 Hey everybody, today we are debating atheism versus Christianity and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. Going to be a big one tonight, it's a lot of fun folks, I am in a terrific mood because this is going to be extreme to the max, as Stevenstein would say. So I want to let you know it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up. In fact, you'll see at your bottom right a destiny versus vash in person in Los Angeles in one month. Also we have one that I thought it was going to be within the next 24 hours. Last night that's how I announced it. It's giving me another 24 hours. We're confirming one for this Friday that will knock your socks off, literally. So very excited folks. Also why don't you know, if you have a question during the discussion today, shoot that into the old live chat and if you tag me with an at modern day debate, that will make it easier for me to make sure I don't miss it. Also Super Chat's an option. If you want, you can do a Super Chat. It'll send your question to the top of the list or your comment as Super Chat will allow you to make a comment toward one of the speakers as well. If you'd be your kind selves, your kind, usual selves as we really appreciate the speakers for being here and speaking of the speakers want to let you know I put their links in the description. So like right down there, that little box, those links are waiting for you in case you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that. I want more. So with that, Duncan atheism, Michael, the Canadian atheist, we are thrilled to have you both here. Thanks for being with us tonight. Thanks for having us. Oh, thanks for inviting me. Absolutely. And with that, we will have roughly these kind of flexible eight to 10 minute opening statements. And so the speaker doesn't have to take that long if they don't want to. And what we'll do is Michael has issued the challenge to Duncan atheism. So Michael, if you're up for taking the lead, we will give you the first take. Otherwise, if you want to defer to Duncan, you can. It's irrelevant. You want me to go first? That's fine. Doesn't matter to me. OK, don't key. First, James, thanks so much for having me on. It's nice to be able to turn the favor you were on the podcast few weeks ago, and it was lots of fun. Everybody watching. Hey, how are you? My name is Michael. My name is actually spelt the way it looks on the screen. James didn't make a typing error. I blame my parents. So sit back, relax and toss James some super chat love down there and get your questions up. So I don't have full 10 minutes that I'm going to be reading off paper. So be patient with me. OK, here we go. In all affairs, it is healthy now and then to hang a question mark on things we've largely taken for granted. Bertrand Russell, do you think that unto you a maggot mind is starved fanatic crew? God gave a secret and denied it. Me, well, well, what matters it? Believe that to Ruby out of Omar Cayenne. I'm an atheist. There are two common definitions for this word. The first is from the standard dictionary. Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or God's seconds from the IEP, which is holding the position that no gods exist or that gods, in fact, do not exist. This is something that gets argued about a lot. And to be honest, I kind of don't care. Call yourself what you want and I'll address you accordingly. The discussion this evening is on Christianity versus atheism. Duncan is a presuppositional. The Duncan Darth Evolution, I don't know which palm I shall use this, is a presuppositional apologist. He's not the first one that I've spoken to. And yet, oddly, I'm still looking forward to this. Now, we all have some presuppositions. For example, I presuppose reality is real. My senses are reliable. There's an external world, external minds, I'm not a solipsist. I accept that these are grounded in my experiences. And it just so happens that my presuppositions appear to closely align with the guy named William Wayne Craig. He adds a God to this, but whatever. We can have presuppositions. This is not a problem. It's when we add things like gods to it that it becomes problematic. And not for the atheist or the agnostic, but for the believer. To assert a fact that not just a God exists, but a particular God. Because a believer of any stripe can do the same thing. So my God exists at priori, gets a Christian nowhere. Because if an assertion can be made to justify a God, it can be used to justify any God. This is where demonstrating your belief comes in. Wolfgang Pauli, a theoretical physicist, said, a justified true belief requires falsifiability. An unfalsifiable assertion or hypothesis isn't right. It isn't even wrong. I see presuppositionalism as perhaps the most dishonest apologetic ever formulated. Tag, or the transcendental argument for existence of God, also employs some presuppositionalism. It might be just as dishonest, I'm not sure. It's not a new thing. People have been regurgitating Bonson and Bontel for years, and I expect more of the same, maybe something spicy for them. So we look at the God claim. Credo qui absurde. It is by all means to be believed because it is absurd. Tertullarian, early church father from Decombe Christi, circa 203. I believe in God because of the impossibility of the contrary. And unless you start with a God of Scripture, your worldview is reduced to absurdity. Sighted in Bruggenkate, Matt Slick, Dustin Seegers, and many more. The claim itself is extraordinary. Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and like great Christopher Hitchens said, that which can be a surgery without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'm curious if Duncan will leave an attempt to offer evidence to justify his beliefs in a meaningful way. When we examine the God claim like any other, what do we get? Well, we get nothing. There's absolutely no objectively verifiable evidence that any gods exist. We have no way to test supernatural claims or to confirm supernatural causation. It is trivially easy to make an assertion. Anyone can assert pretty much anything. It seems to be what apologists are good at, that in asking endless questions to avoid having to justify anything themselves. Questions are good and fine, and there would be expected. It should be noted, and I'll admit this freely, that I'm not a genius. It is virtually inevitable that Duncan give it enough questions. We'll ask a question to which I do not know the answer. And it should be noted that my inability to answer a question of his is not evidence for his position. Sometimes, I don't know, is the only thing we can say honestly. To make an assertion is one thing. To demonstrate that your assertion is true is another. And further to that, it is also painfully easy to appeal to a standard that has not been established. I'm not going to let my interlocutor off easy. We don't need to determine which God we're talking about. I'm speaking with a Christian. This is a way bigger deal. If we are arguing about a deistic God, that would be one thing. I'd look at the evidence supporting the claim. But his argument is even harder than that. He doesn't have to demonstrate that a God exists. He has to demonstrate that his God exists. This is a big and specific claim. So why am I unconvinced that any God's little and the Christian one exists? Well, first, if we're talking about the God of Christianity, we must speak about the Bible. The book itself says in 2 Timothy 3 that all scripture is given by inspiration. There are so many outright falsehoods and contradictions in the Bible that if the God in the Bible is real, he's the moron. Mark 13 says that stars will fall from the sky. This is impossible. Genesis 1.6 talks about the firmament. No such thing. The sun standing still in the sky in Joshua 10. Not possible. Donkeys speaking in Numbers 22. Impossible. Snakes speaking in Genesis 3.1. Impossible. So what am I getting at here? What I'm getting at is that the Bible is completely unreliable and is not something that should be taken seriously. Second is the problem of evil and suffering. 1 John 4 says that God is love. 1 Corinthians 15 defines love as kind and patient. This leads to, I believe, contradictions, given the stories in 1 and 2 Samuel, the flood in Genesis, which we know didn't happen anywhere, but it's a story. Judges 11, the story of Jeb the, etc. The God of the Bible promises to keep you safe from all harm in Psalm 121. Jesus says that he will do anything that you ask of him in John 14. And yet look at all the suffering that we see today. I suspect that's simply tossed up as an explanation, but that's made up too. Third but not last is science and primarily evolution. Evolution is an undeniable fact of population genetics. It's cross confirmed by multiple disciplines, including biology, chemistry, genetics, geology, and more. All of these converge on the same conclusions. And what they do is they show that the stories of Genesis to be nothing more than fables written by people who didn't know anything about how the world actually works. I want to say again that I'm open to evidence, and I'm really curious as to whether we're going to see any. I look forward to Duncan making his arguments. I'm going to say that again. I look forward to Duncan making his arguments, not just a barrage of questions. I'm happy to answer questions, but I think it's important to state that he shouldn't need me to answer his questions to formulate his argument. Just in closing, I'll say that David Hube said, a wise person proportions his beliefs to the evidence. Let's all do that tonight. Thanks. Thank you very much, Michael. We will now switch it over for Duncan Atheism's opening statement. So Duncan, I have the clock set and the floor is all yours. Thanks for being here. Okay. You'll have to forgive me. I'm still recovering from a cold and may cough a little bit. Okay. My position is really just very simple. The God of the Bible exists because he has revealed himself in natural and special revelation. Anyone who denies that won't even have the grounds to affirm or deny anything. All facts necessarily indicate God, and God has spoken to various individuals throughout the course of human history, and it's been recorded sovereignly, inerently, and infallibly, and it is self-attesting. The only reason why somebody would reject that is because they would be reasoning from autonomous reasoning, which I will demonstrate tonight is simply fallacious. So that's all I have to say. You bet. Thanks so much. And now we will go into the open conversation. Want to let anybody who's watching out there know if you were on one of the other platforms other than YouTube. So for example, Twitter, Facebook, want to let you know YouTube's kind of our main hangout. And so feel free to kind of say hello over on YouTube. However, if you are on one of the other platforms, hello from YouTube. Hope you're doing well. And gentlemen, the floor is all yours. Okay. My question for you is you obviously reject that all of creation and the Christian scriptures indicate the God