 Hey everyone and welcome to modern-day debate filling in today for James is myself and We are going to be debating on does God exist and the complexity of the cell If this is your first time here feel free to consider hitting that subscribe button And we're trying to build a community here with people from all walks of life Also before we get started. I want to let everybody know that if you enjoy either of the speakers You can find their links below in the description As for the debate today We will be having a format of five minute openings with five minute rebuttals a 25-minute discussion followed by 25 minutes Q&A so be sure to leave your questions in the side And I will get to them as I can Also super chats are an option So if you have any and you feel like hosting them I will read them before the Q&A begins and the debaters tonight will be snake was right and praise I am and if you are unfamiliar with any of these people I'm going to give them an opportunity right now to introduce themselves So if you would like to start praise feel free to introduce yourself and your channel Sure. Yeah My name right my channel's name is praise. I am that I am and I'm a I'm an apologetic channel I focus on trying to defend certain, you know attacks on Christianity and I tried to also Show examples of the Christian faith being true So people can check that out. I also have hangouts every night so people can come in and join so you're welcome to do that Awesome. All right. Thanks and the snake Hey guys, I'm snake was right I'm gonna my channel is mostly about atheism or Evolution science lately, but I cover lots of topics kind of in the skeptic arena and Yeah Awesome, wow today we will we're covering for a couple people. I think there was some kind of confusion so We'll do the best that we can we're gonna try and cover a couple topics Yeah, hopefully it's entertaining Yeah, this is last minute everybody. Sorry about that We were told of out of debate going on and The they didn't receive the emails or they didn't reply. So here we are So we're gonna jump right into this I'm gonna start the timer and who would like to go first if anybody if it be alright, maybe snake and go first this time Sure, sure So on the topic of does God exist my position is actually basically I'm gonna do the best job as I can to kind of rent Tom jumps position. He was supposed to be here tonight and His position basically I really like because he says there is no reason to believe in God is basically his atheist position I'm in the same boat. I have been looking for reasons to believe in God and evidence for God and I simply have not found any and that's my position and I'm simply having faith traditions and Ancient world religions is not evidence to me of a God and So hopefully we can go over some arguments and as far as the topic of Praise wanted to talk about Plexity of a cell and whether that qualifies as evidence for intelligent design or not and and Even if it could be determined that life forms were created by design, I don't think that that necessarily is great evidence of God because the creator could really be anything it could be an alien species and In which case you're really just kicking the can down the road because then you have to discover what the the creator and Even if the creator is a supernatural God and not an alien species I Think that same problem still applies created it or what process created it I think that the the infinite regress is kind of a problem for both sides in the sense that we just simply don't know What happened in the early beginnings of the universe? kind of the or Purely physical secular kind of way of thinking about it Would be has to do with something that Began expansion of the universe during the Big Bang and What what the universe looked like before that state is pretty much unknowable At this state in time. I personally have a few theories about that In the sense of I basically I think about this a lot and what kind of quiets my mind in the end is the thought that There are some Logical limitations to everything No matter what multiverse you're in or whatever no matter what conceivable universe you're in Things still can't contradict you still can't have a light bulb that's on and off at the same time although Maybe some quantum physicists would disagree on that kind of logic, but I Think that that's a very strong case and so I believe that Absolute nothingness that is non-existence of anything and every time would be Logically incoherent and impossible so the question of like why are we here at all? is simply to me is answerable by that that because it doesn't make any sense that nothing could exist because something does exist and so The the ability for true nothingness that is Absolute nothing this nothing anywhere at any time that never existed at any point because Otherwise it could have never transformed into something if it was truly absolutely nothing And so I think it follows from that point that nothingness is actually impossible for some reason Because if it happened nothing else would have ever happened. So since something is happening True nothingness is impossible one minute and Let's see. I guess I will Touch on the complexity of the cell a little bit complexity does not equal design and I think it will be very difficult for anyone to make a case for design if they can't conclusively Give me some kind of criteria for how to decide which organisms or which genes were designed and where which organisms and genes were have been adapted or evolved and so I think we should I Guess we'll start wherever Seems logical after praise is opening and so I guess I'll concede the rest of my time on that. That was perfect five seconds left anyway I want those I can smack got it All right, praise whenever you're ready, I'll start the time when you begin So time space and matter is a continuum. They are contingent I mean this the contingent argument is obviously a robust argument for theists Whatever began time space and matter needed a cause and Obviously, we have philosophical arguments robust philosophical arguments to justify that as well If you believe there is no intentional cause to the universe Then you are committing a simple naturalism of the gaps fallacy Reason and logic point to everything beginning to exist having causation The universe began it needs a cause To deny logic and reason to deny this is denying logic and reason something the Bible says only a fool does to escape God's accountability Quote astronomers now Find they have paid in themselves into a corner because they have proven by their own methods That the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star Every planet every living thing in the cosmos and on earth And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces. They cannot hope to discover that there are what or That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now I think a Scientifically proven fact and this is Dr. Robert Jastrow and he is a non-religious former NASA scientist author and futurist And then we got metaphysics. I mean catch for the timing just for example the tag arm it did the laws of Logic you got the law of non-contradiction. These are immaterial axiom. This isn't an immaterial axiom Logical absolutes exist Logical absolutes are conceptual Concepts exist in the mind only they are mental Logical absolutes would exist even if your minds did not they are not contingent on human minds, but it exists in the mind Therefore logical absolutes are transcendent since logical absolutes are transcendent conceptual They must exist in a transcendent mind This transcendent mind is as we recognize it as God. Therefore God exists The laws of logic are direct inference to the logical nature of God because one they are tautology Tautological tautologies transcend subjective epistemologies such as the scientific method They are axiomatic because they apply to everyone They are immutable they are abstracts meaning they are non-physical for example For example, you won't find the law of non-contradiction in a test tube or dissecting someone's brain they they apply everywhere at every time at any place and a quick analysis reflects God is the one responsible for the laws of logic God is the tautology he's spaceless timeless and non-physical and that's exactly what we find in the laws of logic and Of course, we have scripture to back this up John 1 1 John 14 6 God is