 Everybody, today we are debating anti-theism and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate as this is going to be a lot of fun. What we have today is a debate on whether or not anti-theism is reasonable. It's going to be a lot of fun as we have two experienced debaters here returning we're thrilled to have them and their links are in the description in case you're listening and you wanna hear more from either of them. Also wanna let you know if it's your first time here consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up soon. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen, Matt Dillahunty and Randall Rouser will be bringing their teammates to face off on whether or not there is sufficient reason to believe in God. That's exactly one week from today. So there should be a juicy one. Also wanna let you know though if you have a question during today's debate feel free to fire that question into the old live chat and then if you tag me at modern day debate makes it easier for me to be sure that I get every single question in the Q and A list. Also Super Chat is an option. So if you wanna do a Super Chat, you can also do that which can not only allow you to ask a question during the question and answer but also a comment toward one of the speakers that they of course would get a chance to respond to. Oh, and it also will push your question or comment to the top of the list for the Q and A. So with that, very excited to have our guests here today. And then if I remember right before we had gotten started, oh, it's a long day already. Is it, do we have Amy or are you going first? I think John's going first. Oh, thanks so much. Appreciate it. So John, the floor is all yours. Well, James, thanks for having us on again. Amy, this should be fun. And for the guy in live chat, I think his name is Bruce Wayne. The reason I'm not showing my face right now is I threw out my back and I'm currently laying horizontally on my bed in my PJs. So come back on Sunday, you'll see my face for the debate I'm having Sunday afternoon. But the purpose of this debate obviously is on anti-theism. And tonight as we debate whether or not anti-theism is irrational, I want to be clear that I am not here to debate religion. I am here to discuss if being against the very premise of atheist God's existence is rational. Religions are the various prisms through which humanity attempts to understand this concept. And many of these belief systems have been manipulated by humans to achieve corruption and power. This, however, is not the question at hand. It is whether or not belief in the existence of a theist God is irrational or if it is the most existential question we must consider, and if those seeking to remove this from society are acting in a rational manner. I argue that at the root of their objection to theism is an attempt to escape the accountability of their actions to a higher power. But this campaign has the end goal of replacing God with their own ego. For if God does not exist, who then is the final arbiter of our moral limitations? Who then ultimately decides our limits? Who then created our immortal souls? The arguments we are likely to hear tonight will foundationally rely on a materialist worldview. For if our minds are only expressed through our bodies, if determinism cannot explain the immaterial facets of consciousness, then this means there is more to our existence than the physical world, and therefore it is more rational to conclude in the existence of a higher power. Like all atheists, the anti-theist is desperate to explain away the evidence of a creator being required for us to exist. For if we cannot exist through undirected process, then by default, a God and a creator is required. I suggest that it is neither logical, plausible or probable for us to even be able to have this debate without the exquisite design of our bodies and the profound abilities enabled through our minds to consider these questions. And that a worldview without a theist God as their source requires the suspension of rational thought. The failures and evil actions of humans is not what is at question for me. It is whether or not the anti-theist attempt to escape the free will granted to us by our creator is merely an attempt and endeavor to avoid the unescapable and prevent rational considerations of our very existence being dependent upon him. I'm done. Thanks so much. We will kick it over to Amy and wanna say thanks so much, both John and Amy for being here. The floor is all yours, Amy. Awesome. I can't just start sharing my screen. Hello everyone and welcome to anti-theism on trial as atheists wasn't edgy enough addition. So what is a theist? A theist is someone who believes in a conscious creator of the universe. This is a superstition. Since there is currently no good evidence for theism, we should consider this concept to be a superstition in the same vein of say alchemy karma or the flat earth. So they're crazy. This does not mean that theists are crazy, deluded or stupid. This means that they merely hold a belief which can't be proven. Thus this belief should be set aside until evidence can be found. Am I really doing harm from believing something that isn't true? Well, I don't know. However, we tend to act on our beliefs and thus we want people in our society acting on as many true beliefs as possible. Well, what harm does it cause? Well, the anti-scientific movements like being against evolution, global warming and the Big Bang mostly seem to stem from religious views. But how about some physical harm? Well, it also does harm in terms of male circumcision, female circumcision and raving children with all sorts of different levels of harm. And what I'd really like to know is, do they hold the same standards of evidence to scientific claims as they would their own? So there is absolutely no evidence Adam and Eve, no Noah or Moses even existed. There's no good evidence Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, cured the sick, and there's no good evidence that Jesus resurrected from the dead. If he resurrected from the dead, I wanna know why wasn't he seen walking around? When this have been a little bit better to prove that he was reborn because an empty tomb is not evidence. You can easily burn a body, destroy a body. That's proof that there's no longer a body. This is made worse if this God sends us to hell for lacking of belief. If the single and only criteria for salvation is belief and Yahweh is playing a massive game of hide and seek then I find this game to be evil. Good people would be burning in hell forever, merely for not seeing enough evidence. Why doesn't he just show up? One of the best ways this God can prove themselves would be to show up. Heck, please pop into this debate right now and clear things up. Yahweh, if he exists, has an open invitation an open invitation to crash our party, but I get the feeling he's not gonna. Instead, I think we'll get questions like if God exists and suddenly appeared in the sky, would you start believing? To see how silly this is, I'll ask the same question in reverse. Theist, if the star suddenly had a message in the sky reading a God doesn't exist, would you suddenly become an atheist? Or maybe we'll get some buzzwords, chance, complexity, nothing. These words seem to be politically correct terms that come from theist. I have never heard a scientist say we care about random chance or we came about by random chance. I have never heard a biologist talk about irreducible complexity and I've never seen a physical demonstration of nothing. All that the anti-theist is saying is that we don't have any good evidence to believe in a deity. And in fact, we oftentimes have many good reasons as to why these mythological stories are not real. Thank you. Thanks so much, Amy. We will kick it over into open discussion mode. So do wanna let you know, if you're wondering about the lights in