 Good evening everybody. Welcome to modern-day debate Welcome. I'm your host tonight Ryan tonight. We're going to be debating Creationism and to get us started Luke the floor is yours for up to 10 minutes So welcome to modern-day debate Luke's your first time here. We welcome you and 10 minutes on the floor Wait to gain knowledge if that's your definition of faith. I agree however one second I'm so sorry to look to cut you off We're gonna reset the clock because the desktop audio wasn't going through so sorry everybody And also if I haven't gotten back to you if you've messaged me I've been in the process of moving so my new system's been all set up and Ready to have you yelling at me Ryan. Everybody's on mute for the next year So welcome everybody and enjoy the show Luke 10 minutes on the floor. Sorry about that buddy. Hopefully I don't throw you off Hey all good. Maybe I'll I'll be a bit smoother this time. All right. Let's go guys. Thanks for having me here So starting off Belief in a creator or creators is equal to if not more reasonable than the absence of such belief Contrary to rising popular belief both in extreme naturalist view and the creator view entail faith First we need to define faith faith is not as Neil deGrasse Tyson might define it hoping that something is true But not knowing he gets that wrong as he gets most things wrong in Tom's debate with Ken Keithley He said that faith is defined by atheist as the as belief that goes beyond evidence And it's not a good way to gain knowledge if that is your definition of faith. I agree However words matter and our definitions are different for instance when I say I love cheeseburgers and I say I love my wife I am not talking about the same thing. So let's dive into as a Christian What is a Christian definition of faith? That is the Greek word pistas This is what's used throughout the New Testament and this is not belief beyond evidence This is actually the Greek word means to be convinced of something due to a strong argument and or compelling evidence being presented An example would be when I leave for a business trip. I have faith that my wife will be loyal to me I have faith not because I hope and wish that it will be true, but I have no idea. No, I've observed her I trust her. I've tested her and thus I believe it's true. So that is what I'll be calling biblical faith in in this in this debate In this debate I will appeal to the Bible in the debate only when necessary for the formation of my overarching argument and time permitting I do hope to get into specific Biblical topics, but we do need to recognize the same authority and then build from there And I hope to build to the point where we can recognize the Bible as an authority But for instance, if an Islamist told me Luke, you're wrong because the Quran says you're wrong I wouldn't care what they said because I don't recognize the authority of the Quran So I want to extend that to t-jump to Tom and meet him there And I would need to have them build up the logic as to why I should care what the Quran says first So we'll try and get there. We'll see. I will however apply the Bible where it's relevant I believe that a creator is directly tied to a coherent world view Which explains the reality of the physical body metaphysical consciousness intent and personality atheism I believe is incoherent All too often atheists say they would believe in a god or a creator if we could just test him If we could just do experiments to prove him But that's a categorical failure because the very belief in a creator Requires that the creator be outside of time space and matter It's a bit like saying I'll believe that you love me when I can test it in a lab Or I'll believe that Washington really existed when I can test the living man George Washington The nature of the claim that he lived in the past means you cannot test the living man So we need to use other ways to find out about him I believe that that The existence of our universe demands a creator which would be knowable and studyable Philosophically and historically but not directly observable testable or repeatable in the typical scientific method This brings about a question I hope to have Tom answered if there were a creator God outside of time space and not limited by matter as would be Necessary in the formation of the universe. How would you know it? Not through the scientific method I can definitely tell you that since both views in this debate require the biblical faith faith, which I defined early on We must then ask which makes the most sense of our evidence because they both entail faith One big question here is where did space time matter and energy come from Atheists and agnostics tend to dodge this question by trying to answer a far more immediate question Of life on earth with a higher power though They are always careful to not allow that higher power to be an ultimate creator God Aliens are proposed by Dawkins space rocks are proposed by agnostic Neil deGrasse Tyson But these are not answers. These are just rhetorical tools to push the burden of responsibility back further in time But if you push atheists they'll rely on well It took billions of years and it started very small all matter and energy was condensed into a pinhead the size of a Singularity and then boom However, and astute mind will not accept this You see you can push it back as far and as small as you want It still has to come from somewhere if you really push atheists They'll do what tom did in his ken Keithley debate in which he like all atheists before him kind of waved his hand and said There's nothing but natural stuff. We have quantum fields. There's no reason to believe in a creator of any kind Um, or like agnostic astrophysicist Brian Keating You might admit that life on earth essentially is a statistical impossibility and we have no idea how it happened scientifically speaking This is such a big problem that when asked how everything came from nothing Atheists Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus had to smuggle into their answer and I quote Empty space which is a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles closed quote And then they both laughed as if this was so obvious But did you catch the trick? Where did that boiling brew of particles come from you can't keep pushing it back smaller and and further and hope that That's the answer. It doesn't work. It's a rhetorical trick. It's not an answer elsewhere Hitchens and Dawkins actually recognize the strength of the intelligent design and fine-tuning argument asserting that both existence from something and exist Ends the existence of nothing seem as though they have been designed Sam Harris even gives his defense of intelligent design in the way of simulation theory Saying that it is not a weak argument at all and that it's not crazy. Although We must again ask who made the simulation. They never want to answer Look for that in this debate I suspect that as most atheists and agnostics do Tom will push it back further and smaller but not give an ultimate answer Atheist Lawrence Kraus admits this in his book when he says because something is physical We must define nothing as being physical Especially if we define nothing as the absence of something This is utter nonsense and literally requires the redefinition of the word nothing But at least he admits the corner. He's he's been backed into Matter cannot be created or destroyed the law of conservation of energy says that energy can only be created and not or can only be converted Not created or destroyed a creator must be immaterial outside of and in control of time space And must be the unmoved mover as a source of energy the ultimate source of energy in energy regression for this reason lowercase gods Which can be categorized as aliens or higher beings like Zeus and Poseidon cannot answer the origins of the universe Even if a god came down and said i am Zeus everything you've heard about me is true Then that means according to greek mythology Zeus came from the olympians and the olympians from the titans and the titans from The primordials and they are very much in space and time They can be heard they are limited and they're ruled out as sources of origins The biggest topic i want to address here though is the existence of the immaterial and non physical mind consciousness intent and free will In it in his debate with ben Shapiro atheist alexa o'connor said that atheism mandates that we do not in actuality have free will Our mind and the actions and actions are preset just like a rock rolling down a hill And they do what they do due to the laws of nature In tom's debate versus mike b he he said that mount rushmore is ultimately the result of an unknown natural process Not designed per se and his problem with the designer as an explanation was that the designer assumes intent an intentional mind Which assumes an intentional mind behind that etc etc into infinite regression the creationist hears this and says yes exactly That's what makes the creator the creator that very element that the creator is the unmoved mover We know that mount rushmore was designed and thus we know that by the chain of logic We know a creator exists tom said that he had a problem with purposeful design because it begots purposeful design I think that's the key to this discussion if you grant purposeful design anywhere you grant an ultimate purposeful designer I think we need to zoom back trace the chord back and think and I think it's fair to say tom Please correct me in your statements here if i'm wrong that tom's view is in a sense mount rushmore is not designed and further More free will and true intent doesn't exist mount rushmore was designed by human mind Which itself is a natural occurrence of evolution And brains and great the brain gray matter and synapses are fired and fired as they do due to a highly evolved ape Doing what it does and thus these highly evolved apes designed mount rushmore and it's no more Designed than water falling down a rock doing what it does by the laws of nature. This brings us Oh, sorry Okay, I'll get I'll say the rest for for questions then and we can close it there All right. That is time there everybody. Uh, we're going to kick it over to t jump Thank you so much for your introductory statement there luke uh t jump 10 minutes on the clock the floor is all yours Um, so I heard a lot of Misconceptions about not understanding science not understanding epistemology not understanding my arguments First thing is even if god is outside of space and time you can still test it with science science works on anything ever Inside out space time outside of space time doesn't make a difference science doesn't care where it is if god um like Sit jesus and jesus died and rose from the dead that would be evidence of a god outside of space time You don't need to actually go outside of space time to test things outside of space time If those things can cause stuff inside of space time So yeah, science can test for god just fine god's just lame and impotent and doesn't do anything Which is why science has never discovered it because it doesn't exist um he said that luke luke said that science and And religion are the same because they both require faith That's a two quo quay fallacy. It doesn't justify its position and he didn't show how they were the same He defined faith as the same as evidence. He just said he's convinced by evidence and that's just how he's using the word faith That's not how any of the biblical scholars use it. That's not how the bibles use it That's just how christian apologists try to make it seem which is not how it was used in this original context You just talk to any historian about that Um, how would you know god any novel testable predictions? That's how you know god very simple There's the what is it like kings 139 you put a wet rag in a in a glass of water and god will light it on fire I'd be great evidence Um, let's see my definition of faith that he gave was very good I like that definition faith is a belief that goes beyond the evidence and is not a good way to gain knowledge Perfect definition. Thank you He asked me to give an ultimate answer Ultimate answer would be quantum fields quantum fields are outside of spacetime. They are uncreated They don't have a beginning. They are eternal and again outside of spacetime So they are the ultimate answer and there's evidence for them. There is no evidence for god That makes them significantly better First law energy can't be created god can't create energy either That means energy is a thing that must exist outside of god. That's what the first law means Um, alexo connor is wrong. Atheism does not mandate free will that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard I'm not a fan of alexo connor Most atheists believe in magical spiritual woo-woo stuff most atheists aren't the skeptical naturalist types Atheism just means you don't believe in god. You can still believe in free will even if you're an atheist my debate with Be he not rush more was not designed was