 evening everybody. So welcome to Modern Day Debate. Tonight we're going to be debating is Christianity true? And to start us out, we have Chris on the floor. So thank you so much for being here, Chris. And you have up to six minutes. Thank you very much. So my name is Chris. I'm actually based in the UK. So for me, it's about one o'clock in the morning. So do bear with me. So I ask you to be gracious for that. So the thesis for today's topic is Christianity true? And I believe that if Christianity is true, if the Christian Triune God of the Bible exists, because if the Christian Triune God of the Bible does not exist, then Christianity itself cannot be true. Now, before we can look at evidences and proofs for the existence of God, we must first of all consider the different worldviews involved as our worldview determines our nature of reality and our methodology for interpreting evidence. But Christian has a biblical worldview. This is a belief in the biblical and then the biblical worldview as the peaceful positions that the Triune God exists, that this God has given us natural revelation, i.e., the universe that we live in, and special revelation, i.e., the Bible. And then that and that the supernatural exists. The atheist also has a worldview that is based upon naturalism. And I'll ask you guys to clarify exactly what you mean by atheism. And therefore, whatever evidence I bring, they will interpret that evidence in light of their worldview. For example, if they asked me to perform a miracle, for example, to levitate the building that they're setting now, and that happens, they perhaps may not be convinced because they may say that, well, that the building didn't really levitate, but I tricked them. It was an illusion. Or that they might say that, well, there must be a natural explanation, even if they can't give us one right now. So when looking at and comparing worldviews then, we have to look at the exploratory power of each worldview. Christianity is true because the Triune God of the Bible exists, and the impossibility of the contrary. My proof is that without the Christian God, you have no foundation for the uniformity of nature. A basic presupposition for science. No foundation for universal laws of logic and reasoning in which we can have a debate. Or moral absolutes. And in fact, I predict tonight that the atheists will have to follow from my biblical worldview to make their words be intelligible as they exist in God's created universe. Romans chapter one, starting from verse 20 says, for since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that have made his eternal power and Godhead. So they are are without excuse. They are without an apologetic. They are without a defence would be a problem about translation from the original language. Now Albert Einstein said, in the view of such harmony in the cosmos, which I have with my limited human mind, and an ability to recognise that they are people who say there is no God. What makes me really angry is that they quote me for support in such views. So Isaac Newton says that this most beautiful system of sun, planets and comets can only be seen from the council and the meaning of an intelligent and powerful being. The more we study nature, the more we understand of the amazing work of our creator, God. And so just one of one last thing I want to quickly add, if I may, is that when the when the atheists, usually in my conversation with faces anyway, and they will bring up like the problem with evil, they will say, well, how can the God exist when evil things happen to children and and things like that. But first of all, they'll, they need to give us a foundation of why the suffering of children is evil. Exactly without a Christian worldview, you have no foundation of God's no foundation of evil. And I'm sure tonight we'll get into that about that expanded on that. Thank you for having me. It's wonderful meeting all of you, big fan of the page. And so to give you a little background on myself, I grew up an evangelical Christian, but I was also a huge nerd. And I was fortunate enough to get accepted into Princeton University where I thought I was going to be an international relations major. However, my freshman year, I took a class called New Testament and Christian Origins and realized that I loved learning about Christianity from an academic perspective. So I ended up majoring in religious studies at Princeton. And the majority of my professors in the religion department were atheists, and a good chunk of my reading assignments were from the atheist scholar Bart Airman. But despite this, my faith in Christianity actually strengthened as I learned more, rather than become weaker, which is kind of what I expected to be honest. But from a historical perspective, there's extensive evidence that Jesus Christ existed, died by crucifixion and rose from the dead. Based on historical texts, the details of the stories and the spread of Christianity, the most plausible explanation to me is that Jesus died and rose from the grave. And there's four different methods from the historical methods that I use to come to this conclusion. There's the principle of multiple attestation, the criterion of embarrassment, the archaeological evidence, and the early history of the spread of Christianity. All these point to Christianity being true, which is what we're debating tonight. So I'll start with multiple attestation. So the principle of multiple multiple attestation refers to the presence of a story or teaching in multiple independent sources. And the logic is straightforward. If multiple sources report the same event or saying that are independent, it is less likely that the event or saying was invented by a single author. In the case of Christianity, key events and teachings of Jesus are attested in multiple sources. These include not only the canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but also non canonical Gospels and early Christian writings like the letters of Paul. Additionally, there are non Christian sources just such as the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus that talk about the existence in the events of Jesus' life. The crucifixion of Jesus is universally attested across all these sources, suggesting strong historical credibility. The next one is my favor, the criterion of embarrassment. Simplest form. If there's the main characters are really embarrassing and do stuff that you're not proud of, it's more likely to be true. So the more academic explanation is the criterion of embarrassment posits that if a text includes potentially embarrassing or difficult material for the author's community, it is less likely to be fabricated. The criterion is significant because authors of antiquity typically sought to promote their heroes, not embarrass them. In the New Testament, examples of this are the denial of Peter, a leading disciple denying Jesus, the crucifixion itself, which is a humiliating form of execution. And additionally, I thought this was crazy when I learned more about it, the first people to see Jesus were shepherds who were considered so low in society that their testimony wasn't even admissible in court. Additionally, the first two people to see Jesus after he was resurrected were two women who at the time were also considered second class citizens. These accounts suggest authenticity because early Christians would have had little reason to invent these details in the stories. And then the last two sections of archaeological evidence, archaeological discoveries provide tangible evidence of the historical context of biblical narratives. For example, the pool of Bethesda, that's a hard word to say, and the pool of Siloam locations where Jesus performed miracles have been identified and excavated. Such findings corroborate the gospel narratives, geographical and cultural references. And finally, the spread of Christianity. All the Roman authorities had to do to forever quell Christianity before it started was to produce a dead body of Jesus. After Jesus' death, you know, it's written that the disciples just went back to fishing. They were they weren't scholars. They were pretty lowly men in society. However, according to the gospels and the epistles, Jesus appeared more to more than 500 people in his 40 days after he resurrected. All but one disciple was murdered for spreading their testimony of Jesus. For them to be this persistent, despite the intense persecution points that they truly witnessed something new supernatural, the demand that they thought was dead and thought was their savior was dead by crucifixion had resurrected. It's much harder to believe that they died for their beliefs for something they either either knew was a lie or something they didn't have concrete and convincing evidence for. So in conclusion, from a historical perspective, it is undeniable that Jesus existed and was crucified. And based on the earliest Christians testimonies, the scenario that makes most sense is that Jesus rose from the dead. Thanks. That's that's all I got. Alright, thank you so much. And since OBS updated, I'm going to do this to our speakers again. So don't mind me. If you didn't hear me the first time because I know you didn't welcome to modern day debate. We are neutral platform hosting debates on science, politics, religion. Thank you so much, Jimmy and Chris for your introductory statements. We appreciate that. We are going to kick it over to the other side and remind our audience we are going to do Q&A at the end of our discussion. So if you have questions for any of our speakers, get that in our Q&A. So Raphael, Max, who would like to go first? If you want to go, Max, go ahead. Alright, Max, the floor is yours. Six minutes. Thank you very much to modern day debate and for everybody for hosting this. Am I still audible? I've been having some microphone issues. So okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Well, I just flew back from Ohio actually. And boy are my arms tired. I actually flew out there to see the eclipse. I traveled out to rural Ohio along the middle center line of the eclipse path. And it's something to really ruminate about because something that was once considered a omen and sort of a sign from God and inexplicable bad luck sign is now something that's been studied and quantified and predicted and projected ahead into the future for up to 10,000 years. And what's fascinating to me is that it isn't the process of faith, which has provided this insight into how things work. It isn't the process of faith, which has made us less afraid of these formerly inexplicable but certainly still very powerful and impactful, natural phenomenon like an eclipse. It's been logic. It's been science. It's been naturalism. Is Christianity true? I'd say no, simply because Christianity itself is a religion. Religions are based in faith. Some people try to characterize Christianity as no, it's a relationship, not a religion, but it's still a relationship to a personal lord and savior of some kind. And one still has to be convinced that there's such a thing as sin and as moral repercussions to their actions, which may offend an almighty Triune God. By the way, speaking of a Triune God to address the earlier pitch on Christianity. Chris, I believe you refer to the Bible of your source as your source of information of what God is. I would be very curious to know which Bible because this Bible actually contains the apocrypha, which is a series of different books, sort of between the middle or between the middle in the middle and in between the old and new testaments, books like First and Second Maccabees, additional chapters of Esther, things like that. Tobit, which is a great story about a kid who finds a fish with like a gold coin in his mouth or something like that. I don't know, it's all bullshit. The point is, is that you have to also accept that the Bible that you have today has been changed and altered ultimately by the same kinds of power and the same kinds of theological constructs and organizations, which I would wager you don't personally jive with yourself. And yet the product of those previous manifestations of Christianity are what you embrace as divinely inspired. And I'd be very curious to know at what point you decided, historically speaking, the right Christianity to believe in because there's been so many different forms. Let's see. What else? I wanted to also note that the other four arguments that Jimmy were presenting, the, what were they, multiple attestations, a.k.a. hearsay, if