 Welcome to Modern Day Debate. My name is Karissa and I'm going to be hosting the debate tonight on ethics and God, on atheism and Christianity. So we're really excited for our debate tonight. We have two seasoned debaters going up against each other, T-Jump. I know probably most of you have heard him debate on this channel before and same with CJ Cox. So we're really, excited to have them on tonight to be debating this. We are a channel, if you haven't been here before, that we host many debates. So definitely subscribe if you are new. There's going to be a lot of debates coming up here. So the structure of tonight's debate is going to be 10 minute openings followed up by about an hour of open discussion and about 30 minutes of question and answer. So if you do have a question that really wanted to be answered by either of our debaters tonight, feel free to go ahead and fire it into the super chat for a guaranteed answer. And without further ado, I'm going to go ahead and let our debaters introduce themselves. If you like our debaters, they have their links in the description box below. So you can definitely go and check out more of their content. Also be sure to check out the debates they have on our channel as well. So definitely look into those. T-Jump, I'll go ahead and start off with you. What will people be able to find on your link? Yeah, I'm T-Jump. I run a YouTube channel at youtube.com slash T-Jump. I have conversations with apologists and academics about reasons believe in God usually. I just show how easy it's easy to debunk all the different apologist arguments at every academic level. Check out my channel. Very cool. Thank you. And CJ, what will people be able to find at your link? Thank you. So I'm CJ Cox. I also have a YouTube channel called the synagogue, poor man to have cynic and synagogue. So far there I do podcast on news and geopolitics and a second podcast on apologetics. And yeah, that's just of what I have so far. I don't usually tend to post debates because I tend to do debates on other people's channels, but I'm going to start getting in the habit of posting debates because they always say I have the rights to. I just kind of never do. Gotcha. All right. So without further ado, we're going to go ahead and let CJ start with his opening statement. So the floor is yours. All right, Ian. Thank you very much for that. So to kind of point out exactly what it is that I'll be defending today, the position that I wanted to discuss with TJump was basically that I believe not only that the existence of the Judeo-Christian God can justify objective ethics and morality, but that indeed it does. And that nothing else so far, at least that has been postulated in theory or philosophy rather, is even close to getting what I think is a proper explanation. So with that, what I want to point out is a few qualifiers. First off, when I say objective, I do mean objective to human beings, not objective in an ultimate sense. Like so, for example, if moral Platonism were to be true, it would be objective that the morality would be grounded and therefore objective to all human beings, but in theory, the Platonic object could be different. So it wouldn't necessarily be objective in an ultimate sense. So that's the first thing I want to say as a qualifier. The second thing I would like to point out as a qualifier is by God, I do mean specifically the Judeo-Christian God which would otherwise be described as a Creator God who is the uncaused, first-caused, and therefore the ultimate not only moral standard, but probably standard for numerous other things. I do believe this God endows his human creation with what is traditionally known as the Imago Dei, but basically just the image of God, and that as a result, we as human beings are able not only to perceive and understand things like morality, but also things like creativity, logic, so on and so forth, which of course will not be the things I'm necessarily defending here today. So I think the first premise in trying to prove something like this is pretty simple, that does morality exist or does it not? Of course it does. Even people who believe in subjective morality do believe that morality exists. Secondly, I would postulate that if morality does exist, it can't really be subjective or consequential. What I mean by that is favorite colors, quote unquote, they don't exist in any sort of ultimate or objective sense, they're just simply the opinions of whoever happens to be around. And so nobody would argue about favorite colors or maybe favorite flavors of ice cream or something along those lines, or just as another way of saying preferences or opinions in the same way that we do have these arguments about morality. With morality, there seems to be something ingrained in humans where we think not only is it true for me, but true for thee as well. We all seem to have an understanding that morality does exist and that it is objective, even if we don't necessarily know what exactly is objective in the moral framework and in our moral conversations. That doesn't necessarily have to be a point of contention if a T-jump does accept objective morality exists. I'm under the impression that he does. If not, we can certainly discuss that, but that would get us to the third point, which is of course what can potentially justify objective morality. And I would say thing number one, it would have to of course be unchanging. God in theory could change just like a platonic object in theory could change, but the God of the Bible as described in the Bible is an unchanging being and therefore his morals would also be unchanging. This cause of morality would have to be personal, reason being that laws are only given by and understood by personal agents. Rocks do not understand laws and to a certain extent, even animals do not understand laws. Your dog does understand that rules come from you, but the dog is never going to establish his own system of moral laws by himself. He does need an outside agent in order to teach him. I would personally go after some of these other ideas in that. So for example, a platonic object would be unchanging. It would be something that's eternal. It would be something that is outside of humanity. So on and so forth meet a lot of the same qualifications that God would, but that's actually, therein lies my problem with something like a platonic object, right? Is that it's essentially God, but instead of saying it's a person, you're saying it's an object. If you have something like, for example, best of all possible worlds theory, well, best of all possible worlds, worlds theory is first off deistic. Second off does happen to have a lot of its own personal flaws. Like for example, if we live in the best of all possible worlds, then every single one of the murders that has occurred in this world needed to occur and therefore was moral. If you were to have something along the lines of like a consequentialist framework, consequentialism fails because it really doesn't explain anything. The means justify the end, but of course you're assuming that the ends are good. What exactly is the definition of good? Then you get back to the subjective versus subject question, so on and so forth, right? And so none of these things tend to give a proper explanation in my opinion. And of course, that's not a super in-depth, you know, hour long video, but just to sort of give a general idea of where I come from, right? Not your bullet, bullet pointed kind of thing, but just like I said, a general idea of where I come from. And then from there, I would yield to T-Jump. Go ahead, T-Jump. You can go ahead before you're 10 minute open. Sure. So objective means true independent of a mind. If we're all these, to general to God, it's not true independent of a mind. So it's by definition subjective. You can't have something be objective for one person, but not objective for another, because that's like saying an object exists for one person, but doesn't exist for another, which makes it by definition subjective. It's kind of what it means. So if you can't have morality be objective for us, but not objective for a different mind, that literally it's a contradiction. You're just admitting it's subjective. So that does not work at all. You see, you just kind of admit it that God-based morality is by definition subjective. Secondly, I think he defines objective as unchanging. Well, that's not what objective means. Like you can have a mind who has a consistent opinion about something, and that's still it's a subjective opinion. It doesn't matter if it doesn't ever change its mind. It's still a subjective opinion. Like I can like ice cream. And if I never stop liking ice cream, it's still my subjective opinion, even if that never changes. The fact it never changes isn't what makes an objective. It's independent of a mind. Platonic objects are not like a God. He just said