about if we just came on rush Came to route mush route mount rush more and having never seen any other information in the universe Would it be rational to include design? The answer would be no it would not It wasn't about whether or not it was designed The question was would it be rational to include design simply by just seeing it with no prior information? The answer is no it would not um He said that if you grant purposeful design in one context that grants it that there's some ultimate designer Like no literally it doesn't literally know the fact that there is A mind which could have evolved and then has purposeful design through its natural processes Does not imply that there is an ultimate designer literally just that's not how philosophy works I don't know if I missed anything else. Don't really care. Well. I want his evidence So I care about what is the evidence? What is your evidence for creation? I didn't hear any I heard none of it So we're in there All right, thank you so much t jump. Uh, we're gonna kick it into open discussion everybody So uh back over you look and uh, thanks everybody for being here Okay, uh, yeah, so he said something about about jesus being Scientifically testable and that that would be good evidence. I guess we can start out there Also, if he could restate that I don't know about for the rest of the stream But it cut out for me he froze and then it caught up about 20 seconds. So Tom, what did you say about testing jesus as as proof? It's god god thinking outside of spacetime could send a person have that person killed and then revive them three days later That's evidence. That's a novel testable prediction That would be evidence So so so my my So you would make a prediction and say I believe in god. I'm gonna pray to god Let me just because the you you can't test that obviously it's not repeatable testable Yes, it's extremely repeatable testable. It's very very easy Ask god. I believe in god. I'm gonna pray to god put hands together sky daddy god Give me a person just wanting to generate them just snap your fingers poof person I'm gonna kill him gotta just smack him in the head with the baseball bat And then you're gonna revive him three days later. He doesn't poof. That's evidence of god. There you go That's all you need. Yeah, but that's that wasn't the question. I mean that's that's a nice dodge, man But the question was no way to test for god Wait, wait one sec. One sec. What's up? Stop you said your question was is there a way to test or how would we know of a god Who is outside of space time that was your question, correct? And then and answer the answer is novel testable predictions one example of which Is the thing I just told you So that was a direct answer to your question your question was is how would we know about a thing outside of space time? Answer is novel testable predictions and then I gave an example The thing outside of space time generates a person we kill them and you rise from the dead That would be evidence. That would be one of infinitely many possibilities Right, but but the historical christian claim is that that happened and there are other religions that make their other claims We could explore those if you want I won't defend them because I don't believe them, but I think they're worth exploring the evidence for them That's irrelevant to the point. So the point was just here's an example of how you could test Because if you're saying that the proof is this thing which is exactly what the christian claim is Then no, let me I have to I mean you can interject or who want but that doesn't change the fact Walk with me walk walk through this with me. So you asked that something would be a proof The christian claim is that there is a proof. So uh, no, you you lost the point You you've gone down a rabbit trail. You can only miss the point of the argument Well, go ahead. Go ahead. So you asked a question. How would we test for a thing outside of space time? The answer to that is you make any prediction about the future things. We don't know yet things. We haven't happened yet Future future testable prediction about the future and say here is something we predict that we've never seen before and if it happens And it's not something we've seen before and I've never predicted it before that's evidence of your hypothesis So if your hypothesis is Time that thing so so how do we test whether or not that claim that jesus did exactly what he just said is true Well, we would use the historical evidence and yes, I agree. Sure. Correct. Sure So if the historical evidence points in that direction, that's how we would test it, correct? And i'm not even asserting that it does right now. I'm saying it does point in that direction Okay, so then we agree so then we agree that that if the historical evidence is strong enough and points in the direction of The christian claim which is exactly what you just said would be your test If that is true, right, then that would be a good proof. And so you and I I might disagree on whether or not the historical evidence proves that I think it does you probably think it doesn't But I think that's worth defining Um, if you want to we could dive into why you think it doesn't or we could we could go into other other biblical proofs I'll kind of leave that up to you. I'm good with leaving that point at at least we understand each other My statement is What you said your test was is literally exactly the christian claim your statement is yes, it is but i'm not convinced historically But you recognize we would test it historically not scientifically an observable repeatable practice Uh, history is a kind of science So it's to be science. It's all science. There's only science So first thing there's lots of christian claims that would be evidence if they were true Lots of them like miracles would be evidence if they were true Resurrections evidence if they were true prophecies would be evidence if they were true Uh, revelation if the stuff in revelation times that would be evidence if it's true So there are lots of claims christians make that if they were true, they would be phenomenal evidence So i agree true and false. That's the problem. So history Sir his historicity, um is debunked completely entirely just based off of a category in epistemology Um known about implicit and explicit evidence. So like if I told you I saw a dog What do you mean by that? I'm literally about to explain that so Uh, if I told you I saw a dog that would be rational to believe because we have an implicit Empirical basis for dogs. We have scientific tests of dogs DNA of dogs hair of dogs bones of dogs lots of things that have been done with dogs Prior to my sentence. I saw a dog if I said I saw a unicorn none of that exists There are no past dna of unicorns. No, no hair follicles no Bones we have nothing it's just the only evidence that exists is my statement I saw a unicorn in which case it's unreasonable to believe so Same things that have a past empirical basis like I saw a dog reasonable to believe perfectly fine Same things like that don't have a past empirical basis Unreasonable to believe this is why it's rejected in all historical contexts And law so in legal standards is the exact same So I witnessed testimony of miracles magic mythical creatures paranormal supernatural are all out They cannot be justified by testimony at all You would need a second kind of empirical evidence to justify those things And then the testimony could be justified or believable without that. It's worthless It has zero evidence. So I witnessed testimony of Miracles or Jesus's resurrection, etc are zero evidence Just like if you today went into a courtroom and said I saw a guy raised from the dead They would not consider that evidence. They would just say you were delusional You have This is this is kind of like the the um the the dilla dill huntie retort nothing to do with dilla huntie This is this is not you can't just take um Well, so just to clarify. This is the standard of the consensus of history I So don't don't interrupt me So to take historical witness claims and throw them out and say well, they're just claims They're not evidence because they don't fit my paradigm. Uh, that that doesn't make sense. So that's not the again This isn't my paradigm. This is the consensus of experts That's not the standard that we apply to any other Event. Yes, it is. It's all all historical claims. This is the consensus of history We have a lot of testimony agreeing on the biblical narrative specifically. Let's let's focus on the raising of jesus We have to go back to your other point. So your other point was History tells us went to their death. Stop. Stop. You made you're made two points here I want to focus on the first one your first claim was that this standard is not what we use For the rest of other historical claims or something. That's wrong. This is what you're kind of proposing Let me finish. This is the standard we use for all historical claims and all legal claims in every field in every document No, actually in legalese in american law, at least we would say that multiple witnesses do count as evidence You can get up at witnesses literally do count as evidence. So no, I actually have looked this up once up Stop. Stop. Don't don't try to continue on that was a claim Through a pause today pause and we all agree that we saw a That would indeed No, that would not I have actually have looked this up. I have legal documents that literally prove this I listed all of those legal documents in my debate with jonathan sheffield The courts have literally ruled on this testimony of miracles magic mythical creatures paranormal supernatural are not admissible They are not admissible. They are not evidence No amount of testimony is evidence for any of those things in any court anywhere in america and they have Actual court cases where these were brought up people claims god and leprechauns and spirits did things All of them were thrown out for this reason. There is no precedent. So you are incorrect I can see those documents. I don't know what you're referring to But I think I think it's unfair to say that that testimony is not evidence, but you I didn't say that I said testimony of Beyond our understanding anything super human super no no anything that has no past empirical evidence Sure. So you you mentioned on that note. This is a good transition You mentioned prophecy as as a you said that would be a noteworthy piece of evidence So, I mean we can yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I said yeah prophecies that that came true Well, I don't want to move on. Yeah, I want to stay on that one point. So what what is what is your contention here? So I gave you the reason I said, oh, I actually didn't give you the reason I told you just the principle the principle is A testimony of miracles magic, etc Is not evidence now the reason it's because there's other explanations of those things that are far better That do have a ton of evidence delusion has a ton of evidence That the the testimony specifically if we're going to go to a biblical case testimony in the the case of Christ rising Is reliable because of what people were willing to do Based on that testimony people who had been Living their lives contrary to anything related to a christian belief changed their lives people went to their deaths That's a really great point. Let me let me ask you a question about that So does the fact someone's willing to do a really extreme thing? Make their belief more likely to be true Yes, so here here's here's the There was a guy to finish this point because you asked a question. I'm going to answer it in full Mine was a yes or no. All right, let him answer the question. Justin. Uh, rickway T. Jem. We'll hand it back. Don't worry So people will very often go to their deaths or spend a lot of money For things that they're tricked into for things that that they don't know or lie But for people who claim to have seen something in person who claim to have had the experience themselves For them to go to their deaths or to lose a lot of money or to be tortured based on something that they know is a lie We're not talking about some street preacher 2000 years later who asked them for money and scammed them out of it and was able to trick them for people to say No, I had this experience as did many other people It's also supported by those who don't even believe but recognize that Jesus was crucified Which we have a lot of secular sources saying at least that much Um, then then the evidence does become to stack up and it does begin rather than how In a direction. So I think so. So here's the question. You said that there's a possibility people don't Go to their graves for lies. That's false. We actually have people do Things they know our lives people will go to their death for things. They know our lies Yes, we do. We have lots of examples of that But that's irrelevant. I don't care. I don't care. That's irrelevant. Let's say how wait, wait, wait How is it evidence that was known to be a lie that people