the studio in my background, basically blue is the default. We're trying a new app called Lumia. I'm not paid by them, but that's like of just mentioning their name by coincidence. Basically, if it's green that lights up, it means a new subscriber has subscribed and you'll see the green letters in the middle bottom box on the screen. And then if it's a super chat, it'll flash red and you'll see the red letters in the middle bottom box of the screen. So just in case that's confusing and why the studio looks like it's in red alert sometimes. With that jumping into the open discussion, thanks so much to our guests for being here. The floor is all yours. So Amy, I got a quick question for you. Are we debating atheism or anti-theism? Because what you were describing there was seemed much more like a atheist description rather than anti-theist. I would say it has overlapping conditions. It's that I am convinced that there are no gods or at least the majority of gods that have been presented do not exist or have no good evidence. Okay, the reason I'm asking that question is my understanding of anti-theist is that takes the active position that anything to do with theism needs to be removed from society because it's harmful. Is that your position or is that not your position? The definition of removed, it's how you do the removing. It's that I want to remove, I want there no longer to be theists but I want to do that via debate and discussion. Okay, so what is the actual foundation of your argument outside of, as I said in my opening statement, because I thought we were discussing this more from the traditional anti-theist perspective. At least the stuff that I researched on the topic. And the differentiation between anti-theist and traditional atheists is the point I'm making. But what is your foundational, can I just reiterate your foundational argument for why belief in theism is so detrimental to society? Because it's a superstition. And so the more superstition that superstitious beliefs that Western society holds, the worst it's going to be for Western society. Okay, so the majority of the arguments that I saw from you were all about Christianity. But the concept of... They were going to be about Islam, but I changed them because they got a new debater. But the concept of theism is not dependent upon a specific religion. It is the belief in a supreme being and a higher power. Conscious creator of the universe, yes. Which you would agree there's no good evidence for, right? Well, I would wager you would remember from our last debate that I do not agree with you on that in the slightest. Just testing? I find it very ironic that you make the argument that I'm operating from superstition, and I'm assuming you also meant presupposition, that a creator is required when, in my opinion, there is a much greater level of presupposition required for us to exist without that intelligent agent being in play to enable our existence. I can't even begin to understand that view. I wish I could. But you're adding something that literally it takes billions of... You're saying the thing that it takes billions of years of consciousness takes billions of years, needs a body, needs cells. You're saying that was the thing that created the universe. Ask backwards, doesn't even make sense. No, actually, if you would pay attention to my opening statement, I said that our minds are separate from the body and are not, I believe in dualism, which is why I also stated in my opening statement that your worldview is ultimately dependent on materialism and determinism, correct? Well, the neurons are material, and so they're sending signals that are electrical, but they are made of material. Is your worldview ultimately dependent on materialism and determinism? I am a methodological naturalist. I believe that so far as we can tell, the scientific method has been the only way of being able to prove the universe. I'm open to things that aren't natural or not physical. But it would have to be proven in some form. It just can't be asserted. So are you saying that our intelligence is not capable of rational and logical deduction of what is the more reasonable conclusion of what is required for us to exist, rather than acceptance of the billions of years argument that you're making there that could somehow enable us to enjoy all the neurological connections and such in the cells and all the nanotechnologies that enable us to exist? What was the question? Exactly. It was the beginning. I was a little fuzzy. Oh, was I breaking up? I just couldn't quite understand. I was asking you, is it your opinion that human intelligence is unable to make a rational deduction based on the requirements for life to exist that results in a conclusion that it could not happen without the intelligent agent? I cannot see any rational reason why you would draw that conclusion. So after our last debate, did you actually go and research any of the arguments that I made in regards to the requirements for life? I feel like there was one term you were asking me that I never got to look up. There was something specific that you asked me about that I forgot. Okay. So I didn't really intend to turn into a, how do we exist debate, but if you're arguing that, because from your worldview, we exist through naturalistic processes that are undirected. It is, there is no requirement for a higher power. Is that your worldview? I would say that there's no reason for it to be here. It seems like a plot device. It's that we know why, or at least we have good educated guesses as to why life is here. It's really situated in a nice Goldilocks zones. The carbon elements are here. We have liquid water. It's not just, it's not just like, oh, random. This is why life is here. There was a good chance that life could have formed here based on all the environment and situational effects. And I can't see where a consciousness, something that seems to be a function that we know of, of only animals. It's the only, you know, life is very large. There's always some consciousness seems to be in this one unique branch. And you're saying that this, that mechanism in that branch of animals, that mechanism also exists outside time and space. Not only does that mechanism that only forms in animals exists outside of time and space, but it created everything. Right? Well, there is a rather key distinction between the consciousness that humans enjoy and any other life form. Number one. Number two. Wait, wait, wait, what distinction? Okay. Is it your position that monkeys have the ability to have creative thought and to envision new concepts that do not yet exist? Okay. So monkeys definitely have the ability to be creative. If you took, like, an extremely evolved organism, you picked a monkey. They're very similar to us. I would, it would not take a lot to... So you're suggesting that there is no difference in the mental capacities of the consciousness. No difference? Well, now you're saying no difference. Well, I made a very specific distinction, which was the ability to create things that do not yet exist. And I will extend in the relation to abstract and arbitrary. Are you suggesting that chimps have the ability to create abstract concepts? Yes, I believe they do. And not only that, but I've seen organisms like the elephant. Like we have an elephant can be artistic. There's videos of elephants drawing themselves, drawing other elephants and, you know, drawing themselves next to a tree with a trunk, grabbing an apple. I mean, isn't that what we do? Okay. So let's put this back in the context of language that both of us understand. In your classes that you're taking right now in school, which I'm assuming are in computer science, right? Do you actually think that what you are learning could be created by any other intelligence other than humans? I do not think right now that there are many other animals that could create a programming language, but