anybody's ever seen or played a game of telephone where a crowd of people pass a secret along. One thing you have to understand is that rumors grow. People exaggerate, especially in an environment where there's people are oppressed because they're under the Romans. People are hungrier and have to work really hard. People aren't as frankly aware. I won't say educated, but aren't as aware of how things work and how to predict things like eclipses. And by the way, when I say atheism, I mean to include, and I understand this may be a unique position, naturalism, science and logic. That is all atheists because it does not address God. It does not require God. It does not require faith. Faith is a fallacy. Faith is the convincing that you believe something against the evidence of the contrary. And the fact of the matter is, is that the stories in the Bible writ large are controversial by natural evidence. You have to rely on faith to believe in the Bible to think that it's really true. And in order to base your lifestyle off of something, your world view off of something, you certainly have to at least hope or wish that it's true to begin with. How am I doing on time? I think I started. I think I have one more minute left. One minute. Yes. One minute. Let's see here. Natural revelation. It was fascinating because special revelation was included right after that. And I believe it was Chris's argument. And special revelation can't be tested. You can't test or recreate special revelation. Special revelation is a unique phenomenon. And because you can't test it and replicate it, it probably isn't going to be a good reliable source of, say, how to build a bridge or how to survive a flood in your area or build a dam or something like that. It has to be a quantifiable mathematical thing. And the quantifiable figures given in the Bible, frankly, add up to a lot of nonsense about a global flood and the creation of the universe 6,000 years ago and one rotten apple from the witness of the Bible is enough to is enough to see now you've made me miss the word impugned or make you question the characterization of the honesty of the source material impeach. That's the word impeach. The Bible is impeached by its bullshit accounts. All right. Take it away, Raphael. That's a little over time, but sorry if I made you lose your thought there. I just was letting you know you're getting close. So Raphael, the floor is yours. Six minutes on the clock. Thank you very much, James. And hello, everyone. Pleased to meet you. My name is Raphael Tapia. I come from Mexico City and I host a show on YouTube called La Cantina Lattel. And I've been debating this for about, I don't know, eight, nine years, something like that. And, well, the thing is, we need to think about the God question a bit further than just what one religion may say or another. I know that the topic of the debate is is create Christianity true. So I just wanted to make the statement that we all pretty much know that religions that come from several cosmogonies like, I don't know, Hesiods, Diagoni, or the Populbou, or the Bhagavad Gita in Romayan and Mahabharata. Well, those are anthropomorphized gods and we pretty much know those don't exist. We need to speak about a philosophical God in order to pretty much analyze this in depth, right? So right now, James, I'm going to go full screen with a small presentation if... Yeah, no problem. And just to remind you as well, it's not a big problem, but my name's Ryan. I fall in just, it says James in our Zoom chats, just if anybody's like, you know, wondering why that might be confusion. It does say James, so I paused your clock. I'm sorry. So you are screen sharing and ready to go. Okay, thank you, Ryan, and sorry for the confusion. So those, the Christian gods exist. Well, I think we need to define what we're talking about, right? Christianity, I define it, or I understand it to be a monotheistic religion. It's centered on what Jesus thought. I should have put this in bold because the key parts here are monotheistic and Christ, right? So monotheistic, the Christians believe that there is a single God, and in that case we should demonstrate a single God or demonstrated God does not exist, any God. So, and the Christ thing, well, that's a particular belief that they think that it's the Messiah, other religions related don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I can cite the Muslims or you or the Jewish people that don't believe or don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. We all, I think we know that, right? Now, what is truth? I define truth as that which corresponds to reality or facts. Yeah, it's an attribute. We assign a statement or an allegation about reality and we think and we attribute truth to it whenever this fits or contrast reality and it fits, okay? So once we state something and we need to have something to contrast with, okay? Now, if we're going to be talking about God or a God, we need to be talking about someone. Of course, if I'm speaking with Christians, I know that you guys think that God is a someone, right? He thinks, he has thoughts, he has will, he has agent, he has decisions, right? And I think that if we're going to have a meaningful conversation about God, this being, it has to have divine power. I define divine power as the capacity of a supreme being to change the world, to modify the world with, by his will alone, like if God wants that a couple of sticks becomes snakes in the ground, God can do it, can do that. I define God as a being that is capable of making the world change the space, make the world flat if he wants, only by the will alone and there's no need for occasion to happen, there's no need to have a physical interaction at all, right? The will of God is a change in the world in itself, but that in itself is a problem because we understand the world through causality, we understand the principle of causality in us, in a very simple way and we need to delve in that with philosophy and ontology. Every effect is produced by a cost, by a cause, I mean, we know that, we understand that and well, once we delve deeper in what a cause is, we understand that it necessitates either interaction or a point of contact, but God jumps this process, God goes ahead and breaks the causal chain in the world and pretty much becomes a contradiction in itself because if it cannot be identified as a cause because it has no interaction with his power by his changes, then there is no logical nexus and there is a contradiction there. God cannot be a cause and a non-cause at the same time and in the same sense divine power is contradictory and we all know or we should know that divine logical contradictions entail non-existence, entail we can demonstrate things non-existence through logical contradictions. We understand that there cannot be square circles or, I don't know, four-sided triangles or married bachelors. Well, since God is contradictory and this is not the only way, then we know that God, no God, can exist. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you, Raphael, for your opening statement and you as well, Max, we're going to kick it into an open discussion. Just let y'all know, not only do we do a Q&A here at Modern Day Debate at the end of our debates, but we also upload these to our podcast form within 24 hours. So if you are listening via podcast and you're wondering where to hear these live, check out our YouTube channel Modern Day Debate. I'm going to put it over to Chris and Jimmy to respond to some of what they just heard and feel free to jump in. Max and Raphael, once we get into it. So go ahead, fellas. All right, Chris, you want to start since you started? Yeah, sure. I said towards the end that I should predict that the atheist would need to step into my world view in order to support their own. And Max said, if he was and was logic, it was reason. It was science. Well, I want to ask, I would like to ask Max, can he give me a how does he know that reason and science? Is the reason? How does he know that reason and science was of logic? How can he have a foundation of knowing and verifying those things? Testability, verifiability, recreatability. The scientific method itself is a method for how to ascertain the accuracy of one's predictions. We called a hypothesis, something above an actual thesis, you know, an idea or a theory. And a theory, of course, is not something that is used in a colloquial sense, meaning just a possible idea or or one of several explanations. Yeah, it's not a speculation. Correct. A theory, I think I understand that the theory is the conventional word of explaining the concept in a scientific sense. But again, it's a bit it's a bit professional lingo. I think a better word for it is a model. In other words, it's like a mathematical function or a model. We, if, if, if, you know, if X, Y, and Z is true, we understand the relationships between those factors. We understand the processes and the stoichiometry or the algebra or whatever quantity quantification it is behind how to predict the eventualities of a system. And the reason why it doesn't borrow from your worldview, although people who hold your worldview, at least tangentially, have also embraced parts of the scientific or logical or naturalist worldview or model of how to do things and how to predict things and how to really believe things, which is the point. And what they I think what you feel to understand is that the things that logic or reason or scientific method address, it does not address the supernatural. Nothing supernatural, nothing unnatural, nothing supernatural nothing unreal exists, right? Because if it exists, it's, it's in there. Yeah. Oh, it's just wrapping up. Yeah. So the, to the scientific method is based upon the induction. Yeah. Uniformity. The reason we can make, we can come up by, we can come up with theories, we can, and then we can test those, those, those theories. Yeah. And we can repeat those experiments. And we could, if the theory is correct, then we should expect a certain outcome. And if we repeat those experiments, long as this, the similar factors involved, we should get similar, similar results. Yeah. So if it's a similar map sets of some factors, and being out of certain results, and then we repeat those factors later on in the future, and we expect the similar factors to give us a similar effect. My point is in the obviously, well, for you, how can, how can it be uniformed? What, what was the question that I missed it? So science is asserts the uniformity of nature. In certain sites, not quite it's an axiom will be the same as the future. Yeah, but it's an axiom. Chris, it's just the way the things science needs to metaphysically entail in order to understand or try to understand the world, like the uniform, uniformity of the world in itself, the logical laws, maths, and there are some, some axioms in order to do science, you can see that on philosophy, philosophy of science. But that, what's that have to do with anything? I don't get it. I'd like to ask Chris a question of regarding uniformity. And that is how is it that even again, this is the Bible, right? This is what you base your beliefs on. How is it that even with the standard set, so to speak, of what is it, 66 books in the Old and New Testament? How is it with just a uniform text? Same document. There are thousands, probably definitely hundreds of interpretations and denominations and claims to authority of being the right interpretations of this book. They all say that you can test it. They all say that they have their biblical and textual evidence and proofs. But when you try to test them against each other, all they end up doing is excommunicating each other. And a couple hundred years ago, they'd slit each other's throats over saying, you know, what the communion or Eucharist or baptism or, or, you know, anything like that really meant. So my question to you is, how do you, given a uniform document are able to explain or apologize for the different interpretations? How do you personally test and decide which interpretation is for you? What's your shopping process? So I think what we've fallen down to here is hermeneutics and the how we interpret the Bible. And anybody can take any book, any text and take it out of its context and use it for their own purposes. How do you know it's out of context? Well, actually, Max, I kind of... Put the hand you the ball. No, you're good. I was going to say I was just jumping and say, guys, we got to let Jimmy