went to their death one second? Yes, there are literally tens of thousands of examples and you can google them, but I don't care none of that I don't care. Stop. Stop. Stop. You can google google it in five seconds and look it up yourself I don't care. That's not relevant to my argument. Stop talking. Stop. I don't want to put you on here So let's just wait one second there. Stop. Stop. So here's the key How is the fact that they are willing to go to die? Increase the probability the belief is true. Now it increases the probability. They believed it. That's true So there's it is less likely someone will go to their death For a false belief than for a true belief. That's correct. I agree It's not the case that they don't there are people who do it's totally the case, but Yeah, jim jones david correct. Great examples But the point is how does the fact that the probability that they will go to their death Is lower if they believe it's false higher if they believe it's true Increase the probability the belief is actually true because that's a different claim. You got one claim They believe it. So if they believe it, they're they're more willing to do stuff for it. Sure granted But how does that? Increase the evidence the belief is actually true That's what evidence is the belief the actually true not just that they believe it I I'm happy to grant the apostles believed they saw Jesus. That's great How does that fact Increase the probability that it was actually true because that's what evidence is Yeah, I mean multiple witness witness corroboration and and and the account corroboration is known to increase probability as a matter of fact that I'm asking about the first thing and you gave it an example not answering the question and the The case of jones town actually that's that's in you're not answering the question That supports my stance because jones town was a known fraud to mislead a lot of people You're not answering the question Let's let you restate the question there to jump and then we'll pass it back to the question You said was that the fact that they believed it As opposed to didn't believe it somehow makes it is evidence How is that evidence the fact that they believed it? How is that evidence? It's actually true Receive something to be reality Specifically multiple humans that is that is noteworthy in the direction of that that thing actually happened That's a separate that's a separate piece of evidence. That's two different things. So so there's one thing No, he's not answering. So the question there's two pieces of evidence there. There's one is We can't both be talking at the same time. Okay, so T jump 20 seconds right quick and then okay So there's two pieces of evidence two pieces of evidence you said multiple corroborating night when assessment That's one piece of evidence. So one thing over here. Here's the second piece. This is the one I'm talking about. I don't care about this one right now The one piece you brought up was The fact that they went to their deaths or were willing to go to their deaths for this belief was evidence This is one claim now the multiple corroborating witnesses is a different claim That's a separate piece of evidence which I will debunk later But I'm all focused on just the fact that they went to their death Was the fact that they went to their deaths Evidence that the belief was true. The answer is no But you're so the claim they had a belief that's true. It's evidence that they believed it That is 100% true. The fact that someone is willing to go to their death So how is the fact that they're willing to go to the death evidence? So let's let him ask a question I'm going to give you a full minute to respond if he interrupts I'll put them on you So T jump just to wrap up your question there So again, the question was is how is the fact that they're willing to go to their deaths? Evidence that the beliefs were true again separate from the multiple of testimonies. That's a different thing It's not the same question Sure I won't even need a full minute the fact that they're willing to go to their deaths because multiple people claim to have observed the same thing And they were all willing to go to their deaths. It all fits together You can make as many faces as you want, but this is true If multiple people claim the same thing and are all willing to go to their deaths or go through great suffering or loss for a cause It does point to the veracity of the story. That's the simple claim I mean you can go ahead and rub your head all you want But I mean that that's how we live everyday life when when you hear one thing from one person Might not be believable when you start hearing it from multiple people who are willing to change their lives Based on what they claim to have perceived with their senses. It is more More evidence pointing in the direction that it was an actual occurrence that happened Okay, I already covered this multiple testimonies is a different question. I didn't ask They go together. No, they don't they do No, because I mean you can have you can wait stop stop stop stop You can have multiple people see things and not be willing to die for it Right And you can have people willing to die for it with only one of them Right So there could be one person who was willing to die for something and multiple people did not see it And you can have multiple people see something, but none of them are willing to die for it Right, that's possible. Correct Wait, I'm sorry. I said that last part again All right, so you can have a bunch of people multiple eyewitness testimonies And none of them are willing to die for it. Correct. That's possible And you can have one person who sees something and is willing to die for it, right with no multiple tested multiple attestation, right? Yeah, one person. So they're separate things. They are literally separate things, right? They go together I don't care. They're two separate pieces of evidence. So Piece of evidence. One, they were willing to die for their beliefs Does this increase the probability their belief was true? Yes How I don't deserve her. Yes. Yes. How? Because humans are not often going to their deaths because of something that they know is False Okay. Okay. So I'm going to come back here. No, I'm going to answer real quick You mentioned Jonestown Jonestown is a really bad example because uh, Jones was actually known to fool people He actually went as far if I'm not mistaken as to pull, uh, like raw chicken breasts out of plants in the audience and say Oh, look, I'm pulling out cancer But the point there is he was fooling people and yes, they did go to their deaths But they were fooled into thinking it was real So that's actually in support of my belief. So you thought that was a really good point for you and whoever commented that It's not in support of your belief. Those people they were stupid and they were fooled really easily I'd say we could argue about their IQs if you want to but they were they were convinced something was true Not a point I ever made. I don't care. Not a point. I ever made Those are the facts of the situation you can This is irrelevant to anything I've said No, it's irrelevant to literally any point I made No, no, no, I responded to a question in my comment section. None of this was a point I ever made in any of my open none of this was a point and it's not a great point It's a great point, but it's irrelevant because I didn't I didn't defend this So focus on the points I make not the things No, no, no, no, no, no, so you're not going to steer this is not an argument I made I think we're at an impasse here where we just And so so let's let's move on to a different. No, we're not going to move on This is like This is like a super basic epistemology question where I can just hammer on it and show how dumb you are if you don't understand this So if you think I'm happy to hammer on this because I can just show you're so bad at epistemology Nothing, you say is trustworthy until you can get this if we are going in circles I don't care. This is a great point. I love this point. I'm not leaving this point. So question is I'm going to spend as much time on it as I want No, no, no, this is I'm gonna so the question is I don't care. I don't care. I really don't care I really genuinely don't care. So I'm gonna finish my question. So five minutes on the clock. I don't care. I don't care I don't care. So your claim was that the fact that someone is willing to die for a belief Increase of the probability. The belief is true. Yes My question was is how and you said because people don't normally go to their deaths for things that they know is false Does the fact that they know it's false Yeah, they typically don't yeah, I'm sure someone in history has but yeah, typically We're talking probability I agree. So the vast majority of people will not Go to their deaths for something they know is false. I agree Less lesser probability. How does the fact that they are willing to die something they believe in Increase the probability. It's actually true. So so there's there's beliefs over here Actual truth over here. So you have to show there's a connection between these two I know when I answer this you're gonna cut me off and say I'm not answering it, but that's too bad So so you you just said something how does them dying for something they believe in increase the probability that it's true Is that fair and what am I miss? Because They all claimed we could go for one person or the group of people in the biblical account It's group of people. So we'll go with group fair enough They all claimed to be eyewitnesses to something to the same thing And it sounds like our disagreement here is you're saying that People being willing to go to the grave or something that they claim to have observed Um does not increase the probability that that thing is true I'm saying in order for one of us to prove our point We'd have to look at data of people who went to we'd have to dig through Historical accounts and even modern day accounts How many people went to the grave or suffered or were tortured or lost a lot of money or something like that For something that they provably knew was a lie Versus how many people went to the grave for something they genuinely believe they observed. That's how we would Measure Exactly how we would measure this and I literally relevant So it's the number that's exactly how you would measure something You're dude, you are so you are so boneheaded. This is insane. I like you stop stop stop stop Does the number of people who picked their nose your hand and say stop stop stop and talk over me every time That's not because it's gonna work man. I'm not one of those. This is exactly how it's gonna go Does the fact that people pick their money back to the back and forth their guys, okay Does the fact that people pick their nose versus not pick their nose I'm not listening to you. I'm not listening to you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So does the fact that people I'm not listening to you. I'm not gonna let you go. Does the fact that some group of people play golf No, I'm not listening to you. They're more likely that their beliefs are true. I I just gave you how we could statistically measure something and you rub your head like there was something ridiculous It was it was literally ridiculous. I don't even know what to say to them I'm trying I'm trying to help you to get you to the point where you can understand Hi horseman. You're not trying to help me with anything. You're just like one plus one equals two levels of dumb And it's not working. This is nothing to do with rhetoric. It's literally nothing to do with rhetoric. So My point was that we could observe data points of how many people went to their graves Knowing that what they claimed was false Versus how many For something they genuinely provably thought they observed right. I understood your data points I understood I literally understood that You can shake your head all you want. So so the reason I'm shaking my head is because that's literally irrelevant So I'm gonna try to try to help you to get there. So so wait wait wait try to try to go with me Does the fact that let's say All lots of people play golf and only people play golf are let's say mathematicians now Does that mean that the fact that someone plays golf increases the probability That their theory on the world is correct What Exactly. Yeah, no, right. It's completely irrelevant. Right. So like it's totally who cares like to relevant I don't even get what your question was if If a lot of people who are mathematicians play golf does that increase I don't want to misrepresent you here So let me give you my understanding what you just said a lot of people who are mathematicians play golf Does that increase the probability that a golf player will have what knowledge did you say theory of the universe? I don't good at arts. You can take anything you want. I don't care So you're I mean, yeah, I probably would because because If a lot of mathematicians play golf, they would have