 Hey, everybody, welcome to modern day debate today. We're talking about does the Christian God exist and we're starting right now Count down to one and then I'll start Hey, everybody. So welcome to modern day debate today. We're everybody Today we're talking about both of our friends here. We're starting right now the positive side of does the Christian God exist We have the converted man who is on the non-positive side of does the Christian God exist and so pretty much Is count down one minute open and eight minute rebuttal for each side. They won't have a 45 minute open conversation Then after the open conversation, we'll have a hey everybody. So welcome to modern day. After the closing today Also for super chats there are the first ones to go to the list automatically and As soon as you put those in there and we'll put those on the list Of course first come first serve So be sure to send in the super tabs if you want your questions to be put on the list first Also, we're trying to get to all the other questions after that and with that being said first of all I'd like to give a shout out to praise. He is actually working the background. So appreciate your praise thank you so much for that and Zack with you opening being on the positive side you get first five to ten minutes whenever you're ready your time is yours I'll share my screen and I'll just get started. So thank you everyone for tuning in. Thank you to a hunter for moderating Big shout out to praise for all the behind-the-scenes work and obviously love to see Dan here that amazing beard as we talked about the question of Does the Christian God exist? So I'll go to my opening statement here. So what do I mean by the Christian God? I have a quote here from Matt sweat that kind of gives a very nice summary of What Christianity is when we're referring to the Christian God He says Christianity is religion based upon the teachings and miracles of Jesus Jesus is the Christ the word Christ means anointed one Christ is not Jesus his last name Jesus the anointed one from God the father He came to this world to fill the Old Testament Laws and prophecies died on the cross and rose from the dead physically Performed many miracles which were recorded in the gospel by the eyewitnesses He's divine in nature as well as human He has two natures in his worthy of worship and prayer Christianity teaches that there's only one God in all these decisions that God made the universe the earth and created Adam and Eve God created man in his image So I'm going to give four cumulative arguments that are going to build it up to the Christian God The first one is that events that it wouldn't occur if metaphysical and actualism is true occur Therefore metaphysical and actualism is false Argument number two is the beginning of the universe points to a necessary being Point number three the design of the universe wants to designer and point number four the best explanation the facts regarding Jesus Are his resurrection from the dead Therefore the Christian guy exists. So the first point I'm going to make is supernatural events happen if supernatural events happen That's what's super natural events happen. Therefore naturalism is false. I'm talking in a metaphysical sense here Supernatural event is an event that would not take place within the laws of nature So I'm gonna give a couple examples from a couple of journals and some books of things that seem to be supernatural events I'm not gonna read all this because it's a lot here, but I encourage you can pause and kind of talk about what's going on here So first comes from contemporary therapies in medicine. It says a male infant two weeks of age Hospitalized on many force like did not improve with medical therapy. He's diagnosed with gastroporiasis and for 16 years He was completely dependent on J2 feeding in November 2011. He received a proximal intercessory prayer That's kind of a prayer where you'll lay hands on someone We do an efficient church today after his prior experience. He was unexpected unexpectedly able to tolerate oral feelings Seven years later, he's been free of symptoms and the literature here It says that the percent the present case of a sudden lasting recovery from this severe Refractory and lifelong gastroporiasis is unique in the literature and in the end There's insufficient evidence that the placebo effect can account for the observed resolution of symptoms another case comes from The books closer to light and transformed by life I believe it's Dr. Jeffery Long who doesn't write this book to be up and a lot of work regarding the science and near-death experiences And then what you can see here is someone who is profoundly comatose and Here is you can see the doctors you talk about when I first saw her her pupils were fixed and dilated meaning that Irreversible brain damage was likely occurred only three days later. They grow surprisingly revived and made a full recovery And the amazing part about the story is Katie began repeating incredible wealth the specific facts regarding the emergency room Her expectations and even physical descriptions of the two physicians Morris the doctor confirmed that a child with Katie's symptoms should have had absence of any brain function and therefore should comprehend nothing But to complete opposite Katie recall these recent details for an almost For almost an hour Katie correctly reported very specific details considering the clothing positions of each of our failing members Identified a popular rock song that our sister listened to observe her father and then watch while her mother cooked dinner She even died he identified the correct food roast chicken and rice So I mean if you want to argue that these events occur naturally I think if these are just the one or two events that happen I could see that but I think When you dive into the literature, there's things like this to happen all the time Which makes me believe that naturalism falls Second argument is the beginning of the universe points to a beginner This is kind of an adaption of a cosmological argument six points here Here's the first three if something has a finite past its existence has a cause the universe has a finite past Therefore the universe has an existence of its cause and then here it says since space-time originated within the universe And therefore similarly has a finite past the cause of this universe's existence must transcend space-time and must have existed It's basically when there was no universe a temporary if the causes of this universe's existence transcend space-time No scientific explanation in terms of the physical laws can provide a casual account of the origin of the universe And if no scientific explanation can provide a casual account of the origin of the universe Cosmos the personal Explanation is given in terms of a personal agent this argument if you want to look at a little bit more comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy not something that you just Google and find from a random blog online The third argument is defined tuning argument The fine tuning is in the university is due to either physical necessity chance or design Does it not do the physical necessity or chance? Therefore it is due to design you I'm sure as part of my database you've heard this argument a bunch of times Example is a fine tuning. Here's just a couple broad ones. There's many different constants and many people a lot smarter than me In astrophysics or related fields will talk about these things Dr. Barnes is one of the things in mind as I think about this here's a couple gravity Interacts with how objects move you have the electromagnetic force which talks about how electrons interact in the strong nuclear force Which talks about what atoms would exist so I think that through these constants we can see that our universe has some sort of Fine tuning there most cosmologists would agree that these constants don't have to be the way they are and if they varied by Slight percentages depending on the constant. We live in a very different universe. Well, we wouldn't even live most likely Since supporting premise one you've got only potential explanations given the current data if you want to propose something like a multiverse We need evidence not just a theory supporting premise to There's no good reason to believe that the universe Physically isn't this there's no physical necessity for the fine tuning I know that Dan has brought this up in some of its previous dialogues And I am more than willing to discuss this if you would say that it might just be this way And then obviously the idea of chance is extremely improbable like we're talking winning the lottery over and over and over again And point four historical facts point to Jesus's resurrection. I'm sure that you've heard the minimal facts by Gary Habermas I think that with the evidence in mind that there is some sort of supernatural aspect to reality and the necessary being That is the foundation of our universe We can look at these minimal facts being that Jesus died by crucifixion that very soon afterwards his followers had real Experiences they thought were actual appearances of risen Jesus that their lives were transformed as a result even to the point Of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message that these things were taught very early after their crucifixion That James Jesus unboying brother became a Christian due to his own experience And then he thought was the resurrected Christ and point six that the Christian persecutor Paul formally saw Tarsus Also became a believer after a similar experience, and I'm sure you've heard all the different theories I'm not gonna really take the time to dive into these because I'm sure most of you have Talked about hearing different theories whether it's the hallucination and the line of the disciples the disciples So the body things along those lines I think for various reasons that we can discuss if Dan wants to all those theories fail I'm the best explanation for the facts given the idea that supernatural event tinnaker is the Jesus resurrection from the dead, which would very fact Christianity Last thing I want to hear this is not an argument, but I want to talk about let's just say that I'm right The Christian God exists. What's the result here a couple verses here? Jesus rose from the dead Christianity is true First Corinthians 2 9 says well I know I have seen no near nor ear has heard nor the heart of man Imagine what God has prepared for those who love him and see it's Lewis in the last battle Narnia is an amazing series if you haven't read Narnia, Paul you want to get off here and read Narnia great books He says I've come home at last. This is my real country. I belong here. This is the land I've been looking for my whole life, so I never knew it until now come now for Come further up now come further in sorry for my bad pronunciation there So with