in here. So go for it. Oh, okay. I was about to say, so Max, you actually bring up an interesting point because you're right, the Bible has a million different interpretations. But I think you've been talking about the scientific method. I think the scientific method has a lot of interpretations to people who claim they're falling the scientific method come to very different conclusions. And I won't say the word because we're on YouTube, but you know, the Fauci Alchi, I think, is a very modern example of a million different people using different scientific method coming to wildly different conclusions and people losing their mind over it. That's just an example. But I think the fact that people have different interpretations of the Bible doesn't really exclude its authenticity just like in the scientific method. I think one of my favorite, it's always sunny in Philadelphia episode where Matt from It's Always Sunny goes, science is a wrong sometimes. He shows a Galileo was a bitch because he thought the Earth was the center of the universe and it was. And I forget what else he said. But what I'm saying is that I don't know that science also has diversity of interpretation. So I don't know if that's really an argument. I guess that's where I personally disagree. Science certainly has diversity of interpretations. The difference is that we all on the scientific atheistic side have a system, a uniform system in place for how to test those things. We have not only peer review, which has, I mean, again, that's human. Like that's just trying its best to remove human error because peer review is, I mean, it's, it's it's, it's fallacious at times and it's, it can be really, really bad just because something's published doesn't make it true. What makes something true is if you can test it and make predictions with it, just like you were able to test and make predictions about how and when a lunar eclipse would occur with math and long term astronomical observations. You can't make, you can't make a prediction that says, oh no, the sun turned dark because we didn't sacrifice a chicken to Thor. What? That's that's where religion comes from. That's the system. That's what people who created this believe. Well, okay, I would love for you to point to the verse where it says thou shalt not slice a chicken to Thor and eclipse will come. I know, I know, I know what you mean. I know what you mean. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, because it's literally it's not only the Old Testament sacrifices of animals that the Jewish temple was built to perform, but it's the sacrifice, the blood sacrifice of Jesus to save your fucking sins. So don't tell me it's not blood magic. No, because it is. Yeah, of course. By the way, Jimmy and Chris, the thing is the topic of the debate is Christianity true so far. Well, there is no way if you have no way to demonstrate the contrast and the correspondence with reality, then you cannot state that it's true. You cannot say that it's true. Christianity entails the existence of a God. A few minutes ago, I demonstrated a logical contradiction, and it's not the only one. There are several other there are published, you can go to Sophia, you can go to Springer, you can go wherever. Many, it's a very, very nice philosophical discussion. So if you understand that logical contradictions cannot exist, well, Christianity cannot be true. And if you don't have anything to stand by to contrast with other than anecdotes from 2000 years ago, well, man, and I'm sorry to say, but that's not history. It's not using the scientific method. It's not using the historical method. Historians don't delve into miracles. They don't deny them. They don't assert them. Because if that were the case, we would have to accept that, I don't know, Athena possessed Diomedes and gave him a lot of power in the Trojan War. And that's not the case, right? Well, Max, I wanted to go on one other point you make that that was really interesting. You talked about the eclipse. I actually live in Dallas, so I got to see the full totality and it was it was awesome. And ironically, and I talked a little bit about my college experience, I was a religion major, but one of the classes that actually bolstered my faith the most had nothing to do with religion. It was a class on the universe. And I just made me think of like the house, one, how vast the universe is to the details in which the universe was created in three, the Occam's razor of Earth and like how specific the settings in situation had to be for human life to even be possible. Like for example, I remember the craziest thing and this is you you and I might actually agree on this is where they talked about evidence of the Big Bang. And they said that they determined the galaxies that are farther away from us are actually moving away faster than galaxies that are closer than us. And that's evidence of a concentric point where all matter in the universe started from. So and you probably believe in the Big Bang, but I believe that the only, you know, causation of the Big Bang where everything came from nothing and exploded out is God. So that's kind of where I come from. And so I guess that's a really long winded way to say, I guess I don't always see like the fact that the universe is so ordered there's scientific law, why that automatically says, oh, then God can't be real. Is it because of the supernatural like stories of Jesus? Is that what you just automatically? It's the magic. It's the magic. It's the power. I don't even know what you're saying, but it doesn't show that there's an intelligence. You live in Texas and you know it's Spanish. Yeah. You just stated that the universe came from nothing. I would like to remind you that when Lemaitre proposed his cosmic egg theory and Papo and the pope P. is the 12th wanted to make it a dogma. Lemaitre stopped him very publicly and why? Because, well, he said that's not how science works. Yeah. Lemaitre didn't state at all that the universe came from nothing. That's what's cool. That's why it's called cosmic egg. It transformed. Yeah. It transformed from what was to what is man. Where does it state that it came from nothing? The evidence of the Big Bang that it all started from a concentric point all matter in the universe and exploded out. How do you point? What is a conjecturing point? It is nothing. Exactly. Well, that's why I think the Big Bang is the best evidence of God. No. How do you go? This is the second time. So go ahead. How the hell do you go from a Big Bang, therefore God? I'll tell you how you go from a Big Bang, therefore God. And it's because your monkey brain is evolved to your primate brain is evolved to. So is mine. And I'll explain to you why back when all of our great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers were sort of human back living way back when if they were say it like and there was a rustling in the leaves nearby, there were two options. Number one, it was a predator, a tiger, a lion, a bear. Number two, it wasn't. Now if they thought to themselves, oh, it's a tiger, it's a lion, I better get out of here. And they were wrong. It was just the wind or something. No harm, no foul, right? But if they were drinking that water and they heard the leaves rustling and they thought, oh, it's probably they were wrong. They died. Natural selection. Max, sorry, they investigated and those that investigated, well, they had less chances to survive because when they find the predator, they're gone, man. Not necessarily investigated. What I mean is that when they made a false positive, no harm, no foul, right? They thought that there was a predator there positively thought, but they were wrong, a false positive. When they made a false negative, they thought that there was not a predator there, but it turned out there was. Those, that is less desirable because you're more likely to get eaten. In other words, when we think of something as big as like the big bang, notice my galaxy back here, when we look at that and say, gee, I'll bet it came from a god made in our image or rather were in the image of it. We are literally using our primate monkey brains that evolved. It's been beneficial to us historically, genetically to assume a false positive to believe that there's something there, a power or a presence or a malicious entity there when in fact there isn't one. The difference is now we have a different way and a better way of doing it. Just like we evolved from not using tools or not wearing clothes and things like that to hunting, gathering, to then farming, to then industrialization. Now finally, atheism and the naturalistic explanation of the world is proliferating enough to where we're understanding the benefits of it and what it is. And I do believe there is, dare I say, a numinist. It's almost a spiritual or emotional value in that because once you really contemplate these things, it's very humbling and you get a method to really get things done and to really give you not only better answers, but more tantalizing questions. So I guess I think we disagree on the scientific order of the universe. I think that shows existence of a God that he made it with such order and such intelligent design. I think you disagree. Yeah, absolutely. Let me put it this way, Jimmy. Let's imagine for a second the world that has a lot of things interacting with each other and there was no God. Would those things have some kind of behavior? I don't understand the question. Will things have some kind of behavior? Yeah, things move, right? Because, well, there is not some things in the world. Everything is in motion. Right? I mean, like, are we rotating around the sun? Yeah, we're in motion. No, no, no, no. Are you talking about like... referring to that everything, everything that exists, it's in motion. Okay. There is no absolute zero in nature. So is it a lot? Oh, yeah, I know that. Okay, so since everything is in motion, let me put it this way. Can you imagine a world where there is no God and there are things and things should have behaviors, right? Yeah, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Yeah, I want to get somewhere but I want you to understand that things have behaviors. The fact that you find some kind of order, it's just the result of things having behaviors. Things have to respect the principle of identity. When you have the same circumstances, you will get the same phenomenon. That's not the order of the world. That's simple behavior of things. God or no God. You know why? Because it's impossible to have a world where the contrary happens, where things don't act as themselves because that will violate the logical principles and logical principles are impossible to violate, blah, blah, blah. You understand that, stating that the order of the universe necessitates an ordainer entails that you're going to necessitate someone to order God. So I guess is that a way of like refuting my because basically what I've heard is the specific conditions of where life can exist on Earth and the Occam's razor of how everything seems so designed. You said it's just motion that eventually comes with it. Okay. Max, I think the guy you debated use this on you. I thought it was a really good analogy. So if we're playing poker and I get a royal flush 20 times in a row, yeah, that could mathematically happen. You're cheating. Or you could think I'm cheating. Exactly. You think I'm cheating. That's why I think it's more logical. You know how I know you're cheating? You know how I know you're cheating? Well, but here, let me finish and I'll let you go. But that's why I think it makes more sense that there is some intelligent being that created Earth and allowed life to happen because that seems more likely than me getting a royal flush 8 million times in a row, which is roughly the mathematical probabilities of the atmosphere Earth and the ability to sustain life. So now tell me how I'm cheating. Well, because you're cheating. You're cheating. You're cheating. You're cheating. Well, because you're cheating because if you were to get a royal flush 20 times in a row, you're cheating. And the second thing is I'll give you an example here. It's a sort of a silly example. Imagine you're a pothole. I live in Portland, Oregon. All right. We got a lot of potholes. We got a lot of potholes to choose from. All right. So not hard to imagine. Now imagine it's filled up with water. All right. So you got a puddle of a pothole. Now imagine that puddle is alive. That puddle has sentience, consciousness, thought, and