now we're getting super specific. You just said many other. What other could possibly create a programming language? I mean, you're asking now about probabilities. We're wiped out and then another eight, another eight. I'm talking about right now in what we observe. Is there any other life form that could possibly create a programming language? All right, birds seem to have a sophisticated language. They seem to have a syntax where they'll go like, ah, ah, ah, ooh, ah, ah, ooh, ah, ah, ah, ah, ding, ding, ding. And so they'll have root sounds where they will combine the same sounds repeated over and then change the end of it. So it seems to be that they have developed a language. Are they creating anything that is abstract? Yes. They're using language. No, I'm saying separate from their, their tweets back and forth. And we can go over a whole diatribe about that whole deal and the differences between their communication and human communication. But the, it's very sophisticated. Okay, so let's, let's boil this down to you. So you are suggesting that there is ultimately no difference in the intellect and the consciousness of humans versus other life forms. Do you think that's what I said? No, that of course is not what I said. Okay. It's, it's, it's, we have what I call a brain bias. Okay. Brains are our thing. That's what put us on the map. And so we put an extremely high value on intelligence. Mother nature don't seem to give a crap about intelligence. It actually sometimes, you know, negatively picks against it if you need to escape faster if you need to have other methods of gathering food and stuff. Intelligence is one amazing way that nature helps us function, but it is not the end all be all in nature. Okay. Didn't you just say that nature isn't really in favor of intelligence? Of natural. So natural selection, the environment, the impression is the environment. So evolution is the combination of two facts that genes randomly mutate and that the environment naturally selects them. So the environment's actually the pressure. So, and I, I'm assuming you didn't actually go research much more debate because our previous debate because I asked what the, the, the, you are making the argument by relying on evolution for intelligence to exist. That's a, not only must a programming language exist. It also has to create new. Programming language. We debated this in our last debate, but the genetic code is. Okay. It's Turing completes. There are programming languages have been created specifically for it. They're translated directly into it. Our DNA is not a Turing machine. That is absolutely wrong. It is Turing complete. And the cell is a Turing machine. No, it is not. It's not a Turing machine can calculate any algorithm. You are making the claim now that our bodies DNA can do any algorithm that we put through it. Okay. So, Turing is considered Turing complete. A Turing machine is the ability to process it. And the cell is. Officially considered Turing complete. And there have been many. Conferences at high level, biochemistry and genetic programming research. Conferences on this exact topic. Well, I'd love for you to present that evidence that our biological machines are like a Turing machine. That would be amazing. Oh yeah. Well, I guess the fact that it's also been officially designated that things like promoters in. Our genome or Boolean logic gates. And control the expression. Making a machine either. Once again, a Turing machine is a specific thing. It's a machine that is a recorder that runs along a tape head. And in each film, each thing can be any algorithm. Thus, within a Turing machine, you should be able to run anything. And thus. The machines, hypothetically can do anything. We are not like that. We're not like that at all. And the machines that we even create that are alive one day may not even be Turing machines. All the machine, all the computers and all the, that we have right now run off that model. Okay. So I don't mean to be a jerk, but your ignorance is stunning on what is going on in biological creation. I'm going to take out the grain of salt. Okay. Well, I perhaps you should go use Google and you'll be able to do the same research as I did. Not from creative researchers, not from creationist researchers, but from institutions such as Cambridge, MIT, Stanford, and many, they all disagree with you on evolution, the big bang, and basically every all the cobalt warming, basically all the things that you believe in. Okay. So you just assigned things that we're not discussing as supposedly things that I believe in, but the point I'm making is you are in the big bang. I do actually. You do? Oh, wait. You believe in the big bang? How old do you think the universe is? If you want to go, do you want to go down a quantum mechanics debate on that one? No, I just want you to tell me how old the universe is because quantum mechanics shouldn't be involved. Well, actually, actually, not until you get to the time. Yeah, don't care how it's universe. I personally think that time is not relative to light and that we actually don't know. I mean, there's also many physicists who are making presenting theories that time is an illusion. Some people are saying, again, go use Google. Google time is an illusion. Google quantum mechanics theories. I asked a simple question. How old is the universe? I don't know. Okay. 13.7 billion years. That is a supposition that you're making. No, it is not. I don't pre-assume it. It was where the evidence lies. It is where the microwave background energy. I just want to intervene because I think that there's a, well, there's a couple of things. One is that I think at some points, I can't hear it, but the, I'll keep an eye on OBS if it's something with OBS, but I think Amy, at some points, your audio is cutting out. And so it might be, let me, if you're able to sit closer to the mic or just turn your gain up just a bit. And the second thing is just to redirect back to the main topic. Can you hear me better now? A little better. It's still a little bit low. Hmm. You know how to turn it up. Think of you speak loudly. That'll definitely help. Loud. Okay. Okay. So let's go back to theism versus anti-theism. So, is it your, I'm assuming it's part of your worldview that there is nothing beyond this existence and the, our life ends when we shuffle off the mortal coil. That's where all so far that's really evidence. There's no evidence that leads to think that we would actually go on after we die. So even though, secular scientists argue rather aggressively that there are additional dimensions, which we do not currently inhabit, which obviously would be a rational conclusion that there was something else beyond what we are currently experiencing. You hold the position that there is, there is no evidence for anything beyond this. Now, I mean, dimensions is more trying to figure out how many are actually in the universe. There's a, there's a colloquially dimensions. And then there's the physicist's turn of three dimensional space or going up all the way into the other dimensions. That's not what I mean. I mean, there is no evidence that we would go anywhere when we die. That is something completely different. Is there something outside of the universe, like a multiverse or something like that? There could be. And I'm not close to that idea. It's just that it doesn't seem to be any reason why your body, I don't get what your body gets out of your consciousness living on after you die. I don't get what your cells get out of that deal. Sounds like a crappy deal for them. Well, if dualism is true, then there is a, the physical body is nothing but a avatar, if you will, through which our consciousness experiences this physical world. And cells would be happy with that answer. I'm not really sure that our cells have consciousness. So I agree there. I'm being glib metaphorical because you're right, your cells don't