that, I want to say that For me Christianity isn't just an intellectual argument the end of the day Thankfully because I believe it's true We have some amazing things to store for us if we choose to put our trust and repent of our sins in Jesus Christ And with that I yield the rest of my time and I'm really pumped to see what Dan has in store Alrighty, thanks for that. Okay, dig a vertebrae man. You have your 10 minute opening Okay, wow alright, so First I must clarify that by exist I mean as something other than simply an idea or object of the mind objects of the mind would include numbers letters and musical notes These are concepts that exist solely in the mind and nowhere else if God is simply an object of the mind and its Existences rather a moot point We're told things about the Christian God that are contradictory in nature for example He has no gender or sex yet. It is the father in heaven. Hello be its name We're told that it wants a relationship with us yet It's only found by looking for this God in the right holy book of the right religion and in the right way This God wants all to be saved But the mechanism only let's say few be saved Jesus says that no laws are to be done away with but also there's only one law that replaces all the laws Yahweh started by picking the Jewish people as his chosen people But Jesus wants anyone to be saved as long as you're part of the Jesus tribe And also you didn't commit the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit However, not all claims are equal even among Christians some claim It's not good enough that you believe in Jesus Do you have to also be baptized some claim? You have to be baptized in a certain way some claim you have to speak in tongues Who's right? What system do we use to sort it out? There's no system in Christian theology that tells you who is right, but that's a perfect system, right? So what we have for the Christian God is an assertion that cannot be falsified the concept is one presented broadly speaking As one that has no empirical observation it is possible We cannot see it at all not with any machine or the human eye It can only be seen in the mind's eye. It could be felt or hallucinated or Visualized perhaps, but not by all only by the single person Second we have something that is presented as non-testable no many how how many believers you get together earnestly to pray for my Lobster to levitate into the air it will not happen The world could all pray and plead to all the God's spirit souls angels demons devils they can all do all the magic rituals and It would not budge an inch. I Can say this with a certainty as if it was possible to demonstrably demonstrate God via any controlled test It would be science proper. No one has done this I wager no one ever will the believer can simply say that God doesn't want to be tested Or it's not willing to be tested. How dare we mere mortals demand this God Duke to our level to allow us to test it So then we have a proposal of an entity that's not verified by normal methods of testing your observation What do we have well? We have Bad arguments arguments that rely upon unknowns gaps and knowledge claims that are not warranted pseudoscience and other problems An argument is not and cannot be proof of our evidence the proof of evidence would be perhaps in one of the premises But when we look at those we still have to look at reality to know if the premises valid and sound So we're still stuck looking to the empirical methodology to resolve if it is or is not true the first place Then apologies have nothing to offer but debunk broken rehashed arguments I submit as reason enough to be skeptical of their conclusions. Well, what about historical records? Well, if there's extraordinary events in them, then they're typically regarded as myth People flying coming back to life walking on water all such things have never been observed under control traditions today And so we must place the Bible into the category of mythology You have to prove it somehow that strange events are possible before That we could grant any of them if we ask ourselves only what are the facts and what truth to those facts Bear out by looking solely and only at the facts how far we might go then I shall summarize all of I said with the following syllogism Premise one objects of the mind are not empirically verifiable and or testable Premise to the Christian God is not empirically verifiable and or testable conclusion The Christian God is an object of the mind I'd also like to add that this might apply to other God ideas out there But it depends what any given person says what God is and that's a whole another problem that is unresolved What is God? How could we know it's anything someone wrote what it was? Good enough God if it is a thing doesn't seem to Fit to let us know that it is a thing in the same way at the same time in a way that we would all know for sure because of reasons Because we have no empirical evidence no repeatable test and no valid and sound arguments We must be skeptical of this conclusion. That's it All righty. Okay, so the next part here will be eight minute rebuttals and Adherent whenever you're ready your time begins Awesome. Thank you Dan for that opening statement a lot of fun a lot of good points to respond on here The first part you bring some Supposed obviously more on the Bible describing different characteristics of God you say God has no gender yet He's male. I would agree that God has no gender and we use the term God the father kind of Imagery I'd represent a heavenly father Christians don't actually believe that God is a male. It's just not a good argument You say that we need what does it what does mean to have the right relationship with a specific God? I think one of the things that you misunderstand here is that I think you're objecting to the exclusive exclusivity of Christianity which I think kind of goes against we have the love non-contradiction for example The Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead the Quran says that Jesus did not rise from the dead They deny that he was even crucified. I believe so obviously these both religions can't be true one has to be right The exclusivity of Christianity doesn't have anything to do with whether it's true or not It's just kind of a basis of doesn't prove any point you say God picked the Jews, but then Jesus wants everyone To be saved you I think you're trying to show this some sort of contradiction. I think that I don't know how Much you've read the Bible Dan I know you were converted at one point But if you read the Bible God didn't pick the Jews because he wanted only the Jews to be saved and second Timothy talks about many other places where God Wants everyone to be saved he picked the Jews to fulfill a specific purpose I can see that in the Covenants where it's the Abrahamic Covenants most day covenant You can see these different covenants that God uses the Jews to fulfill different purposes Which ends up leading into the New Covenant with Jesus? So I think from any time God wanted everyone to be saved Dan says there's many different Christian denominations and beliefs. That's very true I was also talking with an atheist a few days ago and there's also a bunch of different beliefs within atheism So if we're gonna say that just because there's different beliefs we should dismiss the belief I would say we should also dismiss dismiss atheism But regarding the specifics of yes, there are many different Christian denominations some say speaking tongues Some say we can't some would say that the Bible should be taken literally in passages such as Genesis Genesis 1 others just say we have a different kind of interpretation None of these things relate to the truth of whether or not Christianity is true And first Corinthians we see a specific claim where Jesus were Paul writes if Jesus not rise from the dead Our faith is in vain Christianity is based on a falsifiable falsifiable fact Which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ which goes against your idea that you say Christianity is unfalsifiable I believe that if the early Jesus at the time dug up Jesus his body Christianity or not dug up they'd go to the tomb Christianity would have been false. Oh Did he freeze up on us? Ah, looks like my prayer to Satan finally came through Oh What do we do Hmm And there he goes he's coming in slowly it's really Maybe you could pray to God Well, man, I didn't even know what's happening. Hey, can you hear us? All right, I'm back. I think you lost me for a second. Am I back? Yep. You're back. Go ahead. Yeah, I can hear you I think you're all right. I'm sorry for whatever happened, but I'll just continue where as well Arguments on empirical evidence sure arguments are not empirical evidence But we used arguments in our everyday lives, for example, we have no empirical evidence that Muhammad existed We can't dig up his body or anything like that But they're very strong arguments to show that Muhammad did in fact exist Just because something can't be empirically demonstrated doesn't mean that it's false for example I'm from State College, Pennsylvania and a few years ago. We had the very tragic Scandals that happened with a coach who did some horrific things to some young boys and the whole case was built on just Arguments in the beginning wasn't based on empirical evidence So if we were going to only use empirical evidence, there's a good chance This terrible person would not be behind bars at this moment. I mean this guy's existence is untestable Sure, we can't empirically test God I don't see why that is any sort of objection against the existence of a Christian God Just because something is untestable doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You should only be proven You should only believe what is proven to be as true knowledge and a self-defeating statement You can't improve quickly empirically prove that statement is true. I'm also a little confused what he means by testifiable It's a very broad idea a philosopher of science named Michael Stenmark. He writes in rationality in science religion everyday life He's a philosopher of science. I'm not just some dude off the street He said after intensive discussion the consensus among philosophers with a religious belief in their linguistic They must be treated Meaningful statements if arguments aren't evidence. Why do we have lawyers? Why do we have debates in academia? Why are we even debating if arguments aren't evidence? It seems nonsensical to me He says that if we assume that something in recording the past cannot occur. It's a Assumption I don't know what historians would actually agree with what Dan sang Historians have no idea how Hannibal crossed the Alps But I mean I personally believe that Hannibal still crossed the Alps And if something cannot occur cannot as a subjective statement Regarding his specific context. Lastly, he gets into a