it explores its little world and it looks around its little niche and it says to itself, gee, I fit every corner of this pothole the inside grooves and ridges I can, I can I can stretch out and I'm just right. It's like me inside the video frame. Hey, look at me inside the video box. Wow. The video box must be created by an intelligent being just for me. And in this case, the video box it is created by an intelligent being but for the puddle it thinks it fits every form and it does but the reason it does is because it's a puddle. The next puddle you know, just across the road is totally shaped differently but it still thinks that it's made just for itself and the fact is that when you get the right ingredients and the right conditions and things like frankly, a lot of time well, a lot of time to us, the universe is still based on projections, still very, very, very young. So it's very exciting to think what life will do in the far to distant future but Earth for instance is one of certainly more planets. I believe this is true. I'm pretty sure the statistic is that there are more planets in the galaxy than there are stars because there are multiple planets associated with many different stars. And so given all of those stars, given all of the possible conditions it turns out that life started. Ryan, you remember while we were getting on hey you, you remember we were getting on this debate and you had to untangle your headphones. Think of how proteins form proteins are chains of crazy, you know molecules that amino acids right. We find the ingredients for proteins and amino acids in comets and in places like Enceladus and organic materials exist on the Moon's Titan. So it's not only on common on this planet but by the way the only reason we know that is because we only very very, very recently were able to discover and test that. And that's the sort of insight that the scientific, the naturalistic which don't point to God or need or use faith or God in any way, shape or form, they are atheistic they yield those kind of insights they actually start to answer the questions of where we might come from. There are some calculations to be stated here because maybe the Drake equation leave the Drake equation just in this we are sharing space with pretty much around 300 billion stars yeah and every star has at least I don't know five to six planets around them. Not every star in the galaxy it's the mean, the median sure. So many stars have more planets like ours and many stars have less planets and the media that's calculated let's put it on file that's 1.5 trillion planets I do want to let Chris jump in here you've been chewing there I think for a little bit I've been listening for a while so I do want to let you jump in and maybe give some of your thoughts on what you've been hearing here. Yeah certainly very interesting I'm used given so you talk about science, you talk about logic you talk about logic contradictions so in my well view we have a logical God who created us his image and that's why we are able to think like him and think his thoughts after him and think in a logical and logical way so my question to you is in an atheist well view how do you appeal to laws of logic? What are laws of logic? Again we explained that before usually for science we have axioms and the laws of logic we can actually get them up posteriori I don't know modus ponens if it rains I get wet it rains I get wet it's completely logical right well we observe the world and make those kinds of inferences thing is laws of logic are just tautologies A equals A and not A at the same time and in the same way and it's either A or not A right that's the three logical laws and well I talk about them because that's the way we research the world with reason the art and science of reasoning well entails using the the logical laws we need to know how to place deductions inductions and abductions to make an argument for explaining the world and well yeah we don't need an explanation because we see them as tautologies those are tools like maths maths it's a framework that we use to explain the world and make some type of predictions but maths is not the world yeah and same way the logical laws are not the world they help us to understand the world through our thoughts through our reasons and through our well our language framework we have a language framework and we use it to investigate the world with our mind and get logical conclusions so we say so we say the laws of logic and reasoning then constructs of our minds yeah those are tools yeah they correspond to reality but those they are tools and they cannot correspond because well they are tautology tautologically in nature yeah so so you what I'm saying is if laws of logic are just a construct of our mind some of that we have come up with ourselves is then how can they be universal for example a logic of non-contradiction A can't be A and B at the same time yeah that's true whether whether you are in America or in England not because I say so I understand where you're going we need to accept them as facts in order to understand the world with our reason because if we deny any of the laws especially the non-contradiction law then comes a law of explosion I don't know if you've heard about that but from any contradiction anything goes if you get a contradiction after that anything goes so we cannot state the logical laws as absolute truths but they are tautological they cannot be false by themselves like red equals red rafa equals rafa that's really obvious I understand that but we cannot state them as absolute truths we have to use them as absolute truths normally I would I would say they are absolute truths because they are given to us by a creator and and the reason why that we can use them and we do find them in nature is because he's created that world I would deny that because well in the same way that I'm investigating the construct the God construct I understand I find contradictions so that cannot be the source for logic and furthermore I try to address that point when I explained how it has been beneficial for our species to assume a false positive and there is a in fact atheist naturalist evolutionary biological reason why we are inclined to believe that but just because we believed it millions of years ago doesn't mean that we should keep on believing it now but I get well actually you probably just I was going to say just because we believed it before it doesn't automatically make it untrue now correct not really but if you have no reason to call something through then how do you actually with truth actually I want to address that because while I was in Ohio and I want to plug this while I was in Ohio there's a monument a site called serpent mound serpent like a snake serpent mound like a little mountain and it was built by ancient people way back when and it is aligned to the solstices and the equinoxes regarding how the sun would set relative to the horizon in the sky throughout the year it's very useful when doing agricultural planting and it again is sort of special and in the place itself and so it is special actually and so the point is is that people were able to make long-term observation about something like where the sun set in the sky and determine when to say plant crops or go hunting or do something like that which helped them the same kind of astronomical knowledge that those people use back then still holds true today and makes predictions today and the reason why we still use it is because it works and the reason why we are sort of astounded when we look at an old site like that that has knowledge that we still use is we think gee how are they able to understand a law a fact of nature where the sun will set and when and still have these crazy beliefs about spirits or what not or demons or things like that ghosts whatever and afterlife even and so there's no way to sort of test that knowledge but there is a way to test that sort of astronomy and when we project that knowledge backward and understand that people back then understand it that's what sort of impresses us it's not the fact that they believe in gods that impresses us it's the fact that they believe in something that was correct that impresses us and it should be because our ancestors weren't stupid right think that they would be dead if they were dead so we have the Mayans who had a great astronomy we have the Greeks that gave us philosophy 2700 years ago with the palace of my leaders and everything beyond that socrates, Plato Aristotle Plotinos from which christianic culture drew Hellenic ideas a stoicism that gave Christianity well if you guys read I don't know I picked this or I don't know Cicero you will find that there are very, very, very Christian ideas in there and well they they were not Christian but whatever what I mean is ok we have anthropological reasons to know that many, many civilizations in our history purported explanations about things they didn't understand as gods and what I wanted to say on my opening is ok we can leave the religions aside we can leave the anthropology aside because if God existed it cannot be the one that comes in the marble books yeah because there is a gap problem you can make an ontological argument like Anselm or you can make Aquinas five ways or five ways or you can actually state the cosmological argument or I don't know the fine tuning that Jimmy brought up or intelligent and stuff and stuff and still there is the gap problem even if we granted the conclusion which is not warranted by the premises there would still be a huge gap between that and Yahweh a gap between that and Yahweh is that what he said yeah so and we do not grant that because well many many conclusions don't follow from the premises right like you stated from the big bank we cannot state a god from what we understand as order we cannot state a god because if you need a reordered thing someone to order it then that person that's ordering it it's ordered in itself well and I'm not sure if you personally believe in the Big Bang but even though the scientific method can't say that there's an all powerful god wouldn't you say that everything coming from nothing and exploding the universe is maybe some evidence there's some and I think we're probably going to just go on we're going to talk about the evidence of science and I think that's an amazing display of God no scientist states that the Big Bang came from nothing in the ontological way Lawrence Krause made a book came famous because he stated a universe from nothing but his nothing is not an ontological nothing it's not a philosophical nothing it's the quantum vacuum and the quantum vacuum is something I mean it's just that nobody who dedicates themselves to science states that the universe appeared out of nothing the ones that state that are apologists and believers they believe that the world came out of nothing from God's power and I don't know about you but I believe that from nothing nothing comes I just want to say that in Christianity it's a typical well view we believe before that God is eternal so you say if the supreme being was other than who was the supreme being I think that's what your argument was earlier it's quite similar to the argument well if then God must have been created then who created God let me clarify according to Christianity according to the bible according to the biblical well view God has eternally existed so God has always been there I understand but the problem Chris was not on the eternity of God it was on the argument the argument presented by Jimmy was everything ordered needs someone to order it but as someone has to be ordered yeah get out at least you have everything that begins to exist and then you bring out God because God is eternal he didn't begin to exist and then you state something like why is now in this debate that the world came from nothing from the big bang and from science that's not what science says I'm curious Jimmy I never said to welcome nobody did nobody said the world came from nothing well yeah believers do some believers do no they say that believers I think that we observe in this world if you have order then there must be an order but if you have the Christian God has eternally existed he created time he created space says who says who leave it there Max that's the construct the qualities of the construct the attributes or the characteristics of the construct state that God must be eternal that it's uncreated that the first cause that is the maximum