 Everybody, today we are debating whether or not the flood of Noah was unethical, and we're starting right now. For another epic debate, this is going to be a fun one, folks, and wanna let you know if it's your first time here to a modern day debate. We're a nonpartisan channel, striving to give everyone their fair shot to make their case on an equal playing field, and we are very excited to have you here, no matter what walk of life you are from, Christian atheist, Jedi Sith, you name it, and wanna let you know we are excited. Consider hitting that subscribe button because we have many more debates coming up. So for example, tomorrow, atheism versus Christianity between our good friend Matthew Steele and Mr. Batman, as you see pictured in the bottom right of your screen. That should be a juicy one. We're also very excited as we have many more to come, but not only that, I wanna mention if you have not heard, modern day debate is invading the podcast world. So folks, as you'll see on the far right of your screen, that banner has just some of the podcast apps that we are now on. If you cannot find us on your favorite podcast app, let us know, we will work hard to get on there for you. So, very excited folks, wanna say. Today's going to be a bit of an easy going format where each team is going to have 10 to 12 minutes to make their case. We're going to start with the affirmative who would be Skyler Fiction and Tom Jump. And then after they make their opening case, CJ and Smokey will have 10 to 12 minutes to make their opening case, followed by open conversation and Q and A. If you have a question fired into the old live chat, tag me at modern day debate to make it easier for me to get every question in our Q and A list. And Super Chat is also an option. So in case you have a question that you wanna ask or if you wanna make a comment during the Q and A, Super Chat allows you to do that. And Super Chat will go to the top of the list for the Q and A. So, very excited to have these guys here. Wanna remind you folks, first time I'm telling you, I put the links of all four of our guests in the description box. So the way if you're listening, you're like, hmm, I want more. You can hear more by clicking on those links. So, we're going to kick it over to Skyler and Tom Jump. But first, just let me say both to Skyler and Tom Jump as well as CJ and Smokey, we're thrilled to have you guys here. Thanks just for hanging out with us guys. Shit. We're happy to be here. Hey, just to give you a heads up, I don't know if you saw the comments saying the music's still playing. Oh, that's right. I just don't want. What we have is we're, it might be a little bit hard to make out. It is actually a different song. We're testing it out. So don't worry. We're testing out a different song. It's just difficult to make it out. And the audio levels I'm playing, kind of playing with it because when I've used it, it's kind of, let's say my ears when I've tested it are not super astute. So thanks for that. And with that, we're going to kick it over to Skyler and Tom Jump. Thanks so much guys. The floor is all yours. Hello everybody. I'm super excited to be here. I'm Skyler Fiction. I'm glad to get a partner up with Tom tonight. I've been kind of very enthusiastic about this for a while. But let's get into the topic, right? So what are we talking about? We're talking about Noah's flood. And I think when we really get into this, really we just got to talk about what happened and we can talk about whether it was ethical, what God did, right? I think the biggest question we can ask ourselves, is it ethical? Is it moral to execute babies? That's the only question really we need to kind of ask because in any situation where you choose to execute babies, you're going to find that it's immoral or unethical. I mean, also other things happen during the flood. Like for instance, handicap people were drowned to death. People had serious mental disabilities. We have a situation where God could have chosen a much more peaceful way than violent execution like he chose. For instance, he could have easily just had all the babies die in their sleep. He could have had it to where he just poofed them out of existence. That's what Pine Creek likes to say, right? But what he chose to do was drown everybody, execute everybody in a violent way, not just the people who were evil in there. Now the Bible will say mankind had become evil, but surely we are going to argue that babies are evil, I would imagine not. I can't imagine a situation where it would be moral or ethical to execute innocent people, innocent babies or mentally handicapped people. And I also would like to point out too, I think something you always have to remember too is what makes something unethical or immoral under the Christian worldview. Because we are talking about the Christian worldview. We're talking about the Bible here. And that's that that goes against God's nature. So for instance, we would say that it's, they would say it's a moral lie because God's not a liar. God can't lie. It would go against his nature, right? We could use examples like rape. I would imagine Christians would say there's no context in which rape would be moral, right? Because rape would go against God's nature, that type of violent action. So it's gonna be weird here, right? If all of a sudden we're gonna somehow try to justify that in some circumstances, it's perfectly moral to execute children and people who have severe mental handicaps that have very little congenits. So I think that's gonna be interesting, right? Because what I have a feeling is gonna happen during this debate and I'll wrap it up and pass it over to Tom here a little early, is what we're gonna end up getting is either some kind of morally justified reasons that we don't have an answer for, right? Basically it's a mystery. Or we're gonna be forced into a position. A Christian's gonna be forced to just say it's moral. And at the end of the day, if that's what you're gonna do, if you're gonna say, hey, it's moral in some situations to execute the handicapped and children and babies, that's on you. I'm not gonna argue with your moral position then. You can have that moral position. I just think that I think it's unlivable. I think it's unreasonable. And I think the reason you would actually even articulate that is just because usually sometimes in the Bible you have to work backwards because you start with what your belief is from the Bible and then you have to work backwards to justify it when it doesn't make any sense. And I'll just mention, this isn't like, this is uncharacteristic of God. God has multiple times throughout the Bible chosen judgment on his people and had children executed and mentally handicapped people executed. I mean, we can look at Sodom and Gomorrah. We can take a look at when the Israelites go into the land of Canaan and conquer these lands. So we're gonna see a pattern. There's no reason to believe that it's immoral under their moral system. And like I said, I think at best, that's all we're gonna get is that, hey, well, yeah, it's moral when God does it, but when everybody else does it, it's completely immoral, but that wouldn't apply to other contexts like rape, lying, other things like that. Tom, you can take it over, man. Thanks, Skyler. Yeah, it's a pretty good summary. So the Christian Abrahamic God is an evil, psychopathic, mass-murdering moral monster, as stated by his own word in the Bible. Killing innocent children in Exodus 12, releasing chemical weapons to kill thousands of people at number 16, forcing parents to kill and sacrifice their children, judges 11, destroying cities full of people because they disagree with him, judges 14. Genocide, lots and lots of them, Chronicles, Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Samuel. Killing all the men and women making the young women sex slaves, judges 21, sending barriers to murder children, four kings, two, turning lots wife into salt because she looked in the wrong direction. Genesis 19, helping Samson murder people to pay off a debt, judges 14. Killing people for complaining that God kept killing them, number 16. If God was real and all these things actually happened, then worshiping that God and saying he was justified in his atrocities is as immoral and disgusting as white supremacists who say the Holocaust was a good thing because the Jews deserved it. They find it hilariously ironic that the theists who are renowned for their sanctimonious delusion that they have the moral high ground don't realize the contradiction in their world view that they are worshiping a mass murdering monster who they claim is the ground goodness. Their belief is as bad as the white supremacists who support the Holocaust because they thought it was a moral thing to do. There are many of these examples throughout the Bible but the focus of this debate is just one of them which is the flood, the global flood. And so I have a very simple premise, conclusion, argument, God executed innocent babies. Executing innocent babies is immoral. Yahweh is an immoral dick. Therefore, God cannot be objectively good. He cannot be the basis of morality. He is not worthy of worship. The Christian God is a worthless dick who is worth who deserves the same fate as Hitler, Gaddafi, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and all of the other dicks throughout history. If there was any real moral justice, the Christian Godhead would be the first one on the shopping block. Drowning babies is immoral. Oh, but it's not the first time or the last time he did that because he also killed all the Egyptian babies with the firstborns and number 16, but that's a separate issue. All right, I'm done. Next up, we will kick it over to our theist friends, CJ and Smokey. Glad to have you here gentlemen and the floor is all yours. CJ, it's up to you if you wanna go first. I tend to be kind of long winded so it might be best if I went second. Okay, sure. I'll then give you some extra time here. Yeah, TJ, that was pretty disappointing. Clearly your argument is primarily from a place of emotion and we're here to argue a specific, pretty specific context of the Bible based upon the actual flood and you wanna gish Gallup at us, a bunch of whole bunch of passages that of course we're not here to debate or refute so you think you win your opening argument by putting a bunch of things out there that aren't our debate for the topic. I think it's a little bit spineless. I think it's a little bit cowardly and the fact that you throw in the vitriolic insults to the person that we're here to debate essentially tonight is just a little bit petty. But in any case, I was actually expecting more of that potentially from Skyler. I was surprised to see it from you to come across so petty in that fashion but I think what you guys are ultimately gonna have to describe to us based upon your worldview since you condemn this so horribly is why? Why is it a problem to kill babies? Why are you entitled to life? Why do you have to live a certain amount of time? And is it morally wrong if you don't get to live a certain amount of time? Your worldviews are moral and logical catastrophes and while you can sit on your ivory towers and clouds of judgment looking down on us because we try to glean an objective truth out of reality you guys are a contradictory mess. And I think as we move forward through this debate we're gonna demonstrate a lot of that. I yield to my partner. All right, and thank you for that. And so happy to be here guys. Just wanna say a quick shalom. So I wanna go ahead and get right into my argument because like I said, I do tend to be a little bit long-winded and I wanna make sure that I don't go over time here. So let me say that my opinion on the very question itself is that the question is somewhat absurd on its face. Let me tell you why. There was really only two possibilities here. Possibility number one, God does not exist. Now if God does not exist and the flood of Noah was either A, natural in which case there's no way it could possibly be moral or immoral, it's just natural or B, a fiction, in which case it's just as absurd to call this some huge moral travesty, excuse me, travesty as it would be to say that the destruction of Alderaan in episode four of Star Wars is some sort of travesty. So it's either natural or fictional under option A and under option B, which is that God does exist. Well, then he is simply the person who created morality. Morality does not exist apart from him and therefore to say anything that he does is immoral is absurd on its face. Being made, and I am of course assuming the Christian worldview in this, but being made in the image of God means that the things which you find inherently immoral, you only find inherently immoral because you are made in the image of God. In other words, to sit up and try to justify or condemn or any sort of other morally loaded word, certain actions of this deity would be completely insane. It would be almost like saying George Lucas is to blame for the destructions of Alderaan or something like that. And maybe that pushes forward the story. Maybe that he has whatever his reasons are. I don't care. The point is calling him immoral, we would all very much recognize he's completely absurd. He created the world. He can do whatever he wants with it. He can have Sidious murdered by Vader if he'd like. He can have Vader murder tons of children if he likes. It doesn't matter because he's the creator of that universe, right? Now I would actually go a step further than this on top of the fact that I think it is purely absurd to actually put moral crimes at the feet of the very person who established what morality is in the first place. I also do think there is a little bit of a contradiction in many atheists. Now of course, Skyler and T-Jump are their own men and they will be able to let us know if they affirm the problem of evil. However, isn't it interesting that you have many, many atheists all across the world who do affirm the problem of evil and find it to be an absolutely indisputably, excuse me, unsurmountable problem for Christians. And yet when God does something about murder by punishing wicked people, when he does something about rape by punishing the wicked, whatever it happens to be by punishing these wicked nations, these wicked people groups, the atheist immediately jumps up and says, well, I don't disagree with your, well, I don't agree rather with your methods. Well, okay, do you want the stopping of this evil or not, right? Is God immoral for allowing evil or is he immoral for destroying evil, right? Because you can't possibly affirm both things. He's either immoral because he let everything happen during the times of Noah or he's immoral because he wanted to get rid of that and condemned it and all that other sort of stuff. I would also quickly point out that we are talking about here, right? A being that at least from my perspective, of course, I understand the two atheists are going to disagree with this is literally perfect, right? In other words, when you see, we have things like abortion, warfare, the death penalty, so on and so forth, where we fallible human beings do indeed take the life of other human beings. Now, whatever your particular positions on things like personhood, just war theory, whatever that happens to be, the scientific fact of the matter is, this is all three of those examples that I just mentioned, human life is being taken, right? In other words, we fallible human beings who commit what the Bible would classify as sin literally every single day, think that we are justified in executing human beings. And yet, when the literally sinless, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creator of the entire universe decides that he's going to do the very same, we think that we are in a position to judge him and to condemn him. And I think that is completely absurd. In order to be logical in this conversation, I think that you would have to say and then justify that the taking of human life, even if it is wicked, is always wrong. And I don't think anybody is actually willing to make that position. If they are, then potentially they are. Obviously we'll see there. But then how did we free the Jews again in that Holocaust that Tom John mentioned by killing human beings? How did we make sure that the United States of America, at least in certain instances, like Alaska, Hawaii, so on and so forth, are not currently speaking Japanese and under the oppressive rule of a dictatorial, theocratic government? Well, because we killed them. Why is Jeffrey Dahmer no longer here? Well, somebody ended his life, right? In other words, and of course, if there's any support for abortion on the other side, I think that's, I mean, that's a little bit self-explanatory, right? It is literally a human life being terminated. In any of these instances, if you decide that it is indeed moral to take the life of that person, then you're contradicting yourself. And if you don't decide that it's moral to take the life of that person, well, then what exactly are you to do with these rapists, genocidal people, so on and so forth, who we defeated by killing? And by the way, let me just quickly point out, nobody has ever defeated any Nazis without killing them. Once those Nazis gained power, you shot your way out. It's the same with the communists. It's the same with the theocrats. It's the same with all evil people. Once they got power, people shot their way out. In other words, they killed their way out. They didn't argue their way out. They didn't put people in jails or hospitals or something like that. They killed their way out. And as a result, we have a better world, right? So even us fallible human beings can be justified in the taking of evil human life. I simply say to you, if we are, how much more so is the one who created that life and that I would yield the rest of my time? Thanks so much. We will now kick it into open discussion mode. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours. Yeah, so I wanted to jump in real quick and first say that this isn't about objective morality. We can just grant there is objective morality. If you think killing babies is not objectively wrong, then you can take that position. That's fine. I mean, I just don't care. I'm going to just, we're just going for the purpose of the debate. We're going to assume there is objective morality. Killing babies is objectively wrong. God killed babies. So God is objectively immoral. So I don't want to get bogged down any kind of debates about what is the ground of objective morality. That's for a different time. Second, you mentioned a perfect being who, the God is a perfect being. So he's a perfect being who drowns babies and executes them by drowning. That's what a perfect being does. I see a problem with your theory of what perfect means. Now you mentioned that humans are kill people and like self-defense and Nazis and those kinds of things. What you mentioned is that most people wouldn't make the claim that killing in any case is wrong. Well, I do. I think killing in any case is always immoral. The only reason we're justified in killing is because we don't have the power to do something else. Like for example, if we could instead of killing someone, teleport them away, that would be a more moral option than killing them. So killing them is not the justified position if we could just teleport them away. The all powerful sky daddy does not have that excuse. He's infinitely powerful. So he doesn't have any justification to kill people because he could always do a better moral option, just teleporting them away or giving them the option to be non-physical. There's lots of infinitely many things you could do that are not just kill them. So God doesn't have the same excuse. Humans only are allowed to kill because they don't have a better option. They don't have the option to just teleport people away. They're forced into this decision because of their lack of power. God doesn't have a lack of power. You can't use that excuse for him. Well, I would point out a couple things if I may very briefly. First things first, I would say that the idea that it is because of the potential other alternatives is kind of missing the point. We as people who do a lot of the same things, whether it's in a small scale, like for example, there's racist Americans or in a large scale, like for example, the slaughter of the Native Americans, do the very same things that we actually condemn other people from doing and yet justify ourselves in killing those people as you just did. God does not do any of those things at least until there was some crime committed. And I do want to point out very briefly, you kind of know this inherently. If you didn't, you wouldn't have to argue so much about babies, right? The only reason we bring up babies in the first place is because, oh, well, you can't possibly say these guys are evil, right? I mean, is that not the point? Yeah, the point is to use the strongest example because we only need one example to prove your position false. So we use the easiest one. Yeah, that's kind of the point. But no, we do say that killing the Native Americans is wrong. It's one of the big things in America now is that we should probably like give them reparations because we mass murdered them in the same slavery. We do admit those things are wrong. Right, no, no, no, not what I'm saying, not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we committed these acts, right? We are the, in some instances, we are the self-same people, right? Like for example, if you go back to the 1940s, the self-same people who were putting Japanese people in camps are the people who defeated the Nazis. They're one and the same, right? They're also the people who nuke to the Japanese, right? So in that scenario, how are we gonna justify people who are not only fallible, but explicitly so, evil in many instances, they can take life. But the very person who provided that life in the first place is not allowed to do so? The who provided it doesn't make sense. Are we not talking about the flood right now? Like, why are we talking about human beings from like the past and World War II? We're not talking about human beings. Because I'm trying to, Hold on, let me finish my thought real quick. What I'm saying is like, right, you discount babies, but that's the point, but I haven't heard the objection yet, right? So if you're gonna say babies are guilty of something and really what I think we need to get on the table, frankly, is our positions. Tom Jump, in my position, is it unethical to murder babies? Is it unethical to murder babies under your two worlds views, under the Christian worldview? For us to do it, yes. No, no, the action of executing a baby, is it immoral? For us, yes. That's not what I said. Well, if that's the answer, you may not like the answer, but that's the answer. So you're saying that there are some cases where it is okay to murder babies. Is that what you're saying? I would say that God isn't capable of murder as you so colloquially, you'll try to put it on him like that. Execute is the word we wanna use. Execute is the word we're using. Sure. In your worldview, it's okay. There are certain cases where it's okay to execute babies. Execute babies? Well, again, it's not a moral component to apply to God because he doesn't have the same agency. Not what I ask. He's non-temporal. Well, you guys are trying to conflate to things that don't fit. You're asking a loaded question because you wanna get an answer you can't get. Let me kind of piggyback on that because I could give you a perfect example. It is, in my opinion, immoral for a fallible human being to judge another fallible human being for what he himself has done, which is why Christians take the harsh punishment, not the harsh punishment, but the harsh view on judgment. Jesus even says to himself, you have the beam in your own eye and are criticizing the speck in another side. But inherent in that is the fact that there's the beam in your own eye. If there's not the beam in God's eye, then that's completely irrelevant. And to answer your question plainly, when you say, is it wrong to execute babies? I would state quite plainly, it is not wrong for God to take any life whatsoever for any reason he sees fit. He's the creator. He's the one who established it. He's the one who established morality in the first place. And there is literally nothing he could possibly do that would be immoral because morality is literally understood by virtue of his creating it instead of those laws. Sure, so that God could have 100 men going to rape 100 babies and that would be completely immoral if he did that. Hypothetically speaking, yes. Now he knows. Yes, okay, perfect. So God, so basically it's not, so is it God's nature that makes something moral or is it what he says that makes something? I don't wanna go there yet. I wanna address what Smokey said. Yeah, yeah, go ahead, go ahead. Because Smokey said we're making a distinction between two different things. You're also defending a worldview you don't have, which I find bizarre. Right, so that's wrong. So we each have a worldview. Our definition of morality is not the same as your definition of morality. You have a contrived presupposed definition of morality which I don't agree with. So we're asking questions about your definition of morality. Okay, can we have your definition? My problem here is that my definition of morality, anyone who executes babies by drowning is always immoral. That's always the case. It's objectively the case. It is a fact of the case. It is provably the case in all cases. And anyone who agrees with me is going to, I don't have to answer why because that's not the point of the debate. So anyone who agrees with me sees that you are an immoral monster. You are insane because you can't admit to that. You have to say killing babies and executing them by drowning is totally okay for my God because I want to believe in God. What happens to the babies after they die? Wait, that's the point is that- What happens to the babies after they die? It's immoral. It makes every difference. No, no, no, no, no. Because now you're arguing from your worldview into ours and it's incoherent. No, no, no, it doesn't make any difference at all. So if you- It makes every difference. Executing babies and having- Go ahead and finish your nonsense. If they don't have a soul it's still immoral either way. It makes no difference. Yeah, no. You're just saying it makes no difference. It's ridiculous. It's a moral action is immoral even if there's a difference in consequence. Morality is not determined by the reward or punishment after the action. Immoral, an action is inherently moral or immoral just for the action's sake. So you can't say it's okay to kill babies because of what happens after you execute them. You're still executing babies. It's still immoral. Well, let me say- This is the same reason- Hold on, hold on, hold on. Well, hold on. This is the whole point I brought up about the idea of God's nature, right? With the idea he can't do things that are immoral. So if you're gonna say God can't be a liar because it goes against his nature to lie because that's part of his moral being, then he's not going to lie. He can't lie, right? You can't say God can rape. Like these are things like, but it's weird. But when we get to this, when we say executing babies all of a sudden, well, wait a minute, there's a context for that. All right. Well, let me explain that because that's the point. That's the context for that amongst human beings as well, right? For example- Yes, these morals are subjective for whatever. It's apples and arches. Like- Where is the subjective context for humans and executing babies? I don't know of any such- Well, hang on. Actually, to be fair, I mean, there's 900,000 babies executed in this country alone every single year. So, you know what I mean? You want to talk about us- This is also irrelevant. Human morality is relevant to the topic of this debate. We're not talking about objective versus subjective. You guys keep trying to bring it back to it. And compare and contrast. We're not comparing- You're playing worldview hopscotch. You're playing worldview hopscotch. Yeah, but that's not the topic of the debate. Yeah, this isn't the topic of the debate. Our objective worldview, our worldview versus your worldview isn't the topic. The topic is the flood of no ethical. And in the end, what you realize really should just be saying is yes, it is morally ethical for God to drown babies. I'd like to point out, I have plainly said that in the one word answer already. Yes. No, that's fine. That's fair, that's fair, that's fair. But like at the end though, like going, we might be hypocrites, right? Like let's just grant it. Let's just say Tom and I are moral hypocrites, right? We contradict ourselves with our morals completely irrelevant, right? In the end, what you're arguing is it's moral to drown babies sometimes, and we're not. Yeah, and all right. So let me deal with that for a minute. Because at first off, I sympathize with Tom a lot being a deontologist myself. And Skyler, I kind of sympathize with you a lot as well. Because essentially what you're saying is it doesn't really matter if I'm hypocritical. What matters is if you're hypocritical because that's the point of the debate. Is that accurate? No, no, no. The point of the debate is just to make, see where you guys stand in my opinion, right? So if you think it's ethical to drown babies, that's fine. I'm just getting it out for the public so people can know what Christianity is represented. Now, instead of doing stuff like that, like just saying things like that, just a deal with the arguments. Let's not do a bunch of admirable attacks. I've been respectful. I haven't said anything negative to you. So I'd like that same respect, right? So please, let's not just talk about how bad the arguments are. This person doesn't make any sense. Let's just actually deal with the arguments at hand. You're playing worldview, hip scotch, hop scotch right now. Okay, you're going back and forth between naturalism and into our worldview to condemn it and then back out again to condemn it again. Okay, here's the problem. Okay, here's what you guys are ignoring. Okay, which was better, which was better. And I think T-Jump maybe should answer this. I think he maybe takes a position that life in itself is in some ways immoral because it's a lot of suffering. So I'd like him to answer this, which was better, which was more moral for the babies in the flood to die or to live in the environment that's painted in the narrative of the text. They're, whatever they're forced to do is immoral. So if you kill them without their consent, that's immoral. And if you force them to live in a world without their consent, that's immoral. Oh, so there's no right answer for you. It's a little- No, no, no, you can, there could be like save one person or save five or kill one person or kill five. You can have two options that are both immoral. That's not a problem. But again, I wanna clarify that the issue here isn't a contradictory worldviews. Comparing worldviews doesn't matter. There's no hopscotch between worldviews. What we're doing is representing our worldview, which is killing babies is always wrong. And what we're asking is, is in your worldview is executing babies wrong? We're not trying to do a jumping hopscotch here. We're just asking you, in your worldview, do you think drowning babies and executing them is wrong? That's it. We're not doing a hopscotch here. We're just asking the question and saying, in our worldview is better than yours, because we don't. You're running from your own disgusting positions is what you're doing in order to try- See, that's not an argument. That's not an argument. Just hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Just saying our positions are disgusting is an argument. Well, you won't let me finish. You won't let me finish to point out how they're disgusting. The best thing you would be to do is just, well, listen, I'm not interested in your just opinions of my morality. Yeah, well, I'm trying to get to the argument that supports the opinion, Skyler. You wanna have a reaction? Why don't you wait till I'm done? Well, just get to the argument. Don't talk about ours. Let's get your response to Tom. I think I handled an awful lot from T-Jump in his opening, bro. Why don't you tone it back a notch? Do you need a safe spot or something? No, I mean, you're complaining and whining about it. Let's just talk about the subject, except for everything else. I think it's okay for him to call us disgusting, because