immutable Malachi 3 6 Hebrews 13 a God is a non a non-physical conscious being as written in John 4 24 lastly God is eternal as Written in Psalms 92 Hebrews 11 6 Exodus 3 14 So these laws are Eternal they will never change one minute and there is no naturalistic Explanation that can't account for these So we got science and then we got metaphysics, so it's clear that the evidence just swayed to the existence of God and I'm gonna go I guess I go to more of the the biology stuff, but I just wanted to get that out of the way and For that I will concede my time All right then That was only 30 seconds left anyway, so we're gonna jump now into the rebuttal and Snake why not when you're ready to go you're muted right now Thanks for the reminder. Yep Always vigilant, okay, so Something that jumped at me was how praise talked about how Correct me if I'm have some of the wrong word choice Spec the secular scientific or atheistic worldview. It's a way of escaping God's accountability and that jumped out at me because I Don't understand how I can be trying to avoid accountability to something that like I don't even believe in that exists so like for example if I'm if I'm a rob a bank or do something criminal and Let's just say I have some sort of delusion And I think I just don't believe cops exist that the police exist I Would have no reason to be worried about the repercussions or accountability to the police officers if I don't even believe that they exist and That's kind of an absurd Example, but that that kind of behavior actually happens in the minds of insane people because they don't Give credence to the things that they don't actually believe in so I'm trying to understand It's kind of like a common meme in kind of evangelical Culture it seems like or at least just Religious because I notice it in him as well Of we're trying to escape accountability to God, but we don't even believe that it exists so It seems like you Kind of have to fall back on like a subconscious type argument at that point And as for the cause of the universe I Think that the cause is what I went over in my opening that it seems self-evident that true Nothingness is actually impossible so biological extension something must exist and It would seem that the the properties of Anything are able to create more complex structures when more than one interacts with another Especially when we have situations like the Big Bang that creates a lot of chaos and disorder Order in the universe doesn't actually create anything if you have Two temperatures that are the same it doesn't really create movement But if you have a difference in temperature, you can actually create an engine just based off the difference in energy and Just having separation and disorder is What creates the ability for things to overlap in these different Arrangements Let's see This the latter part that he talked about is kind of what I'm more interested in though He says logical absolutes only exist within a transcendent mind And I'm just wondering how did how did you figure this what logical steps did you take to think that? Logical absolutes are only possible if they're Enforced by a mind and not just a mind but some transcendent mind So that's that seems a little big first of all I'd like to kind of define and clarify what you mean by that and Just wondering how you could how you figured out that only that type of mind can do this even though You know, we don't actually have any concrete examples of transcendent minds as far as I'm understanding What you mean by that? So it's kind of assuming God I'd prove God it seems like Let's see you said you won't find the law of non-contradiction in a test tube or a I Think you mean like you'll never be able to isolate it, right? You'll never be able to like hold the law in a location because it's just ever present So why does why would that necessarily constitute like some kind of mind or especially transcendent mind because Like why would why is God responsible for these laws? Why does it have to be a conscious mind that makes logic? Because by the way that I figure it that logic must already exist in order for any mind no matter how powerful a transcendent Logic that logic must already exist in order for it to make sense to the mind And that mind cannot make the law because that mind cannot break the law in the first place a transcendent That supposedly is making these laws of logic It still can't violate the law of non-contradiction no matter how it tries it is ever present More transcendent than even God himself God cannot contradict himself so I Think that's a great place to start the conversation perfect time's up All right, praise you are up sweet, so I'd like to address Snake's statement the reason why AC why would atheists? You know try to stay away from God or not or be accountable to God Well, it's the same reason why a criminal would stay away from a police officer Humans know they are flawed and they don't want to be accountable to a perfect. Holy God. I Think that's pretty clear. I mean even then we see this in criminal and criminals in society that criminals. Hey police So I think there's a good correlation as far as that goes So another I want to Answer the object the objections that snake was bringing up with the laws of logic And I want to try to explain this simply as I can lit logic is the science of valid inference laws of logic are not Descriptive as to the physical rule, but they are prescriptive as to rationality They prescribe the right way to think they are of the mind and apply it conceptually in Material as it were the true statement Statements for example the law of non-contradiction is not just perceptively true. It is true The law of physics don't impose themselves on our minds like like this the law of gravity doesn't tell us what to think Not how to think or the right way to think or how to come to true statements by inductive deductive or abductive Reasoning like via the scientific method all conceptual laws reflect the mind of a law giver We see this in society laws They reflect the mind of those who created the law The only reasonable explanation for this kind of mind necessary to ground the existence of transcendent absolute and conceptual laws like this is God through Elimination of propositions What we call in philosophy a disjunctive silage is them It's true God upholds the world in a logical fashion, but the laws of logic as we know them are conceptual Existing only in our minds if laws of logic are simply properties of our brain how our brains work Then why we need the law of logic the law of logic to correct how our brains work If laws of logic simply of how our brains work, then we shouldn't need them to correct how our brains work We should just think logically all the time All things being equal of course, but negative laws of logic actually prescribe us The right way to think and guiding our thought processes humans don't form laws of logic by observation They are conceptual or by convention like which side of the road to drive on We we instead confirm pre-existing logical truths with which are absolute and universal as with our observations Second if laws of logic were descriptions of the physical universe Then we might expect different regions of the universe to have different laws of logic since different regions of the universe are described differently, but the laws of logic apply everywhere Third we would have no way of knowing if the laws of logic apply in the future If they have in the past since no one has experienced the universe's future After all in the in the universe is constantly changing If the laws of logic were descriptions of such conditions, then they would change as well if atheists believe they know the universe better than Logisticians then that folly is on there. That is their burden of proof We don't govern logic logic governs us It tells us how to think and apply as conceptually to true statements one minute It prescribes rational thought logic transcends humans because like I said, we didn't invent it logical truths exist Whether there is a human mind to recognize them or formulate them in axioms or not They are definitely of the mind and so the only foundation for the universal immaterial prescriptive law So logic are the is the unembodied mind of God and there I will to see my time All right, then we are going to take that extra minute and put it to Q&A or discussion whatever