that, hey, they're like a God, except not conscious. So not a God by definition. Like that's very strange that he thinks there's, I don't even know what he was trying to say there. It doesn't make any sense at all. Best possible world isn't deistic. That's just a factual error. Animals don't need an agent to understand laws. They make up their own moral laws all the time. You don't need an agent for that at all. They just have certain intuitions inherent because we're social evolutionary animals. They don't need an agent to understand laws and they understand gravity just fine. Laws don't need a law giver. It's just a dumb argument. So he's just got a bunch of factual errors in his intro. But beyond that, God-based morality can't account for objective morality because when we're saying you need to account for objective morality, it's kind of like saying you need to account for the laws of physics. There's a whole bunch of different qualities you need to account for. Why is this law proportional to this law? John Carroll's introduction in his conversation with William Lynn Craig, where he lists here all the things you need to explain to explain objective morality or objective defined tuning, the same thing applies to morality. Like the things you need to explain in explaining objective morality needs to be mind independent, needs to make future predictions, needs to correspond to more moral intuitions, needs to account for more progress, needs to answer the philosophical problems in the field of ethics. It needs to solve the moral dilemmas in the field of ethics. If you can't do those things, it doesn't account for objective morality. Like if it can't give us the equations of gravity, it can't account for gravity. God isn't mind-dependent, doesn't make, well it can make future test of predictions, like we may meet God after we die or whatever. So it's all right, all right. Does it correspond to our moral intuitions? Well no, like God doesn't correspond to our moral intuitions at all, especially not the Christian God, the baby drowning Genesis 721, the killing innocent children, Exodus 12 and 2029, releasing chemical weapons to kill thousands of people in numbers 1641, sacrificing children is immoral, judges 1130, destroying cities full of people because they disagree with you, judges 14, genocide, second chronicles, Joshua 6, Deuteronomy 2, Deuteronomy 3, Numbers 31, Samuel 15, the women and children except the young women and then using them as slaves, judges 21. Like clearly this thing is not the basis of objective morality. Just ask yourself, if you discovered Hitler was actually the God of the universe and decided to make himself a human being just to torment the Jews, would you worship Hitler? No, it doesn't make a difference if he's the creator of the universe. He doesn't explain objective morality, he's a moral monster, same with the Christian God. It doesn't matter if his pet dog was perfect and sinless if he's a mass murderer, his pet dog doesn't make up for all the mass murdering he does, and it doesn't matter if he sacrifices pet dog for the sins of the world, he's still a murderous mass monster and clearly not moral. So no, the God of the Bible does not account for moral intuitions, it's clearly immoral and just obviously not a basis of objective morality. Secondly, it doesn't account for moral progress, like why are societies getting more moral as time goes on, like it doesn't make any sense under Christianity because we're apparently actually getting less moral, probably, right to some dumb metric. So Christianity can't account for moral progress, it doesn't answer any of the philosophical problems, it fails for the reason of the youth of rejected by pretty much every philosopher. It can't account for GE Moore's open question argument, it can't answer questions about where goodness comes from or what grounds it, it's just made up by God's opinion. So God-based morality fails to answer any of the relevant questions in philosophy, it can't solve any of the moral dilemmas, like if you have a trolley problem, which one should you flip the switch to save the one and the five? Well, the fans, what does God say? Well, that's not really an answer, so it can't answer any of the moral dilemmas because it doesn't provide any objective principles, it just says whatever God says, and that's not actually a moral principle, that's divine command theory. So for it to be a moral principle has to say this particular action is more moral than this particular action, not whatever God says, that doesn't tell us anything about morality. So nothing about a God could even qualify as objective morality, which is why the consensus in philosophy is that doesn't work and that's a dumb argument. It doesn't account for moral progress, it doesn't account for moral intuition, it doesn't answer the problems in philosophy, it doesn't answer moral intuitions, can't, it doesn't correspond to our moral intuition, obviously God's a horrible moral monster and clearly it's literally not possible for a God to be a basis of objective morality because it's based in the opinion of a being, so it's contingent on the mind. So by definition it's not a basis of objective morality. All right, I'll just conclude there. All right, and with that we can get into our hour of open discussion. Alrighty, so there's a couple things I want to point out. So firstly, you said that objective is defined expressly as being independent of a mind, but that is not accurate. The definition of objective is expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. It's another way of saying basically that these are factual. If saying something that is factual for humans or factual in the world which we live in, this physical world, right, is definitely a claim that that is objective and I don't know any moral philosopher or any philosopher of any kind who would disagree with that definition. Could you per chance name me one? Your definition is the exact same I just gave you. The whole independent of personal feelings or opinions, that's the mind thing like God's feelings or opinions. Right, but so you know very well though that when it's saying personal feelings it is referring to human beings. It's not referring to some things out there. No, zero philosophers agree with that. This is all right. That is not true. Can you name me even a single philosopher who would disagree with that? Every one of them. Because William Lane Craig, for example, would agree with that. GK Chesterton, for example, would agree with that. I don't know if you would consider Sam Harris to be a philosopher, but he would absolutely agree with that. I don't know he wouldn't. Anybody present the argument that God, because he is somehow a mind, is not objective with the exception of Tom John to be perfectly frank. Yeah, all of them. Again, this is the consensus in philosophy, Stanford, the field surveys paper, objective morality and ethics. Does God work? Nope. This is the consensus. There is no consensus. That's just false. There is a consensus. There's definitely not. I just quoted you at least three different philosophers of the modern world who do not agree with what you just said. Well, you're wrong about two of them, and the opinion of theists doesn't really matter here. The consensus is atheistic, because the consensus is against theism. There is a consensus. You can look it up, field surveys paper. There have been polls on this. There definitely is a consensus. So the consensus is so long as you don't encounter the vast majority of moral philosophers who are theists. I mean, it's like well over 50%. I can add them in, and you'd still have a consensus. The consensus is 57% of philosophers are moral realists. 