 Hey everybody, today we are debating atheism versus Christianity and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate as we have tonight. It's going to be a wild one, folks. We have atheism versus Christianity and we have the, whatever you wanna call them, the man, the myth, the legend, however you address him. Maybe you're arch nemesis. He's a provocative gentleman. Duncan atheism is back. And for the first time, we are thrilled to have Florida man with us and we're gonna say, hey, if you're watching and it's your first time, consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up that we are very excited about, including, you'll see on the very bottom of your screen, we have destiny versus vosh. This is gonna be a wild one. It's in person, it's next month. We are pumped for it. And not only that, you guys won't believe this. Ooh, do I have an echo? Let me check. Let me see. What we have, folks, is wanna let you know, we are very excited. I'm about to drop this bomb. I'm waiting until we have the thumbnail. We have a debate that's coming up next month that I'm not joking. It will shake the YouTube foundations of philosophy of religion debates. Philosophy of religion just meaning debates like does God exist? Problem of evil, all that stuff. All those fun arguments. It honestly will blow you away. Within the next 24 hours, I'm hoping to drop that event. And that'll be next month, the day before destiny and vosh. But anyway, all right, all right. So, very excited, wanna let you know, it's gonna be a flexible eight minute statement, opening statement from each speaker. And then what we're going to do is right after they make that opening statement, kind of laying out their case, we are then going to go into open discussion. And with that, who knows what can happen? You never know, folks. So it's like, it's like, raw is war, Monday night raw during the attitude era. So with that, ladies and gentlemen, very excited. We will have Duncan, are you happy to go first? I think last time we had you go first. I think if that's usually your preference. I have no objection if he wants to go first. Gotcha. So he is deferred on the coin toss. Florida man, would you like to go first? Sure. You bet. The floor is yours and thanks again for being here. All right, well, thanks for having me here tonight. I am Florida man, the high priest of Edo hypnototovangelism made the glorious rivet of Lord frog be upon your ears. And tonight I'm taking the atheist position against Duncan atheism here. Basically, I just don't believe that God's are true. I have no logical rational justification for really any form of belief system at all. So that's basically where I'm coming from and that's about all I got to say. So Duncan, long to you. Thank you. Go ahead, Duncan. I got the timer set for you. Duncan. Your mic's muted, dude. Me? Oh, I... No, I think he muted himself. I'm sorry about that. Okay. Okay, I'll just keep it nice and short. The God of Christianity has revealed himself in natural and special revelation. In natural revelation, God has constructed the world where all facts indicate himself as the metaphysical primary of all secondary and temporal facts. Excuse me, I'm still getting over a cold. Because we are personal and possess rationality and apprehension of these temporal and secondary facts, they necessitate that the metaphysical primary, God, is personal as well. Otherwise, we would not be personal. Rejecting this by implication claim, the impersonal primary ultimate would have to be get or produce the personal. Claiming directly and indirectly that the impersonal primary ultimate begets or produces a personal is not coherent, nor can it be defended. God's special revelation, culminating in the Christian scripture of the Bible, informs us of God's necessary attribute set, which is required for human intelligibility. If my opponent either outright denies or merely lacks belief in God, or the God of the Bible, then he'll be necessarily required to present and defend his metaphysical primary and its attributes. In the absence of doing this, it will be without grounding or basis to assert any possibility or impossibility. Thereby plunging himself into complete metaphysical absurdity or into incoherence, thereby demonstrating Christianity is true due to the impossibility of its denial. My opponent will continue to make assertions of possibility and impossibility, and I will continue to ask him to provide a basis for these. That will require him to defend what is metaphysical primary that prescribes any statement of possibility. When he fails or refuses to defend his metaphysical primary, that his metaphysical primary, the God of Christianity will be demonstrated by the impossibility of denying him. The God of Christianity will be established by a reductio ad absurdum. And I'm done. Thank you very much, Duncan atheism. We will now go into the open discussion section. This is the part that keeps me on my toes. This keeps me excited. So gentlemen, the floor is all yours. Yeah, and you'll have to excuse me. I'm still getting over a cold and still having a little difficulty speaking, but go ahead. Okay, would you like to start first or would you like me to start first? Well, since my position is basically a negative one, I'll let you take the floor. Okay. Do you accept that the God of Christianity has revealed himself in natural and special revelation? Do you reject that? I reject that. Okay. Now, in order to, if you reject or lack belief in the God of Christianity as the metaphysical primary, that's not merely a statement of a autobiographical statement. It's an outright denial in virtue of the worldview that you're speaking from. Since you do reject it and it's an indirect denial, unless you want to say that it's a direct denial, but nonetheless an indirect denial, then your worldview has to have a metaphysical primary or a basis upon which you can make assertions of possibility or impossibility. You'll have to have a metaphysical primary for assertions or denials. Since you deny the God of Christianity, what is your metaphysical primary and how does your metaphysical primary, rather, prescribe what is possible or impossible? Well, as a recent convert to, you know, hypnototovangelism, my metaphysical primer would have to be Lord Frog in his glorious ribbon. And... Well, you're an atheist. If your metaphysical primary, is this frog personal? This is a frog that resides within the ethereal swamp and his glorious ribbon is the fabric of everything. Is this entity personal or impersonal? Lord Frog merely exists. He created everything through his glorious ribbon to be a personal God. Dude, you can stop with the shtick, okay? I'm asking straightforward questions instead of you doing a comedy routine. Is your metaphysical primary personal or not personal? No, he's impersonal. Okay, then it wouldn't be a he, okay? Now, if it is impersonal, then how are you able to identify that as property and attribute set, okay? How are you able to identify it and defend what the property set is in order for you to tell me what prescribes possibility and impossibility? Well, in order to do that, I'd have to go back into the, you know, cult leader shtick and that's something that's obviously gonna make you mad. So... No, no, I'm looking for a serious, look, I'm looking for a serious conversation. You're an atheist, okay? I'm looking for a serious response and not some teenage shtick. I don't come on these debates to have somebody do a clown show, okay? If you're a serious atheist, I expect a serious response, even though I might disagree with you. Now, what are the serious atheists? What are somebody who's not doing this frog business or flying spaghetti monster business? What are the fundamental attributes of your impersonal absolute? How does an impersonal absolute engage in revelation when it's impersonal? Well, the universe by its very nature is impersonal. It just exists. That's not an answer to my question. Actually it is. How do you know about... We don't need a metaphysical primer to have anything exist. We know that matter and energy have always existed. No, you don't know that. Well, we know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It's merely changed forms. No, you don't know that. Are you appealing to the first law of thermodynamics? If I am, I am. And has that been debunked by any... Are you appealing to the first law of thermodynamics? Let's just say I'm not familiar with thermodynamics. I'm not... Well, you stated that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. Is that universally true? As far as I know, yes. How do you know that? Is it by induction or deduction? I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer that question. So you're stating that matter and energy is eternal, arbitrarily? That seems to be the general scientific consensus. So yeah, I'm gonna have to go with that. No, it's not necessarily the scientific consensus. And even if it was, it would make no difference. I'm not talking to scientists, I'm talking to you. Now, do you know what the specific properties and attributes of what is metaphysically primary? Now, before you answer the question, you need to understand that you earlier a minute or so ago rejected the concept that there does not need to be a metaphysical primary. Is that your position? Okay, now that's incoherent. Let me tell you why, right? It's because a fact in question will either be dependent or non-dependent. Whatever would be non-dependent, unconditionally non-dependent or ultimate, by definition would be metaphysically primary that gives rise to what is temporal or secondary or dependent. So either any fact in question will either be metaphysically primary or a fact in question, if it is not, will be secondary and derive and depend as metaphysically primary. If you reject the notion that there is something fundamentally unconditionally non-dependent and metaphysically primary, you can have no intelligibility for secondary facts. So all I got out of that was a bunch of words. No, I was very clear and very specific. Did you not understand them? Actually, no, I didn't understand a damn thing you said because none of it made sense because coming from your worldview, there needs to be something greater, something higher in order for the physical to be when that's just simply not true. Okay, in your worldview, when you deny the Christian God and the Christian worldview. Well, I don't just deny the Christian God and the Christian worldview, I deny all gods. I deny all religious worldviews. I understand that. Now, in order for you to make that denial, you're going to have to know specifically what prescribes what is possible and what is impossible. In order to make statements of affirmation or denial, you need to know what's possible and impossible. Okay, are we clear on that? Yeah, and I turn to the scientific community to learn. Okay, I'm not talking to the scientific community, I'm talking to you. We are denying the metaphysical. We have to look for natural explanations, which is what says it. Okay, so you understand that when you make statements of possibility and impossibility, right? They will either be your statements of possibility or impossibility will either be arbitrary or not arbitrary. If you're simply making arbitrary statements, okay? Then you are being irrational. You are saying that there are no grounds for what you assert, and you will be violating your own criterion of belief. Now. So you're imposing my beliefs on what you think my beliefs are. What is it, what is it, what is it, what is it that is ultimate in reality that is non-dependent and that is primary? What is it? There is nothing that is ultimate. There is nothing that is primary. Then you cannot, if there is nothing that is ultimate and absolute, then there is nothing that prescribes possibility and impossibility. Do you understand? Negative. All right, I'll go over again for you. What is it? Yeah, you don't need to go over it again. No, it wasn't an argument. It wasn't an argument. What is it that prescribes what can be and cannot be? Nothing. We have our senses. No, then the word senses. Listen to me. No, you listen to me. You're not understanding. Let me explain it to you. No, you're the one not understanding. We don't need to rely on magic. When you're done, when you're done, when you're done interrupting me. Let me talk. Let me talk. Let me fucking answer. How about that? When you're done interrupting me, then I'll finish. Tell me when you're done interrupting me. All right, how about you let me answer first and then I'll let you go on and talk sound, okay? I had an expectation that I was going to have an adult debate. Yeah, so was I, and all I'm hearing is a bunch of bullshit. Then you need to take a seat next, relax. You're free to disagree with whatever I say, but you are not conducting yourself as an adult. And I'm going to tell you that. Now, when you make any assertion of possibility, does anything go in this world? Can anything happen? No, we are bound by the laws of physics and the natural laws as to what can and cannot happen. So you believe that there's something fundamental and primary that prescribes possibility? No, we just work within the natural laws of the universe. Are the laws of the Newton universe? Are they primary or secondary? I don't know, I've never studied Newtonian