Aristotle was absolutely a polytheist, and anyone who says otherwise is talking out of both sides of their mouth...but the year isn't really relevant. Monotheism is possible no matter what the era. Akhenaton was arguably a monotheist in the 13th Century BCE.
@Pseudo-Psellos - the "great philosopher" Atticus is only known through fragments of one book, quoted in someone else's book. Atticus's book was...a polemic against Aristotle and his followers, so I'm sure his assessment of Aristotle's beliefs was _completely_ fair and objective.
I thought my brain was straining from the part where the catholic guy claimed Aristotle wasn't a Hellenistic Polytheist but the continuation of the trinity debate gives my brain cells jetlag to the point that I was pretty sure I heard the surviving cells beg for a merciful death.
Ocean you WRECKED this… I love your philosophical and meticulous deconstruction and reconstruction of premises to align your argument. You are so expert at cornering I love it 💯
I was literally going to say that Christians try to have their cake and eat it too with the trinity. Having three gods and claiming monotheism, but he actually said it! Also it's so annoying that he tries to claim that Aristotle was a monotheist based on his own philosophy.
Based on Aristotle’s own philosophy he was athiest. He did not believe in any kind of creation, he thought that the universe just existed. Aristotle’s “God”, the Prime Mover, was a thought experiment. And to Christians it is blasphemous. The Prime Mover is a being of pure thought with all actuality and no potentiality. The Prime Mover started the movement of the cosmos, since Aristotle said that logically motion would require some kind of basis. Motion then is based on the existence of the Prime Mover, which all living things are attracted to. This “God” is in an eternal state of self-reflection and does not have any awareness of our existence. But again, Aristotle states clearly that this is not a being that actually exists, it is just a God that is logically consistent to him. We have this idea that Aristotle’s Prime Mover=God as in Yahweh because of Thomas Aquinas wanting to take Aristotle’s philosophy and make it work in Christian Europe in his time. Thomas Aquinas had to do some mental gymnastics to transfer Aristotle’s (and Plotinus’) philosophy over to Christian theology.
@@axonn101 What you’re translating as “God” there is in the Greek “theos” and in context is more like “the god” which is a common Greek syllogism of the time that refers to all of the Gods as possible candidates without picking out any particular one. He makes reference to Zeus, Athena, etc in all of his works and in his ethics expressed the extreme importance of piety to the Gods. He also had religious works in honor of those Gods done upon his death. So, no, he wasn’t a monotheist or an Atheist. He was an Ancient Greek who practiced the religion of his time.
He hasn't even gone into the fact that by making the saints and angels, let alone Jesus the literal middleman to god, its infact creating more of a polytheistic religion that it already was since now you have plural things to ask help from.
Yo Ocean, I'm a math grad student. You're doing a good job while everyone I've watched you debate has just butchered logic (that "Laws of logic guy" for example). Like also give me a s/o if you want me to point out anything they're doing which is just not true in formal logic. It's crazy to see people go back to "formal logic" (that they don't understand or even bother to define, I'm pretty sure one guy was like citing Aristotle [ironic]) to try to correct their huge gaps in knowledge and you're over here just lecturing them about their faith. Keep it up, it's super entertaining! OMG someone's holding up a drawing that looks like a Cayley Diagram hehehe. Yeah Keltoi you get it: if they want a system that allows equality and inequality, they essentially have to build it up from scratch because that's not how formal or propositional logic works. So either they aren't using formal logic or they're arguing from a contradiction. Modalism sounds like a type of quotient btw. And like, this guy knows the word axioms, why can't he admit he's just taking the Trinity axiomatically (it is a problem, it's part of Theology, unless you don't think your beliefs need to be consistent).
Pragmatic Culture sounds like he's describing trimodal monarchianism, which would be a great and coherent explanation of the Trinity but I think the Catholic Church categorizes as heresy
This was a really interesting discussion but Kyle jumping in and interrupting everything with his diagram and just putting the conversation on hold was just unnecessary. Edit: Yeah, finishing this, Kyle was completely insufferable.
Perhaps the trinity is like Mike Myers in Austin Powers? Mike is Austin, Mike is Dr. Evil, and Mike is Fat Bastard. They all equal Mike, but Austin doesn't equal Dr. Evil and so on. If it is wasn't obvious, this isn't supposed to be taken seriously.
