 Everybody, today we are debating whether or not atheists are afraid to bear the burden of proof and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is gonna be a lot of fun, folks. Wanna let you know, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a nonpartisan channel hosting debates on science, politics, and religion. And so, if you're one of those sick puppies like us and you love those controversial topics, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come. And with that, also wanna let you know, we are very excited for today's debate. I have linked both of the speakers, Tom Jump and Smokey in the description. So that way, if you're listening to today's debate, this is a great opportunity to see somebody new if you haven't seen them before and to hear more from them via those links in the description. Wanna let you know, we are excited, folks. We got a couple of things we'll talk about, housekeeping-wise, before we jump into the format. Just wanna mention, if you have not seen yet, folks, we are thrilled that we are now, Modern Day Debate is invading the podcast world. In other words, you will see on the right side of your screen, those are some of the podcast apps we are already on. If you can't find us on your favorite podcast app, just let us know which one it is and we will work hard to get on there for you. So with that, we are excited, folks. This is gonna be a lot of fun today for this debate. It's provocative. These guys, real sick puppies, like we said. So, wanna let you know, today's format's going to be fairly flexible. So it's going to be roughly five to 10 minute opening from each side. And then, wanna quick ask you guys, just as a quick reminder, who is going first? I will go ahead and kind of lead with a little bit of a wide opening. You got it, excellent. So the affirmative will be going first as usual and then after that, Tom will be going. So, very exciting, we will have open discussion after that and then Q and A. So if you happen to have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. And if you tag me with at modern data bait, it makes it easier for me to get every question in that list. Also, Super Chat is an option. So if you have a Super Chat, it gives you not only the opportunity to ask a question, but also to make a comment toward one of the speakers. Of course, they would get a chance to respond to that comment and it'll push your question or comment to the top of the list for the Q and A. Without any further ado, one also do one last quick housekeeping thing. It won't actually be me moderating tonight. I am very excited. You've seen this guy before. Once in a while, he pops in. He is a tremendous guy. High energy, we love this guy. So very excited to let you know that Hunter from Sentinel Apologetics, he will actually be moderating tonight. I'm actually going to be stepping out as I am very excited, folks. We are going to start, we're trying to put all of your Super Chats. We appreciate all that support. Patreon, every way that you support this channel, we appreciate it. We're trying to put that to work. What I mean by that is we are starting to try to reach out to some bigger names to get you more entertaining debates, more intellectual, more lively, all sorts of different types of debates on all sorts of new topics and new big time speakers. So we are excited. That's actually what I'll be doing tonight is reaching out to a lot of big names, some of them, I mean, I won't name all of them, but I'm excited, folks, it's going to be a lot of fun. And so I want to let you know, though, Hunter is tremendous, we love this guy. And so I'm going to hand it over to Hunter who will take us through the rest of today's debate. So I want to say a huge thanks to Hunter for being here and Hunter, they are now able to see you starting right now. Thanks again, Hunter, for being here. Yeah, thanks a lot for inviting me again. Okay, so pretty much the debate is, are atheists afraid to bear the proof or the burden? So Smoky, you have the floor whenever you're ready, time begins now. Sure, appreciate it. Thank you so much. Well, sincerest thanks again to modern day debate community and of course the audience for being here and Tom, thank you for taking the time to do this with me. It's our first debate or first interaction. So, and for me, usually first interactions are a little bit more exploratory, but I have been listening to your debates for years and some of your positions are very interesting to me. Now, I know this is a debate, of course, about kind of a generalized perspective of worldviews and cultures. But I do want to kind of focus more a little bit since you are the contender here, kind of your justification and understanding of your naturalistic, I suppose, worldview. Because of course, in my mind, in my perspective, what we're dealing with is two competing models, each one vying for its place as the most coherent explanation of our reality. Now, naturally what this would lead me to believe is that both sides by some extenuation must have some type of burden of proof, even if it isn't necessarily revealed right away. And usually this is somewhere behind our hidden presuppositions of the arguments that we tend to use to justify our worldviews. And so this is kind of one of those things that I kind of hope to be able to explore with you. Also kind of maybe a little bit with your standards of evidence and whether or not you really believe you actually have any burden of proof for your worldview at all, or if you can simply justify the coherence of your worldview by attacking the coherency of all the other worldviews around you, therefore leading you with, by reasonable deduction, law of excluded middle, law of non-contradiction, naturalism must be true. So I'm kind of hoping that maybe you could walk me through a little bit of your personal justifications for the worldview that you espouse from an ontological level. And with that, I kind of yield. Yeah. So yeah, to give an introduction, yeah, this is a common criticism of many atheists is that they don't defend naturalism, which is usually what their position is, and instead just attack theism. And the reason they do that is because the atheist position is more that theists are just making shit up. Here's a question we don't know, let's make up an answer to it. And the atheist isn't trying to come up with an alternative answer to the question. They're just saying, you're just making shit up. So the burden of proof the atheist really has is just showing that the theist arguments fail. That's really the only claim they're making. They're not making a further claim that there is absolutely no God or that naturalism is absolutely true. They're just saying that all of the arguments and evidence theists present are just answers we don't have or questions we don't have an answer to that theists are just making shit up. And so the only burden that most modern atheists have is just to show that the theist argument fail. They don't actually have to defend an ontological position at all because that's not really the position they're defending. Modern atheist position is just theists are making shit up. We could though, we could absolutely take a burden of proof and just defend naturalism and show that we can make shit up too and just say, oh, you want an objective basis of morality. Okay, it's an undiscovered law of nature grounded in naturalistic pantheism instead of theism or if you want meaning, purpose, value and answers for what created the universe to find to it, et cetera. We can make up answers to those that are also grounded in naturalism. But the reason we don't is because that's not really the atheist position. The atheist position isn't, well, let's just show that we can also just make shit up and use reductio to demonstrate the arguments fail. It's really just that all your arguments are crap and that's the position most atheists are defending which is why they don't normally take a burden of proof. It's not because they can't, it's just because it's not genuinely what their position is. Their position isn't to try to defend naturalism it's just to show that all your arguments are just crap and that's the burden they're taking. Okay, do you want to repeat it one more time? That all our positions are crap, go ahead. I'll give it to you. Yes, all theist positions are crap, you're making shit up and we can make shit up too. Just wanted to make sure we drilled that home there. It might not have been missed. Okay, all right, so is it fair then for me to simply kind of assert that I think your justifications for your worldview are quote unquote crap or should I have to justify that assertion? Yeah, you do have to justify that assertion. So the atheists do hold that burden of proof as I mentioned, they have the burden of proof to show the theist arguments don't work. They definitely have that. Beautiful, okay. They don't have a burden of proof to show that naturalism is true or that there is no God. That's usually the burden of proof that theists don't take. Would that be your stance? That kind of like you kind of air towards naturalism because all the God claims are incoherent to you? No, so Eric Ford's naturalism because naturalism makes testable predictions is the only thing that's been demonstrated to not be imaginary. Testable predictions, can you unpack that a little bit? Like the testable predictions that naturalism, the paradigm of naturalism predicts and proves, that the type of testable predictions that proves that naturalism is true as the base model understanding of the proof of our existence of reality. Like, because here's the thing, it's fine to say natural things happen, therefore naturalism works. That's fine, but that's not an argument to the naturalistic worldview being the explanation of the universe. You see what I'm saying? Right, right. Testable predictions don't prove anything with absolute certainty. For example, if I have this water bottle, I can make a testable prediction that if I drop it, it'll make a sound and it makes a sound. That's reason to believe the water bottle exists. And all we have based off that is just the reason to believe the water bottle exists. We have nothing further. There's no reason to conclude there's a God. There's just reason to conclude there's a water bottle. And that's naturalism. Naturalism is we have the water bottle, we have nothing further than the water bottle. Well, so the naturalism you would contend then isn't equipped to address anything to the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Like I said, those are just questions we don't have an answer to. Anyone can make up an answer to those questions that is equally justified. So any type of justification you think you have theologically is equally or better met under naturalism. But the atheist position is that we just don't know the answer to those yet. Okay, so the I don't know of the gaps is preferable to the God of the gaps to you. Yes, admitting you don't know is always more intellectually genuine than trying to make up a solution. Okay, that's fair. Let's go with that. Can you pinpoint or give me an example or even just a, I don't know, hypothesis of something you could see naturalistically that would give you evidence of supernatural influence in the natural realm? Sure, any testable predictions would work. For example, if I believe there is a supernatural being X and I pray to supernatural being X for a gold brick and a gold brick appears in front of me, then that, and it happens repeatedly, then that would be evidence of the supernatural being X. Well, that would be a very, very specific type of God. That's basically like Amazon.com. No, you just ask for evidence of the supernatural. I would just imagine a single supernatural. Okay, that's fair. Okay, that's fair. Let's extrapolate it back a little bit then to an actual God claim. Is that a coherent expectation of a God claim or all the God claims? It would depend on the God claim because if you're making, you're asserting there is this thing that has these sets of properties. Well, I feel like you're using it. Sorry if I might stop. No, so I imagined a God thing in my analysis to give you an example of a supernatural being that we could have evidence for naturally. That was, that's all you asked for, which