 Hey everybody, today we're debating whether or not Christianity is true and we are starting right now with Cliff's opening statement. Thank you, James. Thank you, Matt. The question is, is Christianity true? I am convinced that in order for a religion or a philosophy to be worthy of our belief, it must account for the meaningful realities of life. And I find that Jesus Christ accounts for the meaningful realities of life like nobody else. First of all, I'm confronted by a world, as you are, where we have a war on Ukraine and people are being murdered and killed. And then we have a child sex traffic trade. And then we have very good people doing a lot of very good things and we have countries sacrificing for other countries. There's this amazing combination of the good and the wretched. And when I look at the different philosophies of life and the different religions, Jesus Christ stands out in his piercing analysis of the human dilemma, which is a dilemma of the human heart, meaning by that the human soul, meaning by that the human mind, will, emotions that tends to rebel against God and that other times tends to do that, which is very good. So we are a weird concoction and I find that to be true of reality and that is exactly what Jesus Christ talked about. Another basic reality that he talked about. James, I think I've lost you totally now. We can hear you. We're good. Well, I'll just keep going. The question is why are human beings valuable? And every human atheist friend of mine is convinced that human beings are valuable. But why is the question? And Jesus Christ points out that we all are valuable because we're all created in the image and likeness of God for a purpose. We're all loved by God and God considers us so valuable that he wants to give us eternal life. And that's exactly what Jesus Christ said is the way to eternal life. It's through faith and trust in him. Another reality that I experience every day is an innate drive to do that, which is good. Is good real or is it just a myth? No, I'm convinced due to the exercise of my conscience and due to the exercise of my atheist conscience. My atheist friend's conscience is that good is real and evil is real. And the only way that can be real is if there is some type of mind prior to the human mind that creates and defines the values of good and evil. So Jesus Christ answers that basic human reality in a powerful way. And then I go to funerals. I perform funerals as a pastor. And the question is, is there life after death? Matt, I'm very grateful that you had successful bypass surgery. That's a tremendous affirmation of life that the doctors were able to use their skill to heal your heart. And I'm so excited for you. I've been praying for you, but I can promise you, we all have a desire to live life. And Jesus Christ promises eternal life to all who trust in him. Now, why is he true? Because the evidence points to him. What is evidence? Evidence is facts that point to a conclusion. And the evidence is that Jesus Christ lived an amazing life, taught incredible teachings, died on a cross, forgiving his enemies. And three days later, he rose from the dead. Now, is that scientific evidence? No, scientific evidence does not tell me anything about George Washington bringing first president of the United States. Scientific evidence tells us nothing about whether Matt's wife really loves him or whether my wife really loves me. There are different types of evidence. There's scientific evidence, but there's also historical evidence and there's also relational evidence. And you and I as thinking human beings must be open to philosophy and logic and reason. You and I as human beings have rational minds and part of reason includes science. It also includes logic, mathematics, but it also includes the relational. And I can promise you my relationship with my wife and my sons and my grandchildren, my daughters-in-law, is far more important than any scientific postulate. Jesus Christ addresses this powerfully when he points out, the purpose of life is to love God with your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. It has the ring of truth. It has the ring of reality. So truth is that which is real. Evidence are facts that point to what is real. Can I prove anything in life? No, I can't prove anything in life to prove means to show that it cannot be another way. So no, I can't prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt. But as a thinking human being, I'm not a cynic. I don't use the fact that I can't prove anything to say, well, therefore I can't know anything. No, I can know things scientifically. I can know things mathematically. I can know things logically and rationally. I can know things scientifically. Shortly after World War II, General Dwight David Eisenhower asked for journalists from around the world to come to Nazi Germany. Why? To record Dachau, Auschwitz, Buchenwald. Why? Because Eisenhower wanted to make it very clear. Dachau, Auschwitz, and Buchenwald, the horrible prison camps of the Nazi Germans, was not propaganda. It was the truth. There's a difference between propaganda and truth. And the fascinating thing about faith in Christ is, if he rose from the dead, he's the truth. If he didn't rise from the dead, he's a liar. In other words, Christ gives us a way to verify him or falsify him. That's tremendously appealing to me as a thinking human being who is interested in truth. Now, if I say that I believe something is true, but I find that I can't live it out, then I better go back to my initial assumptions about what I believe and question them and ask, what is a more accurate view of reality? Jesus Christ presents a profoundly accurate view of reality. Read the Gospels, examine them for yourself, and you'll see that the evidence is, he's not a quack, he's not a liar, he's not a lunatic, he's not a legend, he's the truth. So, that is why I'm convinced that faith in Christ is very wise. Provable? No. Evidence pointing to it? Absolutely yes. Thank you very much for that opening cliff. And I want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. And folks, I've got to call attention to this. We very rarely mention it. At the bottom right of our screen, it says, check out our channel membership perks and Patreon. They're linked to the description. The reason I'm plugging it is I was up super late last night trying to give all sorts of new perks. You have to check them out. Consider being a channel member if you didn't know about it. We have those memberships and those Patreon perks, including things like being able to get backstage passes, meeting the debaters before and after the debate, things like that over Zoom. You got to check it out. So with that, we're going to kick it over to Matt. I want to say thank you, Matt, as well. The floor is all yours for your opening statement as well. Awesome. Thanks so much for having me and thanks Cliff for, I guess, for the prayers as well. I'm sure there were plenty of people praying for my heart and all of them will give credit to God for saving me from dying a year and a half ago. But I'll credit the doctors and science because that's what actually did it. So the subject of tonight's debate is supposed to be is Christianity true? And for me, when we look at whether or not something's true, we need to or any debate topic, we should probably define terms. And I think I heard Cliff say truth is that which comports with reality in some version or another. So I think we're on the same page with regard to whether or not something should count as true. It's just seems to be how are we going to define the key elements of Christianity and how are we going to verify that those things are actually true? And if the criteria that we use to verify Christianity when applied to other things, bears those out as well and they are in conflict, then our methodology is horribly flawed. Because if the foundation that we use to say, ah, the guiding or the principle foundations of Christianity are true, if those are claimed to be true on the same criteria that would also prove Islam or Scientology, then we don't have any methodology at all because we've now confirmed competing ideas using the same methods. So if, for example, to go to fantasy for a moment, Narnia, I think we would all agree is not a real place. And yet the concept of Narnia exists in minds and it exists in writing. And in addition to the books about Narnia, there's a map of Narnia. And one key principle in logic when we're discussing fallacies is not to confuse the map for the place. It is very tempting to look at and say, oh, we seem to know so much about this or there's so much information here that this must be real. That's not the exact pathway to the fallacy, but it's what I think of when I start talking about the concept versus the thing. Now within Christianity, how would we go about understanding what the foundational ideas are? I would tend to go to what the Bible says and what has been traditionally identified with an Orthodox Christianity, going to Paul and Romans and talking about if Christ be not raised, our faith is in vain. The resurrection of Jesus Christ must be the cornerstone of Christianity and other factors like there is a God that Jesus is either God incarnate or representative of God, however you might end up looking at it. But those elements are the bedrock. How would we demonstrate those? Well, we only know that they exist because of a book and we can't use the book on its own. The book on its own is insufficient to verify the claims, just as the Quran on its own would be insufficient to verify the claims of Islam and Dianetics on its own is insufficient to verify the claims of Scientology. So that method is insufficient. So we need something beyond that. Now, if we don't have empirical evidence for a physical claim, the least, the broadest position we can have is we don't know whether or not that claim is true. So if someone tells me, hey, this individual rose from the dead and we have nothing but the claim and a bunch of people who believed it and no physical evidence of that to verify it, I can't believe the claim. If you were to say, is this statement true and insert a statement, you could get a yes answer for statements that tie to things that are not demonstrable. For example, there may be a diamond the size of my fist, 10 feet below the soil at a particular location on Mars. That may be true. But if someone were to come in and say it is true in a debate, they would need to be able to demonstrate it. Anything that you can't demonstrate is merely identical from a logical perspective to something that isn't true. From our perspective, it's not true until it's demonstrated or demonstrable. And so if that item were to exist on Mars, it may be in fact true that the item exists. But it would be wrong for us to say it is true because to make a claim that something is true carries with it this notion that you can demonstrate it in some way. Now, what way do we have to demonstrate anything supernatural? As far as I can tell, we don't. There are plenty of claims that something is supernatural. And when you drill down what you're getting is I experienced something or it has been reported to me that something occurred for which I am not aware of a natural explanation. Therefore, the explanation or the most plausible explanation is one that is supernatural. That is a fallacious line of reasoning that is predicated on the notion that you would need to know everything in order to know that there was no natural explanation just because you don't have one now. And so if we I don't know of any other way to I don't know of any way anybody has ever demonstrated that the supernatural is real exists is true can in fact interact with anything. And yet those are the sorts. Those are the foundations behind Christianity and other claims because God exists supposedly outside of space time. God is God's ontology is supernatural beyond a natural nature. How do we demonstrate that? We still don't have any way to demonstrate that any such thing exists, let alone a specific thing exists. And yet somehow there are people who seem to know or think they know a great deal about the specifics of the supernatural and God. For example, and I promise I'm not just doing this for fun and I'm not trying to saddle cliff with somebody else's views on God. But this week because it amused me and it confused me. I'm going to share a tweet from someone who may in fact be watching. The tweet reads my Christian beliefs point to the five generals running hell. Ball, impurity, Lilith, female lesbianism, Asmodeus, Sodomy, Baphomet, child sacrifice, worship, abortion, killing, innocent offspring and Leviathan, female homosexuality. Now this individual, despite the fact that this is not expressly covered in the Bible in any way, believes that they understand that hell is real that hell has an organizational structure that that organizational structure has five generals, which are somehow responsible for various sins. And this individual seems to think that female lesbianism and perhaps female homosexuality are two different sins and I don't know what female lesbianism is versus male lesbianism, but the five ones that they go through tell us much more about this individual psyche and what they think than anything about a real hell. And yet there are countless people sitting in churches. Once again, not saddling Cliff with this, what we need to do is figure out how is it that this person thinks they know the specifics of hell and hell structure and sin and what makes them right or wrong compared to Cliff's model. Does Cliff think that these are the five generals of hell and and what they are? And if not, how does this become a part of Christianity for a person? Because while Cliff and I disagree on Christianity, I also disagree with the individual who made that tweet about the makeup of hell and I would have disagreed with that person even when I was still a Bible believing Christian and I would think that many of my debate opponents would also disagree with this person. I remember a time when I stood in front of four Christian apologists just before a debate having a discussion about what the Bible has to say about slavery. Not only could they not agree on what it says, they couldn't agree on what it meant. And so my position was you guys get together and tell me what the actual position is and then we'll dig into it after that. And I'd never heard back for them. So what specific empirically verifiable non mundane facts can we verify with regard to Jesus? Now, I'm not a mythicist. I'm not going to say Jesus never existed. But the fact is there isn't scientific evidence to confirm his existence or any of the elements of his life right up to the most important aspect, which is crucifixion. And I think or his resurrection, which is I think something that Cliff just noted that he can't provide scientific evidence, can't provide scientific evidence on this and he would like to use examples like love. We can't we can't scientifically prove love. Well, we can in fact investigate the human brain and the feelings of love scientifically. But where we are barred from investigating things like love is in the mind itself. I don't have access to your mind and your thoughts, but a resurrection is not a mind and capsule thing. A resurrection is a an occurrence in space time of someone being dead and then raised from the dead to pretend that this somehow puts it in the same fuzzy unable to touch criteria as love is a misrepresentation of the facts. What we need is a way to demonstrate the truth of the foundational claims of Christianity. And I have yet to hear one. Thank you very much for that opening as well. Matt, we are going to jump into the open conversation. Folks, couple of quick things. If you have a question for the Q&A session at the end, feel free to tag me with that modern day debate. Otherwise, super chats are read first. You can put your question in that way as well and also want to mention a couple of things. One, if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button. We have plenty more debates coming up. You don't want to miss them. And with that, we're going to kick it into the open discussion. Thank you very much. Cliff and Matt, the floor is all yours. How do you want to run this, guys? I'll let you start however you want. All righty. If someone makes a statement, truth is only that which can be scientifically verified. They're committing intellectual suicide. They're self contradictory because the statement truth is only that which can be scientifically verified is not scientifically provable. Instead, I didn't say that or anything even remotely like it. There are some things. I fully acknowledge you don't have access to what's going on in my mind or anybody else's mind. And so it may in fact be true that I'm thinking of a white elephant and you have no way of knowing that. So that's a particular category of a truth. Are you suggesting that the resurrection of Jesus instead of being an actual event in space time for which there would and could be physical evidence is roughly equivalent to a thought? In my opening comments, Matt, I stated very clearly that there are different forms of evidence, different forms of knowledge, scientific, historical, mathematical, logical, personal, relational. I refer to your love for your wife and her love for you. You cannot prove she loves you. She cannot prove that you loved her and you know that the overwhelming evidence is that she really does love you and I think you know the evidence is that you love her. That is certainly true between my wife and me. I don't see how that's an answer to the question statement. It has nothing to do with science. It has to do with the trustworthiness of an individual based on evidence of trustworthiness is the resurrection of an individual more in the category of a physical event that could and should have empirical evidence or more in the category of someone loves someone. I cannot empirically prove to you that George Washington was the first president of the United States. I have to historically prove