 Hey everybody, today we are debating atheism versus Christianity and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. Very excited. Oh my goodness. This is honestly a blast, folks. It just, y'all want to say thanks so much. You guys put me in the greatest mood. This is always so fun. And if you hadn't seen during the tour, we just had a short tour traveling a bit so we were in Austin, Texas and then Los Angeles. So those debates were off the charts. So fun and we're excited because the fun just doesn't stop. It just keeps on coming. In fact, you'll see on the bottom right of your screen this Friday, Nathan Thompson, the famous or infamous Flat Earth Earther, depending on your perspective, will be here debating with Fight the Flat Earth. That's going to be a big one, folks, really excited about that. And so if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up that we are very excited for just like that one. And folks, want to let you know up front, both of our speakers who we are very thankful to have, Snake was right, and Duncan Atheism, who some have called Darth Dawkins. They both have their links in the description. This is going to be in basically a pretty much open discussion type of format. So we're going to have Duncan Atheism go first as he wants to make an announcement. And following that, he'll do his opening statement followed by the opening statement from Snake was right. So with that, very excited to have you here. Thanks so much for all your guys' love and encouragement, too. That was a crazy tour. So we had some crazy stuff happen. Like we had to change a venue, and it was like we were at the start time. We were like, you know what? This is just not going to work. There's no way. So we had to change a venue on one of the debates, actually twice we had to do that. That was crazy. Thanks so much for all of your support, folks. With that, going to switch it over to Duncan Atheism for his opening statement and announcement, apparently. I have no idea what this is, folks. So I didn't screen the announcement, but first, well, I've been wanting to reveal this information for quite some time. I've debated about whether to reveal it or not. I knew it eventually would get out and I didn't want to be misrepresented or distorted. I wanted to have the widest possible audience. And so people could hear from me rather than through the rumor mill. I decided to come out of the closet and reveal who and what I really am. I am a part of the LGBT community. For some time now, I've been transitioning in my avatar and my screen name. I've been transitioning from Evolution Falls to Darwin's Deity to Darth Dawkins, Duncan Atheism, and tonight I will be making the final transition to demolishing Atheism. I've decided to come out of the closet and reveal that I am no longer or I will be holding to a non-binary position. I no longer hold to the binary designation for humans of being atheist and theist. The atheist binary is false. I totally reject the notion of atheist dogmatic God denying bigotry and theophobia. This is real as the Easter Bunny and the invisible sky fantasy. I now lack belief in the atheophobic reasoning and models of reality. So I wanted you to hear it from me first as being a part of the LGBT community, which is not the community that you're thinking of it is the Elohim, which is a Hebrew word for God. Elohim, God believers in the Trinity questioning God deniers community. So yes, I'm a part of that LGBT community, but not the other one. So we are part of the Elohim God believers in the Trinity questioning God deniers. So you heard it here first tonight. And that's my announcement about myself. My opening statement is that the God of Christianity has revealed himself in natural revelation and special revelation. He has revealed that he is the ground of all being and the ground of all knowledge, all the ground of intelligibility and the denial, the non-acceptance, which will amount to the denial that will result in complete metaphysical absurdity. Now nobody can be neutral about what is ultimate, let alone God. Now some people will say they lack belief in God, but I'll demonstrate tonight that that is an indirect form of denial. So one will either have to accept the revelation of God that he is the universal, excuse me, the unifying first principle that will provide for all human existence and intelligibility, or one will have to sit there in a state of absurdity, having no grounding for any of their assertions or statements of possibility. And that's it. Thank you very much for that, Duncan. We will now switch it over to Snake's opening statement. We welcome you here, Snake, and the floor is all yours. Thanks for having me. So I always find it funny that when people say that God has revealed himself, and apparently not to me, not to the majority of the human race, at least not your God, and all these arguments usually go something along the lines of God exists because only God can account for what he's described here as the unifying first principle, or God is that unifying first principle, and only that can account for morality or absolute or fundamental truths or intelligibility or logic, and logic and morality exists, therefore God exists. And all of these just assume the premise that X is only possible through God by assuming that there is no naturalistic explanation for them. There is no reason, given for this baseless assumption, that nature cannot explain them. And moreover, naturalism easily and obviously accounts for all those things like morality and fundamental absolute truths. And in fact, they must exist for any supernatural to exist. And I don't understand why the natural world needs a grounding, but the supernatural world doesn't need a grounding. Why don't you leap to the super supernatural? So this unifying first principle, I'm willing to agree that there is one, but you can't establish that it is a God or a mind of any kind. In fact, gods must follow the rules of these unifying first principles in order for their minds to even exist. They must follow some outside code of morality in order to be considered good. You simply can't define God as good just because it's a God. Even the mind of God is contingent upon the rules that minds must follow. And a perfect mind must follow logic perfectly, at least. The fact that God is limited to a particular nature means that God is contingent upon whatever is making that nature coherent. My argument in a couple of words is God is dependent on rationality and not the other way around. Therefore, Duncan's arguments don't work because they depend on the untenable position, that rationality is dependent upon God, and while his position is rationality is dependent upon God, rationality exists, therefore God exists. But that first premise, rationality is dependent upon God is absolutely false. And you simply cannot ground logic or intelligibility or morality in a God or else you suffer from an appeal to authority and circular reasoning, which Duncan has admitted to previously. We'll see if he still stands by that. Now, a legitimate appeal to authority is appealing to an authority's expertise. And we can assume here God is correct about morality or whatever he's making pronouncements on, but that just means he's an expert in it. And all experts are merely studying phenomena outside of themselves. An expert in nuclear physics is just discovering the phenomena, same with God's expertise, if God is right. And he's merely exploring how it works. But God himself is not the source of these things. He can only emerge from these fundamental truths. Just like the example I gave, a nuclear physicist is not the source of nuclear physics. He's merely understanding it. And so I'm going to go through a couple of syllogisms here. So presuppositionalism, I think, is basically what's going on here. My first premise is faith alone can justify any belief. And he's only using faith for this, which we'll unpack later. Premise two is if God is good, then we need some way to confirm this in order to avoid worshiping evil or false gods. Premise three, we already have to know what God good is in order to call God good. And so therefore, knowledge and morality precede knowledge of God. Faith is just not good enough. We have to have this standard outside to be able to test it. This would be important in analyzing whether the Bible, for example, is a document inspired by Satan. So either we can assume for no reason that it is inspired by Satan or inspired by God, or there's a standard by which we can hold the words of the Bible to. So just assuming that it's God's word, therefore it's true, it does not solve the problem of whether or not it actually is God's word. And God's word or anything claimed to be God's word must be able to be independently verified. Otherwise, we just have to believe it on blind faith alone, which is not a reason to believe anything. My second syllogism is for the precedence of logic over belief in God as well. First premise is God cannot change fundamental objective truths like the laws of logic. Premise 2 is fundamental objective truths are true in all circumstances in all possible worlds, no matter what. And therefore, God is influenced by these fundamental truths or unifying first principles, as Duncan would say, and they are not influenced by God's. So I'd be interested to know how Christianity is a... Well, first of all, I don't understand how you can get from a God exists to, therefore Christianity is true and Jesus is God. But I'd also be interested to see how you can say that Christianity is a better moral or scientific standard from, it's supposed God, because of that ancient book that endorses slavery, rape and genocide and has absolutely no knowledge of real science, especially diseases. So I don't see how you can say that God has revealed himself through the natural world when the Bible, the chief source of this revelation is wrong on almost every level. And atheism is just the default whenever you can't establish the existence of a God. So that's my position. I don't believe anyone has established any existence of any God. So that's where I land. And I, yeah, I think we were talking beforehand. I think that is a position of neutrality. I have no bias. In fact, actually, I'll recant that my bias, I would rather live in a world with a God with a heaven. I don't believe it. I would rather have a million dollars in my bank account. I don't believe it. I need evidence. So let's see. I mean, I would characterize his arguments as circular reasoning and trying to define God into existence, rather than point to him with evidence. So why don't we just jump right in? That'll be my conclusion. Thank you very much. Snake was right. Are you Don James? OK, you just dropped that. OK, so let me just recap and make clear that you are rejecting my position, that the God of the Bible exists. And we know this in virtue of natural and special revelation. The natural revelation consists that all facts collectively and individually indicate God. We know that the seen indicates the unseen and that will be eternal. And the eternal will have to be personal, otherwise we couldn't be personal. So that would be the basic issue that the natural world reveals God. What does that mean? Eternal will have to be personal. Well, I'm sure you believe that there are certain phenomenon that you do see indicates things that are unseen, like Wi-Fi or radio waves, right? Unseen by our naked eyes. Are there unseen things