I'm gonna call him disgusting back, because he thinks it's okay to drown babies. You should go for it. No, I mean, you tell us why it's okay to drown babies. You know, you guys, let me draw back to this, it's just such a conflation to support your naturalistic view, and that's not how it's gonna go. Like, for instance, in the narrative- You're not talking about naturalism. It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, dude. It's implied in your worldview. See, this is ridiculous. You guys don't even know where you're arguing from. Even in your opening, you're basically saying that you're not arguing from, you're gonna go ahead and argue from objective morality, even though you don't have it. No, that wasn't the premise of the argument. Also, we're not gonna get jumping into that topic. We're not gonna get through- I literally gave the premises of the argument. So the argument are this, like it's objectively wrong to drown, execute, innocent babies. That is premise one. That is where I'm arguing from. You can disagree with that if you want. You can agree with it if you want. It doesn't make a difference. That's where we're arguing from. World views don't matter. Past doesn't matter. Executing babies is a morally wrong premise one. That's where we're starting. God executes babies. God is immoral. That is the argument. That is what we're arguing. That is the full context. World views don't matter here. Yeah. Well, to be brief, there's a couple of things I think need to be said. So first off, I think we do need to address, and I understand that it's not the specific point or the explicit point of this debate. But inherently in the question is a worldview versus worldview. Let me tell you why I explained actually in my opening statement. If God exists, then answering in the, I guess it would be in the affirmative in this case, is completely absurd because morality is created by him in the first place. He literally dictates what it's just like, it would be roughly akin to saying, well, you know, George Lucas designed Alderaan wrong. Well, how do you know? He's the one who designed Alderaan. It does what he wants it to do, right? And likewise, it's the exact same thing here with God. You only have a morality according to this worldview, at least, because he's created it. And the only way that you can criticize that morality logically is if indeed he has not created it. So I agree that I don't want to be completely bogged down in that, but you guys need to understand that is certainly a very important question. Because if we grant God's existence, then the debate is over. It's not possible for him to do something wrong. Well, the argument I'm making is that in our worldview, even if God created morality, God can't make it okay to drown babies. So in our worldview, drowning babies is always going to be wrong, even if God created it. So he's still wrong. He's still immoral if he drowns babies. I mean, you can claim that if you like, but I would like to see the Sims character argue with the designer, you know? This is just saying in our worldview, in our perspective. Well, that's incoherent, because you're not in our worldview. You might as well be making up a pre-substituted word. We'll hear it, I promise. The point here is that in our worldview, even if God created morality, he's still a dick for drowning babies. Now, in your worldview, he's not a dick for drowning babies. The point here is we're not making a point that ontologically one of these is possible. That doesn't matter. We don't care. What we care about is that our worldview is better than yours. We are morally superior to you because in our worldview, drowning babies is always wrong. And in your worldview, there can be these special cases where it's okay to drown babies. Okay, but if you like ground that in something though, then that's just the opinions of Thomas John. Well, again, we're not making an argument for the truth of the moral claims here. We're just saying, here are our, this is our worldview. This is our claims. Whether you wanna claim the truth or not, it doesn't make a difference. I'm being serious. I'm not trying to get a got you here, but if we're not here to actually make factual claims, then what exactly are we doing? Like what is even the point of this conversation? Well, this is gonna be problematic for you because you're not gonna be able to demonstrate within the hour we have that objective morals exist in the first place. So we're both, we might as well just give up this game right now, because if I asked you to demonstrate your guys' claim, it ain't gonna happen. Right, I've had this rodeo before. Now, the other aspect of this is how the methodology in which he does this, right? Why not take the souls out of the baby? Why not let the children fall asleep and then not wake up? Why drown them? Which is torture. Watching their brothers and sisters, their parents all drown is all torture. So God is also torturing those people. And what about the mentally handicapped, right? Why do all these people get to violently die when they didn't commit the actions, the evilness that the Bible's referring to? Well, there's a couple of things for sure. So the thing number one, I would say that, and granted, just to, I'll get to your point, number two, I'm gonna address your point about babies and the mentally handicapped in particular, but just for point number one, the text actually presents us a narrative in which all cognizant human beings had reached a certain level of depravity. And by the way, that's not very hard to imagine. Hypothetically speaking, if the United States legalized pedophilia, it's not hard for us to imagine two to three generations down the line. Most adults actually finding that to be acceptable, right? In fact, such things have happened numerous times in the past with numerous cultures. So understanding that fact, right? That is the narrative that is being presented for us. You can say that that's not true, or if you like, but nonetheless, that is what the Bible says. All men had been evil with the exception of Noah and his family. Now you say, what about, say that again. Does that include the babies? Well, it's kind of an interesting question. You have to get a little bit thought-experimenty with it. So the straight up answer is no. And I would point to Frank Turrick's argument that if indeed you, as God, take the life of some being, however you decide to do it, it really doesn't matter because you're not actually taking the life of that being. You're just transporting them to another place, basically. The second... Do they not feel emotions or pain these babies? Are you just pretending like babies don't feel emotions or pain? Do you remember? Are we not going to talk about the torture part? Do you remember the torture pain when you were babies? Well, I do when I was like four or five, and those are still young, innocent children. Stop saying babies. Say something. I'll say children and babies, if that makes you feel better. No, it's not babies. Okay. Well, babies turn out to... I do have memories of when I was a baby and in pain. I was actually, when I was born, I was being strangled by the umbilical cord. You can remember pain from being that early. Yes, that is possible. And remembering and feeling are two different things. Remembering and feeling are two different things, right? Just because I don't remember it later on doesn't mean at the time I didn't feel that pain and that struggling. Just to throw that out. Why is that bad, that life is suffering? So what is with that one incident? Well, apparently you don't think it is bad. I mean, I just don't wanna make babies suffer personally. I mean, because I have empathy and I care about them. You don't have to. Okay. That's why I think that's why I don't want babies to suffer because I care about them. You're just making an argument of method. You're just making an argument of method, Skyler. That's one aspect. You have an issue of this horrible, evil, disgusting culture being wiped out and these babies not growing up in it to be tortured and probably raped and murdered. You want them to be saved and to grow up in this culture to be raped and murdered and destroyed and put in suffering. That's what you want. That's what you guys are clamoring for. That's a really good struggle, man. God should have left them alone. But if you'd like me to hear my, if you'd like you to hear my position, God should have left them alone, right? I can tell you it, I can tell you my position. Yeah, yeah, here, let me explain to you. Let me explain my position real quick, right? What God should have done has been like, take those babies, move them over to the Israelite culture and have them take care of them. Or perhaps, or perhaps, or perhaps, or perhaps, or perhaps, or perhaps, it doesn't have to be the Israelites. He could also just take care of them, right? You could also be God and provide, right? He has this ability to make food and water and do all these things like create universes and human beings, right? But somehow he has to draw the line with raising babies, right? And all he had to do was just say, soul out, rest sleep, rest peacefully. Or how about this? How about you stop letting humans be able to reproduce, right? Make it so humans, sperm and eggs aren't connecting so they can't have any more babies, except for Noah and his family. But what does he do? He chooses the most violent way you could do it, just like all the other examples in the Old Testament when it comes to genocide. How do you know, how do you know he didn't take the souls out before the flood came, right? Yeah, if you have a biblical justification for that, that would be absolutely fine. Well, no, I mean, you're the one assuming he didn't. I mean, so I'm wondering if you have a justification. Well, I don't, well, it doesn't say there's a... Well, you're saying... Well, okay, hold on. If you ask me a question, I'll answer it. Yes, yes. Oh, sure. Yeah, let me explain. Just from the text, right? Yeah, yeah. So drought, what's the worst? I'm being, I'm kind of being, when I say worst by possible, I'm kind of like using like expressive language, right? It's still, it's torturing and drowning somebody. But I mean, it doesn't say that pink unicorns came in and took all the babies underneath their hoofs and flew them off into the distance, right? But why would I try to argue against that either? So like when you say, hey, prove this negative without any justification, listen, I can look at the other scriptures in the Bible where God has human beings to slice open babies with swords. Well, I got a good argument for that, actually. Yeah, yeah. And maybe time will stop. I think we're talking about this portion of text. So let's try this. Sure, I'm just showing consistency though, how God does things, which is God is very violent to children. Yeah. If God just wanted to take their souls out, he could have just taken their souls out and then the flooding is kind of pointless. So he probably didn't do that. The flooding would just be irrelevant. Like why would he take his souls out and then do the flooding? It makes no sense. It's logically inconsistent, which means he did the flooding, which is consistent with his nature and all the other murdering things I've mentioned beforehand. It's logically consistent with the character and nature of the entity, because again, you guys are just saying, well, the children die, so that's bad. Okay, but you have no reason why. That's not what I say. That's not what I say. And the children apparently are done in a method that Skyler disagrees with. So that's bad. And that you agree with. You agree with torturing babies by drowning them, right? No, I don't agree with torturing them. Oh, so why are you complaining about what I'm saying is if Skyler's opinion is if you disagree with it? Because Skyler, your expectations are unrealistic. They're asinine. What are you expecting? My expectations of an all-powerful God that can do anything logically possible is literally, I don't know, is totally over the top. Can't believe it. You have such an unsuspecting. Okay, I've got everybody on mute, just a second. So just to restore order really quick so it doesn't go too crazy. I think that we had Smokey had given that last challenge. Skyler, did you feel like you had enough time to answer that, or did you want more? Yeah, I would just say that like, no, no, go ahead. I wanted to jump in and do the respond to that. Yeah, let Tom take mine. Are we on mute now? Can we talk now? Yeah, you're good. Oh, wait. You're set, yep, thanks. All right, so yeah, Smokey said that there are restrictions or limitations. So yeah, we have unrealistic, what was it? What was it, Smokey? Unrealistic what? Unrealistic expectations of the nature of the Christian God claim. Unrealistic expectations of the nature of the Christian God who is all-powerful. It is unrealistic to expect that the nature of the Christian God is not to drown babies. That is unrealistic, like he can create universes, he can create time, create morality, but it's unrealistic after creating all of the universe that he can't not drown babies. That's unrealistic, okay. Let's see how Free Will works differently in the case that he's gonna argue here in a second. No, the option was better than the alternative. See, this is the problem. This is what you guys do. You try to leverage a moral dilemma on your side. And when we pitch you, well, what's the better? You're like, I don't know. I can answer that. Because you guys have nothing to contribute. Again, it's just- Can I answer that? Sure, go ahead, please. Something better would be create a universe where every person gets their own world and they get to design it how they please and if they want, they can go to other people's worlds and they can be physically incapable of other people hurting them. So you just become ethereal and so someone can't hurt you if you choose to. So it's impossible for anyone to involuntarily pause on anyone else. That's a better option. You should go be a Mormon. You should go be a Mormon then. That's not how Mormonism works. Yeah, that's exactly how Mormonism works. Everyone gets their own planet and they all get to populate it themselves. Yeah, that's exactly how it works. Yeah, no, that's not the consistency again to the Christian God claim. No, no, no, you didn't- You're talking about someone- Consistency, you asked for an alternative. You asked for a better alternative. Yeah, that's not consistent to the Christian God claim. So you're just arguing things outside of our worldview. I wasn't saying consistent with the God claim. I know that in your worldview, anything God does is going to be consistent with God. Anything he doesn't do is not consistent with God, obviously, but that's the point is here is a very easy way to make things better. Don't drown babies. And there's lots of different ways to not drown babies. One of them would be the one I suggested. One of them would be the way Skyler suggested where we just give babies, caretakers that are like robots or something and they can take care of the babies and not drown them. Either of those are realistic things and all powerful being could do, but your God can't do them for some reason, namely because he's a moral monster who likes to drown and execute babies, which is just a part of his nature. If you're going to judge- No, here's the problem T-Jump. You're not willing to judge the text inside the text. You want to keep jumping outside the narrative. Do you believe that? Okay, so God was immoral for wiping out the people here and all the babies that were part of it including the babies that were part of the Nephilim. That's part of the text. I don't know what the Nephilim is, so I can't read it. It doesn't specifically actually say that in the scripture. It doesn't actually say the Nephilim or what Nephilim is. Well, there was a confusion of the bloodline. There was infusion of something bad. There were perverted bloodlines of some kind by attributed to the watchers. This is inside the narrative text. So part of the action that God did in the narrative text was to wipe out these perverted bloodlines which is why I wouldn't first know it since he was a man righteous in his generations which alludes to something to his bloodline which is why it also gives a genealogy in Genesis 5. So there is something