that to you. Similarly, I cannot prove to you scientifically that Jesus rose from the dead. That's an historical question. So the question then becomes for me as a thinking human being. What is the historical evidence? Not what's the scientific evidence? Sure philosophical evidence. What is the historical evidence that the dead Christ rose from the dead? That is the question, Matt. So well, no, the question is, is there sufficient reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? We can present there. There is empirical evidence of George Washington and yes, it is historic as well. Heracle evidence. Did you ever see him smell him taste him touch him? Do you think empirical evidence requires a person now to see smell taste or touch a thing? Yes, empiricism is an emphasis on sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch. Yeah, see the problem is what you're doing there is you would, if that were the model, eliminate everything everywhere because everything takes place in the past. You don't have any present. You all you would have is your own. All you would have is your own direct experience. And then as soon as you try to corroborate it with somebody else, you're now getting second hand information and all of it is in the past is a difference between saying something happened in the past and and we have claims and reports and physical evidence. See, when you talk about something like George Washington, it is within the time frame, not of my direct experience or yours or anybody else's, but to where we have a robust chain of evidence from a number of different competing sources to say that these things happened, none of them are extraordinary. None of them are supernatural. None of them are outlandish and this is how we can have a good understanding that while George Washington was the first president of the United States, he probably did tell a lie and the cherry tree story probably didn't happen. There is so much extra biblical evidence that Jesus really lived died and rose from the dead. It's incredible. The early church fathers, Clement, Bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Justin Mordor, the first apologist, pay me those are contemporaries. They all knew the contemporaries. They talked with the content. I did not know the contemporaries. Absolutely. They did Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and Clement, Bishop of Rome knew the contemporaries of Christ. Flegan knew some of those people as well. So did Phallus. So did Celsus. So did Cacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger. These were Roman historians who did not believe in Christ, but at least had the intellectual honesty to say, yes, the historical evidence is that Jesus really lived and supposedly rose from the dead. I don't believe that's what they said. I believe that I believe that people believed it. I believe they're reporting that people believed that. They're not. In which he talks about Jesus Christ as an historical person. He was a Syrian philosopher. So I'm sorry, Matt. The evidence is Jesus was a real historical person. Now I find it interesting that you agree with me and say, yes, he was a real historical person. He just didn't rise from the dead. Well, why would you do that, Matt? Because the only way you know that he's because there's absolutely nothing extraordinary because are you going to let me answer the question? Because there's absolutely nothing extraordinary about the notion that there was an antenna Jewish rabbi or a collection of them or stories about a person. There's something incredibly extraordinary about someone rising from the dead. Those two claims are not remotely in the same category and are not remotely establishable by the same sort of evidence and certainly not second or third hand evidence hearsay decades later just because they may have known someone who knew someone. Thank you so much for your honesty, Matt. So I'm always honest. Why do you act like this has nothing to do with history? Where where where have I ever been? Just natural does not exist. Therefore, I can accept Jesus historically, but I cannot accept his resurrection. No, sir. No, sir. Now who's not being dishonest? Not only did I not say not only have I never said not only have I never said that the supernatural I think there might be a little bit about being honest. Am I going to get to talk or what? You get to talk whatever you want. There might be there. Hold on one second. What happens sometimes is sometimes when the connections not great, which I think tonight. I think that maybe pick on you. But sometimes when the connection is not great, it'll be delayed a little bit. So I think that's maybe what's happening. So I do just want to be sure that we get to hear from each of you and you've got the floor going. Never have I said the supernatural does not exist, not in this debate nor anywhere else. And it's dishonest of you to suggest that I have. What I have pointed out as I have tonight is that we I don't know of any way to confirm the supernatural. I'm not saying Jesus did not rise from the dead. I'm not saying I know Jesus did not rise from the dead because the supernatural is real. I'm saying you cannot demonstrate as far as I can tell that Jesus rose from the dead and the claim that someone rose from the dead, whether it was by supernatural means or natural means is far more extraordinary than that there was any and I tend to Jewish rabbi that those two claims do cannot be established on the same standards of evidence. Why would you ever think that the existence of a person and the resurrection of a person could be established merely on someone's word? Keep going. That was a question. Do you have any more? I have lots of them. Are you going to answer that one? Sure. When I study history, I can't have different ways of determining what is historical or not. I've got to be consistent. Otherwise, I'm not intellectually consistent. So I have to have tests that I use to determine whether a document is historically reliable or not and the Quran is very reliable historically. The New Testament is very reliable historically. So I read them as history and I take them seriously, both the Quran and the New Testament. And based on the fact that the New Testament has tremendous internal consistency is archaeologically verifiable is supported by amazing number of Greek manuscripts. I am convinced that the New Testament is historically reliable, but so is the Quran. The Quran is historically reliable. There really was a dude named Mohammed who lived from about 570 to 632 and historically that's a fact. Did he ascend to heaven and was the moon split in two? I don't have the faintest idea. I don't think so. And yet you're talking about how the Quran is historically accurate and the Bible is historically accurate and because you think that the Bible is historically accurate, that's good enough to justify a resurrection. But when it comes to the Quran, you don't seem to know whether or not it's enough to justify the moon splitting to two or Mohammed ascending to heaven. Why is that? Because there are so many internal contradictions in the Quran that I cannot accept it as totally reliable. When I read the Gospels, there's a tremendous internal consistency, internal harmony that is mind boggling. What about it? What about consistency with the facts of reality? He really did die on a cross. He was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. His disciples dispersed in disillusionment. They were totally blown out of the water by his death. They were not expecting to see him again. But three days later, he first appears to some grief-torn women and then over a period of 40 days, he appears to over 500 people who seem at different times in different places, risen from the dead. The Apostle Paul writes in 1st Corinthians 15 that Christ appeared risen from the dead to over 500 people. Where are their stories? Where are their stories? And you can go out and talk to these people. Paul is saying some of them are dead, but some of them are alive. I can't talk to them and we have no records of anyone ever talking to them or any of them ever getting a story from them. If God has this incredibly important message for humanity and comes down and presents himself in human form and sacrifices himself to himself and wants to preserve this narrative. Why didn't God make sure that the Bible includes eyewitness accounts from those individuals? We do have eyewitness accounts. Matthew was an eyewitness. The book of Matthew was not written by Matthew nor was it written by an eyewitness. But I was specifically referring to the 500. No, Bologna, Matthew wrote Matthew. No, he didn't prove that, but there's evidence supporting that. You just go to the earliest, you go to the early church fathers and they wrote about Matthew writing Matthew, Mark writing Mark, Luke writing Luke and John writing John. It's very clear. So here I have my Bible here. If I go to the book of Matthew on the cover sheet, what's it going to say? The very first line. Why don't you read it for me? Sure. Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous and holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles was its author. So the early church fathers say that it's Matthew, but the gospel itself, oh, there we go, the gospel itself is anonymous. Among New Testament scholars in Bible colleges, do they hold that Matthew, the apostle wrote the book of Matthew? Who was a more reliable source of information about who wrote a book? A person lived 50 to 100 years after the writing or a person lived 2000 years after the writing in this case, the person who lived 2000 years after the writing because the individual 50 to 100 years later, 100 to 200 years later doesn't have information to the full expanse of Christendom of what we've discovered about the writings in order to compare them. They just like the early historians who were not contemporaries, but we're potentially talking to contemporaries. We're writing about what they heard. They don't have the investigative ability to do it. They don't have the understanding of analyzing writing. This is, I mean, nothing I'm saying here is remotely controversial among New Testament scholars. But yes, it is very controversial. No, it's controversial for people like you, not for New Testament scholars. Study Daniel Wallace down in Oregon. You can cite one or two if you want to, but if you go to earlychristianwritings.com, if you go. Writings is John Lennox, Professor of Merits in Mathematics at Oxford University. Read about the first woman president of MIT. Okay. Susan Hawkeworth. She's a follower of Christ. She's a really helpful. So for you to minimize Christians as being a bunch of narrow minded fundamentalists who don't can't study. That's really, really. Sir, sir, sir, I did not. Yes, you did. No, sir, I did not. That's a blatant lie. I did not care. If you're just going to try and trash everything I say, because I'm pointing out what New Testament scholars say and that you don't agree with them. And if you're going to try and shut up, if you're going to try and characterize that as me painting Christians as credulous rubes, that is dishonest and not true. I have fought against that repeatedly and you of all people should know that. Why did you quote the Twitter message that you got? Why does that matter? You're such an open minded, thinking human being. Why did you quote that very, very questionable Twitter? Because you want me to answer it? You're going to ask me four times because that happened this week. It is someone making claims about Christianity. It is someone who participates in this chat and I specifically said that you may not agree with it. But what you have to acknowledge is that Christianity at the individual level is made up of a bunch of different claims with that you guys don't all agree on. That has nothing to do with who's who's credulous? Who's a buffoon? Who's confused? I don't know. I don't have no Christians disagree on a lot of things. So what on earth does that have to do with Jesus Christ? Nothing. Muslims disagree. That has nothing to do with Muhammad. The Shiites and Sunnis tells you nothing about Muhammad. Are there disagreements among Christians? Are there disagreements among Muslims? Are there disagreements among atheists? Tells you nothing about truth and reality. Tells you that there are people who disagree. So what? What's your point? The point is the fact that people disagree about foundational things within Christianity mean that we need to get to a definition of what is true and what isn't true because two different Christians will tell you two different things and say that they're true and that will disagree on those things. If we're going to say Christianity is true, why are those things different? I didn't bring this and I repeatedly pointed it out. First of all, I find it ridiculous and amusing and I figured that you would very easily say, No, I don't buy into the notion that there's five generals of hell and two of them are responsible for lesbian sex. But how? What criteria are you going to use to determine the truth of what you call Christianity that would exclude what she thinks it is? That Twitter that you used was a sad commentary on the stuff that you like to dabble in Matt. That's scary. That is really scary. You know very well that they're not five generals in hell. You've read the Bible. So what on earth? Why would you stoop to that Matt and try and use that as a point? I mean, it's ridiculous. So now you're saying that this tweet is about something that I dabble in. I had nothing to do with this. You read it. Yes, it's worth in our debate. You're using it and it's embarrassing Matt. Totally embarrassed. It doesn't embarrass me. The reason you're embarrassed is because I just asked you for what criteria would exclude that and you have none because you you trust the Bible. I just hope the Bible doesn't say they're five generals in hell. It doesn't say there's not. Does it? What? You got to be kidding me. It talks about hell. You don't have photographic. You don't have what is your methodology? What is your methodology that excludes that? Very simple. Whenever I read any book to interpret accurately means to read in context and to respect literary style and by reading in context and by respecting literary style, there is no way that you can come away from reading the New Testament saying the New Testament teaches their five generals in hell. Okay. Prosterous. And that you've been stooped to that level, Matt. Is a sad story. Stooped to what level? I'm really confused here, Cliff. I've asked for methodology and you keep accusing me of stooping. You're just going to be a jackass. I will continue to talk over here every time you try to slander me because you won't defend your beliefs. I'm defending him all the time, Matt. No, you're not. You're asserting them. You're preaching. You haven't provided any single bit of evidence or methodology and all you've done every time I raise an issue is say that I'm stooping or I'm dabbling or I'm misrepresenting Christians as stupid. I'm sorry that you don't have a robust methodology that would that would shine and show the truth of Christianity while demonstrating that Islam is not true, but you don't. If you did, you would have presented it. I already have presented it to you. The resurrection of Christ is not a fact evidence. Now who's interrupting who, Matt? I'm interrupting you. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming evidence that Christ is reliable. The evidence of a sinless life that he lived as he could look his enemies in the face and John chapter eight and say which one of you can prove me guilty of sin and his enemies were silent. The Apostle John who knew him intimately for three years could write in him is no sin. When you read the sermon on the Mount, those are the teachings of an ethical genius. Jesus was an ethical genius. Jesus was an ethical guy on a cross loving and forgiving his enemies. You're confronted by a guy who taught an amazingly high ethical standard and lived up to that standard. The evidence for Christ is so robust. It's embarrassing. There is no one who comes even close to Christ in credibility in trustworthiness. And you know it if you think about it. No, sir, I don't and you can stop claiming what I know because that's also dishonest. If you're with an open mind, look at it. You know. So now now your explanation is that I'm I just not doing it with an open mind. Will you ever stop addressing me and what you think of me and actually present evidence for a resurrection? Fine. The evidence for the resurrection is he really died and Roman soldier took a spear and jammed in the I know that and an issue of watery serum flowed out separated from the side of Christ. We read in the Gospel of John. He was dead. They took his body off the cross. The anointed it with perfume wrapped it in burial cloth and laid it in the tomb, not a secret hideout tomb, a very well known to the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. His disciples dispersed in disillusionment. There was no Passover plot and three days later he appeared risen from the dead to a group of group of women and then over a period of 40 days he appeared to over 500 people and those people, most of many of whom were willing to die for what they claim to have seen the dead Christ, the 500 and for the past 2000 years, people have claimed to have met this Jesus Christ and that he has changed their lives for imminent among them would be the Saul of Tarsus who met Christ on the road to Damascus and had an incredible conversion experience and followed Christ. So there's overwhelming evidence that Christ was dead historically and historically. He rose from the dead. Is any of that overwhelming evidence that you think you just cited, not from the Bible? Yes. I mean, I listed or you're not listening. I listed the names. No, sir. Clement Bishop of Antioch Ignatius. None of those people are testing to the truth of anything that you just said. Those people are testing to the fact that people believed those things and made those claims witnesses. No, no, sir. Those individuals are not themselves. I witnesses. That's correct, but they talked to the eyewitness. You have no way of demonstrating that. But but hang on. Let's go ahead and assume that Matthew was an eyewitness. How do we know that Matthew is an accurate reporter of the facts that he supposedly witnessed? First of all, you explore his document that he wrote carefully, checking such things as Greek manuscripts, checking such things as internal consistency, checking such things as archaeological support of the place names listed in the document of the place names. You go to other documents. Archaeological evidence of the place names is corroborating evidence. Yes. So so is the existence of New York corroborating evidence for Spider-Man? No, but it is corroborating evidence that I was born in New York City in 1954. No, that's actually not the existence of New York is not corroborating evidence that you were born there. It just like the existence of New York is not evidence corroborating evidence that I was born there. It supports the claim that I make that I was born at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. The fact that New York City is archaeological. The existence of a hospital does not corroborate the claim that you were born there. Statement that I was born in New York City. If there was no New York City, then you'd have good reason to question. Correct. Correct. But you are committing you're committing a particular fallacy where you are reversing something. The fact that if there was not a Presbyterian hospital in New York City, then your claim that you were born there would clearly not be the case. But the existence of that hospital does not in any way demonstrate that you were born there. Just like the existence of Mars doesn't demonstrate that I was born on Mars. If I were to claim that. If you claim that you were born on Mars, the first question I would ask is, is Mars real? The second question I would ask is, is there any evidence that anybody has traveled to Mars and back? But to the beginning point is, is Mars real? So is Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem room real? Or are they fictitious places? As far as I know, they are real places. And as far as I know, they are contemporary places with the time of the story. So what? So then you keep on going and ask, get more specific. Okay, what is the evidence that what this eyewitness wrote back in the first century has been carefully preserved today? No, no, no, no, no. Whether or not what they wrote in the first century has been carefully preserved is irrelevant to whether or not what they wrote is accurate. I first need to know, do I have what they wrote? If it's been totally perverted and changed, that affects the issue very profoundly. Considering we have no originals, you can't know how much it has changed. You can know that the copies and intermixed, this is where the modern experts will know more than someone did in the first or second century because they have more texts to compare to try to get back to determine what our oldest and best manuscripts are in comparison to what could have or likely was the original. But we don't know. But in any case, even if we were to assume that the version we have is almost identical or close enough to what it originally said, that in no way demonstrates the truth of those original claims. I need to know regarding the Quran, the teachings of Buddha, the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Do we have the manuscript evidence today that gives us any degree of certainty that we really have what they wrote today? The New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we have over 5000 Greek manuscripts or pieces of manuscript dated from the 2nd through the 10th century A.D., all agreeing to an infinitesimal degree. Before Gutenberg's printing press, we have 25,000 manuscripts, early manuscripts, handwritten manuscripts, 25,000. And the study of those manuscripts show that we have an amazingly accurate Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Those are in Latin Vulgate, in Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, as well as Greek. So the evidence is we have a very accurate presentation of what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote. Now read it and ask yourself, does the evidence of the way he lived, taught, died and rose from the dead, point to Jesus being a fraud, if it does reject him? Or does he? Do you think I have it? I have read it. I have read it. I have read it. Point to him being reliable. I have read it. I think you are convinced that I've read it. I have not reached the same conclusion you did, in part, because the number of manuscripts or copies that we have is a testament to their popularity and how strongly people believed. It is not in any way a testament to how accurate they recorded events. When they all agree to an infinitesimal degree, they don't serious evidence that they are accurate. No, sir. That is simply not true. I can, I know I can pull every copy. No, sir. No, sir. It's not in if you'd let me finish instead of trying to fucking over me. You interrupted me most recently, Matt. So don't don't just to be sure. No, sir. We don't go off quietly while you went on a long spiel. I can take every copy of Harry Potter and they will agree to an infinitesimal degree. Does that mean that what they say is true? No, but it means my point copy of my point and your argument is the fact that we have many manuscripts that agree to an infinitesimal degree, which is not quite true, but they do agree strongly. Yes, it is. Your argument that you just made was that this is strong evidence that what they say is true and that is simply fallacious as demonstrated by your own response just a moment ago. I can't hear you. I can't hear you if I'm still talking. Hold on one sec. Just to be sure, just to be sure that I think it is, but probably there is maybe a bit of a delay just to be sure we heard the last part from you, Matt, and then we'll kick it right over to you, Cliff, because I like I said, I do think there's a connection thing where it is a little bit slow is what was the last thing you maybe like the last half sentence or so that you mentioned there, Matt. Cliff agreed that no matter how much the Harry Potter books agree or how many copies there are, or for how long it's published and maintains this, that does not in any way demonstrate the truth of what's in those books. And yet he wants to for Christianity talk about the various manuscripts and how closely they agree and say that this is strong evidence that what they say is true. That is a fallacious line of reasoning by his own admission. You don't get to special plead that the Bible is somehow reliable because of its agreement on its copies while saying that other books that agree on their copies don't aren't true. Ready for you, Cliff, if you're able to. Whenever I read an historical book, I have four tests that I use to determine historical reliability. The first test is literary style. Is it once upon a time in the land of nod, wink and blink and nod took a boat ride? Or is it at this time in this place with these people around? Jesus said this and did that. The second test is what is the manuscript evidence and the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelmingly clear that we have an accurate presentation of what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote. Doesn't mean it's the truth, but we have an accurate representation of what they wrote. Third test, archaeology. Does archaeology support and verify the place names, the names of the rulers like Pontius Pilate, Herod, a gripper? Yes, archaeology verifies the New Testament like the pool of Siloam in the Gospel of John. And then fourth test is are there contradictions within the text that point to massive confusion on the part of the authors? No, there are no contradictions in the Gospels. There's a tremendous internal harmony and consistency. That does not mean the Bible is a word of God. It doesn't mean anything other than these Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are historically reliable. Simply read them as history and ask yourself, does the historical evidence point to Christ being credible or does it not? Okay, so first of all, I am glad that we have four crisp criteria by which you're going to evaluate historical texts. Whether or not something fits in a historical text, I'm assuming is just that it's old. You know, it's something we can't go back and investigate because we don't have a time machine. So it's a text about a period of time. So the first one you look at is the literary style. Once upon a time, those sorts of things to see what kind of style is. When I look at the Bible, I like many Christians have a difficult time taking Genesis as a literal account. It is factually incompatible in its order of events with what we know from the scientific investigation of order. It is absolutely storybook wise about a fall and a talking serpent who leads someone astray and leads somebody else astray. I find the character of God to be comical throughout at least throughout the Old Testament of constantly trying to get humanity to love him and do right. And he has to keep starting over. He puts him in the garden. It fails. He kicks him out of the garden. He then has to confuse everybody's languages and flood the whole earth except for a handful of people to start over again. And then he has to select his chosen people from all of the various peoples after starting over again. And then he takes a big long vacation until he supposedly comes down in human form. I find that to be more character characteristic of mythicism and storytelling in the literary style example. It does the miraculous claims, the things that raising people from the dead and walking on water and turning water to wine of demons and all these other things. These things to me read more like a storybook doesn't mean they're not true. But they read more like a storybook. Your second one of manuscript evidence that leads you to conclude that we have an accurate presentation of what the author said is irrelevant to the truth. We can I could just say hey we have 100% accuracy on what the author said and that doesn't in any way tell us whether or not it's true which even you acknowledge when going through the criteria on archaeology you're like does archaeology support things with like the place names. Well first of all I don't find it remotely surprising that books written in a certain time period and in any certain area might reference real places and real events. We do that in our fiction all the time and most other stories that you might not accept as true from other religions also support place names but there isn't archaeological evidence to support a resurrection there isn't archaeological evidence to support the sun standing still there isn't archaeological evidence to support to support a global flood there isn't archaeological evidence of demons or any of the things like that and then the last one is a really intriguing one about contradictions. And we can have a discussion sometime about whether or not there are contradictions trying to reconcile the Easter accounts is something that I haven't been able to I haven't seen anybody successfully recount who was there when what happened when and what order depending on which of the Gospels you go to for that particular narrative. There's a different order of events and different people involved and what tends to happen is the apologies say yes the specifics may be wrong because you have different people telling the story or they might be viewed from a different perspective but it tells the consistent narrative and therefore there's no contradictions. But here's a question is it possible for a story to have no contradictions and still not be true. That's why I asked you to take all four tests together. Now, no, no, sir. No, no, sir. Please do a classic. I asked a question. I have more. I already answered your question. No, sir. You didn't. You replied with that's why I had to look at all Why are you so upset, Cliff? It's a simple question. Is it possible? Is it possible like you speak now you won't let me speak? Is it I'm I'm I'm still going. Is it possible for there to be no contradictions in the story still have to be true? Yes. Yes. Right. Is it possible? Yes, it is possible. Is it Hang on. Is it possible for there to be manuscript evidence that the authors were correct? Our authors are being accurately reported and yet their claims are still not true. You already said that. Yes to that when you were there. Is it possible for archaeological evidence to support place names and yet the events still aren't true? Yes, that's called historical fiction. Sure. Is it possible style? Is it possible for you to look at a literary style? Come on, bud. Let's be honest. I'm trying to cover your four points. Cliff. Are you so dense that you can't see that I'm going through your four points as a rebuttal to your position. It's possible. I won't even ask the question. Here we go. It's possible for it. It's possible for there to be no contradictions and the story is still not true. It's possible that archaeology archaeology could support place names and the story is still not true. It's possible that the manuscripts could accurately reflect what the author said and the author is still not true. It is possible that the literary style could be misunderstood story wise or accurate and the story is still not true. So the four criteria that you gave for determining the accuracy of a historical text are incapable of doing that on their own. You have a failed methodology. That was the point. Then give me a better one. How do you test the historical reliability of any document? What are the tests? I don't need to give you a better one. I'm not here defending historical claims. Oh, Loney. If you're tearing my four points down, which you have every right to do, you had better give me a more intellectually acceptable alternative. No, sir. That's not the way. That's not the way any of this works. You presented a case. I've debunked it. Now you have to go back to the drawing board. He's got four people on one side. I'm going to give you a rough guys. Just because you are the one who just got exposed as your rational jump in really quick before. So quick heads up folks that will go into the Q&A shortly by that. I mean five to 10 minutes tops, but I do want to let you guys continue as I know you might have some final threads you want to draw together before you do go to the Q&A. Yeah, when your methodology gets debunked, it's not up to the opponent to present a methodology that would confirm the supernatural. I have no methodology that we can confirm the supernatural neither does anybody else. You presented your case for why you find these texts reliable. I exposed where the problem is. You don't then get to say, well, have you got a better one because that suggests that you're willing to stick with a flawed methodology until somebody comes along with a better one. It's not my job or anybody else's job to fix the foundation of your beliefs. That's your job to be a skeptic is good. A skeptic is someone who questions, but to be a cynic is horrendous because cynicism gets us nowhere and Matt, you have just displayed tremendous cynicism because what you've done is you've said these are the problems with your methodology and I agree with you. There are problems to my methodology, but Matt, none of us has exhaustive knowledge in any area of life. We as human beings cannot prove anything. Instead, we as thinking human beings take the evidence that we have and then make the most reasonable, the most plausible conclusions. So my point was simply the evidence is the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John give us accurate historical information. My point was not that they're perfect. My point was not that there's without error. I never said that. Instead, I gave four pieces of evidence that I use whenever trying to determine whether any document is historically were accurate or not. Now the mistake that you're making sir is very clear. If I say that a interpretation that I have of the Quran is contradicted by science. In order to be intellectually honest, I have to go back and study is my interpretation of the Quran correct because if my interpretation of the Quran is incorrect, then it is intellectually dishonest for me to say the Quran contradict science. Similarly, if you have a wrong interpretation of the book of Genesis and then you say science contradicts my interpretation of creation and of a serpent in a garden, but if your interpretation is incorrect, you're committing intellectual suicide because you are showing that science contradicts a false interpretation. Well, so what? I agree with you. The question is what is an accurate interpretation of Genesis and does science contradict that accurate interpretation of Genesis? And my point is rather simple. There is absolutely no science in Genesis to contradict. There's no biology, no zoology, no astronomy, no science anywhere in the Genesis account. That is why for anybody to say, oh, I can't believe Genesis because a contradict science is intellectually dishonest because there's no science in Genesis for modern science or ancient science to contradict. It's that simple. Okay, so in Genesis, when it lists the order of events that God created supposedly. Is that order accurate to the order that things were actually created? Augustine answers your question back in the 400. I'm not debating Augustine. He points out I'm using it as an illustration Matt, so listen hard. Augustine points out that in light of the fact that the sun was not created till the fourth day. What on earth do the first three days mean? If you don't have a son and Augustine's point was Genesis is not seeking to answer the question precisely how long did God take to create? I didn't say Augustine accurate interpretation of the text. Okay, when you tell me to listen carefully, it would be really good if you did too. I didn't ask anything