#233 - Debate: Cristiano vs Mujer Trans - Rigoberto Hidalgo vs Mia Skylar

Today I'm going to dismantle in an absolute way the progressivism, the relativism, and all the isms that should not have existed. In an absolute way, in Wordcast, I'm going to put an end to all the ideologies that have been planted in this podcast. I ask you a question. Christianity. Why is it false due to these three facts? Give me an explanation.

What three facts?

The three facts. Empty tomb, postmortem apparitions, and testimony of the apostles. Give me a document that says this. What document is there that Mary was a virgin and gave birth to a child being a virgin?

Is there a document?

As God exists, trans does not exist. Gender ideology does not exist. Gay origin does not exist because logically incompatible with reality.

You have a child and he grows up on a desert island, the chances that he is Christian are zero because they have to be taught. However, that child can be transsexual, that child can be homosexual, because even though there is no one to instill it, as happened to me, no one instilled it and it came out.

Or what evidence do you lack to believe in a Jesus who resurrected the dead? What would be enough evidence for that?

If he appears here, if he appears here, if he resurrects someone in front of me, you for that. that didn't believe and persecuted Christians like Saul of Tarsus and then dies because of it. Why does a person change suddenly and die because of Christ? Well, because there are people who convert from Christianity to Islam. That's because Islam is the true religion.

First, I would like to know what a woman is to her.

Ladies and gentlemen, just a moment. If you are here, I understand that you would like us to make better and better content and above all that we have access to the best guests. We get this when we grow up and it turns out that when I sit down with my team to see the statistics of this channel, I see that the vast majority are not subscribed or do not follow us on our channels, so only with that little gesture you can help us grow and guarantee the best content for the future.

I don't ask for anything else. Well, we're recording. Welcome Mia, welcome Rigoberto. It's a pleasure to have you both here. Mia, you don't even need to go through the studio location because it becomes...

If we had a little plate to the recurring profiles, I would already be touching you. And Rigoberto, it's a pleasure to have you here. I've been following your content for a long time. I really like what you do. I just arrived from Costa Rica, already finishing winning the pulse of Jetlag.

But, but good, right?

Well, I am very grateful to share the panel with you and you. So really, I think the privileged one here is me. Thank you.

Super, super. Here we have had several debates throughout these, I think more than two years, we were just commenting that it has, that it has the podcast and normally we

don't follow a very clear structure, but today we have decided to make it a little bit, a little bit different. There will be a part of open conversation as there is always, but the beginning of the conversation,

let's say, will be two presentations, bar exposing the main arguments, the pillars of each of the structures of thought that both of you want to share today. So, it will be around, the ideal would be about 10 minutes each, where then we will have 10 minutes also to make minutes to answer the arguments you have expressed. Then we'll have an open conversation, and finally it would be good to do a recap and a conclusion as well, when we

consider, right? From each one.

I understand that there's also a counter-answer.

Yes, exactly. After those 10 minutes approximately to expose, if it can be uninterrupted, a series of ideas and arguments, to lay the foundations, let's say, of the debate before entering the open conversation, there will be an answer as well.

The counter-answer is after the answer. That is, I answer and Mia answers what I answer. That's what I mean.

Yes, yes, OK, ok, perfect, perfect. And then...

Couldn't we do something a little more open, more...

Yes, it's going to be a little... It's going to feel like a time to expose a presentation and then be able to answer uninterruptedly. And then we open the conversation to the usual format. I'm going to continue, I have the timer here in my hand to guarantee a fair debate and that I don't know that neither of the two parties can cover the whole conversation. Before we start, I have, taking advantage of the fact that we are here with our Christmas tree,

in Christmas time, I have a gift, okay? Well, look, I've already taken you a couple of them, you're going to our product range. I only come for the gifts. Totally. Well, last time we gave you the Powerbank. Now, these are the Zenit Pro. They are some brutal headphones. I've been giving them a lot of attention lately.

Six microphones, sound cancellation. They are the best we have. I love it, I love this product. Give us a cut. I hope you use them and give me feedback.

But these are going very, very well. And to start, I think we were talking before starting to record and we had agreed among you that Rigoberto could start.

What yes, before starting, I want to clarify one thing about which I cannot give many details, I have already told you in Petit Comité. And it is that, because people are surely going to ask and I can't give you a lot of details but I've recently suffered an aggression that's the reason why I have the bruise on my face I'll talk about it in the future but I wanted to clarify it simply because

towards trans people there's a wave of transphobia very heavy it's the first time that something moderately similar happens to me and it's just to clarify that and I can't give more details. I would ask you not to ask me to explain myself on legal issues. And that's all. That's the clarification I have.

I forgot to ask you, so thank you for making it public, Mia. And I think we can start if you think, Rigoberto, and if they agree that you start, I'll put you on the timer and you can start whenever you want, okay?

Perfect.

Today I'm going to dismantle progressivism, relativism, and all the isms that should not have existed. In an absolute way, in Wordcast, I'm going to put an end to all the ideologies that have been planted in this podcast. So the title of the debate is two very basic questions. What is God and what does it mean with ideology? Very well, what does Mia think about it? Previously, I quote the words of the debate ofía Skylar contra el musulmán Chaukit, dice,

la religión no es natural porque la religión es una invención humana. Fin de cita. Como siquiera duda de su posición, dice, en entrevista contra J. Redfield, dice, la religión lo que dice es que no está respaldado por la ciencia. Fin de cita. Hoy vengo a I am here to present my opening speech, but I would like to make my own proof of this statement. I will divide my speech, dear Pedro, into three sections. Section 1, Epistemological System. Section 2, What is God?

And Section 3, What does it mean to have an ideology? Section 1, Epistemological System. There are only two types of beliefs, those that are justified and those that are unjustified. So first we must sustain an epistemological system to ascertain the truth of each belief. For example, number one, the metaphysical truth, existence exists in an objective way. We have a real framework, a reality that we can ascertain through the senses.

Two, the approval of reason, because denying the validity of reason would destroy any scheme of operation against any affirmation. And three, the principle of non-contradiction. A woman cannot be a woman and a woman in the same sense of woman. Section, What is God? And here we are going to address the first question. Number one, to know what God is.

First I need to know what God is not. It is evident and we know by the senses that from the phenomenon the foundation is known, that from the effect the cause is known the foundation that from the effect is known the cause so I will establish by this means dear but and mine that the first will be a efficient cause to say that the world has a principle what comes to exist in a efficient cause premise 1 premise 2 what came to be is what comes to be then has an efficient cause reality came to be therefore reality

properly as we know it has an efficient cause, reality becomes. Therefore, reality itself, as we know it, has an efficient cause. Now we go with the justification of each premise. What becomes has an efficient cause. Number one, well, there are only two ways to exist, due to another, in a participatory way, or by essence.

Now, I quote Thomas Aquinas' second way, I quote, well, we find that in the sensible world there is an order of efficient causes. Now I quote, to do. What do I mean by reality? Contingent reality, since God is also part of reality. What is contingent reality, dear Pedro? That which cannot give itself its own existence, that is, requires others. I quote Thomas Aquinas, since if the cause is removed, the effect disappears. If the cause disappears, then the world would not exist. If in the order of efficient causes

there was no first, that is, God as the first cause, it would not be either the last or the intermediate. For me to deny this premise, it has to establish an infinite number of efficient causes towards the past, or directly deny the cause as God, which is the establishment of what God is. So go ahead with the load of the test. Conclusion. Premise 1 and 2 are true, therefore, I quote, consequently, there would be no ultimate effect or intermediate cause, and this is absolutely false, since reality exists and needs a foundation.

Therefore, reality as we know it has an efficient cause. This efficient cause I'm talking about, dear Pedro, is God. Existence, not by other, but by essence. 1. 2. It is the first immobile motor because it has no mobility prior to it, but it is immobile and it is necessary since it has the being by essence.

This is defined as the subsisting being. What else can we know about God, dear Pedro? Well, let's analyze Thomas Aquinas' Fifth Way. And it is that Thomas Aquinas' Fifth Way says that beings lack intelligence, but act in a regular manner and are ordered

to their specific purposes. That is, there is an order in reality. But here comes something interesting. What lacks intelligence cannot go to an end, unless it is ordered by an intelligence. Therefore, the first efficient cause

is intelligence due to the world. Now, here comes the very strong implication, and I want us to think about introducing the second question. Listen carefully, that if it is intelligent, it is an orderer, creator of intelligibility. So here is a strong implication, which is an orienter of creatures for an end, a designer of creatures for an end, a former and giver of identity of creatures for an end, omniscient, each pattern informs the reality that exists, exists

by a principle that cannot be produced, and what else can we analyze from this cause? and There is no space. If there is no space, time, matter, and energy, then it is transcendent. If there is no change, then there is no beginning and no end. If there is no beginning and no end, therefore it is eternal. And if it is eternal, it is absolute. And if it is absolute, it is omnipotent. Okay? In that sense, notice how by means of reason, dear Pedro, omnipotent, omniscient, up to this point, it is inevitable to call it God. Simple. What is God? What you just heard. So, in other schools, for example, the Neoclassical says, what begins to exist has a cause, the universe begins to exist,

therefore the universe that has, Pedro. A cause. That's how simple it is. What is God? What you just heard. Now, second question of the debate, because I came here to solve the question of the debate. What implication does it have with ideology? Well, translated, we have to solve a previous question, and that is, what implication does it have with the world? Well, as God exists, the question is, what

is the true religion? What would I say? Well, analyzing history, and how is history analyzed? By means of the formal object of history, through the bibliographic, through the external, internal evidence of the text. And from here, the documents are collected, and thus a historical truth is established. Analyzing this, which religion are we going to analyze? Well, it's not by emotion, Pedro. In fact, it's by qualitative advantage that it's worth considering Christianity,

and by quantitative advantage, it's worth being addressed, because it has more than 24,000 documents unlike any religion. Premise 1. If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity is the true religion. 2. There are 3 well-established facts. Do you like it or not? Premise 1. Number 1. Empty tomb, post-mortem apparitions and believe in the original disciples. That is, post-mortem apparitions. These facts are historically verifiable. Therefore, if the tomb is empty, as Ron Robinson said,

this is one of the most established facts in history. As William Wan said, all strictly historical evidence that we have is in favor of the empty tomb. And those scholars who reject it do so for reasons different from that of history. Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, John 19 are proof of this.

So we have the testimony of the apparitions, we have point A, Jesus appears in history, point B, Jesus dies at a point in history, not even the most skeptical say this, and Jesus appears at a moment in history. That's why the hero Entiwright says,

that's why as a historian, listen carefully, as a historian, I can't explain the emergence of primitive Christianity unless Jesus has risen, leaving an empty tomb behind Him. If God exists, what is the true religion, Peter? The only one that has an empty tomb. It's that simple. So, what is God?

By means of reason, Creator of heaven and earth. What does it have to do with ideology? Listen, because this is all for you. Everything. Because He exists exists and it does not exist logically incompatible. Pay attention to these three points

and I want you to meditate them very well. Atheism denies the purpose, but if there is an efficient cause, there is a formal material cause, therefore there is a final cause, there is a purpose,

therefore atheism falls. Now, gender ideology and trans ideology deny the design. But, as God exists, there is an efficient cause, there is a creative capacity that has intelligibility, and there is an orienter of the scriptures for an end, a giver of the scriptures for an end, a giver of identity, matter and form of the scriptures for an end. Therefore, it cannot be denied or affirmed what is logically uncombatable. Therefore, gender ideology and trans ideology fall. It's that simple.

So, abortion denies the soul. Well, I would like to know a justification from the Cosmovision without comparing abortion. Because if God exists, there is transcendence, there is immateriality in man. But if there is immateriality in man, therefore there is intrinsic value, which no physical or chemical process can give. Therefore, abortion falls.

See how simple. Okay, then kiss and see you see do sexist a Kim because you can't even do it Oh, no Reto in a discourse or apertura in este sentido lo siguiente yes can open a system You know he coming to go Matilde come with us exist a trans next is the Ideology a general no exist a hanging no exist a porque logic a mentin compatible a color really up I ask in the opening speech that you prove it. How is it that a trance exists? Does gender ideology exist? Does the gay gene exist? If God exists, Christ is your identity. Christ is the solution.

John 1, 12, plus all those who received him, gave him the power to be made sons of God. In Christ, we are new creatures. Christ is the truth. I am an extremist Christian

and I came to stand up. Thank you very much. This was my opening speech. professional, learn to build a solid business ecosystem around their organic content. It is a matter of positioning yourself as a reference, as an authority figure in a profitable niche, a scalable niche, the right niche, and learn to monetize all that attention without having to depend on algorithms or passenger trends. You just have to depend on your own system. A program that is built on the Core method. Four pillars. Community, Offer, Reputation and Ecosystem.