is give an example of some natural. Okay, that's fair. But to answer your question is that in order to have testable predictions, you have to give a definition of what you mean by God and then we have to extrapolate from those, would there be testable predictions? Okay, would a supernatural occurrence be repeatable so that it could be testable? It can be, yes. Well, wouldn't it just then be natural? No. How would it not be a natural phenomenon if it's repeatable in nature? Repeatable just means you can verify the results multiple times. It doesn't mean it doesn't tell us anything about its ontology. So it can be a singular occurrence that happens to have happened in a particular box that allows it to be testable. I have no idea what you're saying here. So supernatural. So I'm trying to figure out how you could be convinced of the existence of the supernatural from your worldview. This is what I'm trying to do. Testable predictions, I already answered that. So the answer is. No, I get that, but that's not a valid, coherent expectation for the existence of the supernatural because it may not occur. Okay, so the supernatural doesn't exist until T-jump sees it? No, no, you need some way to differentiate is this thing imaginary or is this thing real? And what did we have to do that as testable predictions? Which applies to anything. So anything you think is real and isn't imaginary, you need to demonstrate with some methodology that it's not imaginary, which is the testable prediction. What need to. Testable predictions apply to natural things, supernatural things. Well, wait a minute. Omni-natural things, uber-natural things. Just anything that you want to show isn't imaginary. You need to apply a methodology like testable predictions. Yeah, no, you keep saying need. Need for what purpose? Need to convince you or need to convince myself? Both. So you need some way to differentiate imagination from reality. True of everybody, every individual needs for any claim that is of something that exists, we need to demonstrate it's not imaginary or have a way to differentiate imaginary from, is it real? So you agree we do need to operate within the realm of the acceptance of the coherency of the laws of logic and that our universe has to be the way it is in order for us to even have this conversation? We could agree with that. Too many included baggage in that, I wouldn't agree to necessarily, depends on what you mean by all those terms. Okay, well, for example, if our universe had just one dime's worth of mass, greater or less in it, neither of us would be here to have this conversation. Is that seemingly a probability expectation of a naturalistic paradigm? No, that would just be only if we're made of mass and matter. We could be made of other natural things that don't entail those, so no. So we could exist without a universe, a universe that would have collapsed into a black hole or expanded into nothing, we could still exist? We don't need to be made of matter in that is affected by a black hole. We could be affected, we could be created by lots of different natural things. You don't need to be. So we could be non-material life in your opinion. Sure, it's definitely a possibility. A possible, well, but is it a possibility you would bet on, like that if our universe had manifested in any other way, life still would have essential, basically life is essential, it would have come up, come about any way possible, because that's almost seems like what you're espousing. No, it's not anything like what I said. I said it's possible we could be material things where we're just matter and nothing else. It's possible we're idealistic things where we're just some kind of consciousness, essence and nothing else. I have no idea. It's possible we're a combination of both of those things. How can a naturalist, an epistemological naturalist like yourself believe that non-material things could exist? I'm having a real hard time. Well, most physicists do. So like, there's no... Well, you're not the physicist on the table. I'm kind of asking about your perspective of how you're reconciling this. Right, so I usually go with the consensus of academics and in the consensus of academics of physics and cosmology, there are natural things that can exist outside of space-time. There's no problem here. You judge by consensus? Yeah, consensus is like one of the strongest forms of evidence in the academic field, yeah. Interesting. Okay, so when Galileo was the only one saying the earth was round, he was... No, this doesn't actually apply to the past because they didn't have the same level of information we have now. So now that we do have a certain... That's irrelevant, sir. That's irrelevant. The people 100 years from now are going to have better information and still they're going to be ruled by different consensus. So what point are you making? I'm lost here. The consensus back then didn't matter. It's the consensus now that's relevant to my position. Only right now, not in the future, not in the past, only right now. I'll go with the consensus in the future too. I'm happy with that. Okay, so we've figured it out enough at this point, you believe, to be valid enough to judge on consensus. Like this is the time. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that general relativity isn't going to be overturned by anything. We're not like if we discover a new scientific consensus, computers aren't going to stop working because of the new scientific consensus. All the things we've discovered, all the things that work as discovered by science are going to continue to work regardless of the change in the methodology that we apply to it. So yes, the stuff we've discovered so far is pretty reliable. Okay, this sounds like a pretty heavy assertion without much of a justification lightly edging on hubris. No, I mean, I'm sorry, you're just ignorant of science, but it doesn't matter. Well, I'm not ignorant of science. I'm trying to figure out how you are justifying. Let me finish. So again, in science, like nothing that changes about our theories of physics are going to stop computers from working. We have testable verifiable things we've built based off of our models in reality that are going to continue to work no matter how the science changes in the future. It's not like you can regress to a different level before them. The computers are still going to work no matter how you change the scientific paradigm. I think maybe we're going to a dead end. Let's maybe try to backtrack if you don't mind. Let's take back to kind of step one here. What would convince you of the existence of the supernatural? Novel testable predictions. Okay. Is there any other scientific theory or any theory? What if that is an unrealistic standard for the existence of the supernatural? Let me put it this way. Let me give you an analogy and then please respond. Okay. Everyone in the world has a supernatural experience and it's all the same and they all relate to each other and say it was the same and they don't know how to explain it. And everyone in the world has this supernatural experience except T-Jump. Could you still be convinced that that occurrence actually happened or do you require empiricism for yourself? I never said anything about empiricism and if you said they can't explain how it happened well then that's the answer. Well, no, I'm sorry. I've heard you take that stance before in other debates that you can only judge things empirically. I apologize. No, I've never taken that position. It's never been one of my positions. Oh, I heard it in your discord conversation. Okay. No, it's never been any of my positions. Not with TRN and Jack Engstrich and his people and the discord server? I've never been an empiricist. I've never been a logical positivist. Interesting. Okay, I might have to repull that clip. Well, okay, so what is your standard then outside of, let's say it's not repeatable in order to be testable. It doesn't happen in a space where that's coherently possible. Is there any other way for you to be convinced of its existence? There could be lots of ways. So the criteria is you need someone to differentiate imagination from reality. The one way that we know works is novel testable predictions. There could be other ways that we don't know of. I only know of novel testable predictions as the means that we can use. So if you want to present a different one that could definitely work too as far as I know, there just isn't one. And if you don't have a way to differentiate imagination from reality, then anything you're asserting is true is you have no reason to believe it's anything more than imaginary, which means if there is some kind of supernatural thing that can't be shown to not be imaginary, then you have no reason to believe it's just not imaginary. Okay, I had a hard time pulling much out of that. Can you try a little bit simpler version of that for me? So anything we assert exists, it could just be something in our head. It's imaginary, it's made up, we just unicorns, leprechauns. Well, that's just an abstract, right? That doesn't mean it exists, okay. So it's just imaginary, it's something in our head. We know that for certain. It could be more. Well, it exists as a thought, though. Can you give me that? Yeah, that's what imaginary means. Okay, beautiful, go ahead. So we have an imaginary thing in our head and we want to know, does this thing correspond to something in the world outside of our imagination? And to do that, you need some way to differentiate the imaginary stuff from the real stuff. The way we do that is through novel testable predictions. We have a novel testable prediction, like if I believe there is a evolutionist tree or whatever I can predict that we're gonna find certain fossils of tiktolic located at this location, at this, whatever the layer is in the geological scale and say, ah, we don't know about this yet. We're gonna do a test. We're gonna find out if it's there, discover it's there, like, oh, it's there. Then that means that my hypothesis, which was just imaginary, is highly likely to correspond to something in the world. So we now have a reason to believe that that imaginary hypothesis is described something in reality, not just my imagination. So you need some kind of method to differentiate the imaginary stuff from the real stuff. And if you don't have that, then it's just imaginary. I don't feel like you've actually answered my question, though. The question was, how do I tell, what would be sufficient? Like, if everyone in the universe, if everyone in the world had a supernatural experience that coincided and they all related to each other for self-validation and verification. The circular reasoning, you're just saying they're having a supernatural experience, like what? Well, it's something that would qualify. And again, I don't wanna draw a line on it because for the sake of the hypothetical, I have to keep it open-ended. But it's something that everyone in the world would qualify and recognize as a supernatural occurrence. That's stupid. So again, you need somewhere to differentiate. Was it imaginary? Did they just imagine it or was it real? Just the fact they experienced it doesn't tell us that you need something to differentiate. Was it imaginary? Well, this is the point. Was it real? Is how would you, and this is where I'm drawing, and maybe you're answering the question for me right now. How would you interpret that occurrence if it happened in the world around you? Would you believe it was supernatural? Would you believe it was just some sort of mass hallucination that you weren't a part of? Again, you would need some way to differentiate imagination from reality. So if all you had was testimony, no, that's just imaginary. That doesn't give us anything. So no, does the answer no? I'm not sure what your question is. So if everyone had an experience and they saw something- Except you. Could you be convinced of that experience happened? I could be adamant, even if I had it in. It doesn't make a difference. The number of eyewitness testimonies adds nothing to the evidence. So it doesn't matter how many people see it. You need someone to differentiate. Was it a real or was it an imaginary? I'm not talking about proving it for the world stage of scientists. I'm talking about proving