of the Bible exists. Is that correct? Here's a reference to that question. We're getting to an argument, right? I already, I did make my opening case. Do you reject that? That was your whole argument? Yeah. So there's a bunch of assertions in there. Can you back any of them up? Yeah, I pointed to God's revelation and natural and special revelation. You either recognize it for what it is or you don't accept it. Do you accept it? What revelations are those? Okay. All of creation, all facts necessarily indicate God because that's the way God is constructed in this world. And his special revelation, he has sovereignly caused over 40 different authors to write down his dealings with those individuals inherently and infallibly. And it presents us with a complete worldview, which is going to be required for intelligibility. The denial therein is going to result in metaphysical and epistemic collapse. So do you accept that? Sorry, you said infallibly. So you believe that the Bible is infallible and inerrant? Yes. Do you accept that Christian worldview? Have you read the Bible? Okay. Do you accept the Christian worldview? Clearly not. I'm an atheist. Have you read the Bible? Yes, I have. And I'm not going to let you walk all over me. So okay. You've read the Bible? Yes. Okay. Okay. And you think it's true? Well, I take the Bible as a complete package. There may be certain passages that I may not understand that may seem paradoxical, but I don't put the Bible together as piecemeal. I take it as a complete package and a complete model of reality without which, adopting and accepting, you won't have any position or foundation to speak intelligibly, even defending something as simple as the sky is blue. That's my position. Well, that's interesting because I don't accept that. And here we are talking intelligibly. Oh, well, that's because you live in God's world. What I'm referring to is you won't be able- Cool. Can you back that up? Okay. Well, may I finish please? Absolutely. And then back up your statement. My position is that given your frame of reference, you won't be able to make intelligible sense of propositions given your worldview. And that's categorically false because here I am doing it. You're not understanding. Okay. Oh, no, I understand perfectly. Well, the only way- Your completely baseless assertion doesn't work. So could you back up your assertions? All right. So your position is that I said something baseless. So in order for you to accept a belief, even foundational beliefs, they have to have a basis. Yeah, okay, sure. Okay, what would- Okay, given that you do not accept the revelation of the Christian God as a basis, but you do require a basis in order to believe things, including foundational beliefs, what will be your most foundational, excuse me, your foundational, irreducible, primary basis to believe anything? It's good. I guess I'd have to say reality interpreted through my senses. Okay. Is reality an abstraction or is it something concrete? It's reality. It's what is. Okay. Is it an abstract set? I'm sorry. I'm not going to follow the presuppositional script. Reality is, and to deny that reality simply is- Is it okay? It's ridiculous. Are you okay? Are you a monist? Uh, yes, I'm a monist. I believe that the mind is what the brain does. Yeah. No, that's not monism. Okay. That's one of the- Monism is that reality is just one, okay, rather than dualism, such as a creator, creature of distinction. So you're a monist, okay? So when you start from reality, right? What is it that's ultimate about reality as a foundational basis from which you derive any beliefs? What is ultimate? So I don't know- What is it that's ultimate when you talk about reality? You've got to let me answer the question. Oh, okay. So what I said was is I explained reality interpreted through my senses. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Sorry, I know exactly what you're looking for. You're looking for a specific answer to continue on with your script, but I'm not sure what you're actually looking for to carry forward the conversation. I'm also wondering when this line of questioning is going to get to your argument. Because I've already made the argument and you've rejected it. Cool, but can you back up that argument? I did. No, you didn't. Well, I know that you've evaluated that I didn't. Now, you told me, you've already rejected the line of reasoning that I presented, which is fine. You told me that you required a basis for deformed beliefs, and I ask you what was fundamental and irreducible. No, you told me. May I finish, please? I'm not going to let you say what I didn't say. No, because I'm not going to let you... You're right. May I finish, please? No, because I'm not going to let you... No, because I'm not going to let you... I'm not going to let you say what I didn't say. All right, I'll wait till you're stopped being rude and then I'll finish what I said. Hold on a second. Just to... So what we could do if we had to, we could do what we did with Sargon and Vosh. Was that Vosh? Well, I'm not the one that's having trouble interacting here. I'm not over talking. So if we have to go to two or three minute statements, we can. But otherwise, I think... Well, I'm trying to have a civil conversation, but I'm being constantly overspoken. What you did was, you said something I didn't say. You told me I required a foundation. I didn't tell you that. Don't be dishonest. Did you say that you need a basis for beliefs? No, you told me that. Okay, do you need a basis for beliefs? So now you're asking me the question? I thought you... I thought I told you that. I'm sorry, but don't be dishonest. In my notes, I wrote down here because I'm carefully writing down what you're saying. You stated... Hold on. Let me just read the notes here. Okay. You said we need to... That certain things are not established and they're not demonstrated. Is it your position in order to... When did I say that? May I finish, please? You said that in your opening statement. I took down notes. Now, since you reject the existence of God and you reject a Christian worldview, is it because they're not demonstrated and not established? So I didn't say what you said I said. So can you wrap up the question? Well, I wrote it down. I don't know who you were listening to when you said it. I was listening to you. Cool. I didn't say that. Okay, go ahead. Do you... Okay, if the Christian worldview and the Christian God were demonstrable and were basis was provided, would you believe in it? We wouldn't be having this discussion. Of course, that's a silly question. Okay, so you require a basis for all your beliefs? Do I require a basis for all my beliefs? No, I think what I did say was that I did have some axioms, some presuppositions like we all do. So there are some that I don't require. A basis for because we just... I mean, if you, like I said, if you deny reality is real, I don't know how you get out of bed in the morning. You still haven't explained what reality is. Is it the set of all entities? Reality is what is. I'm not going to follow your script. Reality is what it is. I don't know what that means. I'm asking you a legitimate philosophical description. Is reality the set of all entities? I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not huge into philosophy. Okay, it's really simple. Is reality just one thing or is it a set? I think, well, I think reality is everything. Okay, is it a set? Okay, is reality a set? Okay, so is reality just one or is it a set of many? I think you could say that within a reality there's lots of stuff. Okay, so it's an array of particulars then, the many, right? So it's not just... Lots of stuff. So when you refer to reality as a one, it's an abstract set of the many. No, it's reality. And then inside that reality is all kinds of stuff. Like where we're living and everything else. I'm not just going to follow your script. Is reality something concrete or abstract? Is it abstract, Shed? No, I'd say reality is. In my estimation, it's concrete. I could be wrong. I'm sure you could get a philosophy professor to continue. What I want to know is reality just one thing or is it one set composed of many particulars? I just answered that question. I don't know what the... I'm not hearing a clear answer. No, you're not hearing the answer you need, but I'll say it again. So what I said was is that reality is and that reality may be one thing with a bunch of stuff inside it. Okay, so reality is a set of particulars. It's a bunch of stuff in reality, sure. Okay, now are all the particulars in the set of reality that you reason from? Is there anything in there that is eternal and ultimate that provides for secondary things? I have no idea. So you don't know what's ultimate? No, well, I think if I think about it, I'd say I don't think there's anything inside of it or outside of it. Well, we don't know what's outside of it. Well, when I ask you, is anything ultimate? I mean, is there anything that is eternal and unconditionally non-dependent that provides for things that do begin to exist? I don't think we can say that anything is eternal. We don't know. We certainly don't know what's outside of our universe. No, no, I'm asking... Dude, you gotta let me finish. I wasn't finished. Sure, sure. So I don't think that anything can be eternal. I'm not even sure what that means. And it's interesting because... So you read books by guys like Lawrence Crouse who says, you know, I think most of the consensus is now. Well, not nearly the consensus, but the majority consensus is that the universe had a beginning. But now you've got guys like Sean Carroll saying the universe may not actually have had a beginning, so the universe might be eternal. But there's still kind of... That's not set. That there's no consensus in that yet. So the universe might be eternal. What's outside the universe? If you think you know what's outside the universe, then you're just making it up. So ultimate, I'd have to say... Maybe the universe, maybe reality. I don't know. So you don't know what, if anything, is ultimate that provides for all non-ultimate states? No, do you? Yes, I do. What is it? Okay, it's God. Okay, hang on. You asked me a series of questions. It doesn't question you. Yeah, I know. Okay, so I just want to make it clear. You don't know what is ultimate or irreducibly primary. Is that correct? No, and neither do you, although you think... Okay, since you don't know what is irreducibly primary, how are you capable of discerning what is possible and impossible? I'm able to discern things through my senses and how I interact with them. I didn't ask you that. I didn't ask you that question. Okay, ask me the question again. Since you have admitted, you do not know what is ultimate, foundational, and irreducibly primary. You stated earlier that there were certain things... You're not asking me the same question again. May I finish? May I finish, please? You're asking me a different question. You're being extremely rude. May I please finish? Ask me the same question. Okay, because yeah, because cutting