little bit of a syllogism where he argues that the Christian God is an object of the mind In the past I've seen in others work of DNA says that everything has a broad scope He can't use the term everything unless you know everything but in a syllogism. He uses the words everything. I'm curious What would I'd be curious what the thoughts are there's many things we believe in that don't have repeatable tests For example the big bang evolution events in history These shoes can't be repeated these things cannot be tested scientifically yet. We still believe them Um, if you say science is the only way of truth. This is not an empirically verified statement nor repeatable Thank you Dan for your opening statement really appreciate it looking forward to the rest of what you have to say And with that I yield the rest of the time Okay, thanks for that and it's real quick Deconverted man before you go have a bit of an announcement that today for today's debate the super chats are actually going to Children and poverty so be sure to utilize those super chats because all super chats will be going to children In need today for poverty So again, be sure to use that super chat as much as you guys like We don't get a single bit of it because it's all going to children Okay, and deconverted man when you're ready eight minutes is your time Now there's a lot to deal with Since my opponent decided to use some shotgun tactics, but regardless God is x well You know god is this thing that mats like happened to say that god is well Not all christians agree with what god is or how god works not everybody Believes in the trinity for example and yet they're christians. In fact not every christian believes that jesus rose from the dead So you might say well, they're not true christians, but of course what is a true christian everyone has a different idea That's the problem you have with this system Uh, how do you identify a supernatural that you mentioned? This couple different examples. How do you know that they're supernatural rather than natural? Well, they can't be natural. How do you know that? What's their system that you're using to verify it? There's nothing ever been verified that We would call supernatural None of the things that are submitted as supernatural have ever been observed in a In some sort of controlled environment These are not testable things So if we could get the person to come back to life or have their brain healed every single time they were prayed for That would be something or more often than we would expect by chance alone That would be interesting that would make this testable And if it was more active more accurate than medical science alone Then we would use it more often than medical science or in conjecture with it But none of these things have ever been shown to be anything other than just stories There's Rarely or I don't even know if there is video evidence of any of these sort of events You know, they go they were sick. Well, how sick were they or they had this or that disease? Well, that's great. This is all just written down Somebody wrote a story Where's the verification of it, you know, how long were they in the hospital? Do we have the medical records? Do we have the doctor's records? Did do why is there no audio video recordings of any of this? It's just all stories So there's nothing there that it's all mundane the body can and does heal on its own. We understand this mechanism Have somebody regrow a truth and or arm and then I'll be impressed There's no beginning of the universe because there isn't time yet. So you can't say beginning. It doesn't make sense Cloms a broken argument. I've debunked it myself others have done better Some have done worse. It's just garbage science and garbage logic and I don't have time to debunk it But I do have a video called kca where I go over it so you can see that Fine-tuning proves nothing the weak anthropic principle. Of course, we would be in a universe that allows for life It would actually be interesting if the opposite was true. That would actually mean something to me But, you know, of course we're in the universe that has, you know Life adapted to fit the universe and if we were in a different universe There's nothing saying that life would not adapt to that now some say well not like our life Well, sure, but other life. We don't know we don't have the the computer simulations for those other universes To to point out we only have the sample size of this universe and the numbers just don't mean anything There's no evidence for the resurrection not at all we have There are no minimal facts. This is just based on copies of a story That were transmitted orally before that paul's completely and wholly irrelevant anyone could claim anything doesn't matter Uh, and it all just begs the question because it assumes the biblical account is true rather than just a legend or mythology as it's properly Categorize as mythology um And of course the narnia is not real neither is the god of the bible and you can have amazing things in store If you believe in me because I can say that too Yay Read the lobster is the one true only religion Claims like this or diamond doesn't That's my rebuttal Alrighty, thank you so much for that and just a reminder for everybody if you'd like to see more content from both of our speakers today Their description. I'm sorry in the description their link is there if you'd like to go check them out Also, don't forget to like and subscribe if you enjoy this type of You know dialogue if you enjoy these types of debates and everything and you want to see more We would really appreciate it So now what we're going to go into is the 45 minute open conversation And so the floor is all yours guys. You got 45 minutes to just annihilate each other. So you all go right ahead My everything is Pretty cool dudes. I don't know if I could annihilate him so Uh, all right Dan You wouldn't you wouldn't lead off Dan you're welcome if you want to I have some points I'd love to address too so whatever you want, uh you mentioned something about the the Let's go back to the syllogisms because that's the most interesting thing for me uh You you you had some objection about mine or you wanted some clarification on so do you want me to Redo the syllogism for you Sure, I mean if you want to that that might help Yeah, because you had some some objection toward or something you want to clarify So I said premise one objects of the mind are not empirically verifiable and or testable Uh premise to the christian god is not empirically verifiable and or testable and the conclusion is the christian god is an object of the mind So you mentioned something about universals although you didn't call it that but I know you're referring to I think So what what the what would be your objection in regards to say premise one or in general or what clarifications if you want Yeah, for sure, man. Um, so the first thing I'm curious. Are you are you purported as the principle of empirical verifiability? The only things are that you can believe are things that can be empirically verified No, and I didn't say that but uh our So are you not you didn't want clarification on the syllogism more No, I I do I just think I think that the principle of empirical verifiability just verifiability is something that's It seems to me in your argument a little bit that I see not directly But it seems like kind of the basis behind what's going on here. Not really. Um, you know, I allow for empirical evidence repeatable tests Uh, you could also say the scientific method I suppose And or a valid and sound argument, but I don't have but the problem is that I doubt that one could have a valid and sound argument without having a way to verify That it was valid and sound So that would rely then again on some way to verify That the premise was in fact valid and sound So you'd still have to rely on some methodology and that methodology might have to be empirical Uh and or testable in some way shape or form and if not, then how do you know it's true? This is you know, you'd run into some major problems and potential fallacies But it's possible that somebody could come up with a valid and sound argument I've never heard one for god, but I'm still waiting Okay, we'll get to that in a few minutes here, but I do I do want to say that I think that you can't just assume just because there's no empirical evidence or something that's testable That it's an object of the mind for example event in history How do I know it's the election of a blinkin app and I can empirically verify it? It's not testable. So it must be an object of the mind Take something like the theory of evolution. Um, I'm not like yeah, that is That is testable by the way It is testable. So you're wrong there. So it's absolutely testable. So Yeah, I don't know. Historical events historical rental grant Tentatively that that those are ones you you have to view as plausible But not but not Ones that that are extraordinary the mundane ones you could think well that probably happened or that could have happened But you have to have some some documentation. So that would be the that would be that would be In the vein of empirical evidence of not direct empirical evidence in that case, but you'd have something that that leads to the Uh, of the events at hand and nobody claimed that Abraham Lincoln came back after he was shot at the theater. So what too soon? Uh So, you know, there's nothing there to be skeptical about but if the gone if gone with the wind was not labeled as a a non real book You could claim that it was history But there's there's a historical methodology that examines those sort of things and and can deduce Using using methodology that is rigorous that would be that would satisfy the conditions of of verifiability whether it be testable Or historically valid to say well, this does, you know, yes these characters could have existed But we have no records of them. We have no this we have no that There's no archaeology to support it or what have you and and then you would you would have doubts that those events happened Uh, having them happen in such a well-recorded way with the all-seeing narrator kind of Tips the hand that we kind of know that it's not meant to be historical records. So there's ways to verify history Uh, that would fall within that category But good catch Yeah, so this argument kind of looks what you're saying here kind of seems like special pleasing to me because you're adding this kind of assumption that Well, you're saying that there's something's an object of the mind. Um, if it's not empirically verified But now you've just added historic you can verify things through a historical methodology. Yeah For example the question of god, um, I'm not argue. I'm not arguing that this highlighter right here is god and I mean if I did then you can be interested to verify this you can study it Right, we don't have a god to