It's not a process where you're alone. You join a community that is already having real results. People who have already filled their first Masterclass, who are able to increase their prices without losing clients, or who build a reputation that works for them, even if they are not there, even if they are doing something else. You are going to build all this on a solid technical basis, our own software, where you will be able to host your landings,

IA agents, automations, email marketing, absolutely everything in the same place. Creator Founder makes you stop improvising by creating content and build a system that gives you control, that makes you build reputation and that of course brings you real income. If what I have said seems interesting to you, I have a gift for you in the link that I am going to leave in the description of this episode. Very good, thank you very much Rigoberto. Okay, well, it's been almost 10 minutes.

You have it there. I prepare for debates. Me too, me too. Only that when I debate, I ask questions, answer, premise, answer. I don't do like an evangelist telepredicator does. Falacia Dominum. Criticize my arguments, not my way of debating. Go ahead, give him 10 minutes to let it out. I'll tell you another fallacy, and it's called the obfuscation fallacy

the obfuscation fallacy, ok? is when you use confusing or overly technical language to make it difficult to understand the arguments you probably know this fallacy, right? since you use a lot of

philosophical logic when you respect it selectively. Secondly, I want to tell you that the complexity of the language does not replace the absence of arguments, okay? So don't try to pull on that side, because you're not going to get me. Secondly, and this is very important, I'm not here to debate in an aggressive way with you, or in a, I don't know, conflictive way, but simply, I'm an agnostic person, I'm not even a theist person. I consider that it's very likely that there is a

primary force, a source, call it whatever, but of course what I don't consider is that that primary source or that god is by chance the god of all the religions that have existed throughout history, is the one that? Then, religion is a human invention. Animals don't have religions. Animals, animal species, none of them wear a hijab or a crucifix on their neck. However, homosexuality does exist.

That is, denying the nature of homosexuality and then saying that religion is natural when it is a human invention is quite fallacious. In fact, it is also very curious that the human species has an estimated 300,000 years of existence since it is Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Coincidentally, the God who created us gives us the true religion 2000 years ago, when the human race is 300,000 years old. That God hated all the human beings that existed before the God you process because you were born in a Christian country,

coincidentally, is the true one, right? And also, your God, coincidentally, that first source, also has the values of the Palestinian cabreros from 2000 years ago, what a coincidence, because he came to them through divine enlightenment, because again, that's another one, he talks about logic and he talks about fallacies, but in reality, he is guided by a sacred book that is housed in faith. And faith is not guided by reason. Faith is believing what is not seen, and the reason why you believe in it is because it has been instilled in you. Because

you are really believing things like the resurrection of Christ, that a virgin woman has a child, things that assault biology and science first hand. And you try to talk to me about the gay gene, and you tell me that there is no gay gene. First of all, there are many diseases or many disorders, I'm not saying that being gay is a disease or a disorder,

but to give you an example, there are conditions like Ehlers-Danlos, which is also known as... it's a kind of form of joint hypermobility, the Ehlers-Danlos, which is also known as a form of joint hypermobility, the Ehlers-Danlos disease, which does not have clear genetic markers. That is, there are diseases that do not have clear genetic markers and yet they are genetic.

So to affirm the gen-gay thing is, again, another fallacy. Then you talked about, because you also released a super fast retail, again, the fallacy of obfuscation, which I think is the core of your speech, and the reason why you want to entrench the debate at all times in read-out interventions, which I'm not doing. Then, you say that there is no such thing be a woman and not to be a woman. No, I'm not saying that I'm a woman and not a woman at the same time. That's out of the question. Then, you can't use philosophy as an empirical science when philosophy isn't a science.

According to current empirical sciences, like biology, physics, chemistry... Those are sciences, that is, how biology, physics, chemistry could be, those are sciences, philosophy is not. Philosophy is very interesting and very illicit because it is also an exploration of how to play with reason and how to play with logic, however it is, let's say, a primordial form, a beta phase of what a real science is, because it doesn't host us in empirical experiments or empirical data, but in playing with logic and through logic trying to

get answers to things that they don't have through philosophical means. Then, you talk, you're a philosopher, okay, well, in philosophy there's the figure of the demagogue, right? And I think you're a very clear example of that, right? A person who uses logic and uses the ignorance of people who are watching the debate to, through fallacies of obfuscation, I repeat, which are the backbone of your speech, you try to make it seem like your arguments are serious, that the argumentation you make makes sense even when it cannot be corroborated,

because you use your philosopher's condition, taking into account that the people watching this debate are not. Practically none. they are not, practically none, okay? Then, the theory of the first cause, you mentioned it, and the theory of the first cause is a paradox, okay? As it could be, you surely know it, the theory of the immovable object and the unstoppable force, okay? There is a paradox that says what would an unstoppable object gain? Let's say... you understand it well, right?

What happens? That's a paradox because it can't be given. If there's an unmovable object, there's no unstoppable force. Again, what he says about the theory of the first cause, that the existence of God is demonstrated because there was always a first cause, that God's existence is demonstrated because there was always a first cause, that is, for that glass to move, I have to move the glass, okay? And for me to be able to move, I have to feed myself and have energy, okay? Let's say that everything goes back to a first cause,

if you pull back. However, if God is the cause of that, then who created God? That is, if God was the first cause, by that same logic, that same theory, the first cause is the one that created God as well. Or else, it would collapse all the logic of this theory. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. So, you use a lot of fallacies,

you use a lot of, alsouses, you use a lot of... you mix very rambunctious philosophical terms with science meaning, selectively you use science and you use philosophy which is incompatible because scientific elements are empirically demonstrable and philosophical ones are not,, the fifth way of Aquinas again, you mentioned the fifth way of Aquinas

which are philosophical theories, not scientific theories again, I go back, I consider that the existence of God can be possible, I'm agnostic. I think there's probably something behind it. In fact, at this point in my life, I find myself very passionate about a phenomenology which is the ECMs, the Near-Death Experiences, which are empirical. That is, people who die and return from that clinical death

and tell how they have seen a source, they've seen... and everyone, regardless of the country in which this happened, tells the same thing. That is undeniable, that is empirical. And that has to be fair and determined, that's how it is. But, another thing you want to say is that my ideology is a gender ideology, when I'm simply fighting for my rights

What is an ideology is Christianity which is based on a book in which you base absolutely all your argumentation A book full of contradictions and that, in addition, if you read verses from the Leviticus both you and I, in our day to day

we can be perpetually breaking the biblical law. Things like wearing two different types of cloth on a certain day could imply death by stoning. In other words, a series of savages that attack any logic that can be had in the current world, in which we know that if it rains it's not because angels are crying,

and if it thunders it's not because angels are playing with firecrackers. Again, stop using obfuscation fallacies and use understandable terminology, because you're a philosopher, I'm a journalist and a graduate in Public Relations and Public Policy, and the first thing we're told in communication is that you have to adapt your message at all times to the audience that's watching you. So I recommend you do it because in me this phallus of obfuscation won't flow. You recur, you recur. That's all.

Well, thank you both for respecting... they've been talking for about 9 and a half minutes each, so...

I hadn't prepared it, nor have I read it, I've been reading it.

Well, thank you for respecting the time. And now we'll move on to the answer. Let's see.

Very simple. Here the question is, Mia in her opening speech solved the question, what is God? Not even close. Mia gave some argument of what is God

and what implication it has with ideology. Not even close. She didn't give even an implication. Now, this, for every speech to have validity, it has to be backed by the principles of logic.

And notice that she didn't solve any question. In fact, any Cosmovision that is presented must have an explanatory power of reality in its entirety. In fact, it cannot be presented as, for example, a superior force, or an isolated entity, or an entity that we cannot know, like a positive and homological union in which we cannot know anything about God. So, does the God of Mia solve this?

In no way, because he does not explain the order that lies in the world, he does not explain the immaterial that is born in the world, she doesn't explain the immaterial entities that are born in the world, she doesn't explain the soul that is born in man, she doesn't explain the moral law. Now, she says, for example, that there is no causal relationship between God and religion, particularly Christianity. Christianity is presented by historical life, and if the affirmations of Jesus are true, if there is truly an empty tomb, therefore there is a logical inference as to why Christianity is true. Now, you are telling me that, no, that the world has been around for more than 2,000 years,

but Christianity does not affirm as such that the beginning of the earth was established from the birth of Jesus. In fact, there are alternative positions, such as the position of the evolutionist theist, where he accepts evolution, he accepts all years, there is creationism, there are multiples. Even among Christians, that can be discussed. So, God does not immediately solve existence in any way, He does not solve design in any way.

Now, he is saying, I rely on empirical philosophy, but it is the philosophy of the mother of all sciences. So, that's how simple it is. Now, he is talking about the immovable force and an unstoppable force. Here there is contradictory logic, and contradictory logic is not applicable in reality, therefore it is nothing more than a fallacy and a petition of principle. So, if there is an efficient cause, there is a logical standard,

there is an efficient cause, which he will not deny, therefore there is a logical standard in the Ente Semia. He describes another god, therefore his standard is a subjective foundation and has nothing to do with epistemology or the principles of logic. Now, you are saying, for example, the issue of the gay gene. The problem is that one of the most prestigious journals in the world, like Science, for example, Anne Leigh Ganna, says that there is no single gene that determines sexual orientation.

In the case of the gay gene, it does not exist. In fact, the study analyzed, in this case, Science, 492,000 people, more than half a million, and the logical establishment is that the gay gene does not exist at all. The gay gene does not exist, genetics cannot predict sexual orientation, and the largest study discards it. Now, the gene in animals. Well, Dr. Francisco Rubia, neurophysiologist and doctor at the Cerebro no se engaña,

said that animals do not have an orientation, only conducts, therefore, it cannot extrapolate the existence of a human being from an animal behavior. So, a hengei is not concluded in humans, animals do not have an orientation, but conduct, not consciousness, but instinct, and it is logically incompatible that it exists. So, it would be an ideological projection towards an animal. Now, according to the divinity of this scripture, this Bible that is here, well, I base myself on the truth of Christ, and if Christ is truth and there is historical verification, well, let's talk about the credibility of the Gospels, like Norman Geisler,

who makes a textual critique of Christianity, makes a textual critique of Christianity, and dates 99.9% of historical accuracy, which no historian can even deny. In fact, when we analyze the Gospels, we see that Matthew 24 was written before the destruction of the Temple.

That is, they were totally close to the facts. Mark 13, there will be no stone on stone, the Temple is referred to. Luke 21, there will be no stone on stone. All this guarantees us, dear Peter, that the Gospels were constituted as eyewitnesses. And Luke 1, 1 was just opening the first page and saying and reading that having investigated diligently

all things from their origin and writing them down in order. This order presupposes that it is not a book at random. Let's talk about the amount of documents, because here in Madrid it is documented and there is the document Optus, Coptus, sorry, and this is not only found here, but there are many documents that can be found.

For example, the Vatican Code is preserved in the Vatican Library, the Sinaitic Code is preserved in the British Museum in London, others are preserved in the British Museum in France, Paris, at the University of Cambridge. You just have to know a little bit about history and know that this has no problem with what we are saying. Now, there is one more topic that she mentioned, and it is precisely the topic of the truth of Christianity that I left out. When we are talking about the truth of Christianity,

we have to make a logical inference. When we are talking about God, we have to make a logical inference. I am not a Christian just because I come from a Christian society. I am a Christian because I certainly knew Christianity through that, but that does not mean that it is either false or true. With that logic, atheists would not exist in Costa Rica. With that logic, atheists would not exist

in Christian societies. And, well, it is simply not the criticism of where my belief comes from, but where my belief can be sustained in history, in logic. And I want to make it very clear that Mia did not present the question of the debate, nor did she solve the question of the debate. I repeat, I am being hard with the ideas, not with her person. There is nothing personal here. I'm just going to be very rigid with the fact that she didn't solve the question, what is God, or what implication does it have with ideology. That said, thank you very much. That was my response to the opening speech. I would like her to truly respond to my opening speech and refute it as I did in her opening speech, which to my liking and in my opinion,

you will say, dear audience, did not present the solution to the debate. Thank you very much.

My turn, perfect.