of everything that is the the chocolate cover man I'm asking how they know they don't they just I'm asking Chris what how he knows that because I believe the Bible to be I believe that God has spoken I believe he's spoken in the scriptures I admitted that I said in my open statement that we have natural revelation we also have special revelation that special revelation comes in the form of the Bible and by beginning Genesis 1 it states that God created it Chris if revelation if revelation is a reliable way to obtain truth well let's talk about Genesis I'm not talking about that Max I'm trying to set up a quandary if revelation is a proper way to obtain reliable truth from the world then why are you not a Muslim or are you or a Hindu or a policeman I'm not a Muslim because I believe that God has spoken I believe that there's a contradiction of the Bible and since the biblical text was the first text Chris they believe that too they believe that God spoke through Gabriel to Muhammad so if you have logical consistency then you would have to believe well pretty much every religion Chris may I ask I don't want you to dox yourself and say where you go to church but what denomination is the church you go to what denomination is the church I attend it's an Armenian Armenian domination oh Armenian why aren't you Catholic why aren't you Catholic yeah but the denomination why aren't you Mormon why aren't you Jehovah's Witness why aren't you an Evangelical because you picked one you liked or you were born into it more likely Mary may carry these Christian science it sucks by the way there are many he has spoken within the Bible and so when you these are very obvious when you the Bible is our measuring stick so when you measure those based on the Bible then we don't come to see it then I love that analogy you say the Bible is your measuring stick imagine how fucking confusing it would be if we had to build things where like a ruler was based on special revelation everybody would have like a qubit right like the king's length of the arm or whatever it would be constantly changing and that would be total chaos and so when you say the Bible is your measuring stick the problem is that your measuring stick doesn't add up and everybody's got a different one only that have you realized hold on just one second we got to let Jimmy in here he's trying to jump in and this is kind of roundabout to one of your initial points so you criticized my multiple attestation to refresh audience that's when multiple independent sources say the same story and you said that is also known as hearsay aka a game of telephone so I guess if you consider independent sources saying the same thing how do you determine anything in history is credible if you don't believe in multiple attestation really there are ways and degrees of ascertaining historical events there are things like archaeology which you mentioned that's a thing we know for instance that Rome was in Judea Palestine Israel and back then at that time and we have evidence of that it's been established and it's been established through documentation through spears that are left in the ground and pottery and writings it's established now the farther back you go generally speaking the harder certain things the harder cultural things are to prove and history when you say history I assume you're talking about human history things that people did and not necessarily natural history which you'll note are usually kept into separate museums and for good reason because there's different sort of it's not that I would say that historical cultural history would rely more on naturalistic methods than vice versa and when we're asking something like where did we come from did God make everything in six days or did do we I mean is that what we see when we look out at the galaxies and notice that everything's moving away from each other when Edwin Hubble looked out and saw that that all the galaxies are moving away and they all appear to be accelerating away faster from each other and that's what we're demanding we can then run the model backwards and find that there was more than likely a point where it happened well can I can I go back to just the specifics of the with Jesus I guess I don't know what you personally believe like with the Bible so do you believe Jesus existed probably yes I think Jesus probably definitely existed or he may have been many different men people can exist and then grow to legendary figure status it happened not only with I mean it happens with like like pharaohs they all thought that they were gods fucking Kim Jong-un thinks he's a god you can exist yeah and still rough out your cameras off you can exist as a person historically but then people can inflate facts about your existence after the fact that happens all the time well so I guess and the last one I'll let other people talk so do you believe in the historical that Jesus was crucified most probably yeah I mean that was a super popular that was a super popular method of executing people back then and so if he said something that somebody empowered didn't like there's a high chance that yeah but we need to take into account the Romans crucified people they left them for days to rot and be eaten by what's it called the birds to be eaten by birds and they were left in the holes there I don't know how to say for saco moon it's like a dump of bodies you don't get a sculpture man you don't get a dump if you're crucified in Roman history you don't get a dump unless you have real power in the Roman history so I don't know I think that doesn't make a lot of sense I think that's it's a good reason to think that the gospels are like some kind of a mixture between whatever they thought Jesus said and well some kind of generalization and potiosis well I guess like you know the gospels and the independent sources they say like Jesus legs were broken and he was stabbed in the sides that's why he died a little quicker and that a rich man Joseph Aaron just took Jesus to his tomb I agree with what you said that's how it was typically done but I also agree Jesus was not a normal person so I guess that was a long way to say so I guess a normal person he was a cult leader which is why a rich guy who was in the cult of Jesus once they crucified the cult guy Jesus then they took his body and then put him in a tomb I have no problem with that I mean if this Simon guy was part of the cult then it makes sense that they would try to bury him and it makes sense then that someone go ahead the extras also like Tacitus and Suetonius and Pliny's the young well they mention Christians they don't mention Jesus they do no they mention Christians Josephus specifically Josephus that's a really huge point of controversy because it doesn't align in the philological construct with the way that Josephus used to write he was a Jew and well it's attributed somewhat to Eusebius and then Tacitus he mentions a man named Christus he doesn't really talk about Christus they follow what they call among Christians or something but that seems like like Jesus come on I understand that Jimmy but the mentions of Jesus I'm not denying the existence of Jesus what I wouldn't expect is knowing the historical method is miracles at all if I want to be logically consistent I cannot accept miracles in history because they are not or I would have to accept Athena I don't know possessed Diabetes and gave him power maybe Prometheus brought fire right I don't know nothing unreal exists if it's supernatural that means that it's not natural there's nothing that exists that is unnatural there's nothing that exists that is not a part of the natural world that's a philosophical view that's my philosophical view even something like our minds are just like ions neurotransmitters between a neurological structure a framework it's all just chemicals even something like our brains or our minds that's why when the things that happens inside our own body to maintain homeostasis when that stops that's why our minds go away Max I hope you think of yourself more than just a bunch of chemical reactions I agree there are chemical reactions but I don't think you have a soul in person I would disagree we're gonna have a fight later about this because I think there is an autobiographical me apart from the the royal way no no no it's appropriate it doesn't entail a supernatural world it's just that there is a history of Raphael there is a history of Max and it's between the relations that we have with other people the world etc me and my circumstances well I just want Max to end up like Nietzsche like where he's like everything is meaningless I'm just a bunch of chemical reactions Max I think your life is worth more than just chemical reactions I'm not trying to bust your balls too much prove it I'm talking to you and I like your mustache I would say I would ask do you think that logical contradictions can exist in the world logical contradictions like give an example well I don't know Christianity is true I got exist and it's just that I think there are laws of nature and I just think God can break his own laws of nature to perform miracles no no no I mean Max Max don't break anything Max don't break anything I'm allergic to bullshit you didn't sneeze at all though you can't be that allergic I threw up a little in my mouth I think we're all a little dumber for having heard what you just said that's a bummer Max the problem is there's no magic I'm sorry but there's no magic and the God construct entails contradictions like the one I put well yeah like the miracles I don't want to make Max throw up in his mouth again but that would be my rebuttal okay talk about miracles but if God does exist and can't he interact with his own creation however he feels fit only in a Christian well view do miracles make sense because in a Christian well view where we have laws of logic and reasoning and uniformity of nature can we say actually so much strange is actually going on here well not quite go ahead Max I was going to say do donkeys and snakes talks in your worldview Chris can donkeys and take can donkeys and snakes talk in human languages in your worldview because they do that in the bible I personally haven't heard a donkey or snake talk to me miracles did happen I recorded for us in the bible called can't interact with his own creation however he feels fit but also there's a reason as well is why miracles happen don't happen today miracles were brought about for a specific reason and a purpose and that reason and purpose Chris let me state it this way if I were going on I don't know a camping trip and I'm climbing a mountain and I were to say I were to bring my testimony to you like and you see me really convinced and healthy and I state well I was climbing this mountain and I got to I don't know K2 two kilometers on top and well my gear failed and I fell I fell from two kilometers and when I was falling to my death I heard a voice that stated no you cannot die now and I flew and slowly got on the ground would you believe that I would I believe it's how many independent sources telling me I may believe that way what you say to and that may be a reception of what's happening and that's a problem because in order I think that in order to believe something we need to have good reason and an anecdote like that is not a good reason so can you say that I think that in order to believe anything we need to have good reasons to believe it if we don't have an anecdote like that it's not a good reason and I can restate it in a more in a less exaggerated way a less extreme let's say well I had a familiar I have a familiar that had cancer we prayed and well she's on remission oh god miracle would you believe that god intervened I believe that god could intervene he would have intervened how would you test it how would you know the difference if he did intervene or not do you believe you think he could how would you know the difference what criteria would you use well in terms of healing I think that was a gift that was given to the apostles and and is no longer in play today that was a specific gift for a specific time and so that's just my personal view and how do you know your well I actually want to piggyback off because both my parents are doctors and obviously like I said earlier I was raised Christian and I kind of thought they were a lot of people's answers to prayers my dad was a surgeon and people shattered their leg and be like oh my gosh I want to walk again and then my dad could be like an answer