that that is knowledge that I mean, you'd have to define terms like a lot But if you're saying proportional to to the population Mathematicians play golf at a higher rate. So will golf players have a higher knowledge of math-based So I'm not saying math-based. I'm saying like art pick something completely unrelated art Let it be good at art, right? No completely. There's there's no connection, right? There's no connection the fact that there's a lot of people playing golf and a lot of mathematicians There's no probability increase that they'd be good at golf or art, right? There's no connection whatsoever, right? Maybe not. I mean you could argue that math and and art are linked, but I don't know I don't know what you're talking about Sure So let's say there was a belief that everybody who had this belief was willing to die for their belief and did die for their belief Does that mean they're more likely that that belief is true? If they claim that it is something that they observed, yes Again, I I just gave you how we could measure this statistically and I No, I just gave you 100% said 100% 100 every single person who believes this Whatever there's it's a random belief. I don't know what it is any belief 100% of people will die for this belief Mm-hmm Does that make it more likely to be true? Did they all claim that they observed it? Yes Yes Yes, I don't oh my god Yes, it does I don't understand why why if a hundred people Explain if if you don't understand we'll try to steer the conversation Sure. Okay. Yeah, so I I have a question and it's it's really simple for for tom Um, so Uh, you you sound like would you call yourself a determinist? This isn't a question. This is just a piece of no you wouldn't okay Um, so do you in that because you're not a determinist? Would you say does intent exist intent or we could say free will I think they're fairly synonymous They are not synonymous. Um free intent does exist. Yes One one one requires the other right? No, absolutely No in no field of philosophy does one require the other intent can exist In any kind of determined system free will is literally something completely irrelevant to desires You can have all of the desires without free will no I mean individual intent has to come from from a a reasoning mind And so you could you could argue that as you did with the mount rushmore example Um, there's no real intent in the person who designed mount rushmore They're just their brain is doing what nature dictates that it does. That's what you said Not what I was that's not really relevant to the mount rushmore the mount rushmore argument is if we came to a mount rushmore And saw it with no past data would it be rational to include design has nothing to do with this argument This argument is intent is literally a process in the brain You can literally destroy it or remove it or excite it with electrodes give people intent But you believe that both intent and free will do exist Intent exists free will in the way you define it probably not you're a libertarian right libertarian free will Yeah, yeah, that's fair. No that libertarian free will does not exist compatible list free will possibly I don't like it, but sure So would you agree that as you said again with the mount rushmore? example a designer Dictates that that was designed by someone dictates a designer dictates a designer all the way back into infinite regression Is that no that has nothing to do with mount rushmore? I don't think you understood my magic mount rushmore I mean, I we could pull it up and play it, but I think it does but I'm trying to what is your what are you trying to Argue for the intent thingy. How does this relate to your current argument? Yeah, well, I would I would argue that the existence of free will and intent I would actually agree with alex o'connor here that the existence of intent and free will both Both necessitate a designer Well, why can't there be a universe with? Chakras and chakras create consciousness seems perfectly logistical problem. What do you mean by by chakra? uh You know the spiritualists who like crystals and stuff and energies That answer is not going to work tom. I mean, so so you throw up So the question you asked is it possible How because I can say that too I can say when you ask me something I can say what about uniforms that that doesn't work What oh my god? Oh my god So stop stop stop you asked a question your question was Yeah, um does To have into or intense and free will seems to require a god. That was your statement, right? Correct And I said no it doesn't there could be some something else a different substrate that creates consciousness like a chakra field That's this is this is like their belief. This is not a random unicorn things This is a thing that is hypothesized to generate consciousness. It is their chakra fields. I don't believe it But is it possible that that could exist and not a god? And still produce consciousness free will and intent. Yes that that thing could exist and produce all of those things without god Which is a counter to your argument You find a chakra field. I mean I need you to define is that because and the reason I ask is because that sounds like You're basically saying a creator without saying a creator So what do you mean by like if a chakra field is what grants So it's not conscious. It has no it has no intent. It has no consciousness. It's just a substrate possibility like gives gives kind of You know Gives life force. Is that what you're saying? You could have something like an impersonal force that gives a life for Sure, sure two people. I mean I would argue that's that's a creator I mean you you could say it's an impersonal creator, but still a creator and that's the crux of this debate is is Is creationism is is the idea of a creator? um retinal So, so I mean you could just do you think a creator requires consciousness Sorry, do you think a creator requires consciousness on the part of the created or on the part of the creator The creator does the creator have to be conscious to be called a creator? um No, I I don't think so. I mean if if it's it It depends on gravity a creator Sorry is gravity a creator No, but if you're if you're saying why did it make stars if you're saying something that specifically has the the ability to To give consciousness like a chakra a spiritual chakra field. I think that's flirting with the idea of a creator It's a good question, man. I'll grant you that but but I think that's I think we both have to define that out a little more When we so so so the the chakra field is like gravity just acts on stuff So if you don't think gravity is a creator So so a chakra field is like gravity. It just acts on stuff It doesn't have like an intense doesn't give anything It just acts on what type of what type of belief who believes hinduism hinduism is the general broad model that does the chakra stuff I mean, yeah, but hinduism has has a pantheon of gods None of them are like your creator god. They're all like subsets of other stuff. So they wouldn't be But that's irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant. Oh, it is I think you're going to stuff that I think you're going to stuff that is Undefined as as a final point and I don't think that worked Okay, so the argument here is there can be a field and zero gods There are zero gods in this universe There's just a field of chakra stuff and the field of chakra stuff can generate conscious beings just like gravity can generate Okay, black holes. Yeah And yes, gravity is not a creator Therefore the chakra field is not a creator. So would you call that an elemental field like an A field of some some natural phenomena Very well, I mean, I know I wouldn't call it natural because in their world It wouldn't be natural. They have a supernatural feel. Okay. So again, man So what we're kind of at this place where it's like like this really weird undefined Like I don't even I don't think either of us really know it's more defined than a god But that's irrelevant to the point The point was is do you made a point that you need intense or to have intent and free will you need a god? I said, no, you don't here's a different example with no god that still has intended free will That's all I needed to do. I don't need to give it a well defined anything It's more defined than the christian god is but that's irrelevant Because if you're going to give an example you have to define what that example is So so but this actually I don't I don't All I need to do is So all I need to do is give one less property that your thing doesn't have and it's a different thing by definitions The law of identity law of identity of discernibles. So all I need to do is say it has one property less or more than yours Whatever What would you accept as a definition of a creator? We're not talking christian god hindu god islamic god Definition of a creator why because since this debate is is predicated on The defense of christianism and is to christianism rational, right? We're we're not looking at any specific god Why don't you define what you mean when you say creator because it sounds like you're kind of to me You're trying to play an entity Acrafield, but it's not a creator, but but they do have no defines that So so you've got to define this out of it. Yeah, this is not hard This is pretty much very consensus very baseline in all the philosophy So creator is a thing with some kind of a conscious entity Usually with an intent intent isn't required Who uses its consciousness in order to create things with either a purpose without a purpose doesn't make a difference But it has a conscious entity and does things based off of the consciousness A field is not conscious. No one calls it a creator not in hinduism Not in any of the chakra fields not in anybody in in physics No one calls it a creator because it doesn't get conscious Doesn't Yeah, I don't I don't think that's true. I'm not an expert in hindu theology if they'd even call it that pantheology I suppose um, but from what I know their gods are all connected through their chakra fields So I don't know separate how to do is really bear it in your in your But okay, so so just to clarify the the thing i'm talking about is not hinduism It was based on hinduism. So this thing i'm talking about doesn't have any gods in there There are no guys in it. So so the chakra field thing is a piece of the model that they took from hinduism They didn't keep the gods. They're separate things Yeah, okay So so you can have so here's the thing where generates consciousness. No god just find Why is this a problem? Yeah, I'm not sure that that would be a a good explanation for how consciousness comes to me Is that that's I mean, there's a reason i'm not a hindu I think maybe you could theorize that like it might be possible But I haven't really heard you give a good reason as to why it might be possible other than just saying it might be um, which brings me to to a question which is Where would you propose? Time matter space and energy come from in in your worldview? They're emergent from quantum fields. That's like solved But I wanted to go back to the time thingy So you said that it wasn't a good explanation of the origin of consciousness or something There's tons of different ways consciousness can come about just fine through naturalism through emergentism the strong emergence weak emergence Um, quantum fields through the chakra field through panpsychism Panpsychism can do it all of these models generate consciousness with no god at all And They they theorize consciousness. They don't generate we've never seen any of those things generate consciousness Wait, wait, so so i'm partially in agreement with you there. We've never seen anything generate consciousness other than biology We know biology you can't prove that biology We do we literally do but that's irrelevant. So the question here is you're claiming that they're insufficient and somehow you're Made-up hypothesis. That's just as bad isn't why Okay, so I am saying that you are you are kind of appealing to different world views and undefined views of there They're competing theories of even quantum mechanics saying this can generate consciousness No, we actually don't know that it can my only point here as I said in my opening Is that belief in a creator is at least as reasonable as you having the type of faith that I define it saying I think somehow quantum mechanics quantum tunneling quantum Anything can explain consciousness. I'm saying you're lost. I think you're lost. So I'm not making an argument for naturalism here I'm saying you made a specific claim that In order to have intense and free will you need a god you have to have a god or creator or something like that I said no, you don't here's a bunch of alternatives panpsychism panpsychism strong emergentism weak emergentism Chocolate yields all of these things are alternatives that can generate consciousness without a god and you're saying they're bad But your made-up hypothesis isn't for some reason. So you need to give a reason why these guys