Perfect. First of all, I respond that in this debate't dictate this debate, it's an equal debate. This format of reading paragraphs that you have prepared and rehearsed to last 9 minutes 59 seconds, I haven't done it. And I'm not going to get into this kind of... You... I mean, the moderator isn't you, the moderator is Pedro, ok? So, this thing where you tell me, oh no, it's just that he hasn't answered the premises I had prepared and that I've been given on WhatsApp this morning,

that it was going to be 10-minute speeches in a row, without any idea in common, which is what I think would bother you the most. Then, I'll continue point by point to answer you. You tell me that I haven't answered what God is. It's just that I don't go into that. As I've said, I'm agnostic, I'm not an atheist. The existence of God, for me, seems like something possible. Of course, not something... of course, that's what

being agnostic means. I mean, you use very complex concepts and it seems like you don't even control them. But well, regardless of that, I'm not an atheist, I consider that God can exist, of course, from our human understanding, which is so simplistic, I'm sure that if God exists, he's not a white bearded man who has the values that the Palestinian cabreros had as I said before, 2000 years ago and that's what the Bible picks up then, you're giving me a read answer

again, you're not adapting to my argumentation this is a debate, it's not a political meeting sorry, my jaw hurts, this is a debate, not a political meeting Sorry, my jaw hurts and I have to do this But that's what I'm going for, I mean You assume that I'm already against God's existence when I've already told you that I'm not Then, you say that Christianity is true and that you're not a Christian by chance because you were born in a Christian majority country

That would explain why many religions have disappeared throughout history, such as the pagan Greek religion, which has helped Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity, and Islam, to proliferate so much because they have a religious book with very clear premises, although, again, many contradictions. Then, you were telling me that Christianity, I don't know how much, about 2000 years ago, I mean, you're trying to answer me. I'm telling you, if Homo Sapiens is about 300,000 years old, you're telling me that God gave us true religion only 2000 years ago? I mean, all those 298,000 years people have been living in sin,

and I repeat, if you read the Bible, on many occasions, avoiding hell, the lapidation, it's very complicated if you live in sin, for silly reasons, also. Then, you talk about the unique gene, again, philosophy is not, don't mix philosophy, which is not an empirical science, with empirical science, because that's, again, another fallacy. You use arguments that serve you at a certain point because they are scientific, but then you are the most anti-scientific of all when you say that you believe in the existence of Jesus by mere faith. Faith is not believing in logic or reason. Faith is believing in

what you have not seen and what you can't prove or corroborate. Then, you say that animals don't have an orientation. Yes, I invite you, as you said to me before, I think it's the other way around, I invite you to learn about sexual behavior in animals, which homosexuality is extremely common. In fact, there are lions, male lions, also in captivity, in African countries Africa where homosexuality is at risk of extinction and there are lions that have shown interest exclusively in male lions, being male lions

and avoiding females, and females going to mate with them and they don't show interest so what you say about animals not having, which is categorically false. In fact, what is scientific is that animals have that type of orientation and they also have it because they don't repress it, which is what religion is looking for. Religion has tried to fight homosexuality and promote homosexuality in a devastating way and while with an ideology it can be made disappear with that persecution coincidentally with homosexuality it has never been achieved there are countries like Iran where homosexuality is punished with death

where there is no gender ideology, believe me and there are homosexuals in prisons, imprisoned for being homosexual coincidentally that also happens with birth conditions. Of course, that's the case. Then you tell me, there's no gay gene. It's just that...

Unique genetic markers are gay. Again, that's an imprecision on your part, because it's not true. I mean, it's true that there's no unique gay gene. You go to the gene and it says gay. But again, Ehlers-Danlos disease, do you know how Ehlers-Danlos disease is diagnosed?

By symptoms. Because there are no genetic markers, even though it's a genetic disease, there are no genetic markers for Ehlers-Danlos, and it's extremely unspecific, but you have to diagnose it by seeing symptoms, by combining them, and in fact, people with Ehlers-Danlos have very low levels of being diagnosed for that reason. Then, in terms of the ETC resurrection, that is, you talk to me about genes, homosexuality, I don't know what,

and then you believe in the resurrection of a person, you believe that a virgin had a son, also, look at what a coincidence, you talk about ideology, gender, I don't know what, I don't know how much, when, by the very rules of Christianity, Jesus Christ had two parents at the same time, he had God, who was his father, who at the same time was him, that is, because this is about the Trinity, and also had Joseph So here he talks a lot about ideology and what you, on many occasions, see as something inconceivable but you can conceive if it's what it says in your holy book, in which you don't believe for reason but for mere faith

Then, you say Jesus existed and there's a great precision It's that Jesus existed, I mean...

Sorry

Historical findings have shown that Jesus existed And that many events that appear in the Bible are real Again, that doesn't imply that he resurrected That doesn't imply that he was born of a virgin That doesn't imply... I mean, you play with logic You play with events that have happened And you try to put in the sandwich your arguments that are not based on reason

so that the audience believes them when you use rationality selectively. Then, atheism... ah yes, here I had written that you said that in countries... I don't understand it very well because it seems a bit crazy to me You say that if people were Christian because of where they were born, they wouldn't be atheists But being an atheist is not a religion that is imposed Being an atheist is not believing in a religion in which people who are Christian It's because they've been educated since they were kids in that ideology

Because again, to evangelize places people have to go and teach that religion which, again, is unnatural it doesn't follow nature, it's an ideology and promoting an ideology and then...

and that would be my answer again, I also want to investigate something else because I'm not reading or assuming your ideology based on my paragraphs You have paragraph A, paragraph B, depending on what I say, but you assume I'm an atheist when I'm not an atheist, not even Maybe if you had listened to me when I was arguing, you would have known Again, you say that there are no genes to explain transsexuality, homosexuality, etc. So how can you explain that in scanners, in transsexual people who haven't started hormones

there are demonstrable morphological characteristics and evident in scanners between men and trans women, this is the graph, right? This is the score of a cis woman, a woman that is not trans, this is the score of a man that is not trans, and this is the score of a trans woman like me, right? It doesn't score the same, I mean, how do you explain these morphological differences

if it's just ideology? It's not supported, like absolutely nothing you say, in science. Hi.

It would be Rigoberto's turn for a brief answer to what they have said.

How many minutes do I have?

And then, five minutes, okay? Five minutes. And then we'll go straight into the open conversation format. I'll put it here.

Excellent. Very well, ready. Specifically... Search the paragraph, for the paragraph. Sorry. I'll go.

First, to understand, so that Mia refutes my speech, it is not necessary that she be an atheist. If she has an antithesis, a thesis different from mine, that's enough. I am not a person who believes in something irrationally, simply because I believe, for example, in the case of the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, if in the case of the resurrection of Jesus I have enough reasons to believe that he rose among the dead, then clearly it is not based on evidence,

simply subjective, but objective. We are talking about more than manuscripts, for example, Greek manuscripts, communications, dictionaries. We are talking about all these documents in which a case is built and from this case sustains the resurrection of Christ in a logical way now in terms of trans brains you have said it caught my attention the subject of trans brain well there is no replicable pattern because the studies do not find the same variation in all the tan and in all the studies that is completely false there is no biomarker with

sensitivity or data specification in fact it should be the same in all the scanners in all the laboratories in all the populations and all methods. But a variation does not mean any type of category. For example, there are people with variation due to depression. And that means that there is a variation in the lymphatic field. Does that mean that there are people with a depression brain?

Well, I ask you the question. Clearly not, because ADHD also presents variables such as changes in frontal connectivity, autism, changes in cortical thickness, violence, changes in the amygdala, childhood traumas, changes in the insula. So there are multiple differences and that's why I'm a trans brain. That's completely absurd, with all due respect, attacking the idea. Journal of Clinical Medicine, International Journal,

dates and concludes that there are no neuroanatomic patterns that define the trans identity. Journal of Sexual Medicine, the scientific journal on sexual medicine, in Endocrinology and Neurobiology concludes, I quote, the results do not allow using neuroanatomy as a diagnosis. It is concluded that the differences found are insufficient to determine the gender identity, in this case, the trans.

I am citing a study of neuropsychopharmacology, one of the most important and prestigious journals in clinical neuroscience and psychiatry. So premise 1, a real biological category must have a stable, replicable and capable biomarker to classify individuals regardless of an autoinform.

2. There is no stable biomarker, therefore, there is no trans brain. That simple. Key questions, for example, how can the trans brain exist if Core in 2022 explicitly says that there are no neuroanatomic patterns that define the gender identity? Well, it doesn't exist as such.

And if you don't like it, then I'll bring you 2021 a little later. Why does Mueller then conclude that the results do not allow using neuroanatomy as a diagnosis. There is no stable meta-analysis because that is a lie. And Flynn, in 2020, affirms that the differences are insufficient to determine gender identity. End quote. So the differences observed are insufficient. This fact is interpretation. The fact of variation, which does not mean category, and interpretation is ideology. Statistics, for example, to establish a statistic, a scientific truth, is based on large samples to reduce the risk of independent replication in multiple

scientific contexts. These documents do not have any kind of rigour or statistics, therefore trans heroes do not exist. It's that simple. Now, it catches my attention a lot. How is it that Mia says that I do not believe in the gay gene, but I believe in Jesus, that a mother can come? Well, that's a fallacy of a petition of principle, where it presupposes that there is a historical presupposition by the historian, where miracles do not exist. But it's completely false. And in the dialogue we're going to talk about this, because I would like to know why you don't believe in God and they don't believe in the Christian thesis, it's not necessary that you are an atheist because just by having an antithesis,

well, on that thesis, if you have the belief very clearly, regardless of the agnostic position, there is the hard agnosticism that understands that Christianity cannot be known, or God cannot be known, then I would like you to endorse your discourse on that thesis. On the contrary, we have responded in a resounding way to the two implications that God, what implication does he have with the world? I have responded, I have argued, I brought arguments,

I brought readings, I brought scientific data, so I can conclude in a forceful and very happy way that this debate has been in favor of the truth and the truth is Christ. Thank you.

Thank you, Rigoberto. Well, five minutes for me, and we'll get into this open dialogue part.

Okay.

Let's go.

Okay.

What is God?

What?

What is God to you? I have a huge doubt about that.

Yes, my personal definition, because again, I'm not an expert.

You're not an atheist. I'm not an atheist, no. Okay, I'd like to know. You're not an atheist. I'm not an atheist, no. Okay, I'd like to know why you're not an atheist. I'm not an atheist because it's true that if you investigate in many... Again, I don't assure anything, okay? When you go to a trial, okay?

The one who has to prove is the one who accuses, okay? Of course. So I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist, but you have to prove that He does. So when you tell me, you have to prove to me that it's God, that I don't know what,

no, no, I'm not talking about that, because I'm telling you, it's the one who has the charge of proof, it's the one who has the charge of proof, in this case, I would have it. Obviously. Not the one who denies in that sense, right? Of course, obviously.

So you would admit that there is no, for example, um ...

I don't know. I consider that to be unknown.

No, no, wait. You would say the following. I want to understand you, Mia. We're really going to go a little more ... Now I can answer you point by point or ... It's a dialogue, but if you're interested, it's a dialogue.

There were 5 minutes left for her, just like your 5 minutes.

Well, I'm sorry. No, don't worry. Well, answer those in your 5 minutes and we'll move on with this theme of Jamular for the dialogue.

You want them, right?

Yes, yes, yes. Sorry, more like...

No, don't worry.

Ok, go ahead. Yes, yes, yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Don't worry. Go ahead. Perfect. Okay, first of all, again, you cross faith with reason with science, okay? And this, I'm criticizing it, it's a scientifically empirical perspective, okay? If you claim that something is true by faith, okay?

Then it's objectively a fallacy. It's false. Faith is a fallacy, it's not followed for reason, not even, okay? You believe in something because of faith, that is, you have not seen it, you cannot prove it, but you believe in it, right? Then, you say that since there are witnesses at that time, that is real, right? Look, there are also witnesses of things like the faces of Belmeth, ghosts, apparitions, and while some, many are very credible, the mere existence of witnesses

on many occasions is not enough to be a proof, and especially when they have been events from 2,000 years ago, okay? Again, the studies that I have mentioned to you are clear, I would like, because you spoke very quickly, I would like you to tell me what studies you have and what sources they are, because to affirm that, for example, you say that there must be genetic biomarkers in everything, or because depression, for example, you told me, it alters brain structures. Depression, in the vast majority of cases, has a huge genetic tendency. That is, depression is very hereditary. There are people who have chronic depression

for genetic reasons, in fact, bipolarity was previously known as a manic-depressive disease and that's because those manic-depressive episodes and that dysregulation in the mood episodes are due to something genetic, ok? It's something genetic. Then... I have a terrible handwriting... Then, yes, they do have biomarkers, many diseases, without having just one, as it could be For example, you say that homosexuality has a genetic marker, again I go back to Ehlers-Danlos' disease

which doesn't have a clear genetic biomarker, you don't have a spot here that can be diagnosed and even so it is genetic Then, the data of help... ah yes, in many transsexual people, although what you say was a fallacy and these morphological changes in the brain were not demonstrable, the scientific community is the one that supports the transition of transsexual people. The international scientific community is the one that

overwhelms me. The hormones are given to me by a doctor, not by a person, not by Irene Montero, not by a left-wing politician, okay? Then you talk about that there are historians who, I don't know, who believe in miracles. I would like to know which historian is appreciated and defends miracles. I think that person must be very conditioned ideologically. And then, to close, we're in a debate about empirical things. Don't cross faith with logic and conscience, because that's, again, a word. And that's me. Well, we'll open the conversation, and from now on, open conversation.