it to you. That same thing. Even if I was included, like the number of eyewitness testimonies isn't evidence for things that don't have an empirical basis. For example, if we said I saw a unicorn, that wouldn't be reasonable. Even if we have like, we have tens of thousands of cases of people seeing Bigfoot, tens of thousands of people seeing the Loch Ness Monster, hundreds of thousands seeing homeopathy, millions of people seeing magic on TV, millions seeing all kinds of these ghost stories. The number of eyewitnesses makes a zero difference. Like every human being in the world, I can show you a picture of an optical illusion and you'll see it moving, but it's not moving. The number of eyewitnesses isn't relevant to showing it exists in reality, not our imagination. Is it possible for you in your mind that you have straw manned all the God claims and falsified them in order to fall back on naturalism? Is that a possibility to you? No, because I don't, that's not my position. Okay, so you believe that naturalism is the best explanation for the world and the universe? Given our current evidence, yes. And what evidence do you think really compels you towards that? Is it the scientific consensus? Yeah, all the testable predictions are natural things that don't exist for any non-natural. So the scientific realm would never be in a position nor would they ever assert the existence or non-existence of a deity in any of their conclusions, correct? No, not necessarily, there aren't any limitations placed on science like that. Well, yeah, but for the sake of, I believe that you would believe, for the sake of the integrity of the scientific work of them adhering to the known current paradigm of accepted theory that they should hold an open-ended, non-asserted position as to whether or not there is intelligence behind the findings or the conclusions. I have not exactly sure what you mean. So science is always tentative and provisional, so it doesn't make any absolute claims as far as we can tell. Right, so they'll get to a chicken and egg scenario in biology where it doesn't make sense for this to have been able to have been solved in a naturalistic paradigm, but they'll say, well, we just don't know yet. And the theists look at that and say, well, if there's no explanation from a naturalistic paradigm and naturalism has failed to explain it, then our model is more viable that an intelligent mind was needed. Right, that's the God of the gaps fallacy where you're just making shit up past what we want. Well, you're just the naturalism of the gaps though. You're in the same boat. No, there's no such thing as naturalism of the gaps. There is because you're making it, sir. No, no, that's called induction. So if you see white goose, white goose, white goose, white goose, and then you have a blank and you say it's gonna be a white goose, that's not a white goose of the gaps, that's just induction. You don't know how natural is it. Not quite done yet. So if you say, white goose, white goose, white goose, white goose, blank, and you say it's a black goose, that's a black goose of the gaps. So what makes something a God of the gaps fallacy is that there's never been any previous evidence for it and you're just using it to fill in an unknown. Whereas if you're just using something that's already been known and filling that with the gap, that's just induction. It's not a white goose of the gaps. I don't know what. So there's no such thing as naturalism of the gaps. It's all induction. But there is such a thing as a God of the gaps because there's never been any previous evidence of the God and you're just filling in the blanks of the gaps. I'm sorry, but this is just really denial noise to me. If you're looking- I don't know what induction is. I do and I'm looking at the same scenario you are and I'm looking at the same conclusion, the same data and we are drawing different philosophical conclusions. Now you can argue that that's from your worldview and that's fine, but at least accept it and say that I am judging this through the lens of a naturalistic paradigm. At least be honest about it with me. I have no idea what you're talking about. Like if I see a hoof print in the ground and I say it's a horse, that's not a horse of the gaps, that's just induction. I gave you an example of a lot of dozens and dozens of different chicken and eggs scenarios in evolutionary theory, biology, all this stuff where there's no- Okay, sure. The fact that all of our testable information into abiogenesis reveals that there's no naturalistic way life could have emerged by chance. Because the consensus is RNA, RNA world is the most likely hypothesis. Yeah, no, we've gone into that and there's quite a few physicists that disagree with that. Is this the matter in biology? I mean, I'm sorry, apologies, chemists. Sorry, bio- That's okay, they can disagree with the consensus that's fine, it makes testable predictions is the one that's winning. Well, I would be interested and I think as a rational person I would hope you would agree with me that it would be better for us instead of just taking their word for it that we should look at their arguments. Well, their arguments don't matter, it's the evidence that matters. They can make novel testable predictions which then make discoveries which have been confirmed. That's the part that would why it's reasonable to believe. Wait, do you think there's no philosophy in science? I think the philosophy doesn't matter when it comes to the test and predictions. Like the testable predictions supersede everything else. Like if you, it doesn't matter. Wait a minute. If you say, I believe in a square circle and you can make testable predictions and okay, square circle. No, no, hold on. You say that you're believing in the consensus. The consensus is a conclusion of philosophy by a majority of scientists. The consensus is the interpretation of the evidence. Yes, which is the philosophical conclusion of the evidence to what it extrapolates to and you're accepting that on faith. No, it's the testable, repeatable, demonstrable parts of the evidence which then they accept. Okay, yeah, that's what verifies the actual data and evidence, sir. It's not the actual conclusion, the philosophical conclusions of what that evidence means or relates to in our universe. This is, these are two completely separate things. Right, so that's where we remember there's that part about, you have to put it in front of the evidence. Okay, so which one is the consensus? So which one? Remember, remember, go back. So remember, you need somebody to differentiate imagination from reality. That's the philosophy part. And if you can make testable predictions, it does that. RNA has testable predictions. They're for a reasonable occlude. RNA world is how a biogenesis happens. RNA world is the naturalistic nightmare, sir. I mean, and if you look at the arguments, that's true. Now, what's you're doing? I think you don't know the arguments. The arguments, again, don't matter. I'm looking at the evidence, not the arguments. You know, you're looking at the consensus. You're not even looking at the actual data. Stop strong, man. Don't tell me what I'm looking at because I know what I'm looking at. You don't. You know nothing about me. I'm making an observation. I'm making an observation. No, you're not making an observation at all. You have no idea what my research is on the RNA world hypothesis. Do you believe it on consensus or not? No, I believe the evidence based on the novel testable predictions, which is accepted by the consensus. So the evidence, which is published in many academic papers, I've given these to many people who I've talked with about the RNA world hypothesis. The RNA world hypothesis has made testable predictions, which have been confirmed. Therefore, that hypothesis is the best one because it makes testable predictions. Okay, can you... Okay. Let's... Okay, all right, let's step back. Can we try to hypothesize, maybe help me with this. Let's try a thought experiment. Can you hypothesize for me? Outside of your gold bar example, because that only works for a certain number of deities and would in no way falsify the existence of the Christian deity or even some of the other more temperamental deities that don't feel so benevolent towards mankind. So help me here. Can you think or help hypothesize for me a naturalistic falsifier for the existence of any deity at all that kind of pushes your worldview more towards the realm of feasibility? No, you wouldn't look for falsification. You look for confirmation, novel testable predictions that are confirmed. So you'd say that if I have a God belief of X, this God belief is going to do this thing, which we will see if we do this experiment. If that God deity cannot possibly fall within that criteria, would you admit that you are incapable of being able to believe that it exists? No, you're incapable of demonstrating it's not imaginary. Well, maybe it's nature is not to do so. So therefore you wouldn't be able... You are incapable of demonstrating it's not imaginary and we're reasonable to conclude it's imaginary. Well, no, it's whether or not you are actually judging reality through spectrums that are actually rational in order to take to account all possible claims. Yeah, that's a rational interpretation because there's infinitely many different things that could fit in that gap that may or may not be testable. And if you have no way to differentiate the imaginary ones from the real ones and they're all mutually exclusive for many of them are, then we're reasonable to conclude all of them are imaginary. And since yours is in that box, if you don't have a way to demonstrate it's not imaginary, then it's reasonable to include its imaginary just like all the infinitely many other ones. Well, no, I would claim that it's not able to be empirically or testably proof. Again, I didn't say anything about empiricism. I said you need a way to differentiate imagination from reality. I use empirical verification for that. If you have a different way, that's fine too if you just have to present it. Okay, so if I'm telling you that your standard of evidence which you've demonstrated to me, I think is unrealistic for the claim that is in my universe. The standard that you need to differentiate imagination from reality you think... Okay, yeah, let me bring it down to a real direct specific example. Do you believe Jesus could show up to you right now? You just personally. Okay, well, I don't. And I'm a Christian. Okay. So maybe you have a bad perspective of the biblical theology and you haven't actually studied it to take it into full context. So for example... No, I mean, it was just to start right there. I mean, the biblical theology is completely arbitrary. You can interpret it in any way you want. There's no logical contradiction between a Jesus who potentially existed and potentially was God in some way. You would have to... There's no logical contradiction there. You would have to present the theological argument for your interpretation if it's better than mine. And mine is... No, I just have to show it's not logical contradiction. It's not a logical contradiction. Okay, sure, mine is that by the revelation of scripture, which I go by, is that Jesus Christ has ascended to the throne of God and the only time he's gonna come back down here in the physical form is going to be for judgment. So I know... You have that assumption, but that really doesn't matter. No, that's part of the claim. That's just part of the claim. Okay, that's the nature of the claim. So if you're expecting something outside of the possibility of the nature of the claim, then you're incapable of being convinced of that thing. That's just simple logic. No, you just picked a Jesus thing. So if you have a particular hypothesis and you want me to give you your hypothesis a way to test it's true or not, then I'd have to know what your complete theory is to be able to do that. I don't know what your complete theory is. What I'm saying is that the only way you could possibly experience the Judeo-Christian God would be through a type of vision like Paul had on the road to Damascus or John had on the Isle of Patmos or Stephen had on the Isle of Ston. When I die, am I gonna be judged? Well, no, I don't know. Well, you know, I'm