are bad Sky daddy, not bad. That's the problem. It's because to me they all seem bad You so I never said sky daddy This is a debate about creator or creators And so my my take here is that the belief in creator or creators is at least as reasonable as the belief in a Naturalistic explain. I'm not I'm not challenging your That's what I said to my oh, yes. I agree. I agree. Wait. Wait. I'm going back. I'm focusing Just give him one second to jump if you can hold on. No, no, no because he's getting he's getting lost on a trail here So you I'm not talking about the debate here. I'm not talking about the main point of the debate I'm talking about the sentence you said No, no, so you said that to have intense and free will you need a god? That's the only sentence I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the equally as plausible thing in the video I'm only talking about your one sentence that to have intent and free will you need a god If I can give an alternative it will disprove that statement. It won't it won't disprove your previous Alternative you're saying just you're not defining how they're an alternative. So for instance I could say if I were arguing against me if I were to be the devil's advocate I could say well, yeah, look unicorns could have done it unicorns could have given consciousness Does that is that an argument? That's not an argument That's just me saying words and not defining them. You haven't defined any of what you just said You just said ah quantum this could have or or hinduism or or something and I said Can you define any of those beliefs and you said no, but I've cited them. That's not an argument that that is So this is I had a follow-up question. So yes, I agree. I heard that part and then I said You keep appealing to quantum mechanics Quantum kind of by the definition is just the study of how tiny objects smaller than atoms exhibit properties of particles and waves quantum fields Are not the ultimate They're not a being in and of themselves and even when we get down to the quantum level That you still are just going as I said in the beginning smaller Missing the point missing the point. No, I'm not missing the point. You were missing the point I'm saying you're going you just said that we prove Fields and quantum mechanics. No, I didn't say that this can come from. No, I didn't say that We'll let them clarify right quick. Yeah So so you you mean to claim you to have free will you need god? I said no, you don't hear some alternatives You said these alternatives are bad now. Here's here's the point. I was leaving. Here's the follow-up I'm like why are these bad? But your sky daddy not bad Answer that you need to define your alternatives you can't just Why is it that define you go back and said what what what is this? What do you mean by define? What have you given? Here's what I'm trying god in such a way that answers the question My belief is that this is what I mean by by define So my belief to try and summarize it as as concisely as possible Is that belief in a creator? Who is conscious and intentionally creates is at least as reasonable as any other belief? Especially naturalism. What you said you said you said yeah, but what about what about uh, hinduism? We'll explain explaining consciousness and I said Explain how they how those account for consciousness. You haven't done that yet. Wait, wait, wait, wait So so this that that sentence that's good explain how this accounts for consciousness So when I'm you said these things are not good because they don't explain how they account for consciousness My question is how does the sky daddy? account for consciousness In such a way that is better than these that's the question That's the question i've been asking because we asked for a definition Whatever that means How does the sky daddy account for consciousness in a way that is more sufficient than the other things I listed that's the question Yeah. So I would agree with what I thought you were saying in the Mount Rushmore video. I'll take you out your word if you say I got it wrong, but I'm going to be looking up clips and posting them later because I don't think I got it wrong. And I would agree with what Alex O'Connor said, which is that consciousness requires a conscious design behind that, requires a conscious design behind that into infinite regression. Now, so consciousness and design require a designer behind it, require an intentional conscious designer behind it, infinite regression. And I would say that the final in that step would make sense to be a conscious, powerful creator. And we could argue about the creator that is, but that's the overarching view there. Why do you think that if a consciousness exists, it requires another consciousness to have created it? Because that's what we've always observed. We haven't observed anything to the contrary. Okay, okay. So because that's what you've always observed, that means it's literally impossible for anything else to be true. I didn't say literally impossible. I mean, could you? If it's not impossible, that means it's possible to have free will and intent without a God, right? Maybe, I didn't say, but I did not say that it's literally impossible. I didn't say, you said it's impossible to have free will and intent without a God. And now you're saying it is possible. It's possible. No, no, I, what I'm saying, I didn't say that it's literally impossible for any other explanation of origins to be true. What I said is that creationism is at least as reasonable, if not more reasonable, than competing theories of origins. And I think that consciousness, because we observe consciousness, being the result, or conscious design rather, excuse me, being the result of previous conscious design all around us, I think that's a good reason to reference that as a piece of evidence. So induction is fine. Induction is fine. But remember, I'm not talking about your original claim in the argument. I'm talking about your one statement where you said, in order to have free will and intent, you need a God. Need is a 100% necessity kind of a thing. And so if you agree, it's not, you don't necessarily need a God. There might be some other ways, maybe, maybe lower probability, but there can be some other ways, right? If I heard it explained, I'm always open to hearing that explanation. I haven't heard you explain anything. When I say it's possible, I mean, I leave myself open to hearing good arguments. I haven't heard anything like that. I've heard you, I've heard you invoke chakra and random quantum theories that are undefined by you, as you love to do. You love to invoke these quantum theories. None of that. None of that is important. I'd encourage them to look into different stream theory, quantum field theories, quantum tumbling theory, because honestly, there are so many competing theories around the entire quantum discussion. You've never, I've never seen you in any of your discussions explain exactly which one you believe accounts for your worldview and specifically the origins of the universe. I'd love to hear you explain exactly which theory of quantum mechanics, and it is that you believe explains your and justifies your belief. Any of the ones that make novel predictions. That's not an answer. That's a perfect answer. That's a perfect answer. But it's a relevant theory. Which one? Because there are competing theories which are mutually exclusive. Which one, Tom? Which one doesn't matter? Which everyone makes the predictions is the right and the right. I'm unreasonable for saying that that an intelligent designer, let's go back. Let's go back to the argument. So your argument was that and your God that you believe. Name it. Name the one and tell me why you believe it. Because you always say quantum and hand wave. Quantum and hand wave. Because quantum fields exist. I don't care which interpretation of quantum. Like I don't study the Hawking interpretation and compare it to the Hartle interpretation. I don't care. That's a good explanation. I don't. I don't look at them. I don't care. Why do you invoke it? Why do you invoke quantum fields have been proven to exist? I just want to hand it back to you. Don't worry. So what you just said is an easy question. I don't know about the Hawking model or the Hartle model. I don't care. I know quantum field. Stop. Stop. I know quantum fields exist. Those have been proven in the Kazimier effect. So the quantum fields doing the generation is the model I accept because quantum fields have made novel testable predictions. Which particular interpretation of the quantum fields? I don't. I don't accept any of those because I don't care about any of those. Those haven't been proven. Quantum fields have been proven. Which other interpretation doesn't make a difference? But that's irrelevant. Kazimier effect. Google Kazimier effect. Google Kazimier effect. It's been tough in the lab. It's literally been proven. Yes. And none of it explains origins out of nothing. Separate, separate questions. So going back, wait, stop, stop, stop, stop. No, I'm not going to stop. You're saying. Getting off of the points. That's irrelevant. This is better than you've got to add. We'll give them just one second and then we'll hand it back. You are evoking things that you've had in ten minutes. No, you're invoking things. Yeah, I'm bragging about this quantum mechanics stuff that is irrelevant that you understand. I don't understand them. And then when I ask you for a specific example and why it works, you can't give it. I literally just gave you one. Kazimier effect. Novel predictions confirmed in a lab. Stop. I gave you an example. Kazimier effect. Predictions in a lab. Confirmed. That doesn't make sense. Even the technology does not. All right. Just one second there, Luke. Just to be fair, the debate topic for tonight is the case for creationism. So we are going to just try to keep it focused on that burden of proof and on those questions related to creation just because of the title of the debate. And I think we're kind of going in circles at this point. So let's try to get back to something before we get to the super chats. And I do want to let everybody know, just one second or two, I do want to let everybody know that we will be doing Q&A after our open discussion. So we're going to try to move into another point of discussion here. So or UT Jump and let you say where you're going to sit there. All right. So we were comparing different models of consciousness, panpsychism, chakras, sky daddy. And you said the sky daddy is better because of consciousness only comes from consciousness. There is no evidence that a consciousness has ever produced another consciousness, has never occurred. Biology has produced other consciousnesses through sexual reproduction, brains produced out of consciousness, never has a consciousness produced another consciousness that has not occurred. So there's no inductive evidence that consciousness comes from consciousness. Consciousness comes from biology and brains. So if I was going to say what's the better hypothesis of what explains consciousness, nationalism does, whatever. So your evidence of induction of consciousness coming from consciousness is false. It doesn't exist. But here's a bitter question. Where, when we follow induction, when should we go outside of induction? When should we doubt that the induction pattern is true? This is where evidence comes in. Like obviously, I agree, induction is good. We see past patterns and we continue forward patterns. Good evidence, induction is good evidence. When should we think that it's wrong? And the answer is when a model can make predictions about the future and get it right before we know it. So like, do you think that if you want to talk about predictions about the future? I mean, because we can go there if you want. Sure. But one second. So the time when we think induction is wrong is when a model makes predictions and gets them right consistently. So the reason we think that evolution is true is because evolution has made hundreds of thousands of predictions and got them all right. Creationism has made zero. And so that's why we think that even though I agree that we see dogs coming from dogs, that's all we've ever seen is dogs come from dogs. We think evolution is true is because it got predictions about DNA right and fossils right and geology right and time periods right and all kinds of things right that we didn't know yet. So it was able to predict things we didn't know got it right. That's why we think the fact that we see dogs coming from dogs is not good evidence, but evolution is good evidence. The same thing applies to consciousness. In the consensus in neurology, psychology, cognitive science, philosophy of mind is all that consciousness is a product of brains because that's the one that makes novel predictions and makes progress. And the consciousness is some other additional thing has never made successful predictions, which is why idealism is rejected and materialism is accepted. And so because testable predictions, that's