verify Yeah, that's kind of the claim that but that's kind of the problem that god isn't here to verify I think empirical evidence is kind of It's the best that there is a lot of things that we believe in that aren't empirically verified really like what? Like events in history like I just brought up. Well, and again, I said that there's methodology that is empirical in nature that you can examine I mean, I I guess I could have been pandemic and included it in my syllogism. So I'll grant that but you know The thing is the the point that I made about history was when you have something that You know, whether it's written today or yesterday It doesn't matter where somebody claims something like some, you know such and so flew off the building On their own without a jet pack. I mean, yeah, they just flew away like Superman. Okay And what evidence do we have of that? Well, I wrote it down. That's not, you know, obviously that would be mythology that would be Something that we couldn't verify because we have no Example of anyone that can actually fly So Muhammad supposedly rode on a flying horse. Well, we've never seen a horse that can do this So we have no reason to think that this is a thing that can happen today And why would we think it can happen in the past? There's just no there's no reason to think that it could so we have to categorize it as mythology So, you know, there's plenty of ancient stories and even modern stories Where magical Miraculous, you know, wondrous things are claimed that we have no actual example of So because of that, we have to be skeptical until we can demonstrably demonstrate. It's even a category It's not a category. It's like, well, the supernatural is this category Okay, great. How do you know that? How do you identify it? What's the methodology because you're talking about something that that you could somehow verify But then on the same hand Well, but you can't because you have to just know that it's a super. How do you know what's And that went to my question was, you know, how do you know when something is supernatural? What's the methodology that you or anyone else would utilize to identify Any event as as non-natural? How would you how would you determine it? Okay, then a few points you bring up here that I'm Very skeptical of what you're saying It seems like what you're going through here is you you only believe something is empirically verified Which is with contemporary philosophy you're at odds with most philosophers. I'll read a couple quotes for you I don't care. That's a matter Well, I mean, I think it's good here. I mean, it's irrelevant You know philosophers can say whatever they want question of dead god I don't care what philosophers said. What doesn't matter. What's the truth? You know, it's interesting. I asked a question and you didn't answer I've asked several questions. You have an answer. It's interesting How do you identify a supernatural? Give me a chance. Yeah, so well Do you have a way to identify a supernatural event? That's a good question. Oh Sure, I mean, I think that p.s. Lewis gives a very clear definition of what a miracle would be in his book He talks about a miracle or a supernatural event as you would speak is a supernatural force Intervening the cousin event, which would only if it wouldn't occur within the laws of nature How do you that's what I'd argue the supernatural event great That wouldn't have happened if we just had the normal laws of nature. Okay, then how do you identify that? Yeah, so we look at the evidence and see what's the best explanation for example my opening statement I gave a couple of scenarios Not that I'm asking how you identify that the thing is super natural Dodging the question How do you identify that x is a super? Because they're not answering the question. How do you identify that something is supernatural in the first place? What's the method? Yes, super natural you look at it and you see would this event occur if just the natural laws were in play And how do you how do you know that the actual laws are in play? How do you know that the natural laws are not in play? Well, because in the natural laws would have no explanation for why this event occurred How do you know that the natural laws have no explanation of the event? Well in the case that I said in this paper they said that this Unique case of a healing of gastroparticles Yeah, we didn't we didn't observe that that's never happened in the literature before so and How do you know that's not just what the body did? I don't think that's true what I would How do you know that that's the word in the medical journal by doctors who were a part of the case? So what? I don't know that it's a miracle. I think the best explanation is that it's a miracle So you you think that the best explanation is miracle, but you haven't ruled out You haven't demonstrated that the supernatural is a thing which is the whole problem You're saying it's a thing because you have no other explanation That's of course. Well an appealed ignorance, which is what all of it is based on. Oh, it's a miracle. Why? Well, we don't know how else it could have come about. Well, that's just ignorance The body can heal. It's amazing. It does it. We know that and Show us something actually that that breaks the laws of physics as we understand them Why hasn't god healed the amputees or regrown teeth or heal scars god seems unable and or unwilling to do anything that nature alone couldn't account for Seems a little suspicious And it's also interesting how god's playing hide and seek where you know these events will happen But they will ever happen under under controlled conditions where we could absolutely verify that the only explanation would be some Non-testable idea that we call miracle. You haven't identified. How do we identify miracles yet? You say well, you have it when you have no explanation. Okay, so the A miracle is when you have to appeal to ignorance. Got it Sounds good to me Okay, okay. Can I talk now? Okay, so there's a few points. There's a few points that I want to hit on first I want I we're transitioning into this idea of the argument for miracles But there's a few points on the idea of evidence that I want to hit on before we go back there because I think that I wasn't given a chance to really respond. Um I think that the idea is the only thing that we can believe in are things that are empirically verified once again Or false the Stanford encyclopedia philosophy says that what evidence is is evidence It says the evidence whatever else it is is the kind of thing which makes a difference what one is justified in believing Yeah, I don't think that's true. I'm just reading a definition. I'm giving you a philosopher's definition. I don't and your definition This is an appeal to definitions logical fallacy. Try again So I mean if you're trying to make a point Well, I mean you don't have to think it's a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy. So What's your point? I'll do a logical fallacy How is it a logical fallacy? Well, it's within the informal logic set of logical fallacies Appeal to definition when you appeal to x definition and say well, this is the way that the how is it a fallacy? Look it up Now do I mean I can tell I can try to explain it to you. I'd love to That I mean, you know an appeal to definition is saying x dictionary says z Therefore, that's the definition, but then you just said and I don't even agree with that then why use it then But it completely it completely dodges again The the main core of of this which is epistemology. How do we know that x is true in the first place? And that's that's really the core of of this debate and all debates like this is how do we know that this is a thing And I've asked multiple times. How do you identify? this thing as being a supernatural and and So far there hasn't been any sort of actual Answer other than well this thing and you wish washed over it As if it doesn't and then you're complaining about empirical methodology, which I said not only the empirical method But also tests there's there's more to it and also a logically valid argument would be useful as well So I have three things and so far None of those have been Satisfied and instead of just complaining about it. Just give me one of the three then And if you don't have it, that's really odd. It's interesting that that you don't have any empirical evidence or verifiable test or Reputable test or even a valid and sound argument for this thing that you believe in So what do you got? Other than your broken arguments Well, I think you're making a lot of assertion in you with not a lot of evidence. Um, but I want to say that that's what the bringing up that Then can I can I finish what I say before you interrupt me, please? I'm trying to be patient letting you say everything that You want to say? All right, just let me finish my statement, please. Um, without just without Go ahead and answer the question. You're a very smart guy. You all have to see what Okay, so you you talk about this idea that for something to be verified again You're saying that we do a repeatable test or empirical evidence or something along those lines And I just don't think that's necessarily true. Obviously, we need evidence We need sufficient reasons to believe something But it doesn't necessarily have to be empirical The philosophy of science has gone past this idea that we just everything has to be testable and repeatable and things like that Um, mckels mckels senmark says after intensive discussion to consensus among philosophers Is there really that's a scientist that deals with the wrong authority? Yeah, how about an actual scientist rather than a philosopher you got anything there? Because appeal to wrong authority Scientific what the existence of dodges isn't a scientist. Ah, there we go. I'm appealing to a philosopher Yeah, exactly. That's the wrong authority for what the philosophy No, well in this case it is because we're saying well, I think it's not you've admitted then God is not verifiable Is god verifiable is it is the christian god verifiable the answer is no It's not empirically verifiable and then you're saying well, that's not a problem There's other ways to know great demonstrate a way to know that this thing exists then Do you have a different way that I mean not empirical? So is it empirically verifiable? Yes, or no The existence of god Yeah, the christian god specifically. Yes I need a more specific definition of what you mean by empirical. This is empirical. See this that's empirical Okay, you got that for god. Here's god. Where is it? I can't see it Clear enough for you Yeah, that's great. I think you're once again, we're confusing categories here, Dan No, there is no category. That's the problem for any sense of like a policy The problem Yeah, real quick guys, let's try to um not talk over each other Let's try to finish each other's points Even