My brother always says that the trinity is like optimus prime in the original transformers. The father is the truck, the Holy Spirit is the trailer, and the son is the rover that comes out of the trailer.
@1:04 - It's not hypocritical to consider polytheism more plausible than monotheism. If you were to encounter an entity that you think could be a god--and this entity is social (it uses language, has interest in social things like relationship to humans, status, and authority, expresses emotions, and so on)--then it is far more likely that this entity is a member of a class of similar beings, than for its natural state to be metaphysical solitude. Yahweh is definitely a social creature. His relentless obsession with being King of All the Humans only makes sense if he's a social creature for whom high status has value.
When I hear the Catholic talking about the Trinity, I just hear word salad. It reminds of why I left the RCC in the first place--the mental gymnastics required to maintain the "faith" was just exhausting.
As a polytheist, I would posit that the trinity is indeed monotheist. Say I am playing a dnd game. I could, in theory, play three characters at once, never minding how complicated it is in logistics. These three characters that I am playing, are all me, and yet they are distinct people with unique relationships within the world of dnd. In this way, it is not modalism. If only one is there, it is still me. In this way, it is not partialism
My question (because I’m not that knowledgeable on the subject) is why is Modelism and Partialism a Heresy? And if it’s a heresy held by the Catholic Church aren’t Christians exempt from that heresy or do they also believe it to heresy? I’m confused and fascinated!!
The way my teaccher at my middle school explained the Trinity is that theyre different aspects of god. So like, to your parents youd be their son, and to you friends youd he their friend, and so on, but youre still you.
I jest ofc, he does try and help. going to animals was a good idea. But he needed to be more firm and strict with the participants and keep stuff formal so you guys could actually have gotten some common ground.
(41 minutes in rn) So, old video, but on the confusion around the blanket: Wouldn't it be modalism? Each fold of the blanket might as well be a side of the triangle. They're equivalent analogies, but the way it was phrased (on top of the absurdity of the trinity) just caused confusion.
I finally catch on to the trick he's pulling with the blanket late in the debate. It took a second though. It doesn't really fit into a specific heresy, but creates whole new problems. Essentially there's an equivocation between the folds and the blanket itself. The fold is not the entire blanket, and the blanket is not the folds. So it's disanalogous.
EXTREMELY late to the party but I took the time to find the movie and the scene that was referenced, and the way the scene presented it was modalism because only 1 fold was visible at a time, but it still made as much sense as this guy is making. Especially because one of the "folds" was the blanket itself, meaning there were only 2 folds in the blanket@@TimelessTransience
This was a fantastic video but I’m curious why religion has to make sense? Like isn’t the point of faith to have faith even when you don’t understand it? They talk so much about the trinity making sense but why do we have to be able to understand it?
It hurt my head to hear a polytheist accusing ideas of being heresay. It doesn't make sense for him to call ideas in which he doesn't believe a heresay like that.
A comment was made about a confusing book. I think they were hinting at THe Bible. THe Bible isn't confusing. The Trinity isn't in The Bible. The Bible never says, "3 persons and 1 person", or "3 beings and 1 being" or "3 persons and 1 being" which all mean the same thing.
When I was going through seminary, I tried to really grasp the trinity concept and the best way I understood it was God is like the sun. The circular shape is Jesus, its the physical manifestation of God. The light that comes from the sun is God, It reaches all things and the shadows are those things that have rejected God. The warmth that you feel from the sun is the holy spirit. They are all from the same source and are all separate at the same time. I later found out that this was once thought of by an early Christian philosopher and was considered heresy. The church makes things way harder than it has to be and its just another reason why I left. I was literally in Seminary, planning on becoming a church leader and the teachings opened my eyes to the lack of truth that was really there in the faith.
The polytheist made sense of the Trinity. Well, as much sense as can be made of a nonsense false doctrine. The Catholic was incoherent when talking about the Trinity.
Hey Ocean, I'm now pretty much fully converted Norse Polytheist, but as someone who was christened Catholic at birth and whose parents grew up in a Catholic church within a deeply Catholic country, here's a fun way to explain the trinity from the words of my mum's childhood priest: [Talking to a room full of people] "The Father is wholly God. The Son is wholly God. The Holy Spirit is wholly [haha pun] God. All three are wholly God, however they are distinct, and are not one another. Did that make sense?" /whole room nods obediently/ Priest: "...well then let me try again, as I clearly explained it wrong. It's not meant to make sense, we're not meant to be able to comprehend God." As you may have guessed I'm not a fan of Christianity and especially Catholicism but this was always hilarious to me.