that we cannot see that are indicated by the things that we do see? Do you mean unseen as in naked human eyes or not detectable? I'm talking about our eyes, that there are things that we cannot see with our eyes, that we infer or extrapolate that are there by what is seen. No, we don't have to infer or extrapolate that wind or Wi-Fi exists. Okay, you don't infer Wi-Fi? No. Oh, so you don't make any scientific inferences that there's an invisible wavelengths? No, I can actually test it. No, testing would involve an inferential process. Science is largely inferential and involves extrapolation. You are aware that science is almost largely inferential. Not really. No, science is inferential, okay? Because if you cannot see it, if you cannot touch, taste it, smell it, feel it. An observation isn't an inference, sorry. All observations are inherently theory-laden. Do you deny that? Inherently theory-laden. Yes, you're confusing sense-datum, okay? Sensory experience with a cognitive almost immediate conclusion from sense-datum. So I don't want to belabor the point on this. So you reject the notion that all facts individually and collectively necessitate referencing God as the unifying first principle, is that correct? Of course. Okay, and you reject also that the Christian scriptures as a complete package, as a complete system, detailing God's property and attribute set. May I finish, please? Okay, so the Bible details God's basic property set, such as that he is eternal, he is absolute, he is ultimate. He is omniscient, omnipotent, always true to revealing, and he has a sovereign plan. All of which you reject that those are prerequisites for human intelligibility and that they have not been provided to us by God in a self-attesting manner. So you reject that. Yeah, you have yet to show any reason why I should believe that. Okay, have you read the Bible? Yeah, I've read the entire Bible more than once. Okay, so I can I finish? The Bible is possibly the single worst reference for any of the thing that you're talking about. Okay, did you use your reason to come to that conclusion? Yes. Okay, and what is it that metaphysically from a unifying first principle that would ground any possibility or impossibility such as your capacity to reason? Are you asking what grounds reason? No, I'm asking you what is the unifying first principle? What is metaphysically primary in existence that prescribes all possibility, which would entail reason, since it is not God. Why is it God? Okay, why is it God? That's your burden of proof. I have to prove that it's God. I've already explained that. Not even slightly. Okay, I have already presented it to you. Just hold on, I'm not done. You've merely asserted it. You have not explained why God is the grounding of it. You've just said he is. Are you done? Yes. Okay, actually I did explain it, but you rejected the evidentiary and rational justification. You have rejected that. Now, what I'm asking you is... I didn't hear any evidence. Okay, well actually I did present it to you. No, you didn't. Okay, I explained to you that all of the natural world, individual and collective facts indicate that there is an eternal, unseen, metaphysical primary. Yeah, that's just an assertion. Which facts? Which facts? Which facts? Okay, I would appreciate you stop over talking me. Which facts? I would appreciate you stop over talking me. I would appreciate you stop... Hold on. I would appreciate you stop over talking me. No. I would appreciate you stop over talking me. I've been doing my best not to over talk. No, you haven't. It's challenging where it's... If Snake has a question on what one of the terms you're using is, I think it's probably good to jump in. Yeah, well I'm not being long-winded and I would appreciate you not cutting me off. You're being very long-winded. What evidence are you talking about? No, I'm not. Okay, every time I try to get a couple sentences out, here we go again. What evidence? Okay, I'm trying to speak to you and you keep cutting me off. I have presented to you. I'll give you a second. Let's let Darth go for a second and then we'll come back. I promise, Taylor, and we'll hear your question, but we'll let him try to finish maybe a few sentences for you to ask questions about. Go ahead, Darth. Now, what I have presented is the individual and collective facts in the world all necessarily indicate the eternal and that the eternal would have to be personal, otherwise I couldn't be personal. Otherwise, you would be making an implicit counterargument that the impersonal ultimacy begets the personal, which we can momentarily discuss. You have rejected that. You have rejected that the Bible also is a self-attesting witness of God and special revelation revealing God's necessary property set, grounding intelligibility not only for all facts, but human knowledge and reason. What I'm asking you now, since you reject the Christian worldview and the Christian God as the necessary precondition, what is the necessary precondition or metaphysical primary that will provide for any possibility? I asked you what evidence. You said the individual and collective facts indicate that it has to be personal. What facts? I'm just asserting that those facts. You're just saying all the facts indicate it. What facts? I've already explained that position. You have rejected it. I have now asked you, since you reject that the, I'd like to finish, please. You have asserted it. I'd like to finish, please. Now, you have rejected my evidentiary presentation as evidence. You have denied that it is evidence indicating that God is the ultimacy, the metaphysical primary of existence. So you've gone on record. You've rejected the presentation, which I understand and I accept your position. Not that I believe it. My question for you is, when you invoke concepts of reason, knowledge and evidence, which would be causal relations between events, that's going to require some metaphysical framework or foundational primary. What I would like to know from you is, since you do not accept that the God of the Bible is the metaphysical primary, I want to know what is it that is metaphysically primary that will demarcate and prescribe what is possible and impossible? What is it? I want to get to that, but you keep interrupting me. The reason I reject it is because you have merely asserted that all facts indicate your God and I'm trying to ask you what evidence indicates your God. You're just saying all of it. Did you need me to repeat the question? I have been asking you the same question and you try to... I gave you an answer. Can I finish? Can I finish? What you're ignoring, what you're trying to pawn off and try to change the subject on is, I'm pushing you on the reason I reject what you're saying is because you haven't given any specifics. You've merely asserted that all facts indicate your God, so you can't answer that. So you're trying to push it on to me and ask me a question because you can't answer it. Actually, I did give you an answer. The fact that you did not believe it does not mean that I did not give you an answer. So in turn, I asked you, since you reject the presentation, the evidentiary support and the rational justification for the God of the Bible being metaphysically primary, since you reject that, you have then went on, you have made a number of statements of possibility and impossibility. What I would like to know, since the God of the Bible is not metaphysically primary for those things, I would like to know from you, you said earlier that you shouldn't be making baseless assumptions. You have made a numerous statements of possibility and impossibility. So what I would like to know is what is it that is metaphysically primary that provides and prescribes for all possibility and impossibility? I really want to get to that. That's what I wanted to have this conversation on, and I would like to finish what I'm saying. But you didn't give an answer, which is why you can't give me the answer again. You've merely asserted that all things. Maybe I missed it. How about you tell me just one piece of evidence? All facts, both individually and collectively, temporal facts indicate any eternal, okay, I'd like to finish. Which ones is what I'm asking? All facts. All facts. You didn't hear me. Yeah. You keep on cutting me off. I would appreciate you stop cutting me off. We'll come back. Well, it's totally fine to want to know what those terms are. What we'll do is maybe just give a few sentences and then we'll come right back to what those facts are in particular. Yeah. Being obnoxious in a conversation does not make for good debate. Now, I have presented to you. I have presented to you the evidentiary case for the Christian worldview. You have personally concluded that it does not constitute evidentiary support and rational justification. Is that correct? What's correct is when I ask what facts indicate it, you literally respond, all facts indicate it. So you can answer the question. So let's move on. Have you rejected my evidentiary presentation and rational justification for God? There's nothing to reject. You've just merely said all facts indicate it. When I ask you what those facts are, you just say all facts. I want to accept it. So you don't have a answer for me. Okay. Actually, we'll move on to my answer. Do you reject the rational justification that I presented? Do you not accept it? There's no argument there. You just said all facts indicate it. So you don't accept what I said. Is that correct? No. I do not accept it. Good. Good. Thank you. Now we're going to make progress here. Now, you made a number of assertions about what is, can be, and cannot be. Okay? What I'd like to know from you, since you categorically do not accept that the God of the Bible is metaphysically and ontologically primary, I would like to know when you make assertions of possibility and impossibility in your worldview, what is it that is metaphysically primary or ontologically primary that prescribes any and all possibility? You say it's God, even though you can't give me even a single reason why it's God. You can't actually explain how God is necessary for any of these things. My answer is the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place, in the same way. And from that, or along with that, we can include the law of excluded middle, that something is either true or it's not true, and the law of identity, that which is, is. And so what I base everything on is nothingness cannot be at any time, at no point was there nothingness. How do you know that? Why are you interrupting me? So I'd like to know how you know that. Know what? How do you know that nothingness cannot be? Well, you interrupted me. I was getting to it. Okay. Perhaps you could allow me to finish. Nothingness cannot be and at the same time produce something, otherwise then it's something. Something exists, therefore, nothingness never existed, if that makes any sense. Nothingness is totally, logically incoherent. What does it meant that is metaphysically primary that prescribes all those possibilities and impossibilities that you have stated? The law of non-contradiction is something is what it is. It's the law of non-contradiction, something that is concrete or abstract. It's obviously concrete. Okay. And can you give me what is the first property of that, that is concrete, that is metaphysically primary? What is its concrete property? That which is is. No, I'm asking you what is metaphysically