 Hey everybody, today we are debating whether or not there is evidence for theism, and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a lot of fun, folks, as we have this tag team debate on whether or not there is evidence for God. And want to let you know, though, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button, as we have many more debates coming up. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen, Matt DeLaHunty and Randall Rouser will be teaming up with their respective teammates, namely Tom Jump and Samuel Nassan. So that should be a big one, and that's coming up this Friday. So with that, want to jump into this debate quickly, want to let you know we've got all of the speakers' links in the description. So that way if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that. You can hear plenty more where that came from. Also what we're going to do today is it's going to be a fairly flexible format. We're going to have about 12 minutes, and that's flexible, split by each side for their opening statement, and then we'll go right into open conversation. Following that, we'll have Q&A. So if you have a question, feel free to fire that question into the old live chat. And if you tag me with at modern day debate, it makes it easier for me to catch every single question to add to the list. Not only that, but do want to mention super chats are also an option. If you do a super chat, you can not only ask a question during the question and answer, you can make a comment that of course one or several of the speakers would get a chance to respond to in defense. And with that, oh, last super chats will also go to the top of the list for the Q&A, and we are going to jump into this. So this is going to be a lot of fun, folks. Really appreciate you being here, and the affirmative will be going first. So do want to say thanks so much to our guests, though, gentlemen. We really appreciate all four of you being here. It's a real pleasure to have you. Beautiful. Beautiful. Thank you, James. I assume it's off to me then. You betcha. Beautiful. Thank you so much. Well, before I begin my actual argument, I would just like to begin with some sincerest thanks to all the parties present tonight. I want to extend my thanks to the modern day debate community and James himself, of course, for giving me the opportunity to participate in my first public debate slash discussion. I want to give thanks to my partner, Mr. John Maddox, for being so friendly and accommodating and agreeing to partner with me tonight while we discuss this very important topic. I also extend thanks to our atheist opponents today, not just for their appearance and for this discussion, but by constantly challenging the perspectives and beliefs of theistic worldviews, keeping them from intellectual stagnation and shallow-minded interpretations, where we were once ironed through your fiery challenges, we are tempered into steel. So thank you for that. And finally, sincerest thanks to the audience that finds this video. You prove through the clicking on and viewing of this video alone that you have an interest in the deeper meanings of life and the various perspectives of other worldviews. You are motivated to learn and push yourselves in the pursuit of knowledge and personal improvement. You are truly wonderful people. And I know so because you have chosen to be here to listen. All right. So with that said, allow me to present the groundwork, my argument, which will open for my partner to give his perspective for the evidence of not just an incredible power beyond the universe, but also an intelligence beyond three-dimensional comprehension or quantification. We intend to present the argument today that even to indulge the denial of this extraordinary evidence is to engage in pure intellectual dishonesty and irrational religious dogmatic sophistry. Atheists tend to vainly grasp at any abstract philosophy or unsubstantiated model of the origin of the universe solely because they think it gives justification for non-theistic conclusions. But they must also ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary in order to do so. While I wish I could and had the time to collect the references, a six-minute opening certainly is enough time to give you the bullet, even the bullet points of the 200 plus finely tuned components of the known universe. So I had to pick what I could fit in appropriate clarity in our small window of time. So one of the most intrinsically important components of fine-tuning in our universe to me has to do with cosmic density, which is a major factor leading to the flatness of the universe, as astrophysicists call it. According to Dr. Hugh Ross in his online article, Where Is the Cosmic Density Fine-Tuning, he says life and flatness are related because only a flat universe meets two life essential requirements. First, a flat universe survives long enough for an adequate number of generations of stars to form that will make the heavy elements and long-lived radiometric isotopes that advanced life requires. Second, a flat universe expands slowly enough for the matter to clump together to form galaxies, stars, and planets, but not so much as to form only black holes and neutron stars. I like the flat geometry of the universe approach because it invalidates upfront the typical atheist objection that life could have emerged in different forms with different metrics to the fine-tuning variables. The codependent and synergistically aligned components of fine-tuning that lead to the flatness of our universe are necessary for any type of physical life whatsoever, therefore making this typical atheist objection meaningless, in my opinion. So how much matter could you add or subtract from the universe before you have made it impossible for any type of physical life? If any of you have a dime in your pockets, hold it up for yourself. That's how much. The matter in our entire universe must fall within the tolerable threshold of one part in 10 to the 60th power, which equates to about 1 tenth of the mass of a dime. Even advanced atheist astrophysicists struggle with explaining this level of precision in our universe without giving credit to an intelligent mind and seek to invalidate the claim of the precision of matter in our universe by claiming that we can't detect it all through even our most precise measurements. That's true and fair enough. But either the matter is there and we aren't detecting it or we have to rely upon dark energy filling the gap to still lead to a flat universe. If you rely upon dark energy to fill the gap, fine. Dark energy must be finely tuned to a tolerable threshold of one part in 10 to the 120th power. So you have literally just made the argument exponentially more compelling. I deem my argument to be more intellectually honest than most of what I see atheists put forward as it is attached to falsification criteria. Even the atheist astronomers know what is needed to try and falsify this overwhelming evidence of intelligence. You just need to convince us that these codependent fine tuning thresholds aren't so necessarily narrow, therefore leading to at least reasonable contemplation of our universe being sourced from chance and circumstance with no intelligence behind it. Keep in mind that this metric also gives evidence of a non-temporal intelligence or an intelligence cognizant of future events as the universe is finely tuned in such a way with other codependent variables that we have a universe that will expand at exactly the right speed at the right time with appropriate slowing of universal expansion for us to be here to even have this conversation in any physical form whatsoever. If our opponents intend to present a non-theistic model to compete with our theistic conclusion, I hope they will respond with equal intellectual honesty and provide the falsification criteria for their claim. You bet, I didn't think that I yield. Thank you very much. Do we wanna kick it over? Would you like a part of that time as well, Maddox? I'm trying to remember what was said already. Mine should come in pretty close to the 12 minute mark or inside of our window. I do need to share my screen though. You got it. Thanks for letting me know. All right, am I coming through? Yep. All right. Well, thanks for that great opening there, Smoky. Appreciate that. And for the audience, you have just heard some profound arguments on the requirements for our life to exist and for our universe to exist, which by themselves, in my opinion, are strong evidence for God's existence. But for those of you who are not yet convinced, let us go from the cosmological to the biological. But before outlying the evidence, let us quickly review some of the, let's quickly review some of the undisputed facts of what is needed for all observed forms of life. So it was required. We had the genetic code, which has syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. It is expressed through gene expression. DNA is translated to RNA, RNA to proteins. Proteins are then modified to embody their end, but predefined function. Protein synthesis is accomplished through transcription, translation, and elongation. This is all executed through nanomachines, ribosomes, transcription complex, and all of that is energized by protein-powered turbines. But what I really want to get into first is and to prevent later time wasted with opposition by our opponents to explain these through casual dismissal and supposed misinterpretation by us, I first want to quote a variety of secular papers, which will support my future arguments. First, the standard argument by Atheist to explain the functional information requirement of the genetic code is to argue that it is nothing but chemical reactions. So let's take a look