According to the affirmation of the burden of proof, the one who denies the existence of God has no burden of proof, correct?

For you.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Okay, I would have the burden of proof, because I affirm that God exists, correct? Okay, you don't have the burden of proof because you're the one denying it.

For example, I'm not going to go into this because this is philosophical logic and it's not my field, but for example, in a trial, the logical thing is that the one who accuses is the one who proves, and not the one who defends, right? So, the one who has to prove is the accuser and not the accused. The accused can defend herself the presumption of innocence. Again, the presumption of innocence is used based on that.

You have to demonstrate what you have to demonstrate and not what you deny. Ok, so the implicit affirmation would be, you can't prove a negative, correct? So, the affirmation of, God doesn't exist, prove a negative, right? So, the affirmation that God doesn't exist is a negative. That can't be proved, that's what you mean, right?

I'm saying that I, personally,

I can't say that God exists or not. Sure. I can't assure that God doesn't exist. Exactly, you can't prove that God doesn't exist. Exactly, you can't prove that God doesn't exist. Well, that's a very serious logical problem, because implicitly you can't prove a negative. But you can prove that there's no square circle.

You can prove that, for example, I can even prove truths without being present. I can prove a truth that I can prove.

Depending on the philosophy, which is a truth that I can play with logic and fallacies.

Who is the mother of all sciences? Philosophy is a proto-science. Who is the mother of all sciences? It's not an empirical science that is guided by empirical studies and experiments. What is the scientific method based on? On observation.

No, it's not based on observation. It's based on observation, experiments and observation of results. I'll explain it to you.

No, you don't have to explain it to me because I know what it is. You're using fallacies, trying to use your fallacies of obfuscation, using your terminologies. You feel obfuscated. No, it's called fall But the obfuscation fallacy is that you use very complex technicisms

and you try to lead me in your direction, when I don't directly go into that because it's not science.

You're trying to give me your thesis. Literally. You're telling me that the scientific method is based on observation. The mechanism of the scientific method, yes. But the person who does the scientific method is based on logic and math. So there is a philosophical assumption that the only thing that exists is matter.

Of course, philosophical, again, it's not a science.

That's philosophy itself.

No, philosophy is not an empirical science, as physics is, or chemistry is.

But that's not the scientific method. What you affirm is philosophical logic, which is not a science. You can prove that affirmation scientifically.

What?

The affirmation that philosophy is not sufficient can be scientifically proven. Yes, philosophy is not considered an empirical science, as chemistry or physics could be. Try that scientifically. No, I don't have to prove anything in your demagogic rules. I mean, anyone can search on Google. I invite you to do it. Is philosophy a science? And Google will tell you, no, it isn't.

Philosophy is not an empirical science. Do you want me to do it right now and Google it? Okay, ready.

I'll do it too.

Okay, ready. Look. Is philosophy a science? Philosophy is the mother of all sciences. That's how simple it is. So, I'm going to tell you something.

Read it, read it.

I want to go with two...

Philosophy is the mother of all sciences.

I'm going to tell you, there are two things that are not solved. Look, I've put, is philosophy a science? And he says, no, philosophy is not an empirical science, because it is not based on the experimentation and observation of the physical world, unlike natural sciences. On the other hand, philosophy uses logic, reasoning, and abstract reflection

to address broad questions about existence, morality, knowledge, and reality. Ok, let me answer that, please. Philosophy itself is the exam of formal validity. Now, what do I mean by this? That when, for example, the scientific method is based on propositions and is based on logic and mathematics, and to say, for example, that the only thing that can be proved is through the scientific method, that itself is a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement. And with the above, that it cannot be proved negative, it can be proved negative. A single married man can be proved to not exist.

A square circle can be proved to not exist. In the same way that even atheists or agnostics who share your thesis of agnosticism conclude that to say that God does not exist, they have to prove that logically incompatible, just like a square circle, does not exist.

So, you can prove things that do not exist. And when one is going to affirm and deny, what is called onus probandi is assumed, which is the burden of the test. So I ask you, if God does not exist or you are agnostic, I would like to know why you are agnostic. Because there are types of agnosticism. Why do you not believe in God? What are the reasons?

And based on that, I will make a thesis. It is not necessary that you are completely complex. What I'm trying to say is, I want you to tell me why you don't believe in God and what you need to believe in God. What would be the proof you would need to believe in God?

Okay, in terms of God's existence, I consider that it can exist. For me, God would be like a primordial force, a creator, a force, let's say, intelligent, that has orchestrated everything, because while it is true, it is very common among theoretical or chemical physicists to see that in nature there are patterns and there are a lot of elements that show, let's say, very little capricious shapes, right? It seems like everything is a bit programmed, right? And there are shapes, especially at the microscopic level, that you can see,

that look like artistic patterns, basically. Then there are the proportions, that kind of... Then the math, if you look up mathematical numbers, etc. But again, I don't go into whether it exists or not categorically.

If God exists, what implication do you think he would have with ideology? In this case, the human being. Let's talk about the identity of the human being.

I believe that if God exists, his ideology is not the one that people had 2000 years ago. Why? Because, well, because, because no, I mean, because it would be, it doesn't have, it also doesn't have any logic, that is, he creates us as a human species and the values ​​that he wants to instill in us so as not don't live in sin and live within their law, makes us reach them 2000 years ago, when the human race is 300,000 years old.

So that has absolutely no logic. Create something to make them reach your authentic law through a person, when that species has been running on for, let's say, 300,000 years.

And what does Christianity believe in the face of the law?

What?

What does Christianity believe in, for example, in the face of morality? For example, you say that morality comes from Christ, correct?

No, I mean, the law in Abrahamic religions, for example, is based on their book. The book is the word of God, technically.

We understand that there is, in cosmology it is called moral ontology, in Spanish it would be a conscience that exists in man of what we know is good and what is bad. So that it is not subjective to morality. Now, there is something interesting because if you don't have, for example, a god as a standard, or an ethical code that he wants us to follow,

he would have given it to us when the human race emerged 300,000 years ago, not 2,000.

And how do you know that the moral code is not there before? Because the Bible itself says it. If you don't follow the rules of the Bible, which are often absurd in the Old Testament, in parts like the Leviticus, they are absolutely absurd and we would be sinning in our day to day a thousand times a day so we would have to respect the rules of the Bible in a selective way which is, again, another contradiction

because if we all live in sin and we don't follow the Bible, does that mean that he only gives his authentic moral code to a race that is 300,000 years old when 298,000 years have passed? That doesn't make any sense. If he wanted us to live by moral and ethical standards. I think that if there is a god, a source, a creator, it simply doesn't have any values. It's like who makes a terrarium and puts ants in it.

Okay, so there's no, for example, God of existence, doesn't necessarily have to exist, for example, good and evil, right? Something like that, right? Like, there doesn't necessarily have to be a moral, that's what you mean. I would like to get that out of context.

Of course, good and evil are human concepts. What is evil? Of course, evil, of course, those are human concepts. Define evil. Evil, for me, a person with a Judeo-Christian ethic, which is also what I was educated in, I will most likely have biases that are purely due to my education, because I don't know everything, and I can see many things that I am wrong about. Again, universally for the human being, there are a series of things,

well, because they are rejected at a global or instinctive level, let's say it's like killing, stealing, causing harm to the other.

But could you define evil?

For the human being, evil is a harm, doing things that harm society.

Well, I'll explain evil to you. Evil is the deprivation of a due right.

No, I mean, you explain evil to me according to your terms, but again, just like it's my opinion, it's also yours.

If my terms are in line with reality, then my terms are adequate. I'm going to explain the perspective of evil to you. Evil is the deprivation of a due good. What do I mean by this? My thesis is that if God exists, there is a moral standard. Why? Because God of existing, there would be a standard, and this standard is a... follow me with this, I know this can make you dizzy a little, I don't underestimate your intelligence, but I want to tell you... No, no, it makes you dizzy, yes, yes, I think it's very unnecessary. Well, the phallus of obfuscation has to be maintained. The cause is God.

That's what I support. But again, these are your rules, your rules, your ideology, your opinion. It's not science. My opinion is that everything that starts to exist has a cause.

That is a fact. Everything has a cause.

Or not, because for there to be a cause, there has to be a time loop. Tell me what thing doesn't have a cause in reality, so that mine is ideology. Yes, yes, there really has to be a cause. But again, if you go back to that theory, if everything requires a cause, the first thing required a cause, and what created it also. And there we continue. So, would you agree?

It's what I told you before, that it's a paradox. Like the immovable object and the unstoppable force. If there is an unstoppable force, there is no immovable object. If everything has a cause, then God had a cause.

Therefore, God is not the main cause.

Ok. You would agree with me that everything that begins to exist has a cause, correct?

Yes.

Do you agree that the universe started to exist?

I don't know, I don't know. We don't know that, besides. Well, we do know with absolute certainty. No, no, no, we know that there was a Big Bang, we know, but time, in fact, in physics, is studied as something very complex and very out of the ordinary. There are no definitions. Because, again, I'm telling you, time has to be a spiral

so that there is causality with causality. That is, like infinite time. But that is not known.

The BGV theorem, Arvind Borg, Alain Gaudi, Alexander Rubin-Lenky...

The BGV theorem, for some reason.

The BGV theorem guarantees that the universe... A theorem is a theory, it's not something shown. No, it's a metric that we use to establish that the universe is geodesically incomplete towards the past. That is, it has a metric finitude, that is, a beginning in space-time-matter-energy. Of course, matter is not created nor destroyed, but since there is no time or space, then there is no such law.

Therefore, the explanation of the universe collapses on itself and becomes a transcendent cause. This cause has no time, so there is no before. If there is no before, then there is no prior cause. That is why God does not have a creator, because the cause is uncaused. And if everything that begins to exist...

But if there is something uncaused, not everything has a cause. What? Sorry? If there's something uncaused, not everything has a cause, as you say. The premise says that everything that begins to exist, not everything that exists, has a cause.

Ok, so when did that cause of God begin to exist?

Fallacy, request of principle, not time. No, fallacy is, again, fallacy is that you're making a paradox. I answer you. it's not a paradox And it's a circular definition, yes It's metaphysical Because for there to be a cause of everything, you're playing with logic, again it's a fallacy

For there to be a primary cause, ok? That primary cause has to have a primary cause And if that primary cause doesn't have a primary cause, then it breaks down the whole theory, because it's the initial premise. Can that cause be first cause and not first at the same time and in the same sense?

I don't know this game of logic. I use simple logic.

So it can be first and not first at the same time. Of course, again, I say no, because if there is... I mean, this theorem that you say that everything has a cause... No, no, the theorem doesn't say that everything has a cause is a paradox. It's like an immovable object and an unstoppable force. You can't give logic to a paradox.

And you're trying to make a paradox work.

There's a mistake in the question. Sometimes questions contain mistakes, and as they say, you never answer a question that's misplaced.. The wrong approach here, with a lot of respect, is that you say, well, when does it start to exist? But that when presupposes a time, a present, a past, present or future. And that when does not apply to God, it applies to reality.

What does the first premise say? That everything has a cause. Not everything has a cause, then. You are misinterpreting me again. Listen to these two things carefully.

No, I'm not misinterpreting you. You're playing it clear.

Everything has a cause or everything that begins to exist has a cause. The premise is the second one. Everything that begins to exist. The cosmological argument is called the Kalam cosmological argument that establishes everything that begins to exist. God, by definition, is the cause and cause. It doesn't begin to exist. I insist. The theory of the first cause is the same as the paradox of the unchangeable force against the unstoppable object.

I'm not justified in believing that everything has a cause. You're justifying something that has no justification. You're playing with logic to demonstrate through logic something that has no logic. So where am I being unjustified? If there is an unstoppable force, there is no unmovable object. Therefore, that theory, that paradox, is self-annulled. Where am I being unjustified? But where am I being unjustified in believing that everything that begins to exist has a cause? Because if there is a creator that had no cause, the whole theory is destroyed.

Because the premise says that everything that begins to exist, the Creator does not begin. Of course, the Creator does not begin because you put that on the table, because you are not following logic, you are following faith, and you are using it. You can't... By logical inference. No, it's not by logical inference. It's because you are using logic to get to a small point,

and at that point, you put something that is not logic into the footwear. Logic is applied to reality. If everything has a cause, the creator must have had a cause. And if he hasn't had it, not everything has a cause. Therefore, the theory self-annuls. The premise, in fact, one of the most basic questions that, for example,

the author William Linkray describes, is that they misinterpret the premise. And it's, the premise doesn't say everything that begins to exist. The premise says everything that begins to exist. It doesn't say everything that exists. Because God of existence has no cause. Now, here comes a question.