inside the narrative of text that you guys will not address or judge which is the fact that there was a necessity to drop, basically wipe these out from some of this. Oh, yes, no, please. I'm sure Josh gave you some good tidbits on this. Well, actually, yeah, he actually, hold on, but no, no, no, but actually he did, but what you're saying can't be possible. Are you saying the goal of the flood was to get rid of the Nephilim because they still exist later on after the flood? Exactly. Well, I don't personally take. So what the hell did you bring up the Nephilim for if that's not relevant to what the action was for? Well, no, it is relevant. I'm saying it's not relevant to your point because I don't believe in a worldwide flood. So it's not relevant. Well, but you were bringing up the Nephilim as if this is how why God was flooding things. Yeah, you don't get to beg the question to make the argument against God and then not follow through. Yeah, I don't know what you're saying now. You're not actually not dealing with what I'm saying. There were perverted floodlines. Yes, and that was the reason for the flood, right? It was the reason for the flood. Yes, okay, well, then God failed at his goal. If that was one of the reasons he didn't kill all the Nephilim with the flood because they survived. Wait, I don't understand Smoky's point. So Smoky, are you saying that these diluted bloodlines were not human babies, they were Nephilim babies, and so it's okay to murder Nephilim babies instead of human babies? As in Jewish tradition, maybe Skyler will probably back this up. They were Guyon or Earthborn. They weren't really quite human. There was something, there was abominable. There was something abominable about them. Well, I don't know. I don't know that much about them. I'd have to go into probably one of Michael Heiser's books to get thorough answers on that, but there was inside the narrative text. There's something that needed to be wiped out here, something that had been perverted into human race. It didn't happen. It didn't work. That's the point. It doesn't work. It didn't work. Hold on. And Noah was preaching righteousness to people to try to get them to give up their lives and come onto the boat and be saved with him. He was a preacher of righteousness. This is what the text says. So it's not like God just sent the flood willy-nilly. He was trying to actually get people to come to him and be saved, as he said many prophets before him. So these are the actions of a moral God trying to reach out to people. It's up to them to say yes or no. And when they say no and they get judged, that's no longer on him and you guys wanna put it on him. Wait, so I wanna understand your point here. Hold on. Hold on. I'm almost done. So you don't get to ignore the other parts of the narrative text to condemn things inside the narrative. You have to follow through. So you're saying that God didn't actually drown any human babies. He only drowned Nephilim babies. No, I'm sure there were some and they got ushered into the hands of the Almighty God instead of having to stop on that God-awful or mortal environment, yeah. And it doesn't make sense. Nephilim doesn't make any sense. Nor the Nephilim. In our worldview it does. You're inside our narrative. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It doesn't, it's not, it doesn't get a response. Let me jump in. Let me jump in. Let me jump in here. We've had Tom go for a while. I know that I think Skyler's trying to bring up something he brought up earlier that I don't know of. I'll yield to CJ after this because I've been talking a bit. Wait, I still wanted to have one point here. So if you grant that God drowned some human babies, that's all that matters to our point. The Nephilim are irrelevant. God drowned babies is still true. And your point has no foundation. It's a house on clouds. That's again irrelevant. Yes, to you it is. To you it is because you have grotesque moral thinking. Go ahead. Yeah, griny babies as long as grotesque, for sure. Here's the problem with this justification, right? You use this justification while there's also Nephilim, but that doesn't, that isn't biblically backed that the reason the flood happened was to also get rid of the Nephilim. If you would like to quote the scripture, you can quote it. Okay, sure. Because Genesis 6 talks about Nephilim but it doesn't talk about the flood being for the Nephilim. Okay, also it doesn't make any sense because God failed. If God's goal with what the flood was to kill the Nephilim, your God's incompetent because he failed and the Nephilim survived. Again, do you miss it? And once again, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it was a local flood or a worldwide flood. Even though they literally say that he would kill all of mankind in the scripture, right? And so it doesn't like all of mankind everywhere. Because that's what the scripture actually says, all of mankind. So in this other idea that like, as if these people at the time knew about the whole entire world. So anyways, if you have the scripture that says that they- I need a personal answer, Skyler. Let's go, okay, we'll kick it back to Smoky or CJ if you wanna respond to that. Oh yeah, you know, CJ, I'm sorry, man. I can't, go ahead. No, it's all good. I'm listening to the conversation and all that, everything's good. So there is a couple of things though because I think that they're being kind of ignored. And I think that these are, and first off, let me actually say because there's a couple of things I need to respond to as far as questions that were directed to me that I never actually necessarily addressed. So to answer one of Skyler's earlier questions is something wrong because God decided so or is it wrong because it's outside of his nature? The answer to that question in my opinion would be yes. From our perspective, it is a divine command thing. He commanded it, therefore that's the way that it is. But the reason that he commanded it is because it's an inherent part of his nature. So it's not really an either or thing. I don't buy the Epicurean Paradox's foundation, I guess, is his point there. The other thing that I would say is that we keep hearing, well, worldviews are irrelevant, worldviews are irrelevant, but again, they really are not because once again, if the morality is created by the Judeo-Christian deity, then it is not even possible for him to work outside of what is moral. And I wanna be clear here, I'm here to debate truths, right? I'm not here to debate necessarily opinions. I am answering the question, was it ethical for Noah's flood to occur? Factually, yes, not in my opinion, yes. This isn't whether or not I like the color red, right? The reason that I am claiming that is multifaceted, but it starts with a foundation of it's not even possible for God to do something outside of the morality that he himself established, because he himself established it. Again, it would be like saying that Alderaan did not fulfill its purpose. Well, you don't know that. Only George Lucas knows that because he created it, right? So, I mean, I just don't see how we could possibly not get into the worldview argument. I mean, you have to justify in some way that this is any more than just your opinion on the color red. You wanna if I respond to that real quick? So- Yeah, please. The worldview thing is we're not trying to say our worldview is supported by this other objective morality standard. What we're saying is as we're contrasting the two worldviews and saying which can account for the data better? Killing babies is wrong. Our worldview says this is the case. Which is the data? Which, what data? Killing babies is wrong. That's the data. Well, that's not data. Not data. No, no, no. So we're saying that if you as a person agree with this premise, premise one, killing babies is wrong, then compare these two worldviews. Our worldview says killing babies is wrong. Their worldview says it's okay in certain cases. Let's try to- And you would reject their hypothesis and accept ours, because it better explains the data of that you accept this premise. Let's try to see how objective your stance really is that you're trying to take here. Again, it's just saying if premise one is true, then they're wrong and kind of thing. I don't need a support here. It's just the premise of the argument. Is it wrong? I'm here to demonstrate objective morals. This is an objective moral. Yeah, I know it isn't, but you guys still have to be able to answer for the fact that you're condemning this. You don't get to condemn this and say, oh, we don't have to justify why we're condemning this. That's nonsensical. And it's power. I can tell you why I justified if you'd like. Well, can I? I'd actually rather, I think I'd rather ask a question here. Okay, yeah, ask a question. Okay, so would you, I know, Skylar, I think you're pro-life, aren't you? I'm pretty sure you're pro-life. Okay, so, but you're also pro-life, but with contingencies, right? There's some instances where it's okay to do an abortion. Well, if the baby's not going to live or the mother and the baby are gonna die, it's the- What if the baby's gonna have a potentially painful existence or some sort of dilapidated- Like a very short, painful existence? Like a day or two? Well, I don't know. It's suffering the whole entire time. I mean, this is not black and white, and my morality is not really relevant here. I'm pro-life in general. I don't condone executing babies. Here's the problem. Here's the problem. I'm probably feeling it. Again, this is what you guys keep skipping over to avoid it, and I'm gonna try to draw just a bull's eye on it, okay? You're leveraging a moral dilemma. Because of the environment, because of what mankind had chosen to do, there was no other option other than wiping them out. That was the righteous decision. Now, you can pontificate all day long about how God should have transported them out of there onto a different earth or put them on clouds and stuff, but that's a violation of the narrative of the text of the fall of man. So again, you're pulling outside of the worldview, inside the text to critique it, and it's nonsensical. If you're gonna critique it for being evil and wrong, you have to stay inside that worldview, or else it's just incoherent. It makes no sense. If you guys are gonna justify it from your worldview as being wrong, then you're gonna have to say why? And if you're gonna come in our worldview to say... I tried earlier, but you wouldn't let me do it. And if you're gonna come into our worldview to say it's wrong, then you have to stay there and stick with the narrative. Sure. Okay, well, I've been explaining why it's wrong, yeah. So if this was an internal critique of your worldview, then we would have to stay in your worldview. This is not an internal critique of your worldview. Yeah, you're doing both. No, I'm not doing internal critique of you at all. Yeah, well, otherwise you're begging the question. God exists. Wait, Smoky, wait, Smoky. So I'm saying there is an objective morality. Killing babies is always wrong. Your God kills babies. Your God is immoral based on this independent standard. So I'm not doing an internal critique of your worldview. I'm saying is here is my worldview where killing babies is always wrong. Your God is killing babies. So if you agree with me, if the audience agrees with me that killing babies is wrong, then obviously you would then come to the conclusion the God of the Bible is immoral. All I'm trying to do is get you to admit you think it's okay to kill babies in your world. You guys are still dodging the point because you're just still leveraging the moral dilemma. Which points? Which the moral dilemma that there was no good version of it was either let the babies grow up and suffer in this horrible, awful environment that probably wouldn't have lived long anyway or take their lives out with everyone else in one quick catastrophic. That's a false dichotomy. You're going to have to demonstrate that that's a true dichotomy. What are you talking about? You're saying that's in God's nature, those are the only two options. In God's nature, that's the only two options. In the nature of the text with the fallen flesh, yes. In the nature of the text, these are God's only two options. So if we were doing an internal critique of your worldview, we would have to stick with that. We're not doing an internal critique of your worldview. If I was God, if I was all-powerful like your God was, I could do something. That is an internal critique, sir. I just don't know what an internal critique is. No, an internal critique is using the premises of your worldview to show us contradicting your worldview. Yes, like God exists. I'm not doing that. I'm not using- Yeah, you are. You're begging the question, God exists to make your argument of this is ridiculous. So I'm saying in my worldview, if I was all-powerful or had even, I don't even have to be all-powerful, but to be sufficiently more powerful. Here is a better option I could do. And so like if we contrast my worldview, where if I was slightly more powerful than me, not all-powerful, and I could teleport the babies to make them be safe or to move them to Scandinavia or someone to be taken care of by non-evil Canaanites or whatever, or non-evil Nephilim, that would be more moral than drowning the babies. Now supposedly in your worldview, God is more powerful than me. Cool. And what happens when they grow up? What do they turn into? They can turn into whatever they choose to turn into. Oh, so the same thing all over again, and then he just keeps doing that? It's not okay to kill babies just because, well, in the future, they might turn out bad, like that's not moral, you're still killing babies. It's really what you're arguing. And at the end, you're arguing the ends justify the meaning. It's, you know, babies because bad babies become bad. What I'm arguing, what I'm arguing is you guys again, just want to leverage a moral dilemma where there isn't a right answer and you do it from outside of our worldview and then challenge us and jump back in to make the point. The fact that you're even pegging the question to challenge God at all shows that you're making an internal critique to jump. This is as ridiculous as when you said, life could emerge without a universe. This is absurd. You just admit it, there's no answer to your question. You just literally didn't admit it that there's no. No, I didn't. It's just you guys said there's no good answer to it. You said there's no good answer to this moral dilemma that we just want to use. You cannot possibly get it. That's astounding. So I do have a good answer. I have a correct answer for that, which is don't drown babies. That is a correct answer. And there are infinitely many ways to not drown babies. That is the correct answer. Your other options are incoherent to the narrative and the claim. How many times you won't be able to say it? I don't care about your word. Your God is evil. I'm not asking for your God danger. From your worldview, which you have not taken. We should smokey, go ahead, smokey. Okay, yeah, I need to let CJ probably get in here too. I'm sorry. Well, and again, I do obviously think that that is a good point to stress because you can say it's, and again, this is why I say you need to make some sort of, and it doesn't have to be the entire point, but we at least need some sort of justification, at least one justification for what you're saying. Because otherwise, this is a conversation about who likes the color red more than blue, right? It's simply opinions and they don't matter. And I'm not here to debate opinions. I want truth claims. Is it actually factually wrong to kill babies? And if so, why? And by the way, if so why, when we say that, we do have to take into the context, of course, if so why is contingent on the fact that we're saying, would it be wrong for the person who provided these babies with this life in the first place to take their life? Now you can say yes, I know you've said yes, why? Well, I don't even have to answer why, I can just say no. You have to answer why though, because otherwise this is just your, again, it's just your opinion on the color red. Again, you're not understanding how the debate works. I can present the premise. And if my premise seems more reasonable than your premise, I