at this. Nucleotide and eventually amino acid sequences are both physiodynamically indeterminate, which means inert, cause and effect, physical determinism, in other words, cannot account for the programming of sequence dependent bio function. Next, they will likely argue that the coding and programming language evidence is not real and has nothing but analogy. So let us quickly address that. On the coding level, even a perfunctory inspection of the standard genetic code table shows that the arrangement of amino acid assignments is manifestly non-random, but it goes even further than this. We have sub-set code bases in genetics that enable us to exist. The hexo-nucleotide word definition defined in the coding section of the genome conveys the temporal pausing data from the genome domain to the protein domain via decoding algorithms instantiated into hardware within the ribosome. Thus, arbitrarily encoded data in the genome having formal meaning and function is transmitted from the genome domain to the protein domain and decoded to explicitly convey temporal pausing information to the ribosome. We therefore conclude that the TP codons in the genome constitute a code coexisting with the genetic code. The TP code also exhibits a syntax or grammar that obeys strict codon relationships that demonstrate language properties. The TP language is a sub-set of the genetic code. They may also attempt to argue that there is no actual information processing or programming occurring on the cellular level. However, this denial has been clearly refuted. Where then does the full algorithmic logic of a program lie? Where, for example, we find the equivalent of if then else type instructions? The answer is in the cell or organism as a whole, not just in the genome. This leads me to a simple question for the audience and for my opponents. The logic which I will later define. If I asked you about the source requirement for any piece of technology that contains coding, logic gates, programming, nano machines and exhibits temporal controls which defy simple cause and effect outcomes, you'd insist they had come into being without an intelligent agent being required. Would you think I was exhibiting rational thought or could even be taken seriously? I think not. Therefore, the existence of life, my undirected physical process without the action of intelligent agents is not only either logical plausible or probable, but impossible. Now let's look at some of the arguments. All of what I said, therefore, if non-random functional information requires a mind and DNA genetic code contains non-random functional information, then a mind was required for genetic code to exist. If codes require intelligence to assign arbitrary values and decoding requires equal arbitrarily assigned values and the genetic code is encoded, transferred and decoded and gene expression requires translation of arbitrary values, then a mind was required for that to exist. If time-based controls are required for code execution and are executed by separate functions and modify outcomes based on temporal variables and require simultaneous execution, then foreknowledge of the outcome is required. If coding and programming information, semantics are immaterial and the medium which contains it is not relevant to its origin, then no undirected process can create it. If programming requires if, then, else logic rules and syntax, semantics and pragmatics are required for its execution and biological cells contain all of these and the tools for their execution and if no other programming would happen by undirected process, then an intelligent agent is required for initial programming. If literal, nanomachines are required for programming execution and non-random information cannot be accessed without the prior existence and their non-random formation instructions are encoded in the genetic code, then simultaneous existence is required. Therefore, if in any other context, it is accepted that non-random information, coding, decoding, programming, time-based controls and nanomachines require intelligent agents to exist and if life requires all of these to exist and it is widely accepted to all observed organisms to do, then an intelligent agent and therefore God is the logical conclusion for our existence. So in closing, as you consider these arguments and expansion of them throughout the debate, ask yourself this, whose position will ultimately be considered more rational? Is it those who conclude it as more logical, plausible and probable these things could exist without an intelligent agent to cause their formation or those who argue no matter how counterintuitive it is, you must believe all of this could happen without a designer being required. You gotta thank you very much, John. We will switch back into the discussion boxes and kick it over to those who are more skeptical of the claim that God exists. It's a pleasure to have you gentlemen. The floor is all yours. Rib, help yourself. Yeah, that's no problem. Okay, so is there evidence for God? The short answer is surprisingly, especially coming from my side, is actually yes. There is an extremely small number of evidence with gaping holes in each of them. The evidence is not nearly sufficient and un-falsifiable, which leans towards a fallacy. Each individual claim is created equal and holds its own separate burden of proof. We each need tangible physical evidence for everything that we accept in our everyday lives. So just for example, if I say that I have a pet dog, that claim can be accepted just based on its face value because we know that dogs are usually kept as pets. But if you wanted to, if you were a little bit more, if you wanted to kind of back that up with something tangible, you could go to my house, you could check if there are dog treats, dog food, dog bowls, and a dog house, all building the evidence towards the conclusion that I have a dog. However, if I was to say to you that I have a pet winged fire-breathing dragon in my garden, although that is a claim, a similar enough claim because I'm claiming that they're both pets, you would require a little bit more evidence than just my say so. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in God, the moral arbiter and the creator of the universe needs overwhelming evidence. Evidence that I am not closed off to, I am more than happy to be proven wrong, but in the four years that I have been taking calls on my show from theists, I am still waiting on the evidence. Faith is usually used as one of the requirements needed to accept God, God claims. Faith is the excuse that we give when we don't have a good reason. Just go back to the earlier example, if you ask me for evidence for the dragon in my garden, I highly, sorry, I messed that bit up. Okay, if you have a good reason for accepting something, then you present that, you don't give faith. So if you were to ask me why I accept evolution, I would present the reasons, the evidence that is backing that up. I wouldn't say, oh, I just accept it on faith. But if faith can lead you to Jesus and lead somebody else to Vishnu, accepting, or sorry, assuming the truth of the claims of Jesus for just a moment, then faith has gotten you to truth and someone else to not truth. Knowing this, faith cannot be a knowledgeable path to truth. Just to kind of respond to some of the things that was said there, and then I will yield the rest of the time to, if the universe is finely tuned for anything, it's the creation of black holes. We are finely tuned for the universe, not the other way around. There's a famous puddle example to kind of grasp here, which is that the puddle gains sentience and says, I'm perfectly fit for this hole that it finds itself in, whereas we know that it's the opposite way around. That is the situation that we find ourselves in. This whole thing about a designer, the watchmaker argument kind of jumps out at me here and why it does is because if you believe that an all-powerful deity created everything, then the watchmaker argument says that you stumble upon a watch on a beach and you know that that was created because it's complex, but that's not the case. We don't recognize design by its complexity. We recognize design by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs. So if you were to take a look at this, so if you were to take that argument and kind of apply it to the theistic worldview, they would be walking on a beach of watches, on an island of watches, on a planet of watches, in a universe of watches because you don't have anything to say that well, this was designed and this was created. There isn't any, I'm gonna leave the rest of the time too. Awesome, James, thanks again for having me back. I have, just before I get into the little short bit that I have, I'm really scared here for a second. I gotta make sure. So I have a question for Smoky and a question for John. I just need a one word answer to. You guys are Christians, right? I don't think that's on debate. I don't think we really want- No, I'm just asking. You guys Christians? The purpose of this debate, I'm here to debate theism and obviously from your partner's opening statement, I think yours, you're gonna try and make this about religion versus theism versus atheism in the worldview of, for the evidence of God. So we're not gonna go down that rabbit hole. Okay, cool. I'll just carry on then with what I've got. I always find it interesting when Christians are so unwilling to actually defend the God that they actually believe in. It's just not the debate tonight, sir. That's all. I'm sorry. It's just pretty biblical. But anyway, so the reasons why I'm convinced that God does not exist, I actually take the positive stance according to the Stanford and the psychopedic philosophy. So