me off repeatedly is not going to make you look good on YouTube. I don't care. Now, well, that's a shame. Okay, you stated that you don't know what is ultimate, foundational, or irreducibly primary, yet you stated that there were certain things that are possible. How are you able to determine and demarcate what is metaphysically possible and impossible? Okay, so this is the last question I'm going to answer, and then you're going to answer some. So I, in fact, didn't say that. You asked me a bunch of questions. You asked me how I knew what was possible, and I said my sense is interacting with the world around me. And when we were talking about what's ultimate, I said I didn't know, and I said maybe reality, maybe the universe. So when you talk about looking bad on YouTube, when you ask me questions, and I don't give you the answer you want, then you ask another question, because I didn't give you the answer you want. That just shows your dishonesty. So now what I'd like to do is ask- I'm taking notes here. Awesome. And I didn't hear a- I answered to my question. Everybody can roll back the tape. Would you not interrupt me, please? I'm trying to have a polite conversation with you. Cool. What is it in your mind that determines and demarcates what is possible and impossible? What is it that demarcates what's possible and impossible? Well, I mean, we know certain things. So you can't say everything is possible, because we know that there are some things that are impossible. So what's possible and impossible? I'm guessing- Well, I guess it's complicated. I think if somebody makes a statement x is possible, or x exists, or x is this thing, then we can maybe test it, see if we can demonstrate that thing, to know whether or not something actually is possible. Like, for example, one of my favorite YouTube counter-apologists, a guy named Aaron Rahou, I know most of you are familiar with, he said, for example, we can't say everything is possible, because you know some things are impossible. Like, we know that it is not possible for a cow to jump over the moon given physics and all that. How do you know that? How do you know that? Because, I was about- I was trying to explain it. Because we know that given the rotation of the earth, the rotation of the moon, in respect to the rotation of the moon, and the musculature structure that would be required, that it's physically not possible for an animal, I'm not finished yet, for an animal to jump over, you know, 200,000 kilometers and back. So now- So is it the- No, I'm not answering another question. Roger, I'm asking for clarification. So you're saying impossibility is demarcated by laws of physics? I think that example is. Okay, are laws of physics absolute and ultimate in themselves? One second. Well, it's not clear to me why there are laws of physics. Are laws of physics, are they absolute in and of themselves, or does something else secure them? Sorry, I turned my headphones on mute for a second there because I wasn't going to answer another question till you answered some of mine. Well, you said there's laws of physics, and I just don't- I'd need to know, is it they secure themselves, or that something else secures them? I don't know. Maybe you should ask a physicist that. So then you don't know- And there you go with more questions. Are you going to- Are you going to let me answer some- No, I was not making a question. I was not making a question. I was trying to make a statement, okay? Go ahead. Now, so if you don't know what, if anything, secures the chronology of the offense, then you do not know that something secures continuity, do you? No, I guess that again, that would be the question to ask a physicist. So you don't know that? So again, no more questions. You can answer some of mine now. Well, so you asserted, I'll be glad to answer your questions, but you asserted that impossibility is governed by laws of physics. If laws of physics- No, I gave an example. May I finish, please? Absolutely. Actually, no, you can't. You gave me an example of what is possible and impossible is governed by physics. Are physics ultimate and absolute in and of themselves or not? Duncan, I hate to interrupt, but just because I think originally, I mean, if we trace back, like maybe like several steps, I think Michael was explaining something and then I think you said you were asking him a question for clarification. And so- Well, he keeps on making assertions that he doesn't provide demonstration for, which is a violation of his criterion of belief that he said earlier. If I just want to let him go, because your question did kind of interject into like while he was explaining something, you asked for clarification. And so I was going to go back to him and making a statement if you feel like you've gotten clarification on that question. I haven't. All he's simply done is he's made a statement that physics demarcate what is possible and impossible. So then are physics ultimate and absolute? I said physics in that example. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm not answering another question. So physics, so let me make sure this is clear. So yeah, I agree with you. He is Lord of all. Your position is that what's possible and impossible is demarcated by physics. Do I understand you correctly? No, you don't. Okay. Could you tell me then what determines and demarcates what's possible and impossible? No, not to the answer some of my questions. Well, that question still has not been answered. I'll be glad to answer your question. How about we come back to that? Well, I'd like an answer to my question first. That was tough. How about we come back to that? How about you answer my question? You asked me a barrage of questions? No, I asked you a central question. It was my turn and I quoted it in my notes here. It was my turn! Can I finish? I'd like to finish, please. I know, but I'm being rude. I'm being very polite and cordial. Okay? I'm not the one who's interrupting. Hold on one second. Duncan, please, I'm not trying to be rude myself. It's just that I knew that you've got a lot of questions and that's fair. There's nothing wrong with that. Well, I haven't even got my one central question really answered. Well, it's just that there have been a number of them and so I want to give Michael a chance to ask them as well. If I can answer one question and then ask him a few, I'll answer any question he wants. Any one question he wants. Fire away. What is it that foundationally and primarily and ultimately demarcates what is possible and impossible? I don't know. Okay, go ahead. Ask your questions. So right at the beginning when you said you already gave your arguments, you said that the triune God exists. Do you have any way to demonstrate that claim? Yes, God's revelation. And what revelation is that? That he reveals himself in natural and special revelation in Christian scriptures. Can you give me an example of natural revelation? Any fact that you look at is a creative act of God and a sense a revelatory fact and all facts, not simply individually but collectively, would have to be indicative of God. Otherwise, you would not be able to have rational apprehension or intelligibility for a singular fact. That would be an example of natural revelation. That's a really cool solution. Okay, how about special revelation? Special revelation is when God has communicated with human beings, starting with Adam and other individuals through the course of human history, and he is, in addition to speaking with them, he has guided certain individuals for over 40 different authors sovereignly and providentially to write down the exact message that he intended for mankind to know, which we now have in the books of the Bible. So just for clarification, this whole, like, inspired, so the Bible that we have is exactly what this God wanted us to have? The Bible in the original autographs is the infallible inspired word of God, is the exact message down to the word that God intended. Do you speak either ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek? No. Or Aramaic? No. So you've never read it in the original autograph? You just read it in, what's your preferred version? KJV, NIV? New American Standard. Okay, so you just look at the Bible and say, well, this must be it because it's in the Bible? Well, I look at the Bible, not in piecemeal, but as a package in the worldview that it presents from Genesis to Revelation, and that one will either accept it as a package, as a whole, that it is the necessary worldview. It's the sign, quannan, of human intelligibility, that the God of the Bible, his characters, nature, his property set are the necessary prerequisites, including his revelation, ontologically that is, for human intelligibility. Either you accept that or you're going to have to have other ultimate grounds for intelligibility. So if you deny God's revelation, both in natural and special revelation, that the person of God himself is the ontological grounds, the ultimate and irreducible primary of human intelligibility, then you're not going to have any grounds for intelligibility, which you have admitted here tonight. When I ask you what it was that was ultimate and irreducibly primary, you said you don't know. Therefore, all of your assertions here tonight are baseless. Cool. So you accept the Bible like complete errors and contradictions and all? Okay. Well, there are certain contradictions that are alleged. I perused a number of the atheist websites that allege Bible contradictions, and every time I investigate them, it turns out that these are gross misrepresentations of either the Greek, the Hebrew, or the context. The bottom line. Those languages you don't speak, right? Those languages you don't speak? That's right. I don't speak it. Okay. Just just looking for clarification. So, okay. Wow. Okay. So where we start? Like there was like, you know, there was no Adam and Eve, right? Like, you know, that's completely not real, right? How would you, well, to answer you, I find it amazing that you could make an assertion when you have no ultimate grounds for affirmation and denial. Yeah, that's nice. But... Well, isn't that what you admitted to earlier? Okay. Do you have ultimate grounds to make any affirmations? Is this your checkmate because it's really unconvincing? Well, actually, no, I'm actually being very polite to you and I'm actually responding to you. Now, you told me a few minutes ago that you had no ultimate grounds for... I said I didn't know. Okay. So the ultimate nature of reality, the ultimate grounds, are unidentified. Therefore, you have no grounds for affirmation or denial. Yes, I do. Good. What are your ultimate grounds for affirmation and denial? The ability to interpret things through my senses. That's not what's ultimate. That would be secondary. Well, can you demonstrate this ultimate? You keep on talking about this ultimate and it's like super cool and stuff, but it would be way cooler if you could demonstrate this ultimate actually exists rather than just doing your pre-subcircle jerk like it does exist and thinking how stupid everybody else is because they don't accept the crap you did. So how about demonstrate your assertion? Well, first of all, to answer your question, I already did that in my opening statement. You rejected the revelation of the Christian God. Now, what I find curious is that you're talking about demonstrability as a viable concept. Can you please explain to me and to the YouTube audience how demonstrability is a viable concept when you have no ultimate foundation for anything? We mean when I don't know because I didn't say there wasn't. So you keep mischaracterizing my statements. It must be so frustrating for you having to flip back and forth in this script when I don't say what you need me to say. Okay. Does demonstrability need a basis? Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you tell me what you mean by that? Well, I'm referring to you. You said earlier you talked about demonstrability and that there have to be a basis for things. No, that's what you said earlier. No, I heard you say it. Okay. Cool. Everybody can rewind. Okay. So do you hold beliefs without basis? Well, yeah. In fact, that's something I did say before that I do have some presupposition, some axioms that most people do that we can't justify, but everything beyond that. Is that your most foundational beliefs? Are they unjustifiable? Are my most unfoundational beliefs... No, I said are your most foundational beliefs about what determines everything? Is that foundational belief demonstrable in your view? Well, like me, when I was talking about reality and my senses and stuff like that, is that what you referred to? No. When you invoke the concept of demonstrability, is your most foundational belief upon which demonstrability depends? Is that foundation of demonstrability demonstrable? So, like I said, when I was talking about the axioms, and you will likely root your axioms in God, that thing you can't demonstrate, my axioms, I accept that there are presuppositions. Okay. So are these foundational... I'm not finished yet. And you know very well that we can't justify presuppositions. Right? That's the whole presupp thing. Like you should know that really well. Presupps are amazing at not justifying. So, I think the most fair answer to your question is yes. Yes to what? To the question that you asked. So, your demonstrability and the basis for things, is there a foundational basis for it? That question doesn't make any sense. Like I said, what I went back to talking about reality. Well, let me rephrase the question. It's making sense to me. Since you're invoking the viability of justification and demonstrability, must there not be a ultimate grounds for demonstrability or is demonstrability based upon blind faith? See, keep going back to this ultimate thing. I've already told you I don't know. So, all of your beliefs finally derive from I don't know? No, I didn't say that. Okay. What do your beliefs finally and foundationally derive from? That depends what belief we're talking about. Well, I'm talking about all your beliefs. Are all my beliefs, I don't know. Absolutely not. Is there any singular belief that you have that is supported by what is foundational? What do you mean by foundational? Okay. What ultimately determines possibility and possible? I already told you I don't know anything about ultimate. You keep saying ultimate? Okay. All right. Let me rephrase a little bit differently. Do you have any, is there final grounds for determining what is possible and impossible? Now, earlier you talked about physics, but it wasn't clear to me. What I'm looking for is what is most foundational for all beliefs? Okay. Now, because if you don't have one irreducible primary, then what you're going to have is a system of chance, right? And that's going to be very problematic philosophically for you. Now, if you don't have an irreducible primary, then you can't have two or three or four ultimacies because that would be incoherent. So you told me you don't know what is ultimately foundational, right? So therefore, your beliefs do not foundationally and ultimately depend upon anything. So basically, what you're doing is you're violating your own principle. You said, you quoted, you quoted Christopher Hitchens saying that is stated without evidence, will be dismissed without evidence. Is there foundational and ultimate evidence foundationally for anything that you assert? Is there foundational? Is there foundational evidence for all secondary beliefs that you assert? It sounds like you have swapped out foundational for ultimate because I wouldn't tell you what you wanted with the word ultimate. Foundational ultimate that you can use either one, which everyone makes you happy. Then I guess what I'll do is I'll use foundational and I'll answer the same way I did with ultimate and I'll say I don't know. Okay. So all of your beliefs derived from I don't know? No, and I already answered that question too. Absolutely not. Okay. So all of your beliefs derived from what? Well, it depends what belief we're talking about. That's the second time I'm going to answer that question. I'm talking about foundationally. Okay. Again, foundationally or ultimately, I don't know. Is there, okay. So there's nothing ultimately that determines what is, what can be and what cannot be? I don't know how many times I can answer the same question. If you're talking about ultimately and you want to switch it for foundational because it doesn't, because I'm not saying what you need me to say. I don't know. And then to answer your question again, are all of my beliefs ultimately unknown? The answer to that is no, that would be the third time. Sorry. That's an assumption that you would ask that question. Well, you have a problem here. Okay. Just because you give proximate explanations or concentric contextual explanations won't suffice because the outermost contextual explanation, if it's not ultimate and foundational itself is going to require, as you said, evidence because you said that which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I want to know, I want to know from you, I want to know what is the foundational evidence? What is the irreducibly primary that all of your beliefs derive from? And you said you don't know. Therefore, your beliefs are ultimately foundationally and finally come from, I don't know. Do you realize that the problem you're in? Do I, see now you're doing what you did with Shannon Q. Do I realize? Don't be so condescending. Okay. So that's not condescending. That's a legitimate question. It wasn't even a question. It was a declarative statement. You said, do you understand? Was it declared a statement? Yeah. I know it was a question. So now you keep on swapping out this word. First, it's ultimate and it's foundational, all these other things. And I get it. I get it. It's hard when you have to go off script. But saying that I don't have any foundation for any of my beliefs is pure nonsense. And what's really funny is that when you say if evidence has to go back to this one ultimate thing, that's beautiful. You believe in this one ultimate thing. I would love for you to show some evidence for that one thing that you call ultimate. Okay. Well, I did that in my opening statement and you've categorized it. It was just more... May I finish, please? I didn't over talk you. Cool. I apologize. Go ahead. Okay. I did that in my opening short presentation, but you have categorically rejected. But you keep on making assertion about intelligibility and possibility and possibility. And when I ask you what ultimately grounds it, you say, I don't know. So all of your statements of possibility and impossibility are arbitrary. What's wrong with I don't know? Then your assertions are arbitrary. You are stating things without foundational evidence. And according to you, that which can be stated without evidence will be dismissed without evidence. So you are violating your own criterion of belief. First of all, that wasn't a criteria of belief. That was a quote. Okay. Do you stand by that? Do you stand by that quote? Um, most times I do. Okay. Does it... Okay. So what is your evidence for what is going to be foundational to any change of it? I'm talking about if you're going to assert... Okay. Let me try to express it a little different. Let me just get a drink of water real quick. Sure. Go run and find your script. Okay. Yeah. There's no reason for you to be rude like that. Okay. I'm being very polite with you. Cool. Okay. I mean, I don't see why you need to be that way. Um... I'm an atheist. I have no morals. Well, I would actually disagree with that. I would say that you do have morals, but you don't have any objective grounding for ethical imperatives or normativity. But that's another subject. I thought you needed to step away. Okay. Do you believe that... Or would you agree with me that a fact will either be unconditionally non-dependent or a fact will be dependent? Do you accept that? Um, a fact is a verifiable piece of data. I didn't ask you for a definition. I'm thinking out loud. A fact is a verifiable piece of data. Is it going to be either dependent or non-dependent? Um, I think that a fact would be dependent on what it's a fact of. I'm not sure if that answers your question. What do... All the facts that you have been speaking here tonight, all of the putative facts, what do they ultimately depend upon? You're going back to ultimate again. I don't know other than reality and my interacting with it. So when you assert facts without God, okay, you're inserting facts ultimately in an arbitrary fashion? No. Okay. What do they ultimately depend on then? Ultimately is meaningless in this. Okay. Because... No, it's not meaningless. Let me tell you why. This is a pen and I don't need your God to tell me it is. Okay. Good. Well, let's take that up. Okay. And that's a fact. Okay. Now, I didn't really get an answer to my question. Okay. The question was, do you accept that a fact is either unconditionally non-dependent and therefore ultimate or a fact in question will be derivative and dependent? Do you accept that statement? Well, I think I actually did answer that question. I said I think it would be dependent on what the fact was about. I don't think you're understanding the question. What I'm asking you is an example of the law of excluded middle. Something is either A or not A. Do you accept that? Something needs a... Yeah, this is either a pen or it's not a pen. Sure. Okay. Good. A fact is either unconditionally non-dependent or it is dependent. Do you accept that? Under that description, I guess a fact would be dependent, I think. No, I didn't ask you either or. I said a fact is either unconditionally non-dependent or a fact is dependent. That's a statement. Do you accept it? I'm not... Well, I'm not 100% sure that I do. Okay. All right. Let me explain what I'm going to do. Can I explain it to you? I'd like to explain to you. You're not understanding. You're not understanding. Okay. Fire away. I asked you, something is either A or it's not A. You accepted that. All I did was plug in