really get a say in this, but I don't understand why. I don't understand why any of this, why would you go on? Well, if we have an immortal soul, then the, the interesting part of this whole discussion that you are, so against is that we have existence beyond this plane and that there is more to our very existence than what we are currently experiencing. And from the theist place from my theist perspective, if what I am currently experiencing is nothing more than a proverbial blink of an eye of my ultimate existence, then number one, the things that I experienced, which here, which are from my current perspective are hard, troubling, you know, struggles and things that I have to overcome are actually nothing more than learning experiences and building the appreciation I have for my very existence that when I go on to the next plane will be put completely into perspective. And in the context of the theist, and I'm making a supposition here in context of the position of God, the, if he knows that we are ultimately immortal, then the things that are put forth by folks such as yourself as being all why would these things happen are going to take a much different perspective, especially when you think about it from a parent and child perspective. But wouldn't you agree then that if we don't get an afterlife that you you holding that view may make you not appreciate the life and the time that you actually do have on this planet. Because I love life. I love every breath that I take. I'm so happy that I even get to be alive. And to me it is the one of the most amazing chemical reactions in the universe. And I don't understand why we need to add extra special things. We're already amazing. We already do amazing things. Why do we need this extra thing? Now, see, it's interesting that you put that position forth that somehow I would not appreciate being alive. I actually contemplate this on a regular basis. I faced death seven years, one month and 17 days ago. And ever since then I have had dramatically more appreciation for life and very often when I am alone and alone with my thoughts and out observing the world and contemplating existence and the intricacies that enable me to even have this conversation right now. And on the biological level, the things that I'm able to observe, the beauty and all of the incredible facets that must all work together in synchronicity in order for me to even contemplate life to somehow suggest that because I also see that there is ultimately going to be more to my existence than this in no way, shape, form or fashion, does that mitigate my appreciation for life? I don't understand why you would think that somehow my worldview would be different. But you don't think if you thought there was no afterlife, you don't think you would treat every single moment just a little more precious because this is the only time you're going to have with your family. This is the only time you're going to have with your friends. If you did something wrong with someone, this is the only time you're going to get to ask for forgiveness. This is your only chance to live. That's why I feel it is so detrimental. You're thinking that you're going to get life 2.0. And from as far as I can tell, there is no evidence for that. You say there's no evidence. No good evidence. Really from World War II and the improvements in healthcare, the amount of documented near-death experiences, for example, has absolutely skyrocketed. And in academia, there's formal disciplines that are studying this phenomenon. And some of the most staunch atheists have experienced these and have done complete 180s. And this is why I say I keep the concept of theism separate from religion is because people all around the world, regardless of their pre-existing belief system that have had these experiences, not to a T but very close, have very similar experiences and discuss the aspects of love and how a lot of the things that I contemplate in relation to the limitations currently weighed upon us by the physical world and the rules of physics and chemistry that we're currently bound by are removed. And the whole aspect of consciousness is taken to an entirely different level. And so to say that there is absolutely zero evidence and if you're going to argue, oh, it's just anecdotal. No, now there's hundreds of thousands of people that are having these experiences. So I don't find that very... You're completely dismissing it. I do not find... And I will say it's interesting that... I believe I can talk about it because it's your intro video. I wouldn't talk about it unless it was your intro video. So you and I both have brain experiences. You had a hemorrhage. I developed epilepsy at 28. And so I had a very near-death experience. I had a seizure on I-95. And it was one of the reasons that has made me so obsessed with consciousness. Why it's my, you know, my shtick. So I find it interesting. And my question, because it really has to do with why you are a theist, if you didn't have that experience, if you didn't think that you had a pact with God, that in 10 years you were going to come back and sharpen up your life, would you still be a believer? Well, I mean, my belief hadn't really faded. What I went through was a recognition that there was more I was meant to do with my life than chase money and sex, drugs, and rock and roll. And I think this correlates with your point of life 1.0, life 2.0. The recognition that I had, that I had been left with my intellect and my ability to speak, even though neurologist and neurosurgeons that I should not, that there was something more I was supposed to do with my time here in life 1.0. And it changed my perspective significantly. Now, leading up to that, was I enjoying myself? Absolutely. Do I remember most of it? Not really, because I was having way too much fun. But when I really started to contemplate, what was I spending my time on? I was chasing after the purely material and recognition. And oh, he did this and that. I was obsessed with building this business. And I had allowed my life to become hyper-focused on it. And it took something like that to make me realize that I would not be leaving a meaningful mark on this life. Even though, yes, I do have life 2.0 to come, I'm still meant to, and I have purpose, while on this plane of existence to make a difference. And I don't mean that from a, hey, go preach on the corner. That's not what I mean at all. The vast majority of my debates and arguments and discussions I have with folks online and offline are much more to do with the fundamentals of our existence, not from the, I'm not running around arguing religion. And anyway, where I'm going with all that is I think that the position that you're making about how somehow my belief, or something like this belief in life 2.0, somehow would mitigate focus and appreciation for this existence is a false supposition. See, and I think what you learned from it, or how you, not to use the word, but evolved, I think it's actually good. I think it's what many humans do in a similar context, whether it is within religion or a secular context, like a hero's journey, it is becoming an adult. It is realizing that maybe our actions do matter. Maybe I really should be trying to help people out. Maybe I really should be trying to be nicer the first time caring and consider it. I feel like everything you said was useful, but I would challenge you on the actual incident that seemed to lead you here. I would say that even though it felt really, really, really, really, really like someone was speaking to you and giving you this message and making you fulfill a promise that it was a terrible event, something that's like, like I have had scared the crap out of me and I put into perspective what I was doing in life. It makes you question what the hell. And so my suggestion, suggestion. I guess my question is, don't you think you could take all the lessons