you guys choose and We will jump into the 25 minute discussion Right now. So Take I'll let you start on this one Alright, so I would like to say that logic does govern us In that everything is going to think logically but that the chemicals will behave according to logic at least the law of non-contradiction And but I would say that logic governs God as well because God Cannot break logic. I would say perhaps a being like God would have the ability to discover logic maybe in a Perfect way because it has perfect reasoning but that logic still exists outside of God He didn't make that logic because he can't contradict himself. He can't exist and not exist Well, that's that's a more of a It's kind of a distortion there with the what how theists would explain it is the laws the logic or reflection of The logical nature of God that he didn't create them because that would make him contingent So he can't be contingent on anything. So these are reflections of the logical nature of God Okay, so why does it have to be a mind then? Because these exist in the mind. They are Concepts that's what it means conceptual means they are of the mind And that's what God is. He's he's an immaterial mind But the tree falls no matter who's there to witness it and same with logic. It doesn't need a mind to enforce it. It just Nothing can contradict Itself like in a material state. You can say one thing and then say another thing and that's like a conceptual contradiction But I can't actually be two things Yeah, um, I'm not trying to get your objection. I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say That it would be unreasonable it would be Irrational for not to be a mind because I mean it's for minds and for ration Requires rationality requires a mind to be rational So this would that's what the laws I mean logic. That's what it means rational inference. And that's why a mind is Necessary for the laws of logic Well the process that we go through rationality is different than saying that something objectively is rational right because we can be wrong but The logic of something stands independent of what you think about it. Well, they are absolute though They they they're not bound by time space or material So that would Be a reflection of the absolute of an absolute being which is God So I don't see I don't I'm trying to understand your objection here well, it's just it may it makes sense if you're Talking about God as like the laws of logic or the universe, but then as soon as you start to ascribe Aspects of the mind to it. I'm I don't know what you mean because logic it you just can't Do you can't contradict yourself if you're God first of all Because supposedly his name each is perfect. So he cannot contradict himself even in concept But he could not a God cannot create a rock which he cannot lift he can't do things That can limit himself and so that logic already exists and it limits God in that way I think it's the same with morality like there. There are reasons he Decided or what or whatever the reflection of morality. There are reasons the way it is the way it is Yeah, well, we know the laws of logic cannot be mindless because that would be saying a rock could be logical so they have to be of a mind and Even animals we can't even say they are logical humans are the only entities we can ascribe logic to so It's just it's just deduction in logical like You know syllogism we can go through syllogism to Eliminate what is not a valid proposition But doesn't a rock it can't prop us at you, but it still behaves according to the logic of physics, right? Yeah But would there I mean but see you That's descriptive. I mean that's a description that that is not prescriptive so a rock can't prescript I mean it can't appeal to the laws of logic because it's it's it's It's inanimate it's an inanimate object So that's why these apply to humans and that's why that with our minds are connected I mean a mind how we Appeal to another mind to receive You know how to correct our illogic illogical thinking so I Just it seems like you can explain the whole universe without a God by just invoking Just basically the law of non-contradiction which would Essentially necessarily mean that something would have to exist and you don't need a conscious mind at all You do because these laws are of the mind they are conceptual they are conceptual laws and By convention they are of the mind I mean that's what that's what concepts as we look at the word conceptual in the dictionary means of the mind Existing in the mind, but we didn't invent logic it existed before any of our minds exactly and that's the point I'm making it's not contingent on anything physical. It's like contingent on time. It's not contingent on space So it transcends the universe already and there's nothing physical you can ground those laws in by default I mean despite There's nothing that a materialist can appeal to to Ground these Absolute laws and there's another thing too. How could if the universe is all material is a materialistic cause Then how could it ground these laws because they're in material begin with So you would have to go into you know philosophy to try to sidestep that you know and atheists this have not Met that burden of proof. I mean theists have the robust position here with the laws of logic. So I Think it is material in the sense that An atom cannot just exist in two places and To talk about so I don't think God is necessary because God cannot break these laws of logic. He's still Conjunct upon them no matter what so they exist outside of any transcendent mind no matter what no, it's a reflection If he was contingent on them, he wouldn't be gone the first place This is like I'm sorry what if there was a being that was You know powerful and all wise and stuff, but it was contingent. I mean I would still call that a God To me, that's a logical contradiction. If a God has to be has to have AC a T He cannot be bound by anything So as far as especially the Christian faith, we don't subscribe to that viewpoint I think that's kind of poisoning the well because if you're going in with that Preceptosition just based on like the lore of the Bible Then you're gonna end up with the law contradictions because God cannot perform logical contradictions He can't make something make sense that isn't logical It's not that he can is that his logical nature won't permit him to And these laws of logic are not contingent on anything either So you can see the inference of the mind of God. They are a reflection of the mind of God So what is what is his nature? Based on I know you're gonna say it's not based on anything, but Why is it the way it is? Because he by his nature he's only Logical he's a logical God, so there's he's not contradictory And he also has a loving nature and he has a Just nature he cannot be just I mean unjust Because his law is he has a just nature. He's a holy nature. I Mean if he this is why the Bible is required because if he didn't have the Bible as this resource To find out who and what I mean how his nature is I mean then you would just be in the dark and all this stuff He wouldn't understand who God is in his nature I'm just wondering so I think that the the problem of evil is definitely a problem if you're gonna invoke that is loving and just but I want to stick to That's this topic that we're on at least for now And I think it's really analogous to the question of objective morality as well and I Personally believe in objective morality. I don't think that there's any case you can make for subjective morality or Moral relativism because it is self contradictory So if there was it would seem to follow that he his objective morality has to be based on something So it has to be logical So God is contingent on the logic. I don't see why that has to diminish God Yeah, it's if God is if God is bound if he's not bound by I mean if he's bound by something see if he wasn't Contingent on the laws of logic that means he's bound by it. That means he cannot be The greatest conceivable being and that's another argument for theus is the ontological argument He is the greatest conceivable being and if he is Bound by logic then he's contingent. I mean he's contingent. I mean some of bound being then therefore that would undermine his Divinity, right? I mean he's still greater than everything else at that point Not the laws of logic. So this is what I'm trying to say But what I