not really gonna discuss that particular component because I don't want to get into the hellfire preaching here. Well, no, no, so that's the point is that there is a test of prediction we can do for most theistic, most Abrahamic religious if we die, we're going to see God. Yeah, oh, of course. But that then of course is a little bit too late and that's empiricism. So yeah, no, I... That's not empiricism, but it is definitely a test of prediction which can be conferred. Well, I think God standing in front of you is about as empirical as it can possibly get. I don't know anything more empirical than that. Empirical is sense experience. I'm not sure if we have sense experience with our souls. I don't think that's how it works. Well, in the Christian world, you do what that's what you're appealing to. How can I be convinced that a God exists? That would be a good test of a prediction. After I die, I'll see God in heaven. He will judge me, send me to hell or wherever, doesn't matter. Any one of those, that would be a good test of a prediction. So you have to see God. That's your standard. No, that's just an example. There could be lots of things. Like if you said, I predicts... Well, you just said, this is what I need to believe in God. I die, I see. An example, you're confusing a specific example with the only example that I did not say the only possible. Okay, give me another. If you say, I believe in my God, I believe in my God, I'm going to pray to Him to rearrange the stars and spell out this sentence and it happens. That would be also good evidence. And also not coherent for the Christian world. I don't care what's coherent for your worldview. Well, you're just proving you can't possibly be convinced of the existence of the Christian God. Your personal subjective interpretation of the Bible, I don't know what that is. So I can't give you a test of a prediction for your subjective interpretation. No, I just gave you the interpretation I have from Scripture. You gave me a single particular example of what that one thing... I gave you actually a pretty overscoping theme of the fact that your expectation... I can't give you... It's unrealistic. Stop, stop, stop. I can't give you test of predictions for your belief. You have to make the test of predictions for your belief. I don't need to do anything and I particularly don't need to spend effort trying to convince cynical people who are able to be convinced of the existence of my God because their standards are completely unrealistic to the nature of my claim. So you need a way... I don't think you're understanding, sir. No, no, I'm understanding perfectly. So you need a way to differentiate is your God belief an imaginary thing made up in your head that's complete bullshit? Or is it... I don't need to substantiate that to a cynical person, sir. I'm not saying to me. I'm not saying substantiate to me. I'm saying substantiate to you. Oh, I have. If you don't stop interrupting. So if you don't have a way to differentiate, is this just an imaginary thing made up in your head or is it real in the world? Then you have no justification to believe it's not just an imaginary thing. I'd agree with that. Sure, I agree with that. So if you want a test of a prediction or whatever from your worldview, then you would... I don't need... I don't know what your worldview is. I can't... I don't have that type of incoherent standard for my acceptance of evidence. I'm not saying you. So again, that's not what I'm saying. If you want to be able... If you want your worldview to be able to convince me or anybody else by creating testable predictions, you're the one who knows your worldview. You would be the one who would know what kind of testable predictions we could expect. I don't know your worldview. I can't look into your mind and look at the consequences and infer here is gonna be a testable prediction. I don't know your worldview. I can make testable predictions for lots of other worldviews that I do know and they're perfectly coherent. But I can't like psychically read your mind to know what your worldview is to be able to make a test of prediction from your worldview. It doesn't work that way. Okay. That sounds like just a whole bunch of words that aren't even addressing what I said, but... No, no. You keep asking me to give a testable prediction to... Sir, you're the one saying your worldview is coherent. No, no, no. You keep asking me to give you a... To give an example of a test prediction that would confirm your worldview. I don't know what your worldview is. I can't do that. I can't read your mind. Let me try and make this as simple as I can in terms of the naturalistic paradigm. Okay. You're saying... What you're not gonna do Let me finish. Let me finish. Okay. If you're saying my view of a non-theistic universe, I'll even go ahead and take naturalism out of it for it if you want. My view of a non-theistic universe is more coherent than the view of a theistic universe. Now, what I'm looking for is not... Was not only the justification for it, which seems to be a mix of a couple different things, but also kind of trying to understand would you even be able to be convinced of certain God claims by the nature of the claims themselves? Is your expectation of evidence in your non-theistic paradigm realistic to be able to actually extrapolate whether or not there are God claims or you've just falsified a few and think you've called it the day? So again, what you're saying doesn't have anything to do with my position. So again, my position is, you need some way to differentiate imagination for reality for any claim of anything that exists. If you can't do that, you're reasonable to conclude it's imaginary. So for any God claim, if you can't differentiate between is it imaginary, is it real? Then it's reasonable to conclude it's imaginary. So if your God claim, whatever it is, doesn't have a way to do that, then it's imaginary. So when I look at something just as an example, like the realm of abiogenesis and the idea of simple protein molecules, synthesization and protein strands, and I see that it requires chirality. It requires all left-handed amino acids to be used in order to form any of these functional protein strands or protein molecules. And I happen to know from what has been explained through the consensus of science, as you like to quote to, that there is no naturalistic explanation for how this all left-handed amino acids could be hand-picked and selected in a naturalistic setting on prebiotic earth in order to lead to the first molecule, it's nonsensical from a naturalistic worldview. Therefore, that is evidence to me of the infusion of some type of intelligence. Now, am I completely off the rocker here? Yeah, you're completely insane. Okay, help me. So one, it's a God of the gaps and two, it's just ignorant of the science. So for example, if we have two hypotheses, one is that the abiogenesis occurred by intelligent design and one is abiogenesis occurred by natural processes. We say, well, if it occurred by natural processes, we can make predictions. Like we will find there are certain naturalistic processes that will produce certain enzyme patterns, certain reproduction, certain self-reproducing RNA patterns and we will find them under these conditions and do these experiments and they will produce these things. And if we can do that consistently, then we have a novel test of prediction about the abiogenesis hypothesis from the RNA world theory that makes it reasonable to believe that over the alternative because it makes test of predictions where the alternative doesn't. So we have one reason to believe this one is not imaginary, but we have no reasons to believe the intelligent design. I don't know how showing how they will testably, how existing things will testably react that says anything about their origin. I'm not understanding the argument. Oh, okay. Do you understand what the cosmic microwave background is? Yes. So if we look at the temperature levels of readings of things that are universe, we can infer that from the things we see today, we can infer how they formed in the past by saying they expanded. And there's this thing called goose inflation where they expanded it for a very quickly over a brief period of time, which then makes predictions that we would see certain kinds of patterns in the CMD and those were confirmed, which makes it reasonable to believe that goose theory was correct. So you don't actually need to see the origin itself to be able to predict the consequences of it. So if we can predict the consequences of how natural processes can form self-reproducing chemical bonds like RNA, and we can infer, oh, that's probably how it happened in the past. We can do it the same way we do it with the CMB. Just so I can simplify. So because some things can happen naturalistically, you believe all things happen naturalistically? No, because we can make testable predictions. Like if we assume, let's assume it started and didn't. No, no, no, no. I remember we were at the example of the protein synthesis and you said, it happened because we can do testable predictions inside this paradigm and natural. So we start with the hypothesis, which is something you used to assume. You can't prove it yet. You say, if my hypothesis is true, that RNA or that abiogenesis comes about by natural processes, then we can make the prediction that if it's the RNA world hypothesis, another thing, then we would see these specific kinds of interactions happening under these specific circumstances, like RNA patterns being formed on clay that can be self-reproducing and produce corpuscles to bind to the cell. And we look and we do the experiments, we say, oh, yes, we do see this occurring naturally. So that hypothesis, the one that we started with is natural RNA world makes predictions, which were confirmed. And now we have a reasonably that hypothesis that isn't imaginary. Okay. This is, if I could just share a quick quote with you for this, because I know you do like to lean towards consensus as your justification, but just maybe just listen to this real quick. Charles Carter, the structural biologist at the University of North Carolina has presented evidence that RNA molecules alone would not have been sufficient for all of the processes needed to initiate life on Earth. Now, if he and several others, many others are coming to the same type of conclusion that there's a stopgap of an explanation of any type of potential naturalistic explanation to this, is that not sufficient enough to believe that potentially intelligent agent needed to be included to make this happen? Well, no, absolutely not for two reasons. One, let me read you a quote. One day soon, someone says, someone will fill a container with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it under the right conditions, and we will watch life emerge. That experiment will be done. This is academic paper from new scientists of a professor. Oh, that's quite a prediction. Yeah, and it's followed by 30 academic papers where they've made consistent tests. Well, can we have something about what it is right now, not what someone thinks is gonna happen in the near future based upon their... No, so this is followed by 30 scientific papers of test... Well, yeah, but that's someone's... Okay, that's fine, but that's someone's religious statement. So you wanted a quote from an academic, like this... No, I just don't want a religious statement about conjecture to the future. No, no, that's actual scientific paper. So again, as I said, this is followed by 30 scientific papers... Okay, well, read the part that's actual science. Okay, read the part that's actual science. In 2003, Hirokosuga, now at the University of North Korea, an RNA enzyme that could oxidize alcohol from one cofactor called NAD plus. That was one of the testable predictions. Here's another one. MRC Laboratory of Molecular and Biology in Cambridge University College unveiled an RNA enzyme called TC19Z. It can reliably copies RNA sequences up to 95 letters long, another testable prediction. You just go through all of these two papers that make testable predictions, which confirm it true, and the consensus is, yes, it's natural. The vast majority, it's all natural. There was a second one. Hey, guys, let me just butt in just