You will ask me with just reason. Because you believe that God has no cause and the rest does. Well, because there is a concept called causal finitude. Finitude Causal. For example, I can't go back to the past. Let's do it in a practical way. I can't sit in this chair. Yes, for example, from the entrance of this studio I can walk an infinite number of obstacles to get here.

But if there is no infinite number of obstacles, I can get there. So if there is a today, there is a beginning. If there are an infinite number of objects to the past, this is called the problem of causal finitude, then there would be no today. But from existing today, there is a beginning.

And this is causal finitude. So we come to a collapse where a cause arrives, which in other schools is the first immobile motor, which is not moved by another in a hierarchical series, and a linear series establishes that there is also a finitude, and this is the cause in cause.

Did you see that God has no cause?

No, because this, again, is not empirical science. This is philosophy, which is not a science. You are playing with logic, with rules that I don't follow because I'm guided by empirical science. A theorem, a theory, a paradox, is not a universal law. So the theory of the first cause is a paradox and it's a theory in which, okay, yes, everything has a cause, but you're putting in the equation something that doesn't have it.

So, again, it's a paradox, which is a theory and not a law.

I'll correct you. It's not a paradox. The paradox helps us to know, for example, that an infinity doesn't exist. An infinity doesn't exist in reality. It exists as a mathematical tool. But, for example, what is a paradox? What I'm saying? Well, simply not, because it is a universal principle. Again, it is a circular definition in which you reach a point at which that point does not meet the main premise, therefore it knocks everything down. It's like, I repeat, the mobile phone against the unstoppable object.

Do you think that everything that begins to exist has a cause?

Yes or no?

Yes, it could be. Everything has a cause, at a physical level.

Do you think that reality came to exist?

That's philosophical. Reality came to exist because everything that begins to exist has a cause. No, you assume that on philosophical grounds. That is, you define reality with your ways of arguing. And also, that everything has a cause implies a linearity of time, which is an infinite spiral. If everything has a cause, time is an infinite loop.

It doesn't say everything has a cause. No, no, I mean if everything had a cause,

the time would be an infinite loop. I would totally disagree with that, because if everything had a cause and that statement was correct, there would be an infinite to the past, which is impossible. But since there is a beginning, then everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Therefore, the principle is an uncaused cause that creates everything else.

It's that simple.

There can't be an uncaused cause in a theorem in which the main premise is that everything has a cause. The premise is not that everything has a cause. The premise is that everything that begins to exist... The premise is that you want to take it there, everything that begins to exist. You want to put your philosophical ink on it to be able to play with the fallacies. It is not a philosophical ink, it is the cosmological argument, Callum. Again, which is not any science, it is philosophy. In fact, the second premise, the universe began to exist,

is based on a scientific premise which is based on data that the universe began to exist. So, if everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe starts to exist, the universe has a cause, a cause not time, not space, not matter,

and this is a transcendent force and this is God. There's a logical contradiction. In fact, again, in any case, this thing we're talking about... Give me a second. This thing we're talking about, to this day, physics itself doesn't have an answer. I mean, we're not going to get to... because otherwise it's going to call us both the CERN

I mean, unlike you, I don't go with infused science certainties There are things that the human being, within his understanding, doesn't know how they work, doesn't know so to enter into the laws of the universe, whether they exist or not when we have a very limited knowledge of how the laws of the universe, whether they exist or not, when we have a very limited knowledge of how the laws of the universe work, to enter into saying how this or that works,

also from a philosophical point of view, not even physical, scientific, or empirical, is impossible. They're theories.

It's not very possible. Do you know why? Because there are universal laws. Look, universal laws are essential to be essential to establish truly universal truths.

And philosophy is not a universal law.

For example, the principle of causality is a universal law. Logic is a universal law. In fact, Manuel Carreira, a physicist, who also has a scientific background, says, I can't know the whole universe, but I can know and make universal affirmations that affect the whole reality of the universe. So, for example, I don't need to go to Mars or I don't need to go to the 13th Atlas

now of fame, this, right? To know that in the 13th Atlas there is a square circle or in Mars there is a square circle. Why? Because logic helps me from being

in the... I don't know of any other methods to determine. Wait, I, with logic... Empirical methods, for example, to know the composition of the Sun, there has been no need to go to the Sun to take a sample, but science has ways of emulating those chemical

reactions. I totally agree with you. Of course, but again, there is no need to go back to philosophical logic when science has real answers and no need to go there. I agree with you, in fact, with what you said about the sun. Now, the principle of causality is even deeper and affects the whole reality. For example, I can establish and know with certainty, Pedro, that everything that begins to exist has a cause, like the sun, the earth,

and if the whole universe, for example, there is a very interesting exercise, let's imagine a ball in the middle of a forest, and this ball, I say that it simply lies there, that ball simply lies there in the forest, would you believe me? That simply there is no explanation. Of course, there we enter what I told you that, for example, I think it is physics, theoretical physics, there is the theorem of Schrödinger's cat, in which physics itself, there is a factor that is observation, right?

The fact of observing something implies one result or another, so it is Schrödinger's cat that if it looks, it is dead and alive at the same time, right? According to physics, that exists. Of course. But of course, again, that's physics, and that's empirical. But we're talking about physics, not philosophy. It's completely true.

Now, the cat itself, regardless of what some physicists say, this is quantum physics, even they themselves recognize that this has no problem, for example, with the principle of non-contradiction. Because the existence of the cat, in this case, cannot be a lion. So the principle of non-contradiction applies there. Now, the example I'm giving you is a ball in the middle of the forest,

it has to have an explanation for its existence. Now, let's imagine this ball is not the size of a football ball. Let's imagine the size of a mountain or a house. Everything has to have an explanation, and that is called the principle of sufficient reason. That everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. So what happens here?

That even if this ball is the size of the planet Earth, or the sun, or the galaxy, or the Milky Way, or the universe, there are some where we realize by a universal truth that the universe also has an explanation of its existence and that explanation is based on a necessary being. What I'm telling you is a valid philosophy that corresponds to reality.

Like, for example, Goldfinger Leibniz.

According to your opinion. Again, philosophy is not an empirical science. Philosophy is your opinion, a system of beliefs, a game of... No, the truth is empirical science. Whatever empirical science says, I will accept it.

I would also categorize it as a truth, but it doesn't mean that philosophy can be true. It's just that it corresponds to reality. It can be true, but it can also not be true. Everything that starts to exist has a cause, is that true? What? Everything that starts to exist has a cause, do you consider that to be true? It's not known.

You didn't have a cause. I did, but everything, everything, affirming everything has implications that if we go back there are contradictions. Ok, tell me one thing that has no cause. Think about it. There's no time. I don't know, I don't know. I don't get into this. One thing. It could be that everything has a cause and it could be that it doesn't.

But it happens. Something can have a cause and not a cause at the same time and in the same sense. Principle, no contradiction, out. From our knowledge and from what science knows, we know everything, we can come to a series of conclusions and a series of laws that exist in the universe, okay?

And there are questions that cannot be answered.

I wonder, for you, is there truth?

The truth, of course, is that again, this is philosophy, the objective truth...

Yes.

If there is. Objective truth. Or not, of course, it depends a lot on your biases. Of course, that allows logic to make fallacies. Let's say this glass is transparent, right? Maybe, I don't know, there is a person with a very rare condition, or an animal that has the ability to perceive ultraviolet light, that we humans don't have,

comes here and sees it, and doesn't see it transparently, but sees its halo of ultraviolet light. Let's say, okay? That is, you can play a lot with the phallus, and it's logical, because maybe that bird doesn't see it, so it's not an objective objectivity.

But does the bird exist?

Yes, well, that's what I'm saying.

Does the objective truth exist or not? I don't exist. Yes, well, I mean... Ok, does the objective truth exist or not?

I don't know.

You don't know.

Ok, the person who says that there are no objective truths or says that they don't know, if they understand that as truth, that is an absolute truth. Did you see that there are truths?

According to philosophy, again.

No, according to the truth itself. No, the truth is a philosophical term. What is the truth for you? For me, the truth will be the definition of the RAE. What is the definition of the RAE?

We can look for it, really.

You don't know right now that in this precise moment... It doesn't matter if you don't know. I don't have any problem with that. No, no, the definition of truth, I mean... But let's say for you that the truth can be interpreted in that sense, right? It depends, it depends. Yes or no?

It depends.

What does it tell you?

It depends on the values of each person. For example... Of course, that's opening a box that...

I'm going to show you that the truth absolutely exists.

...opens many wings to play with logic.

I'm going to show you that the absolute truth exists. And how the absolute truth exists... You're not going to show you. I'm going to try to show you. I'm going to try to show you. I'm going to try to show you. I'm going to try to show you. I'm going to try to show you. I'm going to try to show you. I'm going to try to show you.

I'm going to try to show you. like a cotton ball, okay? The question is, if you put your face here, Pedro, so that I can hit you, in that sense, if I interpret it as a fist, which is a cotton ball, would this fist hurt you or not?

Yes, of course.

Of course, because the truth already exists. Do you want to try it? No, that's a lie. Pedro is like, he's a lie. But, probably, the exercise is a little funny, right? But in this sense, we can say, let's apply it as a rock. I throw a rock at someone, but I interpret it as a album.

Of course, I think the joke is told by itself, or the example is told by itself. That the truth exists. Now, a person who does not have who doesn't have the ability to see, of course, there is, for example, Daltonism in men, there is the ability or inability to see the same colors, but that does not nullify the truth of the object.

So, yes, absolute truths do exist. So, I ask you again, Emiya, do absolute truths exist?

They could exist. They could or they couldn't. Yes, because I don't know everything, again. I don't know everything. You don't need to know everything. I don't have absolute truth, like you don't. And so I don't get into that kind of logical debate because I lack the necessary information to categorically affirm whether that is true or not. So that's why I don't get into it. That's a very serious problem. You're playing with philosophy and you're using logic again

to try to show with your rules that are not scientific something that seems scientific when it isn't.

The problem is that here there's a... I think I detected the problem, with a lot of respect I'm telling you, that your speech has. Novos, remember that I take care of you. The problem here is the following, and this seems interesting to me, and I want you to meditate on it. I am not a math teacher, but I can conclude that 2 plus 2 is 4 with absolute certainty. It means that I can understand

truths without absolute knowledge of math. You put a combined operation and it will probably do it for you, but you put me an exercise, a very complex theorem, and I may not be able to do it for you, because I'm not a mathematician. But in this sense, I can understand that 2 plus 2 is 4. In an analog way, we can make absolute truths without knowing everything. So you can conclude that the truth exists, that the principle of causality is real, and that's why they're valid tools,

that when you consider them valid, you can believe in God. And that's where I want to make you understand.

Yes, I understand. Because for me it's important... But since we don't have enough knowledge, most likely, what we consider absolute truths, when we don't have the certainty or the sufficient information, may not be absolute.

And so, trying to go with the with absolute truth with tools like philosophy, which are much more distant than science, to give absolute truths, is a fallacy. And it's also making sandcastles in the air, because you're really philosophizing about something that maybe, I don't know, that glass is transparent. Maybe yes, maybe no, we don't know everything. We're not omniscient.

I find it interesting, but for example, if a rock is a rock, in that sense, this rock is still a rock, for example. So I can establish in a forceful way that there is no longer, for example, a lie that can be raised that that is, for example, a cotton. So it is true, we have to be very humble to know that not everything that exists we know, but there are certainly universal tools that help us understand.

Look, I'm going to do something that might sound interesting to you right now. Maybe, I don't understand everything about God, you know? I can't, for example, understand everything that He knows. I can understand that He is eternal by logical inference. I can't understand His absolute mercy, but I can understand why God exists with mercy. I can understand why God is omnipotent, but I cannot make all his omnipotence intelligible.

So I can make affirmations of God with his attributes and conclude in an absolute way that this is God, but this does not mean that I know everything. The same thing happens with reality. But remember that it does not cancel everything that exists. It has a cause.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The absolute truth exists.

No, that's not a universal law. Everything that starts to exist has a cause. The absolute truth exists. So we go back to the thesis. Why do you say that everything that starts to exist has no cause? No, no, I'm just saying that's not true. So, of course, I'm going to try to... More than not being true, I'm sorry, I don't know or can't prove that it's true. Of course, I'm going to put myself in your position. Let's say that you and I go down the road and say, look, what is in reality, there is no cause. Or, for example, we don't know. At least, you and I,

as a team, we should be, we should discover something that has no cause. At least. Why? Because to refute that premise that is universal, we need an antithesis, we need an antidote for that premise. And in that sense, the affirmation we don't know about, requires at least a proof of what begins to exist by itself. I'll ask you a question. Can something exist by itself?

I insist. This is talking about philosophy.