that you just explained of coming out of sex drugs and rock and roll, which I think is a common human story, to live your life for a better. Don't you think we need that or we could use that and it's good and useful without any supernatural shenanigans? I'm not really sure how, whether or not you decide to live your life with more purpose has anything to do with whether or not a God exists. I'm not sure where you come with that in terms of our debate. And can I also ask, do you think this God is watching us 24-7, 365? I think if you are not bound by space and time, then the ability to observe is not a complicated premise. And this goes back to your refusal to even consider the concept of a God existing outside of this universe. Even though, ironically, earlier you mentioned, hey, there may be things outside of our universe and multiverse, etc. But the premise of an entity existing outside of ours and not being bound by its limits is somehow an irrational concept. It's not that I don't want to believe it. It's that I don't see any good evidence to actually believe it. It's that there would have to be a really strong case in the pro. And I wish, honestly, that they could bring the empirical data. I know a lot of theists, they say, well, don't you accept anything else? Don't you? Is that the only thing? I mean, you think if he could do anything, anything, the physical data would actually be the easiest because he should be. I mean, if he works outside of space and time, if he can jump here, jump there, it's almost like the further away we get from the stories, the less we see miracles, the less he stops talking. This is where it goes back to you talk about where is the physical evidence. And the point I have made in the context of DNA, genetics, biology, and so on is that the evidence is staring you in the face. And just to the sidebar, you might want to go look at the YouTube video of Richard Dawkins talking about that computer tape that you were mentioning earlier in terms of Turing. That's exactly what is occurring in a ribosome with an mRNA. And it's literally physical. Our DNA can't do anything. A Turing machine can do anything, can calculate any algorithm. This is a specific thing. When we get done with this debate, go and Google, genetic code is Turing complete. There's literally papers on this. Anyway, the ultimate conclusion you're having to reach in the context of our existence is that somehow, let me rephrase this, are you familiar with the concept of the frozen accident? Frozen accident, explain. Okay, so Crick back in the early 60s in trying to contemplate and explain the reality of the information bearing functional properties of the genetic code. Propose the functional or the frozen accident, which is, hey, this completely arbitrary random event somehow managed to result in the code that we are observing in genetics. And his observation has only expanded dramatically in the last 50 years that holy crap, this is real. And if you go and read the papers on origin of life, they are still referring to a frozen accident being a likely requirement for life to exist. So in the context of theism versus anti theism, I am arguing that if something which is the foundational root of our existence is so unlikely to occur. But if you insert a intelligent agent, it was likely to occur here because the chances were good. There was actually good chances that life was born here. The chances were, okay, nobody concludes the chances were good. If you go read the chances were one out of one, but second of all the elements for actually forming on earth were amazing. We have good conditions for life. Mars actually has some good conditions for life. The band is actually pretty far. Do you do realize that the nucleic acids in our DNA do not have chemical bonds between them, right? Okay. Okay, so do you at least agree that a gene sequence must be base pairs in specific sequence in order to result in protein synthesis. I'm not sure. Okay, then you need to go research basic biology if you're going to argue that it is not reasonable for a intelligent agent to be required. Could you give some evidence that an intelligent creator is required? Okay, apparently you haven't been listening to anything I'm saying. Okay. You haven't presented any good evidence for one. I haven't been, this purpose of this debate was not for me to defend theism. It was for you to present anti theism. You're trying to make me have to prove to God and I am suggesting. I'm literally bringing things forth that you don't even understand and I've never even researched. Just to clarify what anti theism is and then with that and maybe just a few more minutes, then we'll go into the Q&A. So thanks both of you. Okay. So my definition of anti theism and an anti theist is someone who works. Who works against theism who wants to lower the rates of theism. I'm not just an atheist. I want theist not to be theist anymore. It's not just about merely not having evidence. I have evidence in the positive that there that there, I won't say no gods, but that majority of gods that they have present so far do not exist. The way from everything that we know so far about consciousness, it does not have any of the equipment to to run it. In fact, they won't show the equipment if he could show up and say, hey, this is God and we could look in God's neurons and we could get them in an MRI machine and all this. It would be great. But instead, we just have to generally speaking from what I get from Theos is believe it because he said so. Because that was his claim. He talks with people. He revealed it to them. And I don't understand why why that God can't do it to us. So I work to push against theism. Are we doing closing statements there? I suppose it's probably at that time. Okay. So, I don't really feel like we really discussed anti theism as much in the debate. I find it interesting that in Amy's closing statements, it was much more of a argument against Christianity rather than the existence of a God. And we didn't really discuss much of the reasons for why it would be bad to even believe in this and what I mean, there's a few things in her opening statement, but ultimately for me, the evidence when you take the time to actually go down the rabbit trails and look beyond the surface level talking points that are presented by atheists ad nauseam across YouTube and other venues, you will quickly realize that their positions are actually extraordinarily shallow and usually reliant on being ignorant of the substantial arguments against their positions and that ultimately their worldview is dependent on an even greater presupposition than someone who believes in a creator. Gotcha, we will jump into the Q&A. So thanks so much folks for your questions and thanks to our speakers for being here making their cases tonight or this late night if you are friends in Europe or around the world. So really excited to jump into these questions and we're going to start with the first one that came in from Dwayne Burke. Thanks for your super chat said. Oh wait, we also I forgot new subscribers wanted to say I saw a couple pop on the screen. Thanks so much. If I missed anybody's let me know when I'm sorry about that. But thanks for subscribing redefine living glad to have you welcome to the community and Michael X. So thanks so much. Stoke to have both of you and I don't know if you've got to be able to hear that barking. So sorry, it'll calm down in a second. But yes, into these questions. So thanks so much folks. Appreciate all of your questions. We have from Dwayne Burke does T jump want to debate on the Illuminati. So I will ask Tom jump and we shall have that debate Dwayne Burke. You know, I always love debate requests. So Dwayne Burke thanks for your super chat who said. Secondly, I would debate the evidence of supernatural soon. Well, if you'd like, yes. I don't know if you meant to end that with a question mark, but I