what I'm saying about Logic arm is God if God was not contingent on it He could make it whatever he wanted his nature could be ever-shifting fluid and contradictory But that's why I mean that's why the laws of logic are there because it's valid I mean it's inference to what is Contradictory and what isn't contradictory So I mean just by the very own nature God will not act Contradictory to his logical nature Halfway through guys halfway through. Okay, so I still so So so far, I mean your argument is God exists because logic exists, right? Well because the laws of logic are absolute. They are timeless. They are spaceless and They are non-physical, which is the description of God himself Yeah, so I'm I'm just still not convinced that that's that I'm not necessarily in any of that because there are fundamental forces That create the laws of the universe and God cannot violate them either way. So it's like an irrelevant addition to me. I Don't see how the laws of I mean the physical laws have anything to do with the laws of logic they're not contingent on the physical laws of the universe and We don't even know what grounds gravity what What physical law or what okay? What anything physical can describe what gravity is So can you give me a cup of gravity? What is gravity? You can even just describe that in a materialistic sense Well, just because it's unexplainable Doesn't really mean that the only other option is God. That's just the argument from ignorance. No, I know But I'm the point is so you can't come from a naturalistic You know paradigm if you if you're gonna try to interpret reality I Mean the way that it seems some of the theoretical physicists are looking at it in the way I think it makes is that There's some theoretical physics surrounding how a lot of the particles of the universe or at least electrons are kind of Kind of actually on the same spot in one of the dimensions or something is it's really complex It has to do with quantum physics. Yeah and so My thought is that it gravity would make sense sense that if all of matter is actually kind of existing at one point in maybe like the higher dimensions or something That any separation of that matter lower dimension will necessarily cause It will have an equal and opposite reaction. So and that's why matter falls back toward itself in like the third dimension Because in the higher dimensions it is actually all in the same point You're just describing immaterial constructs, though These are not physical material material constructs dimensions are actually mental And that's what I mean. That's why they're defined to they are conscious dimensions So it is perceived them but they exist outside of our perception Exactly. Yeah, and these are immaterial and they are conscious and this is why God exists because he These are Inferences of his existence. I mean we can go into this with intelligent design as well We have the same inference in the cell as well. I mean, it's just the behavior of chemicals and physics So Since the the traits of God are defined by some sort of logic It it seems like it's equally like that logic could exist regardless of a God and just apply itself to matter Yeah, but you can't it's what I'm saying through dysfunction Syllagism we can eliminate Is God have to constantly enforce it with magic or else Nothing would adhere to this logic because that doesn't make any sense. No, these are reflections. They're they're axiomatic they They come to a person and they and the person reckoned that they're self recognizable So assuming God created everything you could just remove a piece of that universe and seal it Somewhere else where there was no God would it continue to behave the same way? Does it somehow need like? Con direction from God you need to have the preconditions for intelligibility. This is another argument for the existence of God because What precondition? would justify the laws of logic material in a naturalistic material fashion Well since Absolute nothingness would just produce absolute nothingness that would show that that's illogical No matter whether there was a God or not Because there isn't absolute nothingness because there's something Nothing has no does not have logical properties God has logical properties There's nothing in nature itself and put in molecules and chemicals and biological processes natural processes That has logical properties, so you need to have something that you can Substantiate that has logical properties and there's nothing in physical processes. You can do that. I think we might Be using the term logic differently a little bit It's not it's not like the chemicals are actually processing thoughts and arguments It's just that they behave in ways that do not violate As that we would call logical if that was true, they wouldn't be prescriptive though Even if you say they are descriptive they are descriptive of something that is prescriptive And these are abstract entities And this is what I'm saying you can't can you find me a specimen of the law of non contradiction? No, because it's immaterial. It's a concept. It exists in the mind Even in it transcends reality itself. We're living in It exists outside of mine because you can't Violate nothing can violate the law of non contradiction No, but where are our rational thought can appeal to these laws of logic this we're not bound by him I mean if we were bound by him then We we could never access them so I mean they're accessible So that means that we have the ability to recognize them I mean that's another argument too because minds recognize minds I mean there's something of the mind can recognize something of the mind Six minutes guys if you wanted to get on cell complexity. If not, it's okay. Yeah Yeah, that kind of brings me to my other major point is if you can recognize the difference between design and natural occurrence or Recognize something. Can you tell me any species or any gene that was an original species? That was not adapted or mutated Well, we have the seal camp and it's over Hundreds of millions of years it is still it's and it was stasis you can call it that yeah I would say the seal camp or living fossils. I could you know, give you that that'd be a good answer for that But can you know if the seal can't was an original fish kind created by God or was it common offshoot from other fish? the it would be It would be of a kind and You know a fish is a fish. I mean if you're gonna say different species of a fish. I mean, that's where it gets really controversial So how do you tell the difference between the create the original created fish kind and its answer? That would have been micro evolved Well, I mean the Hebrew and the Genesis says they are types So if whatever you see types of fish, I think I mean would that make it easier? We know that a giraffe and a fish are completely two different types or kinds of animals It's just that if you're gonna say that you can tell design You should be able to tell which animals were originally designed in which animals have accumulated undesigned adaptations Yeah Yeah, that's why I'm thinking we probably have to go to the cells But I don't I'm trying to understand your objection here because you're saying that God is should you put a trademark or something on a particular Animal for us to recognize it and so therefore that design is not true I mean I'm trying to understand your objection Well, if you can tell design natural occurrence, you should be able to isolate Which of the adaptations and which DNA segments are It didn't mutate in which ones were 100% designed. Yeah, so we're going to DNA now. I mean this we're going inside now to the Molecule but I thought you're trying to give like make a physical Exterior argument. I mean so now you're going into the DNA, right? What could be a species or a gene just as long as you can if you have some sort of process to tell Gene or which species was 100% designed and has no adaptive features or Or You know which parts of the genome have not been altered since design and which part then mutated since since the original creation Yeah, and I'm thinking this is the limits of change That we see in nature. I mean you you don't see genotypes change in nature. The genotypes say the same It's only the phenotypes that change Well, the feet if the phenotype changes the genotype has changed But you're not going to get a whole new genotype though We do you can change the