if it doesn't pertain to exactly what you're saying just when he's done come back to him and correct him Okay, let's not try to talk over each other. Okay, appreciate it. No Okay, Dan. So once again here, I think what we're dealing with is different categories. For example, I have this pen right here I'm not arguing that god is a material like this pen. Um, this pen has physical properties We can observe it things like that. I don't think that god is material, um, I don't think you see a finite theist that would say god is material like this pen um and even I don't think I want to bring up here is that our experiences with observing things can be subjective for example We have that famous, you know mean thing a few years ago. I think it was in middle school. What color is the dress? um, you know the dress is gold by the way, but That it just it shows that our senses aren't always reliable and I'm figuring out what's true So I think what the issue here Dan is you wanting Empirical evidence in terms of like I'm not arguing that god is like a contingent thing this remote is contingent this pen is contingent I would say that god is a necessary being. He's not contingent on another thing Um, what you're bringing up is contingent things. You're confusing categories here now No, god's an object of the mind it exists up here, but that's it And so it can be anything you want it to be that's the thing is it's a category that doesn't exist It's here. That's it. It's not out here if it was out here we could It would you it could clarify all of this enjoying the hangout and say here you guys here I am This is what I'm like But it doesn't do that ever And so you you say there's some other way that's beyond empirical beyond verifiable beyond testable beyond Well, okay, I'll grant I'll give you know You need another way you need a another category because you recognize It's not verifiable. So there you're arguing. Well, but there's other ways. Well, what's the other way? What methodology are you proposing here? Okay, so I think that this is a good question you bring up, you know, something isn't necessarily impurely verifiable. How can you know something else exists? Well, for example We look at history. There's different ways of verifying something without physically seeing something obviously i'm not arguing That god is a historical event. Um, I think logical proof You know, I think that we we do proofs in geometry for a reason if we have the premises and the premises are logical And they sit with reality then in the conclusion follows from the premises and the conclusion will be true I brought multiple logical proofs in this debate that I'm willing to discuss with you. Um And that's another way that you can verify if something is true or not. So I think that Yeah, I'll leave it at that then well that that falls under a repeatable test then you understand Because you have certain axioms you should have certain Things because you you can repeat the test a Equals a and you can repeat that test and see that it works every time you say a plus b is c And you can repeat that test and see if it works every time And and because it works every time you're like, well Okay, I I could be pretty confident that the next time I use the formula correctly that it's going to work as As it should and if it doesn't then then something probably went wrong with my mathematics in this case that I'm thinking of Rather than the formulas we we've tested these formulas and seen that they work Although granted there are unsolved mysteries if you will in mathematics where there's ideas out there that Nobody has resolved if if these these ideas are true yet Although somebody will win a whole bunch of money when they do that So but we have a repeatable test there with that system So even in logic you have different ideas that you have formulas for and you can test those formulas with the truth table And discover that they work and then once you discover that they work That you can be fairly sure that that they'll continue to work in the future But none of these require An other category to exist. They just work and we can demonstrate that they work By repeated testing that would be my second tier the repeated test So what repeated test do we have upon the christian god to make? Okay, so let's talk about some of these arguments dan like you talk about this idea Once again about the repeatable test something that most philosophers that At least one of our student research have discarded that you need a repeatable test to verify something's existence I'd be curious If you could find some philosophers of science, you would agree with you that you need a repeatable test to confirm that something exists So with that being said Let's talk about one of these Arguments. Let's talk about the cosmological argument. Um, you referenced the koam being debunked. I didn't even bring up the koam So I don't really know why you mentioned that it's kind of well, you said it's kind of like the koam in your opening Well, it's similar to the koam and that necessitates around a there being a first cause and if there's a first cause That we can come to some sort of being that resembles what we see in the christian god That itself is uncaused thus creating a special pleading for itself, right? No, that's not a Very common misconception with the cosmological argument if I were saying that god was a contingent being Right, which you have no example of that would be that would be Can I finish? If I was saying god was a contingent being that would be special pleading When did I say they got a contingent being? I'll see the the problem is, you know, well, there's many problems with the cosmological argument even the one you had which was I don't know what version it was but it was rather broken it relies upon a beginning of the universe which there isn't that It's incomprehensible to say begin when you don't have time And then it also relies on cause and effect, which is not necessarily always the case, especially in quantum physics And at the very near beginning of the universe, we have no idea if cause and effect was even a thing or applicable in that sense And even if it did that wouldn't mean therefore there's a cause We we still have a mystery and that you couldn't extrapolate what that cause would be Even if you satisfied all the conditions, you still have no idea what the cause is you go well, it's a cause and you go Well, and it must be this. Well, how do you know that you don't know that you're just asserting that That's the that's what apologists have done. That's why these arguments are broken Because there's no proof of them at all and all you can do is appeal to philosophers Oh some philosopher said whatever. Who cares? Is it true or not? That's what matters I didn't appeal to anybody the argument stands or fails on its own merits Dan, uh, let's go let's go to a different. Yeah, I think you have this misconception of what an appeal to authority fallacy is Sure Well, I think what we're dealing with here is your version of what is logic and what is no there's only what is logic It's no live version or your version. There's only what logic is or isn't there is no version Yeah, the laws of logic are the laws of logic. I would agree with you. We have an agreement there Thank goodness for that. Do you think it's your it's We can agree. Um, we have I feel like what we have is your version of philosophy versus What generally the philosophers consensus on what philosophy? Okay, now a general philosophy Yeah, go all right Okay, you talk about a consensus. You would have to you'd have to show that over all the zillions of philosophers I don't know thousands tens of thousands to get a general consensus You'd have to have a large today Amount of them all agree that x is true and you'd have to show the data on that so do you have a a A paper that has all that data compiled or is it just well it's out there go find it Yeah, I think it's a fair question. I think if I said that there must be consensus. I misspoke. Um, that's not true I do think in certain areas that with what you're saying that there would be a majority of philosophers that would disagree with you For example, I have a quote here from Elliott sober. He's a philosopher of science from I believe the University of Wisconsin Here's what he writes. He says many philosophers of science think that there can be no quote criteria on a testability It isn't just that philosophers have so far failed to figure out what testability amounts to Rather the idea that there is no such thing So what I have here we're going back to the original thing is the idea of testability Isn't even accepted among many. Um, according to this quote many philosophers of science So I don't see why you necessitate on for example That's one guy saying that a whole bunch of people that we still don't have list of data of we don't know how many people agreed And also wouldn't matter how many people agree because that's appealed to You know Numbers appealed to majority. Thank you. Um, you know, so we have one guy saying yeah, sure The majority also agree with me. Well, of course you would say that all the people all the skeptics and atheists on my channel Always agree with everything I say therefore I must be right. Well, not everything I say But most of the things I say most of the time they all agree So but it's not that's not an argument. So one guy says this who cares He disagrees. I don't care what what method are we going to utilize to discover that x is true Whatever x is and if you don't want empirical methodology, which by the way, you don't have And I'm waiting for you to say that you know, yes or no on that Uh, and we don't have a test which we don't have And we don't have a valid and surrender argument which I don't think we have Then what else do you propose? As a methodology that we can reliably use every time to discover that x is true And this is something that yeah philosophers have lots of comments on that But who cares we need one that's demonstrably demonstratable to work Okay, so there's I think there's an important misconception here Maybe you're misconceiving this quote that I'm giving you all this quote I'm giving you isn't from for example, I played basketball in high school. I'm not it's not some joshmo Dan it doesn't even seem like you're willing to listen to what I have to say But for for the audience, I will continue to say what I have to say For example, I think like games kind of portraying this quote like it's a guy off the street being like Yeah, dude, I dropped a thousand points back in high school and I was a basketball player And there's no one to back up what he's saying. I kind of seems like Dan how Dan's portraying this quote here No, I don't I don't I don't I don't care who he is or what how often he's done philosophy. That's completely and wholly irrelevant Doesn't matter either either what he said is true