about how long it took. I asked about the order that it took. The order the length are not precisely given. Okay, so basically you're saying that the order of events in Genesis one not only does not match the order of events as we actually understand it from science, but doesn't match the order of events that a God would have that God did create the event. I'm not saying that Matt. What I am saying is Genesis does not answer the question. Genesis does not address the scientific question. There is no science in Genesis. Are we clear now, Matt? Well, there are claims about reality in Genesis. Are there not? Yes, about God, about human beings, about the value of human beings, about God creating absolutely no scientific claims. Just think about who wrote Genesis. I appreciate the fact that you'd like for their people sitting their tents on the corner of the promised land. You honestly think Moses was concerned with a question. Gosh, what's the scientific process that God used to create? It was the furthest thing from his mind. They were scared out of their wits about going to the promised land. So this is a wonderful tap dance, but this is a wonderful tap dance. But Genesis one interpretation. No, sir. It's a wonderful tap dance because you're avoiding the question. You're avoiding the actual events and you're going off to talk about other things elsewhere. No, I'm not question. Yes, you were. You literally just did rewind. Everybody can hear it. You are not talking about you are not talking about Genesis chapter one, sir. I'm asking you about Genesis chapter one and you're going off to talk about other things in Genesis in Genesis chapter one. When it gives the order of events, you're saying that order of events is not the way that God did it. No, I'm not. Okay. Are you saying? Are you saying that, man? So that's what you're going to be saying. In Genesis chapter one, there is no sign. Oh my God. Why is it just to let's this is absolutely frustrating. Well, let's get very well. Are you saying? Are you saying that the order of events is correct? No, I'm saying they don't you're not. So you're not saying here about the order of events. I don't care what you care about. I'm saying you seem to be saying you seem to be saying you seem to be saying that the order of events is not correct. You're not saying that it's not. Hang on. Let me finish. You're not saying that it's not correct and you're not saying that it is correct. I am saying and I'll say it again for the umpteenth time. Genesis chapter one is not giving us a scientific description of how God created Genesis chapter. I didn't say it was in the question. I haven't said anything remotely like that. But Genesis, I haven't said anything. The process. Did God use? I didn't ask about a process. I didn't ask about any of that. The fact that you have dishonestly refused to address your own contradiction here is very telling. All I asked about was the order of events and whether or not you were convinced that the order accurately reflected the order, not the process, not how the order that things happen or not. And you would not say that it process for me. Order is part of the process. I'm sorry that order is processed for you, but that's not processed. I didn't ask how I asked about order. I don't know why this is so difficult. I do know why. I do know why because fundamentally you know that this order doesn't match reality and you have no explanation for why the Almighty God of the universe conveyed information about an order that does not match the facts of the universe. And you have a wrong interpretation of Genesis one and you're using science to contradict a wrong interpretation of Genesis one. And that is very sad, Matt. You know what's sad that you accuse me of having a wrong interpretation when I'm the only one that's willing to read it and talk about what it actually says. I've read all the sad that you are the sad one to suggest that this is a problem of my interpretation when I'm literally asking you for your view. I told you this is the best ever question. Good job on the question. That's out fucking standing. Clean up language Matt. I don't know my language at all, sir. You need to clean up your thinking. No, you need to straighten out your thinking and think more logically. This is fantastic. It's in the logic. Thank you. This might be a good opportunity to go into the Q&A. We do have a lot of questions. We're going to move through these fast couple of things. How keeping wise folks first one mentioned our guests are linked in the description. If you'd like to hear more do click on their links. Even if you disagree, there's a lot of value in fully understanding a person's position, even though you disagree and not only that, but I want to say that's in the podcast description box as well. We put our guest links. If you didn't know, Modern Day Debate does have a podcast so you can find us on Spotify, Apple Podcast, you name it. Every podcast app, you can find these debates. Put them on the podcast 100% add free within a hundred or within 24 hours of the debate being live. So check out Modern Day Debate, the podcast. With that, we're going to jump into these questions, but also want to say, if you haven't hit like, we do appreciate that support as well. So feel free to hit that like button. Thanks so much for all your support folks. And this one coming in from Baki Stokes. James, James can I clarify one thing that not try the debate? Yep. My apologies. If I'm not supposed to use that language on this channel, I thought that was allowed given other debates. If it's against the channel rules, that's fine. But if it's just against Cliffs sensibilities, I don't care. No, we don't have a rule. That's just Cliffs rule, but I do want to say that's fine. Cliff and I are going to disagree on all kinds of things and maybe in a potty mouth, it'll probably be a problem. I know that tonight was especially lively and who knows it may be just as lively. I do want to mention that I know that it's like it's like, whoa, I was like, oh, I was like these guys must hate each other. No, is I was just going to say it's not like that. It's kind of like guys punch each other in the face when they're boxing and then they hug after and you know, it's nothing personal. So I just don't think we're likely to hug, but we might that's true. So it's love to hug you, Matt. We've debated like four or five times now. It's my past heart surgery, man. Of course, I love you. You guys do have an interesting history because folks, I got to tell you, this is cool. You can find this on YouTube. Matt and Cliff, if I remember it, you've debated a decade ago, like literally a decade ago, you had your first debate or was it more than a decade? It might be the first two we did were both and in San Marcos, right? At one of the Texas States in San Marcos, I think, right? Yeah. So it's super, super interesting lore is that these guys do have a 10 year history debating. And like I said, it's crossed over to a new generation. I have fun having conversations and debates with your son too. So that's true. Yeah. So this one coming in want to say thanks so much. Contrary and 420 says, can you cite a reason outside of Christian interpretations, which begs the question in parentheses? Why or how Mary was taken up bodily and spirit into heaven, Cliff? Mary was not taken bodily into heaven. Mary was born, died, and was not bodily taken into heaven. At least that's what the Bible records. I think that's a Catholic thing that neither Cliff or I ever believed. Yeah, I had to check my eyes. I thought I was like, maybe did they mean Jesus? But this one from Charles Lainer says, Matt, supposing there were sufficient enough evidence to convince you the tomb was empty and there were postmortem appearances. Which explanation of these events would you have the most faith in? Conspiracy, hallucination, etc. Oh my. I'll give you my best guess, but I have to start by saying there's not enough information in the question to reach a conclusion about what the explanation was. It's like when people tell me, oh, I saw a demon or I was abducted by aliens or whatever, I'm always willing to believe that they are honestly trying to convey what happened or what they experienced or what they think happened, but that doesn't mean that I'm justified in accepting the conclusion they reached. And so if in fact there were an empty tomb that we knew is where Jesus had been buried and there were people who saw him after he was buried, I would kind of need to hear what the specific accounts were because the accounts, if they match up with what is in the Gospels, it sounds like a fanciful story written much after to explain events that may or may not have happened. And so I don't think anybody has to lie. I don't think that people had to get together and intentionally manufacture a story. I think these things can be misrepresented so far down down the road that when you're talking, you know, Elvis has been dead for decades to have somebody write a book today to tell us about Elvis's life. If there weren't, you know, a flood of books about Elvis's life would still be possibly inaccurate or likely inaccurate. What if we had no books about Elvis really and just people telling stories and now somebody in 2023 said, hey, let me go back and talk to some of these people. A good chunk of them are dead. A good chunk of them have heard it second-handed and written it down. I don't think there needs to be this nefarious. We're going to invent a religion. We're going to invent a story. I think three or four fish stories combined with Chinese whispers, dark telephone or whatever, how you're going to phrase a game are enough to explain that. But if I could talk to the eyewitnesses that say they saw him afterward, that would be significant because investigating the eyewitnesses is always better than hearing second or third hand of what somebody thinks the eyewitness said. This is from nostalgic Aberoth says Matt is a boss and they say Jesus died for me on a second. I'm having an issue with my they say Jesus died for me. Question mark. That's manipulative and they say and he didn't stated either. So add gaslighting to the mix. Cliff. I think they're attacking you could say the gospel, the Christian gospel on this one on this one. I'll defend Cliff because while it may be manipulative to say Jesus died for you or whatever. It's not not whether or not manipulative is irrelevant to whether that's true. Something can be emotionally appealing and emotionally manipulative and still be true. You got it this one from Charles Lainer says can Cliff simply label his evidence as extraordinary in the sense that it is beyond usual or there is different definition or example of extraordinary. You Matt are referring to question mark. Of course the resurrection of Christ is extraordinary. Of course miracles are extraordinary. That's why we call them miracles. There's a natural law created by a law giver by God the creator and under normal circumstances miracles do not happen. But if I'm standing under a tree and an apple separates from a branch 100 times out of 100 it will hit the ground unless I reach out with my hand and catch the apple then due to the introduction of a hand the law of gravity is stopped when it pertains to the falling apple and the apple rests in my hand and does not hit the ground. Natural laws were created by God the God who created those natural laws is more than capable of introducing his hand into a situation and performing what you and I would call a miracle. Just to be fair the hand does not in any way stop the law of gravity. Your example your examples. Your example is an analogy. I just was being from pulling the apple the apple does not hit the ground. Never mind. I'm done trying to help you. Yeah you weren't helping you were interrupting once again. No sir you had finished talking and James was about to ask. No sir you're lying lying. James was about to read the next question and I included a clarification because I knew somebody in chat was going to go off about it. But fuck it. I'm done. This one the Charles clarified these said that their question was from Matt and so even though Cliff the way I read it I mean they say can Cliff simply simply label as evidence is extra. It refers to you the question but they don't want to hear from you as they say so anyway. Daft Mantis says I would like to know if Cliff thinks the Quran is internally consistent or internally inconsistent. I am convinced the Quran is internally inconsistent because it communicates profound respect for Jesus but then denies Christ's claim to be God. If I'm going to respect Jesus and say that he is a real really from God and then I'm going to contradict his major claim to be God in human form that's internal inconsistency. This one from Cosmo. I'm going to humor you Cosmo even though this isn't quite about today's debate but we'll give you Cliff a chance to give a quick response if you'd like to say thank you to both Cliff and Matt for debating. This question is in reference to a previous debate with Cliff. They say what year does Cliff believe humans gained a soul or free will in evolutionary time? I am convinced that the Bible does not answer the question when did God give us a soul? I don't know that and I'm convinced that science would never be able to answer the question. When did God give us a soul? Because a soul is not scientifically verifiable. This one from Mrs. Pickles says the perfume was Chanel number five. I don't remember that coming up. We talk about perfume. I don't remember anything about perfume. Did we switch over to another channel during this? Pointless Poppy says Cliff in 1 Corinthians God is love and he keeps no record of wrongs but in Revelation it says God is keeping a record of wrong. Does this inconsistency make you question other biblical God claims? God is good. That goodness is expressed in his justice and his forgiveness. No, God doesn't blindly wipe away all sin. God forgives us for our sin when we humbly ask him for forgiveness. God judges evil because he gave us a free will. He holds us responsible for what we choose and God freely offers us grace, love and forgiveness when we ask him for it. And that grace and that justice come together on the cross where Christ pays the penalty I deserve for my wrongdoing and offers me forgiveness. You got this one from Zero Glitch says question for Cliff. If someone quoted a bunch of claims from the Quran and said that strong evidence for Allah, not your version of God. Does that mean they are just as justified as you are in their beliefs? Well, the issue is really simple. Is the evidence that Muhammad is reliable or is the evidence that Muhammad is not reliable? Similarly, does the evidence point to Jesus being reliable or does the evidence point to Jesus not being reliable? Read the Quran and answer the question. Does the evidence point to Muhammad being reliable? Read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and ask yourself does the evidence point to Christ being reliable? It's that simple. This is not that complex. This one from Jake Jones says question for Cliff. Who was at the empty tomb and who relayed the news of the missing Jesus? Some women like Mary Magdalene Joanna and in the first century women's testimony was not allowed in court. The sexism was horrendous. But Jesus rose from the dead and first of all appeared to some women. They went and told the disciples and the disciples didn't jump up and down and say, hooray, hooray, isn't this exciting? No, they doubted. And I love the honesty of the text. The disciples were not some wimpy puppies going around believing every piece of folklore they could grab hold of. They were skeptics. And when the women told them that Jesus had risen from the dead, they doubted. But they ran to the tomb and then later they met Jesus and they saw Jesus in different places in different times that in Luke chapter 24 we have the record of Christ standing among them and saying, give me something to eat. Grab hold of me and see a spirit does not have flesh and bone the way you see I am. This one from the anti Jesus says for Cliff, how can anyone be expected to believe Jesus rose again after having all of his bodily fluids drained? As he was dead, they say a magical blood transfusion. All you have to do is go out tonight and look at the stars. Look at the immensity of the Milky Way and then consider that that's just a small speck in the universe. If there is a God who created all of that. It is so simple for that God to raise a dead body to life. This one from big thing flying Wayne says, how is Cliff not a cynic when it comes to other God claims? How is Cliff not a cynic to atheism? He has no evidence for his assertions. See, I don't understand the juxtaposition like why they're so I'll give you a chance to respond Cliff. A cynic is someone who only can tear down, cannot build up. The question is, what is the meaning of life? Why is a human life valuable? What's the basis of ethics? Is there life after death or not? And a cynic just rips and shreds and then walks away appearing to be an intellectual. That is a hollow intellectualism. It's a hollow rationalism. To be a skeptic means, I am not going to blindly gullibly believe anything. Before I believe something, I demand evidence of reliability. Christ calls us to be skeptics. He does not call us to a blind faith. He calls us to a skeptical faith, but a faith that is not cynical and is overly committed to hyperscepticism. So let's be skeptics. Let's ask hard questions. Let's study the evidence, but let's not be cynics. And a cynic also is someone who will just shred what you believe and then they won't tell you what they really believe because they're afraid to have to answer the question. Really? And pray tell. What's the evidence of what you believe through? So Cliff has a beginner's idea of what a skeptic is and what skepticism is. There's no such thing as hyperscepticism and it's impossible to be too skeptical. I'm not a cynic. A cynic is someone who's basically like a contrarian who's just nope, that couldn't happen. Nope, that