a little bit, though, because what we're going on to, back to the actual, like, with the topic of about the burden of proof and everything. I was gonna ask to kind of go along with the idea of consensus. Is that a sense? Like, T-dump, you make the argument that that is a proof, that is evidence, because it's peer reviewed and everything, right? Yes, peer reviewed evidence. Sure, okay. So, Smoky, for the idea of consensus, would you, so the idea is pretty much on the idea of consensus with proof. What is the problem with consensus as being proof? Since that is typically the idea of what the proof is since T-dump is making that. Because I think it's more, yeah, because I think it's more feasible and more realistic, more practical, and honestly, more rational to go look at the actual arguments, not just sit and say, well, the consensus of these guys have figured it out. I don't need to know the arguments. They believe it, so that's good enough for me. I just don't think that that's a practical position to take. So, the position is that the people who are experts in the field who are actually qualified to evaluate the arguments have evaluated them and come to this conclusion. Your personal interpretation, which you're likely to be wrong significantly more than them, is less, is crappy evidence. So, and if I look at the evidence and try and make a conclusion off of my interpretation, that's crap, but if the experts in the field do it, that's probably right. So, what's more likely that all of the experts who are trained in the field for their entire lifetimes got it wrong, or you made a mistake, what is that you made a mistake? Was my quote right or wrong to you? What? My quote that I read, was that right or wrong to you? Yeah, the second part I wanna address, it's wrong because you can't just say, it can't be a natural process. You can only ever say it can't be a known natural process, which is what all the scientists are saying, like we don't have a known natural process that can account for these things. Right, no, I agree with that. And that's what I'm saying, is that to me, it's the naturalist saying, are we filled this with naturalism because some natural things can be tested? So therefore, all these things must be natural. And if we haven't found an explanation for the natural yet, well, we're just gonna have faith that someday we will. No, again, it's induction. If we have natural solution, natural solution, natural solution, natural solution, and we have a blank, and we look in the past, they all, they've all been natural solutions in the past. It's inductively valid to conclude, oh, the next one's gonna be a natural solution. But isn't they- But I'm talking about the ones at the beginning, not the ones that happen after. You're kinda using the ones after to justify the beginning. I'm just using all of the scientific discoveries we've ever made in humanity. They've all been natural. So the next discovery we don't know yet, regardless of what it's gonna be about, is also it's reasonable to entube it's gonna be natural. I don't ever believe science would discover something supernatural through any type of testable, reputable process at all. I don't think that's a feasible or realistic expectation. So then you're admitting you have no reason to believe supernatural is anything- No, I'm just saying that your standard is unrealistic and I think it's not something that's rational to hold to. Okay, so you're admitting you have no reason to believe that supernatural- I'm admitting according to your standard? Yeah, I don't. Yeah, for your standard, which I think is a rational, yeah. Do you have a different way to differentiate imagination from reality? Yeah, well, I extrapolate from reality that in improbable universe, the way that it is happening to manifest the way it is with us being here, with all of the stopgaps in our evolutionary biology that seem to ring true to the essentiality of some sort of intelligent agent. Yeah, this is the more reasonable model of reality for me to extrapolate. You're saying my model's better, but I'm not yet hearing too many arguments to justify that. So that's the textbook definition of a God of the gaps. Here's something we can't explain there for God, but that's not actually evidence of God. You can keep saying that to me, but I'm just gonna keep saying your naturalism of the gaps. So this is a relevant conversation. You can show you're an ignorant of induction, but you can keep saying that if you want, but I've already shown that. Well, you're assuming naturalism did it when there's no way to explain that at all, and likely it didn't do it. I already explained this. So just use a simpler example. If we see a hoofprint in the ground, we can say, oh, it's a horse, because we've seen lots of horses in the past. We can say that hoofprint's probably caused by a horse. That's called induction, it's reasonable. But if you said that hoofprint's called by a unicorn, and there's lots of things we can't explain about it, maybe it's a funny shape. Oh, well, so maybe, I don't know if a horse could explain that. Maybe it's too big for a horse. So it's a unicorn. You can't do that. That's logically invalid. That doesn't work, because just saying, well, we can't explain something about the hoofprint, doesn't give you the right to conclude it is a different thing we have no evidence for. First, you have to demonstrate that other thing in a different context before you can use it as an explanation of the unknown. Sure, you would never be able to know if it was a unicorn, though, ever. Never be able to know. Then you have no reason to believe it's not a magnet. Exactly, but if it was, you would never know. And you would never imagine that it was so. And you would never even question the possibility that it was so. And you would never look for extra evidence to see if it was possibly so. No, that's wrong. We would absolutely look for all of the evidence. Oh, you would look for evidence it was a unicorn if you saw a hoofprint. Sure, if you actually provided something. All right, okay. Good, okay. That's the thing. You have to demonstrate that your nonsense Sir, I don't have to do anything. That's exactly what you just made. Especially for these standards, these standards of evidence that you espouse. I don't certainly have to do anything. My standard of differentiate stuff you've made up in your head with reality. No, just the way that you require unrealistic methods. Yeah, unrealistic and you demonstrate is not shit made up in reality. That's so unfair. Okay, well, I don't think we're gonna go much further. Maybe we should move to questions, Hunter. I think I think you've kind of taken this to its full end. Yeah, okay. Now, well, okay. Well, thanks guys for that conversation. It was interesting. I actually wanted to get in it just a little bit just to kind of steer the conversation but it was still actually pretty good and informing. Let me ask this concerning with the idea of, you know, imaginary versus, you know, realistic. T-Town, let me just ask you this, you know, what would you use to differentiate from imaginary to realistic in the natural world? Novel testable predictions, same as science. Okay, so in other words, science for everything? Science for everything that's demonstrated something about reality. There's other things like conceptual stuff you don't need science for, like language, math, logic. Those you don't need novel testable predictions for because they're not claims about reality. They're claims about languages and stuff in our head. So that's why I reject logical positivism because I'm not saying that the only kind of knowledge is synthetic about the world. You can also have knowledge about things in our head like language and you don't need empirical verification for that. So I'm not saying empirical verification is the only way to gain knowledge. It's just the only good way to gain knowledge about things independent of our imagination. Gotcha. And Smoky, just a question for you about consensus. Would you say that in order to change consensus, you would have to have a really good argument that's better than what the consensus has? I think it would have to be a lot more than that. I think you're threatening the peers that you're gonna put your paper in front of, you're threatening their political positions, their livelihoods, their reputations, their life's work. You would have to have something pretty darn stinking air tight that would be probably beyond any potential, actual legitimate criticism or critique or doubt. And I don't think that type of thing has ever passed. So I kind of feel like the scientific community is a bit like a train on the railroad tracks. It's just gonna go where it's gonna go. We're not gonna find a way to switch that track. Even if we do come up with really, really good argumentation that might kind of torpedo the consensus, the consensus is always gonna fight being wrong. And that's because it's still built up a bunch of humans that have a bunch of careers and livelihoods to protect as well. I think Atheist put a little too much faith in the integrity and sanctity of the scientific community and that it can't possibly be swayed by politics. I don't think that's realistic. Except it's been proven. Oh yeah, that's been proven. Okay, Tom, sure. Neils-Vore showed that. Oh wait for your reference. Things like Einstein showed that Spicetime can bend and that was against the consensus. Yeah, no, no, there's lots of things that are said that aren't necessarily proved that are just conjecture and pretty much anything anyone would espouse about multiverse theory would be prone to that. I said, I said, Spicetime can bend, that was against the consensus, that was against what every physicist believed was possible. Exactly. And they all changed their minds about a six month. And we also believe that particles behaved like particles and then we got into quantum mechanics and realized, oh wait, they also kind of behave like waves and they behave like particles only when we're looking at them. You know, it's very interesting stuff. Yep, which was completely contrary to everyone and they all had to just give up their beliefs. I love me some Sean Carroll. So yeah, it's happened pretty regularly. Okay, beautiful. All right, Hunter, anything else? You're muted. He's muted. You're muted, sir. Sorry, I didn't realize I was muted. Sorry, sorry. Bad moderation there. It's all good, James does it a lot. So you're gonna be forgiven because you've only done it once for a short window. So you're fine. There you go. Okay, well, awesome. Well, you know, I just wanted to ask those questions just to kind of like, you know, get a little bit more in there, but cool. So I don't know where James has gone, but what we can do is we can try to go to the super chats. So if you guys have any more of the super chats, please go ahead and send them in and we can try to get to them as much as we can. Let me try to see if I can't actually get to them real quick. Give me just one moment. And by the way, also don't forget that there is an after show with, let me try to see. It's John Maddox, logical, plausible, probable's channel. He's doing an after show right after the debate. I will stop in for a light little word. I am kind of exhausted, but I will try to stick it out as long as I can in his after show, if people have questions or comments. Awesome. Of course, you're invited too. And I might, and I might go right now. We'll see. But cool. Awesome. So thanks again for that guys. We are right at the 45 minute mark too, which is funny, because 10 minute openings and everything, but let me just go ahead and try to get that. And while we do that, give me just one moment please. And let's see here. Now, do y'all have any other comments or anything? Y'all want to make like any closing statements? You know, Smoke, if you have a closing. Yeah, I mean, I'll take a few minutes. Sure. You know, I think what I've struggled with and just so everyone kind of knows, I am someone who rationalized their way out of atheism. I didn't have some supernatural experience or some real legitimate come to Jesus moment. I mean, I would have a come to Jesus moment. I would have some really strong personal spiritual verification in my own life, which I know would never be any type of