There's plenty wrong with polygamy. For starters it's bad for society. Wealthy men will tend to have many many wives. This leaves a disparity which leads to large scale incels. This is unstable for any system. Access to women should be democratized.
The trinity does not add up GOD is the creator of all Jesus is his son why is he not riten as a god as well? The holy spirit is gods active force only. Not a separate entity.🤔
An Morrigan, singular, meaning the great queen. Na Morrigna is pleural, representing a trinity. Look up Lora O'Brien and/ or Irish Pagan School in order to get stronger and clearer information.
Ocean's interrupting too much, the moderator's mocking the Trinity diagram even though he's supposed to be neutral, and both of you are talking past each other for the most part.
Good debate, but the problem of the trinity comes before anything I heard in the debate. The only scripture (1 John 5:7-8) which actually lists and equates any trinity model came from a manuscript dating to the 1500's, and has no real basis in any traditional translation as we would understand it. Textual evidence for the trinity is worse than what we heathens have through the Snorri Christian lens.
Ouch..love this channel but was hard to watch. 3 on 1 catholic did a good job. If we were fully mathematical and logical nobody should believe in any god or gods. Shouldn’t have cut the catholic off as often as happened, probably would have helped understand...
Thing is he was saying that it's not possible to understand the trinity in whole. That aline was not making it possible to be a believable and validating reason of believing in the existence of one when theres many. And either way of him trying to explain was seemingly unintentional, unexplainable, heresay. as ocean kept saying. Basically the catholic was not explaining in a believable way but instaed the vague blind faith rhetoric. Y believe when you cannot understand the whole? That's blind faith much like jumping off a cliff knowing g theres crashing waves and rocks believing the wind will be enough to move you away from the danger.
I watched this for background noise at work so I can't tell you the exact time. Steve said he gets along with the polytheist better than he gets along with many christians. I don't watch Steve Mcrae enough to begin to make specific guesses about what he is thinking. The following are possible reasons an atheist or agnostic could get along better with a polytheist than a christian. Polytheism, atheism, and agnosticism are all false. The christians who believe falsehoods don't undo the falseness of those religions. Another thing is that polytheists do use the god of the gaps. Dishonest atheists would like to encourage people to use that bad logic because they can accuse others of doing it if the idea is out there.
He specifically gets along with Ocean because he is a rationalist. Not because he is pagan but despite him being pagan. That is what he is thinking. I think that is pretty clear from the context giving throughout this debate and thank you for doubling down on why he likes Ocean more in that regard, therefor proving Steve's point.
One person arguing with another how they are right because they know there are multiple imaginary people in the sky, while the other thinks there is only one.
I just want 6 hrs of ocean just hammering home that the philosophic fore fathers are infact polytheist.
"ArIsToTlE wAsN't PoLyThEiSt" - A venerated ancient greek philosopher who was born in 384 BC
Aristotle was absolutely a polytheist, and anyone who says otherwise is talking out of both sides of their mouth...but the year isn't really relevant. Monotheism is possible no matter what the era. Akhenaton was arguably a monotheist in the 13th Century BCE.
@Pseudo-Psellos - the "great philosopher" Atticus is only known through fragments of one book, quoted in someone else's book. Atticus's book was...a polemic against Aristotle and his followers, so I'm sure his assessment of Aristotle's beliefs was _completely_ fair and objective.
@@ShinyAvalonhenotheist* does not exclude the presence of other gods.
I thought my brain was straining from the part where the catholic guy claimed Aristotle wasn't a Hellenistic Polytheist but the continuation of the trinity debate gives my brain cells jetlag to the point that I was pretty sure I heard the surviving cells beg for a merciful death.
Ocean you WRECKED this… I love your philosophical and meticulous deconstruction and reconstruction of premises to align your argument. You are so expert at cornering I love it 💯
I was literally going to say that Christians try to have their cake and eat it too with the trinity. Having three gods and claiming monotheism, but he actually said it!
Also it's so annoying that he tries to claim that Aristotle was a monotheist based on his own philosophy.
Based on Aristotle’s own philosophy he was athiest. He did not believe in any kind of creation, he thought that the universe just existed.