like it. Cliffhanger next up Jen S. Thanks for your super chat says like and sub. I love these debates. Thanks for his support. Jen really do appreciate it means a lot. And before we jump into the other questions do want to mention both of our speakers are linked in the description. So if you happen to want to hear more if you're like, I like that. Well, you can hear plenty more by going to those links in the description. So next question science is observable. Thanks for your question said question for Amy. What basis do you have for following the logic of materialism? If your brain is merely material say that question one more time. You bet. And if you're able to feel free to let her rip, it's okay to yell into the mic. It's just a little bit. Thank you very much. Your question was sciences observable question for Amy. Thanks for your question. They said what basis do you have for following the logic of materialism? If your brain is merely material. I first of all, I don't know what merely material is since material we only really have two options. It's matter or energy in our brains are made of matter sending energy impulses. Also, we generally don't trust our brains. That's why we have science is that we actually need to separate our human bias so that we can actually discern what is true. Gotcha. And Super Chat just came in. Thanks, Rob. Let me know if I pronounce it right. Is it keen? If I mispronounce it, let me know. Said, is John a flat earther? No. Gotcha. Okay, thanks for that. And thanks for your question. We just had another one word it. We have one from Nephilim free. He is in the house. Thanks for your question said question for Amy. If atheism is true, why is natural selection selected theism and deselected atheism? I don't think it's it's that simple. And it first of all natural selection doesn't pick what's true. It picks what's useful. And so if theism naturally selects something that builds you a community, I mean, I've seen statistics where people that believe in an afterlife and believe in a lot of these concepts have higher chances of just lay happiness. But just because you're happy about something just because it's useful or selected does not mean it's true. Gotcha. And with that, we I think there's one question I missed but otherwise we had a small amount of questions tonight, and I will give a couple of quick channel announcements. And as I mentioned at the start of the debate in one week, we will have an epic tag team adventure with Dr. Randall Rouser's team, team Theism you could say he and Samuel Nassan going against Matt DeLahunty and Tom Jump. So that should be a lot of fun. You had a couple new super chats just come in. Timo got things for your super chat said Amy, please. What's your favorite bird? I like ravens and crows they seem to have very complex systems. Oh, there's also some really interesting and like animal psychology on how smart ravens are a lot of people don't realize exactly is okay I thought you were maybe alluding to that really cool. Exactly. I. I was going to go down a rabbit hole. Your question said Amy, if John's belief is a superstition. Do you believe in superstitions. If you claim this superstition is harmful. Why would anti theism not be superstition. I wait, I'm sorry, I'm going to this may be a common thing. Can you say that question one more time. Gotcha. That was from sigivratosurabia thanks for your super chat said do you they said, if John's belief is superstition. Do you believe in superstitions. If you claim this superstition of Johns is harmful. In other words are saying why would your anti theism not be a superstition as well. Because my anti theism as far as I can tell is based on evidence there has been enough collected evidence to at least the three major monotheistic religions, not being true. And so you generally speaking that would be a true belief that's not a superstition. Now that would be anti religion, not anti theist. I mean, to me, I understand the nuance, but it really is splitting hairs like I, I, I'm, I'm against religion organized religion to me does the most time. But then you and you, you being an individual theist who has a superstitious belief may may do no harm but the beliefs may do harm. Gotcha. And thanks for your super chat Roy Stigal asked I'm sorry John. They said I'm sorry John didn't understand the debate topic. Maybe next time. Amy, my wife wants to know what those headphones are their razor headphones. Gotcha. And John, are you going to take that Roy's going to get a third degree here. Well, actually, I'm, I guess he wasn't really paying attention because the very big multiple times throughout this debate I'm actually questioned what we were actually here to discuss. And I came into it from a very different perspective and that it was not what my opponent presented. So maybe we'll have to have a second one. And I will say just to add on to that, I tried to go for a theism and then a few specifics. So it was, I did go after Christianity, but it really is it's Christianity. It's theism. It's whatever flavor. Gotcha. And so thanks so much. Let's see. Science is observable. If you had a question that I missed, I'm so sorry. Just feel free to fire it into the old live chat as a normal chat and I will read that off for you. Woody, thanks for your super chat or super sticker saying thanks. Totally appreciate it, Woody. And also want to say this is a great opportunity because I just want to say thanks so much everybody for always making this fun. I'm talking to the speakers or debaters as well as everybody in the audience. Appreciate your support as it's like, you know, sometimes we have hard times. You know, remember when we used to like every stream for like a month straight, we had audio like terrible audio issues that would like go through the whole debate. And so want to say thanks for being the most loyal people in the world as we've, you know, we still have little ones here and there. But generally speaking, it's certainly improved a lot. I want to say we really do appreciate you folks. And here is science is observable. You just retracted your question. Okay, well, when it, if it comes back up, I'll read it, but otherwise do want to say thanks so much folks. It's always a pleasure to have you here. Other announcements we are arranging as I had mentioned. This is potentially for the 13th of June. So keep an eye and this will will know by the time I think we'll know by the time that the Matt Delante debate happens next week. There may be a groundbreaking like, like foundation shaking debate that may happen on the 13th. And you guys, when you see it, you'll be like, Oh, baby. So we are working to get that hopefully to, you could say, make that a reality. And then we've got some, yeah, some like other like we're trying out some like we're sending out some like weird requests to like some unique people out there. So it should be a very fun summer. We're excited for what's coming up. So I want to say thanks so much though to our speakers and we okay, here's the, there's the question. Okay. Thank you. Science is observable. I finally have your question. Totally appreciate it. And they said question for Amy, what evidence would convince you that God does exist? I mean, it would take a multitude of things by always say the best thing is to give me a, you know, at first, at least start with the Damascus road experience. If you are able to meet all these people and talk with them, it'd be nice if he could just show up. It'd be such a powerful God. I mean, he should be able to come here and like proof proving science test should be nothing. So I mean, step one, get him here. Let's get him talking. Let's get some tests are going. We can get this process started. Gotcha. And Kevin Shea. Thanks for your question said, please debate anyone and give us the evidence. Please. Let's see. You can even ask Jesus what you should present as evidence. I have