win the debate. So I don't have to like provide some kind of. That's just not accurate at all. That's not accurate at all. That's a nonsensical T-Jump. Well, whatever T-Jump says must be how it is. One plus one equals two. I don't need to prove one plus one equals two. I don't need to provide a deductive proof of how Bertrand Russell has this 64 page proof of how one plus one equals two. I can say in my world view, one plus one equals two. And in your world view, you're rejecting that. Your world view is dumb. That's what we're doing here. We don't need to be in that conversation. If you have that conversation with me, not only do you have to prove that, but on top of that, if you're not proving that, then the conversation is completely irrelevant. And by the way, just for the record, you don't need 62 pages to prove it. And that's why I said, we don't need to make the entire point of the debate. We need something, just something. All I need to do is get one stick, two stick, here's two sticks, values two, right? Maybe this at some point, we might want to navigate toward a final topic related just because we've covered this territory a lot. But Skyler, do you want to address the judgment claims for sure? Can I do that? Can I do that? You asked for proof, so I'll give you a proof. Drowning babies is immoral. That's the one plus one equals two. Drowning babies is immoral. I don't need to do that. That's not a proof, though. You're making a limited claim without justifying it. I'm happy with that proof. Drowning babies is immoral. You can disagree with that. But I'm happy with that. Listen, guys, do you guys can disagree? This is the, like, unless you, you're not going to be able to do the same thing. You're not going to be able to demonstrate. You have no justification for anything you say, Skyler. My little, my sentence, my little, my sentence interrupt the beginning of yours. Is that what happened there? Let's give Skyler a chance. Because I was just talking and explaining what's going on here. So, right, listen, I'm not going to play, we're not going to play the game where you say, hey, you have to prove your morality is really, really real, right? When you haven't done so, right? You're, right now, it is opinion versus opinion because you don't have anything other than an opinion at this point, all right? We are perfectly comfortable. If we want to say this debate, you guys want to argue, hey, under our worldview, it is ethical to execute babies sometimes, perfectly fine. We're happy to say we just have a disagreement of opinion right on it. We don't, we don't think it's ethical. Now, if you want justifications from me, I can explain it, right? The reason I don't think it's moral to drag our execute babies is first, they're innocent, one, they have no guilt. Second, I don't want to harm babies. Like, I don't want to hurt them. My every emotion in my body is like, hey, this is a baby, you know, kiss the baby, don't fucking cut it open or drown it, right? Now, if your morality, right, doesn't tell you that, we can't help you, right? If you're going to follow Bronze Age morality, right? And you want to follow the Old Testament God who endorses slavery, genocide and every other little thing, right? Go ahead, but don't pretend like you, you need an objective answer. You need an objective moral standard for our opinion to have any value. If you don't value that, you know, baby shouldn't be drowned, I can't help you with it. Yeah, just to clarify one thing. So to me, drowning babies is wrong, is equally like as supported and obvious as one plus one equals two. So if you don't want to grant that, I mean, that's on you. That's like saying one plus one does not equal two from my perspective or from anyone who shares the world views perspective. Okay, but let's hear from both of these guys now from the yes side and soon enough, we'll go into the Q and A. If either side wants to, hold on, I'm talking. If either side wants to basically, if they would like to defer to the other, that's awesome. Otherwise, I'll take us into Q and A in about five minutes. Go ahead, CJ, and maybe I just have one quick thing to say at the end. Well, so I would just like to say a couple of things. The first thing is that, whether or not something is intuitively obvious does not actually, first, that doesn't make it correct. And second off, it doesn't explain it. For example, it's intuitively obvious that you stick to the ground on the planet Earth. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not gravity is a thing as far as the force. It means that we need to explain that force that is gravity, right? And of course, people have done that now, but the fact that it's intuitively obvious doesn't mean anything. Likewise, there are things that can be intuitively obvious that are false. I would argue that if you go straight on just pure intuition, the Earth is flat. But we know the Earth is not flat. We have evidence, positive evidence the Earth is not flat. So not only does it not actually give an explanation, but on top of that, it just so happens that intuition can be wrong all the time. In fact, it very often is. And I'll give you another perfect example. The miasma theory of disease, right? The miasma theory of disease is blatantly obvious because you walk into a place, it smells bad, and now people are sick. Seems like pretty good logic, but it's wrong. It's not true, right? And so that is why I think that is such an important question. Now I want to move on really quick because I don't feel like I was addressing it and maybe it should be addressed. There is a question here about judgment in and of itself. Now, Skyler, you made the claim and I appreciate you making the claim because it's something that, you know, to deal with substantially that my justification is that babies are innocent. Now I'm going to ignore that I do believe innocent is kind of a loaded claim, like innocent for what? Well, let's just ignore that for a second just because I understand that that's not going to be the point of the debate. Let's assume for a second that basically the question is whether or not are they innocent rather than innocent according to what? Well, according to the biblical scriptures, no human beings are innocent. And I think that's it. Do you want to talk about intuitively obvious? That is intuitively obvious. We have seen time and time and time and time again. What are babies guilty of? What are babies guilty of? First of all, everything in human nature is repulsive. I will be honest with you. So I'm sorry, actually, I'll take it. Let's give CJ just a smidge to finish up because it's been- Well, wait, we're trying to interact back and forth. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, hold on, hold on. Like, let me finish. What I meant by smidge is, I mean, CJ, you've been going a while, so I want to give you like a smidge more of time and then we've got to kick it over. Okay, well, so basically what I'm saying is, so human beings by and you look at the youngest of children, they are naturally selfish. They- No, no, babies. No, no, tell me how a baby is sinful. What does it do that's evil? How is a baby sinful? Everything that a human being, period, I don't care what's sinful. No, no, no, no, I understand. But just give me one thing a baby does that's sinful or something like that. I think he's saying human nature is sinful, therefore babies are sinful because they're human nature. Yeah, but that's such a vow. It doesn't mean that we're just simple, the nature is sinful. Do a sin in a typical sense because again, they're beyond the age of accountability. So whatever they would do wouldn't be considered sinful even if it was wrong. Okay, so what is about their nature then? So what is it that they're basically because of the way their nature is, it's okay to execute them? That's what I'm trying to do. No, it's not that they're okay to execute them. It's that the- Well it is, of course. Better than the alternative because the alternative was to grow up an environment that was sick and horrible and painful and probably they'd have- Yeah, that's a false dichotomy. That's a false dichotomy. Their parents, their parents killed them because their parents were evil and horrible and disgusting and refused to change. That's you can't back it up, please don't. Even, no, of course I can't because Noah was a preacher. You're not right, yeah. How are you gonna back something? Are you gonna let me finish? We have to argue from the text, bro. You don't get to just pull out to your worldview every time you get caught in a cycle. Okay, there's the issue. Noah says that it was a preacher of righteousness. Okay, so he was trying to get people to stop what they were doing. The parents didn't stop. They killed their children. Not God. They had a chance to get out of it. It does not articulate that in the Bible. You're making stuff up. That doesn't say that much. All right, I'll pull it up. I'll pull it up. The question, so- Say that they're killing their children pre-flood. You do have to go into the Q and A pretty quick. If it's the parent's fault that the children are dead, then does that mean that it's the parent's fault of the Jews' children who are dead, because they killed them, because they didn't stop being Jews? Is it the parent's fault? What are you talking about? You're talking about- You're saying that it's the parent's fault that the children died. They're morally complete. They stopped, they kept sinning and they didn't follow Noah onto the boat. Yeah, so they killed their children. So they didn't do what God said. So God mass murdered them and their kids. Therefore, it's the parent's fault. The kids got to go to heaven. The parents were judged. I don't care about heaven. God drove them. We're not talking about where they go. We're talking about what happened. No, you guys just want to keep an ongoing cycle of it. Just like T-Jump's ridiculous example. Okay, move them. Okay, they grow up, still have free will. They do the same thing over again. Okay, move them. It's just the constant infinite regression. Your guys' examples to solve it are all nonsensical and stupid. Talking more about us than the actual topic. No, dude, our arguments are bad. We're terrible. We're awful, yeah. Okay, I get it. But actually, yeah, and I'm giving you example. You created a false dichotomy. You created a false dichotomy. You made something that was not biblical. It wasn't biblical. But you were arguing, sorry. I hate to cut it short. CJ said, because CJ mentioned that intuitions don't prove anything. You're right, intuitions don't prove anything. Just like I say, that one plus one equals two doesn't prove one plus one equals two. But it's so intuitively obvious to me that counts as significant enough to be sufficient to just believe it on that. So we're going to move into two ways. Let's go longer. We've got a lot of questions. And so I do want to get as many of these as possible. Thanks for your question. First, from Dave Gar, who asks, actually says, thank you for your service T-Jump Semper Fi. I didn't know you were a veteran. Absolutely not. I wouldn't qualify. How many times would I test? Next. Well, Maynard saves, but yes, thank you to anybody who served for real. And Maynard saves thanks for your question. Says, I smoked a doobie with Tom's chair back in the summer of 79 under his claws, Rahman. Rahman under his claws. There it is. So Ratharaj Disko, thanks for your question. Says, CJ is proof the education system has failed. It's perfectly fine that you believe that. I'll actually, to be perfectly fair with you, you can't pin me against the education system because I'm a high school dropout. They're just throwing a big old glob of poop at ya, CJ. Next up, Steven Steen. Thanks for your question. Says, atheism is the Florida of faith-based beliefs. I'll dare he, I'll dare he. Next up, iPhone musings, thanks for your super sticker. Appreciate it. Love the support, appreciate your positivity. Converse contender, good to see you. Says, is wise to judge, is it wise to judge God? According to human normative ethics. I'm totally okay with judging, drowning babies to be wrong. Like, I think that's obvious enough that, yeah, we can, we can judge God for that one. That's pretty, pretty clear. I don't have a problem with that. Yeah, I don't wanna hang out with a baby-drawner. Like, it's just something that I don't really feel like it would be a good place for me to hang out with somebody who drowns babies or all the other violent stuff that he does. Like, it just, that wouldn't be the kind of person I know you wouldn't wanna hang around with. Like, think about it. Someone's like, yo, I drown babies. You're gonna be like, ah, not today, folks. Not today. Your alternatives are worse. Next up, movie theory. Tom's old buddy says, T-Hump apparently missed the topic, LOL, classic troll finishing with you. You could respond if you feel you need to, Tom, but you don't have to. Yeah, I was the same with Smoky's introduction. Like, my introduction was meant to give backing to the original topic, which I did address at the very end. I gave an actual premise argument that this was the topic, God, drown babies. Drowning babies is immoral. God is immoral. We actually address the topic also. We address other things in addition to it as a preamble. Gotcha. Thanks for your question. From Sunflower says, if someone would rather die than live in solitary confinement on Mars or some island after being teleported away, how is killing them more wrong? I'd say it wouldn't be. I'd say if they want to die, it's more of a kill them if they choose that. So if the babies grew up and said, we don't wanna live anymore, then it would be more of a in their lives at that point, but not before, only if they voluntarily chose to desire that. Gotcha. An awkward saint. Thanks for your, by the way, awkward saint. If you guys remember our guest who, if I remember right, he argued that the moon landing was forged. Don't forget it. His question is, he says, yo, the flood was sent to wipe out the Nephilim, the sons of the fallen who contaminated the human races, genetics to try and stop Jesus from being born for our salvation. I already kind of covered this. If you feel like you need to address it more, I think that it's kind of an objection toward our atheist guests. Yeah. I'll just say to John. If I could just real quick, can I tell him to please come to my channel for a conversation and please go ahead. Gotcha. Yeah, I would just say if that's the case, your God failed, which means your God fails at things, which doesn't seem biblical, right? Because if it was the goal to kill the Nephilim, why do they show up later on? After the flood. It's sort of problematic here. It's probably because that stuff about the Nephilim was added to the Bible much later. Well, it was a long series of things here. It's pizzazzu. Don't let them fool you. It's stupid horror energy striking again. It says, if I create an AI that becomes sentient and self-aware and then torture it, is that not wrong merely because I'm its creator? Well, I'd say a couple of things. Actually, so the first thing is I think that there's a little bit of a confusion of terms. I defer to JRR Tolkien's theory of sub-creation. Humans do not create anything. We never have, we never will. We simply put pieces that already exist together. There was nothing new under the sun, as Ecclesiastes says. So it's not actually a straightforward comparison there. Secondly, I would argue that self-awareness and consciousness is not what makes killing something wrong. In fact, there are very intelligent animals that people don't have a problem with killing numerous times, like chimpanzees, dogs, dolphins, et cetera. What makes killing something wrong in this particular context is the fact that it's human. Now, I will admit that this does not fully do justice to this question. It's a philosophically loaded question, I believe, but it's not a proper comparison, number one. And number two, I just think that you have to, in some way, argue that it's not necessarily human beings itself, the fact that we're human beings ourselves, right? That makes it wrong, but that it has some level of consciousness or what we would philosophically term as personhood, which of course leads you into very dicey territory with people like the mentally handicapped, comatose, so