why we would reject your consciousness hypothesis, which would be evidence for those other things, not your creator hypothesis. Okay. So there was a lot there. That's quite a bit. We're going to give you a minute and 30, I think there. That was about what we had. So go ahead. Sure. Sure. So I'll try and just answer two points that he said there because realistically, raising a question is quick and easy. Answering a question is difficult. So you said that that creationism makes no novel testable predictions. That's simply false. The majority of scientists throughout history, which we now stand on the shoulders of, studied science because they believe that there was a God or in some cases gods who made an ordered universe that can be studied as opposed to naturalism, which dictates that we came about as a result of random events and a lot of time. And in that case, there's no there's no reason to believe that number one, our brains can perceive things in a trustworthy way. And number two, that there's anything that will be consistently predictable and studyable. And then so moving then he mentioned about about predictions. So that one, you said creationism does make predictions. And then you said some scientists were creationists. Those aren't predictions. The fact that a scientist was a creationist isn't a prediction that creationism made. So for something to be a prediction of a hypothesis. That's not what I said. I said that creationists and theosendias of various stripes believed that there would be in ordered universe to study, which is literally how science started. So so that that prediction, that very first prediction, it's not a prediction based on. Yeah, it is. They already lived in an orderly universe, which they observed around them. That's something that's post hoc, not pre-diction, post-diction. And they predicted that it would continue to be because they believed that a creator had ordered the universe in a way that. Okay. Okay. So novel predictions. The way I thought, I wasn't done. So you mentioned you mentioned pieces of evidence. I mean, we can talk about Bible prophecy. There are some very specific Bible prophecies. There are just you just mentioned a piece of evidence. I wanted to talk about the prediction. So that's that's what I wanted to focus on. So like for something to count as evidence, like if I predict the sun is going to come to rise tomorrow, is that evidence of the spaghetti monster? Only if you have a reason to explain how the spaghetti monster correlates with the sun rising and you can answer is no. The answer is no, because everyone knows the sun is going to rise. If I'm predicting something everybody already knows, it's not evidence of a new hypothesis. Literally anyone could make up a reason to say unicorns exist. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow. Not evidence, right? You agree? Only if you correlate how unicorns dictate that it's going to happen. If you can show that the absence of them will make it not happen and they are going to make it happen, then sure, that would be evidence. But just I could make up some ad hoc reason to do that. It's just irrelevant. Making up. That's what I'm saying. I just said you have to prove with evidence that they are dependent on one another. Yeah. No. So it literally doesn't matter if I could make up a reason in my head of why that's the case. I could just make up reasons all day long. That's never evidence. It is never evidence to make up reasons. You have to present evidence as to why they are linked in a codependent fashion. Unless it wouldn't do that. Yeah, it wouldn't be evidence. It would just be a random claim that has. Right. Yes. Correct. So that's going back to the creationism thing. The fact that creationists predicted there would be an orderly universe when they were already living in an orderly universe doesn't mean it's evidence for the thing they just ad hocly made up and made up some reasons. There were elements of the orderly universe that they hadn't discovered that they believed would be there to be discovered because they believe that it was ordered by a creator. So things like atoms or the motion of planets or atoms were discovered by Boltzmann. Boltzmann was an atheist. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure there were scientists who were atheists in history, but the vast majority of them were theists. Yeah. The number of these believers or non-believers is irrelevant. I don't care who believed. What matters is the prediction. You need a hypothesis like the, like let's take neurology. Neurology predicted consciousness is a product of brains. If consciousness is a product of brains, we can scan their brain and predict what they're going to pick before they actually consciously pick it. We discovered that's correct. We discovered that's correct. That's a prediction that was made by the naturalist hypothesis. So you have a hypothesis, brains are physical. If brains are physical, here's something we would expect to see do a test discover it. What is an example of that for creationism? When did creationism ever say here is something we would expect to see? Because creationism is true, that we didn't already know that we discovered. Yeah. I think that, I mean, from a Christian worldview, you could say the existence of morality, you know, the existence of absolute morality would be something that we that we function, we society. We discovered that. Has that been tested in a lab somewhere? No, but, but so this, did we, did we know about it before the Bible? This is what I said. I think that the existence of, I said this literally in my introduction, I think there are elements of the existence of a creator that are best explored moving things like logic and philosophy rather than scientific, provable experiments. Okay. Remember, I was asking for a prediction, right? And so the thing for something to be a prediction is something we don't know yet and has been confirmed. So morality, we already knew about it. So, so we do know it. We knew it before the Christian and it hasn't been confirmed. So the two things we need, haven't known about it yet, confirmed. We need those two things for it to be a novel prediction. I think it is confirmed, but I see what you're saying from a scientific perspective. And I don't know, man, I haven't gone through a list of novel predictions, specifically made by scientists who approach science from a creationist perspective. I'm sure they're out there. You could Google them, but, but that's, I don't think that. I have. I have. I've checked all of them. None of them have ever made predictions that here's a creation, a hypothesis of creationism that entails something that we would discover that we discovered. It doesn't exist. I have Googled them. There are lots of creationists who've made like predictions about neurology or how the brain works and that was correct. But none of them were because they had a hypothesis, a creationist hypothesis that was able to make predictions. There's never been a creationist hypothesis. What do you mean by a creationist hypothesis? Give me an example of one and one is disqualified in one of the studies. Give me one of the studies. You just said you Googled some and why it is disqualified by a creationist hypothesis. Because it doesn't make predictions. So the reason they're disqualified is because they haven't made predictions. Give me a discovery. You said that you Googled many that were discovered by a creationist, but they were not discovered because that person first presupposed in action that would be caused by creation. So give me an example. So like Hubble discovered that the universe was receding or whatever, but that wasn't because he said God exists and God made the universe recede. Therefore, we would discover the universe was receding. He said it was because of we just made observations in a telescope. So like a novel prediction of creationist would be like, if I believed God was exist and God existed and created the universe, we would discover the Tower of Babel or something or something early on in the Bible. The global flood. Interesting that you should cite that. So for years, the very existence of Pontius Pilate was decried and doubted. And then the, I believe it's called the pilot stone was found in 1962. Let me just go to my notes here so that I'm not I'm not misquoting here. Well, there's like six pilots. No, but the existence of Pontius Pilate, which is now recognized to be historical fact, was established by the by the finding, I believe it was 1962 of the pilot stone. So I mean, yeah, a pillar in 1961, excuse me, was found prior to that, the historicity of the Bible in regards to Jesus was in question. Another example would be that's not a prediction. Again, that's not a prediction. We already knew he just expired. Literally just gave an example. I literally met that example with a fact that that's not a prediction. Yeah, we already knew he existed. He was there was not there's no debate. You just said if the Bible said that we would find the Tower of Babel or something else in the Bible, and then we would find it, that would be an example. People already knew Pontius Pilate existed. No, people. Yes. Yes. People doubts everything. That's not evidence. Like, no, no, I want people to see what just happened here. First, you tried to reason it away by saying, no, there were a lot of pilots, but we don't actually know that. Then, once you saw that you were wrong, you said, everyone knew that Pontius Pilate existed. So it doesn't count as evidence. This is ridiculous, man. You don't have the evidence. You just want to hand wave it away. Say big words like Chakra, Quantum Theory, are humans new? Did we already know humans existed? So, okay, so we'll go on. No, we didn't already know Pilate existed. What's human? Humans. If I saw a dog, do we know dogs exist? No, people, dude, there are people. Do we know dogs exist? No. What I'm saying is Pontius Pilate was someone who was not believed by many skeptics like yourselves before 1961 to have existed. He was counted because there were such sparse historical records of him as a weak point in the Christian message and the Christian belief. Then, when he was proven, those critics kind of got silenced. And now, you just tried to reason away from it, and now you're trying to rhetorically... That's not evidence. Again, you're predicting a thing that was already known, humans. A human existed with a name. I don't care. And then you said, it's not actually evidence. Yes, that's not evidence. Virus was prophesied by name in Isaiah 44. Oh my God, stop, stop, stop, stop. That's not evidence. If I said... You literally just... No, no, stop, stop. You didn't understand. You made a mistake. I'm just going to take a little loop. I'll let him clarify and then pull it back back. If I stop talking, stop talking, stop talking, stop talking. All right, just hold on. All right, that's it. We're open up our Zoom call. Sorry, Luke. We're going to let him ask a question. We're going to try to push the conversation back into the realm of creationism. Before we get into our super chats, I know that we've gone down a bit of a different path, and I apologize, everybody, if I'm a little bit tired tonight. I, like I said, I'm just in the middle of moving. So, T-Jump will let you ask your question, and then we'll get into a Q&A in about 10 minutes. So again, the example I gave was of a particular structure that's endemic to Christianity, like the Tower of Babel. It's only in Christianity. Actually, it's not, but let's say a pose it once. Pontius Pilate is a very common figure that there's tons of evidence of, lots of figures and lots of documents that show he existed. Independent of Christianity. That's not, that's not a prediction. There was a person named it. So it's like, if I read Spider-Man, like say we, 2000 years from now, I read Spider-Man and it said, oh, look, there's the Times Square station. And I go back and see the Times Square station. Is that evidence that Spider-Man exists? No, it's not. It's not a novel prediction. Novel means something we haven't seen before. We've seen tons of humans. The fact there's a human with this name I don't care about. The question is for something novel, like a new brain function or a soul or origin of the universe or some feature of physics or something. A guy named Pontius Pilate is not a prediction of the creator of the universe. I don't care. Tell me a novel testable prediction of a fact of the universe that we didn't know yet. Now just, there was a guy named Pontius Pilate. Oh God, amazing. I don't care. That's not a novel prediction. All right, we're going to wrap up that question. All right, Louie, if you want to come up the mute there and we'll try to steer back into conversation here about the case for creationism, make sure you hit the like button, everybody, and back to you, Luke. Yeah, can you guys hear me? Yes, Ken. Okay, cool. Yeah, so what T-Jump just did there is he gave an example of the Tower of Babel, and then he said, first he said, that is