evidence worth mentioning to a secularist, which is why I don't bother. But for me, it's a very dynamic real thing. So when I look at the secularist worldview, attempting to kind of presuppose their naturalistic paradigms and yet kind of deny the seeming indirect presuppositions that they're presupposing in order to make their claims even functional, I start to get a little weirded out because it doesn't even seem like rationality anymore. It doesn't seem like skepticism. It seems like cynicism. It seems like irrationality. It seems like religious zealotry to cling to the potentiality of naturalism, no matter how improbable it seems to continue to be. I've kind of used an example a few times that in my perspective of how the naturalists or the atheists are viewing reality, they're kind of like the shooter at the craps table. And no matter how many times that dice comes up, all sixes every single time, they never seem to catch on that the dice or the table might be rigged. The rest of us stop and think and say, wait, something's going on here. This level of incredible order in this improbable universe just happening to randomly manifest seems incoherent. The dice must be loaded. The universe looks like it's tinkered with. This gives me evidence to a conclusion that there is something else out there that I should probably be compelled to look for. The naturalist seems to just stop dead before any of that and say, well, there's a few things in nature that work naturalistically. So I can just assume everything works naturalistically. And I don't think that's a good argument. I think it's circular. I think it's fallacious. I think it doesn't land. And it just shows that ultimately, atheism to me is kind of, if not incoherent, indefensible and potentially unfalsifiable. And as I kind of felt like I demonstrated tonight, T-Jump's standard for the existence of some deities isn't even to me, even realistic, even if within the realm of realistic expectations. So to take his arbitrary standard as the methodology to interpret the existence of deities or even the supernatural, I think is irrational, untenable, religious and a little bit closed-minded. I yield. All right, yeah, so for my closing, his argument is the typical God of the gaps. He's wants to blame science for his own inadequacies. Science doesn't presuppose anything. It just says, here are the tools we have. We're gonna combine them in different ways and see what we can get. And if you need some way to differentiate imagination from reality, and if he thinks that's an unreasonable standard, then he's just delusional. You need to, we know that our brains make stuff up all the time. And so we need some way to filter out all the stuff we've made up and leave what's actually real. And so in science, what we do is we show, we use the pieces that have already been demonstrated to exist are not imaginary, things that we know are real. We combine them in different ways to build new models of reality and then use those to make testable predictions and then discover whether or not those are true or not. But if you wanna just put in this new thing that has no basis in reality, that's never been shown to be real, say, oh, it's a unicorn or a God or a fairy or magical leprechauns. Well, then you need to make the novel test of predictions to demonstrate those things aren't imaginary, just like we've done for everything in science. Just asserting that here's something we can't explain and that can be explained by magical fairy gods isn't that, isn't evidence. It's just, here's an unknown, we don't know how to explain it and we're gonna make up a solution to it and assert it with nothing more than just will we imagine it to be the case. And science doesn't accept that because we know that methodology fails 100% of the time. You can't just make stuff up for solutions we don't have an answer to and just insert your imagination as if it's evidence. There's lots of stuff science hasn't answered, there's lots of questions we don't know the answer to but the correct way to get the answer is to pursue the evidence. We combine things we know exist and make testable predictions to show that they're not imaginary. If you can't do that and you can't show your hypothesis isn't just an imaginary nonsense that's been made up then we have no reason to believe it. That's why we require science and don't just accept fairy tales about supernatural things. Awesome. Well, thanks guys so much for that and pretty much what we're gonna do is go to the live chat and other super chats I mean and the first question that comes up is for Smokey. And by the way, guys, thanks so much for the super chats. You know, it's really appreciated. If you guys have any more questions, go ahead and put them in there. If you like super chats are definitely first so go ahead and send them in if you want. The first question is for Smokey and it is from Nathan Artward. And he asks, Smokey, what is your definition of atheist? You know what? I really try to stay away from that because it's become a hot button issue in their own community. So I let them define it for me and then I'll operate with their definition. That's what I prefer to do. I don't prefer to take, I used to do that. I used to take a definitive stance on what epistemologically and philosophically it should mean but I'm gonna say this, I do lean towards Steve McRae. I believe that he is very, very philosophically literate and stands strong on his understanding of the definition and how it should be used. But in terms of just common communication, I will let each individual use their own definition. Awesome. And TJ, do you have any response to that or anything like that? No, I would agree. I think that you, to define the atheist and you should ask the person you're talking to and however they define is what you should go with. If they're the atheist, you just ask them what they mean by it and that's the same thing for God. If you like, what do you mean by God? You should ask the person who believes in God instead of just trying to make up your own definition because it'd just be a strong man. Got you. Okay, great. And also, well, let me just go ahead and humble myself. I'm actually trying to get to these two good chats. That's okay. Take your time out. You're doing great. Was this your first time, by the way? No, it is not. Oh, okay. Well, then you don't have that excuse. No, you're not doing that great then. Well, you know, you learn as you go. Exactly. As Yoda said, failure is the best teacher. There you go. There you go. But yeah, if you guys actually are able to get to the super chat for me, that would be very helpful because my computer is actually- Oh, you know what? Yeah, in fact, I can go and pull it up, I think. Can I? Awesome. Well, I can only go back so far though, I think. I think that's my problem. But let me try. Let me try. I can only see two of them right now. The Smokey, what's your definition of atheist? That's a newer one. Don't miss the after-show. Link in the chat for John Maddox. Yeah, I think we are gonna only be able to see the newer ones on our side, I think. Do you hate raging atheist because he dated your mom? Can't help it. What was that one? Do you hate raging atheist because he dated your mom from the beginning of the season? Do I even wanna know? No, we have a thing going on. It's interesting. Nathan Artwork says, I asked because you said you were an atheist. Like, did he ask me or did he ask you? What was the question? Nathan Artwork who asked, Smokey, what is your definition of atheist? Says the reason he asked, I asked because you said you were an atheist. Wait, what? You were an atheist in the past. Oh, okay, no, they were specifying that. Yeah, no, when I was an atheist at the time, I believed I had good reason to disbelieve in the existence of a God. I believe that the atheistic claims that had been presented to me were all incoherent or contradictory. Therefore, the claims themselves falsified them out. And I was not interested in trying to believe in any type of deistic non-personal God. So I ended up personally leaning towards atheism. And I actually did, I will admit, probably on an epistemological level, I did, if I'm being completely honest, balance myself going back and forth between atheism and agnostic at certain times, I'm sure. I hope that helps clarify. And that would be if I was using kind of, that would be if I was using kind of more Steve McRae's approach to what the definitions of atheism are, if that's how I was approaching it. Gotcha, okay, great. And let's see if I'm able to actually get any more. T.W., do you see any more? I didn't see any more, that was the last one I saw. James just saw my message in Facebook, so maybe he's coming back soon, hopefully. Yeah, because he actually has access to the studio, which has all the super chats. I, on the other hand, don't. I was literally going by the chat itself and trying to literally get them all. But of course I wasn't able to because I just suck and I'm kidding. But at the same time, not really. But anyways, so what I'll do is I'll definitely try to get to those super chats. Sure. But again, thanks everybody. Oh, go ahead. Should we try to fill some conversation while you can? Or I mean, how do you want to do this? Well, I was actually going to mention that if you want to try and find both of our debaters, as well as my own link, all of it's in the description as well, if you want to check out T-Jumps channel, his link is in the description. Also, there is a link for Smokey that you can also check out. And then of course, there's my link to my channel if you're interested in academic sites of things that we try to do there. All links are at the description. If you guys want to ever go try it out. Also, for support, like and subscribe as well if you're new to the channel. If you like these kind of debates, just go ahead and hit that subscribe and hit the notifications for us as well so that you can be updated on what's going on. And thanks guys already who are subscribed to us and everything. And that's all I have with that. And whenever James is able to get back, we'll be able to shut this thing down because he still has controls. I don't. I'm just moderating. Oh, this is funny. We're all trapped together. I love it. James, outstanding. I love it. So what do we want to talk about gentlemen? We could actually go back into the debate and the very question, are atheists afraid to bear the burden of food? The answer is no, because they just don't bear the burden of who Theus wants to bear. Yeah, well, they don't bear the burden of proof seemingly because they just don't feel compelled to. I mean, but that's a subjective decision. Who are you to arbitrarily decide that you don't have any burden of proof if another big chunk of the population and you're claiming belief through consensus is saying, hey, bro, reassess. I think really the idea. It's pretty simple. It's just that if there is something we don't know and you're claiming X did it and we're saying we don't know what did it, then you hold the burden of proof we don't. Well, now you said something interesting there. You said, you know, we don't know what did it. Yep. Okay. So it could be a God. It could be not God, right? Yeah, it could be a magic pixie leprechaun. Well, is that just as probable as the other two possibilities? Yes, it's equally as plausible as God. Yeah, that's for sure. It's probably more plausible than a God, yeah. So the existence of magical, nonsensical pixies, fairies, which we know are just abstracts of modern culture that we've invented. These things are more coherently possible than the existence of a God. That we also know as a magical made up non-coherent fictional. You don't know that. You don't know that. We have equally as much support that fairies and leprechauns are. There's no greater reason. Well, that's your arbitrary judgment. Are you an expert on that? No, that's just the objective measurement of how we determine evidence by everyone. Well, how you determine it? No, it's just science. Like you don't get an opinion on it. Well, yeah, I don't judge things. You can disagree with science if you want, but I'm gonna go with science. Well, no, I just don't decide that I think it's a good idea to interpret reality through scientism. I don't even