genotype within the same genotype, but you're not going to see a genotype Evolve into another completely new genotype. There's we don't see that in nature at all It's all it's always phenotypic level or just static level changes. There's nothing that's accumulating going upwards It's going downwards so What would prevent some mammal from accumulating the changes of it's not Austrian up a little bit on its head it losing its hair Getting webbed feet on its front legs Getting smaller hind legs and getting a larger time. Those are all micro evolutions And yet if you put them together they create a completely different phenotype and a completely different genotype No, the genome Yeah, we've never seen if we go through the the taxonomic system We never seen a whole new taxonomy for taxonomies to evolve They always say in the same taxonomy. There's nothing that's changing But but do you agree that position of a nostrils can change Are you talking about the whale with the dog of the whale on any animal? No, I'm saying they could they can change colors they can Maybe make a stronger nose or or sorry more hairy nose I've never seen evidence of some are nostril changing, you know positions or anything. No Well, if I was born with my nose slightly like this a Possible just slightly higher on my face. Yeah, I guess that would be possible But it's still within the same genotype where does it stop because the genes don't actually care the genes can grow whatever in fact We actually see in dolphin embryos The nostrils start off in the front of the face and then they move to the back of the head one minute We already know that biochemistry allows for these changes We know that microevolution we can do things like get webbed feet lose hair Why can't these stack up? Because it would be an extrapolation fallacy. You just can't extrapolate Because we see changes adaptational changes Over a few years and just extrapolated to billions and billions of years that to me that's an extrapolation fallacy Well, we I mean we see States of this in the fossil record, so we know between each stage We've observed changes like that in real time, but then we have the example of each stage So What you've seen a dog like animal evolve into a whale in real time we've seen animals The size and location of their body parts we've seen animals lose hair we've seen them Get larger and yeah Of course, that's part of natural selection and it's the only changes seen in the fossil record though Wrap it up guys. We got 30 seconds Yeah, I would just say that these are just you know natural selection even that's part of the creation model we So that's nothing new in science of things changing and through natural selection new genes very varying with something Of course, that's nothing new Alright well since You can't tell which ones which of these changes Have accumulated which one which features Were original and not adapted it doesn't seem like you have any way of telling if something is actually designed or not Living fossils of course we do because they live for I'm actually an older creationist So I could say over hundreds of millions of years. Nothing has changed as far as You know the so there's minor Evolution and there's the the we forget the exact verbiage of this the minor one and there's the big one so Macro macro. Yeah, that's it But in those same layers we see populations changing Alongside while the seal of camp changes very little. Are you talking about geology? Are you talking about something inside the seal of camp? Geology we see other. Yeah, I mean Yeah, but that with the seal camp is still it is still the seal camp I mean, it's there's nothing that's dramatically shifted from that But it's that was a seal of camp wasn't one of the originally designed fish types It's five apps from a different kind of fish I have to really look into The fossil record as far as I know that it's the seal camp has been original kind. Yeah, so Okay, so it's been Probably the entire fossil record Yeah, it's stayed the same through its hundred years of exist 100 millions of years of existence But there have been many fish for the seal of camp which seemed to Gradually change into seal camp and diversify into other forms as well So what would so can you show me evidence of an ancestor of seal camp that is not a fish? No, because they evolved from fish, but I could show you an ancestor of fish that is not a fish see but that's I mean to Mean that's an extrapolation fallacy. That is it's conjecture. There's nothing if you can't show me something non fish Then I mean I could say the same thing with the creation model too that something fish came from another fish, so There's nothing that you have that is you know robust or strong for the evolutionary worldview Well, it's about the order. I mean getting down into the fossils at that level We can see that there are worm like creatures with fins on them and we see A worm like creatures that have kind of like a broader fish like tail with a few less fins on them like more towards the front They to have worm like I like snail like eyes and they start to move in and become bigger like a fish And then we get into the bony fishes and they're kind of they look like Don't have a jaw. They don't have bones They look like worms with a little fishtail and we see this gradual change And so since we know that in real time we can see changes small changes like this to actual living organisms and Then we see these gradual changes in the fossil record in a dated It's It's not really an extrapolate. It's not a Unreasonable extrapolation and when using this model we're able to predict where and when to find these fossils Yeah, and these just sound like phenotypic change changes to me Show me something of a fish going into a bear or a bird or something like that And that would give you more credence to your position, but if you're gonna say What I've been trying to get people to understand lately is evolution always pre-existing material and just Changes it slightly so every feature that a bear has pretty much is present in They at the fit the arms and legs of mammals are basically just modified fins and we can see that because there are transitional forms of Only just straight-up fish that use fins as legs, but fish that have more developed legs and Fish that look like salamanders salamanders that look like fish All kinds of transitional forms in between that show that fish are able to convert their fins into legs and The whole own skeleton form has been conserved Throughout since Since the evolution since they came out of the water and they evolved into Amphibians and lizards and then eventually mammals the skeletons have all been consistent Retaining most of the same features from transition to transition Okay, so did you see this in real time or is this through a fossil record that you're seeing this? Well, we see changes like that in real time So we know how it happened we see the gaps in the fossil record small gaps and we see Those small all changes occurring in real time today. So we know how organisms and populations change and gain new features Yeah, well my argument for that would be the rapid speciation to me actually supports the creation as few worldview I mean the position Rather than the evolutionary because it's rapidly changing and supposedly the evolutionary paradigm takes You know billion or millions and millions of years for these changes to take it take effect So the to me that contradicts your world or your position rather than the creation is one You guys the debate was over a little while ago, but okay That we we didn't have a lot of questions So I let it go on longer, but if you guys want to wrap it up We'll head for a couple minutes, and I'll give you guys a closing as well Yeah So it's why this discussion was snaking. I think I respect his You know his politeness, and I I respect that so Yeah, it's always enjoyable. Um, I think we should have a More focused debate on like cellular We were just trying to cover a few basis today Yeah, I had some arguments for CSI I'd like to bring up to you and see how you would address that Maybe I guess we can do another debate. I guess Sure Great. Yeah, I emailed James about it But you can come over to my channel or you said you were having streams every day. Yeah every night on my channel. Yeah Yeah, I can pop in any time sweet. All right. Um, I guess we'll hop over to the Q&A But first