tonight we are talking about, regardless of what anyone wants to say, we are talking to Christians. So we're talking about the God of Christianity. So we have to use the Bible. The book itself in 2 Timothy 3 says all scriptures inspired by God, Psalm 12 and Revelation 22 speak about the word being preserved and kept uncorrupted. So what we have here, what we have within the Bible is what God intended. So what does it say? Well, some of the absolute falsehoods are that vegetation appeared before the sun in Genesis 111, that people are made from dust and dirt and ribs in Genesis two. Mark 13 says that stars will fall from the sky. And this one's a funny one because it clearly shows that either the people who wrote the Bible had no clue what a star even is or the all-knowing God is a dolt. And he didn't know it either. The firmament and the vault in Genesis 1.6, the flood, there are enough issues with that alone that could take up all of tonight, but so we won't go into too much into that. The sun's standing still in the sky in Joshua 10. People blowing horns and yelling at a wall and falling over in Joshua six. The list goes on. It may take away here is, as I stated before, the book itself says it's God inspired and that it will be preserved. Again, it's full of things that as Aaron Ross states in his book, Foundational False and Creationism, these are things that are either evidently not true or evidently not true. It's clear that these stories are just made up. And I suppose they could be stolen as well. In fact, we have good example of that. If you read the Epic of Gilgamesh and then reread the flood story, you'll see what I mean there. The next is the problem of evil and suffering. First John 4 says that God is love. First Corinthians 15 defines love as kindness and patience. And this leads to contradictions given the story in 1st and 2nd Samuel, the story of the flood in Genesis. Judges 11 with the story of Jeb for more. The God of the Bible promises to keep you safe from all harm and Psalm 121. Jesus says himself that he'll do whatever you ask of him in John 14. And then you see the suffering that we see in the world today. The main takeaway here is that the God of the Bible, if the God of the Bible is real, then John 1-4 is wrong. If the God were real and the root of everything, then I think he's unbelievably unimaginative. You think of the story of Jesus who may have been a real guy and I kind of don't care. The best that this God could come up with was to torture himself to death to appease himself and despair us from his wrath, which an omnipotent being knew was gonna happen in the first place. And I find it dizzying that people believe this stuff. Lastly, because everybody else touched on science a little bit, I'll just say science and primary evolution, which is an undeniable fact of population genetics. It's cross confirmed by multiple disciplines, including biology, chemistry, genetics, geology, and more. And these all converge on the same conclusions. Everything that God said before, it's really interesting because don't bother talking to us, but it just submit it. Because if you can take Darwin down, worldwide fame and Nobel Prizes are waiting for you. The takeaway from this is that the stories of Genesis as well as the rest of the Bible are nothing more than fables that were written by people who knew nothing about how the world actually works. So between the Bible and verifiable science, I believe the Christian God does not exist. And as Christians, I hope we'll be able to get some answers from that. For what is it? First Peter 315 actually kind of says you have to. So with that, I'll finish. First I'm up to address the position taken by religion is bullshit on the watchmaker argument. Which I think it's kind of funny that you said we couldn't see evidence of design because we're in a universe full of designed objects, et cetera, et cetera, full of watches. But prior to making that claim, you stated that the universe is not created for life. So... I thought it wasn't finely tuned for life. Sorry, finally, you wouldn't have said created. Finally tuned for life. And yet life exists. So that by itself, completely unsubstantiated your position that if it's not finely tuned for life and we know of the incredible intricacies that are required for life to exist, that would actually serve as a pretty solid evidence for the design being required for life to exist. Okay, I think I may have misspoke. It wasn't necessarily not designed or not finely tuned for life, but it wasn't finely tuned for us as a species. If we're gonna be very specific about it. But the argument that Michael was making, and I'm assuming you correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm assuming you also accept is that abiogenesis occurred without, through an undirected process, and we all just evolved from a initial form of life. So us as a species or any form of life is really doesn't have any relevance. If per that argument, we came from something that the universe is not finely tuned for. Who cares whether we have relevance? What does that have to do with it? Yeah, I was just gonna say that. No, I'm talking about life. That's what the evidence supports. You said our species, I'm talking about life in general. If the universe is not finely tuned for life and the complexity and the incredible hurdles that are required for life to exist, which is readily admitted and accepted by every origin of life researcher on this planet, who also admit they actually don't know how the hell it came into existence. It's actually leaning in our favor that something where it's not likely and it's not finely tuned for somehow occurred and overcame overwhelming obstacles to come into existence. So you can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I heard there is because we don't know therefore God. No, no, no, apparently you wanna listen to that. No, I'm assuming you weren't actually listening to my opening statement because I outlined very specific things that would require a mind in any other context to come into being and therefore it is not, we don't know therefore God, it's known by a very logical analysis and deduction of any other process in which we would apply to determine if something was designed or not when all of those variables apply to the fundamental requirements for life to exist, then it is the logical conclusion that a creator existed. And your side, on the other hand, accepts that something that in no other context would be considered possible has occurred. Therefore you are worshiping God of chance and I am looking at the option being a more reasonable conclusion that there was an intelligent agent and looking at that not only from one component but from multiple and then as Smokey was outlining one of many aspects of the things that are evidence from the cosmological arguments. Okay, so you would say that I believe something that ordinarily I wouldn't, what is that thing? That for any other context or for any other example that I wouldn't I think is more closely to what you said. Okay, so an example, so would you agree that the technology that enabled us to be having this debate currently and all of us to be interacting from different portions of the globe, would you argue that any of the technology that enabled that to occur could have ever come into existence without intelligent agents? No, probably not. Okay, so if on the root of that, what are some of the things that are required for that technology to exist? The fundamental one is coding and programming and arbitrarily assigned values to those codes which are then encoded, transmitted, decoded and executed and that is exactly what is required for even the most simple form of life to exist and this is also accepted by even staunch atheist origin of life researchers. It's actually one of the greatest questions they're trying to solve which is how in the heck could something that is arbitrary come into existence when in every other context, we freely acknowledge it would require a mind? Yeah, so we don't know. Yeah. Yeah, so we don't know. No, you're avoiding the question. I'm saying is- Oh no, oh no, I'm directly answering your question. We don't know. So how chemistry became biology? The short answer is we don't know and neither do you, but you sure think you do. Even if we did know. And what's really interesting, hang on, I haven't finished yet. What's really interesting are these overwhelming degree of scientists and stuff like that. I'm really curious to know if either of you two are scientists but why is it that I think the lightest statistic is 93% of the National Academy of Science except evolution by natural selection as not only a fact but a theory. So I'd like to know where all of these other massive scientists are and why, if there's so many of them. So like just like scads of them from what you're saying. Why hasn't it been overturned? Well, multiple things. Number one, if you actually go to some research, there is a rapidly growing number of atheists, research environmental biologists and geneticists who are publicly stating that neodarwinism and modern synthesis has not even come close to explaining life. Number one, and that's just in context of. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. I know, which is why I'm asking why did you bring it up because I was referring to aviogenesis. And so we don't know. You're the one that brought up evolution and the supposed 93% people agreeing with it as somehow being a way to discount my argument about the requirements for the origin of life and the intelligent agent being required. And then now you're trying to dismiss evolution from the equation as I bring up that people are starting to publicly state that, yeah, this is not account for, not only does it not account for the origin of life, it doesn't account for many of the things that we're seeing that we used to 100% equate to Darwinism. Okay, so like I'll go back to the short answer. Chemistry into biology, we don't know. If you're saying you do, cool, lay that out. Even if we did know, what would that change whether or not we would know if it was theistically determined or created? What would that change if we knew the method of by which it was done? What would that change? It wouldn't, but you're saying the only way it could come across is through this intelligent design. No, actually, that's not really the argument, sir. I'm sorry. Actually, what I'm stating is that the, and I also said this in my opening statement, which was the medium, which contains the information that enables life to exist is not relevant to the origin of its source of origin. And just like in any other context of functional information, we can use a plethora of mediums in which to contain it. But the translation process requires foreknowledge of the semantic meaning and the pragmatics of the syntax. And all of those things are 150% required in life. It's a freely admitted requirement by everybody in biology. And so- Your God does not follow. Your God does not follow. My God does not follow. You have to make an unbelievable leap. Because- I'm saying- I'm not gonna go, you talked about Kalam. You talked about the cosmological argument. What is the conclusion of the Kalam cosmological argument? I don't think either of us mentioned Kalam. Well, no, actually, John did mention cosmological arguments and Kalam is one of those. Okay, but none of us referenced a Kalam argument at all. No, but it's particularly relevant because, okay, began to exist. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. And you can say the same thing about life. So why are you arguing an argument we haven't made? But what I'm saying is that it is relevant because that could get you that could get you to some type of creative thing, but not necessarily. It's unbelievably, all you've demonstrated is that life is unbelievably rare. You haven't demonstrated that intelligence is required for that. I actually, I think we've just been outlining reasons why intelligence was required. And you're trying to insert an argument which we did not bring up. And the point I made in my opening statement of in any other context, if I came to you and something that required nanotechnology, coding, programming, et cetera, et cetera was presented and I said it did not require a intelligent agent to exist. Would you think that I was using rational thoughts? And in no other context, would that be considered rational? Now, in that same argument, or that same example, whether or not I could explain the origin of the original source of how all of those things that I just mentioned came into being is not relevant to whether or not that entity was required for them to exist. And all it is is a dodge of the ultimate question which is if in order for life to exist, we have things that are so astronomically improbable and have to all have occurred in simultaneous fashion in order for life to exist and require immaterial meaning to be assigned arbitrarily in order to be executed. In what other context would you with any human with a modicum of intellect argue that that is the reasonable conclusion oh, hey, it just happened. And oh, we don't know how it happened. It's therefore your argument that hey, this seems more logical plausible and probable that an intelligent agent was required oh, no, that person's the one that's irrational. You're appealing to a mystery to solve a bigger mystery. How many? Can I ask a question? Go ahead, Smoky. Why is the model the God of the gaps? I know you guys seem to keep trying to throw that on us. Why is that so inferior to the I don't know but not God of the gaps that you guys keep throwing out there? Because the God of the gaps is not the answer of I don't know, it is here's an answer but you haven't demonstrated that answer. So what would falsify the I don't know but not God? What would finally lead you to accept that there's clearly some intelligent design in the universe and life? What would falsify your position? Demonstrating yours. Well, in our opinions to our to our recollection we believe we've done a pretty darn good job yet you stand in a stance of rejection. So I would expect you to delineate for us what your standard of evidence would be for you to change your position. Otherwise you're not falsifiable. You're just constantly sitting in a position where you can do goalposts any time you want. Oh no. Sorry, go ahead. My position is and I had made reference to the fact that I have a call-in show where I take calls from theists. I have been asked this question before and my answer never ceases to kind of piss people off and I can only guess that it's going to do the exact same tonight. I don't know what would convince me that a God exists, but if God does exist, he knows. I have a problem with that. And yet I remain unconvinced. I have a problem with that. How do you know you could be convinced then? Can God do anything? He can't violate his own rules and integrity of the system in which he designed. So he can't do anything then? Correct. He can't do anything. So your God is not all powerful? He is, but he's all powerful within what is logically. He is, but he can't do everything. He can do what power can logically do and he cannot violate his own morals. All of his actions of power must fall within the scope of his moral programming of what he can do. Well, guys, we're starting to branch into morality now. Sure seems like you're talking about a specific. All right. Well, I'm just, I'm just like- If you want to talk about a specific- I know you want to go into morality. I know you're- Oh no, oh no, we can have a whole separate- I am aware of that and I would love to. I'll tell you what, I promise you, sir, I am happy to come on your show, sit there as long as you like, answer any questions that you have to the morality of God if we can put it on the back burner for this. I just don't want to turn this conversation to that. I was just laying a frown framework, that's all. No, that's cool. But I don't want to go down morality. That's not where I'm going at all. I'm trying not to either. But you were the one who brought up morality. Apologies. I was simply attempting to lay a framework of understanding of how my God has to function. How your God, the God you don't want to defend. The God that I'm not here to- You want to define God as this nebulous thing. You don't want to get into the meat of it because you know. Well, you guys don't see that God is indefensible. No, the purpose of this debate is to discuss the evidence for or against God. So far, we have been presenting evidence for why, of the observable, that we believe to be evidence for a creator. I haven't really heard anything from at all. I would posit that you have presented arguments. You have presented no evidence. And I want to think it's interesting. Okay, so let's talk about science first. I can you said that, you know, it's so clear that everything is designed, right? So more than, more than 99% of every species that has ever lived on this planet is now extinct. So to take a line from Christopher Hitchens, some design. That could be designed by intent so that we have all the wonderful resources that we enjoy today for our beautiful first world culture. What's the issue? Oh, no, I don't have an issue with it. Well, I don't either. I don't either. But for a God that designed everything perfectly. I mean, you know- To find perfect. Don't you believe it was designed perfectly? I believe that when he created it, he said, it's good, sufficient. It's good, it's sufficient. Yeah. Okay. It's a word he used, he didn't call it perfect. So- Perfect perfection has to do with the eye of the person making the design. It could have imperfections designed into it for the sake of maintaining the integrity of its purpose. Do we fall into that category? In my opinion, yes. How about wisdom teeth? Okay. So if you wanna go on that rabbit hole- Now we're going, now we're going just down. No, if you wanna go around the sigil arguments, we can go ahead and do so. Yeah, please go ahead, sir. It's actually been shown and accepted outside of the atheist talking points memos that if the reason that we think that wisdom teeth aren't needed is because we have such soft diets now. The, when you're actually chewing on roughage, it actually expands the jaw and the wisdom teeth are actually very, very useful. Same thing with your appendix, right? Oh, that's just a vestigial organ. Oh, wait, turns out that's actually a major component that houses bacteria for illnesses. And if anything happens where your bowels get flushed, it replaces the bacterial flora that we need to live. And up until, I mean, relatively recently, we didn't know that. So it was, oh, hey, let's go cut it out. It's a vestigial leftover of evolution. Oh, wait, turns out that's not the case. The coccyx, oh, it's been argued, oh, it's a little bit of the tail. It's a drop-off from eight transitions and whatnot. Oh, wait, actually it turns out it's a requirement for bipedal transportation and is a significant factor as an anchor for different tendons and muscles that enable us to walk upright. I mean, I go, there's many of these things we can go down that in the last 20, 30, 40 years that were foundational arguments of supposedly vestigial leftovers they have discovered are actually have specifically defined purpose. And it's ironic that they are continued to be used by atheist activists and that somehow they are evidence against creation and evidence for evolution, but it's rapidly