what I would count as proof, something historical that we could find through archaeology or some other science. I gave an example, and then he said, No, no, no, no, no, no, I'm not going to let you talk. Then he said, oh, actually, there were a lot of pilots and that wasn't found. Then he realized that he was wrong. Oh, actually, that doesn't count as evidence. Then he said, the Tower of Babel was the example I chose because it's unique to the Bible. Then he realized he was wrong and said, Oh, actually, it's not unique to the Bible. So that example wouldn't work. Dude, you can't even decide on what would count as evidence. So everything I said there was correct. Every single sentence I said there was correct. You didn't understand. Just one second there, T-Jump. We'll let him finish up. You got, I'll give you another 30 seconds there, and then we'll kick it back to you, T-Jump. And then we're soon going to get into Q&A because we're getting, I think, to the end of a road here. So we talked about how making predictions and pieces of evidence, knowing things that would happen before they happened, would be pieces of evidence. You said that early on in the debate. Then you brought up the archeological thing with the Tower of Babel Pontius pilot. You backed off of that. Now you're going to try and redefine that. I'm not going to let you do it. That's nonsense rhetoric and it doesn't work. But yeah, there were a lot of prophecies in the Bible. Cyrus was prophesied hundreds of years before he reigned by name. Daniel predicted the Babylon rise, the Medo-Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, Greece. Knew me again. I'm not coming back. Don't do it again. Don't do it again. Predicted these things hundreds of years before they happened. There were a lot of prophecies I could go through. Excuse me. But yeah, I mean, the Bible has a lot of prophecy that happened hundreds. Again, none of that is relevant to my point. They are relevant. So when I said a novel testable prediction, novel means new, something we don't know yet. Humans we know about. I literally gave you this example. If I said I saw a dog, that is not a novel prediction because we have past evidence of dogs. A guy named Pontius Pilant is not a novel prediction. And I explain this to you with the Spider-Man example. If I read Spider-Man in 2000 years and it says there is a times cross station and we go there and see it, that is not evidence of a guy swinging around with webs in New York City. Novel testable prediction means a fact about the universe. I gave you an example in neurology that if brains are physical, we will be able to look into your brain with an fMRI and know what you're going to choose before you do. We confirmed it. That's a great example. It's a fact about the universe we would expect to see under this hypothesis. That's true. So yes, there are many Pontius Pilates. Some people still doubt he exists. I was correct about all that. Yes, there are multiple hypotheses of Tower of Babel. I was correct about every single statement I said there. But the point that you completely missed was novel testable predictions. The novel part. I don't want a guy named Pontius Pilate. There are lots of humans. Humans were already known about. Give me something new. Unicorns, dragons. Those are predicted in the Bible. Okay. So none of the examples that you that you just gave hinge in their correctness on a belief of atheism or an exclusion of a creator. None of them. What a prediction. You would have to explain how any of the novel testable predictions of science hinge on rejecting a creator. That's irrelevant. That's irrelevant to a prediction. No. So so they're not. So they're not examples for no, they're just examples of the success of science. Many of those scientists were theists themselves. That's irrelevant. You have to show how your side hinges on the rejection of a creator. And secondly, I'd say probably knowing. So you're right. Just saying, oh, a dog did something is not novel or testable. But saying a dog is going to do this exact thing in this place. And then it happens. That is novel testable. The Bible has a lot of. And if you let me talk more than 20 seconds at a time, I could list off a bunch of those. Those have all been proven false. Like, but I don't care about those. So I want to stick on one point at a time. First, the point was about science and novel testable predictions. So what's key there is it has to be something we don't know yet. People we already know exist. Pontius Pilate, I mean, it's a human great job. We already know humans exist, not novel. Like predicting the sun is going to come rise tomorrow, not novel. The next thing you listed like times and places of things happening. Yeah, that would be novel. That would be great. All the ones in the Bible have been debunked. But it was another point you said that I forgot about. So so my examples would be like the brain, predictions of the brain confirmed. We got that right. Hundreds of thousands of predictions of evolution, hundreds of thousands of predictions of neurology. It's not about. Yeah, it was about the thing you said that it's not contingent on atheism or something that rejection. No, like when you said that, how is this only true if atheism is true or something? So you're you're using these discoveries as evidence of something science did that creationism couldn't do. I'm saying plenty of the very scientists who contributed to those discoveries were creationists. So you have to show how those discoveries exclude creationism. If creationism played into that discovery, you don't get to use it as an example. So that's the point I wanted to point to. So that's irrelevant. It's literally irrelevant. Who was creationism or not? Give me an example of something that was that was discovered and in a novel predictable way with the with the strict exclusion of a creator being involved. And that would be evidence. So I just did that. So for instance, I just did that. Consciousness is a product of the brain. If I said, if there is no God, if I said, if there is no God, this pen will fall. And then and and I show that the reason will be. Yes, I understood. I understood your point. Listen, we go back to my example. Listen carefully. Tell me if brains are physical, we will be able to use an fMRI to look at your brain and know what you're going to decide before you do. There's that would be. There literally is. We've proven this in a lab many, many times. Now, whether you believe it, I don't care if you believe it. That's not I'm not trying to make you believe it. I don't care. The point is, is this was a novel prediction that is contrary. Like it would this goes against creationism. Creationism think that consciousness is like the starting point of individuality or something and can't be determined by your physical states or whatever. And so this would be a contrary hypothesis to the creationist hypothesis. It's one of many, many examples. The second thing you said is I don't need to exclude creationism. That's you literally doesn't make a difference. I just need a model. So like there's a model of naturalism that all the only thing that exists is natural stuff. If this is true, we'll discover gravity is X or whatever. If we discover gravity is X, that would be evidence of naturalism. Even if it doesn't exclude God, because it doesn't need to exclude God at the exclusion of a creator. No. Otherwise it's not evidence for either side. If you just, if I just say, if I just say, hey, I think that this bubble is going to pop and it does indeed pop. That doesn't prove whether or not there's a creator. That just proves that my hypothesis about that bubble was correct. So I need what I would need to do to disprove a creator by popping that bubble is to explain if they're up. Sorry, guys. Can you still hear me? I got a little better. Yeah. Yeah, we still hear you. I would have to do is to explain if this bubble pops, it excludes a creator because of X, Y, and Z. And I'm going to show that it pops. And thus there cannot be a creator. That would be evidence just showing something that science discovered much of that science at the hands of theus and deus does not disprove a creator. Secondly, so two things there. One thing is that no, that's on your point that that that free will doesn't exist and a great decisions can be predicted with 100 percent accuracy. What that was irrelevant. I didn't make that point. So first thing, you're wrong. You do not need to exclude other hypotheses. This is a fact in philosophy known as the problem of undetermination. You can always post hoc explain any data to make it fit any hypothesis ever. So it's literally impossible to find a piece of data that is completely exclusionary to another hypothesis. Can't be done, literally can't be done. So like you could say all of the evidence we've discovered was created by a leprechaun and out of the universe was created by a leprechaun five seconds ago with just these memories or whatever. You can make any evidence you want fit any hypothesis with post hoc reasoning. You can never ever exclude another hypothesis. It's literally impossible. It's not how evidence works. It's discovery and you're crediting it to a worldview, to a belief. No, no. So if there is a prediction made by a worldview, so naturalism is true. If naturalism is true, we'll be able to look in brains and see what you're going to do or whatever. So if you have a hypothesis that makes a prediction and that prediction is discovered to be correct, it's novel has to be something we don't already know yet. It's like a bubble will pop. Anybody could predict that not novel. If it's a novel prediction that nobody else was expecting and is correct, that would be evidence of naturalism. Even if God could also explain it, post hoc doesn't matter. Anybody can post hoc explain anything. It's called the problem of undetermination. Therefore, evidence is simply the ability to predict new information before we discover it because not everybody can do that. So you don't need to exclude creationism, irrelevant. Also, whether or not creationists did work in a field doesn't mean that's evidence of creationism. Because again, you have to start with the hypothesis that God exists or a creator exists and then build from that hypothesis an expected conclusion. So if God exists. Which we can do. What would be the examples? Because I've seen zero. I just gave you a bunch. So there is biblical prophecy as an example. There's the existence of morality. There's the existence of morality we knew about already. We will there. No, no. But the existence of morality necessitates an ultimate source of morality. It does not. It does. Well, yeah. So I agree. It does necessitate an ultimate source of morality for objective morality. It just doesn't need a God. So, but again, something we already knew about, you can't claim that as evidence. Morality comes from. It comes from lots of things. It comes from platonic object, and a priori abstracts, law of the universe, and moral law. So this is what you do. You scatter shot out a bunch of random words and then you don't define any of them. This would be like, it could come from a lot. It could come from Zeus. It could come from Yahweh. It could come from Neptune. No, you need to define how it would come from any of those things. So I'm listing. When I do that, just to clarify. When I do that, I'm listing things that are well-established in philosophy that you can just Google because, like, if I'm lists colors, red, blue, yellow, green, I don't need to define what those are because these are well understood terms of the field. Yeah, give it to me. What? Ultimate source of morality. Go ahead. Platonic field, a priori abstracts, moral naturalism, any of those work. These lists, I don't need to explain that. It's a stupid question. Like, if I give you a list of colors and you ask me, well, why is that yellow? You can Google it on your own. This is well understood. That's not what I'm asking. Literally is. No. That's literally what... So a platonic object is a moral object. We're changing to something as an explanation. I'm asking you to show how it is in an explanation. That's not asking you to try to color yellow. That's asking you to show, if I say, each of these have different explanations that you can Google on your own. These are well established things. Wait, you're supposed to have the knowledge to present your viewpoint. So I'm saying the existence of absolute morality, which we both just agreed exists, is evidence for God. I can explain how that is on my side, if you want me to, but I'd like you to explain on your side. So again, the reason I list these things is they are well established and just show that you're ignorant of philosophy. Wait, stop, stop, stop. I could explain these. I could. I don't care to because it's not relevant to the point. You made a claim. It is relevant. You need morality for God. I just gave you a whole list. You hear a claim and you can't back it up. This is like the fourth time. I can back it up. It's just