So the implicit affirmation... I take it as a no. It's indifferent. No, no, take it however you want. But I'm not going to give you an answer because, no, no. We start from the base that that's my opinion, it's not an empirical science to know about Harry Potter, Harry Potter is not real, just to give you an example, ok? So you're trying, through your rules, to do something that's not an empirical science, to show things empirically, and I don't allow you, I mean, to even get into this logical game, because I don't come from your field. I'm guided by logical science. So when you make affirmations according to philosophy,

I insist that it's not empirical science. And in this sense, for example, if God is an isolated person, what would be the reason why Christianity would be invalid? Or what would be the reason why this God would have no relation to the world?

No, I don't know. Maybe there is a god that believes in us, but he has another god that believes in him. We don't know that. When I say that maybe there is a god, there are people who talk about the Near Death Experiences, and I find it super exciting, and they all say say there was a source, and he even explains how... I find it exciting, again. And everyone concludes, in the case of the ECMs,

having seen things in which the testimonies agree. That is logical, and that is being empirical. It would be being anti-scientific to deny something like that.

That's why I consider that God can exist. I'm not denying it at all.

I would like us to take this conversation a little bit, I think it's quite linked to a topic that Mia is an expert on, and she's shown it several times in this podcast, which is transsexuality. How does this conversation we're having apply to transsexuality as such, from both perspectives? I think it would be interesting.

First, I'd like to know what a woman is for them.

Well, again, not everything is black and white. And a woman is, like the term being a father or a mother, is a role, it's also a biological reality. That is, being a woman can be the biological definition and it can also be the role that a woman or a woman plays.

Define woman.

I can't define because it has several definitions. For example, at the empirical scientific level, there is the definition of sex,

biological, phenotypic gonadal and chromosomal. All integral. For me, what is a woman? All integral, yes, well, but... Individual substance of nature... For you, because that's for philosophy.

No, well, if you let me define it, I'll define it for you. According to your rules, define it. What is a woman? For me, it's a role and a biological reality. Ok, for me, being a woman is chromosome XX with female reproductive phenotype, with female gonads, with individual substance of rational naturalness, with physical reality and metaphysical reality. That is a woman in an integral way.

I'm getting into scientific terms, scientific things, philosophy.

I just gave it.

That is a fallacy.

Well, tell me where I'm wrong. The real burden I have in my definition is the same as yours. Tell me where I'm wrong.

It's a personal opinion mixed with...

Are you going to define that it's a woman? No, I can't because, again, I mean, for me, personally, a woman is a biological definition and also a sociological definition. So it's like a social construct, right? To a certain extent, to a certain extent.

Not in everything.

Ok, let's see. Define... Ok, I would like you to develop that social construct. How would a woman be in that social construct?

Ok, very good. How do you know when you go down the street that a person is a man or a woman? By their chromosomes? Do you see their chromosomes? By their genitals? Do you see their genitals? Why do you guide yourself? By their physical appearance.

It's a whole aspect. And their physical appearance, ok, women have more hips, more such, but the longest or shortest hair, women usually have the longest hair, in general. That is social. That is, there is a burden in that role that is empirical,

that is, men and women have obvious physical differences, but there is also a social burden, a social constitution, which is the gender, etc. etc. So, when you go down the street, you don't recognize people, as you say, by their chromosomes, by their genitals, because you don't see them. You are guided by their phenotypic sex and by their role exercised in society as a woman, by their clothing.

A woman is more like a role, right? For you, in this sense.

No, no, not for me. It's a role, objectively. Objectively, demonstrably. I just showed you.

How many sexes, oh my.

For me, there are two sexes.

Thank you very much. With that, it's more than enough to know that we are on the same page.

Anyway, for me, even though there are two sexes, I consider the expression of non-binary gender respectable. And that each person expresses themselves at the gender level, because non-binaryism is a social construct, as it is being a woman or as it is being a man.

A person can self-perceive as they want, right? So, that is, they can express in some way

what this person feels, right? No, this is wrong, because transsexuality, transsexual people do not exhibit in a fortuitous way the feeling or identifying with a sex on a Tuesday morning, okay? In transsexuality, it exists, it's also demonstrated, the gender identity linked to the brain, to the brain's morphology, etc.

So your identity isn't defined by the body, correct? Yes, it is defined by the body. Yes, it is defined by the body.

At the brain level, that's been proven.

Ok, the problem is that you separate them. You would say that there are trans brains, correct?

Yes, there are.

Give me a biomarker, please, of the trans brain,

where this catalogs a trans brain that is replicable. A brain of a cisgender man like you, a brain of a cisgender woman, like any cis girl we find on the street, and this would be me, ok? How is it possible, if it's mere ideology, that the biomarkers in the middle don't look like each other? Because there are empirical elements. In fact, here I have, more in small, if you want I'll leave it to you. We can put an edition. And here you can see, also, I have put it very small. You can see that there is a brain trait in which it is evident, especially in the case of transsexual women,

that the size is more like that of a cis woman without having taken hormones, that is, those of birth, than the one of the sex with which they were born and are assigned to birth. In this case, you could say that this variation... I also have it, okay? Look, for example, it's... female control, male control I have here the doys, look. In fact, look, I have it here. Universality, plus doy.

Doy, if you want, I'll give it to you.

Ok, I'll ask you a very key question. I'll give you the doy. I would love to, honestly. I also have doys, right? I read it. Ok, I know perfectly well that you know it's a doy. That's why I'm asking you without any kind of emo. I love it. Okay. Number one, I would like to know how this biomarker could be established

through a study that is replicable and stable. How could we predict with this biomarker that a person is going to be so unquestionable?

It's not that simple. That's not possible. So there's no stable biomarker. That's unscientific. Because again, science is a scientific investigation. Medicine doesn't work like that. It doesn't work with biomarkers that you look for in the genetic code and you get a little spot

and it assures you. Maybe there are diseases or conditions that you can do it, but there are others like, again, Ehlers-Danlos, which is a type of joint hypermobility, which

people who have it are infradiagnosed because they don't have a biomarker like the one you require.

Is it replicable in all laboratories?

What?

Is it replicable in all laboratories? I don't know, but it's a study endorsed by PARES, and therefore what it affirms is... I understand, I understand. Is it replicable in all populations? Yes, if they are... Yes or no? Yes, if they are morphological elements. How strange, why do the studies I have tell me that they are heterogeneous studies, where the variations are completely... Because they are studies that are looking to use, to grab...

As you would say...

...to criticize, because transsexuality is also something that is not well studied. And again, I would like to know the doy of your studies. Of course. Because most likely I won't find myself in any so-called Christian university, for example, because in the medical faculties here in Spain, there are many of the Opus Dei that have religion among their subjects they have religion. That is, the Church has been very intelligent

when it comes to inoculating itself in the high spheres of science. Right now we are going to that, I am interested in talking about that, but I want to answer you.

I would like to know if they are Christian universities.

Look, the studies I have, in fact, I would like to ask you a previous question. Because, for example, I have the Smith-Jonger's one, Neuroimaging and Gender Identity, Current Evidence and Future Directions 2021. And I made the conclusion, well, now I quote, there is no biomarker or neuroimaging pattern that allows to diagnose gender identity in individuals. In that study.

What sample does that study have? How many people? That study is... In fact, let's go with that. I'm going with that. What is the sample of that study? I'm going with that.

It's a study of three people.

The problem is, you talked once, talking... That was exactly what the number of people was about. Because, for example, you named it the other time with Omar Chowki. You named the study of Soult and the Rameti Ji study. You named them. The problem is that those studies, for example, as Fisher Ronald said,

in statistical methods for researchers, that to make a statistical statement can only be done when the hypothesis is null, is rejected with sufficient evidence. And...

Philosophy. Again, philosophy is not empirical science. and... it's a statistical method... well... you can't inoculate your philosophy or your code of philosophical beliefs

with empirical science the university is Aligno Cristiano and Universidad de Pérez Spanish edition, it says statistical methods for the study the application...

of course, it makes a list here I have here, who says that to make a signature, a large sample is needed without reducing errors and biases. It's the same with, for example, the gay gene.

The gay gene doesn't have a biomarker, and a study of 492,000 people is done. Again, studying homosexuality, because again, this is also a scientific bias, and one thing to keep in mind when doing studies of this kind is that the social prejudice that exists towards homosexuality cloud the results, on many occasions, of this type of studies because the vast majority of homosexual people in the world don't do it openly

So, if you guide yourself by, as your study says, or your study is based on homosexuality, it talks about self-declaration of a person.

I understand what you're saying.

They may have enticed a person who is homosexual and who does not admit it because of pressures, because there are countries, I repeat, in which it is a death penalty to be homosexual. I totally condemn that. You condemn it, but what I'm going to do is study that. That is a bias that we also have to have.

OK. I find what you say interesting. And these are brain scanners. Now I want to... Yes, of course, I think it's great.

They're brain scanners.

Of course. One of the very important things that I think is... Why 492,000 people? Almost half a million. Let's talk about practical issues. Half a million people wouldn't be enough to establish a scientific truth, as the Science study did. When it says, for example, the explicit statement of Andrej Gana, geneticist at the Broin Institute at Harvard, it said, there is no single gene that determines sexual orientation in this sense.

That's not necessary. So that something exists as a genetic condition, it doesn't imply that it needs a single biomarker.

I'm going to explain my speech a little bit, okay? My speech is that... No, no, no, I'm not going to waste 10 minutes here. My speech is very simple, right? If God exists, there is design and identity. And this identity can be denied by the will of the human being.

Now, moving on to homosexuality. I, as a Christian, recognize, for example, that if Christ is true, there are homosexual people, but not because they were born homosexual, but because they have a kind of temptation, as we would call it in Christianity, or an inclination to like being with other men. The Christian will say the following, Pedro, and I would like to clarify my position on this. The Christian certainly recognizes that those people have a weakness for that, as well as a weakness in masturbation,

a weakness in drugs, in pornography. There is weakness. When I say that the gengay does not exist, I am not saying that homosexuals do not exist. I am saying that there is no one who is born homosexual because there is no gay no existen, estoy diciendo de que los homosexuales no existen. Estoy diciendo que no existe nadie que nazca homosexual

porque no hay un biomarcador que establezca y este estudio es interesante porque entre gemelos idénticos, este estudio aborda, por ejemplo, pero aquí viene algo muy interesante, mira, porque entre gemelos idénticos, por ejemplo, que tienen la misma genética, este estudio pregunta, ¿la coincidencia de homosexualidad no llega a ser? between identical twins, for example, who have the same genetics, this study asks,

does homosexuality coincide with being? Of course, because there is no one who is born homosexual.

If it's for education, both twins being educated in the same way, how is it possible that one is homosexual and the other is not?

If it's due to education and a certain way. Sorry, sorry, I didn't understand the question. Let's go again.

Let's go back to what you're saying. If according to you, homosexuality is not born and it's due to a temptation or a psychological inclination or an education or a promotion, let's say, an ideology, right? Or an option. Because there are cases of twins

in which one is homosexual and the other is not. If they had the same parents, the same education and the same parents.

On that fact, I base my argument on this fact scientifically. Number one. To vary. Scientifically, we are talking about the fact that there is no gay gene. In fact, that example already gives me the argument. Now, we are not going to deny existence, for example, that they educate me with a certain context, or that... The religion, not that of will is also considered. This does not collapse with Christianity because there is certainly a will in Christianity and this will can be directed towards what we call plenitude or distance, absence of God. In that

sense, the acceptance of identity or the denial of identity. Whether this person, if it's a worldview, for example, this person doesn't believe in God, this person can certainly practice homosexuality, but in a certain way, this homosexual practice doesn't generate an es in the person, but when it's presented, for example, in this case to Christ as truth,

it is known and it is made known that like masturbation, the porn, that obviously this can have repercussions at a moral level in your life, this certainly being a sin, if that person conceives Christ as a truth, here is the consciousness, so that we are not going to deny that there is a struggle. In fact, I would like to inquire about you. You say that there is the trans person, the trans brain.

I would like to know, since you were little, how... I'm a Catholic. No, no, no, not at the religious level. What did you feel since you were little? I would like to know, in great detail, your story., no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no No, I'm just correcting you. Although I'm a little uncomfortable because obviously I do believe that someone can't change their sex.

You activated this debate before, but you weren't going to treat me like that.

We totally agree. I'm going to respect that. I don't want to create a hostile environment. I would like to know your heart and what happens when you are young and you felt, for example, that it's not the famous statement that the wrong body was born, right? What happens there? What's inside you? I would like to know a little more. I'm really honest with you, I'll let you speak.

Yes, I mean, I consider that transsexuality is born like this, mainly because in my personal case it is like this. Since I was very young, I have shown a lot of disgust at the beginning of my life when sexual characters do not develop so much. When I was little, my genitals caused me dysphoria. I remember that I liked children, I had to hide it. I wanted to wear girl's clothes. I wanted to be a girl again, I repeat. How old were you? If a child wants to play with dolls, it doesn't mean that he is transsexual.