15% are theists. That's including all of those people. The consensus is theism is wrong. It's in literally every field. The consensus is theism is wrong. I mean, it's just simply not accurate. Like I said, first off, there is no consensus in a universal agreement, but second off, and much more importantly, I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics from, but the overwhelming majority of philosophers throughout history who have been in the field of ethics, including in just recent history, have absolutely been theists. Like I said, I already named a couple in the case of GK Chesterton, William Lynn Craig, CS Lewis, obviously as an example, David Wood is one that comes to mind. Now, of course, these are all expressly theists, but that's kind of the point, right? Here it is. Fill surveys, paper, results. Percent of philosophers. This is the largest survey of academic philosophers today. Percent of philosophers that lean towards moral realism is 56%. Percent of philosophers that lead toward theism is 15%. And the percent of philosophers that are atheistic is 72%. And so, well, who exactly are they counting there? Because like I said, I just mentioned, Aristotle isn't an atheist, right? Plato isn't an atheist. Emmanuel Kant isn't even atheistic all the time. Jay, stop, stop, stop. The consensus is modern philosophers who are living and the current consensus. We don't say the consensus is the world is flat because most human beings thought the world was flat 10,000 years ago. No one cares. Like, Jay, listing a few theists isn't relevant. So, yes, the consensus against you is a fact. This doesn't help your point. Why are you like, oh, you listed William Lane Craig, no one cares what his opinion is. This doesn't help. I mean, very many people care what his opinion is. I mean, that's not necessarily relevant to this. He's certainly a successful philosopher though. Yeah, the consensus doesn't mean literally everyone. So, that doesn't help your point. So, can you quote me any philosophers who have said expressly that because God is a mind that, and by the way, if you can't, I'm not necessarily worried about that, but just I'd like to know who says because God is a mind that he can't possibly be objective. Yes, there's lots of them. I can't listen off the top of my head. It's again, the consensus. Like, everyone, everyone understands this. It's the part of the definition of objective. Okay, but you keep saying that, but I've already, like I said, mentioned numerous figures who don't actually agree with that. Again, I don't care what your cherry-picked answer is. Do I care about the consensus? The consensus is God-based morality fails because it's contingent on a mind. Okay, but you still can't provide me any actual. I don't need to provide you any examples. I just gave you arguments for why, right? So, in other words, me sitting here saying to you that there's no philosophers that you can actually bring me who say that God cannot possibly be objective because he's a mind. You don't actually have a source for that. That's just to the best of our knowledge. I have tons of sources for that. I don't need to provide any of them because it's the consensus. Like, I can prove it because objective means independent of feelings and opinions, i.e., a mind. So, if it's contingent on God's feelings and opinions, then it's subjective to his mind. That's literally the definition. This is like the most common argument in philosophy against theism. All right. Well, so I suppose we'll just have to go ahead and agree to disagree with that one because we could get stuck on certain things, of course. I'm happy to just keep bringing this up. That's the consensus. If you disagree with it, you're just ignorant of philosophy. I'm happy to win there. It's pretty easy for me. I mean, it's perfect. I mean, you want to make an argument from consensus. That's fine. That's actually a logical fallacy, but I've already made some points. Jay, which fallacy is that? Another thing, I just wanted to correct the record. So, you said, number one, you said that my definition of objective was that it was unchanging. That was one of the things I said had to be considered, but that wasn't the sole thing that I said had to be considered. In fact, my main point is that it was independent of human reasoning. Jay, that's irrelevant. I proved it's irrelevant, but which fallacy is an appeal to consensus? Which fallacy is that, Jay? That would be both the appeal to consensus fallacy and the appeal to authority fallacy, actually. Oh, really? So, if I go to the Stanford encyclopedia philosophy of fallacies, it won't literally just prove you wrong in five seconds? No. Oh, okay. It's the Stanford encyclopedia fallacies. Fallacies, ad populums. That's the ad populum. The ad populum, similar to the ad vericulum, is the difference between the source of an appeal that is a popular opinion or count rather than a specified authority. Oh, shit, it just proved CJ wrong. Damn. What was the other one you said? It was the appeal to authority, right? Appeal to authority, yeah. Appeal to the ad vericendium fallacy concerns appeals to authority expertise. Fundamentally, a fallacy involves accepting as evidence for propositions the pronouncement of someone who has taken to be authority, but is not a real authority. Oh, shit. Guess that one proved you wrong, too. Damn. Actual. Okay, that is, hold on. Hold on. That is not the way anybody has ever been using the argument from authority. The argument from authority has been expressly that just because somebody is an authority does not actually mean that their argument is correct. That has always been the point. So, I mean, I would want to just- Does that mean it's like the previous philosophy is wrong about fallacies? Oh, my God. Like, what? This is huge. Gotta, like, put a correction into their academic papers and shit. They just don't, they apparently don't know what an argument for authority is. Like, if you can find anywhere in the entire Stanford encyclopedia where it actually says that and doesn't actually use this definition, I would be impressed. Go for it. Have fun with that. I mean, I guess I'm not entirely sure about the specific Stanford encyclopedia, but just to give an example, right? So, you know, because you can go, obviously, when you go to Wikipedia, it does actually have the little numbers here, right? That shows you where they're getting their sources, right? Okay. So, it's saying there's a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because- Could you go to the number? Just go to the number. Obviously, consciously encapsulated as, if many believe so, it is so. Now, you can obviously go down to here to their, let's see, where is the list of references, right? And you can see where they actually have all of their references down there. Yep. Could you go to the source for me, please, where it says that. Yeah, let's see. So, go back. Oh, wait, wait, wait a minute. Here's funny. The argument from on the wiki, the argument from authority also called appeal to authority or argumentum ad vericandium. Oh, wait, that's what I just read you from, from, from the Stanford encyclopedia. Was that actual argument? From an argument from which the opinion of an authority stopped being used evidence to support the argument. So, I didn't say that. So, again, this is literally showing I'm right here. So, and I actually have the actual paper from the University of California, which literally says the same thing. It's saved on my discord where I can actually find it for you. It also says it's not fallacious if it's a actual authority because that's the consensus again on the topic. So, you just, you just don't know what the fallacies are. You don't know what the field is. You don't know anything about the topic pretty much. So, would you conclude then that if the consensus of a field did say a certain thing, like for example, if in the 1700s and the consensus of the medical field in Britain declared the miasma theory of disease was correct, would you then say that therefore that means that's correct? I would conclude that's good evidence to believe it at the time period. So, but is it therefore that means it's correct? Right? Because that's the whole point of fallacy is that it's not necessarily a bad argument, but it doesn't actually prove the argument you're making, right? No, if it's like a definition, here's how we define something and the field literally gets to define it because that's how definitions work. Like it's not like there's an objectively true definition of objective. It's how we use the term. Okay, so that's not actually answering my question though. Would you conclude that my answer to your question was correct because there was a consensus of scholars in the field that said it was correct? Jay, that literally just answered your question. If the truth of the word is contingent on how we use it in philosophy, then yes, the majority of how people use it does determine if it's true. Like that's what makes definitions true. So, we're not asking the fact about reality here. It's not like we can discover the term objective or the definition of objective hidden under a rock. The term means what we use it in philosophy. So, if the majority of philosophy used in this way, yes, that's the consensus. It is objectively true. This is what we mean by the word. Okay, so, but that's apart from the question that I'm asking right now. What I'm asking is, would it be accurate reasoning to say in the 1700s that miasma theory of disease is correct because there is a consensus of scholars in the relevant field yes or no? Inductively, you could confirm that if you had no other basis of evidence. Okay, but the answer is obviously no because miasma theory of disease is incorrect, right? Which is why you are not trying to answer yes or no. I mean, obviously, you're dancing around this question because you know the theory is not correct and if you were to buy into the consensus of the authorities at the time, right? Hold on, I'm sorry to jump. Let's let CJ finish this point and then we'll get right back to