or it's not true But where's the data to confirm that it's true? Well, we don't have that So did he gather all these other people to to that happened to agree with him? We don't even have that but even if we did So what what methodology is he suggesting that? Great. He's saying this doesn't always work. Okay, fine. What else do you have then? And without that we don't we don't have anything what method is there and that's what we keep You keep dancing around and you still haven't answered that question to my to I don't think to anybody's satisfaction other than people that already believe in magic and miracles anyway, so I'm just I'm just maybe you could actually like What what philosophers of science have you read from to come up with your idea that for for studying the existence of God that we need a repeatable test? None I don't read philosophers I don't care what they have to say That's irrelevant. I don't I don't care because either it's true or it's not true And so some guys somewhere that that does philosophy, which is just thinking about stuff They might come up with something that's true on accident But what methodology did they use to get to that truth? That's what matters to me You know bernard russell who I quoted He's a pretty smart guy Now is he a philosopher? No, he was a scientist first and foremost He came up with russell's teapot, which we could say now lies in the domain of philosophy but what he said was Ask yourself only what is the truth and what are the facts that bear out that truth and you've alluded to this that we have Facts that we can't verify because they're history Okay So we can't verify anything About God because it's all in the past Why then we get and because it's magical because we have these extra elements that we've never demonstrated to be The miracle parts then we should be skeptical of the miracle parts which means that God is mythology That's my only point And I mean you can you can say that well other people disagree with me. That's fine What methodology do you want to use that you can use whatever you want? Just how does it work? What is it? How does it function? Yeah, I think you're trying to look at this you're trying to put this question of does God exist Obviously, we're not talking the christian God simply hope we can get to that in the last few minutes We have you're trying to put this in this scientific box when it's really more of a philosophical question It's funny that you say that you don't care what philosophers think like I think that's a very problematic thing like for example Do you I'm curious. Do you care what historians think? Do you care what evolutionary scientists think? Do you care what climate change scientists think? I only care what is true. That's what I care about Okay, when I say I don't care what they feel that final is true If they found what's true, that's great. Then I care about that, but I don't care about them The person saying it isn't relevant. That's the point that maybe uh, I overstated perhaps But you know, you you know, this this is this is common with apologists where they just I don't know they Whatever I don't know. It's it's it's asking again the same question I've been asking is what's the methodology you want to use and how does that work because fine Have at it people disagree with with testing and empirical evidence fine. Okay. Well, what do we have in its placement? How do we know that it's true that's what I keep asking And you're saying it's a category mistake or whatever Maybe you have a better one Okay, um, so what I want to do is I want to give my thoughts here And then you can give your thoughts give the last word on this and I'm willing to give that to you And I want to talk to you about christianity a little bit because we've been doing this big circle over epistemology for the past 30 minutes Um Once again, you don't care what philosophy thinks I find that's not what I said But go ahead. Well, you said that you don't care what philosophers think Dan And I'm willing to give you the last word if you just wouldn't interrupt me Um So once again here, I think at the end of the day with these methodologies. I just want to say this I think that The box of just looking for empirical verification first off philosophers of science Many of them now don't accept that something needs to be empirically verified or testable Um, even if so that the empirical verifiability is primarily using a philosophy of science not in the philosophy of religion This is separate categories. We're looking at and that's why we need argumentation and things on those lines But I didn't want there's a lot of other points. I want to get to and we only have about 10 minutes So I'll give you the last word on this Dan and then I want to move on to a different question Well, it's like I've said over and over again We don't have empirical evidence or a repeatable test and my opponent just doesn't seem to be willing or able to admit to this And instead wants to complain about it Just admit that there's none. Okay, let's move on. What do you got then? Yeah, this is a philosophical argument great magic exists. That's a philosophical argument. So How do we determine if it does or doesn't we don't so far? No methodology was ever offered by my otherwise worthy opponent. So I'll leave it to you audience Okay, I thought you'd be the last word in so I'm going to give you the last word On that one of the things that you said Very troubling to me is you said that some Christians believe Jesus didn't rise from the dead To that in your rebuttal. Well, Christian Oh, goodness. It's been years I'd have to look it up So I off the top of my head. I I don't know the group's name I just am vaguely aware that there was a Christian group that didn't believe Jesus rose from the dead So I can't name that so therefore you should be skeptical of my statement and I'll withdraw it formally for this particular argument I can look it up for you later, which I certainly will but I'll I'll withdraw it for now because I don't know the answer so Okay, so you were sending that claim for now For now. Yes Okay, uh, you talk another question here. We're talking about the minimal facts. He says that Or alleging copied us stories. You consider the gospel as mythology Of course So why so let's take for example, and I believe it's john five was the pool of ashiva Mentioned in john five a five-sided pool In Jerusalem during excavations. They've kind of found a couple of these five-sided pools They kind of lined up with exactly what it was saying in the gospel of john. So is the gospel of john still mythology The parts of it that are not mundane are mythology by nature The pool might be real that might be verifiable might be something that we found Great. There's plenty of kings and cities in the bible that you can verify That's granted those parts are not Not in the category of myth although they might be a myth They might not be but because the mythology is only there as a category Whenever it makes claims That are not mundane in nature. So Locations can exist, you know trees can exist. No problem with that So I would tentatively grant all of the mundane claims that the bible has Uh, in fact, who was it jefferson that wrote that the version of the bible without the the supernatural stuff or something like that, but yeah, I would sure but I think that answers your question Okay, um Where do you get this definition? You you consider the parts of the bible mythology are the parts that are supernatural. Is that is that your review? Yes, essentially that would be that would be I don't think it's just my view I think that that's how we have to categorize any history including this uh Anything that that is mystical magical supernatural, whatever the whatever you want to call it Would be categorized as mythology Why? Why because we that's how we categorize it. I can't give you a better why than that. That's just how we do it But I guess We That's a good question. I suppose, uh, I suppose you would say those those of us that, uh Want to understand history the best that we can even hope to understand such a subject I suppose I The best that I can and I disagree with you Well, you disagree that the bible's mythology, but other religions zoroastrianism, for example You might think that's mythology or you might think that You know what came before zoroastrianism, you know some Zeus and some Turculee stuff that that's mythology. So certainly there's mythology out there, right? Sure, I would agree with you, but I don't think that I'm literally going to look at for example I just finished reading the current, um I don't just read it and dismiss it all as oh, that's all a bunch of mythology I actually look into the claim, um, and I don't just rule them out Because I disagree with them as mythology I actually want to look at these claims and it seems like to me Dan Once the last time that you read the the new testament cover to cover That's irrelevant. I'm not going to answer that question. How is that irrelevant? We're debating does the christian god exist and you're saying that there's a book in mythology that you have It is I haven't read it. Yeah, that's great Good straw man there. I refuse to answer the questions are all of it I mean you haven't answered many of my questions. So this is my okay. Yeah, you know what you know what Give me your questions. We have four minutes left Two minutes. Well, what was your bed? What's your bed? What methodology do you use to determine that something is supernatural? I Told you before if if you look at I like see it Lewis's definition of a miracle he considers a miracle or you can substitute miracle for supernatural events as an event in which The natural laws are intervened by a supernatural force So an event that wouldn't occur if the normal laws of nature were just in play And that's all there was that would if an event occurred that would not happen If there was just a laws of nature that would be a supernatural event by my definition Okay, then how do you know when you I the rest of humanity observe event x whatever that is And we say how what are we using to determine that that event broke the laws of nature, etc What would be our methodology? Sure, well, it's not necessarily broke the laws of nature It's an event that occurs that wouldn't have occurred if just the normal laws of nature were in place It doesn't have to directly break the laws of nature and my view for it to be what I would consider a miracle Or I mean there's different definitions here But a supernatural force doesn't have to break the laws of nature for a supernatural event to occur Let's make it a little simpler. I guess. Um, I gave the example of my lovely lobster here levitating. So Can can you're lovely lobster? Yeah, can your god levitate this off of my hand right now? And will it I mean I would say he can but not necessarily will he Okay, would any supernatural entity