becoming realized that it's not the case. Same thing with junk DNA. And oh, it's all this leftover stuff. They're rapidly discovering that it's not the case. And if you do not believe me, I suggest you go and read papers from places such as nature, biology, nature, cellular there was 17 of them, which I read on January 17th actually of this year. And it was the largest conglomerate simultaneous publication. And it was all about medical research into cancer and how they had discovered that a vast percentage of cancers are directly caused by mutations in what was been argued by the evolutionist as junk DNA that has no function. It turns out it actually does. Beyond that, they literally in their conclusions state things such as the fact that we've been calling this junk DNA for so long has led to us not focusing on it. And we are actually years behind where we could be on understanding the genome and saving lives and controlling illnesses. And we would have much greater technologies that would have been developed if we hadn't operated from this perspective that junk DNA and have been literally calling for it to be redefined. And I'm just using that as an example of there's a plethora of things that people in a desperate attempt to deny the premise of a creator and to not negate their supposed evidence for evolution which ultimately they're using to circumvent the requirement for a creator has actually resulted in us knowing less about how to control disease. I mean, if that's not ironic, I don't know what is. So a couple of quick things too. You said that wisdom teeth are actually pretty useful. It's pretty interesting because the average impaction rate is about 85%. So that's interesting for something that's useful. And you also brought up genome, which is interesting because Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project accepts evolution. So I find that interesting. I don't reject evolution. You just think God did it. I just think God was the source of the beginning of life. I have no issue with evolution or speciation or many of those conclusions. I have an issue with some of the philosophies which I think are circular and unsubstantiated, but other than that, a lot of the findings and data I completely agree with. So you accept that we're apes? No, I wouldn't go that far because that's a different type of speciation. You don't accept evolution. Yeah, then you don't accept evolution. Okay. I don't care what you think we're apes. It doesn't matter what you think. We're apes. That's not even open for discussion. We're animals and we're apes. So the fact that we only know that from morphological classifications doesn't bother you. It's in our DNA. We are, like, do you deny that we're hominids? Well, you're just going back to the morphological organ. I'm asking, do you accept that we're hominids? I accept that we're a class of that group that we have classified as that, sure. But through morphological classification and that's what I'm trying to get at. Okay. So how do we come to the classification? That's all I'm trying to get at. Yeah, I'm not a scientist. I've read a bunch of stuff on this, but I'm not gonna pretend to know like all of the biology stuff. But like I've said before, if you want to sit back and put your head back... Well, no, I think I'm just... All this funny stuff, then what I suggest you do, don't bother trying to convince me because there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you to take down Darwin. And so much fame you won't be able to handle. I'm actually just trying to get you to elaborate for me since you have so much faith in it, how you understand... Yeah, that's a false equivocation, but whatever, that's cool. Okay. I actually know it's not because... You just admitted and you trust that what you are being told is correct. No, I said that I've read stuff. Okay, so you've read stuff. So you believe what you have read, right? I believe it's definitely scientific consensus. If you don't, pony up. Okay. Pony up and go get your Nobel Prize. There are many, many people who are... Citation, please. We're gonna go down there. I've already issued some citations and I haven't heard a one from you, bro. So... Oh, no, I used your source book as my citation. What's my source book? The Bible. I'm not using the Bible. You're Christians. You don't even want to go down that road. I'm not using the Bible. I'm using secular sources. If you are a Christian, if you are a Christian, then I hold you to your standard. Sir, I don't think you need to police our theology. I don't think you need to police our theology. We don't need to... Hang on a second. I just want to ask a question. I just want to ask a question. Let me respond to this guy. He's getting kind of... I'm gonna respond to this guy real quick, James. You know that you're getting your ass kicked right now and you're trying to spin this and, oh, it's about the Bible and all that stuff. You don't actually know a darn thing about the arguments you're making. Oh, I've read a few things, but I don't know. I don't know about that. I don't know about that. Your arguments are false. Oh, it's not in the Bible. Like, we've literally presented... Arguments, no evidence. If people... Very quickly. We're first at a time. Let's go to either... Let's give our skeptic side a chance to respond to what John just said. So let's go to Rib or Michael. No, Rib. Rib. Okay, so the motion tonight is the evidence for God and considering that this has become a bit of a hot topic in the last minute or two, which God? Because... Theism means... If we can't narrow that down. Because if we can't narrow that down... Why can't you just do with our arguments? We're gonna be talking past each other. So surely we would need to specify a God in order to evaluate whether or not there is evidence for it. Why can't you just deal with our arguments? Because I don't know what God you are defending if you won't specify it. What does it matter? What we are arguing is that... Why it matters? Because the motion is their evidence for God. And if we don't specify it, then we can't answer the question. We will be talking past each other. Because on the assumption that you were here defending Vishnu and I am here arguing against Jesus, then we are literally talking past each other. So if we don't narrow down what God we are talking about, then we're gonna be talking in circles and that's not very productive. If you are aware of the differences of the God claims out there, you would know there's no chance that we're trying to defend Vishnu if we're talking about a God outside our universe. So if you are so aware of all the different God claims, you shouldn't have a difficult time narrowing it down. Then take this hand. Because we're pretty much the only ones that we're claiming. But for some reason, neither of the two of you are willing to defend Christianity. It's not on debate tonight. It's not on debate tonight. That's not what we're talking about. So if you wouldn't interject... Well, is it not the God that you believe in? Definition of theism. Belief in the existence of God or God. Specifically, belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends it as imminent in the world. That is literally what we are arguing that there is evidence for. That is it. You guys can't actually counter our arguments or are refusing to, or are not knowledgeable enough in order to do so and are trying to spin this over into a religious, debating a religion versus theism, the theistic belief in a creator of the universe, which is what we are here to debate. And we made it pretty clear from the beginning. But from Yall's opening statements, you obviously had nothing other than, hey, we're going to try and turn this into a Christianity versus atheism debate. So what are we here to do? Because it's not to debate Christianity. It's here to debate theism and evidence for God. Which God? It's always going to go back to that question. Which God? Did you not listen to the definition I just read? Yeah, I did, but... Okay, the creator source of the human race in the world. There are different standards... Okay, hang on. Would you agree that there are different standards of evidence necessary to prove or to disprove certain gods? In this case, absolutely not. Because we are talking about an all creator God. Which God it is, is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Pick any God you want. Make one up. Make it the spaghetti monster if you want. Stick them outside the universe. Talk about him. I don't care. But you'll acknowledge our points on whether or not there seems to be some divine design in the universe. I don't know why you want to fixate on a specific God so that you can try to cornhole us and go down that road as opposed to addressing our arguments. So why don't one of you pony up since you're so keen to tell us to do so and give us your model for fine-tuning of the universe? You want to go ahead, Rip? I've said a lot, so I don't know if you want to go. I mean, as I said in my opening, if the universe is fine-tuned for anything, it is the creation of black holes. We are literally no different than any other animal. Smoky, are you referring to the fine-tuning that is required for the universe to exist at all, regardless of- For any type of physical life whatsoever, correct? Yes, that is correct. Yeah, so I don't know what you're talking about when it's made for black holes. If it was made for black holes, it would have had a larger metric, would have collapsed in on itself and we would have nothing but black holes. So your argument doesn't make sense to me. He seems to be in line with Lawrence Krause, who says the same thing in the universe from nothing. Well, it's just astrophysics in general. Well, I mean, it started with