didn't happen. Nope, that couldn't happen. A skeptic needs evidence to be convinced. The difference between me and Cliff is that Cliff thinks he's a skeptic because he thinks he has good evidence and thinks he has good methodologies. I am a skeptic in that I can expose when those methodologies are not good enough. The fact that I don't have a better methodology to prove the supernatural doesn't make me a cynic. It makes me a skeptic who hasn't diluted themselves into thinking that a methodology which is demonstrably incapable of achieving that result somehow did. This one coming in from Bakey Stokes as I can tell Matt. Let's see. They say they don't think they say I don't think Matt heard Cliff when he said the four points judged reliability not if they were true. They say you Matt it seemed that you skipped over the literary style of the Gospels. So I went through all four of them. I did hear Cliff. It was on the second one the manage I took notes. I take copious notes during this was on the manuscript evidence where he said that this wouldn't prove that what they said was true. It was the other three where he didn't expressly say that this wouldn't prove it was true. His methodology is for determine when we're when we're talking about is Christianity true. The methodology we need to present is how would you determine it is true not how would you determine that the manuscript is accurate to its original version or accurate to what the authors intended or said that is a separate issue from whether or not it is accurate to the truth. You got it. This one they also said this now it makes sense to me they're talking about those four points that you each talked about from Cliff and they said Cliff said the four points judged reliability not if they were true. Yes, reliability of the accuracy of this of the text to the origin and intent of the authors. But that's all irrelevant to whether to the subject of this debate which is Christianity true. I mean at the beginning Cliff said it was all about meaning. We didn't really get to talk about that because the truth is that to whatever extent each of us thinks humans have meaning and value. I have my reasons and Cliff has his cliffs convinced that his reasons because we're made in the image of God that those are true reasons and the only thing you need to value humans is to be convinced that that is true or that something else is true. Anything that you are convinced of that can makes you think humans have meaning will be sufficient for you to treat people as if they have meaning. I just don't need a God to do it. You got it and folks don't remind you we're looking for substantive questions. So if like I the smack talk I'm not as interested in it just doesn't have a lot of substance for the Q and A so if it's so and so wipe the floor so and so we're really looking for something a little deeper. Keith X says Cliff your great storyteller would you agree adding or subtracting one word like not. Could change the meaning of a sentence or even a book. We don't have any originals of the New Testament yet you're so confident. Yeah I think it's rather clear that when you read the New Testament in context there is nothing vague about Christ's claim to be God in human form and the writers of the New Testament insisting that's what he claimed and that's what they accepted. When you read the New Testament there's nowhere near any reasonable room for doubt that he claimed that he was going to rise from the dead and then he pulled it off and that's what the eyewitnesses claimed and that's what the New Testament claims and when it comes to sexuality and money and power I think it's rather clear that on the basics this Bible is very very clear. I like what Mark Twain said Mark Twain said it's not the parts of Bible I don't understand that disturbed me and obviously there are plenty of parts of the Bible I don't understand. Rather Mark Twain said it's the parts of the Bible that I do understand that disturbed me on the basics the Bible is all too clear. Yeah Mark Twain not a Christian not a fan of Christianity but I do appreciate the quote though. This one coming in from Heinrich van knew when Housen says Matthew recounts Jesus's flight to Egypt post birth then to Nazareth Luke however mentions a Jerusalem temple visit soon after birth no Egypt journey. I think there's no contradiction. Oh okay. All right there's absolutely no contradiction. If you and I are staying on a street corner we see two cars coming down the street. We hear a woman scream we hear a screech of brakes and there's a collision. If you go to the police department and say officer I saw the two cars coming down the street I heard a screech of brakes and there was a collision and I saw officer I saw the two cars coming down the street. I heard a woman scream and there was a collision. We are not contradicting each other we are offering two equally valid perspectives on what really happened. Yeah I know I said it wasn't going to help Cliff again but yes the fact that Matthew has two little verses that address fleeing to Egypt and another gospel doesn't isn't a contradiction. It would only be a contradiction if one of the other gospels said that Jesus didn't flee to Egypt. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Totally not a demon says gospel one verse one from the book of spider man. Okay let's see we're going to go to the polarity says Cliff there is a historical and accurate info with place names in America and names in American folklore by your criteria. Does this make the story of Paul Bunyan true? How do we know this isn't the case for the gospels? Historical fiction is obviously a literary style that has been used for a few hundred years. But it was not being used in the first century hundred years before the first century hundreds of years after the first century. So to argue that the gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John invented a literary style called historical fiction that was not used before them and that was not used for hundreds of years after them is highly, highly unlikely. You got this one from Oh, go ahead. Nevermind. This one from for Walker says if the disciples had said they went to the tomb and Jesus and said Jesus wasn't there people would think they moved the stone and took the body. People did think that that's one of the what's one of the objections that there's a number of different objections that have been raised the issue with the Easter account because you have four gospels. He clips right the fleeing to Egypt isn't contradicted by a different claim like if if if Mark said that he didn't go to Egypt or if Mark said that you know at this time he blew to you know, instead of going to Egypt went to somewhere else in Assyria or whatever else then that would be a contradiction because saying he's going to two different places there. There when you're looking at biblical contradictions I highly I generally recommend against going to some of the kind of internet glurge atheist sites because they'll claim thousands of them and draw little lines and some of them are fairly easily resolved. Some of them aren't even difficult to do at all. But when you look at the Easter account there are problems with it that have been attempted to be reconciled by Christians forever. What time did they women get to the tomb? Who was actually who were the women who went to the tomb? Why did they go to the tomb? When did they arrive? When they arrived was the tomb already open or not? Who was at the tomb when they arrived? Was it one angel, one young man, two men, two angels? Where were they seated? Were they inside? Were they outside? Did they roll the tomb away or roll the stone away once they were there? Was it already done beforehand? What did the messengers say? Did the women tell what happened? What did they, you know, when did Mary first see Jesus? Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection? All of these things and probably five or six more there are inconsistencies and disagreement in the count and they counts. Some of those can be addressed by somebody else is telling the story and they got a little piece of it wrong or different or decided to tell it in another order. Some of those can't and for the most important aspect of the most important part of the story of what would be the most important piece of truth and evidence that anybody could have for this to not be clear. To me rings of God's silence and God's lack of involvement in protecting the narrative and making it clear to anyone what happened. This one from polarity says Matt. You have me convinced that Christianity can't be proven but can you explain criteria for truth of historical claims that aren't supernatural? Are they taken on word because no supernatural claim? Yeah, so there's there's two different things here. One of them is whether or not the claim is extraordinary or not by and large. If we're saying, hey, I got a pet puppy yesterday. People know that puppies are real. We have mountains of evidence that puppies are real. We have mountains of evidence that they're domesticated. The people keep those pets, blah, blah, blah, blah. All of that evidence from reality goes as supporting evidence for the likelihood of the claim and makes it distinct from a claim that I got a pet snake, which I have 60 of them in the other room. I got a pet dragon. I got a pet fire breathing dragon that's invisible. As we add more to those things, they begin to depart from reality. So for most historical accounts, if the one thing you have to consider is what are the consequences of accepting that the claim is true? If, in fact, it's false because one thing that people will say is when we have more evidence for Jesus than we do for Socrates. Okay, but whether or not Socrates existed is irrelevant. The only thing that I have to judge about Socrates are the words that are attributed to him. And so those concepts are what I'm evaluating. If it turns out that he was an invented fiction of somebody else, I still get to judge the concepts. Socrates' existence is irrelevant. And if I believe Socrates existed, and it turns out he didn't, the impact to my understanding of reality or my accuracy of reality is negligible. But Jesus' existence and his death and resurrection are the cornerstone of this. And if you were to accept that on the same grounds that you would, you know, that Caesar, Augustus lived or that George Washington lived, if you were willing to say, hey, I'm willing to accept George Washington existed and I'm willing to accept that Jesus was slaughtered and rose again and went on to ascend to heaven and serves as the the kind of conduit for salvation for humanity. Now you're talking about a group of claims that are not remotely in the same category, which is why I really liked at the beginning when we talk about it's difficult to prove whether or not somebody loves you. But we can judge their actions directly. I mean, to whatever extent Arden loves me, I can tell by her actions and our interactions. That doesn't mean that she's not lying to me or whatever else, but we are barred from investigating the internals of somebody's mind at a conceptual level. We can, though, hook somebody up to an MRI and talk about which areas of the brain are being active. We can also spot postpartum depression in mothers and see when they don't attach emotionally to their children as well as they should. That is a completely different category of we have to take people's statements as the strongest confidence we have given the other evidence around. That's in a completely different category from did this person rise from the dead? Did somebody multiply loaves and fishes? Those things are actual physical things that happened in the world that can and should provide empirical evidence. They are not barred from our investigation in the same way that a mind construct is. They are barred from our investigation merely by time, which, by the way, if there is a God, a God should be able to overcome that barrier in order to provide evidence to everyone at all times. And the reason he doesn't Well, I don't know. This one from the anti-Jesus says, Clive, on Genesis 1, Earth was created on day one and the Sun on day four. The Sun is much older than the Earth. Do you dispute the science on this? There is no science in Genesis chapter one. There is no description of process. Science is a description of process that can be verified by doing the experiment over and over and over again and getting the same result. There is no scientific language, meaning by that language describing process in Genesis chapter one. Genesis chapter one includes a lot of poetry. Hebrew poetry did not have words at the end of a line rhyming. Instead, they used parallelism. And when you read Genesis one, you will notice that day one is parallel to day four. Day two is parallel to day five. And day three is parallel to day six. That parallelism in Hebrew is called Hebrew poetry. You got this one coming in from. Do appreciate it. The rogue apologist says, Cliff, how many self-claimed eyewitness testimonies exist in the New Testament? You've got Matthew, Peter, John. They are clearly eyewitnesses. Mark was a young man. So probably a great deal of eyewitnesses there. Luke was not an eyewitness, gentile doctor. But he just got to know the apostles. So that would be he got to know Peter, James, John, Andrew, Matthew. So they were a tight, tight band there in that first century. You got this one from the question was self-claimed eyewitness. Where in the book of Matthew does it claim to be an eyewitness? He has a meal with Jesus and the religious people are honked off with Jesus because he's eating with Matthew, a tax collector. So it's he's right there embedded in the beginning of in the early chapters of Matthew. The character Matthew is in there. You are declaring that that character is the one who wrote it, which is still disputed. But does the book actually claim to be written by an eyewitness? The book itself does not make a claim to be written by Matthew. The book itself does not claim to be written by anybody. Correct. That was the question was specifically worded as the question was specifically worded as self claimed. The question was specifically worded as self claimed eyewitness. The fact that you infer that it's an eyewitness doesn't make itself claimed. That's cliff claimed. This one coming in from Sergio Cedrin says cliff. If Christianity is true, how do you reconcile murder, rape, genocide, slavery, etc. as stated in the Bible and sanctioned by God? It is not sanctioned by God. Never once does God sanction rape, murder, polygamy, never once. This one from Mike Q922. Thanks for your super sticker, Mike. Thunderstorm says could Jesus have survived the crucifixion as a resurrection? I don't know what that means. I suspect that somebody is trying to suggest maybe Jesus didn't actually die. Like he was crucified and all this stuff. And is it count true that they could have put him in there and then he recovered? It's sort of the fainting hypothesis. I don't think that's possible if the account of what happened were to be considered true, where he bled until water flowed. But I'm not a doctor nor a God. So who knows? Stephen Barker says just watch the first 30 minutes of the 2007 film Zeitgeist. It's what took me from being kind of agnostic to fully atheist. They explain how Jesus is just the newest form of the quote unquote solar deity that began with the Egyptians. It's absolute garbage. It's anybody who is an atheist because of that, please go read and study something else. Astrophiology is some absolute conspiracy theory garbage that takes just like any other conspiracy theory. It takes tenuous facts and weaves together a narrative that is compelling at the surface level until you dig a little deeper. Zeitgeist is crap on all three of its fronts. And while it tells some true things about similarities between Jesus and other figures, to become an atheist because of the dying and rising savior mythos to say that this is just a copy of this, that's a really bad reason. Granted, you don't need a reason to not believe. But you certainly have picked a really bad reason to actively reject. This one from Truthseekers says, Cliff, what do you find to be the most reliable methodology for finding truth? It depends if it's scientific truth that we're looking for, then we look for solid physical evidence. If it's historical truth we're seeking, then we look for trustworthy eyewitness testimony. If it is relational truth that we're looking for, then it is getting to know a person and exploring their credibility or lack of credibility, their trustworthiness or lack of trustworthiness, their integrity or lack of integrity. A relationship is based on trust. I cannot prove a person, rather I watch a person live their life, I watch how they respond to me, to others, and then I build a relationship to the best of my ability with them. So that's relational truth. And I would argue that all three of those types of truth are very real, and I am convinced that to say that unless something can be scientifically verified, it is not true. That is self-contradictory, it is a lie, it's intellectually dishonest, and it is embraced by a lot of people in our culture, and that's tragic. I agree. That's why I don't embrace it. One of the differences here is that I find that cosmology, the origins of the universe, is a scientific question about an empirical fact that did or didn't occur and how it occurred. The origin of the universe, Big Bang Cosmology, is a scientific fact. What is also a scientific fact is whether or not the sun stood still in the sky, whether or not the earth was ever globally flooded, and whether or not someone has risen from the dead after being buried for a couple of days. Those are all scientific questions. The fact that you may not have evidence strong enough to support a conclusion for a particular occurrence of that does not make them unscientific questions, and because you're in a position where you can't scientifically verify the scientific question, doesn't mean that it somehow gets