physics. Okay, so you don't know why there are any laws at all. They just are. That seems to be the case, yeah. Okay, do you know what that's called? That's called a brute fact, okay? A brute fact is something that exists for no actual reason at all. It just happens or is either at one moment or it has some type of continuation and it could end at any time. That's a brute fact, that's what you believe in. So are we clear on that? Yeah, let's go with that. Okay, now what that means is that anything goes in your worldview. There is nothing absolute that provides for securing continuity. Some things may continue, they may not continue at any given moment, right? So when you talk about the laws of nature, you're talking about them as though they have continuance and continuity from the past to the present and the future. But you told me that there's nothing that secures that. So you're guilty of contradicting yourself whether you realize it or not. Now, if the laws of, I'm not done yet. I don't believe in anything that's eternal. How am I contradicting myself? If nothing is eternal, can you tell me then why does anything at all exist? No, I can't and neither can you. Now without appealing to magic. Okay, well if you cannot tell me what the basis of reality, what prescribes possibility and possibility, okay? So just so we're clear, and I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but are we clear that your position is that you have no identifiable basis or foundation which prescribes possibility? Lord frog. No, I'm looking for an adult answer. And I'm giving you an answer. That is not an adult, that is not an adult. No, no, no. It's not an adult answer. What is the difference between believing in a metaphysical frog or believing in a metaphysical sky daddy? What's the difference? Well, you just told me that what the outermost limit of why things are the way they are, you said the laws of physics. Now you're going to some cartoon character that you're throwing out. So what is it that is not a rebuttal, okay? Yes, it is. Okay, dude. Would you prefer Vishnu? Listen to me. Listen to me. Listen to me. I'd like to have a conversation with you. Yeah, so would I, and I would love to have my position equipping strong man in your interpretation of my belief system imposed on me when. What is it? Okay, what is most foundational in your worldview? Is it the laws of physics? Yes. Okay. And is there anything else behind that? I'm not a scientist. I honestly don't know. I've never studied physics at a high level. So these laws, okay, so these laws, are they ultimate, non-dependent and eternal? As far as I know. How do you know that? Is it by induction or deduction? Honestly, I don't know. I'm not a scientist. So basically, you are telling me, they're legitimate philosophical questions. When you deny, when you deny the revelation of the Christian God as the metaphysical primary, what is ultimate foundational? Or for that matter, any creator God concept, I wanna find out from you, since you do not believe that a personal ultimacy or a personal metaphysical primary is necessitated for, I gotta get a drink, hold on. When you categorically reject that there is a personal, rational, metaphysical primary that institutes and prescribes what is possible or impossible, then when you speak for statements about science-y stuff or anything for that matter, you're making statements of possibility and impossibility. I wanna know what it is foundationally and fundamentally that secures and prescribes what is possible and impossible. Now, you told me that that was quote unquote laws of nature. Okay, now, do you know that the laws of nature themselves are what is ultimate, eternal, and unconditionally non-dependent and that they're not derivative? No, they're dependent upon everything around it. No, so then the laws of nature themselves would no longer be fundamental and primary. It would be something else then. If, what is it then? The laws of physics on our planet, if we were saved 50 million miles further away from the sun. Yeah, dude, you don't need to give me a science education. I'm well educated on this. What I wanna know for you is my turn to talk. No, we're not just finishing the topic. I wanna know, you keep flip-flopping. No, I'm not flip-flopping the goddamn thing. You keep interrupting me when I try to fucking answer you. You want an adult conversation and yet you won't let the opponent talk. I'm not the one who's being obnoxious and publishable. All right, well, what we're gonna do is let's give, because we've had... I mean, did you have any idea, James, that this guy would conduct himself like a drunken teenager? We're going to kick it over to Florida Man, and I promise he'll come right back to you, Duncan. Now, you keep asking me questions, and before I can even answer, you're on to the next one, and then on to the next one, and then on to the next one. It's like a gish gala. I don't have time to respond, and when I do try to respond, you talk over me saying I'm interrupting you in that I'm the one being rude. So what do you want? Do you want an actual adult conversation, or do you want to play this little hoe-than-shuffle where you keep moving things around and not giving the opponent a chance to talk? What's he gonna do? I would like you to stop running the clock out. I'm not running the clock, and I'm asking you a legitimate question. Please do not over-talk me, okay? Because I'll just kill my sound, and then I won't hear you, okay? Now, what I want to know is are the laws of physics, are they foundational and nothing secures them and holds them into place, or is there something behind that institutes and secures laws of physics? Are laws of physics ultimate, or is there something else that is ultimate that institutes and secures laws of physics? If you're asking if the laws of physics are dependent on a God, I'm saying no. I didn't ask you that question. I said, are there laws of physics that are dependent on a God? I said, are the laws of physics ultimate and unconditionally non-dependent in themselves, or is there something else that is ultimate that institutes and secures laws of physics? They're dependent upon the universe within which we exist. Well, then they wouldn't be ultimate and foundational then, so it would be something else. So the cosmos itself, you are, is the cosmos a concrete entity, or is it an abstraction such as a set? Well, we know that it exists and we have a rough idea. Is it one thing or is it many? It is one thing with many things inside of it. Okay, so then it's not really one thing. The one thing is an abstraction, a mental abstraction of a set that you're putting on it. Would you say that you as a human being are one thing? I would say that I am one being, but I have two parts to me. I have a soul and a spirit. Would you say that you're one thing with many things inside of you? No, I'm just talking about the physical side of you. Okay, I would say that I am a combination because I am created in the image of God. God himself is both the one and the many. He has created this universe to reflect his nature, and he has created man to reflect his nature. Now, what I wanna know from you is you now tell me that the cosmos is what is ultimate and therefore institutes the laws of nature. Is that your position? Sure, let's go with that. Okay, so then the laws of physics then would not be foundational. They would be secondary, okay? Are we clear on that? Whatever you say, boss. No, I'm asking you if you accept that. No, I don't. Okay, so the laws of nature are not secondary. So are they primary? Well, if they're not secondary, then they probably have to be primary, I mean. Are you claiming that the laws of physics are primary? Yeah. But this was the discussion on atheism versus Christianity. I know, what I'm trying to show you. You're not showing me anything. This is a conversation on atheism versus Christianity, not metaphysics. Duncan, I do have to give you- I'm trying. I know, Duncan, just when you asked him a question, which is totally fair game, but I just wanna be sure that he, in some cases, he'll wanna give more than just a yes or a no. So I just wanna be sure he gets time to do that. Yeah, what you're not understanding is you keep on changing your answer, okay? See, what you're not understanding is this is a conversation on atheism versus Christianity. James, you're gonna have to step in and moderate this because on his side, this is turning into a train wreck. He's acting like he's an obnoxious teenager at the cafeteria table, not how conversations and debates are gonna be carried out. I've got both sides and the challenges, if I moderate too much, then I also get both sides who say I'm doing it too much. Okay, well, we'll try. I'll try to continue, okay? So floor it apart a bit. Let me ask you a question first. What does any of this metaphysical nonsense have to do with Christianity, the scriptures, the gospel, the teachings of Christ? Christianity is a worldview, which is all-encompassing. It includes what is metaphysically primary and what is instituted by the primary, the secondary or temporal things. The God of the Bible is metaphysically primary and God institutes and prescribes what is possible or impossible. As I said in my opening statement, when you reject the God of the Bible, you will be plunged into an ocean of absurdity for which you will have no basis to make assertions. I am demonstrating that by asking you, what is the grounding, the foundational, philosophical, and metaphysical grounding of anything you say? So you wanna believe that you can have, may I finish, please? May I finish, please? Sure, why not? When you make assertions of any kind, assertions and denials, possibilities and impossible, impossibilities, they will either be grounded in something that prescribes possibility or impossibility or statements of possibility and impossibility coming from your frame of reference will mean anything goes and therefore you will not have grounds for intelligibility. So I'm trying to examine to see that if your denial of the revelation of the Christian God can actually provide the intelligibility that your position implicitly claims. Now, you stated to me that the laws of nature, which are simply foundational and all possibility drives from them. I then ask you if the laws of nature were ultimate, absolute, unconditionally, non-dependent and eternal. And then you said, no. Well, then they wouldn't be metaphysically primary or foundational, something else would. You said the cosmos. So that the laws of nature then would be contingencies. They would be derivative. They would be secondary by definition. May I interject here? Yes, you may. Do you know what the definition of natural or nature is? It is everything that exists. Everything that is material, everything that is physical. So my point is, by appealing to metaphysics, you are denying nature. You are saying that there is something greater that cannot exist because it is not natural. No, you're not understanding the term metaphysical. The word appeal to the cosmos and natural law. I'm referring to literally everything that exists that we can prove to exist. We have no foundation to stand upon in order to argue for a metaphysical prime mover. It doesn't matter if it's your God or my fraud, it's the same thing. We've already covered that territory. You've already made it clear that you reject the revelation of the Christian God. And for that matter, that anything is ultimately and metaphysically primary. Metaphysical means the nature of reality in all that it encompasses. It's a legitimate philosophical word. Now, the cosmos, is it something that is concrete or is it an abstraction of the many? The cosmos is everything in nature. Okay, is it an abstraction of a set of many things? It is everything. I mean, how much simpler can I make it? Okay, is it a mental set of many particulars? Is it a mental set? No, it's everything that is physical. It is everything in nature. That's what a mental set is, sir. Now, so the cosmos is not just one thing concretely. The cosmos, in your view, is one thing conceptually that is a set, right? It's a mental abstraction, a set of many separate particulars. Now, do each of the particulars within the set institute laws of nature? Within every galaxy within the universe, within every star system, yeah, they have their own laws of physics because everything's gonna be a little bit different. You're not understanding the question. So the laws are going to be a little bit different. I'm not understanding the question because the question doesn't make sense. What I'm asking you is, what is it that is ultimate that prescribes any possibility? Is it the cosmos? Okay, it's all of nature. Why don't you understand about that answer? You're not understanding, okay? Because there must be something that is primary and secondary, right? Now, if anything, listen carefully. If anything begins to exist, okay? Then by definition, it cannot be primary. If something begins to exist, it will be secondary. It will be temporal. Do you understand? No, because your argument is bullshit. There doesn't need to be anything. That wasn't an argument. That was not an argument. That was a question. Your argument's same thing. Dude, listen, listen, listen, do you shoot? I mean, do you realize this is being taped and gonna be aired on YouTube? Oh, wow, people are gonna hear my voice. Okay, all right. So, you definitely don't wanna act like an adult, okay? So what I'm dealing with here, what I'm dealing with here is a snot-nosed teenager trapped in a man's room. What I'm dealing with here is an old man who doesn't wanna debate his religion. So when he turns the supernatural explanations for things that have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, atheism versus Christianity, the teachings of Christ. Okay, so you keep on giving me these vague and nebulous responses. Are all the particulars in the set of the cosmos? What is it that unifies them in order for you to have intelligibility and coherence? What unifies all of the particulars in what you call the cosmos? Well, if you're referring to consciousness, that would be an emergent property from evolution. No, that's not what I'm talking about. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a philosophical problem that I don't think you're familiar with, okay? It's called the one and the many problem. The one and the many problem is a perennial problem for all world views. And the problem that goes as follows. What is the ultimate nature of reality? Is it in its oneness or not its oneness? Now, in order for you to have an intelligible world view free of God, and you claim both directly and indirectly that you can be rational and intelligible without God being metaphysically primary, then that means you're gonna have to answer from your worldview, okay? What is the fundamental and ultimate nature of reality? Is it in its oneness concretely or is it in its manyness concretely? I don't see, I don't look at it like that. The foundation of reality is what we experience our perception, it doesn't mean. That's not an ad, that's not addressing my question. Yes, it is addressing your question. I'll shut up and I'm done. It's not an answer to my question. It is an answer to your question. It's a response, but it's not an answer to my question. Oh, so response and answer don't mean the same thing. Okay, would you like me to re-clarify the question for you? Please. Okay, when you speak to me from your worldview, which you explicitly and implicitly claim are the grounds for intelligibility, when you reject the God of the Bible and His property set, then your worldview and its foundation will have to have the basis for intelligibility. That's going to start with the basic question, what is the ultimate nature of what you call reality? Is it simply a one concretely? Or is it the many that are ununified? Which is it? Do either one of those states, let me just get one quick question. When you answer the question about the ultimacy of your world, of your reality, when you answer the question, whether it's the one or the many, whichever way you answer the question, the question is being asked, explain how you can drive intelligibility when the ultimacy of your reality is either just simply a concrete one or a concrete many. So which is it? Neither, because it's too vague of an answer. No, that's- You're trying to lock me into a binary reaction that I reject. You're not understanding. I asked you A or not A. I'm telling you, neither. I reject the binary. Do you reject the law of excluded middle? I'm not a philosopher. I'm not familiar with that. Okay, there are three laws of logic that human beings use on a daily basis. You use them and I use them. When we talk about a dog, we say the dog is wagging its tail. When we say a dog, in order for it to be meaningful, a dog would have to equal a dog in a given time index. It's called the law of identity. Then there's the law of non-contradiction. A dog cannot equal not a dog. Then there's the law of excluded middle. Something is either a dog or it is not a dog. It can be represented as something is A or it is not A. I'm asking you about your worldview because your claim is that you can be rational, intelligible without God being the metaphysical primary. So I'm inquiring about your model of reality. Is its ultimacy characterized that it is a concrete one or not a concrete one? I reject the premise of the question. Then you are rejecting one of the fundamental laws of logic that something is either A or not A. I'm rejecting it because it's a stupid question. No, it's not a stupid question. Yes it is. I'll explain to you why. The law of excluded middle is given the name of law for a reason, okay? It's called the law of excluded middle. So when we say something is either A or it is not A, there's no middle, there's no third option. It is one of the fundamental laws of logic. You could not reason, listen to me, you could not reason without it. I cannot reason without logic and that is correct but also at the same time I reject the premise that the question is being asked on. Can you reason without the law of excluded middle? Can I reason without it? I'm gonna go with no here just to play it safe but at the same time I do have the right to be able to reject a binary proposition that is too vague and ill-defined. By the way, it's not a near disjunction, okay? It's a true dichotomy. It's either A or not A. I'm not saying to you A or B. A or B would be a kind of a binary option or a disjunction. Now, what I'm asking you and if you don't understand how your world view can answer the question that's fine. Here's what you're asking me. Then we can move on. Yeah, I'd like to finish, please. If A or B, I reject both. That's not what I said. That's what it comes down to. That's not what I said. It's a binary proposition you have to choose one. I said to you. Otherwise there's only one option. Okay, do you accept the fundamental laws of logic that govern the way we can say things and reason? Do I reject the fundamental laws of logic? No, I do not but at the same time I reject the premise of your question. You're not understanding because all I'm simply doing is I'm plugging in a value for A for the law of excluded middle. I'm plugging in the value of the cosmos. What is it? The cosmos is either a concrete one or it is not a concrete one. It is either A or not A. The law of excluded middle says something is either A or not A. You told me you accepted that. I'm plugging in the value of the cosmos, something. The cosmos is either A or not A. I'm plugging in a value for A. All right, now let me answer, let me answer. Yeah. Dude, listen, there's no need for you to be rude. Now, would you answer my question? Yes, and I reject your question because it's nonsense. There is one choice. All right, well, James, we can listen. Now, we can flip it over. We can wrap this up, James. We can flip this over. This individual is not interested. But you cannot say it is one. This individual is not interested whatsoever in having an adult interaction. He's literally reasoning like a child. It sounds like right now he is trying to get what he's talking, he doesn't hold on a second. It sounds like right now he is giving a refutation to what you were saying. So despite his making a voice earlier, like it sounds like now he's... No, it's not a refutation. I'll explain it to him one more time. But I'm beginning, James, I'm beginning. I mean, would you mute his microphone, please, James? So I'm beginning to lose my patience, okay? Because I expected that we would have a higher caliber interlocutor for this debate. Instead of somebody acting like a complete buffoon, okay? And like a child. Now, what he's not understanding is that since he accepts the law of excludimental, I'm simply plugging in values. Something, the cosmos is either A or not A. The cosmos is either a concrete one. Okay, James, listen to me. I've been patient through this entire conversation. Either you're gonna step in and stop this clown from continuing for the conversation. No, the whole conversation. The whole conversation has been acting like, listen, don't over talk me or I'll just go. Because I've been very patient. Right? Then why don't you go and act like you sat by, you sat by and you've allowed this clown show on his part to go on. Duncan, sometimes you've interrupted him as well. That's not the, James, that's not the issue. That is not, that's not the issue. But hold on, it's like, listen, James. It's true. No, I'm not gonna listen. No, I'm not gonna listen. He is not conducting himself. He is not conducting himself like an adult, okay? Listen, I know that he's made voices in things. His reasoning, his reasoning is borderline schizophrenic and he's doing it on purpose. And I think being a graduate student, we don't need to make these claims. I'm gonna try this one more time. Hold on a second. I'm gonna try this one more time. Listen, Duncan, if it doesn't change his tune, I'm done. We want to give him a chance to respond to what you've said. Like we, I think he's trying to give a response. Like. No, he's not. He's babbling and coherent. Now, here's the question. Am I not supposed to let him talk the rest of the time? Hear it? Yeah, James, James, listen to me. I'm really getting, I'm getting frustrated with you as well. Okay, you're acting like you don't realize what's going on here. Duncan. I'll give him one more shot. I'll give him one more shot, okay? Now, Florida man, when I plug in the values for something as either A or not A, I plug in the values, the cosmos is either a concrete one or it is not a concrete one. Okay, you already told me you accept the law of excluded middle. Therefore, when I ask the question in the form of the law of excluded middle and I plug in the values, it is not a false dichotomy. It is a true dichotomy, which represents your model. Is the cosmos a concrete one or not a concrete one where it would be the many? Which is it? And I've told you earlier, I don't know. Okay. Now, you've actually gone into a choice whereas before is steak or not steak. Now, the problem is this. The problem now is this. Since you do not know what the fundamental nature of reality, you have no ability to unify any particulars because there's nothing to unify particulars. They would simply be unconnected and unrelated. Anytime you would invoke something like a dog or a cat or a tree or a star or an atom, this would be introducing classes of things which are universals, not particulars. And you would say that certain of the particulars, partake of a class, which would be a universal. But since you don't know whether the cosmos is exemplified by either its oneness where there would be unity but no diversity. It's the sum of its whole parts. You're not understanding. Since you do not know what the ultimate nature of reality is, then you will lose your ability to speak intelligibly about particulars because if you invoke a particular, like a dog or a cat, that means that the particular is a member of a universal or a class. What would secure that the universals are actual as opposed to illusory in your world? Since it is not God in your view, which is the metaphysical unifier, creator and sustainer of the unity. Am I going to be able to answer your question in time so you can talk for the next 15 minutes? What I'd like to know from you is, and I'm going to give it one more chance, what I'd like to know is, how do you derive any unity out of diversity without God? By observing what's around me, like we've done for thousands of years. You can't observe universals. I can't observe universals because I don't believe in a God. So all of a sudden, boom, I believe in a God. Oh my God, everything now makes so much more sense. All right, let me give you a brief illustration. Maybe this will help. Do you know what a doppelganger is? No, it won't help at all because you are a horrible teacher. Do you know what a doppelganger is? A doppelganger. Yeah. Go for it. It's two people that look alike or look like identical twins, but they're not twins, okay? Now, there are these people all over the world. You can Google them and you can see pictures of them. They're called doppelgangers, right? Now, they appear, they have the illusion as though they are identical twins that they're sisters, but they're not. It is simply a physical illusion of happenstance. Now, if I were to refer to two female doppelgangers who look like identical twins and I presented them to people, these are sisters. That class or universal would not be true, okay? Of course they would not be because they're not family. They're not related. They're not sisters. So there would be no unity with respect to them being sisters. They would simply be unconnected and unrelated particulars, these are the sisterhood. So the sisterhood would not be real. So when I spoke of them as sisters, it would not only be false, it would be meaningless. It would be unintelligible. So I wouldn't have unity amongst diversity in order to have intelligibility for an array of particulars in the cosmos. What does this have to do with your question? I'm trying to show you that if you do not have a framework where you can identify what are universals among particulars, the diversity out there, then when you say you can do so without God as the grand unifier in creation, then you cannot derive unity amongst diversity. And if you cannot derive unity amongst diversity, you cannot make intelligible sense of things like dogs and cats and trees because trees and dogs and cats and atoms and photons, these are all classes, they're universals. What would secure them? And if you say, well, the laws of nature, what's secure