primary. Okay. Hold on a second. While you're simply telling me the laws of logic, which we can discuss momentarily, simply describe how anything that is extent is. It doesn't tell me why it is. I want to know what it is that is primary and why it exists ontologically. Not which that it cannot exist in a state where it cannot equal its negation. What is it that is metaphysically primary? Okay. The ground of all being that prescribes why anything at all exists. The laws of non-contradiction does not explain why people, excuse me, why things ontologically exist. Yeah, it does. So the question is, no, it doesn't. All it simply describes that what is cannot equal its negation. It doesn't tell you why it is. And so we have something. So we have. Does the law of non-contradiction explain why things exist ontologically? Yeah. How? Because there is something, therefore, nothingness is not possible. Nothingness is not possible, therefore, the only other possibility is something. No. When you say nothingness is not possible, you're talking about a possibility. I want to know ontologically what is primary, that why anything at all exists. Telling me the law of exclusive mental, excuse me, the law of non-contradiction does not tell me why something ontologically exists. It simply states that whatever does exist, it cannot equal its negation. It doesn't tell me why it ontologically exists. So I'd like to know what is it that is ontologically primary that prescribes why anything is possible. Does the law of non-contradiction, is it possible for me to, does the law of non-contradiction, does it prescribe whether I can jump to the moon right now? Yeah. No, does it prescribe why I can do that? You can't. No. Does the law of non-contradiction say A cannot equal not A? Does it prescribe why I can or cannot jump to the moon? Sure. How? Because it describes the behaviors of all things. No. How does it describe why I can or cannot jump to the moon? All it's saying is A cannot equal not A. So how does the law of non-contradiction prescribe what I can and cannot do other than it cannot equal its negation? Because what you are is limited by what it is, and what you are is something that cannot jump to the moon. It's like binary. Why can't I jump to the moon? You can get 1s and 0s, which is either on or off, and the combination of just that binary code can create all of the different things that we're doing right now. That is a non-answer to what I just said. I'm shocked that you even said that. Just to be sure that we get to hear the rest. I don't know if he was done yet. Taylor, was that all you had to say or were you still going? No, but he can go. The law of non-contradiction just is simply the position that whatever is, it can't equal its negation. It doesn't tell me what prohibits what's possible and impossible with respect to it cannot equal its negation. Now, what I'd like to know is, what is it that is metaphysically primary that prescribes any and all possibility other than an entity cannot equal its negation? Are there other possibilities and impossibilities other than an entity equaling its negation or not equaling its negation? Are there any other possibilities? I'm not sure what you're not understanding about this. Just saying ontologically doesn't make it more or less coherent. We know, for example, that God cannot do this because God is subject to those very same laws and he cannot break them. Therefore, he's subject to them. Are there laws that are metaphysically primary? Yeah, we've been over them. Okay. Well, stating the laws of logic would be universals. Do you know? Okay. How do you know any universals exist? Well, anything else is incoherent. I'm still waiting. How do you know that there are universals? Because the opposite is incoherent. Yeah, that's just definitional. How do you know that anything is universal? How do you know? I'm waiting for an answer. I already answered you. I'd like an answer to my question. I already answered you. How do you know? How do I know through the revelation of God, but you reject that? That's not a way to know anything. Some guy told me or had a vision is not a way of knowing anything. What is ontologically the foundation of why there can be reason? Because it works. The laws of logic work. Well, the laws of logic are abstractions. Do you mean the way the world works in terms of the causal principle? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But we know that God is subject to all of those things that we're talking about. So we know that God is contingent upon. What is it that is ultimate then? I would describe it as logic. Obviously, logic as we know it is just a language to describe how it works. Is logic abstract or concrete? Are you interrupting me right now? No, I'd like to know if it's concrete or abstract. Did you just interrupt me? Yes or no? That's a qualifying question. You seem to be... So since you interrupted me, since you interrupted while I was speaking, I didn't hear what you asked. Yeah. Is logic that which is ultimate? Sure, I would say so. Okay. Is it concrete or abstract? Both. Okay. Well, actually, it has to be one or the other. Nope. Can you tell me what the concrete properties are of what is ultimate? What do you mean by concrete, though? It's... Are you not... It is immaterial. Aren't you... Okay, if it's immaterial, then it's... Okay. I said it is in-material, in-in. Okay. I want to know... And it is also able to be abstracted by minds. I want to know what it is, what it is, is the reason why anything at all exists. Why does the moon exist? The moon? Yeah, why does the sun... Because a rock hit the earth. Okay. No, I'm talking about foundationally and in a metaphysically primary way. Why... Why does anything exist? Why does... Okay. Do you believe in matter and energy, causality, and laws of nature? Why do those things exist? Are they eternal or are they temporal? Whatever is creating them is eternal. I would like to know, what is it that is metaphysically primary that instantiated matter, energy, causality, and laws of nature? The brute fact that nothingness is logically incoherent, so it cannot exist, so the alternative must exist. Do you know what a brute fact is? Mm-hmm. What? It's just something that is true. Is it something that's true that does not actually have an explanation, it just is? Um, sure. Okay. So do you accept that what is ultimate is simply an array of brute facts? Mm-hmm. Maybe. Well, you need to tell me what it is. I don't see how that's... Well, if you're going to deny that the God of the Bible and his property set are not grounds for reason and human intelligibility, I want to know what is metaphysically primary and ultimate. Okay. So what is it that is ultimate? Is it an array of brute facts? Uh, it is the facts that nothingness is logically incoherent. I don't even know what that means. I've explained it to you many times. Is what is ultimate one or the many? Uh, it could be one. It could be many. I know it's not a mind. No. What I'd like to know, is it one thing or is it many? I don't know. So you don't know what's ultimate then? Uh, I know it's not a God. Do you know what is ultimate? Uh, we know parts of it, sure. What is it that is ultimate? Is it one concrete thing or is it an ab... is it a one thing abstractly, which is a concrete many? Mm-hmm. Personally, I understand it more as one thing. Um... Is it a concrete thing, one? Yeah. Sure. Okay. What is the fundamental ontological property of the one? That it exists. That something must exist. Existence is not a predicate. That's a big mistake in philosophy. I want to know what it is that is on... Why? I want... Why? Because existence is not a predicate. It's not a property. Now, what I'd like to know from you is, since you reject, since you can... You believe that you can reason, you can be coherent without the God of the Bible. All right? I want to know what it is that is ontologically primary that prescribes any and all possibility. You told me it was a concrete one, but it is not a concrete many. Is that correct? From my... The way I understand it. Okay. There could be... There's three laws of thought. It could be three. I don't want to know what could be... As I understand... I don't want to know what could be... That the other two come from the one, which is the law on non-concrediction. No. I don't... You see, you're very confused here. I don't want to know what you say it could be. I want to know what it is in your worldview that grounds the statements of possibility. Remember earlier, you said, we cannot make baseless assumptions. So I want to know foundationally and ontologically, what is it that is the fundamental reason why anything at all exists? The laws of logic do not explain why things exist. They simply explain that the things that do exist, they equal themselves in a time index and they cannot equal their negation. But it does not explain why entities ontologically exist. I want to know what is it that is metaphysically primary since you reject that it is God. I want to know what it is that is ontologically primary. You said it's concrete and I want to know what it is. Because if you don't tell me what that is, you're not going to have grounds for reason or intelligibility. The laws of logic explain why nothingness is incoherent and that explains why things do exist. Now, I want to ask some questions. Is that fair? You can ask questions of me, but you have not answered my questions. I have absolutely answered. No, you have not. I want to know what is concretely, metaphysically primary. The laws of logic do not explain why anything at all actually exists. It's simply a description that for whatever does exist, it cannot equal its negation and it equals itself in a time index. But it doesn't explain ontologically why something exists. So I want to know what is it that is ultimate since it's not God, since it will be the foundation of your ability to reason and to predicate. I want to know concretely what is it that is metaphysically primary. You keep repeating the question even though I've answered it. So follow along very carefully. The laws of logic explain why nothingness is incoherent one. No, they know they do. And the fact that nothingness is incoherent explains why things exist. The laws of logic do explain why nothingness is incoherent. That explains to me, how does how does the law? How does the law of identity explain why anything at all does exist? Because nothingness is incoherent. How is that incoherent? Because something exists and something cannot come from nothing. That doesn't, listen, listen, you are extremely confused. All right, and I'm not trying to insult that. Tell me, tell me, tell me where I'm wrong. How can something come from nothing? Because you're giving, what you're doing is I'm not asserting that. What I'm saying to you is you keep on pulling from your script by appealing to the laws of logic. The laws of logic do not state what is ontologically primary. It's simply a characterization about how anything at all exists, be it eternal or temporal, whatever distinct entity that it equalists itself in a time index and it cannot equal its indication. It is not a statement of why something ontologically exists. Now, what is it that is ontologically primary that prescribes how anything is possible and why anything at all ontologically exists? What is that ontological primary? And please don't say the laws of logic because we've gone over this. The laws of logic. Okay, that doesn't