force, etc ever levitate this thing off of my hand Well, what do you mean by to define supernatural? Anything that you want it to be okay, just could anything anything levitate this thing off of my hand Yeah, I mean we can literally just say if we just in describing natural terms We could say the wind um could blow it off your hand and levitate it for a second So I'm confused exactly with what you're saying I don't know if the wind could not inside that'd be kind of weird, but uh, no, I'm just asking you You know, this would be something that that perhaps we would say if it did if it went off of my hand during this That would be pretty amazing I would I would say that that's a miracle although I would have problems with saying why it's a miracle But if it did float off my hand, I would consider that a bona fide miracle But I still wouldn't know exactly how it is. I would say that it's a miracle after all it could be Maybe there was well if there was wind I would feel that but maybe uh, you know aliens came or whatever maybe the invisible man picked it up or something but If it did levitate off my hand, which it won't that would be amazing yet Here it sits waiting Go ahead god The two are more gathered in your name Anything will happen. Jesus says something like this. So Jesus We've got at least two people here levitate a levitate this lobster off my hand Jesus in your holy name. Jesus I'm being sincere. That's not lord god. Lord heaven Let's keep this off Nothing nothing not happening. Okay Well, you quoted versus terribly out of context. That's another discussion. Um, we we have one minute left in can I get one minute? Ask me ask me anything you want. I don't necessarily have the answers I don't pretend to have answers that I don't have like the bible does but go ahead and ask You believe the only things that we can believe in are things that are empirically verified No, I did not say that Then why do you insist on empirical verifiability for the existence of god? I said well first, there's three things to remember empirical evidence repeatable test a valid and sound argument Those are the three things that I one of those three things is what I need for any claim Any claim at all doesn't have to just speak up every and any claim. I would want one of those three things that's it And if you if you if you have a fourth idea, I'd love to hear it Tom Okay, so what we're going to go to next is a five minute closing for each statement and At her whenever you're ready your time and it starts now Awesome. Well, I just want to say again. Thank you hunter for moderating. Thank you for dan for debating It's been a fun time. I've enjoyed this time and for praise for doing all the work behind the scenes A couple thoughts here. I just want to get first off I just want to say that we're looking at dan's version of what would be considered evidence versus what philosophers definition knows Of what would be considered evidence? I'd encourage people that if you want to look at what is actually considered evidence for anything or for the existence of god Just look just look at a little bit of the basics. Just a Stanford encyclopedia philosophy I encourage Dan to do the same thing. Don't just go off of what comes into your head or What a youtube person tells you including me just look at what the actual scholars say So I feel just emotional the time in that debate in that area of the debate I do want to say once again The cosmological argument went on challenge Dan just kind of said it's been debunked But then never really gave any reason for it by intruding once again, not even challenge No argument given against it the argument from Dan really just questioned how we could test these but I gave examples from peer reviewed literature written by doctors No sort of formal objection. I thought was satisfactory And we in the christianity again just misrepresented bible verses and things out of context just really It was kind of annoying to see So there's that so I'm very confident that christian god exists. I thank you for Dan I just want to say this time a couple things to bring up in terms of social justice because I'm really This means a lot to me I just want to say keep your guys's if you pray keep your prayers and keep your thoughts for the people in lebanon with what happened very tragic And then I think that obviously Dan and I disagree on a lot But I do think that we should be Fighting oppression wherever takes place and I'd encourage everyone to look at what's going on with the uber muslims in china Very sad thing not necessarily related to this debate, but I think an important thing everyone should be aware of but with that I thank you for everyone for Being a part of this debate tuning in looking forward to your questions Please try to question me or Dan as hard as you can. Let's raise as much money for charity and That's it. Thank you awesome Thanks for that and just real quick for everybody to know that if you want to check out the feeding for children of poverty The description is in the i'm sorry the link is in the description below and again, don't forget to check out the Both speakers today as well as we have the Both my link in the description as well as praise. So if you feel Like, you know, we're some okay guys go ahead and check out our channels, too We'd like to support and dig a very man whenever you're ready your time starts well the primary thing that I focused on in this particular argument was An object of the mind versus uh anything else and um, it's potentially Uh, challengeable the way that I threw together my syllogism. I'll certainly grant that I have to rework it a bit Um, because I can be wrong and you can be wrong. We can all be wrong And that's a good thing because then we learn something new The problem I see broadly speaking with The idea of god is god Can never be wrong So whatever you think god told you to do Can't be wrong and so you have to do it That's a scary thought because if you think god told you to kill me Well, I'd rather you not But that's what you think god said And of course if my god thinks that you shouldn't wear hat on sunday But your god demands that we wear hats on sunday. Well now we have to go to war That's a very very very scary thought God as a concept might be very useful, but it's also very dangerous. We should be willing to challenge whatever we care about most dear If that's god We're politics or whatever it might be even my own methodology. I'm certainly happy to challenge that Uh, because it is only by being skeptical. Can we Uncover whatever the truth is and may lobsters be with us always. Yes, that's all and lobsters. Yes All right with that being said we're going to go ahead and go to the q&a and guys Appreciate all the super chats. What we're going to do is go to those first If you have a super chat you want to send in go ahead and send it now and Send it to at modern day debates We'd love to get in touch with all of you guys and get all the as many questions as we can So please feel free to send those in And with that i'll go to the first one from gir mania. Thank you for that super chat It says here according to the bible everyone is born into sin. Is it possible to not sin? Is it possible to not sin? Does that mean free will doesn't exist? And at higher and I think that one's maybe for you and dig it right away if you want to answer this way again Yeah, I mean that's I think that's a really good question. I mean, I think that the two are compatible There's a lot of theologians that you would agree this two are compatible. I mean We're born into sin, but we choose to sin every single day So I don't really see the two of us some sort of contradiction It's definitely a good question though, but no, I don't think there's any sort of contradiction between the idea that we're born into sin and free will Well, my answer is oh, sorry You're fine. Are we both answering the same questions? Yeah, sure same dad or if you want to yeah, that's sort of the fun. I want to do it. Yeah, yeah, okay Sorry, yeah, no, you're fine. You're fine. I was just gonna say the question is is it possible to not sin? And then there is a comma does that mean free will doesn't exist So I think it might be asking Is it impossible to not sin? And if so does that mean that free will doesn't exist You know the kind of idea if you know, is it possible to not sin and doesn't refer to what does that mean to us? You kind of get the question. I know No, no, I was I was making sure that Zach didn't want to Readdress the the thing or whatever. Uh, well, you know, I don't think sin is a thing at all And then I think that's a made-up idea But if I was to tap into my roots as a Christian, I would have said That yes, it's it's possible to not sin because supposedly Jesus never sin So being born into sin must be some other category That's kind of like well, but Jesus wasn't born into sin because God put Him there magically Or teleported. I don't really sure how Jesus was supposedly conceived. That's there. There's some biblical questions about that But but regardless, uh, you yeah, I would say that you it would Theologically you could say it would be possible to not sin. Not that I care about theology. I think that Sin is an idea That it was come up with and then a cure was offered. I don't think that we're born into sin We're born into this world at this time. Goodness only knows why and we have to do the best that we can Uh to help each other and ourselves make it through it and also hiker mania All right, what that being said, okay, I'll go to the next one from dave Dalluff fear I'll probably butcher that but sorry for that you you know who you are and thanks for the super chat He says jimmy wins. Okay Even though he's out of the end of the bait and turn my time wrong He still wins no matter what the next one is also from dave Um, he says again, again, thanks for the super chat. He says jesus doesn't like bunk beds. Don't know why but apparently I mean, there were no bunk beds in first century palestine, so Apparently He knows more about jesus than jesemus scholars. So sponge ball of square pants. Thanks for the super chat. Appreciate you I kind of wanted to see From jesus is lard. Thanks for the super chat. It says apologetics apologetics equals excuses And so how would you respond to that? Apologetic equals excuses. I mean, it's just a claim. There's no evidence for that. I mean Yeah, I don't know. I don't really have any sort of like I wouldn't find There's no apologies saying that we're just trying to make excuses for why we believe what we believe We're giving a rational justification of why we believe what we believe And even philosophers the quote that gave earlier would agree with that same exact thing that they would Agree that religion can be logical. It doesn't necessarily make it right, but I Oh, thank you froze on us again There goes he's back. There you go. My back. What did you