is that? You say, well, the cosmos. But then you told me the cosmos, you don't know what the cosmos is. You don't know whether it's a concrete one or it's particulars because if the cosmos is a concrete one, then there are no particulars, right? And when you invoke particulars, they don't exist. On the other hand, if the cosmos is not a one, but it is an array of particulars, then you won't have unity among the diversity of particulars. And in order to speak meaningfully about these things, call them sisters, dogs, cats, trees, you're going to have to explain how there are universals and classes of things. And so far, your worldview doesn't provide for that bottom basic philosophical question about the one and the many, okay? And it destroy, and one more statement, it destroys your ability philosophically to speak intelligibly. We're gonna give them a chance to respond, like, all right, so go ahead, Florida man. No, you know what, I'm not even gonna answer that question because it is so vague and there's just so much word salad being vomited out of his mouth that there's no way to answer that because by the time we get back to his original question, he's introduced so much more information that it's impossible to keep up with. So I'm not even gonna try and answer the question. So your worldview doesn't have a grounding of how to make sense of my particulars. And this is my answer, and you're gonna let me answer. Otherwise, this whole thing is done. My worldview is based on my perception of my reality, of everything that's going on around me and things that I don't understand, I investigate so that I can learn about them and figure them out. I don't need an anthropomorphic sky daddy, pulling the strings to make everything happen because that is illogical, irrational, and we have zero evidence at all to be able to justify it in the least. Oh, your position is there's no evidence for God? There is zero evidence for God. Okay, so when you say there's no evidence for God, what you're saying is facts do not stand in causal relations with God as the metaphysical primary. How did you determine that? How did you determine that? Through investigating and coming to conclusions that there is no such thing as magic. Okay, when you say there's no evidence for God, the only way that you could do so, remember God is defined as what is metaphysically primary. The creation or temporal. That's how you define it, that's how I define it. Okay, this is basically how it would be defined. God is metaphysically primary and then there is creation that is secondary. Now you don't believe that, I understand that. Now, when you say there is no ultimate creator God, the only way you could do so is to tell me then what is metaphysically ultimate and primary that negates God, what is it? Nothing. If there's nothing, that's the thing that you don't understand. You can get on a second, let's give him a chance to finish. Yeah, he's clueless. Okay, I'm clueless, I'm schizophrenic and yet you're the guy that talks to invisible people up in the clouds, got you. No, here's the thing. Unfortunately, what you just said is incoherent because what you're saying is, is that if you are, are you a verificationist? Listen, wait, hold on, we're gonna give him a chance to respond to your original claim. He doesn't know, he doesn't know what he's talking about. You know what, I'm done here. We might as well just move on to the super chest because it's completely wasted on my time. If you set up another debate, you're gonna have to screen the interlock for better next time, okay? No, you're gonna have to actually give people a chance to respond because otherwise we end up with you talking and over talking people for an hour. You've demonstrated to everyone in the audience you don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. Every time I ask you a salient, cogent question, you just obdiscate and you're argumentative because you don't know how to answer these questions. Okay, I'm not a philosopher, I'm not a physicist. I'm, you know, not much of anything really but then again, who is. But at the end of the day, no, I'm still talking, it's my turn to talk. But at the end of the day, your whole worldview is grounded on, I have to believe in God, otherwise nothing is possible. My worldview is anything is possible within the confines of physics as we know it. And as our understanding, I'm talking. What's your understanding? As our understanding of physics and math progresses, we can do more and greater things. We don't need an invisible sky wizard to be the foundation for it. Good, good, so if an invisible sky wizard doesn't secure the laws of nature, institutes and sustain them, what sustains physics? You'd have to ask a physicist. So you don't know? That's correct, and I've said that before. Well, they can't answer the question either. Because they don't believe in God? No, because they're not omniscient. They don't know, first of all. So you're omniscient. Listen, let me make it very clear to you, okay? No, you're not gonna make anything clear. If you actually talk to somebody who's trained in physics, especially the philosophy of science, they will tell you that the uniformity of nature or that nature operates according to laws cannot be derived from an empirical process because an empirical process presupposes laws of nature. Now, that's why in the philosophy of science, the causal principle and laws of nature have to be presupposed before you can do any investigation of this natural world. If you claim that the laws of physics are ascertained by empirical endeavors, then that's begging the question because empirical endeavors require that nature operate according to some laws. So you did not even establish that there were laws of nature, you asserted it. Asserted, appealing to consistencies of your experiences does not logically necessitate laws of nature because that could be chance or happenstance. How would you be able to tell the difference between any long series of consistencies that would be produced by law or necessity versus chance? How would you be able to distinguish between the two? By applying the scientific method. No, that's begging the question, sir. No, that's not begging the question. You asked me how would I find this out and I told you. The scientific method presupposes laws of nature. No, that's begging the question. Do you know what begging the question is? Ah, good night, I'm done here. Okay, so you don't know what begging the question is. You committed the fallacy of begging the question. You're presupposing the very thing you're attempting to establish, okay? When you say that you use the scientific method or empirical endeavors in order to ascertain and demonstrate laws of nature, empirical methodology presupposes laws of nature for their actuality, that's begging the question. So you just asserted there were laws of nature. Hold on, you asserted that there are laws of nature and in the early part of the conversation, I merely granted you that you could ascertain laws of nature. I focused on what would institute and secure them. But you can, not only when I ask you, what is it that institutes and secures laws of nature, you said you don't know. So your ability to be coherent is derived from I don't know. Now, I'll show for a second time, your claim to be coherent without God is derived from I don't know. Can you justify that there are laws of nature without appealing to a means such as empirical endeavors that presupposes laws of nature? So you want me to throw out everything that we've discovered through science because that's begging the question. I want you to justify laws of nature. If I were to appeal to God, if I were to appeal to God, that would be begging the question. You're not addressing my question. You're moving to God. No, I'm addressing hypocrisy. Good, can you please justify that there are laws of nature without appealing to means that presuppose them? Well, one more time. One more time. Can you justify the laws of nature without appealing to things like empirical endeavors that presuppose laws of nature? How do you justify the laws of nature without appealing to means which presuppose laws of nature? Empirical endeavors sense perception presupposes the actuality of laws of nature. If you then appeal to them to justify laws of nature, you are begging the question. You are smuggling the conclusion into the premises. No, that's, I'm not making a presupposition on anything because I am actually- Does sense perception- Look, can I fucking answer? By presupposing something, that would be saying, oh, God did it. That's how we have this. But when I say I appeal to the scientific method, okay, we don't know what caused this. We don't know why this happened. Let's see what caused this to happen. Let's- No, you're giving me a little lecture. I know all this. I know- Exactly, and I've been getting lecture all night. And if you didn't notice- Does sense perception- You wouldn't be saying half the bullshit you said tonight. Actually, everything that I stated tonight, you didn't know. So I was informative, but you're not informing me. Now, does sense perception that you employ, does it presuppose the actuality of laws of nature? I'm sorry, that might just be the single dumbest thing you've said all night. Does eyesight presuppose that nature operates in some law-like or regular ways? No, it interprets an incoming signal which gets processed through our brain to tell us what we're seeing. Are those things regular? What? If you were to ask any professor of the philosophy of science, they would tell you that all sense perception presupposes that nature operates in some regular ways. The answer you gave me just appealed to regularities or law-like conditions. So when you appeal to sense perception in order to justify that it is the case that there are laws of nature, your presupposing laws of nature smuggled in to an appeal to sense perception. That is a classical begging the question. We're gonna give a chance, we're gonna give a 40-minute question, respond and then go into Q and A. Finally, then we'll be done with this. All right, so here's your position. By me saying science is the answer. We will get the answers through science. That's begging the question. But if I say God did it, oh, that's perfectly fine. That's totally rational, totally logical. There is nothing wrong with that philosophically, psychologically whatsoever. And that's why your entire argument is bullshit. Can you, here's a very simple question. I'm using a reductio ad absurdum. Can you tell me what prescribes any and all possibility if it is not God, then what prescribes any and all possibility? Because if you don't answer that question, then you're asserting possibility and possibility is violating your own criteria and a belief that you use to dismiss God. So then you'll be believing it, then you will be, okay, so do you have an answer to my question? I'll repeat it and shut up. In order for you to have intelligibility, I'm speaking. In order for you to have intelligibility, you're going to have to have a grounding of what institutes and prescribes possibility and impossible. What is it? It's not God, and I've already told you that. Do you know what it is? Do I know what it is? No. Good, then every statement of possibility that you make is arbitrary. And so is yours because you rely on something that literally cannot assist in reality. If you say, no, well, if you say that God does not exist, then you're going, in order to tell me that A is false, you're going to have to establish not A. If God, as the, may I finish, please, I'd like to finish, I'm gonna make one last point. I'm gonna make one last point here and see if you understand, okay? When you assert that there is no God, what you're referring to is that a metaphysically primary and foundational persona, okay, does not exist. In order for you to secure that assertion, you would have to establish what is metaphysically primary and that it is not personal. What is it that is metaphysically primary that would negate God as the metaphysical primary? If you do not tell me what that is, then you are making an empty assertion. Which is what you've been doing all night by appealing to God. Do you have an answer to the question? No, I refuse to answer your question. Then you have no, then you have no grounds to assert there is no God. Because the only way- And you have no facts, you have no evidence to back up that God exists. Okay, but when you say there's no evidence- Hitching's razor, dude. Okay, okay, Christopher Hitchens is not somebody you want to appeal to. How does, when you talk about evidence, okay, does evidence require that possibility and impossibility be prescribed? Now, evidence is what we have to prove things or to disprove things- That's not an answer to my question. Yes, no, that's exactly what it is. Does evidence require that possibility and impossibility be prescribed and secured? Dude, you need to go back to the psych ward. Seriously, you need to get your meds adjusted. So you don't know what the answer. Well, you see- I'm glad, I'm glad. I'm glad you know. The answer is- I'm glad. In a way. Evidence does not need to presuppose anything about possibilities or impossibilities. Evidence points to facts. Your world to you. Facts tell us the truth. That's what you don't understand because