on and so forth. I'm so sorry to interrupt you. Just because it's been a while. Thank you for your question. This one comes in from Mathura J. Disco, who says, Smoky is going personal and it is the sign of defeat. Smoky? Yeah, if he calls personal, asking them to simply substantiate the worldviews that they're judging from is somehow getting personal. Yeah, dude, I don't think you're paying attention. Next. I think it was the attacks on the arguments. My world is drowning in babies is wrong. Conclusion to the argument. Next up, Maynard saves things for your question, said, why does it matter where they go? What's the problem with abortion if they go to heaven and is abortion the only guaranteed way to get into heaven? That's a great question, actually, and it draws exactly along the lines of we don't have the moral agency to take life. That's not given to us. Something that has to be delegated by God. So God takes life. When he takes life, he's allowed to take life because he gives life. So you're not entitled to any life. And this is what the atheists believe that is once you're born, God, somehow, you're entitled to a certain amount of life. If there is a God, that's just not how it works in our fallen environment. So again, they're just challenging our worldview from inside theirs, but saying they're doing the opposite, which is why this debate has been very frustrating. Their positions are indefensible. That's why they won't defend them. Next. Iron Zombie has words for you, Smokey. Says, Smokey lost this debate. Oh, OK. Next. Appreciate it. Thank you for your question from Richard Ashton, who says, what about 80% of the animals on the other side of the world that never got a golden ticket? He's going to have to answer that. I mean, and I would also just simply point out that, like, I mean, if you're going to, if we're going to actually go that far, if our hatred of God is that strong, that, well, what about the deer? Well, I mean, what about the deer that your dad killed last week? I mean, get out of here with that. That's nonsense. Next up, Red Knight 821. Thanks for your question. Says, how can atheists argue for moral superiority without a moral standard? If the world is just here for no reason or evolution, then they have no argument. There is no moral law without a moral law giver, just person versus person's opinion. Actually, let me take that one, because I'm a moral realist, so I believe there is objective morality without a God, like most moral philosophers who are mostly atheists. So objective morality can easily be had without a God, and it's more experts in the field are actually moral realists who are atheists. So you can have an objective morality without a God, and I do have an objective morality without God. The reason I didn't bring it up today was because I didn't want to get off topic. It's not relevant to the debate. Yes, we can have objective moralities too. Next, thanks for your question. From Robert Luscombe, who says, why were animals tortured and killed during the flood as well? Again, I mean, are we gonna start condemning every hunter and farmer in the world? I mean, look, here's my problem with people who start arguing with stuff like that. You have so much bigger fish to fry if you have a problem with the killing of animals. And by the way, I'd like to say this. As somebody who is probably going to end up being vegetarian myself, I actually do kind of have a little bit of sympathy for the animals. However, if you're gonna sit up here and go eat a hamburger and then condemn God for you for the killing of the deer, I mean, I just don't know how to deal with that. That's absurd. Is there no answer there for the question or was it just like deflecting and talking about how people don't have the right to ask that question? Well, I think there is an answer to the question because- Why didn't God just share the animals and only talk to people? CJ, now that Skyler asks. Yeah. Well, because in reality, it's a little bit akin to saying something along, you know, there were reports of Nazis who had Jewish spouses and stuff like that. And they would get these exemptions, right? Oh, the Nuremberg laws don't apply to you, certain times, depending on how high up they were. And it obviously depends because a lot of people would obviously not have the same exceptions. If you're gonna sit up here and start saying something like, oh, it's wrong for you people to actually associate with Jews, while you have an exception for yourself, then I don't even care what you have to say, right? You're absurd and contradictory on your face. So I would say that that is an answer to the question. The problem is you don't know who asked that question. How would you know anything about their worldview? Maybe that was a Christian who asked that question. And we wanted to have more knowledge so that when they talked to atheists, they would be better prepared, right? But you just assumed what their worldview was instead of actually answering the question and deflecting. Like that's not how we do debates. Since this objection is for CJ, I'm gonna give him the last word, then we gotta move on to the next one. Well, so I'll grant that. And basically the question, I guess in that case would be assuming that let's just say I'm a vegan, right? So why is it vegan? No, no, no, just speak from yourself, just speak from your worldview and tell us why, just answer the question from your worldview. No, right, I understand that, but what I'm saying is you've got like 30 seconds and then I automatically must move on to the next one. Absolutely. The reason I'm saying assume that I am a vegan is just because then that objection of, well, you're gonna go eat a hamburger while judging God for killing the deer, right? That doesn't apply to you anymore if you're a vegan or a vegetarian or something along those lines. So how would I answer the question to that person? The answer is simply justify to me the human life and animal life are the same. I would argue they're not and that the taking of animal life is something that we as caring species do but is not necessarily a moral imperative. Next, Robert Luskham, thanks for your statement who says Tom Jones chair makes a better argument than CJ and Smokey. You know, it's funny how you guys would just criticize no matter what. So it really almost doesn't mean anything anymore. Next. Like no matter. It's pizzazzoo. Stupid horror energy says if the point was to wipe out the Nephilim, what are they still doing walking around in numbers 13? Yeah, I didn't say it was the point. I said it was one of the components of the flood and that's the thing they wanted to draw that as the whole purpose. And that wasn't even my argument. It's that you don't get to ignore components of the narrative in order to make a case. That's what I was saying. Alex Gross, thanks for your support. Appreciate it. Let me know if you wanna attach question to it. Jimmy Wynburn, thanks for your super chat. Said, hey, James. Hey, back at you, appreciate it. Bishop Martin, thanks for your question as well. Says, does being ugly nullify one's arguments, please answer everyone. No. I think that was for you, James. Very good. Well, I'm obviously flawless in every conceivable way. So the question is not directed to me. Obviously I play. Did this come up in the debate? I'm like confused by it. I know, right? This definitely came up in the debate for sure. Jungle jargon. Uh-oh. That's right, Skyler's old buddy says, ask Skyler fiction and T-jump why they think babies are not going to be horrible humans. They could be, but it's still a moral to kill them. So killing babies is wrong even if they are horrible humans. Moral to kill baby Hitler? Yes. It's a moral to kill anyone or any circumstances, no matter what. Yeah, I would say killing baby Hitler would be pretty immoral too. And I don't, I mean, what, the way that this Christian is talking about is if they're human beings or robots that are destined to be evil, monstrous beings, right? Like we act like human beings within the world, we live in, don't have great potential for the things that you would call good under a Christian and maybe as someone under secular, or the secular moral system would view as good. So this is just a weird thing as if like children don't have a big part of the environment they grow up in. Like if God took those babies, put them in a safe environment, raise them by good moral people, might be okay. Or like I said once again, just don't let the people read, just don't let people reproduce. You can stop sperm and egg. If God can drown babies, he can stop a sperm from going through an egg for an entire group of people. Seems more reasonable than violently drowning a little baby up. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy. Next up, movie theory says, title was in all caps, the flood wrong equals internal critique. No, wrong isn't an assessment of what theists think is wrong. Obviously, theists don't think it's wrong. The point is we're saying is that a normal sane human being is going to think it's wrong. That's what the wrong is. It's not true. You don't get it. If it was natural, it wasn't wrong. I'll let this go for a little bit because we let some other ones go. What did you say, Smokey? I said if it was naturalistic in your worldview, it couldn't possibly be wrong. Yes, it can. Most naturalist philosophers are moral realists who believe in objective morality. You don't understand objective morality because of your presupposition. How could I know? That doesn't mean that we don't have one. Got to give Tom the last word on this just because the objection was for him. The optimistic pessimist, thanks for your question, says would T jump kill baby Hitler? No, I would not kill baby Hitler. I would do the moral thing, which is I would just move him to a place where he doesn't get control of an army and mass murders people. And so even if he is Hitler, he can't do any harm just like what God should have done with the babies, even if they were going to be bad people, he just moved into places where they can't cause harm. That's more moral than drowning the babies. Eliminate free will, got it. Next. It's not free will. I mean, it eliminates free will when you drown a baby. A baby doesn't have a choice whether you're drowning it or not. Give me a break, dude. It's all the components up to it. Kevin Guilfaut, thanks for your question, says, I can't believe I just spent an hour listening to two people trying and failing to justify defending killing babies and genocide. Y'all are insane. Well, they can't justify even condemning it. So you're the one that's insane. Yes, we can. Objective moral is real, Kevin. We kind of did give justifications. You don't have to like our justification. No, you just couldn't even answer the question. Why is it wrong? Remember that part where I was like, hey, would you like me to give you justification? And you said, hey, no, no, no, I'd rather ask you a question and you didn't let me. That part would have been great for you to hear that justification. And then I explained it also with CJ, and I believe also Tom actually explained his position on objective morals too. You just either didn't listen or something happened where you were like this. So I can't. You're just very inconsistent and incoherent. So you just can't see. Before I read this next question, I want to mention I want to give street cred to the speakers. All four of you, I don't think we've ever had a like to dislike ratio this good on any video ever. I'm not exaggerating. That's totally serious. We have 108 likes and only one dislike, which is probably Tom. So this is just awesome. I'm just kidding, Tom didn't just like it. But yeah, so thanks. You guys, I have to give you credit. It was me. There's been a ton of positive feedback for this debate. So next, Richard Ashton says, babies, love it. Have you not seen the Nirvana cover? Oh, OK, what a dark joke. Next, Asmodeus. Let's see. Thanks for your question says, seems like this debate should really be about whether this belief is simple, zealotry. Well, to be fair, I'm going to be completely honest with you. Skyler, T-Jump, you ever want to get rid of some of the ridiculous, heady things and just talk with a fundamentalist? Right here. I'm about as fundamentalist as they come. And if that makes me a zealot, which I guess it's almost interchangeable at this point, I just fully grant that. Next up. Oh, well, oh, wait. Wow, so the dislikes and dislikes just shot up. Each of them did. But you guys are still doing really well. 131 likes. These people love you. They just can't get enough of you guys. So as let's see, you got it. Oh, the Optimus. Raptor Jesus. It's not us. It's Raptor Jesus working through Tom and I. The Optimus. It wasn't for his holy claws. Pessimists, thank you for your question said, God is allowed to kill babies. Does not equal humans are allowed to kill babies? Thank you. It just means that God is morally contradictory because God can't lie because it goes against his nature to lie. That's what makes lying immoral, right? That's why God couldn't rape because it goes against God's nature to commit that type of action. But when we get to executing babies, all of a sudden there's context where it's OK. So it's within God's nature to not only execute babies, but to torture them. Because what happened in the flood is torture to children as they have to watch as the flood waters rise. Their parents die, their brother and sisters drown. Yeah, so it's within God's nature to torture babies and execute them. So yeah, that's fine. That's a pretty calm flood. My position is that morality is inherent to all conscious beings. So no conscious being can harm another conscious being regardless of whether it's God or a human or a baby or anything. So morality applies equally to all conscious beings no matter what in my worldview. What cataclysmic flood happens like that, Skylar? Like slow waters rising, like just specifically edged out over time? Like that's what you assume it was, like really? Well, I believe in the scripture, it actually talks about how the waters start to rise and people are starting to beg to come on the ship. OK, so you're talking about the cataclysmic? So they had enough time to actually beg to get on the ark. So in that time, I don't know if I was saying every child in unison around the world were holding hands and it's my error. But I think that you just kind of contradict it yourself. But you don't seem to know the scripture. Well, no, I'm saying that when there was a cataclysmic flood and you want to make it like God was trying to stretch it out. And that's just what you're trying to make. I don't know about that. I just said that he drowns babies and he tortures the children by making them go through that. That's a lot of such. Next, I've got to give the last word to the skeptics. I think, OK, Sunflower, thanks for your question, says Skyler slash T jump. Is it OK to force your three-year-old to go to the dentist? And if so, do you agree it's only OK for adults to do this, but not other three-year-olds to force three-year-olds to go to the dentist? It's moral for humans to do the least immoral thing. So for example, we have to force people to go to the dentist because we don't have a more moral option. If we could just cure any kind of mouth problems, then it would be immoral to force people to go to the dentist. It would be pointless. God doesn't have that excuse. He's all powerful. So he could just cure your what is it called, the thing in your teeth when you get it, whatever. He could just cure it. He doesn't need the force to go to the dentist. So if parents, you had the option between the two, the moral option would be just cure the thing in the tooth. Don't force them to go to the dentist. So it's only moral for us because we don't have that option. Next up, thanks for your question. From Alex Gross, said first debater to take off their shirt, I will order you a pizza right now. My card is ready. Security code 759. I mean, I've already taken off a sweatshirt. So does that count? It's really not necessary, CJ. I don't think I can compete. I would trust the pizza. He did it. What if I just said I did it? Would that count? The optimist pessimist says, God created life and gave us everything. He can do whatever he wants, including killing babies. That's immoral. Just because you created life doesn't means that that life should have sovereignty over itself. The fact that you created it doesn't give you any right to harm it or do whatever you want to it. That's still immoral. Next up, we have a question from DMACC says, Smoky, you said that you go by the text. Can you show the text where it gives the age of accountability? No, and we don't know what it is. We just know that there's a, certainly in a level of faith in God's fair judgment that there is an age of accountability in the Jewish cultural context. It was around the age of 13 when it came into adulthood. It can actually start taking on positions in the household. So from a Jewish context, it would be 13, but what is it actually in the eyes of God? We have no idea. Next, well, and if I could just briefly add, I do think it depends because just as an example, I mean, some people, this is a physical thing, but some people hit puberty at 12. Some people hit puberty at 14, right? It kind of depends on the individual person. I'd say it's more maturity, but the same applies. Next, thank you, Spart344, for your question. It says CJ, it's demonstrable that killing babies is wrong. We've never come across a society that has condoned wanton murder and survived to tell the tale. We live in one currently. 