hear what I said or did you miss what I said? Go ahead and say it again I'm the moderator I Would just say that It's just a claim. There's If you want to say that all apologists are dishonest and making excuses for why they believe what they believe I think you should really reassess what apologists are actually doing is who they are Because that's not really true. That's all I have to say I would I would say the word in and of itself means to give a defense of And and it might be that some People that are engaged in Theological apologetics offer excuses But then we'd have to determine how we tell an excuse from an explanation And so we have to have some sort of system there to to decide between the two All righty. Okay. The next one is from miss metal. Thanks for the super That it says god is an idea that has existed since ancient man to explain away things that understood through science We know better now religion is an outdated idea Anybody want to respond? I mean If that's all you think that religion is I'd really be curious where you're Getting these ideas from I mean nowhere in my arguments or anything do that Do we lose them again? There you go try again Oh, I'm so sorry guys my internet is kind of shaky. I guess it's what happens when I'm away from college But I mean if you just think that I know where in my arguments that I say I don't know therefore god And if you think that's all that religion is I'd be Challenge you to look into it a little bit more because I don't think that At least people I'm around they don't say well, I don't know this therefore god I know there's some people that may do that but that's not That's it's a very generalization of christians and apologetics and general so Well, I'd say there's certainly religions that don't have god So religion is a structure of sorts and it might be that humans Broadly speaking needs some sort of structure like this There have been and are atheist churches out there It's a question of what we do with this gathering of people if it's benign Good or evil and and how we make sure that it stays Benign or good rather than turn to evil and so I think that these broad brushstrokes although a good mean Are not a good argument Okay, so moving on uh Germania, thanks for the super chat a question for decavern a man. How do you define morality? Morality is a subset of ethics. Uh, so depending on your ethical system will inform you of what morality Would be in reflection of of that so that I think that would be uh in a short how I would define it I guess I'll make an hour long video about that later Alrighty and you can answer that easy. Yeah How would you define morality was the question Okay, how would I define morality? All right Yes, or in or do you have a response to how deconverted man answer to that question assist that question was directed at him I mean, um I'm good. It was the question for for deconverted man. I don't really feel like I need to respond to him. Okay. Yeah Yeah, that's fun. Okay from jesus. That's Laura. Thanks again for the super chat He states we have photos of Lincoln all right Any response or anything? Well, we have photoshop back then Actually, I always think of the same thing photoshop. Come on now. What's up? No Yeah, at least we have photos of Lincoln. Yeah, so that's that's a good way to to also add to the credibility of Lincoln We have photos that people associate with a man called Abraham Lincoln But we don't know if that's actually Abraham Lincoln. We could doubt that that's just actually some other person Um, you could we're gonna go that really skeptical route. We could and I think that Doubting that Abraham Lincoln didn't exist won't parallel your soul the hell for all eternity Moving on All righty. So the next one from uh, Dave and I'm sorry if I butcher this name, but it's from Dave again Dave d-a-l-l-a-f-i-o-r Really second spell it Della fur. I don't know close enough. Okay. Anyways, he says define mental Cripple in quotation That's for anybody if they want to take a shot at it say again. I'm sorry you cut out for me Define mental cripple mental cripple Yeah, in quotation marks. No idea what that's referring to Yeah, same. I don't want to make a comment. I'm not yeah, I'm not exactly here with the role of it It seems like a role of it to this topic. I don't I don't know Okay, the next one's from j chi. Thanks again or thanks for the superjet The comment is knee converted man logical positive A logical positivism is false a statement that everything true need empirical verification doesn't have empirical verification itself How do you respond? Yeah, well, I don't argue for logical positivism. So It's an interesting point. I might make a video about logical positivism at some point But I didn't I didn't use it because I I think I had three different things and one of them being a logically coherent argument So I suppose you could say logic itself can't justify logic Although you would need an argument in logic to justify such a statement, which you don't have But it's an interesting conundrum. Oh, I don't think I use logical positivism. So It doesn't apply Okay, it here Aaron, do you have anything? No, I'm good. That question was for dan so because many Sounds good. Okay. And this point here is from god serpent and thank you for the superjet He says jesus christ is the truth act 238 is the truth Do you any of y'all have any comment to that? Amen Well, the lobsterus it clearly says that the original deity was a lobster So i'm going to go with the lobsterus on this one. All right So another one from jshi Deconverted seem to want to throw out philosophy as if it can't prove anything But your whole position is a presep presumption based on a metaphysics God can't be proved by looking at subatomic particles. How do you respond? Well I think this was an unfortunate misstep on my my words in this in this exchange of ideas You know, I don't it's very easy to misunderstand what I what I meant or what I thought I meant when I said I don't care What philosophers think it's uh, it's an awfully broad stroke, but I'll I'll take it. I'll take my lump The the metaphysics if you will Of god or what I'm trying to ask what we have for it because It is an admittance. We don't have empirical verifiability and or repeatable test for it. Okay So first we admit that um Then the question becomes how do we know it's a thing and we're going to say well it's philosophy Okay, great, but what system in philosophy and there's only one system that I know of the philosophy That's logic But logic requires you to be able to identify logical fallacies. So then how are you going to do that? and if you say well It's through more philosophy You know, you have to have some answer to that. So that's what I would say is that I think that You know, I can say a logical argument that that seems valid Yeah, either my light is on or off lobsters exist. Therefore my light is on well, that's incoherent But because of that you'd have to be skeptical of the conclusion even though you can see that my light is on But that's how logic functions is the if the argument is unsound you have to be skeptical of the conclusion the conclusion might be true independent of that So logic has its limits. I think that answers that question maybe Okay, do you have a response? Yeah, I feel like this kind of goes back to we have Yes Is logic there's many subcategories of philosophy there's no philosophy of mind philosophy of religion philosophy of time philosophy of science all kind of different subjects in philosophy We can go into so I think Dan's whole methodology is just flawed. Um, you want a repeat of what He want he seems like again, he just wants this repeatable test or something like that and Like like the super chat said, we're not looking for God like we're looking for the sharpies here The existence of God is a metaphysical claim. It's not a claim. It's within physical reality of something that's contingent, for example, like This remote or the highlighter Awesome. Okay. And the next one here is from Dave Delethor Just going another way with it seeing if I get closer um for He says double a but this for adherent says double a needs a 12 step program. Do you have any response to it? No, okay. He need them off leave it on good for you. All right Don't insult the person and attack the argument All right, so from blaster master 80. Thanks for the super chat Um at double a do you think your arguments are persuasive to think or I'm sorry to those that don't already believe as you do And why do you think that is the case? Hmm, there's a good question I mean, I think my argument's persuasive if the lot if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises And I think we would have to accept the conclusion There's a lot of different people who have accepted God because of logical arguments you dig up all kinds of famous apologists today who are Came from from atheistic backgrounds. I personally came to christ after looking at some of these arguments So I think they can be persuasive. Um Obviously different people like the end I can look at these things and come to different conclusions and we can debate You know how we got there, but Yeah, in general, I think that they can be persuasive. So, yeah All right, and Do you have any response? Well, you know being persuaded is is different Uh, it's it's more in the realm of the subjective thing Uh, but if you utilize a system like logic and formal logic or formalized logic Um You're you're gonna have to run it through the gambit of that to see whether it's valid or sound And if it is then you investigate further because you might actually be wrong anyways So then you look into the matter further So I view I view it as a Way to shortcut see okay that argument was on sound. I don't have to believe that it might be true But I'm not going to spend time on it So if the argument happened to be sound and valid or or or at least one of those Then he might spend some time to investigate the matter and it might be interesting to investigate it Just because you know, I'm bored. I'm going to look into it, you know, why not? so Gotcha Well, that would conclude the uh chats Thanks again for all the super chats. We really do appreciate it. Also, uh, just again, thanks again to both of our speakers today Y'all been awesome. And thanks praise for you know, work in the background and make sure everything runs, you know Pretty good. It seems like everything ran good on my in here Um, and thanks again everybody for coming on and checking it out We love you guys so much. We appreciate all of the support that we're getting Don't forget to like and subscribe and also don't forget to check out in the description Uh, you have the links to both of our speakers and to mind and praise this channel as well Be sure to you know, check those out subscribe and like and we appreciate everybody and As always you guys have a great evening and take care