to prayer I'm not saying that it always has to be supernatural I'm just saying God can work and use people using scientific method Max loves scientific method in science and crazy medical stuff and I also agree with Chris I think that was a specific gift for a specific time but I also don't think that just because science healed someone or didn't heal someone doesn't mean God wasn't involved oh okay let me try to change the topic a bit I think I don't know if you guys noticed but you guys are banging the question all the time like all the time you guys you are completely convinced that God exists but I would like to know the methodology by the by which you got to that conclusion from the null hypothesis then no no no not the Bible but because the Bible just yeah but the Bible is it ain't all the evidence that made me believe it but Jimmy I explained to you that you have an error on your interpretation of the Big Bang there is a logical fallacy in the ordered explanation that you gave and well if those fail then how how do you believe that God exists I still like I I really don't want Max to throw up anymore but like I said the order of the universe and how you say the quantum black hole I still think all the matter black holes were not mentioned by us because black holes were not present at the I forget quantum vacuum that's what you said you have to have stars before you have black holes yes stars create all the matter in the universe I think it's pretty cool that's another as far as we know but most of the matter in the universe is dark matter which we've only begun to understand and realize it's even there and have you ever read the law of big numbers the law of big is that a book no no it's a mathematical proof about how big numbers work I was talking a few minutes ago about 300 billion stars and 1.5 trillion planets just in our galaxy yep so one of those got life at least I think it was a lot of planets how is that something to be amazed by I don't get it praise to Allah Lord of the world Lord of the worlds it's interesting that they knew about it but just because they knew about it doesn't mean that God was real I'm sorry Max but if I were to praise anyone I would praise Eru from the Silmarilians by Tolkien I praise my spouse for putting up for me but the thing is how do you get from it to be from no hypothesis to God no hypothesis to God how do you prove that something's there because atheism is able to here's the thing atheism is actually able to do something without a God the only thing that God has historically produced is fear and ignorance anything good associated with religion has been done from a naturalist perspective I don't think God has only produced fear and ignorance but that's not the question so you are correct in that belief in God obviously takes a little element of faith but I also believe there's plenty of evidence for God just like you have faith in the scientific method so I'm not going to rehash all the order of the universe I know you said there's a bajillion planets roughly the law of big numbers so you said one is fit for life I still think that the amazingness of the specificity shows to an intelligent creator a guy who created all of this so and then in my personal experience why is he a guy? I understand evidence it's a point of objectively verifiable data which points or indicates conclusion over any other conclusion and I don't see anything as evidence for a God you mean it's just that I think that there is someone who is all powerful that can bring out universes out of the ass he doesn't have yeah come on from the quantum vacuum as you call it I call it the concentric point okay yeah but that's not nothing right well I mean a quantum vacuum we're going to get into the definitions of it but sure the quantum vacuum you call it something you call it nothing but everything came from a concentric point and boom exploded out and I just think that's pretty cool and I think that is evidence of God I think also science could also be involved I think that I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this and I look at the marvel of the universe and I think it's amazing God's creation and you look at it just let me try to put it this way we both agree that there is a cause for universe the thing is natural phenomena from reality and you think that it's a someone with agency with thoughts, with will, with superpowers and the sun and the penis oh well I don't know about the penis oh my gosh I don't know maybe maybe we should start using they them pronouns for God the Bible describes God as a spirit he out of God just he likes to be fed to others he painted as a man in the form of Jesus he fed to his father because obviously in the Bible he just gave it a male actually when God appears when God in substance in being he's a spirit and yet when God physically appears to Moses on the mountain he just shows him his back as the record says the story goes the back as in part of his body well it was interesting because I worked for a comedy show and our host talked about it Jimmy just got out of the penis and you know what that's not something I've ever thought about let's go one step further let's go one step further testicles what does the Jewish God's penis look like he should have he should have circumcised but let's not get off the topic here I want to talk about the penis let's not stay on the topic it's a circumcised this is Shavis Pugh God's penis Mary do you know Mary do you know before we completely go off the rails I'm sure it's perfect whatever it is alright before we go into Q&A if you have any other things you'd like to wrap up you know you guys are welcome to keep having a discussion I'd like to wrap up God's penis maybe then Jesus would have been born so we wouldn't have this Christianity nonsense the door was so wide for you I'm so sorry alright go ahead Raphael we'll listen okay I'm gonna try to make it short even if we were to grant a resurrection I put it this way John Smith he's just great he never says lies and he stated that he was gonna be killed and that he was gonna rise from the dead three days later and well since he's an influencer and he's really famous and he has fame that he never lies then there's a bunch of scientists and TV networks and everything and everything is under a video camera and then three days later John Smith rises from the dead scientists are baffled the world is baffled okay what can we say is the cause of that logically because scientifically we cannot say anything we don't know what happened we just simply know that the guy started to rot and then he just unrotted and started walking he's alive and he was dead he was checked dead in front of the world so he rises and walks away from the lab what can you say about that what is the cause of that how do you make a logical nexus to whatever you wanna make a logical nexus like John, do you say John Smith? yeah I said John Smith I took it away from Jesus I took it from Jesus and I brought a guy that says no lies that has fame that he never says lies he said that he was gonna die and he died and then he rose from the dead three days later and what can you say did he die again? I'll be honest I don't know much about Mormonism other than the creators of South Park I'm not trying to say about it Joseph Smith yeah no no no John Smith I stated oh my gosh I said John Smith and I said today I thought you were talking about that I'm talking about an influencer it's a mental exercise man I'm talking about a hypothetical guy called John Smith that never lied, died he promised to rise three days later he rose from the dead three days later what can you say was the cause? well did he then later die? you don't know he just walked away from the lab and even as he was followed he somehow disappeared the world watched him walk so what what is the logical nexus what is the cause of that resurrection is this a real person are you doing like a hypothetical? no it's a hypothetical example oh okay well then yeah that sounds like another version of Jesus yeah well now what can you say is the cause of that resurrection well I mean that's more deeply theological we die for our sins why would it be more theological it's just even if we grant the resurrection of anyone there is no logical nexus between that happened and God exists that Jesus rose from the dead that doesn't mean God exists yes because let me tell you something if someone states although he didn't he never said that but whatever he says I am the son of God does that mean he is the son of God? if someone says the son of God does that automatically mean the son of God of course not okay I think we should jump into our Q&A so thank you to our panel yes thank you to Raphael Max, Chris, Jimmy for you guys coming out and having the discussion it's been a lot of fun yeah what had said in the chat for something funny which there's been a lot of fun things said tonight he said he had an identical twin who wasn't dead I thought that was funny that's more probable I've never heard that one that's more probable than supernatural resurrection I've never heard that one posited but let's hear through our Superchats everybody so thank you everybody who's put in Superchats and once again big thank you to our panel for keeping it keeping it fun tonight Joshua Jamie asks Jimmy they're asking about a scientific question you brought up earlier that we could get in trouble for asking so let's just turn it into something about the Fauci algae what we'll do then is we'll just say eggs good for you they're bad for you it seems like sometimes when I was a kid they said yes sometimes they said no and when I say that I just met the adults in my life who were probably referencing I'm sure people and I actually saw that Superchat in terms of service friendly that they said it's changed because of the scientific process and new evidence but I don't know if you know at every point of time with the current evidence there's always been completely dissenting views so that's not really relevant in my opinion just a minute it's not completely dissenting the thing is we work with paradigms we work with explanations that what a theory is an explanation and a framework in order to understand the world and from there develop hypothesis experimentation prediction and if those work then we say the theory is scientific it's true in its sense but you could still come to different conclusions even they're similar yeah I understand that different conclusions came up okay come on with different predictions well those that come true will give more power to that particular explanation so what can change is the depth of the paradigm of the explanation of the framework you see I understand knowledge as probabilistic and contingent for more evidence that could either change it, augment it correct it or even deny it but that even deny it cannot deny the facts and the measurements facts and measurements are just the same all over time and they just get finer and finer as our tools develop further and further any other thoughts on the other side okay go ahead I think one interesting distinction to make is that if you use faith as a model of obtaining knowledge or pursuing answers that's exactly what you get are sort of dead ends it's true because God did it and it's interesting that when you use naturalism or the scientific method or atheistic methods meaning without relying on faith or God to get those answers you generally get more questions than you do answers you get further questions well why is that so once we discover X is true we understand how factor X plays into factor Y and then start to think about how that plays into factor Z and it all just sort of snowballs so it's interesting that one the faith method yields answers, absolutes the scientific, the atheistic method actually yields more questions and yet the atheistic method that yields more questions is still more useful and able to actually predict things things that were formerly really scary like diseases or using antibiotics and I don't know if we're talking about eggs but I'll just say consent is very important people should not bodily autonomy and consent is very important I don't like governments being involved too closely with folks on really fast I would like to say that I would rather have a bunch of questions that cannot be answered than one answer that cannot be questioned all right where this was for the other side of the panel we'll let you fellas close it out any thoughts there Chris or Jimmy no? okay all