irrelevant to my point. I want to go back to my point. You have to find your claims. Oh my God. Stop talking. Stop talking. Stop talking. Stop talking. So that does matter. Stop talking. I don't care. So you made a claim. You need morality for God. I debunked that by giving you a whole list that you can all check on your own. See how they work. You can't just saying stop. Stop talking. Stop talking. If I give words that are defining your philosophy that are well defined in philosophy and you can find entire books about how they work just by going from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stop talking. And you can check out why they work. Just fine on your own. Well, explain it. Don't do it. I don't need to explain any of them. They're all well explained on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Shut up. Open things. Shut up. Explanation. Oh my God. All right. If we're just going to be cross talking. All right. Yeah. You guys are both muted for the stream. So like nobody can hear you right now because you're both cross talking. We're going to move into Q&A, everybody. Because I think we're coming up to an end pass. So we're going to let you guys generate the conversation. T-Jump has jumped out. So we're going to move over here while I fix up the screens. All right. All going to move over. So there we go. Got my screens all lined up here. And I'll get that all fixed up for you guys. But yes, do hit the like button. It's been really lively tonight. A little bit more lively than what I might have been expecting right off the bat. But here we are. It's been a lot of fun. And hopefully you've enjoyed as well. You know, it's always interesting. So let's see here. You too. Come on now. You'd be my friend, right? And you load up for me here. All right. Take it back, Eden. Welcome. I like that with this membership there. Thanks for those guys. Arcade Outpost says, Guys painting their nails black is so super cool in 1996 when Kraft came out. Let's see. I didn't read that one before, but it's fine. We'll continue on. Imagination Avenue for $5. What is your opinion on an AI running for president in the future? Third political party and secular humanist morality for details if necessary. And now I'm going to apologize once again everybody that I am tired. So I might be missing the bar here by thanking Luke for sticking around. I'm going to ask Luke, despite being the only person here, if it's all right to ask these questions and if he's cool to respond to them. Is that all right with you, Luke? Yeah, man. Yeah, yeah. I've got about half an hour. Call it till 10. If that's good. All right. Let's go through some of the super chats, guys. And if you have any other questions, pop them in there and maybe we'll get around to them if Luke's good with that. Imagination Avenue says, So the question about AI running for president in the future. Third political party and secular humanist morality for details if necessary. So I think he's saying or she is saying an AI kind of program for secular humanist morality. Is that kind of how you're interpreting that? Well, I'm not sure exactly what they're saying. Okay. Maybe if you want to clarify in the live chat, their imagination avenue, just to tag Ryan Thamad and the live chat. I'll just take a 10 second stab at it real quick. If they're saying an AI program to have secular humanist morality as its basis, running for a third party president. I mean, it's funny. I think we might get to a point where AI is our program to make policy. I wouldn't really like one that was operating on secular humanist morality because basically that would dictate survival of the fittest and those of us who are smarter, stronger or more successful could do anything we want to to anyone else because that's what Darwinian evolution and thus downstream of that secular humanist philosophy dictates. All right. Well, let's continue on here everybody. You keep the super chats coming in if you get any other questions or yeah, we'd love to see you putting new thoughts in there. You can also tag me in the live chat if you have any questions. Let's see here. Matters Now. I'm holding an after show for people with beautiful hair so Luke and Tom are invited to Matters Now to hang out. Hair not required from Ozy and from Overmatters Now. So there's gonna be an after show. This can be fun. LJ$1.99 says, has the Big Bang ever been scientifically repeated? Um, no. Can you guys still hear me? Yeah, we can still hear you. Cool, cool. And uh, yeah, yeah, on the Big Bang, I mean, you know, I had stuff I would say about T-Jump but I'm not gonna say those things because he's not here to answer or represent himself but I will say Atheist in general, as I said in my entry to this debate, they love to appeal to things smaller and further away which you can Google as T-Jump was saying, you can Google quantum theory, quantum tunneling, quantum fields. That's all it is guys is making things smaller and then extending time because as you get into things like plonks time, seconds become, you know, millions of years and things like that. All it is, is appealing smaller and further away for the origins of the universe. And you know, that's going off of the question. Yeah, it has never been observed or repeated again. But there's no answer for the smaller and further away problem. That's all that they can do and that's all that was done tonight. All right. Well, let's carry on there and thank you for your super chats. And yeah, like I said, keep them coming in. We want to try to generate a little bit of conversation before we wrap up if that's cool. But you know, I'm going to check into the live chat in just one second. So Samir Farsain says, if all golfers who were presented, sorry, if all golfers who were present testify someone had a 500-yard hole in one, would you dismiss their claim because it's unnatural and never seen before? I think that one was for T-Jump, but you can elaborate. Yeah, I mean, I think that was for T-Jump. But again, the only reason I'll reference him, like I said, I don't like debating people who aren't here, but I will reference this because the question did and because it is something that he said. So I think it's fair game to answer it. Yeah, I mean, look, he was saying something that I can only guess was predicated on the grand claims requires grand evidence type of thinking, but that's not true. You know, if I say I won the lottery, that is a grand claim. But if all I need is the evidence of my ticket, I don't need any type of grand special evidence for that. I don't need, it's like a one in a, what, 500 million chance that I won the lottery. But if I won, I won. And if even furthermore, if 500 people say, yeah, we saw his ticket and he won, that is good evidence that I won the lottery. It doesn't matter how grand the claim is. So, yeah, I mean, that's my thoughts on that general approach to the idea. And I think T-Jump and I just disagreed on whether or not that would be good evidence. And that's okay. All right, let's carry on there. I think we got a couple more here. Just looking into the live chat there, see if anybody's tagged any questions, and then I'll pop back into the super chats as I chew chew in your ears. Once again, everybody, if you're hanging out in the live chat, hit the like button. We appreciate it. Share it out in those spaces you like having these contentious conversations as well. You know, you never know, you never know when something's gonna really, really hit a sweet spot with an algorithm. Matters now for $5. Having the aftershows says, 5.53 million Germans died in World War II for their cause. And does that mean their cause was moral? 417,000 Americans died. Did that make their cause moral? No, I don't think either of us said that a cause would be made moral by people dying for it. I certainly never said that. I said that if a bunch of people claimed to observe something, and then they went through suffering, great suffering, and or death, because, specifically because of the claim that they observed that thing, and they all held fast to it, that would be good evidence and reason to at least consider, maybe they really did see what they claimed they saw or experienced. So I said nothing about the morality of it. That's a different discussion I'd welcome to have, but I don't really get the question as far as its relevance to the discussion. All right, you got it. So yeah, it looks like that would be the end of, let's see, we got one in the chat here. Let's just see. That's not really a question. Just one second there, Luke. I'm just going to comb a few just because I did all that. And hey, if it's personal stuff, I don't mind you. You can read anything. All right, so modern day debate. What's more likely? This one coming from one of our live chatter. So thank you so much, Mr. Kreenen. Modern day debate. What's more likely? Group psychosis or magic? Is that a question for you? No, it's a question. I said tag at modern day debate. So they're asking you what's more likely? Group psychosis or magic? Yeah, so group psychosis or group hallucinations are things that really scientifically we don't have examples of happening. There's like one or two examples of it being claimed to happen. But I don't know that it's ever been proved to happen. And however, I would grant that. Sure, is it a possibility? But what we do with evidence is we compile all the pieces and then we say what direction does it point? So for instance, real quick here, if my fingerprints are on a gun used for a murder, is that proof that I did it? No. But if my fingerprints are on the gun and my wife says I wasn't home that night and there's CCTV footage of me walking into the apartment where the murder happened, all of a sudden any single one of those things, we could say, well, does that really prove it? Well, is that really a slam dunk? No. And I don't think any single point that I made was a slam dunk. But I couldn't get through an answer without being interrupted. But I think that the points do stack up to point in a direction. And I think that that's how we tend to assess history and claims. So Mr. Creendon striking back, maybe Mr. Creendon, you want to get into our modern-day debate discord? I think you can find Luke in there and you can ask all kinds of questions. But let's see. He said, Luke, not true. I've studied the field. We have many well-documented instances of it. Oh, cool. All right, man. I mean, maybe post some links, shoot me some DMs. I'm always open to learn. Post them for people to see. Send them to me for me to see. That's fine. All right. Any closing thoughts for you, Luke, there? Give you up to a minute or so on the floor to give you thoughts and closing thoughts on the case for creation. Yeah, yeah. So I guess I'll just jump back to the little bit about a minute of my closing of my opening, if you will, that I just didn't get to finish. So I think we need to ask ourselves, does free will exist? Does intent exist? And does morality exist? I think that all three of those things necessitate a creator, which you could call a God, depending on which type of creator you're appealing to. I think the problem for Tom is that he acts as though morality and free will and intent does exist. In a debate on gun ownership, he spoke out in favor of minimizing gun violence. He said fascist governments are bad because it's wrong to kill people and not give them a fair trial. In a super straight debate against Vash, he said that he thinks that it ought to be the case that anything someone genuinely feels should be accepted by society. These are all statements of ought and what should be. And they presuppose things like free will, intent, and morality. And so I think that we need to keep that in mind. I think that the evidence, as I said, as you take it and parse it out into its pieces, does point towards a creator. And lastly, I'll just close by saying, I think unfortunately these debates tend to very quickly get down to the most narrow point of a funnel. And I think we should start up at the top. So the top might look like, can we know anything at all? Then after that might move down to, how do we know anything at all? So these are questions of like simulation theory, brain and avat theory. Then if we agree that we can know something and we presuppose our reality is in fact reality, then we can say, okay, what makes the most sense of the reality we experience? And then we can get down to a specific God and see which evidence is point in which direction. I think that's the best way to explore claims of any sort. And that's what I try to do. That's what I'd encourage anyone to try to do. All right. I think we'll wrap it up there. Actually, one other question from cheese is, I'll just answer it. You know, I don't mind when I'm making burgers to have Swiss and cheddar, just both stacked on top of each other. All right. There, that's for you. Thanks everybody for coming out to modern day debate. So yeah, we'll wrap it up there. Thanks Luke for coming out and sticking it out. So cheers everybody. We'll see.