying that the laws of logic, right? The law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle are part of the nature of God. We know this because this is how God created everything and how God expressed to us he creates. So, if that is the case, we can understand that that's part of God's nature. He will not defy his nature, because it's his nature. Will not defy.
↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-082
The nature of God, as you described it, is the universe.
The universe is part of God. The crux: The universe (or its logic/logos) is a part of God. Defend or refute (Wilson calls this a Gnostic belief).
+5 R-1.1 · Arguing against a position the opponent disowned · Tim Pool
No, it's not the universe. The universe had a creator.
Yes, and the universe—
No, that's a Gnostic belief.
Wilson refutes that the universe is part of God, denying the inference from 'universe governed by logic' to 'universe part of God' and labelling the pantheist version Gnostic.
That's what you just said.
No, I didn't say that.
at all.
That you said it's a Gnostic belief to believe that everything is part of God.
The logos of the universe, the logic, is a part of God.
↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-207
No, no, 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.
↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-212
You said that.
No, the opposite. I'm saying the opposite of that.
So God is illogical?
No, that doesn't even make sense either. What you're saying, all these things you say, they don't follow from one another. So you have to back up to the beginning.
So you said the logos, God, the logic, God is non-contradictory.
Yeah.
What—
God cannot create a boulder that he himself cannot lift?
↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-009
That's the logic? No, because it's against his nature.
↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-080
What does that mean?
It means that you can't do things which defy your nature, because otherwise you wouldn't be you.
Explain his nature.
I just did. Part of his nature is the logos and the law of logic. That's part of his nature.
↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-082
That cannot be changed?
Yeah, I suppose God could change his nature, but why? You can't change your nature. You wouldn't change your nature.
God can't change his nature.
You wouldn't change your nature. That's the right way to phrase it. You wouldn't change your nature.
Can he or can he not? Could he?
Yes.
I don't know, but I don't think it matters, because your nature is what matters.
So you agree with me?
No, I don't agree with you. What you're saying is antithetical to actual dogma.
No, the beginning of the conversation was me saying that God could change the rules as he's created them, and you said he could not.
↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-163
No, because the entailment of could is a violation of nature. So, if it's a violation in nature and you wouldn't, you might as well say couldn't.
Could-vs-would distinction. The crux: The paradox dissolves because God 'would not' act against his nature, and whether he 'could' is irrelevant. Defend or refute that this resolves it.
That's not an argument to what I just said.
It is an argument. If I can't make Tim not be Tim, because Tim has a nature, could Tim, if I gave Tim a different nature, do a different thing than his nature? Yeah, sure. But what does that have to do with anything?
You think God is limited in his capability?
Well, you would have to tell me how that's limited.
God cannot affect the rules of his universe in a way that would defy your view of logic.
↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-163
Wouldn't. And if he wouldn't, then he couldn't, because he wouldn't.
↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-242
That is not an argument.
Pool engages the could/would move rather than dropping it: he extracts that if God 'could but wouldn't', that concedes God could, which he treats as vindicating his original claim. He does not fully develop why the distinction fails beyond dismissal.
importance ×2 × (1 − 0.5 earned) = 1 of 15 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −3 DIS
Well, not only is it an argument, but Tim—
You are literally saying nothing.
Tim, you couldn't fly, right? Whether or not you would fly, Okay, or could fly. If you wouldn't fly, you couldn't fly, right?
You're not saying anything.
Bro, what am I not saying?
Can God do thing is a—
That are outside the violation of his nature, he won't do them, no.
What is his nature?
Okay. So what you're saying is there is a logical structure to God that he cannot change.
↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-163
No. Could change. When you say—
Or would not.
When you say potentiality for could, right, it's irrelevant to the view of will not.
↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-242
So he can do it. He doesn't want to do it.
↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Tim Pool · ruling prints at U-249
Possible. I don't know, because I don't understand the limitation of all-powerful existence.
Yeah, but it just doesn't matter.
To assert that God could not do a thing because you can't understand it—
↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-121
Yeah, because wouldn't here is what we're focusing on.