900,000 babies a year. I'm sorry, that's just a fact. Thanks for your question from Rodney Follberg says, in WW2, we had two bomb, both, oh, we had a bomb, both Germany and imperialist Japan, because they were, you know how often World War II or the Nazis have come up in this, is said both Nazi in Germany, or Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan were bombed because they were evil empires. Children were casualties. It was the parents of the children seeking global domination who were responsible. Yeah. So here's the issue with this, right? Because these aren't equal analogies, right? We're limited as human beings, right? Now, here's where it got unethical. Let's say that we had a button, and if we pressed that button, every adult Nazi would just drop dead, right? All the children would still be alive, the kids, the babies, we wouldn't have to go in and bomb and set everything on fire. But then we, instead of pushing the button, we chose to go in violently and kill everybody with swords and guns and blow them up and kill everybody in the city, that's where it would become unethical, right? The point is, is with God, God has, like, what happened was, is Smokey tried to create a false dichotomy as if it had to be the flood or really, really bad people, things would happen. As if like there's no middle ground as if God isn't a complex being who can create universes and human existence, but for some reason he can't figure out a way to have babies die peacefully without drowning them. Yeah, it's so problematic. Next. Yeah, it doesn't say that, that's empty claim. Next up, thanks for your question. This one coming from, this is a super sticker of support. Thank you, Bruce Wayne. And also, Sneak Attack Diarrhea, my favorite username says, next debate, Flat Earthers versus Flood Believers. Are you gonna take that, Smokey? Or CJ, I don't know what your name is. I'll debate that, I'll debate another Christian on any, I'll debate anyone on any topic. Unfortunately, as you all know, Nathan Thompson is no longer with us. We hope he's doing well. He's not dead, hold on, sorry. I thought he was like, what? He's all right, he's okay. But yes, we have, we wanted to arrange one with Kent Hovind and Nathan Thompson. It would have been, the internet might have imploded. That's what, you know, it was crazy, that would have been amazing. Asmodeus, oh wait, I have a question. Do you guys know, is it true? Someone said this in the live chat. I'm curious if you know, cause you guys have got YouTube experience. Do dislikes, do you think dislikes you, like have you ever, you can't, nobody knows. Does it make a difference? Dislikes can affect, in some cases, like if they get to a high enough dislike ratio on your channel, overall it can affect your, how much you're promoted to other channels. Like if someone dislikes a video, then they won't be shown your videos as much anymore. Also, if you have a high number of both likes and dislikes, YouTube may kind of advertise your video around. I've only been doing this for four months, so I don't really know. So maybe the ratio makes a difference? That's fascinating. Cause I had heard a dislikes just as good as a like. I don't know if it's true. But asmodeus, thank you for your question, says, claiming that humans can't create anything, is a direct implication that all things are a consequence of God. You don't wanna go down that road, CJ. I absolutely do, because it is the explicit testimony of scripture. People seem to have this idea of like Zoroastrian dualism, as far as Christianity is concerned, that is just not the case at all, right? God is incomplete and total control. The only person who limits God is God. So I just disagree. God created evil? Must keep moving. Zacuse, thank you for your question, said, smoky, God limited the Ark to only Noah in his direct family in Genesis 618. He didn't give the babies or even children the chance to get on the Ark, therefore he killed potentially righteous people, soy boy. No, then why was, thanks James, appreciate it. Then why was Noah even preaching righteousness at all? Why is that even mentioned in the text? If he wasn't trying to preach an opportunity of salvation and why did God give a set amount of time of 120 years before he was gonna send the flood and why did he make that pronouncement and why did these people ignore it and allow them to die and their children to die because they wouldn't listen? So because they wanted to live in their evil ways and continue murder, torture and rape and these gentlemen want those babies to live up and grow up in that and suffer through it. So there you go. Jason Schneider, thank you for your question, says, if Skyler and T-Jump's arguments were on the table and you didn't know who was behind the arguments, how would you respond? Same way that I did, I'm not gonna lie, this is my first experience with Skyler. I have debated Tom Jump and also watched numerous of his other debates in the past but it wouldn't make much of a difference. I will say that they may make a slight difference in the sense that I do have a pretty healthy respect for Tom. Next. Well, what about Skyler, Ethan? Well, let me say, it's not that I don't have a respect for Skyler, it's that I have watched quite a few of Tom's videos and very much as far as the Flat Earth is concerned, I mean, I think you're probably the best counter Flat Earth guy in the world so just take that if you will. Thank you. Wow, quite the, okay. Gentle on James. I always wonder if that username is about me but says Tom Jump has a mean quote, sit in a chair, unquote, game. So true, so true. Jason Snyder, let's see today. Oh, we got that one. Red Knight 821, thanks for your question said. I'm curious to T-Jump, I'm curious about T-Jump's moral view. How can this worldview mean anything versus another worldview if there's no ultimate moral law? My view is that there is an ultimate moral law just like the vast majority of philosophers and ethics, you don't need a God for an objective morality, that's a weird assumption many PSA have that is completely unfounded based on any evidence. You can check out my moral views on the videos on it on my channel if you're interested. Next up, John Robertson, thanks for your question, says, for smoky and cocks, how does God defend his behavior? Is God good because he is God or is God God because he is good? So some kind of an alternative youth afro. Go ahead, CJ. I would say so, correct me if I'm wrong. He said, is God good because he's God? Or yeah, it's good. Is the goodness part of his nature, is it something he creates? So I would argue the goodness is certainly part of his nature, but as human beings perspective, we can only understand it as divine command theory. The way I usually put this out to people is like, for example, hypothetically speaking, if Islam is true, then Jihad is moral and there's absolutely nothing that you can do about it whether or not you disagree is irrelevant. Now I don't believe that Islam is true, but if Islam was true, then he created the morality, he commanded the morality and therefore that is accurate. So it's both ants, not either war. Next, thank you for your question. This one comes in from Stupid Horror Energy says, is CJ aware that fiction are just thoughts with no sentience or self-awareness? If Alderaan actually existed, George Lucas would be arrested. It entirely misses the point of the comparison. Look, unfortunately, human beings are not capable of creating little worlds populated with living things. So the closest that we're ever going to get is the creation of video games or alternate realities or fictions. That's as close as we can get. So that's the point of the comparison, not to, which, and by the way, let me point out something very quickly. You claimed that, but I would put the same argument towards you that I would towards anybody, which is that you have no evidence to back that up. And if you did have evidence to back that up, you would actually think such a thing. I can prove it because people all the time are going out and say, hey, you know, there was a rape in this fiction and I don't approve of that. Okay, well, it wasn't a real rape, right? Oh, I changed this time. We have many questions. Robert Lescombe, I hope I didn't get you too short. Did you have anything else? No, my only point was just to say that like, you know, we know that people put their morality on to fiction all the time. So you don't actually believe that even if you think you believe that, right? You could have just said genocide is wrong and therefore Lucas shouldn't endorse it. You don't, because you understand that he's allowed to do whatever he wants. Gotcha. Next up, thanks for your question from Robert Lescombe, who says, CJ, please name a nonviolent way that your God could have fixed the world instead of killing everyone. Well, I guess can is a little bit of a word that needs context. So let me explain, he can do whatever he wants. And Tom Jump, Skyler Fiction both pointed out, well, he could do this, he could do that. And within the confines of his power, those things are possible, absolutely. What I would say though, is that God has set up a certain set of rules in this universe. And being a consistent and honest person, he does not violate those rules. So as an example, we could just decide to, for example, boom, there you go. And now nobody has the opinions that they previously had. He could totally do that if he wanted to. That would violate concepts of free will and not in the way that kidnapping someone or murdering someone would, but in the sense that you don't actually have free will anymore, you are literally not capable of free will at that point. Likewise, he could, let's say, be working miracles constantly, right? Every single day, but he set up a world in which he's naturalistic and so on and so forth. Gotcha. Okay. We must keep moving. As Moteas, thank you for your question, said, ha, ha, no smokey. You're totally right. The flood happened instantaneously. Let's look at the physics on that. Are you serious? Laughing my butt off. I don't know floods that are usually not, especially when they're described as cataclysmic. I don't know what type of peaceful or gentle flood you think that is. Got it. And Nicholas Wittmeyer. 40 days and 40 nights. Good to see you. We must keep moving. Yeah, that's how long the flood was. We must keep moving. Says there's no begging in the text. Oh, it has to lift up. That's pop culture. Begging? I don't get it. I don't either. What does it say begging in the text? Oh, I think he's referring to where Skyler said that there are people on the mountain begging. Oh, yeah. No, I might have just spoke. They may not have been actually begging. Next. Red Nights. The water did. Red Nights. Just a pile of water. Eight. Okay, sorry. If you want a chance to respond, Skyler, I just start. No, I just said that, yeah, that I may have been spoke there. But what I will say is that it says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and nowhere in that scripture is it doing what Smokey's trying to articulate, which is it just all came down really quickly and drowned everybody. I mean, this is just backwards. If God just wants to kill people, he could just drive everybody, drop dead. There's no need to drown innocent children. I can't even understand how anybody wraps their mind around this and thinks this is some kind of good justification. All you can do is say God's good because he's good and this is the way you want it to do it and this is the best way you could have done it because God likes it and God loves drowning babies. That's all I can say. Well, okay, yeah, it's a question. That's fine. Next up, Red Nights. Thank you for your question. It says T-Jumps' morals are not above any other person. Other people's morals may not line up with yours, Tom, and they believe it is moral to hurt people. Yeah, I believe in objective morality. So there is a fact of the matter. Like there are people who believe the world is flat and they're just wrong. So the fact that if someone disagrees with my morality, if my morality is true, well, then they're just wrong. Next, Alex Gross. Thanks for your question. Said Tom, if there was a God, would he have a six pack? No, he would have a James pack. That's very funny, Tom, but we all know you have the best body. Okay, next D-Mack is, okay, is that right? So says Smokey. By the way, you know what that made me think of? I know this is gonna be controversial. Some people are going to be, they're gonna rage when they hear about this. We're gonna talk possibly about a debate with Milo Yiannopoulos next month. So it may be crazy, folks. However, we're going there. And so that's the plan at least. D-Mack, thanks for your question. Said Smokey, you do a little Skyler to stay within the biblical narrative to critique it, but you brought up the age of accountability. That's not biblical though. Yeah, it is. Yeah, it is. It's also traditional. It's also contextual into the New Testament. Yeah, no, God punishes us based upon what we know. That's even in Romans too. Yeah, it's all over the place. No, that's nonsensical. I love what people just say yes it is and then they think that's like a justification for it instead of articulating and be like, hey, look at this scripture right here. This will actually do. No, you just said, you just. I just said Romans too. You just aren't paying attention. No, no, no. Romans too does not. Romans too does not actually justify it. Wow, you won't even let me answer, bro. Great, thanks. It's okay, bro. Next up, is Milo a furry? You're an honest debater, dude. Next. Next up. I am, dude. Totally awesome, bro. Very special guest we have here. Tom's chair actually asked a question in the chat during the debate. Tom's chair is able to both seat Tom and ask a question, which was, aren't we glad the flood didn't happen and this God is not real? Oh, snap, smokey and CJ Cox. There's records all over the world of a catastrophic flood like this, even in the more ancient cultures like the Chinese that have a culture that stretches back 4,500 years and they have stories that are very, very in line with the flood narrative. So I don't know what you're talking about. Well, and actually, they argue for a local flood earlier today. I just want to point that out. They argue for local flood now. They're talking about worldwide evidence for this flood. Well, hang on. That's the contradiction. From the point of the narrative, dude. Were they in space? I mean, it was really quick. Next, CJ, it sounds like you had something to say to that jab from their super chat as well. Well, yeah, I would just say a couple things. So the first thing that I would say is just for the record, I argue for a global flood, me and smokey disagree with that. And it doesn't necessarily impact our argument. So I just want to make that clear. I also would make clear that I actually, if I was not a theist would still be at least the human race as it existed at one point in time had what it would consider to be a global flood, meaning all of the humans