I have to read off the super chats. So thanks for those. I'm James will love that We got about four of them in So The first one came in from God's servant who just made a statement He just said God is real and his name is Jesus be back in the names acts to 48 The disciple of Kaio said to praise This is a question for you Are all conceptualizations real if not what makes God more real than these other concepts? Yeah, and this is what I was explaining in the debate God is a mind and Lot of every all concepts are of the mind. So they they are accessible to We can access them because we are in the image of God. So we are a mind too. We have our own finite minds Got it. Okay Thanks Yep on Frank 90 Frank's 92 says snakes shades are awesome. So You go America, yeah, oh Am I allowed to say that guys? There you go, there you go, I'll edit it out later There you go. The cycle of cryo said again praise another question for you Was the reason God couldn't drive away the valley dwelling Canaanites in judges 119 Because he was a brain of bronze age deity or That was it like what you cut out there. I'm sorry. I couldn't I couldn't hear the question I saw I heard half of it, but oh For you Was the reason that God couldn't drive out the valley dwelling Canaanites in judges 119 Because he was a break bronze age God or Deity or question mark Oh Yeah, we have to look into the context of that as far as I think I've researched into this what's a scholar commentary is That he allowed something he allowed it to happen as I mean he was powerless or he was you know or He didn't have the capability of doing that. So I think it just takes I'm going to check out the commentary Just don't like cherry pick versus off of atheists size to support your viewpoint Got it. Got it. Sorry about that. I was on me. Oh, yeah alright and another one another super chat for you From the same guy praise I hear praise uh for you again praise In Genesis 1 26 to 27 man and woman were created at the same time in Genesis 2 7 Man was created first woman later. Why is this? In my channel, I show that there's two different creations You guys Slow-mo drunk, I don't know how to describe it snake You saw our blues Like the opposite of healing if you just took helium, yeah, oh, I have no idea Yeah, like I showed my channel I address I don't have the younger perspective on this and And I show that in Genesis 1 26 people have to understand what? Hebrew grammar is there's what they call particle and article what they do is super emphasize subjects and objects and nouns and There is none there in Genesis 1 26. So it's plural mankind. So this is when you know The general human race was created, but in Genesis 2 7 The article and particle is there in the Hebrew f-ha f-ha Adam and that is a Specific and it's emphatic of a particular human being. It's a singular So this is a specific man that was created in the Garden of Eden So there is pre-ademics already on earth and check this out in my channel. All right Okay, awesome. All right, we're gonna jump into the Q&A now that was those were super chats. So wait Um Let's see. Who is this one for? They didn't say who this one was for It says how simple would a cell? Oh, okay, I can get an alpha phrase This is what's coming to you how simple would a cell have to be to not be considered designed or are all cells evidence of design? What about cells without major organelles? for example a cell that's reducible I Would concede is natural, but we see the information inside the cell is not going to reduce it not only irreducible it is specified and complex So that's right there is inference of a designer like I'd love to debate Snake on this as well Yeah, I mean it seems kind of odd to pick out specific things For evidence of design because like you think everything is designed just By nature of it adhering to natural laws, right? No, I I don't say like sand for instance Then this is I was gonna probably explain my debate. There's ways Like Shannon's information. That's how we can determine whether something is specific or not specific or natural laws or natural Order or disorder. So no, I don't I don't you know Hold to that position Okay, all right next one then is for Snake was right From K2 is a giraffe a horse with a long neck I'm not sure on the exact fossils, but essentially if you could Get a horse to have a long neck. Would you would you consider that to no longer be a horse anymore? That's To me, that's the more substantial question I Think they're More related to horses than us obviously, but I'm not sure exactly they're They're not just a horse that has a long neck to be technical because horses and giraffes would have had a common ancestor if anything and Would split to between horses and giraffes, but I Don't think there's any limit that would limit say a horse like animal from Gaining a really long neck and I don't think there's anything in genetics which would prevent those kind of that kind of plasticity either All right. Got it. So the next one then Coming at you for praise Alization is temporal. It's a change of states if a God has Yeah, if a God has a choice He must change from the undecided to the decided also requiring time Does God not have a choice or is he bound by time? No, God is not bound by time. God is timeless And I can even say that time is an illusion I would say the way I explain the time is in an essential nature of God So he's not necessarily outside of time that you can say he is time It's part of the nature of God Okay Got it Awesome. Take a breath. Take a breath Snake you're up on this one if fish evolved in the Amphibians, why would why would it? Cause the addition then reduction then addition of lots of roofing bones and snout bones on the way to becoming an amphibian Oh, sorry. I didn't hear what they evolved into Amphibians Yeah, basically it was if fish evolved into Amphibians Why would it cause the addition and then the reduction and then the addition of lots of roofing bones and snout bones on the way to becoming amphibian roof roofing bones what? That's how it was written or it could be spelled, you know, how spelt correct is Well, the series may not be directly related in a linear fashion, but Evolution does not state that anything is just a constant state of gain Evolution is not constantly trying to make the biggest toughest most Strongest most powerful creature that I possibly can just plastic to the environment so If one month it's more advantageous to have Snout bones longer snout bone it said Then those Those babies born with the variant of a longer snout are going to be selected for positively And then if if it turns back to it's it's somehow more advantageous to not do it Then it's going to swing the other direction and that happens all the time the environment is in context and We're constantly adapting to it uh So so what was it snout bones and Yeah snout and uh roofing bones Um, I'm afraid I don't really have a specific behavior that like I'm not quite sure what he's asking but basically There's no reason in evolution that Each type of change has to be linear It responds to the environment The uh, the skull or roofing bones are the of the skull there are a set of bones that cover the brain eyes and nostrils of a bony fish Okay Yeah, it's just Some conditions were advantageous and then maybe the environment went back to how it used to be and so The selection pressure went back to how it used to be and then it changed again that that happens Got it. Okay. Uh praise you were up next by what criteria can we evaluate whether something is designed Explain it to me like i'm a five-year-old referring to specific measurement tools, please Information is the medium to um The meeting between supernatural natural so it would be the information itself Information is immaterial It's code that comes from a mind. I think the film in three did a great job Explaining that in last month's debate. He if you check his channel out, too. He has some good stuff on information so, um I think it would be you know another thing is information Runs the show in the cell So I would say information All right. I'd really like to uh have a discussion on Exactly what you guys may information Yeah Okay Next one for snake. Do you hold the belief? I don't believe god exists Based on the conscious rational evaluation or were you determined to hold this belief? Uh, I mean it was the same set of beliefs. I was born with I would