Hawking, but yes, obviously Krause did say it as well. Yeah. So, okay, so let's talk about something different for a second because I think it was Smoky, you just said this, you said you're talking about a God that's outside the universe and I'm dying to know how you determine what's outside our universe. Whatever is the cause of the universe can't be inside the universe in my philosophical opinion. If you have a different argument to otherwise, I'd be willing to consider it. Oh, I have no clue what's outside the universe. Okay, well then I don't know why you're asking me. That's just my arbitrary philosophical deduction. You're claiming to know, so he's asking you how you know. I'm not claiming to know, no, no, no, no, sir. I'm not claiming to know anything. Did you not say that God is outside of the universe? I'm claiming to believe with high confidence. I am a bit of an epistemological nihilist in the sense that I don't actually believe we can know anything without knowing absolutely everything about something. So I don't believe that we are in positions as sentient creatures in this universe to even make statements of knowledge at all. What we can do is make statements of confidence and metrics of belief. How did you develop a level of confidence about something you have no way to see, test, demonstrate, or anything else? Compendium of evidence of both induction and deduction, none of which I have the time to go through in all of exhaustive detail here. It's not one point. You know, Atheists, you guys do this. You know, you throw it at us and you say, prove God, give us a thing that proves God. Like we're supposed to generate one thing. But you do that, like we're supposed to say one thing, name something you guys believe that you based on one thing or proof. No, hang on, hang on. I didn't ask you to, to, to like, I didn't say that it was resting on one thing. And I don't think Michael did either. So if you want to start. When you're asking for proof. Actually ask us, then sure. When you're asking for a proof, that's what you're doing. No, I, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That was a very, very cute usage of language. You said that we are asking for a proof. I'm not asking you for a proof. I'm asking you for proof, which implies plural. Well, that, that require, that's going to require more time than we have, sir. We have, we have here to present arguments for the fine tuning of the universe and leading up to evidence of a belief that there is some sort of higher intelligence beyond it. If you guys have a better model or an idea that explains this beyond the universe other than I don't know, but not God, please pitch it to us. I never said, I actually didn't say I don't know, but not God. I said, I don't know. So you're purely agnostic then? No, you're the one claiming, it depends on what God we're talking about. But you're the one claiming that you do know. Isn't the definition of agnostic that you don't believe in a specific God? No, so you don't know. Gnostic deals with knowledge, theism deals with belief. The Christian God, the Christian God doesn't exist. The Christian God does not exist, but when you ask me about, we were talking about whether I'm agnostic, it depends on which God's because I haven't, I haven't read as much of the Bhagavad Gita as I have the Quran, as I have the Bible. So, I'm not sure. So you think that there's no evidence for God that it's not the things that we've been presenting as evidence of the requirement for a intelligent agent to enable us to even having this debate because you don't know about a specific God when we are actually arguing about, is there evidence for a God period and whether or not one would be required? But you're saying because you don't know about all of the Gods, therefore you couldn't determine whether or not you believe in one. So wouldn't any of the Gods be required, ultimately be required if you believed in it? Are you saying that God came into existence after the universe came into you being and how do you extrapolate out that logic? No, I didn't say that. And if I did, I misspoke and I apologize for that. What I'm saying is that you said that without intelligent design, without this external mind, that it couldn't have happened because the odds are just so astronomical. And so, and what you're saying is, oh, you just say it's, well, it's just pure chance. No, actually, I'm stating that these things are not just improbable, that they are actually impossible to have occurred without the intelligent agent. Okay, so then you're saying it couldn't have happened without the intelligent agent. So then what Rib and I are saying is, demonstrate this intelligent agent. And what you're gonna, which is the argument I made earlier, you don't have to, I don't have to go and physically dig up the bones of Thomas Edison to prove that- We have contemporary accounts of Edison. Yeah, I know, you can extrapolate all of that back to we don't actually know who, and we cannot define who the human was that created the first wheel. It doesn't mean that it is not a blaringly obvious conclusion that an intelligent agent was required to create the first wheel. And given the fact that the fundamental requirements for life to exist, surpass any level of technology that humans have created in the modern era, vastly superior. And I just think it's interesting that when it's brought up the whole, okay, so we don't know it's just random chance thing and you're saying it's impossible. So you're saying what it comes down to, I think is you asked us the question, where did the universe come from? How did this thing start? We don't know. And I think what the only thing I haven't said so far is what it comes down to is, you're saying it couldn't have happened without this God. And I'm pretty sure that by definition that's an argument from ignorance fallacy. So I don't know therefore God. And we're just saying, I don't know. And I would love for it. So you're saying that it's not possible. It's impossible for the staff of the intelligent agent. And yet you've given arguments for this, but you've not given one shred of evidence to support the arguments. Okay, I literally did and so did Smoky on the specificity that is required and the examples of foreign knowledge that is required in order for life to exist on the molecular level. The amount of foreign knowledge needed for 99% of every species that's ever lived to become extinct. We're not talking about that. We're talking about what is required for life, any form of life to exist, period. And if for embryo development, for example, we have retro transposons that literally are grabbed by protein nanomachines, transported to a specific location, translated back into DNA, inserted, welded back into the position, modify the data expression of the genes that they're now being associated with, specifically to embryo development. Then when that temporal timeframe is over or removed, taken to a different position and reinserted and now express completely different outcomes when we have microRNAs that are completely separate from a gene sequence, are expressed, modified, transported physically, bound to a specific portion of an mRNA prior to the 3D printing process which occurs in the ribosome and the data transcription and translation that results in protein synthesis through the direct equivalent of a 3D printer. All right, we're going to let you finish this point, John, but then I'm gonna give the last word to either rib or Michael and then we'll go into Q and A. So if you wanna finish this point. Okay, so the point I'm making is that unless you are, which I think you guys all admitted earlier, or at least one of you did earlier, that no, it would not be reasonable to conclude that we could have this debate right now without intelligent agents being required, even if you don't know who they are, knowing that they must have been required in order for all this technology that we're utilizing to exist. And the point, the argument that I am making is that the strong evidence in favor of a creator being required for us to exist is that there is technology in the simplest forms of life that are required to exist simultaneously for any form of life to be here. When you look at photosynthesis, there is literally the control modification, I'm almost done, control modification of the quantum state in order to transport with 100% efficiency, the energy being captured from photons. I mean, that is in the supposed evolutionary timeline, that's one of the first things to happen. Quantum control that is done in a clearly defined manner that results from information that is housed in the DNA of plants and algae, somehow came into existence without an intelligent agent to enable quantum controls. I mean, to me, when you really start to contemplate these, the pieces that are required, if you come to the conclusion that, oh wait, that's not evidence, then you are existing and living in a completely willful suspension of rational thought mindset and worldview, and then arguing that I am in smoky or coming from a, oh, it's a fallacy of ignorance in all these different terms you're trying to throw at us when it's literally the exact opposite that we're putting forth. While you're admitting, oh, we don't know how this happened. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a rib, five seconds. So, okay, so you said it's impossible. So what I'd love to know is all that stuff that you just said, how did you determine that it wasn't natural? Since we have no way to test a supernatural, no way to validate supernatural causation. And we'll let you finish off. Yeah, I mean, the only kind of question that I have is, it is often asked of, sorry, no, it is often said of atheists that we believe that the universe came from nothing. The question that I have to ask you is, what did God create the universe out of? Was there pre-existing materials? And if there wasn't, then, although it might seem a little bit unfair because technically speaking it is because you haven't actually said it, but that would be what you are claiming that God created the universe out of absolutely nothing. He clicked his fingers and then boom, there is just, there is matter, there is energy, there is whatever. So if he didn't do that, if he didn't create it out of absolutely nothing, then what did he create it out of? And where did that pre-existing material come from? We will jump into the Q and A. I wanna say thanks so much, folks, for all of your questions. We're gonna try to read through as many as possible and we'll go through it quickly, starting now. Christopher and Dave, thanks for your super chat, said, which God out of millions, though? We went through the whole debate, not going into that, I'm not gonna go into it now. Gotcha, Michael Dresden, thanks for your super chat, said, poor atheists already lost, they missed the topic. Let's see, you can respond to that, of course, if you want, you don't have to, if you don't want to. Michael's our regular, friendly troll. Of course. Let's see, Mothra J Disco, thanks for your super chat, said, Black Lives Matter, hashtag A-C-A-B. Appreciate that. Next up, JPP3030, thanks for your super chat, said, Tyler B number two doesn't understand evolution of somebody, I think that they were debating in the chat. Jerry Hotep, thanks for your super chat, said, for the affirmative, since technology is created and improved by a multitude of people, why would you say the universe has only one designer? You want to take that turn? You want me to take it? Go ahead, go ahead. Okay, so if the entity that we're referring to has the ability to create an entire universe, we are micro specs on this and cool, we're able to create some technologies which aren't even close to being as good as the ones that we have to have in order to do so. Comparing the creative power of that entity to what is required for us is, it's a very myopic and in my opinion, ignorant question. Next up, thanks for your super chat from Matt Thugod, said, more Christians bringing no evidence to the table. How do you like them apples, John? Yeah, I would challenge what his definition or understanding of what evidence actually is would be. I would question that. He addressed that one to me too. So whenever that guy's Cajone's drop after all the trash talks, let him know, I just want you to know that we can go ahead and have a debate on that exact subject if you got the backbone to do so. Solid. We are next up. Thanks for your super chat, Jen S, who said, the atheists look evasive right now, hashtag dodging. Can respond if you want, you don't have to, if you don't want to. I'd love to know what part of it she is referring to. Yeah, send another super chat. See, a poser of religion, thanks for your super chat, said, I admit these atheists seem to be dodging. Let's see. You can respond to that if you want to, you don't have to. Got a lot of- The only thing I'd say to that is that the dodge that I saw, and I'm sure that this will provoke other comments, is the unwillingness to stand up for the God they actually believe in. We will go into the next- Hang on, James, hang on. I'm pretty sure that Smoky offered to have that exact debate, and at multiple times, you guys both conceded that that is something that we could have in another discussion. Now you're going to try and use that as an excuse for your dodging. I would say that is the ultimate dodge when the opportunity to have that exact discussion has been offered, but we delineated, and it's clearly obvious from the subject title of this debate, that that was not the purpose of it. Oh, hang on. I got to take issue with that, James, sorry. When this debate was first proposed to me, it was just, does God exist? That was it. To the best of my- That's what I thought it was, too. To the best of my knowledge, we never had any other discussions about what the debate title was going to be about. What do you guys- But if you guys would like to defend the God that you think is real, James, set up round two, because that'll be easy. I would like to. I would like to do that, James, please. I second that, yeah. You got it. And thanks for your super chat from General E. Shady, who says religion is ancient beliefs. Gods are man-made. Next up, Ian- Hang on, hang on, hang on. So I'm guessing, similar to my opponents, he didn't actually listen to the knowledge- At all. Didn't listen to the arguments at all. ...as evidence for why a God is required for our existence. So maybe you should go re-watch this a few times. It might take your slow brain a little bit to comprehend the arguments that are being made. Next up, thanks for your super chat from Ian. Thanks for your super chat. I said, if there is no design, what came first, male or female? Oh, I missed one. I missed one or two there. Sorry, but we'll stick with this one and come back to the other two that I just jumped over. If there is no design, what came first, male or female? I think that's for our skeptical friends. Oh, that's good. I don't know. Yeah, I'm not gonna pretend to know enough about evolutionary biology to be able to answer that effectively. And just to side burn that, the evolutionary biologists also don't know how that could happen. We're pretty sure they didn't come from dirt though. Next up, thanks for your super chat from Ian. YouTube, YouTube-lin. Thanks for that. They said, is there good evidence for no God? We did not come from nothing. Then you keep asking which God? It's not about which. It's about a God created everything. I think that was for... I was just gonna say, I mean, the title on the video is evidence of a God. So I mean, obviously the question of which God is actually very relevant, but I mean... Only to you, sir. That particularly, but I strongly disagree. But I don't think it's productive to go down that particular rabbit hole anymore. That'd be great for round two though. Thanks. Let's see, would I miss one other one? Let me see here. Thanks for your super chat. Well, we got that one. Decepticons Forever said, when do theists ever have the burden of proof? When they make a positive assertion to the existence of a God. Gotcha. Just quick insertion. Is that question implying that we were not accepting the burden of proof in this debate? I'm pretty sure... What I was gonna say. I'm pretty sure we presented arguments and evidence, which were dismissed without counter. But I will, I freely accept the burden of proof because the evidence is in my favor. And if you want to dismiss it, then as I've stated multiple times, you willfully suspend rational thought. I freely accept the burden of proof. Remember that for round two. Next up. I'm on point. Yeah, though I agree with John completely. Next up. General E. Shady, thanks for your super chat, said God clicked fingers, world made. But stupid atheists say we came from nothing. Irony. Well, I mean that kind of... Directly kind of references the last thing that I said. I mean, I don't believe that the universe came from nothing. So... It's actually atheists that think that. Yeah, but you do. Because if God did not create the universe out of preexisting matter, then he created it out of nothing. And if you don't accept that, the latter of what I said, then you'll have to explain where the preexisting matter came from. Next up. Oh, Jerry Hotep said the question was misunderstood. So let me go back to his. They said, for the affirmative, since technology is created and improved by a multitude of people, why would you say the universe has only one designer? I already answered that. Yeah, I think we answered that. It's the nature of the being of which we're talking about. It's required by his nature to be that type of entity. But go ahead. Gotcha. Sigafredo Sarabia, thanks for your super chat, said Christians, hypothetically, what would prove that there is no God? So I think that's for our theos side. I've been running my mouth. Milky, go ahead. Eternal universe would be a real good start. Some sort of evidence to something outside the universe that is also eternal, but not God would help. Hey, you could even, actually, if you want to really, really falsify my faith altogether, produce the dead body of Jesus or any type of corroborating evidence to his dead body and you'd crush me right away. I'm very falsifiable right there. Wow, you just jumped into Christianity. I know, at the very end, when it doesn't really matter. Gotcha. Next up, thanks so much. This is Q&A session. We're responding to a question that was directed by somebody who is paying to get an answer. It's a little bit different. If you want to pay me next time for our round two, then let's, we can have a more and go down your rabbit holes more. Next up, thanks for your super chat. One second, I accidentally clicked on the wrong page. Appreciate it from JPP3030 said, finally triggered meek and pure, took all debate. Gotcha, duly noted. Jerry Hotep, thanks for your super chat. Part two, they said, you use technology as a basis to show design and there must be a universal designer. But why does the universe not point to multiple designers? Smokey, you want to get that one? You want me to? Yeah, I think I get what the idea he's saying is he's trying to imply that this type of sophistication would require multiple designers, but he's interpreting that from a presupposition from design of the way the design functions in our universe. He's attempting to apply the same type of mental agency of humans to a divine mind and that's where it's a false dichotomy. So it's kind