you. Go ahead, CJ. Well, I was just saying, I think I had just finished that. I was just saying that if you were to buy into the consensus at the time, consensus of relevant authorities at the time, you would be buying into a theory that's just not accurate. Yeah, so this is called the Galileo fallacy. Only ignorant people make this because it's like saying, well, maybe is it reasonable to believe that heart disease is lethal and you should go to a doctor? If most doctors believe it, they could be wrong. Oh my God. Oh, like, yeah, they're right. The modern consensus is more well informed than the ignorant people of the past. So can believing that what the modern consensus who bases their beliefs based off evidence and current predictions rather than just dogma and religious nonsense. Yeah, it's reasonable to believe what we say today significantly more than what religious people who didn't understand science believed in the past. So there is a difference. We're talking about religious people. We're talking about professionals. Ignorant religious people in the past who believed my asthma and other stupid theories were not reasonable to believe because they believe things based off of religious dogma instead of evidence. Today, we believe things based off evidence. So believing the consensus is far more reasonable. That's why it's a Galileo fallacy. Oh, but the consensus was wrong in the past. Like it doesn't not relevant to the conversation. I'm not saying because the consensus was wrong in the past, it must be wrong now. I'm saying that that is it's not you can't conclude because of a consensus. Therefore, something is accurate. That's it's just not. It's evidence. Evidence concluded that it would be wrong. The vast majority of times throughout history. You can never prove anything with certainty. It's just evidence. It's good evidence. Yes, it is good evidence that if if doctors think heart disease is lethal, you should believe it's lethal. You should come to that conclusion based off of the fact doctors believe it. You should come to the conclusion that engines need oil to run if all of the engineers believe it. Yes, it is reasonable to believe that what the majority of the consensus believes is probably true about reality. That is that is reasonable. See, I personally, I would disagree. I would say that it is reasonable to follow evidence where evidence lies. Human beings have agendas and agendas can definitely persuade people towards certain things. I can give just a really simplistic example in the NFL, right? A lot of people had and it wasn't like it's obviously a big deal, right? But people didn't believe in the idea of the running quarterback. You had to be a dropback quarterback. That consensus, which was done by experts in the field, was wrong as recently displayed by the fact that virtually every young quarterback is mobile. Now, that's obviously a small, irrelevant and not very important example, right? But the point there remains that what you actually are going to base, what you should actually be basing your theories off of and your arguments off of is evidence, not the authority or the consensus of said authority because that can very often and very often will be wrong. For example, you said, well, if the majority of doctors agree with heart disease being a problem, then maybe you should try to fight heart disease. That's a good example because it's true. But when the majority of doctors think that bloodletting, for example, is a good idea, right? Well, bloodletting's not true. And therefore, that's not a place where you should want to trust the doctors, right? No. Again, that's a Galileo fallacy. A bunch of ignorant religious people in the past were wrong. Therefore, scientists today are wrong. You keep saying, religious, that's just that you're just throwing that word in there to try and make your argument better. That's just rhetoric, right? We're talking about people who were actually studying the field. They weren't getting this from the Bible. There's no one in the Bible that says bloodletting is a good thing, right? Or any other religious text for that matter. So just religious people who got beliefs based off of their dogmatic positions and they thought they were right about their interpretations of the God, they had delusions that you shouldn't believe. But you keep giving this Galileo fallacy people who were dumb in the past were wrong. Therefore, today, it's unreasonable to believe the consensus. That doesn't work. That's a Galileo fallacy. Secondly, when you appeal to motivation, that's an appeal to motive fallacy saying, oh, people have biases. Therefore, we shouldn't trust the consensus of experts like doctors. Clearly, that's wrong. Nothing you're saying here, all of it's just factually wrong. Like, I can just list pills of consensus fallacy, Galileo fallacy. It's one of the qualities of pseudoscience to blame a global conspiracy or a bias in some group. It's not a global conspiracy theory. It's the simple fact of the matter. People do have biases, right? That doesn't mean that they're necessarily untrustworthy. It just means that these sort of things need to be taken into account and that human beings by themselves. That's what science does. That's what science does. Science takes into the biases and gets rid of them. That's kind of the point. That's why it's reasonable to trust the consensus because it takes account of that. So again, it's a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory to say the consensus has a bias. Therefore, I don't have to trust what their position is. So no, it is reasonable to believe the consensus in modern day about pretty much everything. Like, pretty much everything. So if you're rejecting the consensus, it's just like rejecting that your doctor tells you it's unhealthy to eat fat all the time because you're going to gain weight. Like, that's your argument here. We should reject the experts because of your feelings. You're the one with the bias. That's just simply not accurate. In fact, you're argument. That's exactly what you're saying. So again, none of this. My argument is saying that you need to take the evidence. Shut up and stop interrupting what people are saying. So again, your argument is just insanely stupid. Like it's saying, don't trust your doctors. That is your argument here. I'm giving you the exact definition in the field. I'm giving you the consensus, the best expert in the field. And no, you do not trust evidence because you're not qualified to look at the evidence. The experts are qualified to look at the evidence and evaluate whether it indicates one conclusion or the other. Not you. You're ignorant of the field. As I've proven in like 10 different cases over the past five minutes, they're qualified to assess this. You're not. So this doesn't help your case at all. And it doesn't have anything to do with morality. I'm just telling you, this is what the field says. This is what the experts say. Or this is how they use the term, which is objectively the case because it's literally how they use it. So it's true. This is how they use the term. And so you just got it wrong in those cases. But again, none of this helps your case for objective morality. This doesn't help your case. This is what the experts say. This is how they use the terms. Whether you agree or not. The only case you provided for me is that there is a consensus of experts that says that objective morality can happen without a God. So quite literally, this is actually expressly related to the point. I just want to point that out. And by the way, I understand that this sort of thing is somewhat frustrating for you for some reason. But the simple fact of the matter is I have shown here that just because the consensus of a group of experts happens to be one way, that does not mean that that is the actual facts. And you can say, well, you're not qualified this that and the other thing, but that doesn't change what is the actual facts, which is the consensus of a certain field does not equal factual argumentation. It's just simply not the case. That's the Galileo fallacy. So that proves you wrong again. We could all be in the matrix. So the experts of of geology could be wrong because I need to correct you there because you keep saying because the consensus could be wrong and therefore I have some level of skepticism about a consensus. That means that I am concluding everybody needs to have a skepticism of every single consensus. But that is just simply not the case. Just because I might be skeptical, for example, about whether or not doctors are right about the medical benefits of marijuana, that doesn't mean that I might be skeptical about whether or not doctors are right about the current theories on, for example, heart disease, right? Those two things can be completely unrelated from each other, right? Just because I'm skeptical of one consensus doesn't mean I have to be skeptical of all consensus. That's just wrong. I never said you did. That was that's a straw man. You literally have expressly said the argument that you're giving is that you shouldn't trust your doctor and I have not said anything close to that. Right. That's that's not literally your argument. That's that's an analogous argument. So you're claiming that the people who are most qualified in the field who understand the arguments, who literally define how the terms are made, their opinion on how the terms are made doesn't matter because, well, they could be biased because your position is ridiculous. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter. I'm saying it's not an argument. It literally is an argument. That's the same thing. Mattering is an argument for the case. Same thing, J. Oh my God. I just, I mean, it's simply not like I have said. I have shown here expressly and quite frankly, anybody who's honest in the audience can see it. I have shown here expressly that the consensus of experts in the relevant field does not equal truth. So we can just go ahead and move on from that. I want to point out also you just evidence, evidence, not truth. So again, the fact that it doesn't equal truth, like again, all of the experts could be wrong about the fact the world is round. We could be in the matrix. So their opinion doesn't equal truth because nothing does. We can't show truth. We only have evidence to indicate in the truth. We have justification and the consensus is a justification. It does count as evidence, which I proved from reading the Stanford encyclopedia philosophy on what counts as evidence. Those are not fallacies to do that. This does count as evidence. So does it prove truth? No. Is it indicative of truth? Yes. This is a good conclusion that you're wrong. In fact, it is 100% proof that you're wrong about objectivity because literally they get to define how the term is used. So they can prove you wrong on that. So yes, this is relevant evidence that you are objectively wrong about philosophy and how this term is used, which again, but you haven't even addressed any of the actual points I made that proves that God can't be an objective. You're just arguing with the consensus is definition of objective, which doesn't help you. You want to change the definition of objective. I mean, I guess that would help you if you could do it. You can't. This is the consensus. You're wrong about that. So move on to one of the actual arguments I presented that God doesn't work. I mean, I've absolutely addressed them. And I mean, if you don't want to address that, that's certainly fine. But once we can move on, obviously, to some of these other points. So you said that God does not actually God cannot be a justification of morality because he doesn't line up with what we would have in our basic moral intuitions and brought up things like the flood and so on and so forth. Yeah, babies. Right. So that's completely irrelevant. There is no reason that our intuition needs to necessarily be correct. The fact that we have an intuition is really the only argument that I've ever heard theistic philosophers put forward, not that the intuitions that we do have are, excuse me, necessarily trustworthy. So would your position be that any possible intuition to the contrary of something would indicate that that certain thing is not a moral truth? No, my position is that drowning babies is definitely immoral and God drawn babies. Right. So what does that have to do with whether or not that's a justification? So in other words, let me rephrase that. So that intuition is definitely contradictory to objective morality. Right. So what does that mean as far as whether or not God is the grounding of objective morality? What is your intuition that that is wrong have to do with whether or not God is actually grounding of objective morality? Because God drawn babies, drowning babies is objectively immoral. Therefore, God is objectively immoral. Okay. So I mean, just to play devil's advocate, why is it objectively immoral? Like, what do you have to ground that? Evidence, such as such as the evidence of everything in the field of ethics that that's literally the foundation of everything in ethics is drowning babies is for fun is wrong. That's kind of the whole foundation of the field. If you want to say, oh, that's all there now, the whole field is wrong. You just added a qualifier for fun. That's not what is portrayed in the Bible. So we're going to have to disregard that because God drowns people in the Bible due to judgment, not because it's entertaining to him. In fact, it's expressly said to be the opposite. God is not willing that any should perish. But let's remove that qualifier, because you didn't have that qualifier at first. Just the thing of drowning babies. And again, I am kind of playing devil's advocate here, because I agree with you, drowning babies is wrong. But explain to me in T jumps world view why drowning babies is wrong. Because it's immoral. That's why it's wrong. It's based off of what evidence. What evidence? Well, we have lots of indicators that is like our moral intuition is an indicator. Moral progress is an indicator. All the arguments in the philosophy are an indicator. And if you try to answer it differently, you get wrong answers to the moral intuition, the what's it, moral dilemmas and moral progress, moral philosophical problems and morality. If you try to answer those questions with a model that says drowning babies is for fun is right, then you get wrong answers. So any model that adopts that principle is definitively wrong about answering objective morality. So you gave two things there that I could deduce and correct me if I'm wrong here. Intuition, your moral intuition was an indicator and moral progress was an indicator. Is that is that accurate? Moral intuition, moral progress, answering the philosophical problems in philosophy and answering moral dilemmas. Those are the four different lines of evidence. Okay, so I mean answering moral dilemmas and the questions in philosophy doesn't necessarily have to do with drowning babies per se. That's because that's a very specific question. So I specifically said any model who adopts this principle gets the other ones wrong too. Because it's a part that's one of the things that moral dilemmas, drowning babies, we can phrase that as a moral dilemma, not a problem. And if you try to create a model in which that is the case, it leads to problems when you address the philosophical dilemmas as well. Like youth for a dilemma, G more is open question arguments. The other ones figure out what they are. So any model that adopts that is wrong, like God darn babies, God is a moral. We have already had an indication, not an indication, but just outright saying that moral intuition does not necessarily mean that something's immoral, although you did say it's an indicator to be fair. So moral intuition in some situations leads people to believe in things like the death penalty. For example, most people, at least in my personal experience, if you were to ask them what should happen to a pedophile, people's gut reaction tends to be some level of execution. Yet that seems to be in direct contrast with the moral progress of the West, which seems to be directly opposed to execution. In fact, our own Supreme Court has ruled against it twice in regards to rape in 1978 and in regards to pedophilia in 2003. So one thing which you have used to say that baby murder is wrong, your moral intuition, is actually being, is actually in conflict with one of these other things. And obviously, this wasn't for baby murder, this was for execution. So I had to rephrase that a little bit. One thing, the moral intuition, which most people's moral intuition, at least in my experience, tends to be executing pedophiles is good. And no, that's actually wrong. So Pew's studies show that it's the opposite of the case. Most people are against the death penalty. Right. That's actually exactly what I'm saying, though. If you were to ask people the pointed question, they're going to say no, they're going to say the death penalty is wrong. Most people from their emotions start to suggest because it's their gut reaction that something like execution or something like that is correct. And yet the progress of society tends to be that we actually move away from those sorts of things in a non-emotional approach. So no, again, that's wrong. People have asked this question and the majority say, no, the death penalty is wrong. In all cases, we should not kill people. We shouldn't kill them. Okay, but when you ask them that question, you're not asking them the pointed question about a specific thing. You're also asking them in the form of a census. I understand that I am relying on antidote, but I have yet to see a single person who is not in the field of philosophy who has not answered