removed from the realm of science, stuck in the realm of history, and then accepted as true. That is not skepticism. Joel Linebach says, Cliff, outside of the Bible, which historical document supports the claim that Jesus is the Son of God? Many people outside the Bible talk about Jesus' claim to be God in human form. The Jewish Talmud has some very hostile references to Jesus as a false prophet. Josephus dabbles with who Jesus really is. He was a Jewish historian. Marabar Sarapion, the Syrian philosopher, struggles in a letter. He writes to his son about who really is this Jesus. Tacitus, Seutonius, and Pliny the Younger talk about Jesus and who he really is, his identity. Obviously, the Romans' soldiers had Christian stand before them and say, Say Caesar is Lord and live, or else maintain that you're Jesus' Lord, that he's God in human form and uniquely God in human form, and we will kill you for it. And those followers of Christ went to the lions and the gladiators in the Roman Coliseum and they paid for their belief in Christ as being God with their lives. For Rocker says, if the disciples, we got that one. Polarity says, I agree, Cliff, the sexism was horrible back then. 1 Timothy 2, 11 through 12. I'd have to check it, but I think it's the passage of time. It's not permitting women to speak in church. I have authority over a man. That's what I was thinking. Cliff, what are your thoughts? I've done an entire video going through that women and men are not remotely unequal footing in the Bible with regard to inheritance or value or their prices or cost as slaves or how much they can or can't inherit. Men and women aren't equal in the Bible. Well, I would say it's unquestionable, but slavery is permitted in the Bible as well, and there are people who question that. Any thoughts, Cliff? In Matthew chapter 19, Jesus is pressed by the Pharisees regarding divorce. And he says, yes, Moses did say that you can write a certificate of divorce to your wife, but you better write that. And then Jesus says, and Moses permitted this due to the hardness of your heart. In Genesis chapter one and two, we have the basis of the equality of male and female. Both are created in the image of God. That is the basis for the equal value of male and female. Then starting in Genesis three, we have the fall where everything gets messed up, including King David having several wives, several concubines, having a son who rapes his half-sister and then is murdered by a half-brother of his. You have total chaos erupting as a result of human treason against God. This one from the anti-Jesus says, Cliff, look at the stars is not an answer. And that was with regards to how Jesus could resurrect if he didn't have bodily fluids. They say, I want medical support behind this claim. How do you suppose Jesus got his body fluids back? God can create something out of nothing. He did that in Genesis one and two. And therefore, if there is a body that's totally decomposed, that becomes dirt the way mine will, when I die, God is big enough and powerful enough to reassemble my body. And the reason I said look at the stars is when you begin to grasp the power of Almighty God, the resurrection is peanuts compared to the creation of the universe when you begin to consider the vastness of the universe. To go back just a minute while I appreciate the fact that Matthew 19 does permit for divorce. That doesn't say anything at all about equality or the reason for equality. The rules for divorce from the Bible are different for men than they are for women and what can happen afterwards, whether or not they're allowed to remarry and under what conditions are different. And to ignore all of the other areas where women and men are absolutely viewed as different with regard to their value to just say men can divorce their wives, somehow portrays equality in the Bible is absurd. And it is equally absurd for you to conclude that that was my point out of Matthew 19. That's incredible math that you could conclude that you were not listening to me. You literally said that it shows equality because we are all children of God. Did you not say that? No, what I said was in Matthew 19, Jesus uses the phrase, this was permitted due to the hardness of your hearts, which should show you that divorce is never God's best. Slavery is never God's best. Polygamy is never God's best. And sexism is never God's best. Because when you go back to pre-fall, Genesis 1 and 2, before the fall in Genesis 3, women and men are equal in value. But because of the fall, all of a sudden, sexism, slavery, racism, polygamy, rape, incest, murder multiplies and it is a mess and it's tragic. I'll let you all go back and rewind to find out if Cliff actually says what he said he didn't say, but also that verse still does not talk about equality, which was what the question was. Let's see, I do have to mention folks, we can't take any more questions. I pinned a chat about 30 seconds ago saying we can't take any more questions with the remaining 15 minutes we have. We've got to kind of jump to light speed here and getting through these last ones. This is from Mrs. Pickle says, So the Bible, quote unquote, God's word supposedly, has been used for genocide for centuries even in the Americas. How is any of that holy, wouldn't God intervene, Cliff? It is not holy the way the Bible has been used and abused and misinterpreted. And that was one of my points to Matt earlier in our debate. It is intellectually dishonest for me to take a misinterpretation of the Quran and say science contradicts that misinterpretation of the Quran, therefore the Quran is wrong. It is equally intellectually dishonest to take a misinterpretation of Genesis and say science contradicts that misinterpretation, therefore Genesis is wrong. That's intellectual dishonest. What's actually intellectually dishonest is accusing someone of misinterpreting something and not demonstrating how that's the case and refusing to address any of the questions about it. I can give you the last word, Cliff, because it was originally addressed to you then I've got to really push us fast to go through these last questions. So a really short and pithy response if you want, Cliff. To which question? To what I just said. Or the original question, whichever you prefer. Which one and what's the question? Let's see. So they said the immorality done throughout the centuries in the name of Christianity, why wouldn't God intervene? God has created us with a free will. God cannot do anything. He can't make square circles. He can't make 2 plus 2 equal 5. But he's all powerful over creation. And God created us with a free will, which means we can pervert His good creation, and we have done an incredibly effective job of perverting God's good creation. KV says, Cliff, if we need to evaluate which way evidence points, quote-unquote, how do we do that in a rigorous and process-oriented way? Study the New Testament Gospels. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for yourself. And ask yourself, does the historical evidence point to Christ being trustworthy? Or does the historical evidence point to Christ not being trustworthy? Based on your study of the source documents, you make your own decision. Secondly, pray, be open to God's Holy Spirit drawing you. What does that mean? What that means is what Paul expressed in Romans chapter 1, that we are not objective intellectually, because we have a soul, we have a character, we have a sinful nature, and we are blinded by our prejudices. So total objectivity is impossible. But let's try and be as open-minded and objective as we can, which means we're going to read the Gospels and ask, does the evidence point to Jesus being reliable? And we're going to pray. We're going to cry out to God, if you're there, I want to know you. This one from Subatomica says, would you go to a doctor that used books from hundreds of years ago? If not, why are you living your one and only life according to a book from 2,000 years ago transcribed through generations and languages? The English New Testament that we have today is not transcribed from French and Italian and Swahili. Instead, it is taken from the Greek documents, which is the language the New Testament was originally written in. Translation is not a precise science, but it's a very accurate academic discipline translation is. And we can really translate accurately. Now, regarding age, just because a book is old, doesn't mean that it's ridiculous and irrational. Reason stands on its own, regardless of how old the book is. Notion slave says, how is an average human in the desert supposed to accept such significant historical claims? And how is God expecting us to believe this based on hearsay? God would have to give better method to believe. There are so many followers of Christ around the world. It's incredible. Atheists comprise 7% of the human population. Atheists and agnostics. 3% of the population believe that there's some type of God. The followers of Christ in Africa, South America, and Asia are millions in number. So, God by his Holy Spirit reaches out to people who are not college grads. Edzer don't have a PhD. And by his Holy Spirit, he works on their hearts. But he does the same to people who are in academic circles like John Lennox, Professor Emeritus from Oxford, like Susan Hawkeworth, the first female president of MIT. He was a Christian. Like Troy Vander Hoeven at MIT, another professor. So, I've been privileged to meet many professors around the United States who are at the top of their academic discipline and who have a profound faith in Jesus Christ. So, faith in Christ is not blind naivete. It's based on evidence. It's based on using our minds well and having our hearts open to God's love, to God's Holy Spirit penetrating us. It's really rare to get several identifiable named fallacies, including argumentum ad populum and post hoc or proctor hoc into one little argument like Cliff just did. Pointless Poppy says, Cliff, you said it's easy for God to raise people from the dead. Why could he not make a commandment against slavery? This seems inconsistent to me. Well, just please go back and read Exodus chapter 21, verse 16. Where we read that if you kidnap someone and are either caught with them in your possession or caught having sold them, you are to be put to death. Exodus chapter 21, verse 16. That's not a prohibition against slavery. That's prohibition against man stealing. The exact same chapter that you're reading from goes through and legislates everything about slavery, how to have a different set of rules for Jewish slaves, how to trick people into remaining slaves, how that when the men go free, the women don't go free, more equality. The prohibition against man stealing is not in any way a prohibition against slavery, especially when the rest of the chapter goes through and tells you exactly who to enslave, how to enslave them, and that you can beat them as long as they don't die with a couple of days. And now you know why I quoted Matthew chapter 19, where Jesus says it was due to the hardness of your hearts that God permitted divorce and said to give a certificate of divorce to your spouse. Which has nothing to do with slavery, but it's another good tap dance. It has nothing to do with slavery, but you keep dancing every time, and it's obvious to everyone. We need to do this guys, we've got to move forward. This one from Rusty Colon says, Cliff, if God is omnipotent, or if God is in control of everything, then doesn't it seem that God is complicit in all perceived evil? That is exactly right. God is not complicit in all evil. In fact, God does not create evil. God gave us a free will and I can use my free will to motivate me to use my hand to punch someone in the face or to pull out my wallet, give them money and feed them. I am responsible for what I choose to do. Evil is the abuse of my free will and violating the purpose for which God gave me a hand which was not to punch you, but to feed you. Shad Theon says, Matt, man. Point of this poppy says, Cliff, what's the evidence for Jesus' body not having been stolen out of the tomb? Well, first of all, the disciples were in no condition to steal it. They were not true believers. They were not blind believers. They were Christ doubters, Christ deniers, Christ betrayers. So it's obviously not the disciples who stole it. If the enemies of Christ stole it, then certainly they could have produced it when this resurrection myth occurred. No, nobody stole it. The evidence is he was dead and he rose from the dead. This one coming in from skeptics and scoundrels, thanks for becoming a channel member. And they also said, Cliff, do you have false-ification criteria for the biblical claims about Jesus? In other words, if one or more scriptures regarding him is false, how would you know it? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15, if Christ is not risen from the dead, we're fools for believing in him. In other words, the Bible gives us a way to verify or falsify Jesus Christ. Does the evidence point to him rising from the dead, or does it not? And if he did rise from the dead, he's the true. If he didn't rise from the dead, he's false. This is a clear demonstration that Cliff does not understand what falsification is because a book telling you, hey, if it's not true, then we're foolish. Might mean you're foolish. This one from Carl A. Oh, Carl A, if you have a question, let me know what it was. Also, Charles Lainer. Sorry, earlier in the... It probably sounded cynical. I said that you referenced Cliff without wanting to hear from him. Technically, you didn't say you didn't want to hear from him. Sorry, I'm sorry about that, Charles. I didn't mean to make you... I didn't mean to paint you in a negative way. I think you would have been open to hearing from Cliff as well as Matt. This one from Four Rockers says, I meant that if I as a disciple wanted to steal the body, I would say women found the tomb first. No one would say women alone could move the stone. You're speaking as a 20th century person. Obviously, in the first century, it was not a way to gain credibility for the resurrection to say that women saw him first. That was not the way to gain credibility because women were not even allowed to give testimony in court. Their testimony was invalid. The sexism of the Roman world was off the charts. Jesus brought a dignity to women that was incredible. Now guys, if you don't believe me, just ask yourself the question. What is the largest demographic in the world today that has the highest percentage of Christians? You know what the answer to that question is? Women of color. Women of color understand that Jesus stood for the dignity of all women. That is why the demographic with the greatest percentage of Christians is women of color. I'm going to recommend that Cliff Debate Manteisa Thomas on this subject rather than being another white guy here pretending that the fact that women of color are a significant demographic in any way demonstrates that Jesus did anything for the dignity of women. And I notice that instead of going to the Bible and citing references that dignify women, he goes to argumentum and popularity again. This one coming in from Notion Slaves says for the past thousand years when missionaries washed on different shores saying Jesus died for everyone, how in the world would God expect those natives to come to believe them without any access to the historical data? I am not going to convince Matt to believe in Jesus. That's the work of the Holy Spirit in Matt's heart. I've never converted anybody. I am simply called by Christ along with every other follower of Christ to point people to Christ to communicate the gospel. So missionaries have done that for two thousand years. In fact, I was just at the University of South Carolina and a white woman stepped out of the crowd and said, well Africans obviously believe in Jesus because of the culture of Africa by white people. Suddenly a very black gentleman stepped out of the crowd and said excuse me ma'am, I am from Nigeria. I am a follower of Christ and my church is far older than any white European or American church. I trace my faith back to Philip leading the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ. The Coptic Church is one of the oldest churches in the world. So please don't tell me that I am a follower of Jesus because of colonization, because of white supremacy, or any of that garbage. I celebrate that kind of deep thinking and open-mindedness. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question as well. Emory King says, Matt, can you give me a few resources to learn more about fallacies and also the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible? I don't know where to start. Sure. So I used to point people to ironcharts.org, but it's been down for a while. Just start with the Wikipedia entries on logical syllogisms and validity and soundness. That will take you through the basics of the logical syllogism and show what the fallacies are, because Aristotle and his band of Mary logicians went through all 256 possible syllogistic forms for propositional logic and showed which ones are fallacious in forms. Now getting into the formal fallacy, fallacies due to form, then you start addressing soundness. I would recommend a nice, easy website like yourlogicalfallacyis.com as a starter place. Now when you go to Wikipedia or anything else, make sure that you go down and check the references, because there are some incredibly good resources like I believe it's the Princeton philosophy website that goes through it. When you dig in on biblical stuff after that, I recommend going to infidels.org to see some articles from people challenging, for example McDowell's Evidence at Demands of Verdict and things like that. Also the index to creationist claims which is at talkorigins.org. All of those sites go through. They're written by a variety of experts in those fields and they cross-reference stuff. You can do your research there, but they will give you the basics and then some of them will go on to give you specifics. This one coming in from nostalgic Eberoth says Cliff said if God can create a huge universe of galaxies, then he could easily resurrect Jesus. Then why can't God easily solve Earth's problems and suffering and easily prove himself to be real? God will solve the Earth's problems totally when Jesus returns a second time in power and great glory. Before that time, he has given us a degree of freedom. And that freedom is very important. Why? Because you're not a robot. You're a human being which partially means you have a free will, a conscience, a rational mind. And that's the way God created you to love him which demands freedom, but we don't have to love, we can hate instead. The rogue apologist, if you guys can bear with me, I think I've got just two more here. They say, Cliff, just for your edification, Paul is the only New Testament writer who self claims to be an eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus. The only. Good. Lee here says, do God ask Mary's permission before planting? See, I think they're saying, is there an ethical issue with God impregnating Mary? Did God get Mary's consent before he knocked her up? Yeah, that's roughly it. Mary says, I am the Lord's servant. May it be to me as you have said, a tremendous example of humility, faith in God. This one from, let me just double check. I think that might actually be all of it. Sorry folks, I know there are maybe one or two super chats that came in Latin, but I just, I do want to keep my promise to the guests in terms of getting them out of here. So I know there was at least one where it was, it came in and I was like, it was just after the time that I had announced. So do want to say a couple of things. One folks, this is hopefully just the beginning for you. If this is theoretically your first debate or maybe it's your 50th, there are so many things that you can do, which is the guest links below in the description box. Hey, what are you waiting for? And if you enjoy this debate, which hey, you must, you've been here. Some of you have probably been here for two hours. Consider sharing this debate with a friend or a group online, whatever it might be. As we do want to give everybody a fair shot, whether they be atheists, Christian, Muslim, we do want to have fair debates here and we hope you feel welcome, whether you be Christian, atheist, Muslim, you name it. We're glad that you're here. We hope you feel welcome at modern day debate. Thank you to our guests. Cliff and Matt, it's been a true pleasure to have you. Thanks. Thank you, Matt, so much. I'm praying for your heart that it continues to beat well. It'll beat till it stops and I won't pray for yours, but I hope you live a long damn time and we do this again. Thank you, Matt. Thank you, James. My pleasure. Thank you guys. And folks, stick around. I'll be doing a really short post-credits scene, a little after-show letting you know about upcoming events. So stick around and I'll be back in just a moment, but one last thanks. Cliff and Matt, it's been a true pleasure. Thanks. Thank you, James. Amazing. My dear friends, want to say thanks so much for being with us. I've got some cool stuff to share. As I mentioned at the very start of the debate, you guys have to know about this. I'm really excited about it and I spent, let me turn my little camera on here, two moments. Bear with me almost there. Want to say, if you didn't know, modern day debate does have a Patreon and we do have channel memberships. I think some people maybe didn't know that. We've never really talked about it much. It's usually just one of the things that it's kind of like, hey, yeah, it's there. I've put some serious effort into making our channel memberships and Patreon epic. In other words, we have some serious perks I've got to show you guys, which I'm just really excited that we really put in a lot of effort. Whereas like, hey, let's do something that people are like, hey, yeah, that's a lot for. So let me show you this. So as you can see at the bottom right of the screen, it says, if you click that join button at the bottom of the video or if you go to Patreon, which is linked in the description box, it also has a link. In case you don't know where the join button is, it's usually near the subscribe button. In case you don't know where that is and you're like, I don't know where that is. There is a button where you can actually earn a link in the description box where you can actually click and join that way. In the description box, I want to share some of the perks with you because you might be thinking like, James, what are the perks then if you say that you've like upped the ante? We have gone all out. So in other words, you have a lot of the same levels, but we've added perks to those and then we've added different levels. So the first one is extra juicy for $1.99 a month. You can see you have loyalty badges showing how long you've been a member, which we appreciate. Thank you guys. We have a lot of members who want to say thanks for your support as well as the emojis. You can use these epic emojis such as the soy boy one to call your friends soy boy as well as amazing and the juicy emoticons as well. Also, the members only photos and status updates that you can see at the community tab, but not only that, also members only polls as I'm rolling those out. That's something brand new that I'm like, we really do need to do that. The next level up, so much soy at $7.99 is you'll have your name and the ticker at the bottom of the screen. So for example, you can see at the bottom of the screen right now, you're seeing where your name would be. That's what we're talking about there. And you might be like, well, James, tell me more what other perks though, because that one, I know that one was there before also an exclusive discord hangout. So in other words, this is one where I'll just occasionally be jumping in at least once a month, maybe more than that, although because I definitely want to learn how to use discord more and just kind of, hey, what's up? How's it going? Kind of shoot the poo as some people say and not only that the amazing level on the far right there. You can see that one. That's one that we've totally jacked up. In other words, we've added a lot of perks. It used to be that we would do the member shoutouts only. So we do have that, which is why I'm going to say right now, Corey Clark, Oliver Catwell, and Scott Mitchell. Thanks for your amazing channel level support. If you get value out of the channel and you're like, hey, I do love this channel. This is a lot of fun. I enjoy it. Hey, I would say, hey, this is a great way to support the channel. We really do appreciate it. Now, not only that, there is going to be a monthly 30 minute live stream where it says, as you can see on screen, here, secret channel info. And what I mean by that is it's going to be me doing that live stream personally. And I'm going to be sharing some of the debates that we're trying to set up. The more speculative ones where it's kind of like, hey, you know, we're trying to do this. We're going to see how it pans out. Kind of the insider knowledge that we don't, like it's not public, but it's stuff that we're kind of like, hey, like we're setting it up. So for example, Abdullah Andalusi, I think I'm saying it right. He debated Matt DeLonte last year. We're trying to set him up. I've reached out to him to see if he wants to debate Aaron. That's the, so it's not confirmed on either side yet, but that's kind of like some of the like juicy like little bit of info where I'll be sharing kind of like what we're trying to set up. And that's another perk that you can see there. That's a brand new perk. So we just added that one. Not only that, but you might be thinking like, well, James, like, what other perks are you talking about? In addition to that 30 minute members only or Patreon, you can check out Patreon too, which by the way, if you're looking at these perks and you're like, man, I don't know. I don't want to spend 8 bucks a month or 30 bucks a month. You can find these same perks on Patreon for cheaper. And you're like, wait, why James? Why is it so expensive on YouTube? It's because we started with Patreon and then to match the value, we actually had to increase it on YouTube because YouTube takes 30%. So frankly, my preference is, you know, if you like the channel and you want to support it, check out Patreon, which is linked in the description box below. But maybe you're like, ah, I just like YouTube. I don't care about, you know, I don't need Patreon. It's just too, you know, too much too much trouble. That's fine too. So the last perk, an exclusive Discord channel for members only. That's something that's new and just created as well. So there are different perks. You could say, yeah, perks added to these levels that already existed. But you might be like, well, James, are there other levels, like new levels? Yes, there are. So here's where it gets more intense. So these are like, hey, if you're really all in and you're like, hey, man, I love the vision, modern debate, a neutral channel hosting debates so that everybody can have their chance to make their case on a level playing field. I love the vision and I love a neutral debate channel. I think this is a cool thing. Hey, here's a way that you can support us in some of the ways that we are wanting to say thank you for that support. So as you can see on screen right now, the next level up is the strategy level. So $39.99. This is where there's a monthly Zoom planning and feedback meeting with James. So this is personal. Like it's usually a group of four or five of us is this is where you're like, hey, I'm really committed to this and like I want to be there in terms of giving feedback on the strategy for modern day debate, what topics I'd really like to have be more often on modern day debate or maybe something that you don't want to see as often. That little Zoom personal meeting, sometimes it's just two. Like sometimes it's just me and like Brian, let's say. And then sometimes it's like, oh, hey, like we've got Chris, we've got Brian, and you know, we've got Bob, we've got like sometimes it's actually a group like, I don't know, sometimes it's as much as six or seven. But pretty small. Next modern day debate backstage. I think this is one of the coolest things is that five backstage passes each month and you're like, wait, I don't understand what is what's backstage. I got I'm confused about this. What we're going to do is we will send the Zoom link to the speakers and you 10 minutes before the start time of the debate. So for example if we had this perk earlier and let's say somebody is like, oh, okay, cool. Matt and Cliff are going to debate tonight. I've never talked to Matt. I'd love to talk to him over Zoom. Like, that'd be kind of cool. I'll get these backstage passes. So let's say you signed up and you got the backstage passes MDD backstage level and you're like, yeah, that's one of the debates that I want to do. So you would log in at the same time as Matt and Cliff and it'd be a chance to say, hey, like, how's it going, guys? Like, I've never gotten to talk to you before. We just want to say hi. And that's the time that, of course, I know that you guys will be your regular friendly cells. We just want to say, hey, we don't want anybody that's going to like debate them or be like, ah, I was like, you know, you're an idiot. Like, we don't want that. We just want to kind of like a greeting and like, hey, I wanted to meet you. I haven't gotten to. So it would also give you 10 minutes at the tail end of the debate where you could just chat with the guest there as well. So that's over Zoom, like I said. And so basically you just come in 10 minutes before the debate starts, which is when I would send the link. And then when I have to start the debate, it's, hey, already got to start the debate up. But tune in once you see a stop streaming the debate. Like jump back into the Zoom meeting and use the same link I gave you. And then you can talk to the speakers more. Next, modern day debate VIP. So this is the big one. This is where it's like, hey, you're a huge monstrous supporter of modern day debate. This has got a lot of perks. And what I think are like where it's like, hey, this is like the, for me, more of the time commitment where I'm like, hey, like, if you do this, like we're saying like, hey, thank you so much. And this is by the way, like I said, it's appreciably cheaper on Patreon. So if you're like, James, 150 bucks a month, give me a break is let me talk about the perks first and then I'll mention the Patreon. It is appreciably cheaper. So the reason, like I said, is YouTube takes 30% but hey, if you don't have Patreon, like, hey, we're happy to have you as a member. So we have no complaints. We're glad to have your support either way. So 30 minute Zoom chat with James each month. So that's where anything you want to talk about, it's a fair game. If you want to ask me tough questions, if you want to say, hey James, why have you hosted these controversial people? Whatever it is, that's fair. Also any time and unlimited backstage passes. So I just explained the idea of the backstage passes where if you do it at the MDD backstage level you get five per month. We usually do about 12 debates a month. So it'd be less than half. So you probably get your best ones in. But if you wanted to be there and you're like, hey, I want to go to absolutely as many as I want hey, this is the one for you because it's unlimited. So if you want to do it every debate and meet every speaker, you want to say, hey Vosh, how's it going? Like, hey, I never got to meet you before. Hey, Destiny, how are you? That's a possibility. Next up, any time, we could talk about that. So that's the second perk and then option to co-host a debate one time a month. So that's where you'd be on screen with me where you'd actually be co-hosting the debate with me. So like you'd be there and you could kind of usher us into the Q&A and you'd be on the right side. So this side where I'm pointing my finger right now where it says check out our new epic perks from channel memberships and Patreon below is that would be where your camera feed would be showing you and we would just not have that. You could say I don't know, promotion. It would instead show you. So that's something that's cool too if you're like yeah, I would love to. I just feel like these debates, like to be there in person and get to watch it live and be a part of it that way for let's say Matt versus Cliff or something like that. So a big one. By the way, tonight was a big one so I do want to say thank you guys for your support. It means more than you know. Jeremy Nolan thinks you're kind of where it says Dr. James Tuer would be awesome to have on modern day debate. I agree. We are working on it. I have reached out to him once and I will reach out to him again. But yeah, I'm pumped about this. We do have these new perks and I do want to encourage you like hey, consider it. And that's the thing too is let's say you're like, I don't know James, like you know, I don't know if I'd want to, you know, 150 bucks a month. It's like maybe you want to do it once. You're like, well, I, you know I know that you're going to have this debate on this month like I see the debate is already up because we have our upcoming debates list or our feed I should say what's our playlist on our page. You might say, hey, that's the month I want to do it. I want to jump for the MDD backstage level but I want to say thank you guys for considering it because it really does help us support the channel. It means more than you know. We hope you get a kick out of it. We hope you give feedback. If you're like James like here's something that would be cool if you could add this as a perk. That'd be cool. Let me know. I'm at moderndatabate.gmail.com I want to say thank you guys for your support though. Everything New Testament says, yo, what up It's Hunter Bailey. Hunter, how are you doing? I hope you're doing well buddy. I want to say thank you guys for your support. Flat Sabbath, thanks for being a channel supporter, a member. Fenton Mollie says, I'd love to see Pine Creek on MDD. That's right, we haven't had them on for like three years so we should. Let me write that down. You know, the funny thing is it's pretty tough to find Christian debaters. Like, even though they're numerically, they're just way more. Christians just aren't as interested in debates. They're just kind of like, hey, I'm just going to go, I'm just like living it and I'm not worried about debating it. And I'm not judging or anything like that. But it's interesting that there's just not nearly as many Christian or atheist debaters or Christian or Muslim debaters even though Christians and Muslims obviously outnumber atheists by a massive margin on the planet. So I don't know. But I actually suggest, what's the word I'm looking for? Not suggest. I suspect that there's a reason, part of it is a personality profile type thing, but we'll talk about that more later. First I want to tell you guys about some cool stuff. One is my dear friends, have you hit that like button? It really means more than you know, for real. This debate will be seen by more people. I'm dead serious. If you thought like, man, I thought you know, my side, the person representing my position just blew it out of the water. They did fantastic and you want like in a very practical, real way, like it's a very direct way. If you want this video to be seen by more people hitting like really will make the difference. It won't make it be real. Oh, it's not seen by a million, but it will be seen by more people just in terms of like a smaller magnitude. I really believe that YouTube likes do make a difference based on channel shorts. I've noticed that if I have a short that I release on modern day debate and it gets a ton of likes really early and it doesn't have a ton of views, it's a really good predictor that it's going to get a ton of views. I think the algorithm it just kind of registers where it's like, oh, people are really engaging. And they start showing it to more, many, many