So how do you know that God wouldn't do a thing?
Because he told us.
When— what did he say?
Inside the Bible, he's very—
Specifically?
Yeah, he's very descriptive about his nature and how he operates.
Tell me what he said.
We'd have to pull up the Bible so we could go over it.
Go over which part of the Bible?
Well, we would have to start with Genesis and then go through the entire ontological nature expressed through the Trinity.
So you don't know?
Yeah, I do know. So, like, God is the Alpha and the Omega. He's the beginning and the end. We know that, right?
God is timeless (Alpha and Omega). The crux: Because God is the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end simultaneously, time cannot apply to him. Defend or refute.
Yep.
Okay, so this would infer timelessness? I suppose, right? Yeah. If you're, if you're both the beginning and the end.
↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-280
I don't know though.
If you're both those things at the same time, then time can't apply to you, right?
↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-280
Not necessarily.
Pool refutes the timeless inference with a reason: something with a beginning and an end has time; he denies 'not necessarily' that Alpha-and-Omega entails timelessness.
How could time apply to you if you're the beginning of it and the end of it?
If it has a beginning and has an end, it has time.
↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Tim Pool · ruling prints at U-285
No, not if you're the beginning and the end at the same time.
↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-280
Is that what it says?
Yeah. If you are the beginning and the end at the same time.
My point is, uh, I do not believe that it is possible for a human to understand the true nature of God.
↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-121
And that the assertion that God could not do a thing implies knowledge of God beyond the confines—
↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-121
But that makes no sense.
Yeah, it makes total sense. It's a basic ontological argument. The idea that you can't— you will not go beyond the confines of your nature, whether you could or not, has no bearing on anything.
↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-242
So if God can't do a thing, he's not all-powerful?
↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-009
It's not can't. You keep on using the word can't and would.
If I could interject here with an example, and this is why I asked the question about God being the ultimate good or ultimate evil. One example that I would give is God cannot be the ultimate evil, kind of for what Andrew would say is this is a logical contradiction, because if God was the ultimate evil, then that would mean he is ultimately— he's the maximal being in all sorts of negative attributes, one of them being selfishness, another one being anger. Selfishness to the point of wanting to be the only being in existence, but anger to the point of wanting other beings to exist to torment them arbitrarily.
God cannot be ultimate evil. The crux: God cannot be the ultimate evil because the maximal negative attributes (e.g. selfishness vs anger) logically conflict. Defend or refute.
Why does anger exist?
Why does anger exist? Yes.
It's just, it's just a non sequitur. Has nothing to do with his argument.
It's just sad. Like, it's an attribute.
Right, he's explaining that God can't be angry, so I'm asking what is anger and why does it exist? No, no, no, no, no, that's not what I said.
What I said is God cannot be the ultimate evil, because to be the ultimate evil—
↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-299
You would have to be the anger and—
You would have to be the maximal being in certain negative attributes that are going to conflict with each other.
↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-299
Like what?
So imagine for— OK, so like you're a comic book guy, so imagine that you had the ultimate Red Lantern, meshed with the ultimate Orange Lantern. Those 2 character traits conflict with each other.
↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-299
Do you— this is a bad example because you know about the White Lantern Corps?
Pool denies the conflicting-attributes premise, arguing (via the White Lantern example he was handed) that maximal attributes can merge and coexist rather than conflict.
Yeah, I'm not saying that comic books are coherent logically. I'm saying you have 2 character traits that, as the maximal being in both of these attributes, cannot simultaneously exist.
But that's—
they—
It's a bad example because the White Lantern Corps is the merger of all the attributes into one. They all simultaneously coexist.
↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Tim Pool · ruling prints at U-310
Guys, our Discord preacher, he wrote down— his name is like Malachi36. His name is— I don't know his name.
Malachi36.
Malachi. Yeah, Malachi. Thank you. For I am the Lord. I don't read the Bible. For I am the Lord. I do not change. Therefore, you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.
Scripture: God does not change. The crux: Scripture ('I the Lord do not change', Malachi 3:6) establishes immutability as part of God's nature, counting against a God who changes the rules. Defend or refute.