How old were you?

Since I have memory. Since I have memory, I feel this way. In fact, I went to a Catholic school and if I have been taught something, it's not being transsexual. In fact, in third grade and fourth grade, I had a tutor at a Catholic school in which this lady forbade me to play with the girls. I was alone at recess because I didn't want to play soccer with the kids. She forbade the girls from approaching me.

She called my mother to cut my hair. She told me that, well, tales eran sus maltratos que me llegó a ingresar en dos ocasiones en el hospital por sus maltratos. Es decir, a mí se me ha promovido ser transexual en absoluto y aún así lo he sido. Si tú vas a una isla desierta y tienes a un niño y crece en la isla desierta, la posibilidad de que sea cristiano son nulas porque hay que enseñárselo. De que sea cristiano. and grows up on a desert island, the chances of him being Christian are zero, because you have to teach him.

That he's Christian?

Yes, because you have to teach him, because it's an ideology, because it's something that's been taught since childhood and instilled. However, that child can be transsexual, that child can be homosexual, because even though there's no one to instill it in him, like happened to me, no one instilled it in him, as happened to me, nobody instilled it in me and I left. I tried to repress myself, in fact, at high school I tried to live like a boy and the unhappiness for me was such that I wanted to take my life. I transitioned and once I transitioned I started to have a social life, I started to cure myself of my clinical depression, that is,

I have been a transsexual since I was born and my transition has saved my life. So, to claim that this is not true is a fallacy and a lie.

I would like to know, well, I asked you about history and if it is an affirmation of Christianity. Let me make a small comment just to not go overboard, but I would like to move on to a more fundamental question. Number one, Christianity as such is not the scenario of an island, it is the scenario of 2000 years of history, and that is why we are based on that. Now, if you want, we can talk about that. I would also like to know one more thing. If you want, for example, if I told you, believe in Jesus, what would be enough evidence or what would it take for me, Skylar, to believe in Jesus?

I believe in Jesus because science says, and historians say, that he existed.

When I say... There are very strong evidences that he existed. I believe he existed. I clearly... when I make this affirmation, I do it from the Christian perspective, from the worldview that Christ is the visible expression of the Father, God incarnate, and this God came to save us because we were all deprived of the Father, God incarnate, and this God came to save us because we were all deprived of the glory of God.

This is Christianity. Under this framework, what would you need to believe in Jesus? What evidence would be sufficient? I would like to know.

I believe in Jesus.

When I say that you believe in Jesus, In his figure, let's say, Christian, religious. Of course, Richard Dawkins also believes in Jesus as a cultural Christian. Well, that's a fallacy. That a person of religion creates something doesn't mean it's real. No, no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying, Richard Dawkins also believes in Jesus as an image of a cultural Christ.

But, I'm saying, not in a cultural way, but in an existential and cosmovision way. How do you believe, or what evidence do you lack to believe in a Jesus who rose from the dead? What would be enough evidence for that?

That he appears here, that he presents himself here, that he rises someone in front of me, and that would be enough. That would be your standard of evidence, right? resuscitate alguien delante de mí y eso sería suficiente.

Ese sería como tu estándar de evidencia, ¿no?

Sí.

¿Qué pasa si yo te digo que esa persona desapareció aquí, esa persona resucitó? Pasa que no en este año, sino hace dos mil años en la historia. ¿Cómo vos podrías creer en eso?

Claro, es que tú crees en eso, o sea, de nuevo vamos a lo we're talking about the one who accuses, the one who proves, right? You, who believes in that, have to be the one who proves it. Not me, who hasn't seen it, and I don't believe in it, as a miracle, the one who has to prove it. Because that's basic logic, in my case.

There are three facts around this question. And, in fact, it's interesting how an empty tomb exists. In fact, historians...

Well, someone can go into the tomb and get something out of it. In fact, there were tomb thieves at that time. Tomb thieves in the ancient times were on the agenda.

You... OK. You decide, for example, that the body was stolen, correct? I don't know, I don't know. You don't know. I don't know. You don't know. I don't know. I'm going to give you a tool so that when you're in another debate, you can use it.

No, no, no. Believe me, I won't need it.

It doesn't matter.

I'm not a philosopher.

You have it, Pedro, when you debate against me. The next debate is with me. Look, Pedro, when you go back to making a scientific statement, a historical statement. You know that, for example, Dallas Review, which is famous here in Spain, presented a video in which it says that Jesus did not exist.

The thing is that Dallas Review is a person who is totally ignorant of the subject of history. And Dallas Review, certainly, says that Jesus does not exist. But there is not a single document that says that Jesus didn't exist. According to the story, I correct you.

Wait, wait, wait. Let me finish with an idea. Because Jesus did exist, but he exists in small tombs as well. No, no, of course. I'm not saying that you said that. You affirmed that from the beginning. I know. If you had done that, I would have passed, prior to talking about the history of the tomb, this first question would have been solved. But, for example, what is happening here with Dallas?

Why am I talking about this particular example? Because to make a historical statement, whether affirmative or negative, you have to require a document, and this document is a proof of analysis. Do you know what that proof of analysis is,

to affirm or deny?

Illuminate me. Proof of internal evidence, external evidence, and holographic evidence. Quantity of documents, how many repeat that, eyewitnesses, context, evidence, and also a textual analysis, where a rigorous analysis is made. Norman Geisler does this on the New Testament,

and he guarantees that there is 99.9%. So much so, for example, that there are criteria... But that doesn't mean that the result is that it was born from a virgin etc. There is an interesting issue because at the moment we accept this

that Jesus exists there are also eyewitnesses and if there are eyewitnesses

there was also

Mithra, Osiris

there was also Mahoma Of course, but then tell me where Mahoma's empty tomb is.

And that Mahoma exists implies that everything Islam says is true. It's a fallacy.

I'm going to talk about Islam later in another debate against Omar if you want. But the point is this. Any historical affirmation requires a historical position. Now I'm going to tell you this. There are cases of Christianity that we can establish. Tumba Bacia, post-mortem apparitions, even, in fact, I brought you a document that you will like, but a lot. In fact, it was a request that you made me right now. You said that the historians that I use are biased, but for example...

If they believe in miracles and in faith, as you said, I mean, textually... Look how interesting... For example, if they believe in miracles and in faith, as you said, I mean, textually, historians follow faith. Faith is scientific.

You have to be guided by facts.

We have historians who have investigated the story of Jesus and in the Ratheos, even people who have investigated deeper, like Jos MacDowell. But again, the existence of Jesus does not imply that everything else is true. I completely agree with you. What I do not agree with is that you only address that. I'm completely introducing myself to the history of Jesus and the evidence.

Now, I brought you a historian from the University of Gottingen, who is Kurt Ludeman, who is supremely famous and is not even Christian or atheist. And he states...

That's a fallacy. That I'm a very recognized person, or with a lot of reputation, doesn't mean that everything

I think is true. It doesn't. I completely agree with you.

No, you don't have to agree. It's just that it's like that. It's a fallacy.

Ok, I agree with you on that. However, remember that I presented silogism, I even told you about one that is in Madrid, that you will see it soon. It's not necessary that you bring anything. The thing is that Ger Lüdemann, for example, when considering these historical facts, for example, he states that it can be firmly considered that Peter and the disciples had experiences after the death of Jesus, in which Jesus disappeared in the resurrected Christ.

This involves, for example, Saul of Tarsus, who was a persecutor of Christianity and then died for the cause. What explanation would you have, for example, if the Atheist historians have no problem accepting the existence of Paul?

I'm telling you that Christ has existed.

I'm asking you, what would be your position regarding someone who did not believe and persecuted Christians like Saul of Tarsus and then died for the cause? Why does a person suddenly change like that and die for the because of it. Why does a person change suddenly and die because of Christ?

Well, there are people who convert from Christianity to Islam. That's because Islam is the true religion.

I'm talking about Pablo.

Ok, but now I'm going to give you another example of a person who converts from Christianity to Islam. I'll answer you with all my pleasure if you answer me first. I'll try. Answer me yours and I'll answer it with all my heart, if you answer it first. I'll try.

Answer mine and I'll answer yours.

Say it again.

What is the explanation you have for Saul of Tarsus, who was a former persecutor of Christians,

a faithful persecutor, and then became a faithful martyr of the faith? I don't know. He changed his mind. He changed his mind. How can a change it? A Christian who becomes Islam. Or how can I change it?

Transsexual people who then say that...

So, the resolution is simply change of opinion. Yes. Why?

He'll know. What do you think, Christian? This is bullshit. Why? Okay, well... Why change of opinion? Let him change his opinion, for whatever reason. That implies that Christ existed,

that his miracles existed. That would explain that a person who converts from Christianity to Islam is proving that Islam is the true religion.

I want to answer your question. I answer your question. A person can change their religion certainly for three reasons. At least I certainly, for three questions. At least, I number them for three questions. Emotional questions.

You're numbering them, of course. I'm talking about science.

I'm answering your question. Emotional questions, intellectual questions, and some kind of personal cause, right? The emotional one fits in there. The emotional question, number one, can be, for example, a typical speech, the church failed me, in the church they steal the diez, the church is failed, right?

But speech, number two, can be intellectual. Like, for example, I grew up without a Christian cradle, but in my adolescence I had a strong crisis of faith to the point that I denied Jesus. I think it was more because of an emotional situation, and then I got into Christianity. Look at everything I went through for an intellectual reason. Now, that I make myself from Christianity to Islam, or make people,

doesn't mean that their foundation is precisely an intellectual foundation, or that it cancels the foundation of Christianity.

The same thing happens with the case you exposed to me. That that person went from persecuting Christians to doing it himself, does not imply what you are telling me.

Historians analyze the following. There is a fact, for example, like Gert Ludemann, who does not deny, for example, the existence of post-mortem appearances of Jesus. Imagine how strong. But, wait a minute, you can't deny it historically. So there are two key questions to be able to establish a historical truth. First, what are the facts of this explanation? And second, what is the best explanation for these facts? I repeat, what are the facts that deserve an explanation? An empty tomb, the appearance of a post-mortem wife, the darkness of heaven when Jesus crucified him,

and these facts, what is the best explanation?

That Christ rose again among the dead. In fact, for that we have documents, even from non-Christian authors, when Jesus crucified him, and these facts. What better explanation does it have?

That Christ rose from the dead. In fact, for that we have documents, even from non-Christian authors, that talk about the supernatural nature of Jesus. So, tremendously interesting, even from his own authority. And for that, even the most famous...

But that can be applied to the UFO phenomenon, that can be applied to ghosts, that can be applied to gnomes, it can be applied to practically any figure of folklore of any culture. Let's imagine, let's imagine that. There have been appearances according to witnesses. Look, I'm going to give you an example. That's what Christianity is all about. I'm going to give you a very illustrative example, okay? So you can see where I'm going. Here in Spain there was a very famous case of true's call it true crime, the case of the Alcácer girls,

okay? The case of the Alcácer girls was very media-driven in Spain. The televisions, well, they started to think, to talk about what happened, what didn't happen, and in this case, in particular, sorry, I have a cough. We did a podcast recently about this case. What?

We did a podcast recently about this case.

Well, many people in Spain, there was a show called Who Knows Where? that talked about missing people, that talked a lot about the Alcácer girls case. And there were people all over Spain that called daily in waves claiming that they had seen them all over Spain. Some in Asturias, others in Cantabria. And there were people who said, yes, he greeted me, I don't know what.

The testimonies of people who have met with or such, that doesn't have to be reliable. I'll ask you a question. In fact, in the case of disappearances, it's very unreliable.

So, in the case of miracles, let me tell you that it's very similar. I've been telling you about those miracles for 2000 years. What's wrong with my argument? Well, the Marian apparitions, or whatever it was, or those miracles, can have another explanation than the person who's telling it.

They've lived it that way, but it doesn't have to be a real miracle. So your explanation to Pablo de Tarso is because we believe in other UFOs and it can be a series of speculations. No, no, no. I'm saying that the eyewitnesses of people, or an eyewitness, are not always 100% reliable. In fact, in many cases, they are not. Or the majority, they are not. I'm giving you an example with the disappearances. Can you build me a case against Christianity with the facts I told you?

I can build you a lot of cases.

Ok, you can build a lot. In ufology. Build one of Christianity.

I'm going to give you an equivalent example.

With a lot of respect, you're getting ahead of yourself. I didn't want to tell you, but you're getting ahead of yourself. No, I'm making a symmetrical comparison. Ok, build a case of Christianity against it. I'd love to hear you. I'm going to give you a very similar example. In fact, I'll let you close the dialogue with the case against Christianity. I'll continue.