At no point Did I hold the positive belief in god? So I do not believe that god exists um I'll go as far as to say I hold the positive belief that None of the proposed gods Really exist I think there's a better case for like kind of a vague deity Um, but I think that there's enough evidence for claims such as The abrahamic god The what it's claimed to be are contradictory enough so that it uh I think there's a positive case that Those gods do not exist um, I'm a little more Agnostic, I guess you could say on the The more vague question of god, but I do not hold I do not believe in a god for the same reason I believe there are no leprechauns because I've never seen any evidence for a leprechaun and that's just I'm going to treat everything until I see evidence for it. I don't believe in it and That's as simple as it gets Got it. Okay. All right. The next one then is uh For praise It's uh, it's a long one. So what I did is I tried to go there. It's a lot of bible verses So I won't go through all of them But iron sherry, it says praise in genesis 6 6 exodus 32 14 numbers 14 20 the list goes on It says god cannot change his mind, but in numbers 23 19 through 20 uh, ja 117 god does Not change his mind, but later god does change his mind Can you explain this? Here's the gish galloping. I know iron sherry chair, but he's cool. I guess we just have to take it With a grain of salt. Um, obviously these are anthropomorphisms Anthropomorphic it's hard to say anthropomorphisms And what these are what these are intended to do is convey A little it's like a literary device to convey something that god is trying to come to our To our level under some he's trying to give us a spiritual lesson on something And um, so yeah, the this is because something appears to be contradictory doesn't mean it Okay awesome Uh snake Is there anything that would make you change your mind to becoming a christian? Yeah, if god appeared before me then I mean that that's a pretty Nail in the coffin. I'm sure there are other Other instances in which I would be convinced um But I should be trivially easy for a god to figure out what would convince people and then give them that uh If I'm trying to think it could be a lot of things but Basically my go-to is if if god appeared before me Or if I was able to verifiably witness some kind of miracle, but Um, I've heard reports of witnesses and miracles for every faith and I've never been witnessed any um I've never seen any suspension of the laws of physics I've never been visited by any voices in the night, although that would be weak evidence um I would need something Probably a material appearance of like an angel or Jesus himself in in a way that I could determine that it wasn't a hallucination so maybe Maybe a simple else was in the room also at the same time and saw the same thing as me um Yeah, I don't think it would really take much And I'm not really worried about it. I in fact I thought it's my preference I wish there was a god and there wasn't afterlife. I just Don't see any evidence for it um So As soon as I'm presented with I'm I'm looking for it, but I don't I haven't found any all right Okay, we're moving on to praise Another one wait a minute. We got a super chat just popped in uh Snake do archaeologists see intelligent design Do we see it or seek yet See it do they when they when they're when they're digging around do they do they recognize this as intelligent design or do they just see well random chance Do archaeologists see Intelligent design that was it. It was a one sentence In In human remains Tell it the inspiration His name is sheep work. So he he'll elaborate because uh, he'll hear us talking about him right now okay Yeah, I'll come to that one. So praise uh How do you account for the fact that there are other Systems of logic which are functional that don't have the laws of logic that he is referring to Yeah, I've heard about this and I just don't see anything that is um Justified about those other systems or laws of logic that um, I had to I might have to look more into that but I just don't see how those schools of logic supersede the tatter the or the the logical absolutes No one in like a tag first day Okay, all right, they could probably elaborate as well. Um Uh, we only have one more question actually unless the uh sheep walks replies Uh, I'll keep an eye out for him. He hasn't yet I could try to answer that too What's that? I can try and answer it too if he doesn't uh Sure. Yeah, think about it real quick. I'll read it one more time to you And then I'll have to praise the question snake. Do archaeologists see intelligent design? So Praise genesis. Uh, it's again. It's your favorite guy here iron chariot for you today, uh Genesis 177 the covenant of circumcision is supposed to be everlasting But in Galatians 6 15 it is no longer of consequence. Why? Okay, I'm trying to understand the question no longer of Uh, but what is it? I'm trying I'm trying to put all this together. So can you explain or say it again over time? Sure, um in genesis 177 versus 10 through 11 as well. I think, um It says the covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting But in Galatians 6 15 it is of no longer a consequence Yeah, okay. This is talking about Circumcision of the heart That's because it no longer exists because it's spiritual now It used to be physical the first covenant physical but in the new covenant is eternal and spiritual It means this is classic covenants the old covenant new covenant. Come on iron. Come on, man Okay He said if archaeologists see intelligent design when they are making discoveries Then why don't you see intelligent design with what they discover? Well, archaeologists are studying humans and we know humans exist We haven't determined whether god exists and we haven't determined what the tools of a god are and So I I don't see much of a Analogy there There there are there isn't really a hard and fat asset to hell design but We know humans make buildings and we know humans make tools and we know A lot of the designs of these tools so we can rise them easily but my question Is essentially If you if you think you can tell The between the design and the natural process then you should be able to apply that to genetics and speciation and I think I've demonstrated that You know, he can go look up Terminology or whatever, but even they don't really know how to determine which genes or which species were the original creations And which ones have been mutated and adapted and since You can do that That's further confirmation that there is no real hard and fast way to just look at a thing And decide whether it was designed The layout just do it is they already have a lot of background information on what they're looking for and what they're looking at It's just they're looking at primitive versions of what we already know that humans can create Okay, we would have another question then that just came in for a phrase It says alex mall pass pointed out multiple times that the law of non-contradiction might not be true evidence By things like the lyre paradox and hilbert's hotel. What do you make of this? Yeah, I've I mean, I've listened to alex mall pass a few times um, I do respect, you know, what his um His viewpoints of logic is but um The nature of logic itself is immaterial. There's nothing this is what I show I mean, this is what I tell alex that There's nothing physical about the laws. This is a matter. I mean the logic itself doesn't matter if it's a discipline or One is a different discipline of logic or whatever Um, so he needs to address that and I don't think he's ever sufficient sufficiently address that he's just arguing semantics About a particular method of logic So he still hasn't escaped the paradox of his worldview All right. Well, that was all the questions and we went over time. So I hope everybody liked it. That was good Yeah, I enjoyed that. I'm going to let you guys do another two minute closing For yourself and if anybody's having an after show mention it so everybody can join you and I'll hand it over to a snake was right first All right, I'm thinking about an after show. So, uh, actually maybe I'll join pray is a few one because he does Um All right, so closing statements so I guess I'm just going to be kind of repeat a little bit here, but So like I just said a couple minutes ago If if you do have really a good way to distinguish from natural causes