right let's carry on then thank you everybody and keep the super chats coming in we'll keep the conversation rolling along we don't have too many right yet so there's still lots of opportunity to get your questions in there and we'll keep picking away and get what we can out of this so a Devin Cordray says nothing brings people together like a common enemy not sure at what point of the debate he had put that in there but thoughts on this I disagree I disagree I don't disagree because the narratives have worked over time in order to make us join hands and do something and even if the common enemy is imaginary it sometimes brings people together for the wrong reasons I'm sorry Jimmy I interrupted you well I think common enemy can bring people together I think a common thing you love bring people together look at any sporting event in America that's not mutually exclusive well I was just giving a fun example I'm not really sure what they were saying I don't know yeah no that's fun we'll carry on from there some more statement than a question but thanks for your first super chat your first interaction on the channel there Devin we appreciate it Sean666 the name just triggers Iron Maiden for me I gotta be careful here there are errors in DNA how could a god have errors in DNA is a god it's impossible for a god to exist because god makes too many mistakes do you want to handle that one there to start Chris yeah sure so I think in DNA I think it's talking about mutations correct but in the interviews well in evolution isn't that a mechanism of how things have evolved mutations through survival of the fittest things like that and so actually however errors in mutations in DNA result in the first place from the fact that we live in a fallen world that's why we have diseases I just add we are living in a fallen world in a simple world and so that accounts for those things and those mutations can over time be beneficial and create diversity biodiversity and speciation and things like that and so why would those mutations or diversity of genetics be considered a component of a fallen world why are you giving it a negative or a sinful connotation when it's actually good for life I was just trying to to answer from where I thought the person was asking a question and it seemed like correct so yes some mutations can be beneficial and the survival of the mutations can be negative and so I was just giving an explanation of the negative mutations alright I think we're ready to move on from there panels I think come to a natural pause there so Joshua Jamie come in thank you so much for your super chat and once again keep them coming in everybody and we'll keep the conversation rolling along Joshua Jamie says there are chemical reactions that cure horrific diseases to say something isn't valuable because it's a chemical reaction is not true whatsoever I didn't say it wasn't valuable I just said I think there was specifically with Max I just think he's more than just chemical reactions I think he's a soul and a person the only the result of random scientific existence I think you know I think you matter I don't think the scientific method without a god that nothing matters where Nietzsche went mad or he thought too hard about it everything is meaningless everything is meaningless I'm not saying you're thinking that but I guess I'm curious like where you derive deeper meaning like what do you think your purpose of existence is from an atheistic point of view I'm genuinely curious I don't know a lot about you I don't know how a toaster works and you want me to explain to you the meaning of life give me a break the meaning of life I don't know what do you feel like your own purpose is I mean Earth is really cool right now there's a lot of good music coming out of the Asia region it's the beginning of but there's so my little sister Max I think that a hiccup or I did am I back am I audible I can hear you I think I was Raphael okay okay I'll keep going in order to not have that sound moment so he was right in the middle of his sentence I don't think that oh come on it's okay Max if you remember what you were saying yeah he was right in the middle of his statement but yeah I think you may it may be a good idea just to back out maybe chat Rapha chat Rapha say Rapha Rapha you cannot hear us there I said of that in the chat there and I was just explaining the meaning of life what you know the purpose of life I think my little sister was born in 2001 and it was recently her birthday and there's been a human being in space every single day well in low earth orbit every single day of her entire life and no other human generation prior to hers has been able to say that and the fact that there's just so much knowledge and things to be learned and discoveries to be made I hate to say it but it really it's like a high for me it really is it's something that gets those endorphins going and not only that but it's something that can benefit not only discoveries can benefit not only yourself maybe financially or something you know if you find like a radium on an asteroid if we go and we mine that and we use that in some way that benefits people at large that's I mean yeah it's a good thing it's people celebrate victories right we've done that ever since like we have like the the native people with like celebrating the hunt like with the dance and stuff it's it's it's sort of I mean that really is the meaning of life you don't need God to have a meaning of life I'm sorry about that I got a hiccup on my internet connection no worries do you have anything to add on the other side of the panel before we carry on or Raphael well I wanted to say that being just chemical reactions doesn't entail nihilism doesn't entail that there is no value that there is no person that there is no biographical need or there is no circumstance there is no history or love I think it doesn't the thing that we're made of I don't know chemical reactions that doesn't devalue our way in the world and I would state that I've been given being given a purpose I don't find it particularly likable I mean I'm sorry for my bad English but I wouldn't want my my parents to tell me well Raphael your purpose in life is I don't know to be a dentist like why I want to decide on my own so I wouldn't like it to be dictated that's it all right yep so any other thoughts on the other side of the panel or let's carry on I'm fine carry on just wanted to make sure because that one was you guys don't want to die and go to heaven I think the purpose Christians die and go to heaven but that's well I mean the glorify god on earth bring heaven to earth I'm not looking I'm not trying to unalive myself I don't think I can say the word yeah there's we just don't want to just die when a glorify god with everything we do that gives me a higher purpose and meaning I'm not saying you don't have meaning in your life and I'm glad you have those things I'm just saying I think I consider myself as a soul and more than just a random occurrence I think I have meaning I'm here for a purpose I'm not saying you're not here for a purpose but I believe in a higher calling but doesn't the Bible state that this life is a bunch of dirty rags or something like that well I think that's talking about the vastness of eternity with gods like this life is but dust hearing gone it doesn't devalue our life on earth this life doesn't count pretty much it's just okay come on that was a metaphor to discuss how short life is in comparison to eternity wasn't in any way devaluing our earthly life alright let's carry on from there and I will say thanks for the censorship that says some youtube smarts you got there because I didn't think about this for the longest time but the song I was intro-ing the show with contained and this was almost for a full year contained not only the s word but also the g word and somehow it made it so I mean youtube's funny that sense changed but either way yeah that's just interesting so alex stein puts in there alex stein I haven't seen you in a while hopefully host you soon on the show it says jimmy rules a great job jvt watch prime time 99 do you have anything to say to alex jimmy I have a lot of things to say that prime time 99 pimp on a blend that's who got me because we had james on our show he produces a comedy show he's known as the town hall terror he goes to city council test limits of free speech and holds those in power accountable but he mostly does it with silly things like freestyle rapping about the war in ukraine and singing about the foul jiaoji he has a rap song called the foul jiaoji that it did at city council if you exist online you've probably seen viral way too many times but yeah it's fun to put on the nerd hat though because usually I'm researching like the best dick jokes on the internet but I got to actually research you know some fun history stuff although I'm not kidding we really did talk about god's penis behind your boy jimmy yeah I'm giving him a shout out he's the reason I'm on this show and we did talk about god's penis on a comedy show so max I think you're a fan of prime time alex stein unless you just never fucking seen it yeah I'm just a fan of free speech I just love free speech you just you just you just uh we're thinking of god's penis a lot I guess all right let's carry on well apparently the ancient apparently the ancient followers of the jio christian god were because they mandate a procedure you know all right just keep going okay all right sorry it's just it's just interesting that they were thinking about that no worries uh fact you in your role uh says they're getting obliterated holy not sure who they are saying is getting obliterated but they spelled their uh t-h-e-i-r so take that for what you will uh gory probably not a native uh english-speaking user oh sorry then I won't I won't yeah yeah probably most probably not a native native english because I'm from Mexico so uh some people here are saying hello hi everyone thank you for the support hello I have a friend that gives me a really hard time I don't good posture free mind oh oh I'm from Canada and I don't even know any french I'm sorry all right so uh I can't say his name uh says if the christian god is not male why is she so shitty with women and they put that's uh hot to the touch there are more there are more biological sexes genders than just male I mean look at earthworms or mollusks or most of the life on earth by you know body count like uh like bacteria single-celled organisms they reproduce just fine without any of that was you basically talking about why does christian god treat women so poorly uh well I don't want to get too deep into it but like at the time with christianity in first century when women were treated pretty poorly it was actually Jesus would have been considered a feminist given he gave the early church had lots of women in power leading churches giving them more authority than was considered normal back in the day and the first two people who saw Jesus after he resurrected were two women so those are the first two people saying what christians believe is the most momentous event in human history so I would personally disagree with that isn't the story that the women saw an angel not Jesus no they saw Jesus appeared beside them and then an angel appeared with them unless I'm completely I might be having a brain fart but I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure in Mark the last few bits there which also aren't included in the oldest manuscripts available state that like an angel a messenger was there and said go he's not here so I'm pretty sure that you were referring to the Long End in Mark which is a textual variant we didn't really get into this but Long End in Mark is a textual variant it is probably not original so it's probably not what the author wrote if we go with the rest of the gospels women were the first witnesses to the resurrection and also both male and female are made in the image of God God is a spirit but chose to in his word to himself as male and so women yet women have respect they both were made in the image of God and the bible treats you also God also give Moses the permission to divorce which again was seemed very different at the time and that was to protect women the issue of this I strongly disagree there are several several obstacles where women are treated like they are worth less than men sometimes less than half a man even when they say they're gonna sell them or something like that it becomes really annoying