some values and you're either not accepting or you're rejecting it, which would be a constradiction. When I take A, something's either A or not A. What I'm saying is a fact A is either unconditionally... A fact is unconditionally non-dependent. All right. Excuse me. A fact is unconditionally non-dependent or it's dependent. It's either A or not A. Do you accept that statement? I think what I would say is, yes, with a caveat. For example, this pen is real. That's a fact. What does it mean to be real? What I would say is it's dependent on reality. Okay. Do you accept the statement that a fact is either unconditionally non-dependent or it is dependent? Do you accept that? Yeah, I think I just did. Okay. So in order to have intelligibility, the viability, actuality, intelligibility for a dependent fact, it's going to have to derive from something. And if what it derived from itself is derivational, you're going to finally have to have any dependent fact ultimately and finally derive from something that is unconditionally non-dependent. If you reject that, then you have incoherency for dependent facts. Are we clear on that? We're totally clear on that. And what would be super awesome is when we, in a couple of steps, or maybe you'll say you're not... Do you accept what I just said? In a couple of steps, when we get there, what I'm going to do is ask you the question, so what is this ultimately dependent thing and you're going to say God? Okay. Do you accept what I just said? And it would be super awesome if you could for like finally demonstrate this thing. Okay. Yes, I accept what you said. Okay. So you accept it. So the viability and intelligibility of any dependent fact is going to be in virtue of what is unconditionally non-dependent. Otherwise, a putative fact and question will be unintelligible. Sure. Now, what is unconditionally non-dependent? Okay. So now, since you have... Answer my question. What's that? What's your question? What is unconditionally non-dependent? God. Proving. God has revealed himself in natural and special revelation. You've already rejected that now. Okay. Since you want proof. Does your assertion make it true? May I finish? No. What makes it true is the denial of it is impossible, which I will be glad to unpack for you. But so your position then is, okay, do you... So the viability and intelligibility of any dependent facts will only be in virtue of what is unconditionally non-dependent. You've already agreed to that. Sure. Do you have in mind what is ultimate and unconditionally non-dependent that will provide for the viability and intelligibility of any dependent facts that you speak? No. And neither do you. You only claim... Okay. So basically, you've just admitted that you have no grounds for intelligible facts. Did you hear what I said after I said no? Well, then that would also... That statement would also be officiated, because you just... Would that be... Did you make a factual statement? Another checkmate. See, the whole thing is... What's really funny is... You're ignoring what I just said. No, I'm going to get to it in a second. Well, no. I'm going to get to it in a second. Dude, listen to me. I've been very patient here. Dude. Yeah. And I'd like a little... Just a little bit of courtesy from you. All right? Now, you just stated that the viability and intelligibility of all dependent facts will be in virtue of what is unconditionally non-dependent, without which there could not be viability and intelligibility for any facts. You agreed to that. Okay? Are we clear? Super. All right. Good. Now, but you have been asserting a number of facts, derivational dependent facts, upon which you have admitted you have no identifiable, unconditionally non-dependent grounding or fact for. So by your own concession, you don't have any intelligible facts, do you? Yes, I do. Okay. Well, what is it that is unconditionally non-dependent that will provide for the viability of any dependent fact that you speak? We keep on going in this circle. It's a legitimate question. If you can't answer that... It's a legitimate circle. That's not my problem. So I don't know how many ways I can answer the same question. Foundational, ultimate, unconditionally non-dependent. You keep on trying to swap out these words and phrases to try to get to the fact or to try to get to your point that if I don't accept God, I can't accept anything. But with the unbelievable hubris that you display is because you accept God, you can explain everything. And I'm just going to go back to just demonstrate it. And if all you're going to say is I offered a demonstration of it and you rejected it, that's complete bullshit. Is demonstrability or when you say demonstrate it, okay? So when we talk about derivation, I mean... That's your God exists. May I finish please? That's your God exists. I haven't been over talking you. This is a first. Okay. Well, you've been over talking me much of the time here tonight. Cool. Okay. Now, you keep on talking about the concept of demonstrability. Can you have demonstrability and intelligibility for dependent and derivational facts when you have no identifiable primary fact that is unconditionally non-dependent? Can you have demonstrability without something being unconditionally non-dependent? Yes. I don't need your God to know that. Okay. I didn't ask you that question. That's what you're trying to get to. I didn't ask you that question. You said to me that a derivational fact, whatever it is, whether it's singular or in a chain, that if it doesn't derive from something that is unconditionally non-dependent, you said that it would be unintelligible and unviable. You said that. Okay. No, you said that. No, you said... Well, we'll repeat the question again. Okay. A fact will either be unconditionally non-dependent or a fact in question will be dependent. Okay. A, something's either A or not A. Do you accept that? We, yeah, for the ninth time. Okay. So if you invoke any dependent or derivational fact, whether it's singular or in a chain, either a single putative fact or a chain of fact will be unintelligible if it does not derive and demonstrated from something that is unconditionally non-dependent. It's funny at this point because you keep on going to the same damn thing without the ability to demonstrate. Do you accept that the viability of derivational facts requires that there be something unconditionally non-dependent? Can you have viability for a derivational fact that doesn't ultimately derive from anything? There's an ultimately, are we ultimately or foundationally? And again, it's just the same bullshit over and over again. I didn't hear an answer to my question. Did you need me? I said no. Okay. The answer is not clear to me. Let me repeat the question. Can you have viability and intelligibility for a derivational fact that does not derive from anything that is unconditionally non-dependent? Yes. Okay. So you could have. I know all kinds of things. So hold on a second. Without your God. I don't think you, I didn't mention God. Okay. What I'm talking about now is that you can have viability intelligibility. So is it coherent to say that there's a derivational fact that doesn't ultimately derive from anything non-dependent? Is that clear? There it is. There it is ultimately again. So, okay. For example, you're not, you're not answering my question. I am. This is a pen. Okay. And it doesn't, it doesn't need anything to be non-dependent. It's a pen. Okay. And your argument, and your argument for your, your argument for yours. That pen is non-dependent. I said it's dependent on reality. Nothing more. I don't need your God for this pen. Well, well, well, first of all. And like we talked about before. I understand. Did I mention, did I mention God to you? Damn God. Okay. Well, I already did and you rejected that. I want to see that. I want to see if the, your denial, your non-acceptance is coherent. Now, do you understand that if we say that there is a derivational fact that does not derive from anything unconditionally non-dependent, that is an incoherent notion. Are you aware of that? I'm aware that there you go again with those kinds of statements. So, no, because this is a pen and, and it is perfectly coherent. You're repeating the same thing again. You're not understanding the question. Just like you. It's amazing. This is a pen. Okay. And it's a pen even though you can't demonstrate your unconditional non-dependent, which you want to get around and you don't want to say it's a God, because you don't want to hook yourself in to any kind of a, any, any kind of a thing where you have to justify anything. But you're, what you really love doing is try to switch around the bird of proof and say, well, if you can't do this and you can't do that and demonstrate this and demonstrate that. And since the beginning, I don't even know how long we've been going on here. I don't have a timer anyway. All I've asked you to do is demonstrate that this thing exists. You haven't even attempted. You haven't attempted to show any evidence. All you've done is talk about the Bible, which we know is chock full of lies, bullshit and falsehoods. You've talked about special revelations through people, okay, hearing voices. That's cool. And you talk about this, this God that has revealed himself. Right? Your anecdotal evidence could not be, I'm sure that to you and other people that swallow this crap, it's really super convincing. But to everybody else, it's just hearsay. So my question to you is, do you have any capacity to actually demonstrate that the thing you believe exists, actually exists? Actually, I presented that in my opening statement and you, and you, okay. Well, did you just ask me a question? Go ahead. Okay. Okay. You, I demonstrated that in my opening statement and you rejected it. Now, what I find interesting is that you keep on talking about the concept of demonstrability. Okay. Can you have demonstrability for a dependent fact or a chain of dependent facts that doesn't foundationally depend upon something that's unconditionally non-dependent? Is that coherent? James, we can go to questions now. Well, I don't know how many times to answer the same question. Well, I'm asking you about the legitimacy of the concept of demonstrability. Does demonstrability rest upon an infinite regress of causal succession? Oh, now you go to this causal succession thing. Okay. So, again, this is a pen and I don't, I don't need. I ask you a metaphysical question. Whether or not you think? Is demonstrability in virtue of it? Listen, I'm asking you a legitimate philosophical question. You keep on invoking demonstrability as a viable concept without God. So, I'm going to take you at your word. Yeah, we don't need your God. I want you, I want you to demonstrate demonstration. Now, is demonstration in virtue of an infinite regress of causal succession or must demonstrability be rooted in something that is unconditionally non-dependent? Okay. So, here's my demonstration. Okay. I just demonstrated that a demonstration works, gravity, and I don't need your damn God to do