answer the question. Can we agree that something cannot come from nothing? I can agree with you because your worldview doesn't have a foundation. Neither does yours and you can explain why and you're unwilling to answer any questions or let me finish my questions. Oh, I'll be glad to answer your questions, but are you admitting that your worldview doesn't have a foundation? Of course it has a foundation. What is your ontological metaphysical primary foundation? So can we agree that something cannot come from nothing? I asked you a question. What is it that is metaphysically primary? I asked you a question and you dodged it. Can we agree that something cannot come from nothing? I will await your answer to the question. Giving me the answer, the laws of logic are not ontological. You're going to be waiting for a long time then because you're avoiding my question. I'm not avoiding it. I'll be glad to answer a long list of your questions. I want to know what is it that is metaphysically primary and the reason why anything exists, not the state that they exist in where they cannot equal their negation. I'm asking you why does anything metaphysically or ontologically exist and that will be what is ultimate. So what is it concretely that is ultimate? The laws of logic explain why nothing is secondary. We've already been over this again. The laws of logic, the law of identity doesn't explain. Does the law of identity explain? Why can't I speak? You will speak. You will speak. Does the law of identity explain? You're getting a little heated. Yeah, because you're being rude and obnoxious. You're getting a little heated there, Cupcake. Especially when you're a rude, obnoxious cup. Just where we are. You're the one interrupting. Just to be sure we know where we are. Why don't you give me an adult answer? Come on now. So I can't remember who asked the original question last. Yeah, I asked what is it that is ontologically primary? I was just saying I don't remember who it was that asked it first. So what we can do is, I do know, Darth, you have asked a lot of questions, which is great. There's nothing wrong with that. I haven't had my question answered. But what we'll do is we'll give Snake a chance to ask a question. Well, here's a clarification. If the laws of logic are what is metaphysically primary and eternal, does that mean all entities are eternal, Snake? Nope. Well, then that means that the laws of logic cannot be metaphysically primary, because some of the things that are represented as laws of logic are temporal. So you can't answer any more of the laws of logic. What is it that is metaphysically primary that is the ground of why things exist? So I'm rude, but when the moderator is literally telling you to allow me to ask a question, you just jump in and start asking your questions. I'll be glad to answer your questions. I want an answer to your question. No, you won't. You're just going to keep repeating your question like the aggressive. That's because you haven't answered it. Yes, I have. You don't like the answer. The laws of logic, do the laws of logic cover all entities? So wait a minute. I don't think so. I had said that we'd go to Snake for his question. So I think that I don't know if that was actually asked. So Snake, did you get to ask that question? I'll be glad to answer a series of questions. I want my question answered. The laws of logic cannot be ontologically primary. We're going to give Snake a chance to ask a question. Yeah, give him a get out of jail card for you. Or get out of jail free card. Listen to this. OK, go ahead, Snake. I mean, I have so many questions, but I would start with... Yeah, you're not going to get any answers to my questions until you answer mine. Wow. I'm not going to answer any of your questions until you answer my question. Wait, Duncan, it's fair. Like you've asked a lot of questions. No, it's not fair. He hasn't answered the question. The laws of logic, by definition, cannot be ontological primary. Duncan, we're just going to give him a chance to ask a question. Because if they're universal, then everything is ontologically primary. Duncan, you're pretty... Is everything ontologically primary, Snake? No, it's not how this works. He should call himself Snake as the Dodger. OK, so we're going to give him a chance to ask his question, but without being interrupted. So we'll give him a chance. I thought you were going to get me a serious interlocketer, James. Oh, here we go. Yeah, here we go. OK, so we just have to just only answer your questions. And if you don't like that, then you just keep asking the same... No, what I don't like is you keep on dodging and evading my question. Oh, man. That's what I don't like. And I'm going to confront you to your face in front of the YouTube audience. And so we established in the first couple of minutes that you couldn't answer any of the questions. You kept dodging what evidence. You couldn't even give a single piece of evidence. And now you're... So is that a question or is that a recapitulation? I think you're a little bit triggered by the fact that I exposed that right in the first minutes. You haven't exposed anything. So now you're trying to push it back on me and you're not allowing me to ask any follow-up questions or you just want it to be a one-sided thing. So... All right, how about every question you ask me? I'll say the laws of logic, the laws of logic, the laws of logic. How would you like that? I didn't merely answer with the laws of logic. I explained what the laws of logic explain why nothing is incoherent and why things don't exist. I don't merely state the laws of logic. Hey, could you tell me where do you get the universals from? Like you merely state, God explains it, but you won't explain how God explains any of that. Actually, I did explain it. You just don't accept it. You merely asserted it. Okay. And you merely asserted that there are universals. So can we... How did you determine there are universals? Explain that to the YouTube audience. Let's walk through this together. How did you determine there are universals? Can we agree that something cannot come from nothing? In my worldview, God is the grounds of all possibility and demarcates impossibility. There is no realm where there is an impersonal absolute, unless you want to argue for it. Do you want an argue for an impersonal absolute as a grounding? That's not what I ask, is it? Can we agree that something cannot come from nothing? I cannot agree because we have two different worldviews. So any... I don't have a worldview. Actually, I just have observations. No, I don't. No, that... Okay. Okay. Wow. Okay. Observe... Are observations grounded ontologically? Sure. Can we agree that something cannot come from nothing? Okay. Not a God. A God cannot ground it because you haven't explained how a God grounds any of it. If a God can't ground it... In my belief, it grounds it. Wow. That's not good enough. Yeah, James, you're gonna have to screen my interlocutors better the next time. This is terrible. This is as bad as the last couple of guys. Okay. Okay, cupcake. So can we agree that something cannot come from nothing? Okay. Nothing cannot exist because God is a necessary being. Anything that does exist. Okay. Well, in your worldview, how are there... How are there inferences in your not God worldview, if it does not follow? Because being is necessary. How do you know anything is necessary? How about that? How do you know anything is necessary? Because it has to be. Because otherwise it's incoherent. Otherwise it just becomes a soup of incoherent nonsense. Then all you're simply saying is, okay, well then how do you know the world is a nonsense? If nothing is necessary, then things can't behave in ways. They would just be completely random. No, can you tell me what is it that is ontologically and metaphysically necessary? What is it? Existence. That existence is not a predicate. I've already explained that to you. That doesn't explain anything. Okay. Something must exist. Listen to me. How do you know that? Because something exists. Okay. So what you're saying is therefore there can't be contradictions. Humans can make contradictions. No, I said can there be contradictions in the laws of physics? Why can't there be any contradictions? In the laws of physics? You keep on saying can't. What is it that is ultimately that prevents anything from not being? What is it that is ontologically primary that prescribes what can and cannot be? Whatever it is, that's what's controlling God's behavior. Could you tell me what it is that is ontologically? What is it that is ontologically primary that makes whatever establishes what's necessary? You said something is necessary. Well, the only necessary thing will be what is ontologically primary. What is that? I've already explained this. Whatever makes logic work. So logic doesn't work. Logic is an abstraction. Logic is abstractions. Things behave according to rules. Including your God. Okay, so you believe that there are causal relations? Yes. Okay, what is it that institutes causal relations between events? Cause and effect, the fact that's how things work. No, you're just repeating the same claim. What is it? Listen carefully. You're not allowing me to finish. No, you're not understanding. You repeated the same answer. Now, what is it that I'm letting the God get out of my mouth? I will be brief. Listen to the question because you're not understanding. And you wouldn't allow me to answer. I will be brief. You didn't understand the question. Hold on a second. What I want to know. What was the question? Yeah, James, listen, you know, you keep on inviting me here and you get these little obnoxious little punks. All right. I mean, this is getting irritating. You're name calling. It's like, yeah, I am name calling because it's a very good observation. I'd like to get my question out. He's obviously not understanding the question. Now, wouldn't let me answer the way things work. You didn't understand the question because you repeated the same statement. Now, let me get my question. You wouldn't let me answer it. What is it that instantiates and sustains causal relations and connections metaphysically and ontologically? May I have a question? I'd like an answer to that question. After you answer that and give me a clear, honest answer. I've done nothing but answer your obnoxious questions this whole time. No. You told me something was necessary. Okay. Then you said it works. I want to know I want. Okay. Listen, can I get my question? James, listen to me, dude, dude, listen to me. I'm not going to give up with your obnoxious little tactics. I asked you a question. Want to ask me a series of questions? I'll answer it. I want to know what is it that instantiates the causal principle? All right, Duncan, please work with me here. I don't want to. I hate muting people. Yeah. Well, then speak to Snake here. Ask him to work with you too. There's limited time. You always go soft. You can laugh while you want, James. You always go soft on these obnoxious atheists every single time. Okay, Duncan, I'm going to be with you. Don't do this. Come on. I don't care. I really don't care. At this point, I'm very frustrated that you have a double standard. I don't have a double standard. Yeah, you do. It's fair for him to just ask questions, isn't it? Wow. You know what, James? I'm really getting irritated with you. I want to know what instantiates the causal principle, Snake. Okay, Duncan, I hope