say anything about scientism. So good. Well, that's kind of what you're relying upon, is if science doesn't prove it, there's no reason to believe it, right? Nope, I never said that at all. I said you need someone to differentiate imagination from reality. See, this is... I ain't supposed to. Yep. I sure can. Welcome back, James. We missed you. Pardon my delay, folks. Crazy stuff, but what... My guess is you already did that backup plan that I mentioned earlier, right? Catch your breath, sir. Actually, I was... I didn't get a chance to because the guys were talking and I didn't want to interrupt because there's getting pretty media again. So pretty much for the people who did send in a super chat, if you can, simply just send it as a normal question to at modern day debate and we'll be able to get to those super chats as soon as you put them into the chat for us. So we can go through it that way and try to get to all of them at once. Definitely. And so, yeah, long story short, if we ever can't access the super chats, which does happen sometimes. So, for example, like sometimes, I don't know why it is, but YouTube has been dropping the ball with it. And what I will do is we usually just say, oh, hey, friends, like, sorry, we don't know what's going on, but if you're able to, as a normal chat, if you're able to, as a normal chat, just tag us with modern day debate or in this case tonight, sent in all apologetics and just in a normal chat say, hey, so sorry, you know, or, hey, you missed my super chat. I said this, would you please read it? And then we'll just read it for you. And so, sorry about that, folks. It has been a wild one tonight. I haven't had this much of a frazzled, anyway, enough of me. So thanks for your patience, folks. I'm gonna see if I can get them open right now. And in the meantime, you probably saw those two that just flew in now, Hunter. So really do appreciate it. Thanks so much, Jungle Jargon and Roadstar. I'll let Hunter read those off. Thanks so much for your help, Hunter, and I'll be opening up the super chats in the studio if I can. Yeah, actually, they're not loading up for me. So if you wanna- Yeah, I got them. So Jungle Jargon asks, how do you define God, T-Jump, and do you know how we define God? So I define God as a non-physical mind that created the universe, created everything other than itself, essentially. By we, if you mean Christians, I assume like the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, conscious, personal being who created Jesus and rose him from the dead, kind of a definition. Then the second one was from Roadstar, 1602. T-Jump, good on you for putting up with BS calmly. Thank you. Oh, snap. You guys can't see me right now. Oh, you can. Yeah. So don't worry, nobody- James, go ahead and share your screen. No! Okay, so- James, put some clothes on, James. It's hot out. Okay, so we are very excited to read your questions. Thanks, folks. Really appreciate your patience. And, yeah, Hunter, I suppose you're, oh, that's right. If you're using your phone, you might not actually be able to open the live chat, right? What do you mean? Well, I guess people send in super chats. You could always just check the live chat and then read them off from there, too. But like, if you're on your phone, it might be, you might not be able to do so. The live chat go all the way up to the beginning? No? Yeah, no, no. We were trying to do that, but we can only see, like, so far. Like, YouTube doesn't let us pull it up all the way back to the top. That's- Right, yeah, definitely. So I'm talking about the ones that come in right now, those last two, but- Oh, oh. Yep, I can see those. Yep. And then, from the last ones, what I will do is I will send a, ugh, it's not loading for me. Give me a sec, folks. Sorry about that. Okay, so in the meantime- What's the motive for me either? In the meantime, how about we do this? For any of the ones that we had not gotten to read, sorry about that, folks, if you could do a favor and just tag Sentinel Apologetics and just say, oh, hey, my Super Chat was this, and you- They would actually be at Hunter Bailey. Hunter Bailey, you bet. So if you want to give a at Hunter Bailey, and then just let Hunter know what your Super Chat was, sorry about that, folks. I have no idea what it is, but for some reason, when I click the See All button, it doesn't let me do that, so. So Matthew Steele just sent in a Super Chat, $5 for James, here's a tip for your stripper. Thank you, Matthew. That's the kind of positivity we need around here. Go ahead. And also, Aaron, Charitor, sorry about that, he said, Ask Smokey, if half of the world believed in the supernatural, and the other half did not, which side would you choose with no priors provided? Iron, you know, I love Iron, he likes to come into my chat and ask dumb questions all the time. Yeah, I think I made it clear in the debate that I don't particularly judge through consensus. I want to see the arguments, I want to evaluate the claims, but thanks, Iron, appreciate it. Alrighty, and for Tom, here's one from W.G. Williams. He says, Tom, how can the hypothesis that the origin of life was created by purely natural means to be falsified does not intelligent design ID serve that, I'm sorry, serve that null hypothesis purpose? If not, what is the null hypothesis? No, the null hypothesis is either P or not P. So it would be either it was designed by naturally or not designed by naturally. It doesn't tell you what it actually did do. So the intelligence design would be an additional hypothesis. It's not either natural or design. There's infinitely other things that it could be that we just don't know about yet. It could be determined, it could be random processes, it could be anything, it could be the supernatural, supernatural, super duper natural, it could be lots of things. Those are just two alternative hypotheses, natural and supernatural. The null hypothesis is that it's not that, just like P or not P. There isn't to like a, it's either natural or design. That's not a true dichotomy. Okay, and another question for you, T-Jump. Why do you claim RNA from clay to be a natural process when it was a directed and a controlled experiment using synthetic and purified materials? Because all natural processes are done by experiments with scientists which were directed controlled experiments. Like we didn't just like, we didn't just like watch nature and just see lightning. Like no, we did experiments. We built a machine to draw like a lightning rod to see experiment with lightning. Like humans designed things to interact with the environment. We didn't design the environment. So yeah, it is a process done by natural processes, even if we built the experiment just like all experiments. If I could respond lightly, I don't think that's actually true. I think that the experiments that they're using are contrived and I don't think that they actually relate to prebiotic earth at all. I think that they're basically gerry-rigging naturalism and proving that intelligence is actually needed. That's my personal take. Gotcha. Okay, let me go ahead and go to the next one. Actually, I just had it, but I don't know where it went. Actually, it looks like that that might be the last one unless somebody has, here we go, a question for Smokey. You say you want to evaluate claims, yet you don't seem to understand that positive claims bear the burden of proof. How do your claims give us a burden? Burden of proof to who? For who? And you might be a cynic masquerading as a skeptic and you're not able to realistically be convinced of the existence of anything beyond what you can see. So we would have to explore your personal methodology and epistemology to see if you're even a rational human being that could be convinced of anything like that. That's called shifting the burden of proof. Yeah, that's what they all like to say. And I just don't buy that anymore without it having an argument because now it's just insertion. Yeah, I mean, it's all about your position. It has nothing to do with anybody else's ideology. Well, you guys have a position. Even though you deny you have it, but that's fine. No one else's position matters. It's your position. Okay. Your position doesn't matter. I agree. That's how the burden of proof works. Okay. Okay, so moving on from Korrag Nightwolf for Smokey. He said, can you ask Smokey that if he is a fallible being and can only establish that a being claiming to be Jesus appeared in front of him? One more time. Can you ask Smokey that if he is a fallible being and can only establish, yeah, and can only establish, wait, what? And can only establish that a being claiming to be Jesus appeared in front of him. Can you establish a being claiming to be Jesus appearing in front of you? Is what he's saying? Yeah, if a being appeared physically in front of me claiming to be Jesus, I would know it wasn't Jesus. That's simply through the nature of the claim of what Jesus is. I would know that Jesus was now lying if he was appearing in front of me in physical, corpial form. So that would be incoherent with the expectation of the worldview of the nature of the God claim. Do you have any response to that? I think what he's asking is if Jesus appeared in front of you, how would you tell the difference between is it just a delusion or is it? The fact that he's appearing in front of me would tell me that it's not actually him. I think he was trying to go the other way and say, if you believe in Jesus, how do you show that it's not just your imagination? Well, that's gonna be personal validation that no secularist would accept anyway. And you know- That's what he's asking for. That's what I'm asking for. Well, yeah, well, if you really wanna know more about that, you're gonna have to come to my channel and that's an unpack session, sir. Okay, and another one for Smokey. There are many ways to get homo-toreality. I think that's what they say it. Such as via polarizing UV light from stars on asteroid, stereochemical processes, et cetera. And that is a super chat from- Stupid warranty. There you go, thank you. I'll let you take those for me. Homo-toreality. Yeah, so that's for Smokey. Do you wanna respond to that? Sure, yeah, why not? That's just another thing that the naturists like to do to add improbability on top of improbability on top of improbability so that they can still bet on it that it's somewhat feasible. As long as they think there's a slim chance, just kind of like dumb and dumber, as long as there's a chance, then I'll believe in it. To me, that's just the naturalistic paradigm. That's pretty funny. Like, hey, there's a percent chance this could occur because we have naturalistic explanations for it. And that's better than- Improbability. Zero percent chance of made up stuff that we have no other choice for. It's not zero percent. It's your assertion that's zero percent. But you can ask the probability- Yeah, but you've never demonstrated in reality. That's zero. Well, that's your arbitrary decision that you had just asserting. You don't have a support for us. Well, you admit you don't have a support for your worldview, so why are you trying to now claim you do? Because that's how evidence works. Okay. We believe there's no reason to believe in the supernatural because there isn't any. There's no- Okay, let's move on. Okay. Alrighty, well, let me go ahead and go on. And thanks, James, for sending me the actual superchats now. Yes. Oh, let's see. The knees, but I'm trying to- Oh, okay, wow. There's a lot, actually. Sorry about that, guys. Okay, so let's go down. Okay, so one from John McJargan. I don't know if T.Jump, you already answered this. I'm just calling by it to see, show how nature making nature is science. What? From T.Jump, show how nature making nature is science. I don't know what he means by that. Like nature didn't make nature, nature is eternal. That's more of the hypothesis. Wouldn't nature making nature isn't a thing? I don't know what that means. Well, are you saying like, how can you explain probably the naturalistic manifestation of life? A biogenesis, RNA world? Like, I don't think that's what he's asking, but I don't know what that means. Are those proven to you, by the way? Are those proven to you in your mind? They're nothing as proven in science as conductive. But they're