it. No, you're not, you're not. Obviously, I don't, you know, maybe the question you're not understanding it. Okay. Is demonstrability in virtue of an infinite regress of causal succession? Are we in it? Are you asking if we're in an infinite regress of causality? I'm asking you demonstrability as a viable concept. Does demonstrability rely that a chain of derivational dependency stops at something that is unconditionally non-dependent? Or is demonstrability in virtue of an infinite regress of dependency? I don't know. So, you don't, you don't know what the grounds of demonstrability are? No, I know how to demonstrate things, and I know what it's like when somebody doesn't demonstrate things. You don't know how to demonstrate things because you just said, I don't know. We do have to go to Q&A pretty soon. Yeah. We can totally get there. Well, I asked you a very simple question. Is demonstrability in virtue of an infinite regress of causal relations? Listen, dude, I've been very polite to you. Almost the whole time you've been cutting me off, over talking to me, and you've been rude and obnoxious. And I don't appreciate it. Okay? And it doesn't make you look good. Okay? It doesn't make you look intelligent. Now, I asked you a simple question. Now, since you don't need God, can I just wrap this up, please? I don't need God. He can have the lost word. It's fine. I don't care. Okay. I have been cut off left and right. He's been doing most of the gibber jabbering here, and I've been very patient. So I'd like a little bit of shape. We'll give you the last, if you'd like the last word, I can give you the last word. Okay. That's fine. He keeps on talking about demonstrability that it's a viable concept. When I ask him, what is the basis or grounds of demonstrability? Is it in virtue that something that is derivational or dependent is in virtue of a chain ending, or I should say beginning in something that is unconditionally non-dependent, or does demonstrability derive its viability, intelligibility of an infinite regress? His answer was he didn't know. So he just admitted before the YouTube audience here that his concept of demonstrability without God is I don't know. So you just admitted that you have a concept of demonstrability and you have presented it without evidence. And according to Christopher Hitchens that you quoted, something asserted without evidence will be dismissed without evidence. So your Christopher Hitchens platitude rules you out. Cool. We can go to questions now, James. We're going to jump into the Q and A. So thanks so much, everybody, for your questions. We're going to fly through as many as we possibly can. Let's see. Appreciate it. And starting up with, let's see, none other than Andrew Handelsman. Thanks so much for your super chat. He said, I'm Obi-Wan DeGrasse Tyson. Thanks for that. Philip, Philip, my main man. Glad to see you. Philip, thanks for your question. They said, Duncan, if you're so passionate about proving atheism incoherent, why don't you settle it once and for all and publish a paper or book proving this? Well, that's already been done. That's called The Christian World View. Gee, I thought it was my question to answer. I guess mommy and daddy didn't teach you matters. Now, that paper, that book has actually been written. It's called The Bible, The Christian World View. The denial of the Christian World View results in absurdity. We saw it on here on full display tonight when Michael here kept on asking for demonstrability. But when I asked him what demonstrability depends on, I asked him to demonstrate that demonstrability is viable in virtue of what, and he says he doesn't know where demonstrability comes from. So it's called a reductio ad absurdum. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Next up, Michael Dresden says, LOL, a little trollish standard, but seen him before says, Michael literally read a script and no atheist in the chat said a word. Talk about atheist hypocrisy. Though they're coming at the, I don't know if it's more directed at Michael or the audience, Michael Dresden is up to it again. You can respond, Michael, if you'd like to. I don't know that it was a script. I mean, other than my opening, which was absolutely pre-written and everything else like that. I don't know that I ran a script, but hey, opinions like assholes, everybody has one. Gotcha. Thanks very much. Is that ultimately demonstrable, Michael? All right. Next up, hold on. We got to move just back into the conversation too soon. Thanks for your super chat. Stupid horror energy as she likes to call herself. Best name on the internet. Very sick. Very sick of the head. She says, an array implies strings. Reality is an object that contains values. I think this is for you, Duncan. Was there a question there? Sometimes, so for super chats, people will make statements in some cases. So we, hers was an array implies strings. Reality is an object that contains values. No. An array doesn't necessarily imply strings. An array that I was speaking of meant that we have a set of particulars, which may or may not be interrelated or interconnected. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your question. Timmy S, who said you should rename this the monologue channel. Good. Thank you very much. Next up, Snake was right. By the way, got to give a shout out to Snake was right who made the thumbnail for this debate thumbnail video. So yes, a very nice snake was right. Got some mad skills and asks Duncan atheism, if physics is limited, so is God. And thus there is no necessity for God. Could you repeat that again? You bet. They said, if physics is limited, so is God. And thus there is no necessity for God. Yeah, that's just inane. I don't know why it would follow that what is irreducibly primary that provides for dependency states would may mean that what is irreducibly primary would be dependent. That's a non sequitur. Gotcha. Let's see. Someone mentioned I'm clipping my mic. Does anybody know, Michael, you've been in the mic game a long time. Do you know what does it mean to clip your mic? Well, that's actually a new one on me. I'm just I'm an amateur. Gotcha. Everything sounds fine. Like I haven't heard anything bad. Gotcha. Thank you. Next up, okay, stupid horror energy strikes again. She's back. She says, how do you explain that there is no mountain from which one can see all the kingdoms of the world? So my guess is she's referring to maybe Matthew four where it says that Satan took Jesus up to the kind of the mountain or the cliff to see all the kingdoms of the world. That's just my guess, though. That's not she didn't say that. Does that make sense to you guys? So the question is she says because because there is no mountain that can see the kingdoms the world. So basically what she's saying is that Satan could not take Jesus to the top of some mountain and through his supernatural powers allow Jesus to visually apprehend the kingdoms of the world given that given that Satan within the Christian worldview possesses a plethora of supernatural powers that would not rule out that he could provide Jesus with visual appropriation of the kingdoms of the world. What she's simply doing is she's taking a naturalistic approach to the account. She's defanging it from the beginning and then debucking it, removing it from its own context. So what she said is what she said is incoherent. Next up, thanks so much and you guys were right. I was clipping. So my gain was like cranked up. So thanks for your patience. Next up, stupid horror energy strikes again. Here she is. Oh, no, wait. Jumping ahead. Saxie Calzone first. Thanks for your super chat. They said, how is the Youth Afro Dilemma a false dichotomy? Because all you need to do to dispel a false dichotomy is offer a third possibility. This is an old canard, William Lane Craig himself, having to earn PhD is one of philosophy and theology has discussed this much in the time that what we call good resides in God's eternal character and nature, not merely what God says. So when we speak of God, we always will speaking in terms of an analogy or an analog. So if we say God is good, God is love, God is just, or for that matter, if we say such and such is good, ultimately it will be reflective and conform and cohere to the character of God. So I wish the atheist would grow up, grow a brain, and just it's tiresome hearing the same old Youth Afro Dilemma over and over again when it has been easily debunked. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up, appreciate it. We have a question from Philip. Appreciate your super chat. Asked, hey Duncan, how do you guarantee God's truthfulness if you cannot read his mind? How can I not repeat? Because God's truthfulness, me knowing it, is secured by God's omnipotence and his omniscience. If that is not accepted, then you will have no coherent world view to speak from. It's a reductio out absurdum. I'm surprised you didn't go to tell us the tightest one that says God can't lie. That would have been easier. Next up, appreciate your super chat. From Snake was right. Thanks so much. Asked, Duncan, how can God be the grounding of reality when he is limited in what his nature can be? Why must God make sense? It's outside him. Yeah, that's just a bizarre question. Maybe you might want to reformulate the question in an intelligent way that's understandable and put in the question again. Let's see. Maybe I read it wrong though. He said, how can God be the grounding of reality when he's limited in what his nature can be? So I think they may be mean like... Well, the fact that God, for example, cannot lie, things like that, God cannot cease to exist, none of that is problematic or a defeated that God is the irreducible primary. When we talk about God as the ground of all existence, we're saying God is ultimate. He's unconditionally non-dependent and he's irreducibly primary. The fact that he does not have certain attributes, such as the capacity to lie or to do evil, it's not a defeater for him being irreducibly primary. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Ronald Mandanka, thanks for your super chat. Asked, Duncan, there are lots of unbelievers out here just starving for some evidence. Please provide some not beliefs or worldviews, actual evidence. Okay. Actually, I gave it in my opening statement, but that was rejected. But you want to continue to maintain that evidence and like Michael here, that demonstrability is viable. But as we have seen here tonight, the atheist position has no grounds for demonstrability, yet he wants to present that demonstrability is viable. What he is asking, what is at the root of demonstrability? Is it something that is unconditionally non-dependent or is it just simply an infinite regress? And he said he did know. So the atheist position that Michael has presented here tonight is demonstrability is derived and based upon. I don't know. So his concept of demonstrability is simply vacuous. Gotcha. Next up. Lene Lene too. Thanks so much for your generous super chat. Really appreciate it. They said question for both. What is the principle that if you believe something, that you acknowledge that you believe it? So I think that I don't understand the question. I think it's referring to your maybe the presuppositional approach. So they're saying, what is the principle that if you believe something that you acknowledge that you believe it? I think they're maybe saying like, what is the principle that if you believe you? Maybe let's see. So let me maybe this will help. There's more. They said for Duncan, do you believe that the world is rational? So maybe do either of you understand where it says, what is the principle that if you believe something that you acknowledge that you believe it? Does do either of you know what that like kind of I don't have the foggiest idea of what that wording is supposed to mean. Do I believe that the world is rationally apprehendable? Yeah, the world is only rationally apprehendable because that which is irreducibly primary and ultimate is rationally named, namely God. If somebody rejects that position, excuse me, if somebody rejects that position as Michael here tied, then they're going to be in an, an authentical bind that rationality is produced by your rationality. Gotcha. Michael, you can respond as well. Um, yeah, the question, maybe I'm just tired, didn't make a ton of sense to me either. I guess if we're going back to the axioms like our presuppositions, I'm not sure how we would like I said, I, I kind of accept that they can't be justified. So everything you say is on just one second. It's not too much before we go further down that path. Well, they admitted that in the super chat, the person did clarify, they said, in, in caps, do you tell the truth? And so they, I think that was to clarify the question of what is the principle that if you believe the principle that if you believe something that you acknowledge that you believe it. I'm only thinking that. Yeah, you know what, these unintelligible questions you should just skip by. Okay. A lot of times when people utter unintelligibility, they think it makes sense. I mean, we heard, you know, Michael here tonight say that, that demonstrability is intelligible, but he admitted that he has no identifiable basis to demonstrate that demonstrability is viable or intelligible. Next up. So I actually, James, just one second. So I, the clarification actually kind of helped a little bit. Do you tell the truth? I do my best to be honest. I think, yeah, I wouldn't say the same for apologists. I think some apologists know their line. Can I make a brief comment on that? The problem, the problem with Michael saying that he tells the truth, his worldview doesn't provide for normativity about how we ought to form beliefs, including propositions that are truth bearers. So he has no objective criterion of how beliefs ought to be formed. Therefore, he has no basis for, for propositions being truth bearers. That's why atheism is incoherent. Next up. Appreciate yours. Do you have an objective normative grounds for how beliefs ought to be formed, Michael? Sorry, is this foundational or ultimate? Which one are we going with? Well, those words are used interchangeably. Do you have, do you have ultimate or foundational grounds for how beliefs ought to be formed that are objective and not subjective? I mean, ought to be formed. That doesn't make any sense. Okay. Well, in order to, in order to be formed, yeah. Okay. Let me just make a comment here because maybe you don't understand. In order to make true claims that, that, that, well, I'm sorry. It's not my problem that you don't understand. If you, if you get into a debate and a topic that you're not familiar with, that's not my problem. Just answer. That's the question. Okay. So if you're, if you're going to say, say that you can have true beliefs, then you must have grounds of how a normative grounds about how beliefs ought to be formed and, and held, but your worldview doesn't provide for normativity. We have to keep this short and pity dunking. You don't, you don't get an ought from an is in your, so your, your position of true claims is thank you. Gotta keep going with the question and answer. Go ahead, James. Just fine. Subtracted. Thanks for your super chat question. They asked, if God is all knowing and has access to all of the ultimacy of reality, when in fact you don't have access to his omniscience, how can you ground reality? So I think they're saying like, they're saying like even granting that God's omniscient, if you don't know that he's omniscient, how do you ground reality? I think that's, Oh, that's, that's, that's easy. All we, all we have to do is have the God of the Bible and his property set, which includes his omniscience, omnipotence, and his, excuse me, his omniscience, omnipotence, and always truth revealing by which he secures that we can know certain things about this world and about himself that he makes us not be wrong about. Okay. If you, if you, if you deny that, then you're not going to have any grounds to make dependency statements. Like we've seen here tonight with Michael, he admitted he has no grounds to say anything, ultimately. He says he doesn't know. I think you can't back any of this up. It's so convenient. Your worldview doesn't provide for demonstrability. Yeah, it does. But good. Okay, good. Okay. Demonstrability is just rooted in something that is untidiously not dependent. We can't, we can't do, we gotta, You keep on talking about demonstrability, but you don't have any grounds for demonstrability. You gotta go into the questions, Duncan, please. Gotta go into the questions. Matt McHugh, thanks for your question. Asked for Duncan, if a Christian receives special revelation from God that you require, that requires you to come to physical harm, would you accept that commandment from God? I'm sorry. I'm coughing because I'm not feeling well. What did you, what could you repeat it please? No problem. They said, if a Christian received special revelation from God that required you to physically harm someone, would you accept that commandment from God? Well, I'm a cessationist. I believe God completed his revelation with Jesus Christ and the Bible. Gotcha. So, thank you very much. Next up, Ronald Medanke, I think for your question, they said the Bible is evidence that people wrote one religious book. Think that's for you, Duncan? Well, if that's your position and it's nothing more than you're rejecting the Christian worldview, then you're going to have to explain what is the, what is irreducibly primary in existence that is going to provide for truth and reason and demonstrability for that matter, okay? You're not going to have one and we saw that unfold display here. Michael said he doesn't have any grounding ultimately for demonstrability. So that's the dilemma you're going to be in. Next up, stupid horror energy. Thanks for your super chat, yes. For Duncan, how are things like radioactive decay, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, virtual particle pairs, et cetera, conditionally dependent? Well, everything that is not irreducibly primary and ultimate, such as God, will be dependent and derivational unless they want to claim that something else is unconditionally non-dependent. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. Mr. Cook Jr. said Darth versus Jack for $500. Don't be a niny, man up. A niny, I haven't heard that one in a while. Who's Jack? Is that like your, it's like a long lost brother? No, he's just some drain stalker. Gotcha. Everybody's peeking in a Duncan atheism's windows. Nasty stuff. Steven Steen. All right. Next up, Harley Quinn. Thanks for your super chat. They asked Duncan, how did you verify that your revelation was truly from your God? And did you employ this method before or after your exposure to Christianity? Well, verification or demonstrability is an epistemological question and is directly connected to your model of reality and ontology. They're reciprocal, they're related to each other. So the only grounds by which I can know anything is ontological grounds, which is the God of the Bible, his attributes and property set and his plan of human history, whereby he constructs the world in such a way that mankind can know some things that we cannot be wrong about and that he can know to the extent that we encounter his special revelation and we read it in the plain language that we speak in that we will see and know because of the package itself is undeniable, that if we deny the worldview that the Bible presents, then we will be plunged into a bottomless pit of unintelligibility, which we saw here tonight with Michael. He has admitted that he has no ultimate grounds to assert anything. Yeah, I said I didn't know. That's right. You have no identifiable foundation upon which dependent facts derive. Next up, thanks for your super chat question from... Well, I'm quoting you accurately, Michael. Harley Quinn asked, Duncan, how did you verify that your revelation... Oh, wait, hold on. So they also asked at the end of theirs, they said, how have you effectively ruled out any bias, Duncan atheism? How have I ruled out bias? Regarding your... What that means. Well, no, they're saying regarding when you did verify that your revelation was truly from your God. Well, first of all, there is no such thing as neutrality. This is an absolute myth. Anybody who claims that they either are or could be neutral is easily debunked. Gotcha. Everybody is operating from an ultimate commitment. Everybody is when we speak. Every predication we make, every punitive fact is going to be dependent and derived from whatever we consider to be ultimate or irreducibly primary. The God of the Bible and his revelation is what I hold to as irreducibly primary from which all derivational things come from. Michael's world deal, on the other hand, he has no identifiable foundation for anything that he asserts, yet he claims demonstrability. And when asked what is the grounds of demonstrability, he says, I don't know. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your super chat stupid horror energy who says James runs these debates bottomless, nasty, nasty lady. John Robertson. Thanks for your super chat. John asks Michael, does reality provide an independent, unconditional foundation from which you derive all your facts or beliefs? Can you repeat the question, James? You bet. They said, does reality provide an independent, unconditional foundation from which you derive all your facts or beliefs? I wouldn't say it's unconditional because I exist within reality, but if something happened in my brain, for example, and I wasn't able to interpret reality correctly, then that would impact my ability to interpret reality. I'm not sure if that answers the question. You didn't understand the question. Well, I know Duncan wasn't for you. Okay. Next up, appreciate your question from Dan, the machine. Thanks for your question. They said, I used to be impressed with the more Duncan talks, the worse he sounds. Michael said it. God is presupposed the same way reality is. Duncan is disingenuous. Dan, the machine is coming at you, Duncan. Ouch. I'm going to lose sleep tonight. Gotcha. Appreciate it. You're going to be a waltz. Just pray for it. Maybe God will help you sleep. Subtracted, thanks for your super chat. They asked, hey, Darth, can you demonstrate that all of reality can be known? Can I demonstrate that all of reality is known? Yeah, God himself, who is the omniscient one, has revealed in an infallible way that he has exhausted knowledge of everything. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Cody Davis, thanks for your super chat question. Said, Darth, would I need to have a God to, then they hand capital letters say, can I finish, please? I have been polite and you've been rude. So I think that they're teasing you there, Duncan. Well, I think it was a very accurate description of Michael's bad behavior tonight. I was a horrible human being. No, I didn't say you were horrible, but you were behaved very badly. Oh, I was a horrible human being. Oh, I didn't say that. Appreciate it. I'll self-flatulate myself later. Next. Let's see. Next up, thanks for your super chat, Robert. Robert Liskam. Philosophy is a tool for people who can't argue. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Duncan. Well, I'm sorry. I don't smoke. I don't drink, so I can't help you. Gotcha. Thanks very much. Stagnu de Morte. I hope I'm saying that right. Let me know if I'm not. Thanks so much. They said, Duncan, can you actually demonstrate a God? And no, you haven't. Your opening only made unsubstantiated claims. Thank you. Okay. So since you have rejected the demonstration of the God who is the ground of demonstration, then you have no ultimate grounds that demonstrability is a viable concept. And we saw that unfold display here tonight when Michael was asked, what is it, what is the grounds of demonstrability? Is it something that is unconditionally non-dependent that provides for all derivational states and hence demonstrability? Or is it an infinite regress? And he says, well, I don't know. So he basically admitted, I don't know is what is behind his concept of demonstrability, which quite embarrassing answer on his behalf. Just put that on a feedback loop. So you just hit a button every time. So you don't have to keep saying it. Well, I think it's good to repeat it and reinforce to show how incoherent your position is. Well, too bad you couldn't. Next up. Appreciate your super chat from the undead Christian. Ask for Michael. There is no physical evidence that shows atheism is true. So why do you think atheism is true? So the statement atheism is true or not true is weird in and of itself, because atheism is the statement that another claim either isn't accepted or isn't true. So I'm an atheist. Therefore, atheism is true. Okay, Michael, is theism true? You're a theist. So, so, so theism is true as well. Yeah. Okay. So, so I want the audience to hear this. So are you asserting then that both atheism and theism are true, Michael? Their, their, their statements about beliefs, they're, they don't encompass all of the evidence that goes along with them. But that's a nice try. So atheism and theism are simply an only autobiographical statement and don't have external propositional content, Michael. Oh, my God. Next. Next. That was a legitimate question, Michael. Can you answer it? Go on to the next question. So you're incapable of answering the question. For a second. We got to get to more. I'm not surprised. We got to get through this stupid horror energy. Thanks for your super chat questions. She says, how do you respond to the two most powerful arguments for atheism, such as the problem of evil and the arguments from divine hiddenness? Okay, well, the concept of divine hiddenness is presupposing that individual and collective facts do not necessitate reference referencing God. Okay. That, that's a claim that is unsupported. If you say that nothing is evidence for God, you're going to have to explain how you determine that. If you're going to say that evil is a problem, you're also claiming that you are using reason to see that there's some type of a problem. How do you secure that there's a law of non-contradiction in your God free world in order to use the so-called problem of evil as a club? You, you couldn't, you, you couldn't even start your engines there. You're going, you're going to have to show that there's a law of non-contradiction and that there's grounds for reason from a metaphysical foundational point of view. Gotcha. Next up. Appreciate your super chat question from subtracted. How did you know God's revelation is infallible? The, the revelation that we refer to in the Christian scriptures, in addition to natural revelation, it is self attesting and self authenticating. Now, when this is stated, the unbeliever will reject that. But the reason why they do is because they're blinded by their own autonomy of reasoning, which means that the mind of man determines the nature of reality and provides what the nature of reality is thereby placing facts in the relationship between facts. If you're operating from autonomous reasoning, then you will be blinded to the actual self attesting nature of the scriptures. And if you hold to autonomous reasoning, it is ultimately and finally self refuting because as we saw here on full display tonight, when I asked what is the foundational grounds of existence, what is irreducibly primary, Michael himself says, I don't know. Got you. Gotta get that button going. Next up. Last super chat. John Wayne, thanks for your super chat question. Ask Michael, how do you know you are interpreting reality correctly? I interpret reality through my senses. I can't prove that I'm not a brain in a bat. I can't prove that, you know, those types of things. But I do have the ability to confer with other people. And they can, I mean, this is what we do sometimes with people who have serious mental health disorders, right? They're not in, they may not be interpreting the world correctly. And there are people in places for them to get help. So ultimately, sorry, I shouldn't use that word. But I guess I can't prove it, but I rely on my senses and input from others. So you believe things in violating your own criteria? We have to go to the next question. Thanks so much. We appreciate it. Michael has issued this challenge to Darth Dawkins and Darth Dawkins has accepted. We can ask maybe like one or two more questions of the standard questions just because we are definitely past time. But thanks so much, Darius Dark Shadow for your question. They said I want to ask Michael if he has ever encountered Leibniz's cosmological argument. Not familiar with that one. I'm familiar with Cologne, but not the other one. Gotcha. Thanks so much. And maybe one more. It's hard to resist. Sorry. Adam does S.E. Thanks for your question. They said they asked if Yahweh wasn't true and a true God was making Duncan believe Yahweh was true. How would Duncan figure this out? This is kind of like Descartes' Evil Demon, but kind of like a meta Descartes' Evil Demon with Christianity enclosed within it. He said could he and then they said the real God has sufficient reasons to trick Duncan. Well, then then in that scenario, you wouldn't have any grounds whatsoever for intelligibility even to ask the question. That's why the Christian worldview is the only coherent worldview because the God of the Bible not only has the requisite properties and attributes for intelligibility, the denial thereof renders one completely unintelligible. So it's through a reductio ad absurdum. Deny the Christian worldview and your position will be reduced to absurdity. As we have seen here on full display tonight, Michael's position has been reduced to absurdity. Next up. Thanks so much for everybody's questions. I wish we could get through more. We've just got a lot. We've had a lot, but okay. Pepper talks. Thanks for your question. They asked question for Duncan atheism. What do you mean by quote set of particulars and quote ultimate and irreducibly primary? Well, when I say irreducibly primary, that's just another way of saying what is ultimate or unconditionally non dependent that provides for all dependent or derivational states. When I talk about particulars, we talk about this world. If we're going to speak meaningfully and intelligibly about our world, we're going to have to talk about we're going to have to talk about unity and diversity, the diversity would represent the particulars. The unity would be those universals are classes of things that intelligibly provide us with the ability to differentiate the particulars and to know that particulars are similar or not. In an atheist worldview, one cannot solve the problem is if reality is simply one or the many that cannot derive universals in order to differentiate particulars. As we saw unfold display here tonight with Michael's worldview. Next up. Appreciate it, everybody. We've got one last question for giving you. Thanks for your patience. None righteous but one. Thanks for your question from Michael. Aren't we essentially biological protoplasm that doesn't essentially matter in any realm? But here we are arguing for reason, evidence, logic, ethics, morality, etc. What really sucks to think that you don't matter. Of course we do. We are banks of protoplasm. It's such a gross oversimplification where animals were apes and we give our lives meaning. But it really sucks that you think you don't necessarily have any meaning. Well, do you ultimately know that? Next up. Thanks everybody for being here. It's been a fun one as always. We appreciate Michael reaching out to call out Duncan to say, Hey, Duncan, let's get in the ring. So it's been a lot of fun, folks. Like I said, if you were at one of our other platforms, YouTube's our main hangout. But absolutely, if you're at D live or anywhere else, hope you're having a great night. It's always fun. Want to let you know as well, the speaker's links are in the description box right down there, folks. Before we sign off, I just want to thank you for the third debate and inviting me. Really appreciate that. But just one simple request. The next time around, can you pick a guest who's at least prepared? I know it's coming up. It's a backhanded little insult to Michael. Next. Well, sorry, I wasn't paying attention there. Did he say something? He was trying to sneak in. Oh, Duncan. He's always at it. All right. Thanks everybody for being here. Seriously, James. Thanks so much. Always fun. My pleasure. It's always, I honestly, I've been talking to you, Michael. You know, I wish I could say the same. I'm sorry you feel that way. We hope everybody has a great night. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Keep an eye out. I'm telling you, just give me another 24 hours. 24 hours. I'm going to release an event card that will knock your socks off. We're just confirming it. We're on the cusp. It's like this close. It's like when Steven Steen almost had his first kiss, like it was so close. We're almost there. You know? So, okay. Thanks so much. Have a great night, everybody. See you soon.