you don't quit. Don't quit. Don't quit. I muted you, Duncan. It's just that. Give me one second. Isn't it fair that Snake would get to ask some questions as well? Yeah, I've been answering his questions. Then he makes his assertions, and I ask him, I want to know where he gets his assertions from. He said something's necessary. I want to know what is simple. I'm sorry for muting you again. But it's only that. Yeah, James, you're giggling like a little schoolgirl. I can't help it. It's the way I giggle. Okay, Duncan, it's just that there have been, I think you've maybe asked a number more, a number of significant questions. Yeah, I've only asked a couple of questions that he won't answer. But I want him to have the chance to ask questions too. I think that's fair, and you have to give him credit. He's been persistent in pushing for that. Yeah, he's been persistently obnoxious. No, that's not what I was thinking. So why don't we do just a couple of questions, like a question series? Good. Then we'll go back to this question that he refuses and dodges the answer. Go ahead. I'll give you three questions, and then you're going to answer my question about your assertion about what's necessary. Go ahead. I'm going to have a lot more than three. So I don't know everything. Your tactic seems to be just relentless onslaughts of questions. So some of your questions, I would like to actually explore with you, but your tactic seems to just preach. Do you have a question for me? Do you have a question for me, or do you want to lecture me? It's fair to set it up. I'd like a question instead of giving me a little monologue. Getting there. So I would prefer people who I can actually converse these things with. Do you have a question for me? I can't move it. Let's just let him look at you. James, James, listen to me. You're being a terrible moderator, and I'm really getting irritated with you. That's from everybody's, I think. Yeah, yeah, that's right. It starts, you know. Snake, do you have a question for me? We've got to give him a chance to give the setup. No, it's not a setup. He's monologuing. I want the question. So your last question, what was your last question real quick? My question was you stated, well, this is how things that are necessary, how things work. And I asked you what instantiated and sustains the causal principle so that the concept of things working and being necessary is an intelligible one. What is it that instantiates the causal principle so that inferences are an intelligible concept? Because if you don't tell me what instantiates the causal principle, you have no grounds for inferences. So I would like to explore those concepts with you and ask some questions about your role here. Do you have an answer to my question? Because we can expose how weak the answer of God is and how God's behavior is, in fact, dependent upon these causal principles. So you asked, how do we know what instantiates causal principles so things can work intelligibly? And I want to know, how does your God do that? God is a necessary eternal being. He is the ground of all being. He is eternal without being. He is the unifying first principle that instantiates all possibility and impossibility. He is a necessary entity. How does God just instantiate things just because he... How does it, by the power of his will. That doesn't answer anything. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't answer. No, actually it does because the God is... Do you want an answer or not? Did you want to speak for me? Or are you just going to continue to be obnoxious like you have the whole time? I started speaking and then allowed you to speak because sometimes people start speaking at the same time. God simply wills and things happen. Do you will things and things happen? Nope. So when things happen, when you eat, it's not because you will it? I can't just will some food in front of me and then it happens. I didn't say that. That's what I was answering now. Okay, okay. Well, you can't do that, but that's not a logical defeater that God can't do it. Now, what I want to know from you is you are drawing inferences. Your whole line of reasoning in response to me is a line of inferences. Now, you told me that inferences were viable and intelligible in virtue of the causal principle. What is it that instantiates the causal principle and sustains it? So I didn't hear any logical response at all. I will repeat the question until you answer it. Yeah, that's what I'm doing because you haven't answered my question. You said God is eternal without being and therefore things make sense, but I don't see any logical conclusion there. Where's the syllogism? Where's the logic? How does that follow? I didn't give you a syllogism. I simply described for you. I just described to you what the nature of God was. Now, what I'd like to know from you is all of your responses to me and all of your rejections, you are using inferences. You're using inference rules. You say that's the way things work. Now, in your worldview, is there something that ontologically or metaphysically instantiates the causal principle so that you can reason? So that I can reason or that so things work? Do you reason in virtue of the causal principle? Sure. Good. What is it that instantiates and sustains the causal principle? The fact that things have to make sense. No, that's an abstraction. What is it that concretely instantiates the causal principle so that you can reason about anything? Yeah, yet it wasn't abstraction. What is it? Yeah, listen, you're a train wreck. You don't understand. Hold on. It's not abstract at this point. It's not abstract that chemicals behave in certain ways. That is concrete. Are there laws of nature? Yeah. What instantiates the causal principle so that there can be laws of nature? What instantiates the causal principle so that there can be laws of nature? The fact that something can only be what it is or else it's not what it is. That does not explain to me how it instantiates the causal principle. Yeah, if something is what it is, then it does what it does. No, you're not understanding. And so, God, I'm going to- Do you know what instantiates means? Okay, is the causal principle eternal? Probably not. Well, then something needs to instantiate it. What instantiated the causal principle and what sustains it? How does God do that? You have an answer to that. I'd like an answer to the question. You're claiming that you can reason without God. We've gone round and round on that. You claimed that you can reason without God. That God is a logical- Listen, I'd like to finish instead of you over talking me for the empty time. Now, you claim to be able to reason without God. That your reason is derived from the causal principle. You have said that the causal principle is not eternal. No, I haven't. What is it that instantiates and sustains the causal principle so that you can reason about anything, including God? You would need to explain that too. I'd like an answer to my question. I'd like an answer to my question. The way that I figure that out is I actually assume that there is a God. What is it that instantiates? You said earlier, I took notes in your opening statement. You said that we cannot make baseless assumptions. Are you making a baseless assumption about the causal principle? What is it that instantiates the causal principle if the causal principle is not eternal? We're going to give Snake a chance to respond, and then we'll give Snake a chance to ask a question in return, and then we'll go into... Well, I haven't had my questions being answered. All I'm getting is double-bustering. Yeah, I haven't had any answers to my questions, but dodging and evading. Here's the question. What is it that instantiates the causal principle? You can laugh all you want, but maybe if you moderated it and asked them to answer the question, we wouldn't have this problem. I always said, how is this unfair? I'm waiting for an answer to my question. What is it that instantiates the causal principle? We're on the same page, right? So, Duncan, we're going to let you ask a question, then Taylor will ask a question, and then that makes sense, right? Because I think Taylor was trying to respond to the last question you asked, though. No, he's not. Are you having problems with your headset? He's been entirely evasive. James, you don't like my answer. No, I didn't get an answer. My answer breaks your script, so you don't like it. All you're giving me is evasive rhetoric. I want to know, metaphysically, what is it that instantiates and sustains the causal principle? You said the causal principle is not eternal. What is it that instantiates the causal principle? As far as we can tell, that just seems to be a brute fact, and so I would like to explore that. I would like to explore that from the perspective of assuming that a God exists. How does a God, how is a God necessary? I need clarification here. So, the causal principle, in your view, that forms the foundation of why anything is. Is it a good fact? May I finish, please? I need clarification. The causal principle itself. Is it what is metaphysically primary, or does something instantiate and sustain it? So, are you talking about causality? The causal principle, that there are causal relations between any two events whatsoever. You stated that the causal principle is not eternal. You reject the notion that it is God who instantiates the causal principle. I want to know, what is it that is metaphysically primary, that instantiates and sustains causal sequencing? The fact that something cannot be what it isn't. How many times do I have to... All that is, is a statement, it just is. When you say, when you assert the law of identity, all you're simply saying is the causal principle. So, sorry to do this, Darth, but we gave Snake a chance to... Yeah, and again, for the ultimate time, he's evaded. How are you, Darth? How are you finding out how to unmute yourself? Basically, we're going to give Snake a chance to ask a question now. So, Snake, if you want to ask a question, the floor is all yours. So, to answer your question, we can observe that it happens. We can calculate that it happens. And the fact that the way things work, the way, what things are, they can interact with each other, and their interactions cause different states of being. And so, I would like to know, yes it is, it absolutely is. No, it is not. It's in all possible ways. Well, you're just stating what it is. You're not telling me what instantiates it. It's not what you... Let's give him a chance to ask his question. So, Snake... Wow, I mean, are you this obtuse? It's not... That doesn't tell me what instantiates it. It breaks your script so you're freaking out a little bit. No, it's not a script. It is. I've heard this script a thousand times in all of your... I'm irritated because you're obnoxious, you're rude, and you're evasive. I want to know what instantiates the causal principle. Or you're just simply telling me that it is. It's a brief fact. You have to give him a chance to ask a question. So, we're going to give Snake a chance. At some point, you're going to have to say it just is what it is, and you say that with God. And when I say... Is that what you're saying? At some point, you kind of have to, at least from... Okay, this is actually an answer. We don't have complete knowledge. So, my approach, as I've been trying to get to, is I actually assume that... Well, for that approach, I don't assume as