Aristotle’s “God”, the Prime Mover, was a thought experiment. And to Christians it is blasphemous. The Prime Mover is a being of pure thought with all actuality and no potentiality. The Prime Mover started the movement of the cosmos, since Aristotle said that logically motion would require some kind of basis. Motion then is based on the existence of the Prime Mover, which all living things are attracted to. This “God” is in an eternal state of self-reflection and does not have any awareness of our existence. But again, Aristotle states clearly that this is not a being that actually exists, it is just a God that is logically consistent to him.
We have this idea that Aristotle’s Prime Mover=God as in Yahweh because of Thomas Aquinas wanting to take Aristotle’s philosophy and make it work in Christian Europe in his time. Thomas Aquinas had to do some mental gymnastics to transfer Aristotle’s (and Plotinus’) philosophy over to Christian theology.
@@axonn101 What you’re translating as “God” there is in the Greek “theos” and in context is more like “the god” which is a common Greek syllogism of the time that refers to all of the Gods as possible candidates without picking out any particular one. He makes reference to Zeus, Athena, etc in all of his works and in his ethics expressed the extreme importance of piety to the Gods. He also had religious works in honor of those Gods done upon his death. So, no, he wasn’t a monotheist or an Atheist. He was an Ancient Greek who practiced the religion of his time.
@@axonn101 Aristotle was a polytheist.
He hasn't even gone into the fact that by making the saints and angels, let alone Jesus the literal middleman to god, its infact creating more of a polytheistic religion that it already was since now you have plural things to ask help from.
Most entertaining point: Kyle's cereal obsession takes over.
Ocean, his argument makes total sense when you realize his god used shadow clone jutsu.
Yo Ocean, I'm a math grad student. You're doing a good job while everyone I've watched you debate has just butchered logic (that "Laws of logic guy" for example). Like also give me a s/o if you want me to point out anything they're doing which is just not true in formal logic. It's crazy to see people go back to "formal logic" (that they don't understand or even bother to define, I'm pretty sure one guy was like citing Aristotle [ironic]) to try to correct their huge gaps in knowledge and you're over here just lecturing them about their faith. Keep it up, it's super entertaining! OMG someone's holding up a drawing that looks like a Cayley Diagram hehehe. Yeah Keltoi you get it: if they want a system that allows equality and inequality, they essentially have to build it up from scratch because that's not how formal or propositional logic works. So either they aren't using formal logic or they're arguing from a contradiction. Modalism sounds like a type of quotient btw. And like, this guy knows the word axioms, why can't he admit he's just taking the Trinity axiomatically (it is a problem, it's part of Theology, unless you don't think your beliefs need to be consistent).
All of these old debates are so much fun to watch. I hope I can catch a live one soon!
Once again Ocean takes no prisoners.
Pragmatic Culture sounds like he's describing trimodal monarchianism, which would be a great and coherent explanation of the Trinity but I think the Catholic Church categorizes as heresy
Any coherent structure of the trinity is a heresy, in my experience.
@@OceanKeltoi That's hilarious, but true.
I find it funny how caught up they get on poligomy being between two women and a man. They never consider a woman with two husbands.
That was an abrupt ending. His blanket must have gotten wet.
This Catholic’s arguments are weak sauce
Might be from the past but I am really enjoying this.
This debate was a whole lotta fun.
This was a really interesting discussion but Kyle jumping in and interrupting everything with his diagram and just putting the conversation on hold was just unnecessary.
Edit:
Yeah, finishing this, Kyle was completely insufferable.
MasterJayShay At first, it was good for clarification, but then Kyle had to start being an ass...
@@Le_GingerBeardMan Yeah. No wonder the show unfortunately fell apart.
A wonderful conversation! May we meet again in intellectual combat!
It was good. I'd be happy to go at it again. I haven't talked to many Catholics on these subjects.
Great conversation. #TeamOcean.
Perhaps the trinity is like Mike Myers in Austin Powers? Mike is Austin, Mike is Dr. Evil, and Mike is Fat Bastard. They all equal Mike, but Austin doesn't equal Dr. Evil and so on. If it is wasn't obvious, this isn't supposed to be taken seriously.
I’m definitely putting this forward next time I have the misfortune of being in a church again.