Do not change. That's part of his nature.
↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-317
And so the question is—
How's that do with the right to life that we started out with?
Do we know 100%? That is a great question. Do we know God so absolutely that we can perceive him in full?
Pool pivoted to whether we can know God fully and to not being a Christian rather than engaging whether Malachi's 'I do not change' establishes immutability against a rules-changing God. The scripture's content was never addressed.
importance ×1 × (1 − 0.15 earned) = 0.9 of 15 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −2.6 DIS
No, not it. Not it.
No, but we can know particular traits. So for example, Jesus in John 14 says that he is the way, the truth, and the life.
Agreed.
So this is saying that Jesus as God is the ultimate being in a positive attribute, that being truth.
If we can't conceive of God in his entirety, then we can't know everything other than what knowledge was bestowed upon us.
Yeah, but that's a knowledge claim, which presupposes God to begin with, because it's a knowledge claim.
God told us what he is, and through the Bible.
That's part of revelation, yeah.
And that's a Christian view. I'm not a Christian.
↳ evidence for the P21 verdict on Tim Pool · ruling prints at U-321
How's that do with rights?
Well, I mean, but wait a second. Whether you're a Christian or not, it would still have to be your view that God reveals himself to you somehow. That would be some form of revelation.
I believe that we have the capability to observe that God exists through math, science, and observation of the universe.
Yeah, but why are those attributes of God? Which ones are those attributes of God? Math, science?
I would say the mathematics part is just the logic.
I would say, simply put, outside of doctrine, you can look at the universe and then calculate based on the rules that there is a creator.
Complexity progression implies a creator. The crux: The observed progression of matter into ever-more-complex systems (entropy/ectropy) mathematically implies a singular higher power/creator. Defend or refute.
Yeah, it's just the watchmaker argument. So you just say, well, if you were a person who had no understanding of technology, but you found a watch on a beach and you picked it up, you would infer creation just by the way that the watch operates. It's the same argument.
Pool's argument is the watchmaker argument. The crux: Pool's inference from cosmic order to a creator is equivalent to the classical watchmaker/fine-tuning argument. Defend the equivalence or refute (Pool: 'it is literally not').
Wilson engaged the thread extensively but by cross-examination and characterisation (labelling it the watchmaker argument, drawing out entailments); he never affirmed or denied whether the complexity progression mathematically implies a creator. The crux required a ruling on that inference.
importance ×2 × (1 − 0.15 earned) = 1.7 of 25 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −3.1 DIS
It is literally not.
↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-337
Pool refutes the equivalence to the watchmaker argument, distinguishing his entropy/ectropy claim from a design-from-order inference.
Yeah, or you can say that mathematically, if you changed even one little teeny tiny thing, the entire universe would be thrown into disarray. What's the argument?
↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-337
The argument is that there is negative entropy, ectropy, and there is entropy, and that ectropy only exists in greater elements of entropy. And what we end up finding throughout the universe, again, assuming you trust modern science, is that energy coalesces and disperses, I would say, at a rate similar to the golden ratio.
↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-336
↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Tim Pool · ruling prints at U-338
So it's a gradual And if you threw that off, it would throw everything into disarray.
Not what I'm talking about. So when you take a look at the basis components of the universe, in some degree they coalesce. So we can take a look at quarks, atoms, denser hydrogen becoming helium, et cetera, et cetera. You can see that so long as there is more entropy outputted from a system, ectropy is possible. This scales up exponentially and mathematically which is what humans have traced so far, again, if you believe modern science, 'cause there's a lot we don't know, and you find that everything skews towards the creation of higher complex systems, so long as they create more disorder in the creation of complex systems. What that ultimately leads to is, simply put, atoms become elements, become compounds, become molecules, all finding other ways to interact to become increasingly more complicated in organizing free energy in the universe into a complex system.
↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-336
Yeah.
This is a fact.
I'm not sure how this isn't like an explanation or descriptor of the observation of revelation of God for you.
↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-337
So what we see is that once you get to the point of self-replicating proteins, molecules come to a point where, and this is a gap for human knowledge, we don't know why at some point molecules will become self-replicating proteins. I don't think it's all that complicated because the question of why elements become compounds is the same thing. We don't care. Oxygen bonds with with carbon, 2 oxygen, carbon dioxide, these things occur, and we can track the science of them. At a certain point, self-replicating proteins emerge if the chemical conditions are correct. Self-replicating proteins eventually become single-cell life. Single-cell life eventually becomes multicellular life. Within those complex systems, multicellular life eventually creates ecosystems. Now they're creating complex systems outside of physical energy and into abstract concepts, which only exist in our thoughts. Eventually, you'll end up with multicellular organisms—
↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-336
+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged a gap in one's own argument · Tim Pool
But your thoughts do exist, you think?
To some degree they do, because I think therefore I am.
Yeah, where do they exist though?
That's the interesting question that humans don't really know, because this is the abstract, complex dynamic system created by the highest iteration of life as we know it, which is ourselves, unless there is an imperceivable higher form of life, which all mathematics predicts does exist. And so what we end up seeing with the universe is first you get chemicals that coalesce, you get organisms that reproduce, all of it collecting free energy and organizing into more complicated systems. Eventually you get a squirrel. Squirrels are a random example. But squirrels create more than just themselves by collecting free energy. They eat food, they make babies, that's replication.
↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-336
What I don't understand—
Squirrels create ecosystems.
I actually don't understand right now, though.
Now squirrels are planting nuts, which create trees. A new abstract system emerges, a complex system between life that is beyond just a physical component. It is now including a physical component, but it has an abstract element to it, interactions between 2 objects. That accentuates further into the manipulation of an environment, which a lower life form would probably be a beaver.
Yeah, but how is any of this— I don't— what I don't understand, right, is those systems you just described, you've observed.
So beavers start manipulating their environments and creating complex systems outside of life itself, where they're actually building dams. Dams interact with the environment in a way that's not necessarily life, but it collects free energy. Ultimately, we arrive to humans, where humans do something interesting in the creation of complex systems. They not only self-replicate, they not only create ecosystems, but they create abstract concepts to an extreme degree of complexity. And they not only do that, but they create internal microsimulations, which is computers and technology. All of this mathematical trend predicts higher forms of life beyond the capability to create abstract concepts, complex systems. Mathematically and probabilistically through observation, we could conclude the likelihood that life that exists beyond us, that has the capability to create systems of the universe itself is more likely than not. So that in and of itself is a simple view of modern scientific observation into there is, in most likelihood, a life form of some sort, or something beyond life, that is a complex system that exists beyond us, that has the capability of not just creating abstract complex systems, but of creating complex systems itself. The singularity. The math points to a singularity of one ultimate power that has the capability to—
↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-336
And that's what you believe is God?
↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-337
I believe that it is suggestive of a God. My view of God is probably slightly beyond that, into— when I think of God, I bump into the limits of our ability to comprehend higher dimensions, in visualizing higher dimensions in 2-dimensional planes, because we can't even do it in 3-dimensional planes. And then you come to the ultimate point where we would conclude there is a higher power than us that likely created us, created everything we experience, has the ability to create, destroy, and do whatever it wants, even though in our reality we cannot create or destroy, and we cannot comprehend the true power and true nature of what that is.
↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-336
Okay. Could you induct then that that thing had to be created?
↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-337
Nope.
Why not? What do you mean? Why wouldn't you induct that that thing had to be— like, using inductive reasoning, what would you have to base on from actual observation that anything which created anything else was not itself created?
If we go by the standard laws of thermodynamics, that nothing is created or destroyed, only changed.
Yeah, but if that's the case, the energy which you're destroying or creating Right. God doesn't need to be created. He always existed, right?
↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-186
And we were not created in the sense of we manifested. We were created in the sense that the universe was created by God. The structure, the energy, all of it was created, whether it's finite or not is a determination of God that we don't know.
Well, do you think this thing has consciousness?