course that there is a God. But when I'm exploring these concepts, how do we know X is this? Or how do we know that there is a causality? How do we know that we're not just hallucinating at all? How do we know anything exists? Well, that one's pretty easy to answer. But I go, so how would it work if there was a God? Everything would still have the same answers if there was a God. Something would just... Things have to work the way that they work, and God has to work in a certain way, because God's nature is limited to a certain way. That wouldn't... That would be a God. So, I am wondering, what is limiting God's nature to work in that certain way? And that's all I'm talking about. And we can explore that together, but you can't explore that, because you have to assume that God is in charge, is above all of that, and is not caused by that. So, you're incapable of actually answering the question. Yeah, that was absolutely disaster. If you actually studied a little bit theology, you wouldn't make such a mess. Are you familiar with the concept of immutability in God's nature? Have you ever heard of immutability? I'm answering him. I'm answering him. Are you familiar with the concept of God's immutability in nature? Assume that for the sake of the audience, that he doesn't know what it is. Just explain it for us, and then we'll... No, he doesn't. Do you understand what the immutability of God's nature is? Yeah, you already asked, and we already said no. So, now... Good. Do you have an answer? No, I said, yeah. What is it? Immutability of God's nature as I understand it would be that God's nature does not change, that it is primary, and that it is fundamental, and it doesn't change. Is that... All right, fine. What is it that is immutable and eternal and ultimate that instantiates anything ontologically? Tell me the laws of logic. This is just another question. So, we are going to go into Q&A. Can we? So, thanks so much. Yeah, so James, next time... Can I ask one more question? I may not show up again if you invite me, unless you get me better interlocutors instead of people that just constantly dodge and evade my questions. Nick is sitting right here. How could you say that? No, he's been entirely obnoxious and evasive the entire time, as bad as the last two interlocutors that I've had. The irony. So, can I ask one more question, if that's okay? Sure, I'll give you the same answer you gave me. The laws of logic, laws of logic, laws of logic, laws of logic, it just is, it just is. That's not what I've said at all. That's exactly what you said. You may have cut me off before I finished my thought. You didn't tell me that the laws of logic are metaphysically primary and are the ground of all being? So, you may have cut me off and you didn't get my answer. You didn't say that? So, my question is, going along with your immutability, can God change His nature? No. Can God change the equation 2 plus 2 equals 4? God is the source of all possibility and impossibility. Why are things the way they are? Why is God's nature that way? I'm answering you. Do you want an answer? You're not answering. You know what? You are one of the most obnoxious and rude individuals I've had the displeasure of interacting with. That's a compliment coming from you. I'm attempting to answer the question. Whatever is possible or impossible will be instituted and demarcated for God. 2 plus 2, I'm answering His question, James. I'm answering His questions. Are you going to stop me from answering His questions? As long as you don't answer it with a question. James, James, listen, I'm really getting irritated at you. I wouldn't have guessed. 2 plus 2 are abstract. Okay, the number 2, when we talk about mathematics, mathematics are abstract objects. Are you aware of that, Snake? They're not objects. They follow rules. Okay, all right, Snake, listen to me. Let me answer. Let me answer. I asked you to repeat the question. No. Are you aware? Are you aware that numbers and the relationship to numbers are abstract objects? I said that your answer could not be a question. So we do have to go to the actual Q and A. All right, yeah. James, unless you can secure for me an interlocutor who's going to have a debate with me like an adult, I won't be back again, James. Yeah, you can give the like the girls get all you want. Thank you, Mothra and Jay Disco for your super chat. They said, congrats, Darth on getting corona big plus. Oh, come on, Mothra. Darth's a nice guy. Yeah, hey, James, make this fast because I'm irritated not only with this rude, evasive little punk. I'm irritated with you as well. It's good for you. Yeah, make this fast. It's better if you point your anger at me. Snake, he's been just... Yeah, well, didn't I ask you the last time we talked? I said, get me a serious interlocutor instead of these people who are going to be rude, obnoxious, and evasive. Do you remember that conversation, James? I think you said you were like... Remember that conversation? You're like, I want to debate Snake was right and right now. And I was like, I'll see what I can do. Excuse me. I did not ask you that. You were the one who contacted me and you said, oh, Snake is right. It will be... You were the one who said that to me. Are you telling me that I requested to debate Snake? You're like, I desperately want to debate Snake was right. Where did you get that from? Where did you get that from? You didn't get that from any DM from me. I beat that up. Okay. Next up. Okay. So you're lying. Oh, hold on a second. So you're lying to the YouTube audience right now, James? I think we broke him. I'm giving you crap, Duncan. I'm teasing you. Okay. Yeah. And you know what? This is what a crappy performance you're delivering as a host and as a moderator. Oh, geez, Duncan. I'm sitting right here. Come on. Well, I don't appreciate when you lie to me about the YouTube audience. And then you start giggling and saying it to joke. We'll miss you, Duncan. Listen, we love you, Duncan. Everybody loves you here. Next up. Thanks for your super chat from Nella Dower who says, Duncan is cringey transphobe your final form. Yeah. Make this fast before I close out this window, James. Duncan, no, don't leave. I'm really irritated with you. No, we're friends. Okay. Steve and Steve, thanks for your super chat. They said, Trump 1010 COVID response. Oh, there's says that Trump received. James, did you, when I, when I asked you, James, no, I want to ask you a question. I want to ask you a question. So the whole YouTube body. I hate to mute you. Listen, it's just a question about, it's a super chat mention. No, did you inquire a snake? Did you tell him that I want- Listen, Duncan, you're so sassy. Just always have to have all the attention. Steve and Steve said, Trump- Hey, James, again, again, you've been a crappy moderator. Thank you for wasting- Duncan, why are you so angry? Duncan, no, Duncan, are you there, Duncan? We, I think we lost Duncan. Okay. We broke him. Duncan, man, I'm just, I don't know what to do. Duncan, are you, is he just hiding? I don't know. Okay, so I didn't expect that. It appears Duncan left. We got no hard feelings for him. Who, if you're watching right now, you probably noticed the pictures scrambled and Duncan disappeared. Duncan, you just quit, but I can't help it. It's sometimes it's just funny. So basically, I hope he's doing well. I have no hard feelings. It was just one super chat about Trump and he just wouldn't let it be read. So anyway, it's been a fun debate. I don't know if Duncan's ever gonna come back, but I, you know, I tried. You know, you try to keep everybody happy. You know, that's what you get. So Snake, thanks for hanging out with us. I can ask questions toward you, Snake. If you can do me a favor. I know that it's hard because Duncan, while he was here, was indeed throwing his poop at you. So he was saying a lot. He was talking a lot of smack. But if you can do me a favor, we can ask you questions from the audience that are for you. If you can do me a favor, just because once we got in trouble, where one of the people who was not here, was talked about during that Q and A. And so they were like, Hey, I wasn't even there to defend myself. What the heck, James? And I was like, yeah, that's actually fair. Like if you're not here to defend yourself, we will try to not talk about the person. So if you can resist the temptation to talk about Darth, that helps because even though Darth was, some might say he was unfair to you or I tonight, we don't, no reason to like return it. So Steven Steen, thanks for your super chat who says, Trump had a 10 out of 10 for the coronavirus response, according to Marcus Dresden. Well, Marcus, we're glad you approve of Donald Trump. That's good. Martha J. Disco, thanks for your super chat. They said, Darth, you're a, oh, let's see. Yeah, that one's like, we wouldn't be able to, some of these, if they're about Duncan, we might not actually say it just because we, like I said, well, can we, if they're like maybe about his arguments? Yeah, I think that's fine. Brandon, our Deline, thanks for your super chat. It says, yep, that's another one. Let's see, Duke Davidson. I see, thanks for your super chat. They said, I know modern day debate takes no positions, but Darth is objectively, he's a, you know, he's not fair to you after his temper tantrum against, this is what the super chat says. After his temper tantrum against James last debate, how can modern day debate continue to platform someone so obviously dissonant, so someone like that? Yeah, I mean, I usually just laugh because I just don't, I don't really care what, you know, it doesn't bother me if people are like, oh, you know, you're James, you suck. You're moderating so bad. And so we have him back because we're kind of like, well, you know, I'm not going to let a personal tiff between me and somebody else like stop me from having him on, but I get what you mean where it's like, you know, try to bring some order tonight and Duncan is no longer with us. So stupid whore energy. Thanks for your super chat says, how does Darth deal with violations of cause and effect as shown in the Stern Gerlach experiment? That's a good question. I could try to impersonate Duncan and answer it. No, I'm just kidding. I've only got a couple impressions like Nephilim free and, well, welcome to a dinosaur adventure land. All right. Okay. Well, that's not my wife. That's a picture of her. Okay. But Michael Dresden, let's see. Another troll, Michael. Thanks for your super chat though. My John Rapp response to Michael Dresden saying, you were wrong twice in one comment. Gotcha. Let's see. Stupid whore energy. Thanks for your super chat says Duncan. Does Duncan realize that his God is a brute fact, according to his view? Huh, I don't know. We'll have to ask him that. Maybe he'll come back. The undead Christian thinks for your super chat. This one's for you, Snake. They said, you say you believe in evolution, but if evolution is a part of nature, what created nature? If you don't know why rule out God is a possible answer. Well, my main point is like, I don't rule out God. You need to rule in the possibility of God. First of all, it's kind of ruled out by default. What creates nature is, I think it all stems from the fact that nothingness is impossible. And so something has to exist. And that somethingness has to obey the rules of basically, well, it has to avoid contradicting its own behavior, basically. And everything else between is basically what's possible. And so I think from that you can get basic matter and the interactions between basic matter creates nature. Gotcha. Thanks for that. Next up, appreciate your super chat from stupid horror energy who says, why is there something rather than James? Is that supposed to mean I'm like nothing? How dare you? Stupid horror energy also says, James is harassing me in the DMs telling me and I'm telling DMs, I'm telling Nickelback his favorite band. You should tell Chad Kroger. We are like on good terms, Chad and I. It wouldn't it be cool? What if we, because for the channel, like we could try to buy the rights to a song so that we could play it without YouTube coming after us? Should we get a Nickelback song for that? Like as the channel theme song? Let me know your thoughts, folks. John Rapp, thanks for your super chat. They said, there is no necessary metaphysical primary needed. Gotcha. I think that's uh, yeah, that was for Darth. Let's see. Labzer, thanks for your super chat. They said, Snake, explain how logic denies nothingness. Basically, if nothingness was ever was the state of the universe, then we would still be in a state of nothingness because you can't get a something from a nothing because a something must come from something else and it can't just pop out of nowhere for no reason. Otherwise, that means that there is something interacting out there and therefore nothingness is not there. So the fact that there is something means that there never was nothing if that make, doesn't make grammatical sense, but I think, I think we know what that means. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Let's see. Appreciate it. Next up, Labzer, thanks for your super chat. Let's see. They said, Darth, why is it that Jews and prophets don't believe in the Trinity? I don't know what they mean by prophets. Maybe they mean the Jewish prophets from the Old Testament. I'm not sure, but let's see. Cajun crustacean, thanks for your super chat. They asked if someone can get Darth a pacifier to stop his crying. Well, let's see. We love Darth. Darth, if you're listening. Darth, if you're listening. I don't know if you're listening right now, but we love you. I didn't think you were crying. I thought you were angry, but not crying. So I'm defending you. Next up, thanks for your super chat from Sexy Calzone. It's just another throwing poop at Darth. Seigart, thanks for your super chat. Who said, Snake, how do you explain the origin of the universe if something cannot come from nothing? Well, something just is what has to have always been, because nothingness is absolute. Nothingness is just logically incoherent. And so the only other option is that there is something. And that's how I understand it. I don't know of any specific science that would say that, but that is how I understand it. And it seems to be true to me. It would keep me up at night a lot of times where I would be like, so why is there anything and not nothing? And that basically answered the question for me. Because there's something about absolute nothingness that just cannot be. And so the only other option is that there is something. And we still don't really know how to explain that. But the way that I was trying to kind of get at with this debate was, so let's assume for a second. Yeah, are we online still? Duncan, are you back? Can I? Yeah, are we still online? Duncan, we miss you. I said, are we still on YouTube? Yeah, we're still on air. Okay. Yeah, you are the worst moderator. Okay. And you lied to me. Great. Here we go. Thank you for that, Duncan. Yeah, you're a tur- All right, let's see. I'm sorry, but- Darth, oh man. He's just really, he's relentless. Oh man, that's good. I appreciate the encouragement, Duncan. Let's see, go ahead. I think you're answering one yet, Snake. I'll say you're a pretty good moderator, James. Just for record. Appreciate that. What I was trying to get at with this debate was, I will actually assume that there is a God in a lot of my thought experiments about this. And I'll go, okay. So if God was the origin of all that is, does that make sense? And I can't make that make sense even if I assume that there is a God. So what makes sense to me is that there is something else that is causing God's existence, just assuming that he exists and causing God's nature to assume a certain form and causing God to follow a set of rules. And to me, whatever is doing that would be possible in a state of nature without a God anyway. And so even if I can't explain every minute detail of it, it's the same under any coherent God model. And so I would, yeah, if that makes any sense. Gotcha, thanks so much. Sorry, she's laughing. You were the worst moderator ever. I can't believe she's more mad at you. I think he is, but you know what? We love you, Darth. You must be listening, Darth. Let's see. Thanks for that. Josiah Hansen, thanks. We got your super chat. They said your brain on presuppositional apologetics and then the egg in the frying pan emoji, I think a reference to the old public service announcement ads that you would see on TV, your brain on drugs. Apparently they're not a fan of presupp. Brandon Ardalene, thanks for your super chat. They said this ladies and gentlemen is Theism's champion. I don't know if that would be agreed upon by everyone, but stupid or energy. Thanks for your super chat. We said EMK. I don't know what that means. What's Taylor, you're young and hip. You know like what this means. What was it? EM as in Marjorie and then K as in Coons or I don't know, something else other than my last name, Kite. I don't know. I'm kind of actually, I know some of the memes for I'm like in the internet culture for people who are out of it, but people who are into the internet culture, I'm the one who's out of it. So I don't even know. Gotcha. I think so. EMK, email my kangaroo. I don't know that she's weird. Thanks for that, Sarah. Always keeping us on our toes. Brandon, let's see. Aisha Miles. Thanks for your super chat. Apparently there are Satanists. They say, Hail Satan. James smoked all of the lucky charms. I probably do seem like I'm high tonight. I'm not on drugs. It's because I'm not on caffeine. I don't have any caffeine in me, and I'm super like weird today, because I usually honestly take probably too much caffeine, like 600, 700 milligrams a day. So it's like six or seven cups of coffee. But today's like one day that I didn't have a ton. Thanks for your super chat from Timothy Bryce. They said, let Darth Dawkins go now, James. He's even calling you out now. He's insatiable and controlling. And then they said some other stuff that's more critical. I'll debate him for fun. Well, wait. I thought you said just not to have money again. Let's see. He's certainly insatiable in the sense that he is persistent, and we appreciate his passion. I don't know if he's, he does like to kind of lead the conversation. So I don't know. I don't know if I'd go as far as controlling, but he definitely does seem to enjoy. That's his style, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But DL and K, thanks for your super chat. They said, Didi, what is your favorite comedy movie? And now we'll never know. He's gone. This is really sad. Maybe he's in the line chat. I don't know. Nella Dower, thanks for your super chat. They said, let's see. Okay. There's more poop throwing at Duncan. Brandon Ardeline, thanks for your super chat. They said, James, please use this money and buy a whistle. Yeah, that's true. We have to restore order here. Tonight was crazy. Duncan used to like actually listen, but tonight it was just like, dude, you're not even listening to me. Jamie Russell, thanks for your super chat. Respect the moderator. Show some charity for the sake of the gospel man. The Prince of Preachers was a four pointer. You must be a five plus. May God's face shine upon you. I don't know what, it looks like lingo. I'm not familiar with the Prince of Preachers. I know that's probably referring to Jesus. It says was a four pointer. They mean Calvinist, because that's usually what I think of is like four point versus five point. They say, you must be a plus five. So I don't know. But thanks for your super chat from Labzer, who said, who would you debate? Duncan, T jump, Angstreech. Candida Kennedy Reed, thanks for your super chat. They said, hi Duncan. They say, you can't get the evidence that God exists. Well, Duncan, we wish you wouldn't have laughed. We love you, Duncan. General Balsak, thanks for your super chat. They said, I think Snake is right. Needs a serious analysis. A lot of these are quite hard on Duncan. Trio monkey, 666, thanks for your super chat. They said, why does, yeah, that's another one. John Rapp, thanks for your super chat. They said, hope the door hits you on the A, on the butt, on the way out. We hope you're doing well, Duncan. And Cajun Crestation, thanks for your super chat, who said Duncan is, let's see that, nope, that's another one. And again, and Truman, thanks for your super chat. They said, what was Duncan's announcement? It was some sort of satire of him being part of, oh gosh, we're probably gonna get demonetized because he mentioned controversial terms. But he wasn't doing it in any serious way. He was doing a satire of saying, I don't know, it's at the start of the debate. Stupid horror energy, thanks for your super chat. Snake, are you aware that the sum of all matter and energy in the universe is zero? Perhaps our definition of nothing needs to be updated. Freak, I added the last part in. Yeah, I think that usage of nothingness is acceptable in the scientific sense. But in the sense that I'm talking about absolute nothingness, you can unpack that and there's something inside of that zero quantity. And so I wouldn't describe that as absolute nothingness. But like Lawrence Krause uses it, that's a coherent usage of it. Gotcha, let's see. One second reading. Oh, okay, so Genius Tracks and some others. Brian Stevens said that EMK did not mean email my kangaroo. It was a moderator that Duncan had in the past said was also the worst moderator ever. Do me a favor, where's the Marcus Dresden? Why are you, I'm calling you out. I'm coming hard on you. Yeah, they said, Joey, you're kind of pushing the envelope. You got looked at, you're coming at people pretty hard. That's why you're getting flack from the moderators. We usually only go after hate speech. So I'd say like, yeah, you keep talking about asking if people are GAY and I think people are taking that as if you're using GAY as a put down. So, yeah, because Joey, if you take it easy. So, also though, Michael, what is it? Dresden, Marcus Dresden, not Michael, the guy's a troll. Marcus, if you can do me a favor and take it easy on some of the people. Sometimes you are quite hard on people as well. And I'm not trying to call you a hypocrite. These are two different things. So, but just want to ask if you could do that because recently a guest was like, yeah, James, I don't know if I want to come back on because that Marcus Dresden is like one of the most long story short Marcus. Work with me, work with me. Let's see. Thanks for your super chat from AnimorphicMind. Said, wow, Steven Steen wins another debate. How does he do it? I don't know how he does it. That's a good question. Let's see. Next up, always learning. Thanks for your super chat. They said, just for being the best mod ever. That's really nice of you. I appreciate that. I, let's be encouraging. James Anderson, thanks for your