as you read the were women are treated like less than men even in the gospels was it John or is it Paul I can't remember it's both they're treated like shit in both and the English word is chattel meaning like livestock I'm sorry it's just that my I was like, come on, say chattel I think they've given you some I would need a specific person I've got time to get into any thoughts Jimmy in response to what they've said no I can't stand by my initial statement let's carry on then and thank you so much to the panel we have a couple more superchats to go and then we'll give closing statements of up to a minute for each of our speakers Sudanim asks for both does matter care about matter and how with or without God so let's go around the panel we'll start with you Max we'll give you each 30 seconds for each part of this so up to a minute does matter care about matter yes what was the second question how with or without God because matter can care about matter without God does matter care about matter it doesn't mean that it doesn't it's like saying two plus two equals seven or really it's saying two plus two equals cucumber it just doesn't it does not follow all right let's move over to Chris thank you Max does matter care about matter how with or without God so who's going on sir Chris yeah um I think matter is is matter um does matter care about matter I mean my answer is going to be basically similar to Max Max the atheist answer I don't whether that cares about matter or not I don't think that's a proof of God's existence and I don't think it's disposed of God's existence it's just what it is all right we'll move over to you were FAO does matter care about matter how with or without God okay well we need to understand that atoms don't think on their own yeah like atoms don't get things wet on their own like hydrogen and oxygen don't wet things on their own water molecule on its own doesn't get wet it won't get you wet consciousness is an emerging property of matter yeah since we have a circumstance since we have an interaction with the ambient then we care about things we give inherent value to things but it doesn't mean that atoms care we care all right thank you so much and last at least Jimmy does matter care about matter how with or without God well FAO just described like says atoms don't care we care but we are also all atoms and I think the difference between us being bunch of atoms and being human beings is that we have a consciousness and I think that is God breath and I also think I don't know if this is where the question meant to go but I think with the survival of the fittest and evolution in laws that kind of contradict what people know as moral it makes me think like there's a moral law maker moral law giver that contradicts the laws of evolution or what we're taught about it so that's why I think it's more difficult to say that matter or us cares about matter cares about other people without a God all right did you guys want to chew on that for a couple yeah yeah I think there is a huge misunderstanding of the survival of the fittest precisely our evolutionary ancestors we are Gregorian we are social a social species we understood the value of cooperation respect and care if we didn't care for our siblings or our progeny then we would have we have gotten less chances to survive than what we did have so morals welcome because we are a society not because I can't imagine people saying something like I don't know when Moses came in the story with the stones and they looked at each other and said I shall not kill I didn't know man please religion gets its morals from humanity not the other way did you have any thoughts there Jimmy or Chris to close this out or did you want to just carry on absolutely carry on I'm fine to carry on excellent well thank you so much to everybody on our panel for answering the question there and Charagna Nd says with this level of technology if someone performed the same miracles in quotes on the internet how many of you would go that's God's work or that's the work of God I think hypothetical we have to come up with imagination is kind of quite less I think they gave a specific example I think I could answer better suppose some people believe that there is I don't know some kind of Jesus reincarnation and then they state at you that they have I don't know five thousand five million witnesses that he produced bread and turned water into wine and walked on water would you believe that even if they have thousands or hundreds of thousands of believers I mean I think I'd have to examine the evidence witnesses and we go from there I don't want to say yes or no completely but I think the that's what we invite you to do with the gospels so in the Bible itself actually says that in order to test whether something is true or not if somebody is saying that they are speaking from God in order is to see if what they say comes to pass if what they say doesn't come to pass then they was what they were saying wasn't coming from God so that is one test that is given to us in the Bible and no test that is given to us in the Bible is that if that Paul gave is that somebody even if they come showing signs of wonders showing the appearance of miracles is that if they lead you after a different gospel after a different spirit after a different Jesus than the one that is being given to us then that is not from God yeah I suppose it's Mohammed making miracles would you believe that sorry suppose there's someone Mohammed making miracles would you believe that even if the evidence points to that would you believe it would you accept being a Muslim because there's some kind of evidence for Islamism would you become a Muslim I'm sorry again I believe that there is a contradiction between what the Quran says and what the Bible says so therefore if God has spoken in the Quran and the Bible then there wouldn't be that sort of contradiction there we haven't got time obviously to go into specifics on that thank you we are right at the two hour mark that's from when I started the show so we're almost at two hours that we've been interacting with each other here on stream so yeah we got one last super chat and I think that this super chat really is just asking us to get into our closing statements so Gorgio not sure how to say it Gorgio thank you after all of this is Christianity true they ask so we're going to do one minute around the panel can I predict everyone's answers first well is that a prophecy is that a prophecy from God that's my gift of prophecy that's super natural yeah well if you want to write it down we'll go around the panel I think in the same order that I did before yeah and that way we can bounce it back and forth so Max you're up one minute closing thoughts didn't Jimmy and Chris opened so maybe we should close or I don't remember how the format goes but the opening of the debate was like that Chris and Jimmy but whatever they'll go for it yeah I was just saying it's fine we can go UK rules and let Jimmy and Chris close the show so that's usually how that would go back in the good old days early 2000 debate so yeah I'll still hand it over to you Max one minute on the floor because I got you queued up mentally prepped fair enough so is Christianity true I don't think any of the flavors of Christianity are true because I don't think that it is testable I don't think that it is verifiable I don't think that it is any different than any number of cults that were historically present and presently present personality messiahs they come and go and some of them persist and some don't one of the arguments that Jimmy mentioned way back at the earlier was the proliferation the spread of Christianity as one of his four evidences that it's true and just because a lot of people believe stuff does not make it true I mean I think we can all attest to that in various points throughout history and they're generally pretty low points when no one is allowed to speak up and dissent against the voice of the oppressive majority so I really value this format I really value this this debate platform Ryan thank you for modern day debate I'm very welcome I just I'll just I don't have I don't know if we're to the plugs yet but I just want to say that the blood of Christ has never helped anybody but your blood might and I encourage everybody to go to redcrossblood.org and there you can find with your zip code local ways to donate blood because that actually can help people and does save lives that actually reminds me and thank you so much for your closing statement there Max we do have our speakers the ones that have given us their links tagged in the description if we don't have yours in there yet I think there's one that got sent to us earlier that we're going to get updated so just bear with us on that one we're going to give it over to you Raphael one minute on the floor we have lots on our discussion okay thank you very much well as I stated since there cannot be a God because divine power is impossible so therefore Christianity is false in itself and it's core there may be some good ideas and good ideas can come from anywhere anytime so well good ideas are good ideas even God or no God look at the good ideas use them etc there is no Christian God because there are no Gods and well live on man thank you oh by the way thank you Ryan for the debate thanks to modern day debate for hosting me and I hope this is not the last one I'll try to be here more often I think that would be great it's been a pleasure hosting both of you all of you honestly but thank you to both of you for your closing statements so let's give it over to you Chris you have one minute on the floor your closing thoughts thank you very much yeah I'm a Christian also I believe Christian God does exist I believe the proof of that is the impossibility of the contrary and I also believe that today the atheists said that in one way they have said that they believe in naturalism and science and things like that but all of that is based upon the assumptions of nature, laws of logic and reasoning which are immaterial and yet they are only appealing to the material world alright well thank you so much Chris for your closing statement and now we're going to hand it over to you Jimmy and we'll close this out with your closing thoughts so one minute on the floor well in debates over touchy subjects I like to focus on things we can agree on and Max I'm glad we found that we can both agree that your mustache is awesome that Red Cross our blog can save so that's a good thing and that God's genitalia is a good form of is a good topic of debate so but I would disagree that the blood of Christ has never done anything good for people I believe that God saved us Jesus's blood saved us from separation with him so that we can have eternal life with him with God and I believe there is historical evidence of Jesus's existence crucifixion and resurrection and I think being a Christian is awesome so but thank you all I appreciated the debate and again love the mustache awesome well thank you so much to everybody on the panel big round of virtual applause for everybody here if you haven't already hit the like button we appreciate that and boost us up in the algorithm share this out in the contentious spaces you like to have these debates we're going to be back tomorrow with Hussein and Mark Reed so Brian is there an after show is there an after show going on? I do believe that Matters Now is doing an after show if anybody else on the panel is doing an after show you're more than welcome to let us know now no I'm going home I'm tired alright I got a full and full I've got a four month old baby oh you got the Spanish after show Rafa of course is it going to be in Spanish? I don't speak enough I'm sorry Max but yeah we have the livestream right now in tiktok it started a bit late like four or five minutes into the debate but there's people following it and I didn't transmit to YouTube because I didn't want to like double transmission on the same platform so yeah how cool is it that we have a presenter from the UK, from Mexico from Texas, from Oregon, from Canada it's so neat thanks modern data this is really cool this is really neat that is wild when you put it like that yeah those are the wonders of science and well after operativization functionality alright we got it alright thanks everybody for coming out before you bring us back full circle we appreciate you guys hit the notification for miles debate and we'll see you next time alright jesus rocks