The creating power has consciousness and purpose. The crux: The creating power possesses consciousness and acts with purpose. Defend or refute.
And then we organized. Absolutely.
Pool affirms the crux proposition, stating the creating power has consciousness and acts with purpose.
Presumably. So consciousness, we are in the universe and we are components of the universe, and what we experience as conscious entities is a component of the universe, which also implies the universe itself with us within it and within its confines and laws experiences consciousness either through us, or there is a very, I believe, obvious observation that if simple consciousness, the neurons firing in our brains, which we think is what's generating consciousness, exists, then obviously there is a calculation of a higher power consciousness beyond ours.
↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-365
↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Tim Pool · ruling prints at U-366
What does it want? I don't know. Why did it put you here?
There's a couple ideas that I have on that. One is you can describe it as a sorting algorithm, I suppose. Why do heaven and hell exist? Well, the Christian—
You think hell exists too?
Absolutely. But I wouldn't describe it as fire and pits of inferno. I would describe it as, if we look at the universe and we look at the choices we are given, free will, and we take a look at, I would say, trying to learn off Christian or just general religious dogmas, 'cause I do believe that humans and life has a general understanding until it's socialized out of them or they're broken from it. I do believe people can know God exists, but society today tries to make you erase that from your mind.
Humans have free will. The crux: Humans have genuine free will rather than a fully predetermined existence. Defend or refute.
↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-378
Well, this is really strange though. You think we have free will too?
Wilson responded only with surprised questions ('You think we have free will too?', 'You don't think it's predetermined?') and never stated or defended a position on whether humans have free will. The crux required affirming or refuting genuine free will.
importance ×1 × (1 − 0.15 earned) = 0.9 of 25 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −1.5 DIS
You don't think it's predetermined?
↳ evidence for the P18 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-375
There's gradients. Yeah, no, it's not predetermined. There's an element of predetermination in that some things will happen, and then how we function within them is ultimately the function of reality. Now, I don't know that, obviously, but I would say based on what I've read, what I've seen, what I've experienced, a simple way to describe it is we are here as sort of a test. We are given choices, we are given free will, we are given opportunity, we are given struggles, and we make choices on how we exist within these things. Do you choose to be evil for self-gain, to burn things down and destroy? If life all life is functioning towards the creation of complex systems, that it would seem to defy God's will to be a force of entropy. So when you look at Antifa burning things down, destroying that, I describe that as evil. When you look at Democrats exploiting to steal and make gains for themselves, they are empowering a small system at the destruction of a larger system. I would call that evil. If the purpose of a person, or if the function of a person, is to create more complicated systems, i.e., create life, protect life, and expand upon life. That seems to be God's will, as that is what life does. So there's a sort of yin-yang of the universe. I don't believe it's balanced like yin-yang, I believe it's more like the golden ratio spiraling towards negative— I'm sorry, towards entropy, with life functioning as negative entropy. And thus, simply put, there is a God, we are here for a reason, we are here to protect, to organize, to create, and develop, and expand.
Good is creating/expanding life; entropy is evil. The crux: Good = creating/protecting/expanding complex systems (life); being a force of entropy/destruction is evil. Defend or refute.
↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-374
So what if you end up in a situation where you have Aztecs who are cutting the Stop them. Oh, hang on. Cutting— sacrificing it to their god. Okay, but when they do, they are way more likely to breed. You have now expanded life. Nope.
Aztec sacrifice counterexample. The crux: Human sacrifice that increases breeding/population would count as 'expanding life' under Pool's criterion, yet is evil: reconcile or revise the criterion.
Wilson refutes the criterion by counterexample: sacrifice that increases breeding would count as expanding life under Pool's rule yet is evil, pressing the reconciliation.
Yes. Yin yang.
↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-379
Pool responded to the counterexample only with an undeveloped invocation of his framework ('Yes. Yin yang.') as the transcript ends; he did not reconcile the sacrifice case with or revise the expanding-life criterion.
importance ×2 × (1 − 0.15 earned) = 1.7 of 15 weighted challenge points · × 45% (crux share of DIS) = −5.1 DIS