strong enough to believe, in your opinion. They're stronger than any supernatural hypothesis, and that's for sure. Okay, all right, okay. Okay, for Smoky, what is the evidence that a mind can exist without a body, specifically a creator mind? Sure, go look up all the evidence that's been pulled on near-death experiences and how consciousness can actually be non-material. I believe it was George Moore and Gary Habernas, both co-authored a book delving into a lot of the scientific claims for near-death experiences. And again, these are not the sensationalized ones, which are the ones that I even like to discount and the atheists do too, which are the ones where people went to heaven and met Jesus. We don't care about those, and those are not the ones that they talk about. They're talking about the ones where people were brain dead or comatose, and yet were able to be cognizant and aware of the goings on of things in other parts of the hospital or other parts of the house where they were. These types of seemingly constant worldwide occurrences seem to show that there's some sort of non-material component to our consciousness or basically our identity. Gotcha. And another question for you, Smoky. Do you think that anything happens in reality that doesn't serve the biblical God's goodness? If so, aren't we atheists by intelligent design? And this is from Matthew Steele. Yeah, no, this is a very, very predeterministic Calvinistic question. We'd need some unpacking. The short answer is no, I do not believe in any type of Calvinistic predeterministic reality. I believe that we are in an uncertain improbable universe full of randomness, free will choice, and decisions, and God is operating in a morally passive position in order to maintain his stance of moral righteousness by allowing us to operate in an environment of grace. I do have a question. This one is from, and this is a Patreon question from Adam Elbilia. So I wanted to quick ask this as you're going through the list. Adam asks, for Smoky, why are you here trying to make the case for the claim that claims don't require a case to be made for them? Yeah, I don't think I've done anything of the such. That person seems to not be able to follow any of my arguments. So I'm not sure what to do with that. Gotcha, we'll kick it back over. That wasn't super coherent to me, so I'm not sure what to do with that. We'll kick it over to Hunter. And if you... All right. Go ahead. Do what? What were you gonna say? I was gonna say, if Adam, if you happen to have any clarification in case I screwed that up, if I butchered that one, let me know, but I tried to read it as close as I could to what I had read. So go ahead, Hunter. Okay, the next one is for T-Jump. And this is from Logical Possible. Where's the last name? Probable. Yeah, sorry. It doesn't show on the screen here. T-Jump, who has solved the... Torality problem? Please tell us name names so far. There are none I'm aware of. Please back up your claim. There are lots of questions science hasn't answered yet, but we've made Tesla predictions which don't need to solve every answer. We just need to solve some, which makes it better than the hypothesis that solved none. So we don't actually need to solve every answer. There's some things we don't know. That's fine. We can just, as long as we make Tesla predictions, ours is better than yours. Next up, we do have a question from Jon Rapp. In case you hadn't gotten this one, Hunter, I was going to read it just as I know the chat is moving fast. Jon asks, are theists afraid to bear the proof burden? We're the only ones that seem to ever do it. So I don't know how we could be. It's the naturalists, the atheists that are constantly running. And even though they presuppose naturalism for everything they say and conclude, they never feel they have to prove it. And I find that just really weird. And every time you ask them to, they just scream burden shifting, burden shifting and run away. So I don't know really what to do with it. Gotcha. Okay, get over to Hunter. Alrighty. And for the next one, just remember, there was an after show. Thanks again for that super chat logical. For a T-Jump, are the laws of logic material or immaterial? Laws of logic are abstract. So they're not material or immaterial. It's just things in our head if you want to actually like find out what they are. They're just chemical processes in the brain of different associations. So now they're physical, but there's no immaterial anything as far as we know. Gotcha. And another one for T-Jump. Are you aware that logical positivism, sorry, logical positivism has been refuted, i.e. that rationally justified arguments can't ask sufficient evidence for belief? Yeah, I've actually said that specifically earlier in the debate. Like you can have knowledge of things like language and logic without empiricism, which is why I've said many times, I'm not a logical empiricist. Gotcha. Okay. And for Matthew Steele, for T-Jump, he says, I'm also an atheist and I have to point out that even just start, just stating atheism is crap, carries a more rigorous burden of proof than you're saying. No, it doesn't. Like if I say all theist claims are crap, then my burden of proof is to show that theist claims are crap. That's the burden. You think you facilitated it? Oh, absolutely, not like we haven't gone through every theist claim in this debate, but I've gone through all of them in my previous debate, so yes. Okay. Gotcha. And also, let's see, and James, this actually might be for you. This was from Maynard Saves. It says, I would like to see Ocean and Kielto debate the coherency of the Trinity with DD first, Annie Tegers, after that. That would be epic. We haven't had Ocean on in a long time. We would love to have Ocean on again as he's always fun to listen to and get to talk with. I will see. Darth Dawkins is not as easy to get back on. Tom, you seem to have a good relationship with Darth Dawkins, your father. Is there a way you could help convince him to come back on modern day debate? I'll give that one like a 10%. Gotcha. He's not happy with us, folks. Not happy. All right. Yeah, Ocean is actually really cool. I don't know how many people would like to see me and him in a boxing match, but we actually talked about it because he boxes and so do I. So that might be a nice little thing to happen. Maybe we can allow it here or something. Anyways, going back and let's see. Also, for James, logical plausible, says James Leopolis and I once he debates. And then going on, Steven Steen. Why is Tom debating his idol? Why are you debating your idol? So my idol, I mean, James, James's sexy body. Thank you. That surprised me. Where did that come from? Well, if that'll take what I can get. Thank you, Tom. And we, yeah, I don't know, Tom. You probably, you saw that Smokey, I couldn't find your picture in time. It's been a crazy day. We actually put Steven Steen's face there. Very sad, very sad joke on our part to do that to you. But Steven, we hope you're well. If you're out there, nasty guy. Awesome. All right, well, that's all the super chats I have. And so, James, if you want to, you know, take it back over to you, it's all you now because that's all the super chats that I see. Rad, if there are any standard questions, let me know, folks. Thanks for your patience. I've been, I could not thank everybody enough. This is truly the mods. We thank you so much. We thank you to Tom and Smokey so much as we really, this channel is a community channel. It's everybody's channel. And so we really do appreciate everybody making it possible as it's always fun. We have come up with a couple of breakthrough ideas for where I think we will be able to get people where we get a lot of people reaching out saying, hey, we'd love to do a debate. And we're like, absolutely. We'd love to like see what we can do. And we, long story short, we found a way to kind of streamline things. So I'm excited for that. We should be having more debates more often. And we're also, like I said, looking to get new people, new topics, and a lot more. Erika will be here. You see on the bottom right of your screen, Erika versus shadow dancer. Unfortunately, shadow dancer won't be able to make it. However, we do have a replacement debater to take on Erika, tomorrow, Gutsick Gibbon, YouTube's favorite daughter, folks. I mean, really, everybody loves Erika. She's tremendous. So that's gonna be a really fun one having her back tomorrow. And as well as her mystery opponent who may be closer than you think, folks. But we are really excited. We do appreciate everybody, just how much you do for this channel. And so thanks for your patience tonight as well with me dropping a ball on a couple of things. So thank you, Hunter, for moderating. Hunter, I forgot to mention, at the very beginning, folks, if you were here, I mentioned at the very start of this debate that Hunter's link is in the description. So if you are like, oh, snap, I can't wait to see more of Hunter, well, there's plenty more where that came from. So I wanna say thanks, everybody, for being here. And let me just quick check the chat if there are any other standard questions in addition to the super chats. And... I did see one that tagged me. Let me get that real quick. Is it from Leofilius? Cause I saw that one. Oh, hold on. Gotta scroll all the way up. We have actually... Go ahead. I didn't read the one from Leofilius cause I have that one right in front of me. Yep. You bet. So Leofilius, thanks for your question, asks for smoky, what parallel precedent or verified phenomena indicates a likelihood that anything supernatural can serve as an explanation? Sure. I think, again, a lot of what we have talked about just in general, a lot of the chicken and egg problems and the biological and origin of life models. You know, we're seemingly just empty blind faith is being used to fill the gap of what appears to be just as viable of an explanation of intelligent agency. You know, and for the atheist to say, well, I'm allowed to maintain this belief. And even though I don't know how naturalism could fill this gap, I get to continue to believe it and do so in a justifiable way. And I just never feel that I have to, you know, possess the burden. They seem to, I've never seen a justification for the assertion of the idea that naturalism is more coherent to explain some of these problems than any type of intelligence. So, I mean, the atheists to me are just playing a game that's really philosophically dishonest so that they can avoid having to ever rationally justify their own worldview. Gotcha, very sassy. And go ahead, Hunter, if you have that question, pardon my interruption. No, you're good. Actually, I don't have the question in front of me. So, that was actually the one that I was looking at too, that I was looking for. You got it. So, thanks so much, folks. Really do appreciate it. And so, I'm gonna like jump in here with you. Let's see. You know what I'll do? I just got an idea here. So, wanna say thanks, folks. We, as mentioned, are in podcast format. So, if you love podcasts, well, we hope that that is enjoyable for you. And so, oh no, what have I done? I lost Hunter somehow. Wait, you can see Hunter, though, folks, right? So, let me figure out whatever I did. Oh, there it is. Okay, so yes, thanks so much, folks. We really do. That's embarrassing. Okay, we do appreciate it, folks. It's been a really fun time because of the debaters and because of Hunter. So, with that, we will hopefully see you tomorrow night as that will be a human evolution debate, creation evolution style. So, that should be a lot of fun. I think this Thursday, let me check. I think we just confirmed it for this Thursday that we are going to have one on whether or not masculine norms in the United States are acceptable. So, in other words, like when Tom calls me a beta, is that appropriate, Tom, really? So, all that kind of stuff, toxic masculinity, that should be a really fun conversation. So, with that, we hope we'll see you for that one as well. And we hope you have a great night, folks. I'm gonna check one last time for any last questions and then we'll head out. So, if there were any, I missed it. So, thanks so much, folks. And we hope you have a great night. Keeps everything out the reasonable from the unreasonable.