this question with more than just the initial thought of, yes, absolutely, they should be executed. In fact, it's very popular, not only in just circles that just happen to be around people. And of course, everybody else can give their own antidotes in the audience. But if you look at things like internet culture and stuff like that, you obviously see lots of people like that. Now, of course, does that mean that everybody agrees with that? No. But my point is, I have yet to meet a single person who has actually answered this question when you asked them directly what should happen to a pedophile, something other than, if it's not murder or execution rather, it's usually much worse than that, like some level of torture of some kind. And yet that seems to be in direct contrast with what people want in their government. When they're just asked the general question of was to whether or not we should execute people, they tend to not like executing people. And so we progress one way, even though the intuition of people seems to go, at least in my own experience, another way. Yeah, no, that's wrong. So again, no, like I pretty much everyone I asked knows doesn't say that. So I never, I don't think I've ever met a person who's actually said we should just kill them. Like I don't think that's a thing. But again, none of this stops the fact that God is the pedophile in this analogy. God is the one who's murdering the babies. So that's kind of the problem. Again, that's just rhetoric though. You're not actually making an argument as to why these things are so like I just said, you just had the moral intuition and moral progress, but moral intuition and moral progress can be in direct conflict with each other. And they're not even universal, by the way, progress morally speaking. This is relevant to my argument. So my argument here is that this intuition that we have is evidence. It doesn't tell us what is objectively moral. It's just we have a phenomenon like a cup falls over. If the cup falls over, that's a phenomenon. So we have a phenomenon. We're trying to explain that. It doesn't tell us why the cup fell over. So moral intuition is the phenomenon. And the moral intuition we have, it says killing babies and drowning babies for fun is wrong. And once again, you add the qualifier for fun. Stop interrupting. Stop interrupting. This is our position. This is the grounds of our morality. This is what we're trying to explain. So if you're, if God drowned babies, God is immoral. That's it. Like we're not, we're not answering why it's moral. We're not answering why it is immoral here. We're just saying that's immoral. We know that and we're trying to describe why that's immoral and to answer the question what is objective morality. But that doesn't matter because God drowned babies. So he doesn't count as an answer. He can't answer that question. He's wrong. So that's the point. It doesn't matter why drowning babies is immoral in the ultimate sense. That's the only thing that matters. No, no, no, we're proving God can't answer the question. God cannot answer the question why it's wrong to drown babies because God drowned babies. So, so if we're asking the question, why is it wrong to drown babies because God doesn't work because he drowned the babies. He's the, he's the one who did it. So, so the problem here is that when we think of morality, we tend to ask the question, why is it wrong to drown babies for fun or not for fun, whatever. And since God drowned babies, he can't say, he can't be the answer to why because he did it. He's, he's the pedophile. He's the one we're thinking of trying to kill in here. So that doesn't work as an explanation. That's the only point here. So, so we're not answering what is objective morality here. We're saying this one example, why is it wrong to drown babies can't be answered by God. He doesn't work in the answer to this question because he's the one who did it. Okay, but you can't even prove that it's wrong, let alone that it's something that needs to disqualify God as an objective grounding for morality. I don't know. I mean, a different hypothesis. That's not the point here. Again, I don't need to prove morality to show God can't answer this question. That those are two different topics. So I can prove God can't answer this question because he's the one who did it. And then later, I can prove there's other questions around the world around drown babies. The question is, can God ground, excuse me, can God ground morality, right? And you're saying no, God cannot ground morality. Essentially, you're saying God cannot ground morality because it does not line up with what my personal moral intuition is, but you can't even justify your own moral intuition. Yes, I can. I can prove objective morality in many other ways. There's lots of, again, the consensus is that there are lots of models of objective morality. The God one doesn't work at all. It's the minority. But again, that's irrelevant to the question here. So the question here is, like, if you don't think drowning babies is immoral, your model is wrong. And that's fine. It's okay. You can take that position. It's okay. Drowning babies is moral under the God hypothesis. So that's that's morality under God. And that just proves my point. This is what happens when you think God-based morality works. That's not at all what I said, though. What I have said is that you cannot justify drowning. You just keep saying the only thing you keep saying here is drowning babies is wrong. Well, why? Well, because my moral intuition says drowning babies is wrong. Okay. So you don't actually have an explanation. See, I do have an explanation for that. I believe that drowning babies is wrong because babies are made in the image of God. And therefore, you are not allowed to do what would be the word there. I don't know why I'm losing this word. It's just so killed, right? You're not allowed to take their life without some sort of a justification. Human beings are not also, this is the second justification that's in the God hypothesis, right? Human beings are not the arbiters of life and death. And therefore, without some sort of a justification, for example, the trial by jury or something along those lines, right? Obviously, people have their different legal standards. But the point is, right, we can't just go out killing people. We don't have the power over life or death. We are not the arbiters of whether or not people get to live or die. Those are both two things that under the God hypothesis explain why it is wrong to kill babies. But you don't have anything for why it's wrong to kill babies other than my intuition says that it's wrong to kill babies. Wrong again. So you're asking for a different alternative hypothesis to explain objective morality. There can be other hypotheses of objective morality that could explain why it's wrong to drown babies. But I don't need that to prove God can't answer the question. So since God drowned babies, he just proved your answer wrong. God literally just showed he is immoral by your definition because he drowned babies. So he can't answer that question. It's like saying God is an objective basis of morality, but it's continuing in his mind. It's literally a contradiction in the definition. So your definition just objectively fails because if you're asking, why is it wrong to drown babies? And God is the one who did it. And he's the one grounding morality that leads to a contradiction. A equals not a. Actually, so I can make it different. One sec. I can make a different hypothesis where I could prove morality tomorrow and that could give us a ground. But I don't need that. That's a different topic. The topic here is can God ground morality? The answer is obviously no, regardless of whether something else does. That's not the question. So that's definitely not the case. Let me explain why. So reason number two that I pointed out is as far as the second reason why drowning babies would be wrong under the God hypothesis, right? It's because human beings do not have the authority to take or give life, at least not without some sort of a judicial process or something along those lines, right? God, on the other hand, not only, and this is not limited to Judeo-Christianity, by the way, this is basically any monotheistic religion out there. Morality isn't about what humans do. So it's not, it's wrong for humans to drown babies. That's not in morality. I never said that. I said it's wrong to drown babies. Nor human wasn't in there. Morality isn't for humans. Well, so that's something that just happened. Hold on. I'm sorry, T. John, you did interrupt CJ, so I'm going to let him finish his point and then you can go back. So when- I'm going to just unmute right now, because I need to- I need to be staring at my one point. All right. So the point there that I was making, that God is the sole arbiter of life and death, right? It