My brother always says that the trinity is like optimus prime in the original transformers. The father is the truck, the Holy Spirit is the trailer, and the son is the rover that comes out of the trailer.
That's modalism though.
@durnsidh6483 Is it? All three characters exist simultaneously, and can interact with one another. Yet at all times they are always Mike Myers
Has someome who study history at university, i almost add a stroke when he said Aristote was not polythesim
@1:04 - It's not hypocritical to consider polytheism more plausible than monotheism. If you were to encounter an entity that you think could be a god--and this entity is social (it uses language, has interest in social things like relationship to humans, status, and authority, expresses emotions, and so on)--then it is far more likely that this entity is a member of a class of similar beings, than for its natural state to be metaphysical solitude. Yahweh is definitely a social creature. His relentless obsession with being King of All the Humans only makes sense if he's a social creature for whom high status has value.
I believe in many blankets.
When I hear the Catholic talking about the Trinity, I just hear word salad. It reminds of why I left the RCC in the first place--the mental gymnastics required to maintain the "faith" was just exhausting.
The cross-talk makes me want to scream.
As a polytheist, I would posit that the trinity is indeed monotheist. Say I am playing a dnd game. I could, in theory, play three characters at once, never minding how complicated it is in logistics. These three characters that I am playing, are all me, and yet they are distinct people with unique relationships within the world of dnd. In this way, it is not modalism. If only one is there, it is still me. In this way, it is not partialism
Is God playing an elaborate tabletop game then? Lol
@@evonnagale3045 god is a dm that seems to think that the game is meant to be dm vs players
Hearing that Aristotle was not a polytheistis but a manotheistis gave me a headache
Something thats a heresy where just good arguments that were too dangerous to live
I was a mediator in class and on forums. how this debate was handled without one puzzles me.
I hope you do more debates like this soon
My question (because I’m not that knowledgeable on the subject) is why is Modelism and Partialism a Heresy? And if it’s a heresy held by the Catholic Church aren’t Christians exempt from that heresy or do they also believe it to heresy? I’m confused and fascinated!!
The way my teaccher at my middle school explained the Trinity is that theyre different aspects of god. So like, to your parents youd be their son, and to you friends youd he their friend, and so on, but youre still you.
You could by theory fully logically assume the blanket being foldable to infinite
37:45 How Thor felt when the wetstone hit his noggin'
Haha I was just thinking if I'd ever get married I'd want to be a asexual in a lesbian(maybe bisexual) poligamic relationship🤣
christianity either ends up pantheism or polytheism
O dear Hel, don't tell me Kyle was the mediator... gods bless him
I jest ofc, he does try and help. going to animals was a good idea. But he needed to be more firm and strict with the participants and keep stuff formal so you guys could actually have gotten some common ground.
(41 minutes in rn)
So, old video, but on the confusion around the blanket: Wouldn't it be modalism? Each fold of the blanket might as well be a side of the triangle. They're equivalent analogies, but the way it was phrased (on top of the absurdity of the trinity) just caused confusion.
I finally catch on to the trick he's pulling with the blanket late in the debate. It took a second though. It doesn't really fit into a specific heresy, but creates whole new problems. Essentially there's an equivocation between the folds and the blanket itself. The fold is not the entire blanket, and the blanket is not the folds. So it's disanalogous.
@@OceanKeltoi Yeah, just finished watching. Seems completely incoherent to me.
EXTREMELY late to the party but I took the time to find the movie and the scene that was referenced, and the way the scene presented it was modalism because only 1 fold was visible at a time, but it still made as much sense as this guy is making. Especially because one of the "folds" was the blanket itself, meaning there were only 2 folds in the blanket@@TimelessTransience
This was a fantastic video but I’m curious why religion has to make sense? Like isn’t the point of faith to have faith even when you don’t understand it? They talk so much about the trinity making sense but why do we have to be able to understand it?
MONOTEISM ALWAYS LOSES WITHOUT VIOLONCE
It hurt my head to hear a polytheist accusing ideas of being heresay. It doesn't make sense for him to call ideas in which he doesn't believe a heresay like that.
He's calling them a heresy because the church has declared them a heresy.
A comment was made about a confusing book. I think they were hinting at THe Bible. THe Bible isn't confusing. The Trinity isn't in The Bible. The Bible never says, "3 persons and 1 person", or "3 beings and 1 being" or "3 persons and 1 being" which all mean the same thing.