In Italy, there was a man named Fortunato Zanfretta who claims to have seen three 3-meter reptilian aliens who were found in a house being a watchman for an organization. This man appeared in his car, then disappeared. The car was burning while it was in the middle of the snow. I mean, giant footprints were seen. And in Italian justice itself, it is considered that what he said is true,

that it has a realistic support. And what happens? It is something that challenges logic, okay? That there may be cases like this in Christianity, I doubt there is any, and yes, and so that you can see that Christianity itself is less credible than cases like this one. That is, you seeing

aliens, miracles, can have another explanation, and it doesn't imply that it's done.

One thing, let's go with the last 5 minutes of open conversation, and then 5 minutes of final conclusion per head, ok?

Excellent. The case against Christianity?

The what?

The case against Christianity? I'd love to know.

With Marian apparitions, for a tube, a lot of them.

No, no, no, the case against Christianity.

For example, the apparition of... What's it called?

Okay, I'm going to be very specific. I'm going to pressure you. And if you'll allow me, I'm going to pressure you a lot. Build me a case against the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and conversions of the Sabbath. False analogy.

No, no, a Marian apparition that has to do with Christianity. You're using a fallacy because I've caught you. The apparition of the Virgin of Fatima, those were children who saw a virgin. Many people affirm that they saw her, that she even changed the climate, that she appeared,

that I don't know what. This case is even linked to ufology. And then the Pope got involved, who gave three secrets to each child, and of course, the Church started to build its usual dialectic, right? So you don't have an answer against Christianity. What?

You don't have an answer against the phenomenon of the three facts that deserve an explanation. No, what I'm saying is that there are Marian apparitions, which by the fact that there are eye witnesses, doesn't imply that they are real. I ask you a question. Christianity. Why is it false due to these three facts? Give me an explanation. What three facts? The three facts. Empty tomb, post-mortem apparitions, and testimony of the apostles. Give me three facts based on history. Empty tomb. Can someone come in and take this?

Give me a document that says that. Okay, so, I don't know, you give me... Sure, but you use documents in a way... I mean, you play with unfair rules because you guide yourself by faith and what interests you is faith

and I have to empirically demonstrate with documents...

Do you have faith?

Of... I'll continue, because this... Again. Then, appearances, as I said. That there are eyewitnesses doesn't mean that something is true or has the meaning that the eyewitness gives it. And what was the other one? The testimony of the apostles. I'm also sure that Muhammad would have disciples to whom he gave his word,

and that doesn't mean that what Muhammad said is everything.

To make a historical foundation, you need a historical document. What would those historical documents be?

What?

What you just affirmed. What? what you just said. A historical statement requires a historical document. Tell me what those documents are. No, no, I mean, you're going to talk about speculation, that you're saying that there are independent sources like Mateo, Marco, Lucas, Juan.

What document is there that Maria was a virgin and gave birth to a child being a virgin? Is there a document?

By means of inference. If you let me answer, I'll do it. Logical inference, because if Jesus resurrected the dead, Well, I'm logical inference too. Transcendence exists, therefore there is a God, and if God exists, there is a... Very well. If God exists, you have to solve the question before God exists.

I don't make it so complex. I also do it by logical inference.

Ok, let me be the logical inference. there is an extra intervention in reality for a moment that is not explained by the four fundamental forces, there is a divine intervention and that divine intervention because the transcendent worldview is not null but is verifiable and Jesus resurrected among the dead is the summa transcendence, therefore his story is verified by the testimonies of the apostles, documents that are more than 24,000. This is not fallacy and false theology. Fallacy is what you are using, supposedly the logic your thing, that you are supposedly using logic and empirical documents when you are telling me that you can prove that the Virgin without documents, as you say,

gave birth to a child being a virgin, but I have to prove, unlike you, that you learn it by inference logic, I have to prove it with documents. That is, we have different rules, and I have to prove empirically and scientifically, and you can link yourself to philosophy and your own definitions without linking yourself to science, and only by doing so in a selective way. I'm stuck in reality, and reality is in the documents. But well, there. I think we can...

What documents are there that Maria was a virgin?

All the independent sources, Matthew,, Marco, Lucas, Juan,

all the apostolic tradition, Christianity, primitive. And how do they determine that a woman is a virgin, in a faithful way, that there are medical documents, right?

When we are talking about the verification of the eyewitnesses, we are talking about the testimony of Mateo Marcos.

Eyewitnesses, of course, and everyone goes there to look at the hymn and... again, you don't support yourself for your own argument.

History supports it, but well...

No, history doesn't support it. Again, you told me to say documents, tell me what document you determined.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

Ah, and that's a historical document.

Historical documents... It's a religious book. So, the truth that your arguments have and you go back to the Bible, is the same as having a Muslim. It's a historical truth that you have in your arguments and you retract it to the Bible, is the same as having a Muslim. It's a historical truth that even Bar Ehrman...

So a Muslim is right, and a historical truth too.

Bar Ehrman, historian, even non-believer... A Muslim also has a historical truth, because he retracts his source, his religious book. Another thing is that I have an empty tomb. a empty grave, I can go to a grave and take the corpse. You are a person who has no faith, and with this I would like to end the dialogue. You are a person who has no correct faith.

It's just that...

Ok, could you put your hands together? What do you mean? Put your hands together. It's a dynamic, you do it, Pedro. Ok, you are feeling things. I believe in God.

Are you touching something? Yes or no? Well, yes, right? According to my perception. Wait a minute. This is your perception. You're not touching anything. Well, you're touching things. Properly, this is the experience. But the experience is not the same as the foundation. Why? Because the foundation says that, for example, atoms are not touched.

And the atoms, you and I have not seen them. Others have seen them, if they have corroborated them. So the evidence is evident only for the one who experiences it. And faith is the next step to advance on what was evident. So let me finish. Let me finish.

So faith is the next step to advance on what was evident, and faith, you should assume that it is not affecting you, even though your experience says otherwise. That's why faith is more powerful than experience. You are a person of faith, science is a plague of faith, and faith is in all of humanity.

Thank you very much.

It's not true. Science is based on experiments and their demonstration.

Eugène Wigner, Nobel Prize in Physics, states that faith is also in mathematics because its consistency is not based on the method.

It's a pity that a person of reputation, at a scientific level, to say something to me doesn't mean that it's true, by assumption.

Try me through the scientific method, logic and mathematics.

What?

Try me through the scientific method, logic and mathematics.

You're making a deadly fool of yourself right here. I don't know, even if I did, you'd make a philosophical fallacy, and you're starting from the base that I'm not an expert in the subject matter to try to make me, with your logical games, get out of it. Because again, you don't guide yourself by empirical science. You guide yourself by, as you said, by faith, in a religious book, in historians with faith, which is scientific, and in philosophy, which is not a science, which you saw on your phone.

That's my conclusion.

As you wish. Done. God exists good mine I really want to tell you that at this moment if there is something I want you to remember at this moment I know that we talk about too many themes we talk about many things which I consider interesting I think that you are a very intelligent person in fact I do not think so I affirm it and I consider that you are a very intelligent person. In fact, I don't believe it, I affirm it, and I consider you a person of thinking. But I would like to go a little further at this moment and tell you if there is something that I want you to remember from this debate, it is this.

Please, if you want to remember this, something in this debate is this. And it is, I did not come to preach, I did not come to bring a sermon, I am only going to read you a verse. Isaiah 59, Each hand has not been cut off to save. Each hand has not been cut off to save. Nor has his ear been recorded to hear.

What does this mean? Look, I'm leaving the format right now, and I'm a realist. Because right now, as I've debated, you're not the first trans person I've debated with. I've debated with other trans people, I've debated with many people who are part of the lobby, who have different worldviews similar to yours, and I've noticed a competing pattern in this type of person.

And I say it with a lot of pain, and I say it very honestly, and I don't say it proudly. They are people who have suffered a lot. People with a very strong past. People who, at this moment, I know, have a story where it is impossible to deny that they have been victims of injustice and pain. And I want to tell you that, all the people here know that we have social media, and the best things are uploaded on social media. But unfortunately, what happens when you close the door of your room,

a very strong reality occurs. And it is that what happens behind is the reality of all people. Many Christians, look, do not represent me. Even right now they will be commenting on many things. Things of mockery towards your person, things where they even attack your, like what happened recently.

And I want to tell you that I condemn all of that and it doesn't represent me at all. I want to tell you right now, my friend, that life goes around a lot. At one point we are good, at another we are bad. And let me tell you that the security that this world has is a superficial, immutable, non-permanent security. Like social media, like even the study itself, or fame, or followers. Certainly, this can represent a security to us, that's one of them. But I know that we are in different moral aspects.

And I want to tell you, nothing more, that God is not alien to your pain. At some point, when you consider that this world is not enough, that it does not provide you with enough security, I want to tell you, and this is directed to you, that at that moment when there is no such security, do not be cowardly on your part. Listen carefully, do not be cowardly if you consider God as an option. I dare to take one more step and that rather it is not an option of many, it is the only option.

This is not an implication of mine and I want to give you an obligation to this. I just came to give you a message. And in fact, the Master of Masters, the Lord of Lords, one of the many titles with which Jesus was announced before he was born, is the Man of Pains. He is not a coward, because our faith,

in this panel, in this place, there are Christian people. There are Christian people who listen to me. I want to tell you that true Christianity understands that God is not far from your pain. That I am as sinful as you are, my. I am as sinful as you are. Could you imagine this?

Could you imagine that there is no pain, there is no sin, there is no injustice that God cannot take control. And that is why this verse comes, precisely to close, because I am really interested that you understand it. Isaiah 59, verse 1, He has not cut off Jehovah's hand to save, nor has his ear been recorded to hear. What many Christians have not lent their ears and listened to, I want to tell you that God has always been recorded to hear. What many Christians have not lent you to hear and hear, I want to tell you that God has always been behind the door. And if you allow me, and with great respect,

and to the whole audience, if you allow me to pray at this time, I will do it with great honesty and very briefly to close. So if you are listening to me at this time, I want to tell you that God is not alien to your pain. Father, thank you for this debate. Thank you because today we were able to contrast ideas with Jesus.

Glory is for you. And I want to tell you at this moment that you reflect and make yourself evident in the hearts of those who need a Father God, of those who feel alone. Holy Spirit, begin to invade us of your presence, those who have the correct opening. The Holy Spirit is here at this moment, and I know that these words that fall on good earth can be of a precious fruit. If you are listening to me at this moment, I pray for you, I pray for your pain. tierra pueden ser de un fruto precioso. Si me estás escuchando en este momento, oro por vos, oro por tu dolor. Quiero decirte que Dios no es ajeno a tu dolor.

Dios ha estado detrás de la puerta. Dios ha estado ahí en ese momento donde nadie te escucha. El Señor toca la puerta. Simplemente ocupas que te abra. Padre, gracias por este día. Oro por mía.

Te bendigo y also this podcast. I bless your life. And may you go very well on the path. I don't see you as a person who is my enemy. You are not a person, more than a conflict of ideas. I feel more depth when I speak to a person like you. Because I know the tremendous pain you have gone through.

And I am not indifferent to your pain, nor to your story. I want you to know that this is from my most honest heart, that this has been directed towards you and towards people. With that I want to finish. Thank you for this debate.

Thank you, Hadim. Right now, well, first of all, I'm just happy to have been part of such an interesting debate, that we've discussed very interesting topics, which I think is the first time I've had a serious debate, with seriousness and rigor. Secondly, I don't argue that God can exist. In fact, I believe in him and I believe as you know, in a superior entity. I certainly do not know what his values are, his morality,

of course with the suffering that exists in the world I think their morals can't be that perfect if children are born with brain tumors, etc. and that kind of hardships that I think are absolutely unnecessary and then you say that I belong to an ideological lobby when I think it's more the other way around I'm surviving, I'm defending myself ideologico cuando yo creo que es más bien al revés. Yo estoy sobreviviendo, yo me estoy

defendiendo porque como ves en mi cara me han agredido y me han agredido además por lo que te puedes imaginar y probablemente mi agresor concuerde contigo. Entonces no tienes nada en contra mí pero tu mensaje alimenta ese odio al que yo me enfrento día You have nothing against me, but your message feeds that hatred that I face day by day. That's what I'm trying to say. Surely you don't do it for a spurious motivation, let's say. You don't have a malignant motivation.

You don't seek to hurt. But you have to understand that before you were talking about the true Christian, right? Christianity and religions, in what remains to people, and that's what history has shown, is always with the bad. It's always with oppression. Very likely this debate is plagued with insults towards me in the comments, because of my condition, okay?

So I consider that we have to debate, we have to talk about things, we have to understand each other. I respect your religion, of course. I'll kill you, because every person can be free to defend the cult they want, but religion doesn't have to be an imposition on those who don't process it. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you very much, Rigoberto.

Thank you. And it's been a have to say. Thank you very much, Rigoberto. Thank you.

And it's been a very good debate. And it's been a very good debate.

Thank you both, it's been very interesting.