Then you should be able to turn that process that methodology Uh, scientifically towards uh life itself and Well, I haven't seen anyone claim that they've anyone on the creationist side claim that they've actually discovered Uh, the original set of genes Um, it's even though many of us share a lot of the same genes uh, many species Uh, even humans and weren't share a lot of the same genes humans and jellyfish I think share like 30 of their genes or maybe even higher. Maybe that's just daffodils and humans um The point is You should be able to Determine the difference there if you have a robust model for or Methody for telling design from natural processes and as far as I can tell that doesn't exist. Um I've been searching for like a hard and fast list like what qualities does something need to be to qualify as design uh, really we can just tell based on on similar objects and uh I was having a conversation earlier today That kind of drove this into my head Is we should really keep these analogies within biology so We can find analogies of machines and tools. We know humans Let's make means of tools and we see we can see it. We can see primitive versions Uh, but I don't think that analogy can extend necessarily to Uh, biology or chemistry Uh, since these tools are basically the pre date any understanding of biology or chemistry And the other major point that I thought we covered tonight was Really that what what is logic or at least natural law? What is it based in? uh I tend to think it's based on Just the the fact that certain states of being are necessarily contradictory and thus impossible and These laws and rules can exist whether or not a mind is there to define them Whether or not it's a transcendent mind or a mind that understands what's going on And all of these minds are contingent upon the operation of these natural laws So I don't see why a mind is necessary in the equation of the origin of these natural laws um I understand The claims of theism much better in the sense of That it's a non personal non non-conscious kind of deity a deity which Doesn't change its mind. It just represents or maybe Manifests in the natural law of the universe Um, and I kind of think the same way about the stories of the bible Um, it makes sense if it's kind of a parable of man Against the world or not necessarily against but just living in the world the natural consequences and state of existence and god as a force of nature Everything in the bible seems to make sense from that point of view Although many other religions do as well as a myth as a story um But as soon as you start getting into well, it was a mind. It was conscious. It's making decisions That's when it starts to get into contradictions like how can an all good being allow to exist how can Why do bad designs exist from this supposedly perfect designer? um How can something be all powerful and yet It cannot create which it cannot lift which is necessarily a limitation to Omnipotence So and I guess I'll end again on my analogy to morality so if god is representing or manifesting the laws of physics or Or just writing and deciding the laws of physics or or morality He's doing so For a reason. He's not just randomly just decide. Well, these chemicals do this and it's wrong to murder for no reason there are reasoned there's reasoned rationale behind this and It was that that rationale stands regardless of the opinions of any Any mind transcendental or not that logic is irrefutable and Is objective which means it stands irrespective of the god if god was the source of morality And logic it would be objective. It would not be objective. So I think that's The main source of kind of our misunderstanding there. Um I don't think I have too more to say but hopefully we can expand on these discussions and Delve more deeply in the future. Yeah, maybe even in the after show. Yep. All right, praise you are up So tonight we heard the jargon the same jargon from atheists that they're not convinced god exists Like they're they are the arbiters Of evidence or proof of god, but you see even these buzzwords like evidence Uh proof they pre they presuppose an objective metaphysic All right, this is it goes into my laws of logic too. These are this is conceptual nature and axiomatic epistemologically You know and through through these processes of elimination virtue Syllagism like I mentioned in the debate Atheists unwittingly negate themselves from grounding such axioms As evidence-proof because science only deals with approximations and uh probabilities In order to measure probabilities and approximations appear empirically There must be an objective standard in which results are weighed against since the materials worldview cannot account for distinguishing objectively true propositions from false ones Therefore only the christian worldview can so even their own System of disbelief Um, I mean it's it's it's a glory to god already with that. I mean that shows evidence for god right there And uh snake was mentioning well if god showed if jesus showed up with angels and stuff Well, they did this in the new testament and people disbelieved Even when they even after they saw the miracles of christ To me that is circular in begging the question from the beginning through the lens of an atheist See to find evidence of god you need to go outside yourself And and uh and get rid of this arbitrary thinking I mean that is the folly of atheism So, you know, I pray for snake that You know other atheists too that they put too much confidence in their own The way they perceive reality instead of going outside of themselves And then they can and then they might be able to see and understand god because they're too consumed in themselves in their own rationality In their own lens of the world So and as far as intelligent design too, uh that design that is um to me a straw man argument because you need to know The the intentions of the designer to To criticize the design. How do you know what the intentions are? So to me, that's a self-refuting argument. We do know complexity though because we have Shannon's information So we can determine complexity So yeah, uh people can check my channel out. You can join in in our channel, so um I encourage people to do that and engage because What i've noticed is when non-believers engage with believers they start to change their beliefs a little bit They start to maybe get a little bit Influenced and that's all to me that's the whole point of Christianity is to Hopefully encourage non-believers to think differently and that's what repentance is So with that I can see my time Okay, wow, I feel like I've done drugs and I haven't done any We got a super chat that just got blasted in for five hours right now I think that's Sabrina that was uh, why do atheists acknowledge consciousness when the observed science field of neurology Says that there is no such thing and everything is just in the mind So I don't know if you guys want to answer that real quick or have that as part of your after show Yeah I mean, I'll just say rick it. I don't think any neuroscience says there's no such thing as consciousness. I think Well, we haven't exactly solved it and totally explained it, but uh And no everything is not just in the mind things are objective and exist outside the mind, so Uh, yeah, to me the mind is every consciousness is irreducible and of course that is another evidence of God because if consciousness was reducible to is physical then it couldn't be Irreducible, so I mean that's how I'd address that All right Okay, well everybody, um, thank you everybody for watching. I hope that you all enjoyed this I wanted to thank snake was right for this because he basically saved the day There was actually no debate going to happen because the nobody came We sent out the invites and we tried to get them. We got no response So with no praise and no snakes night. This was not going to happen. So kudos on them and And be sure to check out their channels and again watch for an after show I'm sure they'll post a comment in the section below when this goes live or when this finishes being uploaded And you can find their uh after show party there And so again, I wanted to thank praise and snake Yeah Hope you guys come on soon and don't forget to hit that subscribe button If you personally want a debate leave a message for james about it And I hope you guys had a great weekend and we are out