you don't understand words. You just like to make yourself sound smart and condescend to people so that you have some feeling of superiority. You are the reason. People like you are the reason why Christianity and religion in general is in decline all throughout the world today is because of your arrogance and your egotism. Okay, does evidence require something to secure regularity? No, evidence is proof that we have- Dude, listen to me. I just asked you- Your question makes zero sense. Listen, I have asked this question. I have asked the same question of children and teenagers and adults. And there are children and teenagers that do not have trouble with that last question. But you- That last question makes absolutely zero sense. Okay, let me repeat the question again. There's no- Can you have- Okay, we're done. James, go to the question. This guy is a complete brain dead moron. So we will now go- Oh, fucking hell. We'll give- And next time you line up somebody for me to debate, you better screen them. Okay, so what we're gonna do is I wanna give just to be sure that Florida man had plenty of time to respond. Florida man, if you wanted the last word, if it's short and pithy, then we'll go over to Q and A if you felt like you didn't get a chance to have enough time to answer the questions from Duncan. No, first off, James, I wanna apologize to you for the language I've used tonight. So I know you're trying to keep this a little more family friendly and with me working blue like that, that's just wanna apologize to you for that. Not a problem. And to answer Duncan's question, evidence does not have to presuppose anything. Evidence are facts that we used to draw a conclusion. Dude, dude, you are a moron. Hold on, we, okay. He's told him he could have a chance to- He's an absolute moron. I told him dark children who understand how false it is. But hold on, like you've talked about, like you've called him out for being rude and stuff. So like now we've gotta, you gotta like, we're just gonna give him a chance. That's not rude itself, evident James. We're going to give him a chance to give a response to some of the questions that you've asked and then without you calling him a moron partway through. He's dodged and evaded all my questions all night long and wasted my time. So the audience will be able to see that if that's the case. So let's just give him a chance to wrap up in answering these questions and then we'll go to Q and A. No, I'm done answering that last question, we can move on. We're going to jump in to the Q and A. Next up, all right. Let's see, there are some characters out there. We've, by the way, I think it's less than a month until, it's only like a week and a half until G-Man returns. Just wanna let you guys know that G-Man is, he's coming back from his break. He's been taking time off, but that'll be a lot of fun. So, Corey Clayton, thanks for your super chat. They said, DD, demonstrate how reality is contingent on anything ultimate or eternal and no, merely stating God revealed it in any way is not a demonstration. If you do not hold to the concept that something is metaphysically primary or ontologically primary, if nothing at all is fundamentally ultimate, absolute, and unconditionally non-dependent, then it is completely incoherent to talk about any facts because, number one, they would not be ultimate or fundamentally primary, nor would they derive from anything. So, they would literally be incoherent, okay? So, it is incoherent to reject the notion that something is metaphysically primary, okay? Read the second part of the question again, James. So, the second part of the question was, and not merely stating that God revealed it in any way, they're saying like, that's not a demonstration to say that God revealed it. Well, in order to know of God's existence and that he is the metaphysical primary and irreducible primary and ultimate of reality, it would require that God give revelatory actions such as natural and special revelation. What demonstrates that the revelation of God is true and necessary for not only existence and coherence is that the denial of that revelation, the non-acceptance of it as being self-attesting as a system, as a package, will plunge you into metaphysical incoherence just like we've seen tonight, that the very denial of the revelation of God in natural and special revelation, meaning the Christian scriptures, plunges oneself into a world where there is no basis, there is no foundation to assert anything. So, the Christian scriptures from Genesis to Revelation are self-attesting and self-authenticating not only because of their internal content as long as one is not operating under an autonomous reasoning, but that the denial thereof results in catastrophic incoherence. Thanks very much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from John Rapp, who said Darth or Duncan, you continually interrupt Florida man, stop bullying. You got a critic out there, Duncan. Yeah, well, when you have somebody who comes to a debate and is deliberately acting like a horse's ass and then they're not even answering, let alone answering the questions, I'm going to interject, okay? And when the questions are complete, horse shit that make no sense at all, all the only thing I can do is make fun of them. Next up, thanks for your super chat from Phillip. Appreciate it. They said, question for Duncan, if you have free will, how can you choose your desires if you need desires to make a choice in the first place? I don't even know what that question means. Got ya. I got gobbled, got gobbledy gook. I can't really get it. James, James, next time you have me on, make sure you screen your participants and get me an adult to debate. So, you gotta say that another 50 more times tonight. Trio monkey, thanks for your super chat. They said, Duncan, please stop projecting and be a decent human for once. Oh snap, there's rolling punches at you, Duncan. Yeah, yawn. Gotcha. Duncan is not impressed. Robert Liskam, thanks for your super chat. They said the dumpster is burning. It definitely was a little bit tonight. Robert Liskam also said philosophy is a tool for those who cannot argue. Duncan, how do you like them apples? Yawn twice. Gotcha, let's see. By the way, speaking of philosophy, Steve McCrae, famed Pope of Atheism, or Pope of Agnosism, almost called him the Pope of Atheism. He would have destroyed me for that. Steve McCrae, I know you're in the live chat. I've seen you lurking. What are the odds that you would be interested in a conversation with Darth Dawkins? Is that directed at me? Well, I was asking him. I was just basically saying, like, hey, Steve, what do you think of this? Well, you don't have to waste your time. I've had a previous history with Steve McCrae where he completely acted like an animal, trawled on many occasions, and I told him I wouldn't speak with him again. But given that he's not like... I'm letting you know that it won't happen. Fair enough. You could just say it won't happen. We got you, that's it. It won't happen. Okay, he does it. When somebody repeatedly trolls me, I don't do it. I'm Duncan. I'm not just... We've recently, as if everybody tuned in yesterday, sorry, Florida, man, I just muted you. I meant to mute Duncan. Oh, that's embarrassing. Okay, if you guys didn't notice yesterday... Yeah. Yes. Yeah, this arrangement is embarrassing. Oh, Duncan. Listen, here's what happened. Kent Hovind used to come on here all the time. Atheists constantly are requesting him. And I'm like, hey, happy to work with everybody. But he doesn't wanna come back on. I think the reason is, I admittedly, and I'll own it, it was my mistake, I let a guest talk about Kent Hovind when he was not there to defend himself. And I was like, you're right. I actually, no matter, I know a lot of you out there, you were like, ah, Kent deserves the worst. So I'm like, nah, but I'm not gonna do that. That's not fair, right? Let's move on. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. All right, Dead City, thanks for your super chat. They said, Darth in colon. So in other words, they're saying this is you. Don't talk over me. Also, Darth, quote unquote, can you continuously talks over everyone? Darth, you literally pee yourself when they do to you what you do to them. Do you really pee yourself? Yon. Gotcha, Snake was right. Thanks for your super chat. They said, Duncan is told to let Florida Man speak, but continues anyway. Duncan, do you think that there's, like even like a little modicum of truth? Do you think that like some people might be, like why, like do you think that it's ever the case that just like everybody, like in my discussions or debates, like I'll admit, sometimes I talk over people. Florida Man. Are you asking me this question from yourself? Yes, because I am perturbed. I am blown away. I am blown away at this moment, how clueless you are of how badly behaving my interlocutor was. He was acting like a, I'm talking. You want to talk about it over talking? Listen, listen. Okay, this guy conducted himself like a complete clown, constantly over talking to me, and then you want to correct me and you say nothing to him. Duncan, I would agree that he was like making voices and I don't know, whatever else. Like I agree that. I made voices like twice, but I was trying when I was interrupting him, it was me trying to answer his question, so you would jump to the next one so fast that I couldn't answer. My patient has just about run out the fact that you did not screen my opponent. Why do you have to make it personal? I'm sitting right here. Okay, next up. Because I'm not happy with you, James. Duncan, listen, if you think that, do you think that you beat Florida Man tonight? Do you think that you were more perturbed? He destroyed himself. I made cogent lines of questionings and reasoning. I laid out that I would defend the Christian worldview via a new Duncan Adams circle, and he demonstrated, and again, and again, here we go again. Yeah, James, don't bother to have me on again if you're not going to screen my opponent. I mean, getting people from James, getting people from mental wars does not make for good difference. That's rude, you can't. Okay, so, I think it's rude of you, James, that you put on somebody who acts like a little child. Duncan, listen, Duncan, here we go next up. Hey, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, James. Wait, I'm smiling. I'm not upset or angry. Okay, good, let's move on with the question. Mother J. Disko says, Darth, why does your script always fail? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. My script didn't fail, and in fact, my opening statement along with my questioning demonstrated to people who are interested in the truth that he basically admitted he had no metaphysical basis or foundation from which to explain what prescribes possibility, yet he wants to make assertion after assertion after assertion and denial and denial, but he basically admitted he has no identifiable foundation or primary in order to say what's possible or impossible. So my line of reasoning won out. I demonstrated the truthfulness of Christianity due to the impossibility of its denial. Gotcha. I'm gonna have to refute that. You wanna be able to prove something that exists beyond our sensory perception abilities. So how do we prove it exists? Your worldview doesn't have a basis for proving things. And neither does yours because yours relies on imagination. No, that's a two-quote, that's a two-quote quay fallacy, okay? When you say neither than yours, did you just admit that your worldview doesn't have grounds for intelligibility? Ah, dude, just move on. That was a legitimate question. Did you just admit that your worldview doesn't have grounds for intelligibility? If I did, it was a slip of the tongue. Does your worldview have grounds for intelligibility? Yes, by not believing in imaginary figures. Okay, what is it, what is it? Well, okay, that doesn't tell me what prescribes possibility and impossibility, okay? We're gonna- It's certainly not God. Yeah, yeah, he's a deer in the headlights. Move on, James. Next question, let's see. Phillip, thanks for your super chat. They said, hey, Duncan, why are you afraid of epistemic uncertainty? What's wrong with making decisions based on your mental experience, which is all we actually have? That's a good question, but it's actually internally incoherent in a sense because you have no metaphysical context to make such statements. It's a contextless statement, okay? When you talk about metaphysical uncertainty, right? If you're going to state what is, what can be, what cannot be, or what is impossible, you're gonna have to have a metaphysical ultimate context that prescribes for that. If you are undecided or you say, I do not know what is metaphysically primary, right? Then you have no grounds to invoke anything that is a fact because then you're telling me what is, but you don't know what prescribes what is, then anything goes. And if anything goes, there cannot be any intelligibility. So unless you start with the self-disclosure of the Christian God and his property step, whereby he creates this world in such a way so that we can have intelligibility, when you do not start with that as God is metaphysically primary, and you say, oh, I don't need no stinking metaphysical primary, then you can have no intelligibility for any facts, including particulars. The only reason why you will think you will have it is because you're either too lazy or epistemologically, how shall I put it, a diligent to find out why facts mean things in a broader context, but you've already admitted you don't have a broader context. Therefore you don't have intelligibility. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Mike Smith, thanks for your super chat. They said, Duncan, you look so bad when you ask questions and cut off the answer after three words. You've done it dozens of times, arrogant, rude, and ignorant all at once. You have a critic out there. What do you think, Duncan? Agree or disagree? I think I'm gonna lose a couple of minutes of sleep tonight over that. Gotcha. Robert Liskum, let's see. Another fan of yours, Duncan. They say, Duncan, you were a philosophical bully. Next up, M1-5TTRR3CT4NGL, thanks for your super chat. They said, Duncan, what did your God do during the infinity before it created everything? What did my God do sans creation? I couldn't answer that question. It hasn't been revealed. Thanks so much. And what if your God was created but doesn't know it and only thinks it is the beginning? Okay, that's a good question. Then that question is presupposing that the God of the Bible is not what he reveals himself to be. If that is the case, then you cannot have intelligibility for anything. You cannot say what is or what is not because in order to say what is or is not, what is possible and impossible. You're going to need a metaphysical primary that has a certain property or character set which includes being eternal, unconditionally non-dependent, ultimate, omniscient, omnipotent, always truth revealing and has a sovereign plan to create a sovereign salvific program to save us from our incoherence and to save us from the consequences of our sin. When that revelation is not accepted as a system, as a package, and you say, oh, I don't buy the natural revelation which God himself says is sufficient, then you're relying on the sovereignty or autonomy of your own reason, which will be incoherent because your reason you wouldn't claim is metaphysically primary. Therefore, you're going to have to identify what's metaphysically primary from which your reason exists. But you're not going to be able to identify what's metaphysically primary unless it has the character set of the Christian God. Gotcha. Thanks very much. Next up, appreciate it. Let's see, we have a question from Master Jay Disco. They say, why does Darth's rhetoric turn to abuse? Darth? I mean, Duncan, if you want to respond again. Well, sometimes my words are sharp and a little biting, but I think that they're completely accurate and fitting for my opponent's absolute adolescent and infantile behavior here tonight. That's a little pot going to kettle black again, don't you think? Next up, trio monkey. Thanks for your super chat. They says, please moderate Duncan. He is over talking and not letting a conversation go on. He is bullying and being a child. Next up, Duke Davidson. Thanks for your super chat. They said, Duncan is the only participant I know to overtake and interrupt the moderator. Duncan, you're not in control. Never claimed to be, but I'm expressing to the moderator my complete displeasure in his absolute failure to properly screen my interlocutors and get an adult for me to debate. I even got a video of this guy, Duncan. I got, I had, poor Florida man. I told him, I was like, hey, Duncan wants a video of you, like in your bedroom. And, and he was like, I guess that's weird. So I gave- I didn't ask for a video in his bedroom. I said, I don't know who this person is. I would like to know just a little bit about them before I get there. Little did I know had I was going to debate a child trapped in a man's body, I would not have agreed, James. Crazy Monk 27. You'd have agreed because you'd like to hear yourself talk. Crazy Monk 27, thanks for your super chat. They said, sorry, James, but if DEA is here, I won't for my sanity. I think they, they means, that means they'd love. Sorry, Crazy Monk, we, well, I'm not sorry for having Duncan on. That's the trick. Some of you guys complain about having Duncan on. It's always an atheist, almost always. I mean, maybe there's an agnostic, you know, there's variety, but it's often as people are asking me like, hey, can I debate Duncan? I'm like, sure, if you want. It's not like I'm like pounding down Duncan's door. Now, movie theory, thanks for your super chat. Duncan, you've got a fan, no joke. They say, Duncan atheism wins again in all caps. Florida fan, you wanna respond again? Thanks dad, thanks dad. Daniel 514, thanks for your super chat. I'm confused by this. Daniel, are you being facetious? They say, please James Coons ask Duncan to just dumb it down with his technical terms so the debate can move on. I don't know, I think they're being serious because they say their username is Daniel 514 and I'm pretty sure they were giving me heck saying that I was like cutting you off and stuff. So yes, you have to dumb it down, Duncan. I explained my terms tonight. If they go back and watch the debate, I explain almost all of my terms. Gotcha, next up, thanks so much. Also, Steve McCrae, my boy. Oh, that's right, you already said you won't debate him. That's all right. I know you guys have a history and that's, you know. No, because of his prior egregious bad behavior. He can pound sand. No, let's not guys should have never said. Okay, M1TT54567, let's see. Thanks for your super chat. They said, why does Duncan think that one must have a defeater in order to exclude a possibility? If the proposed answer is implausible, one can simply exclude it. I don't think you're understanding the fundamentals of the conversation here, all right? The atheist position functions either as a direct or an indirect denial of God as being metaphysically primary. In other words, God is ultimate and the ground of all things. God is that which institutes and prescribes all possibility and impossibility. Now, in order to affirm or deny something, it's going to require metaphysical grounding, that which is ultimate or primary in existence that institutes and provides for possibilities, okay? So if somebody denies that the moon is made out of green cheese, they're gonna have to have a metaphysical grounding. If you're going to deny God either directly or indirectly, you're going to have to do so standing on the grounding of what is metaphysically primary. Tell me what its properties and attributes are in order to deny God and in order for that matter to assert any statement of possibility or impossibility. Okay, merely lacking belief, okay? It's not simply a statement of personal, a statement of autobiographical statement. It is lacking in an indirect denial of God as a worldview being metaphysically primary. So whatever you say has to be grounded in something else that is ultimate. And if that is left unidentified, then you do not have a basis to make any assertions whatsoever. Gotcha, thanks so much. And by the way, for the record folks, Duncan atheism did not actually ask for video footage of Florida man in his bedroom. He just asked for like debate footage. So I added the bedroom part, sorry for that. He's not a pervert. Yeah, thank you, thank you for that clarification. Okay, yeah, so he's not a pervert. Duncan atheism has been, I have to be honest, he's actually been nothing but professional. And I mean, in my interactions with him on Discord when I've asked him to come debate, he's never asked for video of anyone in their bedroom. I, let's see, we're going to go to the next one. Michael Dresden, thanks for your super chat. They say, Duncan destroyed this sad atheist frog script. Oh snap, Florida man, they're coming at you. They're saying you got a script, a frog script. Ribbit. Thank you very much. Labzer, thanks for your super chat. They say, Darth, how about you debate Steve McCrae and Axel? We already asked that, we know that. Yeah, that's been answered. All right, I think so. If he had not been previously abusive, then I wouldn't mind. Hey, stop, I asked you to not bat off him when he's not here. So, Phillip, thanks for your super chat. They said, hey, Duncan, why is it? I'm answering the question. They said, why is it that God has never revealed to us any useful info? For example, a cure for cancer. God has a plan for a creation of human history in a salvific plan. And I'm not going to second guess God's intelligence or his wisdom about the unfolding of the human history. This present world is a means to the best of possible worlds which will be in heaven after judgment day, okay? So, it's really relatively unimportant to me. Actually, it's beyond trivial that I don't have certain answers for why God allows this or that. But I do know this, that I believe that God allows certain circumstances that may be very unpleasant in human experiences to motivate us not to love this present world, to realize that there's a judgment day coming in eternity and that not having it on an easy street in this world could make us more God conscious and wanna seek a better world and being right with God when we die. Gotcha, thank you very much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from, got that? Got Phillip, we got Johnny Miller. They say, Duncan, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. You're asking loaded questions, trying to ask what prescribes anything. Why are you being dishonest? Well, what I'd like to know, when you ask that question, you're presupposing a grounding for oughts that I ought to be honest from your perspective. If everything is just simply descriptive and not prescriptive, then your question is really incoherent because you're smuggling in an ought that I ought to be honest from your perspective. So you're violating your own principle. You just owned yourself. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from, let's see, doodly-doo, Duke Davidson. Are you raking in the dollars with all these super chat questions? There's a lot of super chats tonight, that's true. That's all you like, Evan, me. Duncan, it's because of your kind and warm personality. Next up, thanks for your super chat from Duke Davidson. They say the day that Duncan... Oh gosh, so sorry, I missed it. They said, there is a reason why Duncan only does unstructured debates and forgoes his opening statements. It prevents him from ever engaging with any topic other than the one on his script, unbearably boring. What do you think of that? Well, then don't tune in the next time I'm invited. Hopefully James will screen my opponent. Gosh, yeah. Brandon, listen, are you still there, Florida man? We haven't heard from you for a while, we miss you. Yeah, I'm here. Oh, are you scared? Yeah, he's sucking on his pacifier. No, Duncan, stop. Duncan, no. I guess I'm free to suck on boy. No, stop, I would expect that out of you. Okay, nasty guys. Brandon Ardelline, thanks for your super chat. They say, Duncan, what dressing goes well on word salad? Oh, snap. Okay. Well, I'm sorry that you don't have the intellectual capacity, even when I go to great lengths to define my terms, unpack what I'm talking about. If you concluded that it was a word salad, then the problem doesn't lie with me, the problem lies with your cognitive ability. Gotcha, thanks so much for your super chat. From Subtracted, they say, hey, Duncan, if you don't have access to God's omniscience, how can you ground reality yourself? In the Christian world view, we have access to all the necessary and sufficient information through natural and special revelation that God's providence secures that we get. Gotcha, next up, please. So let me just say one more thing. That line of questioning is really asking a question excluding or denying God's sovereignty, omnipotence, and providence. Gotcha, thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your super chat. From Slick with Nick, they say, DA, let the other person answer you garbage human. Oh my gosh, these are vicious. Duncan. My response, sorry, you feel that way. I think I'm gonna have to lose an extra 30 seconds of sleep tonight over that comment. John Rapp, thanks for your super chat. They say, Duncan, are you, you guys, this is like, even I get, dude, I'm a little bit like, this is like a lot to say. John Rapp says, Duncan, are you this arrogant and rude to everyone? No, only those people who are complete horses, asses in a debate and don't act like adults. Again, pot and kettle here. Thank you for- I try to talk. Oh no, I'm gonna get a temper and talk over you. Next up, thanks for- I'm the horse's ass, come on. Let's see, thanks for your super chat from our dear friend, Chinese Wolf. Let me know if I've got that wrong. They say, it seems like everyone in the world is mean to you, it's you. Or if it seems like everyone in the world is mean to you, it's you, you're the problem. On a side note, what is that song you use at the beginning of the show and where can I get it? So first I'll let you respond and then I'll answer the question about the song. If you wanna respond, Duncan, you can. Does it seem like everybody's mean to me? No, not to me. I have a certain percentage of knuckle-dragging ignoramus atheists who behave very badly because they really don't have intellectual grounds to stand on, so they have to resort to