When I was going through seminary, I tried to really grasp the trinity concept and the best way I understood it was God is like the sun. The circular shape is Jesus, its the physical manifestation of God. The light that comes from the sun is God, It reaches all things and the shadows are those things that have rejected God. The warmth that you feel from the sun is the holy spirit. They are all from the same source and are all separate at the same time. I later found out that this was once thought of by an early Christian philosopher and was considered heresy. The church makes things way harder than it has to be and its just another reason why I left. I was literally in Seminary, planning on becoming a church leader and the teachings opened my eyes to the lack of truth that was really there in the faith.
to many ads
Good enough is not a valid reason to believe in something supposedly model logic.
The polytheist made sense of the Trinity. Well, as much sense as can be made of a nonsense false doctrine. The Catholic was incoherent when talking about the Trinity.
Hey Ocean, I'm now pretty much fully converted Norse Polytheist, but as someone who was christened Catholic at birth and whose parents grew up in a Catholic church within a deeply Catholic country, here's a fun way to explain the trinity from the words of my mum's childhood priest:
[Talking to a room full of people] "The Father is wholly God. The Son is wholly God. The Holy Spirit is wholly [haha pun] God. All three are wholly God, however they are distinct, and are not one another. Did that make sense?"
/whole room nods obediently/
Priest: "...well then let me try again, as I clearly explained it wrong. It's not meant to make sense, we're not meant to be able to comprehend God."
As you may have guessed I'm not a fan of Christianity and especially Catholicism but this was always hilarious to me.
I comprehend it… its tritheism …
Its not further its better lol
There's plenty wrong with polygamy. For starters it's bad for society. Wealthy men will tend to have many many wives. This leaves a disparity which leads to large scale incels. This is unstable for any system. Access to women should be democratized.
What about polygamy when women have more than one husband?
The trinity does not add up GOD is the creator of all
Jesus is his son why is he not riten as a god as well?
The holy spirit is gods active force only.
Not a separate entity.🤔
An Morrigan, singular, meaning the great queen. Na Morrigna is pleural, representing a trinity. Look up Lora O'Brien and/ or Irish Pagan School in order to get stronger and clearer information.
Ocean's interrupting too much, the moderator's mocking the Trinity diagram even though he's supposed to be neutral, and both of you are talking past each other for the most part.
Good debate, but the problem of the trinity comes before anything I heard in the debate. The only scripture (1 John 5:7-8) which actually lists and equates any trinity model came from a manuscript dating to the 1500's, and has no real basis in any traditional translation as we would understand it. Textual evidence for the trinity is worse than what we heathens have through the Snorri Christian lens.
Ouch..love this channel but was hard to watch. 3 on 1 catholic did a good job. If we were fully mathematical and logical nobody should believe in any god or gods. Shouldn’t have cut the catholic off as often as happened, probably would have helped understand...
Thing is he was saying that it's not possible to understand the trinity in whole. That aline was not making it possible to be a believable and validating reason of believing in the existence of one when theres many. And either way of him trying to explain was seemingly unintentional, unexplainable, heresay. as ocean kept saying. Basically the catholic was not explaining in a believable way but instaed the vague blind faith rhetoric.
Y believe when you cannot understand the whole?
That's blind faith much like jumping off a cliff knowing g theres crashing waves and rocks believing the wind will be enough to move you away from the danger.
I watched this for background noise at work so I can't tell you the exact time. Steve said he gets along with the polytheist better than he gets along with many christians.
I don't watch Steve Mcrae enough to begin to make specific guesses about what he is thinking. The following are possible reasons an atheist or agnostic could get along better with a polytheist than a christian.
Polytheism, atheism, and agnosticism are all false. The christians who believe falsehoods don't undo the falseness of those religions. Another thing is that polytheists do use the god of the gaps. Dishonest atheists would like to encourage people to use that bad logic because they can accuse others of doing it if the idea is out there.
He specifically gets along with Ocean because he is a rationalist. Not because he is pagan but despite him being pagan. That is what he is thinking. I think that is pretty clear from the context giving throughout this debate and thank you for doubling down on why he likes Ocean more in that regard, therefor proving Steve's point.
One person arguing with another how they are right because they know there are multiple imaginary people in the sky, while the other thinks there is only one.
You may made me laugh, so heres my updoot