means that God, not only is he going to be the sole person who is allowed to take life or give life, but he's also the sole person who does it anyway at any time. God, as the author, is going to be the taker of all life and the giver of all life in every single way that it is taken. I know that that's something that a lot of people don't typically put forward, but it absolutely is the biblical truth. It's what the vast majority of Orthodox Jews, it's what the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians have believed all throughout time. That God operates similar to the way a human author does. It's not that we necessarily don't have free will, but in a sense, things are predestined by his pen for lack of a better term, right? So in the case of the Christian God claim, it is actually objectively that... I can't keep addressing all the gibberish nonsense forever. Like, no, if it's contingent on humanity, then it's subjective to humanity. So that proves it's not objective well. So if you define morality based off of what humans can do, that is, by definition, subjective, doesn't qualify as objective morality. For it to be objective, it has to apply to God too, because he's a mind. It has to be a moral for God to draw babies. It's not objective. That's actually, that's expressly the opposite is true. The source of something is not to bound by the said something. Like, you are not... If you create a computer, you're not bound by the computer. You're outside of the computer. God, if he is establishing morality, is outside of the purviews of morality, even if he decides to abide by it. Again, so if God isn't bound by morality, then it's not objective. It's subjective. It's subjective to God. That's kind of what it means. So you just prove it's not objective. But again, I point out at the beginning of this one, that the definition I am using for objective, which you did not provide any philosophers who disagree with this definition, by the way. The definition I am using for objective is objective to humanity, right? It is not objective to the source of morality. Just like if you remove... Yeah, but I proved that wrong. The platonic object was different than things would be different. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the way the hypothetical platonic object is. Jay, too much filibuster in here. Objective, you can't have something be objective for one person, but not objective for another. That's literally a contradiction. Yeah, but it's not. It is objective for all people. But it is not objective to the source of it. The source, by definition, must be outside of it. It doesn't matter if you say people are minds here. It has to be objective for all minds, or it's not objective. It can't be objective for some minds, but not objective for other minds. That's the definition of subjective, Jay. You can't have it be objective for humans, but not objective for God. It doesn't work that way. That's subjective. That's what it means to be subjective. You can't have objects exist for some people, but they don't exist for other people. Why? Because that would mean they're relative or subjective. Well, I mean, I guess to a certain extent, then, you're just not willing to operate with the pretenses of my argument, though. Like, I have made perfectly clear and add virtually all theistic philosophers of any religion of any kind, as well as moral platinists, as well as, I mean, just most people who argue for things like moral objectivity have always pointed out that the objectivity is not obviously going to be subject, or the source, rather, is not going to be subject to the law. That just simply doesn't make any sense. The source of time cannot be subject by time. That which is the source of matter has to be outside of matter. These are arguments people make all the time, and the same would be true for morality. That which is the source of morality is outside of the confines of morality. Otherwise, it could be the source, if the source creates it. Too many gibberish points. Like, stick to one point. Like, no, everyone in philosophy agrees that's wrong. The consensus says that's full of crap. They all reject the theistic arguments because they're all garbage. And the same in physics, like, no, the source of matter doesn't need to be outside of matter. That's, again, rejected in physics. That's a dumb argument. So, no, none of those theistic arguments are the one source. How can you be a source? None of those, none of those arguments are actually accepted by anyone in any of the consensus of any of the fields. It's all just theist garbage arguments that no one thinks are good, which is why the consensus is rejected for, for every theistic argument, the consensus rejects their garbage in every single field. No one accepts that. But again, that's irrelevant because I proved it can't be objective. You can't have an object exist for one person, but not for others. Because that means it's subjective. It doesn't objectively exist. Same applies to morality. Literally, it can't do that because that's the definition of not objective. Yeah. So, I just want to briefly, because you said that this is just something that's just rejected by everybody. So, I just want an example. Do you know anything which is simultaneously the source of something which pre-existed? That doesn't make any sense. Exactly. It doesn't make any sense. You can have, you can have. You are obviously not within the confines of the thing, which you are the source of. No, no, no, no. Jay, again, that's your dumb interpretation of physics. You literally just said the question doesn't make sense. No, no. Yeah. The way you phrase it doesn't make sense because you don't understand physics. No one in physics has this problem. Past eternal infinite, totally fine. The source of matter, it's just always existed. That, that's going to be the source, I guess. So, there's no, there's no non-material source. So, there's no source. You're saying it's eternal. That's, that's ignoring the question and saying that there's a different answer because you're basically rejecting the premises of the question, what is the source? Right? You're saying there is no source. It's been eternal. So, yes, that's, that's why it doesn't, the source doesn't need to be there. All right. So, that therefore the source of something is still, like my point still stands, if something does have a beginning, if there's a source to it, right, then that source is outside of that thing. That's just a fact. Again, no, that's not how it works. There's lots of ways you could have a, a cell. Give me an example. I want, what, give me one example of something. There's lots of different models and physics like that. So, this is not really a thing. Again, the three possibilities are infinite. You're saying that models exist is not an example. That, that's literally an example. You want an example? Here is a model where that is the case. If you want me to empirically prove it. Which model? You just gave me nothing. You said. I don't here to give you exact models. Just, just Google it. It's fine. So, again, this is, if you want to give me an example of a God, if you can't appear and demonstrate it, your argument is wrong. Ha-ha. Go. Well, to be fair, I'm not actually here about proving a God as much as I am saying whether or not ethics. Oh, so you don't have to need to prove it. Oh, God, guess I don't have to either. So, I can just say model and physics. God, you're done. All right. So, again, we go back to the main point. You cannot be objective. An object can't objectively exist for one person, but not for another person. That's my definition of subjective. I mean, I, like I said, I just, I don't understand. Like, you've literally proven by your own words, right? That if something is to be the source of something else, then it has to be outside of that thing. I've proven that wrong. So, again, address my argument. If an object can't exist objectively for one person, but not objectively for another person, can it? Yeah. If he is a law giver, then he, and he is the source of the law. And by definition, he would not be bound by that law. And it would be objective to humanity and all of creation, as I had said that I was going to defend. So, it's not objective. So, an object can't objectively exist for one person, but not objectively exist for another, because that would mean it's not objective, right? But again, the point that I was here to defend is that it is objective for creation, not objective to not himself. That's what I'm addressing here. So, it can't be objective for one person while not to be objective for another person. So, if you're saying it's objective to humanity, that means you're saying it's objective to one person, but not objective to another person. So, how can an object exist for one person, but not exist for another person? Right. And I've explained that. This