super chat. They said, if being a Christian means that Ollie eventually turned into a delusional guy, like Darth, the no thanks. Let's see. Yeah, that one. Okay, I shouldn't have read that one. But let's see. Cy Gart is a Christian and he is, he's in the live chat right now by coincidence. Really pleasant fellow and Dr. Gart is a very kind person. So, very well liked. So, you get to know him. Hopefully that'll give you a balance out any sort of. I'm honored that he's even paying attention to me. Yes. Very pleasant fellow. Well liked. And let me just, quick. Thanks for your super chat from James Anderson. Oh, no, we read that already. That's embarrassing. Okay. Stupid or energy says, the evidence-based definition of nothing is potentiality. What do you think of them apples, snake? What is potentiality? Sorry. Well, the way in philosophy that I remember it, but I don't know if she means it this way in cosmology would be like just the potential for something, but you don't actually have something. Oh, no, I mean, I know what it means, but what was the first part of the chat? She said the evidence-based definition of nothing is potentiality. Oh, well, like I said, I mean, I'm okay with the scientific usages of that of nothing, but that's why I always stipulate absolute nothingness as like it has no potential to do anything. It just is the absence of all potentials, all anything. That's what I'm saying is not a coherent concept. Gotcha. Thanks for that. And let's see. Next up, appreciate your super chat. This one is from, let's see. Timothy Bryce who says I'd love to debate here, novice, but I would love to try. Well, we're totally open to it. Timothy, if you email me, we can try to get you connected for a debate. Athena goddess of wisdom and warfare. Thanks for your super chat who says EMK was someone who used to run streams. Gotcha. This must be before my time. I was like kind of fell out of it for a while. Stupid horror energy. Thanks for your super chat who says Duncan as an atheist. I hope you come back. I'm crying right now. Please come back. So you got one fan out there, Duncan. You got many fans, Duncan. We love it. It's like, what are you going to do? All right. John Rapp, thanks for your super chat who said, well done, Snake. Thumbs up. You have a fan out there, Snake. Thank you. Yes, one fan. Labzer, thanks for your super chat who said, how would you rate your moderation skills, James? Thanks. That's a fun question. I would say that moderating, in my opinion, always is contextual. So that, for example, Steve McCrae and I, we differ in our styles. And he's more involved. And I don't think that's bad. I think it's all about your purpose and what you want from that format. I am definitely more laissez-faire. I think that sometimes I'm probably slanted or unfair in one way or the other. I think sometimes, you guys want to hear, this is actually probably good for you to know, because it's the things that are difficult for me where I'm like, ooh, that might make me a little biased. One is, obviously, my own worldview or my confirmation bias that just everybody will have, any moderator to have that. But so you might interpret things, you might be a little bit more lenient toward people on your own side. I don't know if that's true. I try to, the challenge is I try to compensate for it by being, if anything, I try to err on the side of being a little 1% tougher on my side, just because. But then, I worry a little bit like, ooh, am I being too tough on my own side because I'm trying to compensate for my bias? So I'm actually falling off the other side of the horse now. Another thing, though, to be honest, is if we have a huge YouTuber. So when we had, if we have somebody with 100,000, 300,000 subs, I feel a little nervous or I'm like, we'd love for them to come back because it's fun to have new people and obviously they're popular if they have that many subs so people usually enjoy listening. But my nerve, my nervousness comes from, I'm like, ooh, I wanna be fair to them but I feel like subconsciously, I have a desire to almost cater to them because I want them to come back. And so I have to try to control for that subconscious desire and be tough on them even if they're a superstar or something. So anyway, thanks for listening. But you guys are only accountable. If you ever know it, if you're like, hey, James, I know like, yeah, sometimes I get irritated and I tell you to shut up, but I'll never hide you or block you or something. Sometimes I will. Sometimes I think sometimes people are cry babies about how the moderating is done. It's like, go ahead and start your own channel. I don't care. This is the way we do it. This is the way I do it. And sometimes though, somebody's like, you know, they give me feedback and I'm like, you're totally right. Thanks so much. I think it helps a lot of people say it in a friendly way. Sometimes they like say it to me like as if they're like my boss. And I'm like, that's like not how this works. Like in that, where I would say worse than a boss. I've never had a bad boss. Surprisingly, it's been great. But 223, Mr. Awesome, thanks for your super chat. They said, shut up, James, you're over talking me and I'm going to serve or mute you. That's true. We, it's a good time. Duncan, we miss you. Should we, I wish we could play like a song for Duncan. Foolish or foolish. Thanks for your, your sweet super chat. They said, set Duncan up with destiny. Well, Duncan's probably not coming back for a long time if ever. And two, I don't know if destiny, I mean, you could ask destiny, he'd probably be willing to, but he's already debated Duncan on, I think, his own channel. So let's see. Thanks for your guys's kind words in the, in the live chat. I'm watching and reading. I'm very, that's nice of you. Brian Stevens, since I forgot to copy down your question earlier, Brian. So sorry I missed that. He said, I think you can, since he's also, since he's saying something nice about me, I better read it out loud. He says, I think you handled it well tonight. Darth unmuting himself showed how horrid. Well, yeah. So those, so thanks for that. Hannah, thanks for your kindness. And I appreciate that. Let's see. The Otto God, thanks for your kindness. And yeah, it's funny. But yeah. So this is always, it's so interesting to hear your guys's thoughts. I love reading in the live chat. Is this weird? Forgive me. Any thoughts though from tonight's snake? Without going too much into Duncan, I would have liked to just discuss more what the, what the concept of God actually solves for the problems of like the origin of the universe. Because I don't know everything. I can't explain everything. I don't, there are some brute facts. There are some unexplained things. And I just don't think that God explains them. And that's what I wanted to get to. But I mean, the tactic is just to kind of avoid that, but. Gotcha. Well, thank you. Want to let you know, folks, as promised, I'll keep that promise to Duncan. His link is still in the description. And snake was rights link is in the description. So if you've enjoyed it, that's an option for you to check those out as I've put those links down there for people like you who might enjoy that. And snake, that's an epic replica stormtrooper you have in the background. Oh, thanks. That's, wow, really great. I'm a huge Star Wars fan. It is my prized possession. It's really cool. Thank you. I got it from the company Anovos and then it's like preformed, but I had to cut it all out and rig it up and put it together. Wow. Yeah. That's rad. I'm a huge, huge Star Wars fan for real. Let's see. Gosh, you guys are guys in the chat. Your characters. Let's see. Yeah. In the chat, any thoughts? Amy Newman got your message in the live chat. We would love to see if we can get you set up for a debate. Thanks for hanging out here. It could be a lot of fun. Let's see. Anybody in the live chat, any feedback? I know that sometimes I come off. I don't know if you guys can tell. I sometimes like seem cranky and I'm like, just like shut up. You're a cry baby. So I do want people to feel what's the word I'm looking for? I want people to feel like they can offer constructive criticism. And I haven't done a great job of that recently of welcoming it. I think usually if it's friendly, I am. But sometimes like, I've got to think about like, how can I be more patient when people are like screw you, James? Oh, Lucifer Almighty. If you refresh, let me see. Okay. I just saved. Thanks. So now if you guys refresh your page, those links are in the description. So, but yeah, any feedback for the channel, how we can improve would love to hear it. I'm keeping an eye. Let's see. Thanks for your kind words, pizza, person, peppers and Brad. And Labs are, yes, I will debate again. That would be fun. I am going to release an older debate that I did about a week from today. That was a fun one. That was, it's never been on YouTube before. And it's from six years ago. So you'll get to see the young version of me. Back when I was like snakes age. Not really. Snake is, I'm way old. I'm like, yeah. But it was still. I'm immortal. Yeah. Carnivorous ape wants to debate a vegan. Well, we can try for that carnivorous ape. If you've got debate experience, we could maybe get you connected to ask yourself. I don't know if he'd be up for it, but it's worth asking. And so let's see. I think Brenda says, James, you should let me debate. If you, I promise Brenda, if you stop reporting our channel, like every two seconds, I would be willing to host you again. But when you keep saying that we're like, like doing these like bad things when it's like, I don't, I don't think we're that bad. I'm like, come on. So yeah. Thanks so much, folks. I'm kind of, I'm like so pleasured by just reading the live chat. What are your guys thoughts? Anything else? I just love this. Phil Bunny wants to debate veganism. So carnivorous ape and Phil Bunny, if you guys email me and you CC each other in the email, that makes it easier for me to set up a debate. If you email me and I'm behind, I'm so sorry, folks. I'm so behind on emails right now. So, oh gosh, it's just been a rough one. But for emails, if you want a debate, want to let people know, it makes it so much easier on me because I just do this for fun. Like it's just kind of like an hour and a half at the end of the day, usually to recover from like how long things were, how bad the day was. And it makes it so much easier on me. If you can, if you email, you say, here's the topic I want. Here's my position. I've already CC'd my opponent into this email. That helps because then I'm like, oh, like this is super easy. I can just totally, what's the word? I can set it up really easily. So that makes it quicker. But anyway, I want to say thanks so much, folks. We hope you have a great night. Thanks, Andrew Kroll for your trolling. I love you. I love you guys. I'll be the first to say it. You know, it's like, are we there yet? Can I say that? I love you guys. It's always, you guys just get me in a good mood. So I appreciate being here. And once again, last time, thanks so much, Snake, was right for being with us. Thanks for the opportunity for this one. It was fun. My pleasure. So take care, folks. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. We will be back this Friday, 9 p.m. Eastern Standard or Eastern Daytime with Nathan Thompson and Fight the Flat Earth. It's going to be huge. So we'll hopefully see you there for the next party. Goodbye.