actually so I've, I have debated. I've thought about doing debates this summer because I've got like a hankering. I like doing debates. But if you, if you haven't seen any of my debates, I do have debates on here. Both from like modern day debate. When I've debated like biblical history, skeptics, Tom jump, Jared, a number of other people. That was about as over a year ago. And then I've also got like some super old debates. I'm so sorry. Shamelessly just plugging my own like debates. But we basically also had some debates from like six years ago, which were really exciting. Michael Ramos. Thanks for subscribing. Appreciate that. Just saw you pop up on the screen. And yes, I think it was about six years ago. I had a debate that I just posted like a month or two ago. So that's with August Berkshire. So check that out. And I have, I have watched that. It was a great debate. You had fantastic job, James. Appreciate it. Very interesting. It was a lot of fun. August is a good friend. I really, I like August a lot. He was a fun opponent. He was the president of Minnesota Atheist. So he's a, he's been in the game a while. And then let's see. Oh, James before I forget. So everybody listening on Sunday after my debate with Smokey Saint on evidence for God, which Amy might want to tune in and listen to this one. Should be an interesting one. I am actually going to be hosting a live stream trivia contest. And I'm going to be giving away cash prizes to folks. I've been bored and looking for something fun to do. So I decided to do this. So if you want to have a chance at me literally giving away some money, go search for cash trap trivia and subscribe and you'll get notifications on how you can join in that festivity after the debate on Sunday. You betcha. And also a question just came in from Ishtiak Hussain. Thanks for your question. Said for John, are you anti-theist towards other religions? It's an interesting question. No, I think everybody is able to have their debates or have their beliefs. What I believe I think is correct, but I'm not going to actively go out and try and forbid people from having other points of view. I think all that would result in is a very closed-minded world view that refuses to accept the obvious. Gotcha. And if you want to respond to Ken, it looks like you had a round in the chamber already. I wanted to say because I feel I saw it in the chat. I will say there is there really is I should make a difference between religion and theism because I would say, you know, it is organized religion that is doing a lot of the harm. But I am ultimately an anti-theist because I don't think that people should believe, like I said, superstition. But I wanted to make that clear because it is worthy of a distinction. Gotcha. Got two questions. Thanks for your super chat. Just one question. Give me that S, Glubel says, Amy, since the universe had an absolute beginning according to all the evidence based on Volinken's theorem, for example, wouldn't the cause have to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial? Well, it's like asking what is north of the north pole when pole, you are saying what is before the point when we didn't have time. So if you were to say what is before that point, you would be making it temporal. So the concept is incoherent. We may be able to figure out something physical, like we may be nested in a multiverse or something like that, but I mean, I can only tell you what we know, which is as far back as the plank time. I can't tell you what that implies, and I definitely can't say there's causality, because it seems to be that's where causality, for lack of a better term, began. Gotcha. And thanks for your question Seth Glover said, John, why isn't theism harmful? Why isn't theism harmful? I think they're kind of asking, like, do you think that it can't be? Like, is it, is there something per se about theism that makes such a difference? This is why in my opening statement, I made the clear distinction of religion being the prism through which humans try to contemplate and understand the concept of atheistic, atheistic entity. And I will be the first to argue that there have been many points in history and currently where religion, quote unquote, has been leveraged by humans, as I said in my opening statement, for their own corruption and power. That, however, does not in any way shape, form, or fashion remove the rational conclusion that a creator exists. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your super chat from G-Man. Stoked. G-Man is in the live chat. I know that everybody, everybody's got an opinion about G-Man, that's for sure. But do want to mention. Hey, G-Man, hey, let me shout out to G-Man. I love your subjective objective opinion that was cracking me up, man, when you were doing that. I gotta say, G-Man has been in the game debating for a long time. So it's like G-Man and Nephilim Free, back in like 2008, 2006, they basically, G-Man and Nephilim Free sat down together and made YouTube. Like they basically were doing the coding and everything. They've been around since it started. So we always get excited. These guys are their old school legends. Then let's see. Ah, let's see. And G-Man is a half-life reference, I believe. So I can appreciate that. See, Amy versus Jesse Lee Peterson. That's a interesting idea, hugs not drugs. Who knows, maybe in the future. And Hussein said, thanks, man. You pronounced my name perfect. That means a lot. Totally encouraged to hear that, buddy. And let's see. I saw another one come in here. Let me just be sure I didn't miss it. But yes, I am stoked, folks, as it's always a good time here. Science is observable. I saw you tag me, but I don't see the question if you had one that you wanted. I found it, James. You want me to read it? Sure. Four anti-theists, I'm assuming that's Amy. Do you believe intelligent alien life exists in the universe despite no observation of their existence in quotes, as many atheists do? If so, then how can you believe in aliens but not God? It's possible, but I couldn't put myself on the yes camp until I actually saw evidence to the aliens. But there's nothing within the universe that doesn't say that it could not happen again. So open-minded to it. At least it's closer to the physical realm. And I believe something we could test. So. Hey, James, I have a quick question for Amy. Do you just to just be sure we don't get back into like conversation mode? I do have like one or more, one or two more questions. Okay, I'll give you more questions. Okay, good. Sorry. Thanks for your super chat. Okay, well, it wasn't this wasn't a serious one. But Geoga, thanks for your super chat, said what does the G and G man stand for? I've wondered that myself. I can tell you, I can tell you what G man is a character from Half-Life. He is the main antagonist from really the whole, well, kind of the main antagonist. You don't really know. He's like kind of good, kind of bad. And he's mysterious. And he's in the background throughout the whole game, just doing things quietly. And, you know, he seems to have all these powers, even though he's dressed like a normal businessman. He's dressed like an everyday guy. That's G man. Gotcha. That could be the reason why G man chose that name. Six year was it like over, would that be 14 years ago? Almost. But who knows? You never know. It's possible. I'm open minded here. And want to say thanks for your super chat as global says Amy, the Lincoln's theorem is independent of any description of the universe. So it tells us before Plunk time, there was absolutely nothing, even a multiverse would have to have an absolute beginning. I would have to look into that because as far as I can tell, there was the singularity. And the singularity wasn't nothing. We just don't know why the singularity expanded. We just don't know why the big bang bang. But apparently that singularity had to be there for the birth bang. I