of a little bit of a loaded question, but it doesn't really have an answer because we're not talking about comparable terms. When we're talking about the type of design that has the ability and the power to actually create everything and also the power of temporal thought, we're giving it a sense of unity outside the universe. Gotcha, and next up, thanks for your super chat from Matt Fogad said, I would love to debate, but before we do research on what evidence is, so you can bring your nuts and a better argument than tonight to the table. Who is that for? That's for me, because that's the guy that I challenged. Can you read that again? Because I didn't understand what the heck that guy was saying. I think it's really... I would love to debate, but before we do research on what evidence is, I think they're saying like beforehand we should do research on what evidence is or what counts as evidence. So you can bring your nuts, aka testicles and a better argument than tonight to the table. I'm not really understanding what the... I think they're saying like your argument tonight doesn't count as evidence. So next time you should bring a better argument than you brought today. Religion will cause rational people to act insane. So that's what Sam Harris said. So was it Matt Fogad? Yes. Okay, so same challenge I issued to Godless Engineer. If you want to come to Nashville, I will happily have a face-to-face debate with you. You can talk all the trash you want to me and I will just destroy you mentally. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat from dearest friend, Decepticonsforever, who says, quote, conservation of energy, unquote, there is, quote, nothing, unquote. Oh, sorry, I think I missed a word. They said, quote, conservation of energy, unquote, there is no, quote, nothing, unquote. So there's... Yeah, I think she's trying to talk about Lawrence Krause's 12 different types of nothing or something. You know, I don't want to get into that right now. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. Chimpy da Silva, appreciate it, said, is it a coincidence that 90% of scientific innovation has come from Abrahamic civilizations? I don't think so. I mean, when you look at some of the, I'm actually contemplating this, when you look at some of the discovery of the most profound elements of the laws and the rules that enable so many of our technologies, they all, not all, but a significant percentage of them came from people who freely admitted in their writings, they were searching for the way in which the divine creator had enabled all these things to happen. I would say Newton being one of them, when you think about his development of calculus and the fact that basically every portion of the modern technology that we currently enjoy is dependent upon calculus, that would be a prime example of, there's just one of many discoveries of people that, by people that were searching for those things. And when you think about the time and the technology and the knowledge they had available to them at the time, the profound nature of their discoveries, I don't know if you were thinking that there is no logical rule-based system created by patterns to look for by a designer. I don't know if they would have ever made those discoveries. I think the Super Chat was directed to our skeptical friends. So we'll give them a chance to respond to it and then we'll go to the next question. Can you repeat the question, James? Yeah, I was just about to ask you the same thing. They said, is it a coincidence that 90% of scientific innovation has come from Abrahamic civilizations? Rib, you wanna take this? Yeah, so I mean, simply because the individual scientists may have believed that a God exists that does not point to the truth of the claim, it does not point to any sort of revelatory acts that God revealed the truth behind what they were trying to prove or they're trying to test or demonstrate or whatever. It comes across as a desperate attempt just to shove God in there any way that you can. Gotcha. That's my answer to it anyway. And thanks so much for, I forgot to mention, new subscribers saw, I think I might have missed one, so sorry about that if I have, but did see it pop up on the screen, John Horne and Fred Obeng. Thanks for subscribing, stoked to have you as a part of the community, glad to have you here. And with that, we'll jump into standard questions. Persian, wait, one second, we'll get to yours, Persian. I had one person who, oh, the name, I forgot to copy and paste the name, but their question though was, let me know if this is your question. Why did God wait four billion years, watched countless species go extinct, watched mountains forming from bodies of death animals, of dead animals, all that suffering just because he wanted one species in his quote, image, unquote. Who's that for, James? I'm sorry. I think it's for us. Yes. Can you repeat it? I'm sorry, James. It was a little bit long. One more time, I'm sorry. They said, why did God wait four billion years watching countless species to go extinct, watching mountains forming from bodies of dead animals, all that suffering just because he wanted one species in his quote, image, unquote. Well, again, it's a little bit of a loaded question, but if you look at the wonderful civil progress that we've been able to make solely from the discovery of these mountains of dead animals and the resources that we provide, I think that explanation is self-explanatory. Gotcha. And thanks so much. It's a gift. That's the short answer. It's a gift. Be thankful for it. Gotcha. Thanks Persian for your question asked. Ask John for his citation on that big, in all caps, claim that many evolutionary academics are coming out in opposition of neo Darwinism. There was a conference on it, 2016. Evolution 3.0, I believe, was the title of it, but there's multiple papers that have been published. I'm going to go to the NIH database, Nature, there's been multiple papers published on it, specifically on, I think one of them was titled, Why We Do Not Need Another Synthesis? And the entire paper was outlining the failures of all the different theories that we have led up to this point and how extended modern synthesis and all the ones that have risen in the last 15 years still do not come close to explaining the new discoveries and actually the evidence is showing that their existence cannot be explained by random mutation, which is the foundation of Darwinism. So... Next up. Let's see, got all good there, John? On giving that citation. That's fine, we can go ahead. Gotcha, thanks so much. How do new Super Chat come in? Thanks so much, appreciate your Super Chat from Ian Uthublin said, can you think of a color you have never seen before? No, it does not mean it doesn't exist. God is outside of time, space and matter. Ian Uthuvian, you signed it. I would ask him, what is the difference between something that exists outside of time, space and matter and something that does not exist at all? I'll wait. Physicality, it's that simple. Gotcha. Materialism. Thanks for your question from Kartik Ganesh. They asked question for the panelists, not sure if this was asked or discussed before, why can't we not see God? Shouldn't any theists from any religion prove this? Divine hiddenness from moments chapter two were judged based upon our knowledge. If we all had perfect empirical knowledge of God, we would all have to be judged accordingly instantaneously for all of our sins. This is an environment in a time of grace, as it says in Romans nine. Thank you. Gotcha, thanks so much. And with that, I think the very question, like the very first question that was asked, I'm so sorry I didn't copy and paste that in. So I'm really sorry if I missed your question. But with that, we are at our normal time that we wrap up. I wanna say thanks so much for hanging out with us folks. It's always a blast. We will be back tomorrow. I think we maybe had just, yeah, we had one super chat just shoot in. General E. Shady, thanks for your super chat. Let's see. I think they're saying there are tragic things in the world such as the priest scandals in the Catholic church of abuse, but God turns his gaze, huh? Is that something, if our theists wanna respond, you can. The Catholic church is a disgusting pagan abomination that's been a stain on Christianity since its inception and state initiation back in the 300s under Constantine, who is an Aryan heretic. It's been a source of nothing but pain and disgrace. I do believe that is the horror of Babylon drunk in the blood of the saints and dripping in wealth. Next up, wanna say thanks so much for being here folks. It is always a wild one. We will be back tomorrow, potentially with two debates. One will be whether or not the current riots from this weekend were justified. That will have Tom Jump and newcomer, Rick. And then right after that tomorrow, so we've got a double header, destiny will be returning. He's going to be taking on Kay on whether all of the COVID-19 lockdowns should be instantly abolished. So that should be a couple of really fun and interesting ones, kind of a, yeah. So it's very relevant and timely. With that, wanna say thanks so much folks for being here. It is always fun. Hopefully we will see you for these future debates. And with that, just wanna wish you a happy rest of your weekend, depending on where you are in the world. Maybe you're already into Monday, so happy Monday. But thanks so much to our guests though. We really appreciate you guys coming. Michael, Rib, and also our Christian theists, Smokey and John. Thanks gentlemen, appreciate it. Was a pleasure. Always fun. Thanks so much. And with that, keeps everything out the reasonable from the unreasonable folks. Have a great rest of your weekend.