being obnoxious. Gosh. I'm an atheist, therefore I'm a retard, is what he just said. Oh, Duncan. Okay, the song is called World Goes Wild and I'm trying to, World Goes Wild. I think we spent like 10 bucks to get the like unofficial or quasi-official rights. It's by Above Envy. I should put that in the, I'll put that in the description. I've done a, meant to do that for a long time. Thanks for your super chat from our good friends at TrioMonkey666, they say, Duncan, you just said you can't take the heat, if you can't take the heat, get out of the fire and you're threatening to leave because the heat is so hot, your hypocrisy shines brighter than God. So they're very, it looks like they're coming at you, Duncan. Well, I don't know what you mean by take the heat. If by heat you mean somebody acts like a complete fool and a child, I didn't agree to James to come on and debate a child, a defiant snot-nosed child, trapped in man's body. I expect that I'm gonna have an adult interlocutor. And I think that's entirely reasonable request on my part. And if I show some anger or I'm agitated because somebody's acting like a complete fool, I think I'm completely justified in doing so. Well, allow me to answer that. Oh, wait, I can't because he's about to interrupt me again. Gotcha. Thanks so much for, so people are asking, Joe Silver, I saw asked, what happened to the Kent Hoven debate? I completely agree. I honestly don't know. Last night we were gonna have Kent Hoven on. Mark Drizdale was talking to Kent Hoven throughout the day. I think there is a, I'm willing to take Hoven's word for it that there was a, what is the word I'm looking for? There was an internet disconnection that made it such that that's why Kent Hoven said he couldn't make it. We're trying to reschedule them. I think that, I mean, I have no idea. I'd say it's like a 50, 50 chance, maybe even less than that. We, I don't know, Kent Hoven's been kind of different lately. He's been a couple of debates, conspiracy cats. He's done that same thing too. But to be honest, Mark didn't contact Steve, the tech guy over at Dinosaur Adventureland. And as a result, what happened was Steve was like, hey, you guys have to organize it through me. Like, why didn't you? And it's kind of like, sorry about that. Maybe next time. Thanks for your super chat from Subtracted. They said, what causes God to make the decision to create Duncan? God is an absolute complete God. Nothing causes him. He is an agent. He chooses what he does. Gotcha. Thanks for that. Next up, John Rapp. Thanks for your super chat. They said, DD, so the chat agrees. You brought no evidence. The point is, is my case was a reductio ad absurdum. I did bring evidence. I brought a line of reasoning about God's natural and special revelation. If you conclude that it is not evidence, okay, then you're gonna have to make a case for it. But before you do, you're gonna have to explain to me how your world is God, when your world is God-free, that what is gonna be the metaphysical underpinnings or foundation, so the concept of evidence is viable. Your very question presupposes that there's a metaphysical basis for evidence. But without God, you wouldn't be able to identify without his self-disclosure and revelation, you wouldn't be able to identify what is metaphysically foundational or primary. Therefore, when you talk about evidence, it's a meaningless concept, because what would prescribe what's possible and impossible so you could have evidence? Now, if you were here right now in the studio and I asked you, what is it that metaphysically prescribes what's possible and impossible, you wouldn't be able to tell me. And if you did answer the question, it would be a statement of arbitrariness, right? Therefore, you have no grounds for the concept of evidence. So unless you start with the self-disclosure and revelate net God's natural and special revelation, if you reject it in favor of the autonomy of your human reason, you're gonna plunge into an abyss of metaphysical incoherence, because you'd have no grounding for anything. Therefore, evidence would be meaningless on your part. So the evidence for God is that without him, you couldn't have evidence. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Next up, Super Chat from Deedius Doggo. Thanks for your Super Chat. They say, Deedee, can you even entertain the idea that there is no such thing as metaphysics? That's just a colossally stupid question. Next up, thanks for your... Let me just do a follow-up on it, because even people who are naturalists or materialists understand that metaphysics is a broader question than the mere physical in front of us. It's asking us, what is the ground of all existence? Asking me, can you conceive of a world where there is not a ground of all existence? That would be incoherent. That's like saying, could I conceive of a world where nothing exists? Well, that would just be absolutely moronic, okay? Because we are in a world where something exists. Therefore, something must necessarily exist in order for the things that are temporal or contingent. So the question is basically self-refuting. Gotcha. Next up, thanks so much for your Super Chat from Captain Gingy. Gingy, I don't know, okay. Duncan, please justify metaphysical, please. That's what they're saying. Metaphysical doesn't need a justification. It's just, it's a definitional concept that's used in philosophy, used in philosophy. It means what is above and beyond the mere physicality that we experience? Why does this world exist? Okay? What is ultimate about this world? That why are there apples? Why are there stones, okay? Gotcha, thanks very much. Appreciate it. And next Super Chat, also from Captain Gingy, they asked, Duncan, do you think T, oh, Trump. Do you think that Trump is the savior of America? No, but I'm happy with most of his policies. Gotcha, Marty Camillo, thanks for your Super Chat. They say, Darth seems to be prideful. Doesn't the Bible say something about pride being a bad thing? Was I prideful? I don't think so. I think I'm just very assertive and you're interpreting it as pride. Gotcha. Stupid whore. Maybe he thinks because I reach a point of frustration and irritation because somebody is acting like a complete jerk and then I'm outspoken because of it. And then I point out to them that they're clueless to even answer simple questions and they wanna come to the table and they wanna assert that there's no God, yet they cannot even answer the simplest of questions. Yet they know there's no God. And yet you have no evidence to back up your assertion that God even exists. How does evidence exist? How does evidence exist to me? God, how does, okay, does evidence, not require God as a metaphysical primary? No, nothing requires God. Okay, no, you did not see, you just proved my point. You didn't answer a question. You keep on going through the evidence. Next question. Well, let me just do one more thing. Does evidence require that there be a basis for it in reality? Does evidence require basis for metaphysics in reality? Is that what you're asking? I said, does the concept of evidence that there are causal relations between events, does that require a foundation or a basis in reality? That requires reality, not God. No, does it require a foundation in reality or are causal relations just, they just spontaneously occur? Maybe if I hold the microphone closer, you can hear me. It requires reality, not magic. Next question, James. You have the mind of a 12-year-old. We're going to jump into the next question. So next up, let's see. Stupid whore energy. Thanks for your super chat. She says, can Darth Dawkins say trans rights are human rights? You're putting it on the spot. No, are you talking about people who are transvestites and transsexuals? The answer is no. People who engage in sexual deviancy and perversion outside of God's purpose for creation, they don't have a right to do that before God. Gotcha. Next up, thanks for your super chat. Gosh, you just got a strike for this video. But okay, labs are, let's see. Duncan, would you be up to rematch Tom Jump on modern day debate? I'd have to think about that. His performance was atrocious. People who are continually evasive, there's no point in talking with them. But I'll think about it. Whoa, I didn't know that you were, oh, you and T-Jump had a little squabble? I didn't know that. Yeah, he has an overly inflated opinion of his metaphysics. When asked what was the ground of all possibility, he says reality. And I said, what are its properties and attributes? And he said existence. I said existence is not, I said it's not a, it's not a predicate. Yeah, so he doesn't, he doesn't know what he's talking about. No, oh, come on. That's like, Tom's probably watching right now from one of his son. I don't care. I would tell him that. I probably, if you replay the tape, I probably said the same thing to his face. Captain Jingjie, thanks for your super chat. They say, DA, if you're so smart, why don't you debate Matt Dilla-Hunty? I have called in to the ACA several times, Talk Heathens and Matt Dilla-Hunty for whatever his phony reason was, has said that I'm not permitted to call into his program. Oh, sorry. Is it, so my guess is he probably wouldn't want to have a debate with you? Well, after he saw what happened to Eric Murphy, I don't blame him. Gotcha, I have no idea what that means. But thanks for your super chat from, let's see, Ali M. He said, why would God create people he would know would eventually burn in hell anyway? The fact that God possesses the truth value of all propositions that he knew that people repent is besides the point, because they were not fated to go to hell. They go to hell voluntarily, okay? Jesus said, all manner of sins that men commit can be forgiven. But the one sin that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is rejecting the convicting power of the Holy Spirit in any time in history by which we refuse to repent and turn to God as our creator and savior to save us from our guilt and our unrighteousness that only he can do. Rejecting God's conviction through his Holy Spirit is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and people do so voluntarily, okay? Gotcha, thanks. Why don't you ask the question, not that this is a parallel, but it's an analogy. Do you question people who bring children in the world who the parents know that they will suffer in some ways and some of them may suffer very badly and die? Do you call that into question? No, you don't. Gotcha. But you're not God's judge and there is no injustice in God. Everyone who goes to hell had the opportunity, did have and people will have until Christ returns to repent and turn to God for salvation. Gotcha, thanks. And also, let's see. The word on the streets is that there's going to be after show on Steve McCrae's channel, who knows, maybe he'll agree with you this time, Duncan. Who will agree with me? Your old friend, Steve McCrae. No, I've never been friends with him. And in fact, every encounter I've had with him, he's been very bad. He's been very bad. No, no, okay, I should've known. Well, you don't know is, no, I'll say something he won't object to. He actually begged me to come on a show many times after treating me very badly. And I just ignore him. It might have been like misunderstood love. No, there's no misunderstood. It's called, he was trolling on steroids. And I tell people once they do it one many times, I won't talk with him again. Gotcha. Next up, thanks for your super chat. Sid Jafferio Sarabia in the house. It's funny that when I went to meet Samuel in Malaysia, so Samuel's been a debater on here before. And when I met him, he's like, yeah, who's that Sid Jafferio Sarabia fellow? Cause they had seen Sid Jafferio so often. Thanks for your question. They said, Florida man, are you an atheist or an atheist or in other words, like you just lack belief in this debate? Both. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. If I don't believe then how can I, if I don't believe then I'm lacking belief that just kind of goes hand in hand. Got it. I could agree with that. If you deny God's existence, then by default you lack of belief. Gotcha. I actually do agree on something. Wow. But you don't have any grounds to negate God. I don't know. Let's just before we go too deep, thanks for your super chat from Might Guy who says Duncan please stop the ad hominem attacks. I wouldn't call them so much ad hominem attacks but simply clear observations of somebody who is an adult acting like a child. Okay. No, just live a life filled with love. Thanks for your super chat. They say Carl Jung argues that one still believes in God even if he considers himself an atheist as he only looks to find something to fill in for the God image. Any thoughts on Carl Jung? I think this is for you, Florida man. Dr. Jung was a hell of a psychiatrist and we still use a lot of what he came up with today. As far as his thoughts on atheism, no, I don't believe in a God. So therefore I believe in a God. That just doesn't make any sense. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Well, it's interesting that he would say that because Carl Jung was a heavily demonized man. He had a personal spirit that would come to him named Philemon. He was heavily involved in the occult meeting spirits. Okay. So as he praises Carl Jung as an atheist, he doesn't believe in the supernatural. So his wonderful Dr. Jung was delusional, believing in little invisible fairies coming and talking to him and giving him ideas about psychology. So his very principle, okay. I'm not done yet. The very principles that you espoused earlier condemn your Dr. Jung. Gotcha. All I said was that he was a good psychiatrist. That was it. No, he was a very deluded man and now he's awaiting judgment day. Thanks for your super chat from John Rapp. They say, Duncan, we don't need metaphysics. We need scientific evidence. Yeah, that's a completely idiotic statement, okay. Without a metaphysical conceptual framework or a metaphysical outer context, then you cannot talk about things like the material world, the causal principle, or regularity of nature, okay. Metaphysics is indispensable, okay. At least some concepts in metaphysics are indispensable for the viability and intelligibility of any discussion of the external physical world, the causal principle, or laws of nature, okay. You need to look into what the word metaphysics means. It just simply means the ultimate ground of what exists and what prescribes possibility and impossibility. If you say we have no need of that, then what you're saying is there is nothing that prescribes what's possible and impossible. Therefore, it will render your belief in the efficacy of science as simply meaningless and incoherent. Gotcha. Thanks very much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from our dearest friend, Marty Comejo. They say, Darth, I'm a she, but that's okay. Florida man rules. And then they also said I'm bisexual and married to a man, but I can't have kids. Am I a sexual deviant? Well, God's principles that there be one man with one woman within the confines of a monogamous marriage. So you are outside of God's purpose and design. And I would hope that you would come to Jesus Christ and come to know Him as your Lord and Savior so that you can be right with Him now and for eternity. Oh, Marty said that they're a she, though. They said they're a she married to a man. Yeah, well, whether she's a male or a female makes no difference. Wait, it's, okay. Let's just move on. Captain Jingjie, thanks for your super chat. They say, DA, are poor people morally wrong for being poor? Not necessarily, but you know what? If you spend all your money on marijuana and drugs, and you become poor, the only thing that you have left is that you're a Bernie Sanders supporter. Goodness gracious. Thanks for your super chat from Nella Dower. First time they say, imagine worshiping a God who sits in the sky shaking angrily as he watches gay people make love. Duncan, if you wanna respond to this. Yeah, that's just a childish caricature of the God of the Bible, okay? Number one, philosophically, you wouldn't have any grounds of objective morality or aughts that the God of the Bible, who would be the grounds of all things, including aughts where God would have to obligate himself. God is the standard, the plumb line for everything. So your actual criticism of God is it's actually incoherent upon examination. All you're just simply saying is, I defy the God of the Bible. I want to live whatever way I want, and I want people to live whatever they want. And therefore what you're saying is your God and their God, they're self-ruling and autonomous, and that the creator of the universe who creates, institutes everything and sustains everything is not the autonomous one. But if you're holding to your own personal autonomy where you decide what the nature of reality is, you decide what behaviors and aughts should be, okay? Then you have no grounds for coherency because if God is not the grounds of all things, including aughts, then what is? Your position is hopelessly incoherent. Gotcha, thanks for your super chat from Captain Genji. They say, DA, what about BBS that weren't babies that weren't aborted? Care for childcare? I think they're saying like, do you support childcare for children who are not aborted and end up being born like that need it? I don't understand the question. Maybe they ought to put down the joint. What about babies that weren't aborted? Care for childcare? Yeah, let's just move on. I don't want to be stuck on stupid questions. Labs are thanks for your super chat. They say, DD, are you pro-Israel or do you believe it's heresy? No, I'm very pro-Israel. I hold to a premillennial pre-trivolitional eschatology that means that God still has prophecies and commitments to the nation of Israel which will be fulfilled in the second coming of Christ. Gotcha, thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Labser. Oh, we got that one. Trucker philosophy, thanks so much. They said, what can either of you say to someone who has special revelation that contradicts your positions? Well, if somebody comes to me and whatever they say, whether they claim it's special revelation or not, if it does not cohere and conform to the mind of God and how he has revealed it, either in principle or specificity from the Bible, then it will be false. Gotcha. Next up. That's a good onion, let's go have a beer. Gotcha. Next up, thank you very much both. Captain Genji, thanks for your super chat. They say, FM Bernie, FM, what is it? Oh, Florida Man. Bernie 2020, the only candidate with real policy. I can't tell which one of you is that. Cool story, bro. Oh my gosh. I'm gonna say cool story, bro, but I'm not a Bernie supporter. Are you serious? Really? Yeah, I don't support Bernie Sanders. Okay. Well, Duncan does, but that's okay. So we are- No, wait, no, no, no. I do not, I do not. Okay. Well, wanna let you know folks, it has been so fun and I forgot to mention, both of our guests, their links are in the description. So if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I want more of that. Hold on, the link did you put? Did you put the link to the red politics server? No, I put the one that you told me to, that you called the ATS helpline. Okay, I will DM you the link to the red public politics server. That's where I usually hang out. The other link is, I believe it was my server. It's like the secondary server for me, but after the show, I'll give you the link and just post it, okay? Deal. Thanks so much. But yes, both of these gentlemen are linked to the description folks. So if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I want more of that. Well, good news, those links are conveniently waiting. Also, thanks so much for hanging out with us folks. Thanks so much for your questions. You're super chats, all your support, we totally appreciate it. And so it's been so fun, you guys. I'm trying to think of, okay, for real, I'm totally serious. Within the next 24 hours, I think I'm going to put an event up on the channel that I'm honestly just like, whoa, I never thought this would have worked. But it will be the day before Destiny and Vosh in Los Angeles, it will be so in Austin, Texas. So it'll be in Austin, Texas on March 15th and 16th for in-person debates. And one of which will honestly, like I said, I think it will shake the foundations of YouTube debates in at least in terms of the religion realm. And that's going to be fun. Also, then of course, the monstrous debate in-person, Destiny and Vosh, face-to-face in the studio of our dear friend, Adam Friended. So that's good. Can I ask you a question? Yes. Is Destiny going to be given a box to stand on for the debate? Oh, come on, no, why? Okay, Cigafredo Sarabia. Whoa, Cigafredo, he says, yo, James, I live in Los Angeles, where's the debate and how do I get in? I'll try to put that in the description. It's going to be general admission standing room only, which I know, so you can bring your own chair if you want, but otherwise it's a studio. Adam Friended is trying to get me in on his pyramid scheme where I pay for a huge amount for chairs and I'm like, ah, geez, Adam. So yes, we will get the address out soon. And we hope if you're in Los Angeles you can make that in person. If you're in Austin, Texas, you might be able to do it in person. I think we could probably fit people. So, whew, you guys, I hate saying goodbye. Can I just, let me say thanks so much to Florida Man and Duncan Atheist, Duncan Atheism. I don't, I truly can't say I'm thankful because yeah, you didn't screen him. Ah, come on, I'm sitting right here, Duncan. Man, so it's like a double insult. It's this clever backhanded insult that both insults me and Florida Man at the same time. That's Florida Man, are you still there? If I told you thankful, then I would be disingenuous. I'm not happy that you didn't screen my interlocutor. I did, I got you that footage of him in his bedroom. That's not what I'm talking about. I expect adult interlocutors, okay? Not some half-drunk clown. He's not a drunk. If you want an adult, if you want an adult interlocutor, why don't you try acting like an adult yourself first? It'll draw more positive even with your way. Oh snap, Duncan, what do you think of that? It's just par for the course, he's an idiot. No, stop, come on, Duncan, just. Listen, okay, so, gosh, Duncan, seriously. Look, look, look, I'm a straight shooter. I call them as I see them. Yeah, but calling people an idiot, that's pretty harsh, right? Well, it was pretty self-evident, on phones. Oh, Duncan, jeez, okay, we're gonna leave folks. I gotta, I gotta like, I gotta just, I gotta read it. I don't say things on camera that I wouldn't say behind, you know, behind the cameras to his face. Gosh, okay, so, stupid or energy, thanks for your super chat. She says, Duncan is a Nickelback fan. Is it true that you're a Nickelback fan? I don't know what that is. Nickel, you don't know what Nickelback is? No. Are you, like? They're one of the biggest rock bands out there. They sell out of rena's all over the world. I've never heard of them. Stupid or energy, that's her favorite band, and she was asking if you like them too. I like some of their songs. Wait a minute, let's see. Josiah says that I missed their super chat. Are you saying I missed it, Josiah? Oh, they did, I'm so sorry, Josiah. Let's see, we've got two actually. Nella, I'm sorry, I missed yours too. Nella said, anti-gay dogma doesn't come from God, but a book, Duncan, I think they're challenging you. Well, on what grounds would they say that? If they're saying my representation of what the Bible says, and I think the Bible's very clear about sexual conduct outside of marriage, that God only ordained sexual relations within the marriage relationship between one man and one woman. The Bible's very clear about that. If you're saying that it doesn't come from the God of the Bible, then whether you realize it or not, you are denying the God of the Bible, denying the Christian worldview, then you're not gonna have grounds to tell me what's right or what's wrong, okay? Then we say it doesn't come from that God. Good, where do you get it from? Do you have another God? What's wrong? Does it have, yeah, we've been through that. You're such a mad child, it's pathetic. Not coming back in. But you're contradicting yourself because one minute you say it's some Lord frog, some frog character, but then you talk about the cosmos as a whole. You completely contradict yourself and expose yourself to the entire audience as a colossal fool. Next up, next up, let's see. So, I wanna make sure I get these other ones. Thanks, Josiah Hansen, they said, we've seen the vids, Steve kicked your butt. That's why Duncan atheism. That's why you don't like him, there's no- Yeah, I don't know what vid you're talking about. The only video that I can think of where Steve and I were on camera was an interaction on the Bible something Wingnut show where he was hysterical and histrionic. Gotcha, okay. That's Steve, if you're out there. Steve said he's gonna eat before his review. So, oh, we got all of them. So thanks so much, folks. I honestly hate saying goodbye, you guys. This is honestly the best time in the world. I just love hanging out with you guys. So, I am talking, so Duncan, I already asked Tom Jump, he said he'd be willing to debate you in March. Yeah, we'll see. It was the last debate was disturbing enough where he was dodging and evasive. But it's not surprising. You can't dodge a question. Tom is really clueless about his metaphysics. He said his epistemology, Tom has said over and over again, his epistemology works in any world. What he doesn't understand is that an epistemology has to be specific to an ontology. An epistemology cannot work in other world views because other world views simply do not exist. Whatever epistemology is true and correct, it will have to be specific to one and only one model of reality. This is how clueless Tom Jump is. Gotcha. Thank you very much. Sure, Tom appreciates that. And thanks so much, folks. It's been a total blast. Really fun stuff. I honestly, I'm gonna miss you. What is it? We'll be back Friday with a Flat Earth debate. I'm pretty sure. And then Saturday, we've got something else coming up. Maybe Duncan versus Tom Jump? No, probably not. But oh wait, I do remember. Saturday night, Skyler Fiction is going to debate John Maddox on whether or not pot should be legal. Sunday, I think we have a debate on intelligent design or God's existence. And so got a lot of fun ones coming up, folks. I will hopefully see you then. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care.