mean, I we I don't know enough and I don't think we know enough and to say that we know beyond the plank time, I mean, I'd be highly and I could be wrong, but I'd be highly impressed. Gotcha. And want to say I think that's it for our we do have one more iron charioteer asked john, they said, thanks for your question, iron. They said ask john, God appeared to me and told me I if if God appeared to me and told me I'm going to hell with no chance of redemption. What should I do? Well, I guess you should ask for forgiveness. But I think the well, in the context that Amy was bringing up in terms of Christianity, I mean, the we all have an opportunity. So that wouldn't really apply to my theistic worldview. But I don't know. Gotcha. Want to say thanks for your super chat, stupid horror energy in the house. She's a beta. Thanks for your super chat from stupid horror energy, as she says, but Lincoln's theorem doesn't say anything is absolute, much less before Planck time. Yeah, I didn't think it did. But physics is I don't want to comment outside my expertise. Gotcha. John, I think that was for you. What maybe it was actually for the last super chat from s global. But Brian Stevens, thanks for your Patreon question, comment said, how to become how do I become as alpha as James? That's very funny. Don't let me don't let me fool you guys. I'm not really wearing all this gangster stuff right now. But hey, folks, James likes to come in on other when debates and like live chats are going on in other channels and likes to call people betas. I do. It's ever since Jesse Lee Peterson came on, the James now loves to run around YouTube and call people betas. It's hilarious. Favorite meme. It's really fun. You should do it. Next up, thanks for your question. Oh, gosh, this is I'm going to try my hardest here. Mike Lee night. Thanks for your question said Amy, would you really believe God exists if he showed up? Uh, I mean, it's it's hard to imagine it happened. But I mean, it'd be the best first step. I mean, I wouldn't just automatically believe the moment he or she or whatever they showed up. But I mean, it would definitely be a good first step. Don't you think? I mean, if I want to prove that I'm drinking Gatorade, the best first step is to well, no logos, but to put, you know, put it in front of people's eyes. Now, does that mean it's the only way the one and only is I have to be able to knock my, you know, my fist on God's skin? Well, no, obviously, you know, we have theoretical concept like dark energy and dark matter that it implied from either the mathematics or the theorems. But, you know, getting them here, it's a really, really, really good first step. Gotcha. And with that, want to say, actually, let me try this really quick because it should work. It's driving me crazy. So you'll see in the live chat, I just put exclamation point green. Stop working. Striving me insane. So the Lumia app I mentioned at the start, basically, it's supposed to, it's supposed to basically be, it's supposed to change our color of the studio, but it's not. But don't worry, we're going to work on it. That or I'm just going to like return, return the Phillips hue bulb. But anyway, I already shared your things to your question said, ask John, do you believe in the reprobate doctrine of Christians? And are people who prefer the company of their own sex reprobates? Hang on. Let me Google. Oh, I know the social issues. What was it? Reprobate doctrine? Yes. I'm going to Google this real quick on what it is. That's Calvinist. You may be wondering what I'm drinking. Yes, it is Gatorade. Not really. I don't, it's actually just water, but someone just said it's a Gatorade plug. All right, so. No, I do not believe in, I, when I say there's Calvinism, I did not believe in whatsoever. Gotcha. Next up, thanks so much for your super chat from sglobal said, Amy, I will post the evidence in the comment section. Ooh, calling you out, Amy. All right. And then Tim, thanks for your question comments said the colors cycle sometimes to red. It's absolutely true, Tim. Without a doubt, red basically for some reason, here's it like it does work when either a new person subscribes it does my studio will flash green in the background. And you'll see the green letters on screen in the super chats and subscriptions box. That'll say so and so just subscribed. You'll see like red flash if a super chat came in. But it's supposed to be an ideal world. It's supposed to be where if you guys, let's say, like type in, it's supposed to be like the signal to tell the Lumia app you're talking to it. If you say like exclamation point green, like I just did in the chat right now, it's supposed to that is supposed to actually also change the color of the studio. But for some reason it's not. And I'm like, WTH. So I don't know. And I guess there hasn't been, you know, random evolution to enable that function to exist. And Nephilim Free says, why are you so fly, bro? Thank you, Nephilim Free. Appreciate that. If anybody knows what fly means, it's Nephilim Free. Okay, people. So Neph, I love you, buddy. But yeah, so with that, I think we'll wrap up. I want to say thanks so much to our speakers for being here. It's always fun. We really do appreciate them. And so Amy and John, we appreciate you being with us. I hope you had a great time tonight. John and James was fun. Absolutely. So with that, oh, you know what I just thought of too? What we should do is switch, yeah, I just got an idea. So yes, I'm going to switch to an end screen. I just thought of this and I never did it because usually what happens is right now, when I cut out, the stream like cuts off my last like 10 seconds of saying goodbye to everybody. So I just thought of something. What we'll do is we're going to transition into an end screen or an end video. That'll help it. So yeah, folks, with that, I want to say, I just am pumped. All right, so that take care, folks. Keeps him to go the reasonable from the unreasonable. We'll be back tomorrow. If you haven't seen it, I'm pumped. G-Man and John Gashalla. So that's actually we're going to have a Christian person and a Jewish person on the same team. They're going to be taking on two atheists, Ned and Matthew. Matthew's the first timer we've never had before. Ned has been here, I think it's been like six months ago. And so that's going to be a really fun tag team debate. Really hope you can make that one. And the topic is you can see it on our debate page, a page. It's as evolution, R-A-C-I-S-T. I only spell it out because YouTube has like certain words that they aren't like they like queue in on and they're like, oh, is this person doing weird stuff? And that should be a lot of fun. So we hope you have a great rest of your Friday, folks. We will see you hopefully tomorrow for that one. And then Sunday for the tag team with John Maddox and his partner. Who's your partner, John? Smoky Saint. Smoky Saint. That's right. Thank you for that. Smoky Saint, we're pumped to have on for the first time. It's going to be a lot of fun. And so that's going to be against James. Who are our opponents in that one? John, why would you ask me that in front of everybody? Let me, I've got it in the calendar. This is embarrassing, John. All right, let me, John. I need to know this too, James. My face is red, John. No, it's the light. Somebody hit the exclamation red. I've got it. It's against Michael, the Canadian atheist. We've had him, I think he was on like five months ago, four months ago. And then religion is BS is the other person's name. So you can guess what position they might be taking. So that should be a lot of fun. I like their subtlety. Yes, very subtle. Thank you for that, Amy. So yes, it is honestly a great time. We hope you have a great rest of your night, folks. And we are going to go to the end screen. So thanks so much. Take care, folks. This has been a great time and hopefully we'll see you tomorrow.