particular object, if you will, morality, God is the source of, and by definition, the source of something is not bound or within the confines of that thing. It is outside of that thing. Even if God decides to abide by his morality, or if by his nature he's compelled to abide by his morality, he would still be the source of said morality and therefore would not be obligated to abide by said morality. So, I'm not talking about the obligation here. So, I'm saying it's not objective. That's the point. The word objective here is the point. How can it objectively exist for one person, but not objectively exist for another? Now, if he's bound by it or not, it doesn't make a difference, but it's subjective by definition. Well, and like I said, I even conceded that at the beginning that if you want to talk in an ultimate sense, I will concede that there is an ultimate level of subjectivity, just like it's ultimately, if moral Platonism is true, it is subjective to the platonic object. If the platonic object were different, hypothetically, then things would be different. The platonic object is the way that it is now, and so things are the way that they are now, right? So, yeah, in theory, but that's why I point out objective to creation. It's sort of like the same thing as like the heart solipsism thing, right? People say like you can't prove definitively that heart solipsism isn't the case, and of course that's true, right? You can't definitively prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that other minds exist, although you can be very reasonably assured that your own mind exists. But in order to function at all, you have to assume that it's not true. Well, that would be sort of the same thing when it comes to this morality, right? We don't necessarily have to talk about whether or not the source of morality is grounded by this or a morality or whether or not it's objective to it. What we're trying to discuss is how things work in our reality here, right? This, what I would term creation with you, I guess, would probably term something else because you don't believe in a creator. No, we're talking about objective morality. So, if you just admitted that you don't have an objective morality, you have a subjective morality, you think your subjective morality applies to us pragmatically, but that's not an objective morality. Because when we're asking is it objective, we want to know it can't objectively exist for one person while not objectively existing for another person, because that's literally the definition of subjective. So if you're just granting God-based morality subjective, yes, I agree with you. Then so it's not objective basis of morality. Well, like I said, I mean, it's only if you're going to talk in a strictly and totally ultimate sense, but in every pragmatic way, right, and there and because of the fact that it is to all of creation in every pragmatic way, it would absolutely be objective. There's not a single human being who is outside of it. And I don't know of any philosophers who think of this as an issue. Virtually all philosophers I've ever heard understand that, including the vast majority of ones who debate with other philosophers in this field, right, in debates on ethics and God, they understand the fact that when we are talking about objective morality, we're not talking about whether or not the source of said morality is also bound by it. That's, like I said, that doesn't make sense. No, that's literally, that's literally what we're talking about. That's the point of the Eutherford dilemma, which is the most common argument against the feast of God. So again, it seems like you just, you're using the exact same contradiction of saying, well, how does it objectively exist for one person, but doesn't objectively exist for the other? And you're saying, well, pragmatically, well, pragmatically is just the subjective word again. This is a different word that applies for subjective. It can't be pragmatic for, or it can't be objective for one person, but pragmatic for another. It's like, the earth can't be objective for me, but just pragmatic for you. Like, no, no, not quite how it works. It's either objective for everybody or not objective. It either exists or doesn't exist. Objective, not objective. The number of people doesn't make a difference. So if everyone's okay with it, since CJ, you started off, are you both okay with going to question and answer, or do you want more time? What about you, CJ? Yeah, no, I definitely don't mind that. I guess I didn't even realize how long it's been going. Yeah, I feel like we came to to somewhat of a conclusion. So I wanted to hop in there when TJ was able to kind of give his last word since you started. So we'll go ahead to the questions. First one is from Lehman. He says, Atom, a Galileo fallacy is when an idea is mostly considered wrong, therefore it's true. It's not having an argument against the consensus. You mean mostly considered wrong by the consensus? Okay. All right. Next one is also from Lehman. He says, Tjump, do you believe in consensus theory of truth because most philosophers reject it, making it wrong by its own volition? No, I believe in consensus theory of evidence. It's evidence. It's not about truth here. Again, the fact they could be wrong that the world is round. The fact that doctors could be wrong that the heart disease is bad. The fact doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't prove that it's true that they believe that, but it's good evidence. So again, the truth here is just you don't understand the consensus. All the experts agree, consensus is good evidence. All right, sounds good. Next one is from Caleb. He says, abortion or murder supporters whining about God allowing babies to drown and go into eternal paradise is pretty inconsistent. And I think abortion is technically murder too. So if there's a conscious being, it's always immoral to kill it no matter what. It's justified, like if a woman has some person in her that is not consensual, then she has the right to remove that person from her because she isn't all powerful. Like if she was all powerful, it can just snap her fingers and remove the child without killing them. Then obviously that would be the moral thing to do and not to kill them. But she's not an all powerful God and she doesn't have the option to kill to remove people without harming them. So because she's limited and human, she's justified in killing the baby to remove it from her. Whereas an all powerful being would not be justified in mass murdering babies just because it felt like it because it could do otherwise. It could do a more moral thing. It's just an immoral monster. Gotcha. All right. Do you want to say anything about that CJ or because that wasn't directly toward T-Jump? No, honestly, I guess that would be, I would just simply say I do agree with that. But I wouldn't necessarily argue it just because it is technically a duke-quai whether or not you're consistent in your application of your morality has nothing to do with whether or not your morality is true per se. But I do agree that it is somewhat ironic that so many non-theists tend to be for abortion and yet seem to be very offended at God when he judges people. Gotcha. All right. Next one is from logical plausible probable. He gets Maddox. He says, epic after show starts in five minutes after debate ends. Open mic, come share your thoughts. So definitely check that out. And I'm pretty sure that's actually all the questions for tonight. I'll double check here. And if not, I will say keep on separating the reasonable from the unreasonable. And there's one more question. That was a lucky little catchphrase to get the one last question. One last question is from Helianthus. They say, if I create a glass cage and put ants in it, the cage exists for me too. I'm just not restricted by it. I think that might be directed more toward T-jump. No, I don't think so. He's saying that the cage exists objectively for both him and the ants. So it can't exist subjectively for the ants, or objectively for the ants, but subjectively for him. It doesn't quite work that way. It's still objective. Well, and I would actually, if I may, I would agree actually with what Tom just said, but I do think the analogy perfectly makes my point. God is not restricted by the rules that he has established. That doesn't necessarily mean the rules don't exist per se. It just means that he is not restricted by the confines of them. And of course, there's a lot of conversation that could go into that by itself. But nonetheless, I do think it's a very solid proof of what I was trying to go forward here. Gotcha. That makes sense. All right. Well, thank you both so much for coming on and for taking the time out of your busy schedules. I know there is actually another debate on Tuesday about creation versus evolution. So definitely be sure to tune into that.