more people. So I want to say thank you for your support in addition. If you look in the description box, I had mentioned already the links for our channel memberships and Patreon are at the top, but you might be wondering, well James, what else is there in the old description box? Our new Discord is in the description box. I'm going to put a poll in the chat. Do you use Discord? I'm putting yes. No. I'm curious. I'm guessing a lot of you do. Last time we did a poll it was 48% of people on the modern day debate live chat said yes, I use Discord. So that's pretty interesting. It is a really popular app and our Discord is linked in the description box below. So I want to mention that. I'll throw that in the old live chat as well. So if you haven't checked out our new Discord, do check it out. What are you waiting for? So thank you guys for your support though seriously. I want to say hello and thank you. I want to say hi and thank you those of you in the live chat right now. The reason is because I know that you're subscribed because I turned on subscribers only chat mode earlier. So I want to say thank you guys for being a subscriber. Debunking ignorance, thanks for being here. Thanks for subbing. Christian Metalhead, thanks for being a subscriber. Lion Jr., thanks for being a subscriber. KV, thank you so much for your support. Subatomics, glad that you're with us. Pig and beef, glad you're here. Nadia, Yvette Chambers, glad to have you here. Thanks for your support of Modern Day Debate. T. Davis, thanks for coming by. Duhfreak, good to see you again. Long time viewer. Lion, let's see, we got you. Lion Jr., good to see you. The Sordid Singer, thanks for coming by. Glad you're with us. Fenton Mully, another long time viewer. Thanks for your support. Matt Rocks, they make a user name just for that, just for these Matt debates. Thanks for your support. We appreciate you being here and I appreciate your positivity because rather than tearing another person down, like rather than this could go either direction too. I don't want to say it's like any particular group. But you know let's say instead of saying Matt is negative term X. Or Cliff is negative term Y. Rather than doing that I'm more in favor of you lifting someone up. Even if it's someone I don't agree with. Even if it's a flat earth or making the case for flat earth instead of calling the globe earth or a dirty person. I don't know, a whore. Instead of saying, oh man Austin Whitsitt's a whore. I'm much more or let's say it's because like I said it was the glober. That's the whore. If you say all that glober is a whore I'm like wow I'm not a flat earther. But I'd rather you say like Whitsitt is cool rather than call the other person a whore. I like positivity. It's contagious. They're adventurers. Thanks for coming by. I see you there in the old live chat. Curious, camera happy to have you here. Now 62% of you have said hey I use discord. Which is amazing. That's a huge percent. So I'm going to throw that link to our discord in the live chat again and now I'm even going to pin it just so you guys can check that out. So do want to say hey a lot of cool stuff here. In addition cd thanks for kind word as nice beard. I appreciate that cd 60% use discord. It's pretty huge. As well as Symos Funk. Long time viewer. Thanks for coming by. Western Spy. Good to have you with us as well as we go to the very top. Kent speak. Thanks for coming by Kent. Hope you're doing well. As well as thanks for your support and being with us David Skywalker. Glad you are here. I think that's it. We might have caught up a biogenesis failure since 1952. Thanks for coming by as well as Matt Peters. Thanks for being here. We love you man. Thanks for being with us. Charles Lainer. Thanks for your support says any efforts to get Ruslan. I don't know who that is for real. I don't know. I feel like I'm supposed to know that but I don't know who it is and Hunter Bailey. Good to see you there in the live chat. Thanks for all your support of the channel. We want to say but yeah, Dennis Hyde thanks for coming by see you there in the live chat. Now I want to address something. I don't usually address stuff like this but I do just because it's a brutal thing. Always blues. Thanks for coming by. James Smith. Thanks for coming here. Glad that you are with us and what I wanted to mention was I hope and I know that some of you guys might not be fans of Hunter Avalon but I want to say I know that some of you probably are fans of Hunter Avalon 2 by the way I want to say I hope hopefully you're not I don't think any of you would be we're cool we're tight but I hope nobody if you were considering it I don't think you were but just in case there was a 1% of you out there which 1% of 1,100 viewers is 11 people is if there was 1% that was considering it I would say it's good to not be nasty toward Hunter Avalon or Carissa you know like it doesn't so I don't know you guys have probably heard that there's been a you know they're divorcing and the reason I bring this up is just you know it's just a painful thing you know what I mean like it's something that try to use it like they try to leverage it on Twitter to like put someone down and I'm like that's really gross don't you know like I don't think that's good it's the world has got so much negativity it can use a lot of positivity it really can and I can tell you in my field of research in getting the doctorate in psychology a cross cultural preference in leaders doesn't matter if you're China the US Saudi Arabia doesn't matter anywhere on the planet people like leaders who are positive so be a leader be positive and the thought for me is just I have no positions on like the divorce or anything like I'm not saying any position on like who's right or wrong and from what I've heard and read from Hunter himself it's been amicable that they've been so the point is this I just it's a heart breaking thing you know it's kind of a it's a type of grief to go through a divorce like you're losing someone that you love and that was important to you so the reason that I say this is just that I don't think any of you would but I just see some people on Twitter and like I'm actually very sincere that I don't think any of you would but I see some people on Twitter that are just nasty and it's just like bro it's practically like in a way you know like it's like almost like a death it's almost like experiencing a death it's not in the most real way because you know it's not like the person that you can't speak to them at all in the same way that um depending on your theology because I'm not trying to push any particular view I know that some people maybe the theology would be different but but or there maybe they don't have a theology and they say you can't talk to somebody when they die like it's just done whatever it is so it's not exactly the same obviously but it is in a very real way it is grief and you are losing someone it's just kind of a different type of loss and so anyway I just my heart goes out to Hunter because even though I don't agree with Hunter on a lot of stuff like and I'm not trying to say that he's wrong by the fact that I disagree I'm just saying like there are plenty of things we disagree on but I'm just like oh man that's got to be painful and so I hope the best for Hunter and Carissa and hopefully there's just no drama like I said I don't think any of you guys would so I probably don't need to say that but I just something on my heart because it's just like it's just a painful thing and then the internet the internet can bring out the worst in people potentially especially twitter and I'm not joking twitter can be nasty it's just thanks for your support subatomics thanks for your kind words thanks for streaming James Bernie thanks for your support James Smith thanks for your support Tanner McLaughlin thanks for coming by thanks for your support Kevin Howe thanks for your channel membership support man and thanks Charles Lainer says great job policing the debate tonight man those are the ones where I'm like I'm trying so hard not to take a side when the debaters are both speaking over each other and like actively they're just not you know they're not going to get ground because they're thinking like this guy's not giving me any ground like I've got to stand up for myself and so I'm like I'm like oh this is hard because I usually have to say you know I break it up I pull them apart and then I have to say who goes first so you know I have to say either Matt what was the point you were making or Cliff can you finish that point and that for me is like the hardest thing where I'm like like maybe I you know what if I my bias my my perspective is only one so I could be wrong where I'm like you know go ahead Matt or go ahead Cliff and I mean might be wrong did I say Stuart before I'm pretty tired so I should go it's getting pretty late here but I want to say thank you guys for your your kind words thanks for all your love and positivity I'm encouraged that modern day debate is grown as it has we can totally by the way get to 750 likes we have 1,100 people watching live right now some of them have probably fallen asleep next to their computer or phone while this is playing and you know so that's okay they can't hit like they're asleep I mean theoretically they could but let's not count on them instead could you hit like because it really does mean more than you know so I do want to say I highly encourage you hit that like button we can easily get to 750 we're only what 75 not even now it's not even 75 we're climbing fast it's up to 680 now thank you guys for those likes it means more than you know seriously it is like a personal favor to me like I am asking like will you do it for me like will you do it Mike Lucas and will you do it dead fishies I mean I have to like I'm going to call you out in the old chat yeah thanks for your support and also though like I said oh yeah yeah I was going to say I got distracted I was going through the old live chat modern day debate we do put our debates on the podcast within 24 hours of the debate being live so if you're kind of like oh okay tell me more it's ad free you can find us on it's that green one spotify and apple podcast you can find us on every single podcast app I'm very serious like I've worked really hard to make sure modern day debate is on everyone google podcast pocketcast podcast addict your uncle Mike's podcast I made that one up we're on everything so I do want to say if you haven't yet seriously for real I know that most of you actually watch on your phone in the creator studio I want to say my dear friends check out modern day debates podcast on your phone right now you can do it with me right now so right now I'm looking at my phone I got distracted but what I'm going to do is I'm going to pull up my favorite podcast app I'm looking for it right now let's do it together please say yes is I'm clicking podcast addict because that's what I started on a long time ago and you can search modern day debate and we will pop up so it's a cool resource that you have where you're like hey you know if I'm going to be on a plane and I lose my data you know I don't have any connection and maybe they don't have wifi you're flying a frontier or whatever maybe the wifi doesn't work that day I've had that happen before too or they promise the wifi and it doesn't freaking work it drives me nuts is hey you could say oh that's right I've got all those modern day debate podcasts that I've downloaded it's just the audio so it's not going to take up much room on your phone anyway and so I'm totally serious like pull out your favorite podcast pull up your phone or look in your phone pull up your favorite podcast app and follow modern day debate and hey you know download a couple of debates and that way like I said if you ever get on a plane and you're like oh it was like or maybe you're traveling or driving out in the middle of nowhere like I've experienced this and you have poor service Grand Canyon is an example that's not a joke at least the last time I went Grand Canyon it was like pretty bad service me and my buddies and hey you want someone to listen to all the time it's convenient you can just download the podcast so I want to say thank you guys for your support wow KV says there's three in pocket casts for modern day debate I didn't know that that's interesting huh but yeah thank you guys for your support Kazel says will there be another debate on this summer I'm so busy during the school year man I wish you could do it this summer but it's actually not going to happen we planned on it we tried and just too much stuff fell through the cracks it's really hard actually to do it this summer probably going to do it in the fall and the spring and probably the winter we might not do it this winter I think we're going to do this we're going to probably do it this fall and then again in the spring we'd maybe depending on how my dissertation goes because I've got to do my dissertation this fall semester depending on how that goes and when it wraps up maybe we would do a winter one which if we did it it would probably be I don't know maybe like early February so I don't know if that helps you if you're in school but Eric Q says if I rewatch this debate in YouTube will I be able to see chat uh very temporarily because I'm actually probably going to go back and delete the start where it has the first 30 seconds where it's just advertising the podcast but yeah let's say Yuma won thanks for coming by says Dave oh you're just in time to listen to James thanks for coming by Dave oh we hope you're doing well glad to have you here thanks for your support and James Smith thanks for your support says I'm going to have to watch this podcast I got the end of it Mays I appreciate you checking it out yeah I think you get a kick out of it Mays Forbens says hey James how do I take you for a question on mobile next time I don't even know what that means I'm like a boomer I'm sorry I don't know what that means not sure see you there in the live chat thanks for your support yeah I love you guys thanks for all of your support KV says I subscribed to the podcast James I'll add you guys to my dog walking Q thanks for that also here's another thing too if you guys want to like this is a genuine favor I'm asking if you guys want to go the extra mile because we've gotten to 700 likes and I appreciate that more than you know so thank you guys for hitting the like that was a lot of likes so thank you guys for that first you know doing that and it means more than you know also find us on your favorite podcast app and if you could rate us it really does help for real there are some people that the podcast is growing pretty well 100% ad free we don't make a dime off it I've been putting those podcasts up for three years now we've never made a dime so I appreciate you guys supporting it it means more than you know is if you go to a debate podcast and if you rate us if you rate modern a debate we appreciate that it really does mean more than you know so would you be willing to rate us right now while we're all here we got our phones in hand to most of us would you be willing to do that favor for me I seriously I really do appreciate it but I should be going it's getting pretty late I want to say thank you guys for your support debunking ignorance someone said did you have enough chairs at the last conference yes we did where did that where that question go Zen 2011 ask that yep we did I was close though we got pretty booked up like it was it did sell out so because else is how do I rate you on Spotify that's a great question I don't know what it's like on Spotify for me if I want to rate one on what is this called podcast addict I click on the main page for the podcast let me see here how do I do it on podcast addict that's a great question I'm glad you asked download favorite not down not explicit what let's see I click on these three little dots on mine I don't know if yours is the same I don't have the green one I don't have Spotify is we got search sort display settings download reviews you could actually give a review to so I do appreciate that maybe that's the way if you're able to do it from your fear of podcast app thanks for your support guys I love you guys it's a fun debate I'll let you go I got to get some sleep I want to say thanks for your support I love you guys thanks for making this fun I'm pretty tired can you tell maybe you're like James I don't do the whole podcast thing I think it's very soy maybe it's true maybe you don't even have a podcast app will you if that's the case because I'll thanks so much as I figured out thank you thanks because I'll seriously appreciate you doing that it means for real like I'm genuinely like thank you for doing that means a lot that you're helping so is I would say another thing is if you're like well James I don't have a podcast app I don't do that podcast stuff because here's what's interesting 81% of adults in America use YouTube to some degree or another only about 19% I think it's 21% use podcasts so there are probably some of you who are like James I don't have a podcast app if that's the case is there a friend or a group online that you can share this debate with and say hey you might enjoy listening to these in like kind of your background as you're working or as you're cleaning or exercising whatever it is so anybody who has an interest in debates like this or controversial topics please do us a favor and share the link from this debate with them would you do that thanks for your support love you guys I hope you have a great rest of your night keep something out there reasonable from the unreasonable and we will see you next time love you and thanks for all your support take care and I'll see you at the next one which is this Friday and Saturday I'll be hosting those those are with Daniel Kikachu and Javad Hashmi it's going to be super spicy like you're going to want to see those debates it's going to be entertainment for real thanks guys I love you guys thanks for all your support take care and I'll see you next time