who they knew of because the evidence for that is overwhelming as a matter of fact. Virtually every culture. In fact, not only virtually every culture in the world as far as that was alive in this time, but literally every culture that was around in the Middle East at that time has this exact same legend as well as the Chinese, the Maya, the Inca, and so on and so forth. So I don't think the question of God's existence necessarily impacts whether or not there was a big flood. Next, thanks for your question. Sunflower says, Tom, jump. You missed the point of the question. Why is it okay for adults or parents to force a three-year-old to go to the dentist, but not, oh, I think they meant, why is it okay that they can force their own three-year-olds to go to the dentist, but not other ones? Like in other words, like they can't enforce other parents' children to go to the dentist, only their own children. We have legal rights that each parent is responsible for their own child. Because I think the original question was like, is it okay for other three-year-olds? Yeah, I think that's right. So yeah, it's not right for them to force either their kids or other kids only justified because they're their kids. Next up, thank you for your question. Zacuse says, smokey, people are born every day. Every day there's a chance that a righteous person can be born. God took that chance away by killing everyone who was being born that day. Well, that's a faulty understanding of the text and the narrative of what was going on. God only brought judgment when there was nothing righteous left there, and that's comparative to the story of Abraham, the fact that he didn't bring judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah until he had taken Lot out, which was the last decent person in the entire city, and then he judged it. If you follow the character narrative of the text, no, if they would have grown up, they would have been cursed and they would have been judged. If they were judged as babies, they were welcomed into the kingdom of God, and they didn't have to go through that. So there's nothing but positive wins from our worldview. That's why they can't accept it. That's not true. First Samuel was not about that, about revenge, I'm sorry, that's just biblically incorrect. No, well, we can have a debate on that at a different time, bro. Many questions. Okay, Bishop Martin, thank you for your questions. So Tom, can you tell Sunflower there, Uggie? Sunflower, I'm sorry. Uggie, is that like a new hip thing? Is that the slaying nowadays? CJ, you're probably the youngest of us. Wait, I got it, I got it. Sunflower did not drown babies. Sunflower is a perfectly good human being. Gotcha. And Moyette, Morgan, thanks for your question. Said, why God lied, or why did God lie that all outside the Ark would die? I think they're maybe saying that like... Smoky said it's not a global flood, so then God must be wrong if he said that all the life... I see, okay. Yeah, I'd have to go look at the exact text. The text says all mankind, so it's reference to God. Yeah, and again, I think they're just kind of trying to shoehorn something into their quote of it, but... Yeah, so not actually dealing with what I'm saying. I'd have to go look at it, dude. It's question time. What do you want? That's fine, I'm just saying you should. I mean, you figure this is the topic of the debate, you would have looked at it before the topic. It will not... Before the show that... I don't have that quote right in front of me. You didn't take the time to look at it and see if God... Yeah, dude, let's spend time on this, Skyler. Real great, bro. Yeah, it's the topic of the debate. We must keep it. Yeah, let's spend some time on the topic of the debate. So great. No criticizing me for not having it right in front of me, because that's good time. No, Alex, gross, we must keep moving. You're so petty, dude. Alex, gross says... It's all reading the chapter before we have to debate. I'm going to enjoy this, you're all muted. Okay, so thank you. Alex, gross for your question said I... And now you're un-muted. Shouldn't have said that. Said I need this $2 back, I didn't mean to send it. Thank you, Alex. Mike Ortiz, thanks for your question said, the entire world was evil, right? How did Noah's family go through life without getting assaulted or murdered if the entire world was evil? Yeah, I would personally believe that there was probably some sort of divine protection over there in some regard. Yeah, it's a good question. It's actually... We can protect Noah, but we can't protect the babies? Like we can have divine protection with protection, Noah. But we can't protect the damn babies, we're drowning. My God. Noah's family was offering them to be saved by going on the ark. That's why he was preaching righteousness. Yes, let's do that with a lot of the babies too. And they didn't do that. Bring the babies. So they were going to continue to be evil and in their ways. We could feed all these animals, but we can't feed more babies. You are so triggered. I'm not triggered. It's hilarious. You're so incapable of defending your position. No, actually, you have so much energy. It's hilarious. It's called deflect petty. We can feed all two of every kind of animal. We can feed every kind of animal, but we can't feed a... I was so sorry. You were on mute. I'm so sorry. Okay, Mark Reid, thank you for your question, said, couldn't God have gotten rid of the Nephilim some other way? Why didn't he quote, spirit, unquote, them away instead of drowning the humans? Spirit them away to where? See, this is the problem. When you guys pitch these questions and then we follow reductio ad absurdum to what you give us, just like we did with T-Jump, and it's nonsensical and ridiculous and doesn't ultimately solve the problem. The only thing you're left with is some sort of environment where you deny free will. And that's what you people end up arguing for, and it's not sensical to the Christian God claim. So he doesn't respect you enough to answer the question is what that was. That's it. You guys actually answered the question. That was something from the audience, not us. They asked you a question. You didn't answer the question. And you let us get there. Why can't you answer the question? Why do you have to answer the question, Homo Santa Claus? What's wrong with this? Homo Santa Claus? Oh, you so silly boy. Smoky, we're not gonna do that. Wow, you're afraid of gay people. Why are you so afraid to answer questions? Homo Santa Claus, ooh. Smoky, seriously, don't say that again. Homo Santa Claus, how about that? Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. Okay, great, you're all on mute. So, Smoky, don't say that again, seriously, or you're not coming back. They can't hear you, so. Okay, next. Mark Reed said, couldn't have God gotten rid of the Nephilim some other way? Oh, wait, we got that. Robert Luskum says, CJ, the fact that God had unlimited nonviolent means to restart the world, but instead chose the most violent means proves the immorality of the topic. So, I'd say a couple things for sure. So, the first thing I would say is that, again, I don't even think that it's possible for a God to do something immoral if he's the one who dictates what morality is in the first place. Secondly, and I think much more importantly to the point here, you know, we have this idea, well, God could have done this and God could have done that and so on and so forth, right? Well, let's just take one of the examples, right? Skyler brought up earlier, if we had a button and all of the adult Nazis would die, and it's like, okay, even in that example, which is not a global flood example in which all humanity perishes, even in that example, so what have we created now? A whole generation of millions and millions and millions of orphans who of course go on to commit more crimes than people who do have two parents as a matter of sociological fact, right? And so on and so forth. So that's obviously a terrible idea, right? Likewise, if we just move them somewhere else, okay, we move these three-year-olds to Scandinavia while we kill their parents and there are no people in Scandinavia, that is brilliant, right? And by the way, I don't say that insultingly in the sense that I'm insulting you Skyler, I just wanna make myself clear. I say that in the sense that it's like, if we actually go through these, the only way that God can actually avoid doing what he did is by some virtue of divine miracle. Now, it's not that he can't do that, but what it is is that he has set up, like I said, a certain world where there are rules that he's decided to play by, right? Yes, he does the things that he wants to do and the things that he wants to do includes drowning children. That's all you're saying to me is that he does things the way that he wants to do. Just one question where we, I know that it's a challenge because almost all the questions are directed towards Smokey and CJ, but if they keep escalating into discussion, we do have more that keep coming. So I really just wanna be able to answer the questions uninterrupted and Skyler just will not give us the respect for that. So I'm getting frustrated. Oh ho ho, try waiting your turn. Okay, wow. Robert Lusko, I can't remember if I asked this. I'm like, Sleep5 says, I think we did ask this. Yeah, we did. As Modius thinks to your question says, my name is James and I'm gonna say the N word. Nice. I'm confused. I don't think I- He was trying to bait you into saying it, I think. Gotcha, okay. He was gonna bait you into saying the N word on the stream. Oh, because I like read every Super Chat. Right, right. Sometimes I add stuff, but I've never added that. And thank you for your question. Red Knight821 says, last moral point, I promise. Your morality, Tom Jump, is not objectively right to others. The world is round is a fact. Your morality is your opinion. Yeah, so moral realism is the position that moral facts are exist. It's like one of the parts that are in the definition of moral realism. So they think that morality is as true as the world is round is true. That's the consensus of the experts in philosophy. Please Google the term. Next, thank you for your statement. From DMACC who says, smoky, yum, ama. I don't know what that means. Did I just say something inappropriate? I don't- Next, Alex Gross says, guys, please. In all caps. I am serious about the pizza. I transferred money out of the savings for my baby president at the meeting for school. Please take it. They really want to see you naked, Skylar. Okay, next. They really want to see Santa naked. You really, I mean, you could pull off the Santa. Okay. Next up, Zaku, thank you. Next week. Sorry. I hope you get that job, bro. Next up, Zaku says- I hope so. Smoky, so they weren't born with free will then? That's a nonsensical question. I think they would have free will, but it's just they wouldn't be accountable for their decisions. That's how that works. Next up, Sunflower, thanks for your question. Said, we let adults force kids to go to the dentist, but we don't let kids force kids to go to the dentist. God is to adults as kids is to humans. Oh, that was the question from before. It's like, why can't kids force other kids to go to the dentist? Well, I would say like the reason that parents can force them to go to the dentist is because they're aware of the consequences. And so they can say this consequence is less bad than this consequence. I mean, the reason kids can't is because they don't have the intellectual capability, but adults do. So God can't force adults to do anything because we have that free will thing that he gave us. Next up, Asmodeus says, Skylar, you just sent my sides into orbit with that ho ho ho bit. James, please make that part of a soundboard. Ho ho ho ho! That would be awesome to just randomly play Skylar sing ho ho ho like that. Listen, I've been called a lot of names in life, but gay Santa, man. Homo Santa. It was actually going to be hobo Santa. That was what it was supposed to be. And it came out homo Santa. So yeah. Yeah, it came out really big in it, yeah. Here's the thing. And listen, this is how you can tell you lose debates when you have to resort to all the name calling really early, like, and toward the end. Oh, it's just fun, bro. It's just fun. Oh, I know you think it's fun to like call people names. I'm sure that's part of your Christian morality, too. But Dr. O'Adams, it happens what I noticed. No, I don't, no, I don't believe that. I think that's what happens when I notice people of substandard character, like people that can't justify their positions in worldviews that condone. You mean that part where I tried to justify it, you said, no, don't justify it. No, the part where you condone other people's worldviews were not being able to support your own. That's hilarious. Oh, yeah, that's what that's what happened. That's what happened. I can't believe it was that. That's what happened. How do we get to this from Skylar being, having his ho ho ho on the soundboard? Okay, let's go. Oh, we just love the debate, James. That's why we're here, bro. Next up, Bert Kreischer's fake laugh. Thanks for your super chat says, is Tom Jump good looking? I think so, but I'm not sure. What do we rate him out of 10? Well, chat, let us know, so appreciate that. You know, Santa over here rates him a 10. I'd wrap him up in a nice red and green bow, open him up on Christmas. Nice, this is the present for itself. So, appreciate, yes, this has been a fun one. Yes. Oh, hello, Tom. Scale of one to 10, fired into the old fast post. But yes, we all know it is like Tom's an 11. I mean, come on. But want to say that is it for our questions. We do have to wrap up as we are longer than we usually go, but thank you guys so much. Skylar, Tom, CJ and Smokey, we totally appreciate you guys coming here and hanging out with us. As I mentioned, folks, if you guys, if you're listening and you're like, hmm, boy, would I want more, some more of that. You can hear more of that. Their links are in the description waiting for you. So want to say thanks so much to guys. This has been a wild one. And I had, like I said, people have given so much positive feedback. Thanks for having us. That was a lot of fun. I appreciate for a couple of Santa coming on. Fun times. Appreciate it. Yeah. It's good to be here to see who's been naughty and nice. And apparently two gentlemen have been very naughty. Yeah, sell it, bro. Absolutely. You know, it's kind of naughty when you think you can drown babies in this moral, you know? Santa's not down with that. Yeah, sure. Okay. You, we, what is it? We get some rocks on Christmas just like those little. Yeah, you're not coming in my house, bro, especially with that accent. We maybe, maybe you should let me. Maybe I'll bring you a nice little present you can unwrap. Okay. Gross. It's a nice big present. Yeah, and that would be rape. I'm glad you condone that. Would you rape me, Santa? No, that's what you would be apparently doing. You're bringing me some big present. Yeah, it's a lovely dude. Great. Thank you. You really sell it on it. Is that what you do? You take an insult and you just absorb it like the blob? Is that, is that what happens? Next. Wait, okay. At least you got to make it funny. You're going to make jokes, make them funny. Like, you know what I'm saying? Well, currently you thought it was funny enough to absorb it and run with it for the last 20 minutes. So good job, dude. Thanks. Yes, everyone is really naughty and on Skyler's naughty list. But let's, one, I do have one last question. So sorry, James W. Folks, if you, first of all, I want to mention, if you ever see Spark 344 in the chat, that is our dearest friend who, I'm trying to remember the last topic. But yes, he's a debater as well as James W. Is a debater. I can't remember James. Wait, James W. debated, that I remember, that was alien abductions, which by the way, you guys, I am stoked. We might actually host Hugh Ross on the topic of whether or not alien abductions are the real deal. So that should be super, as Skyler says, should be awesome. We'll just say that. So okay, where is, James W. I'm looking for your question in the chat, bro. I'm so sorry. It's just, once the Q and A gets rolling, it's hard for me to keep an eye on the chat. Is this some sort of tasteless joke, James? Well, I will mention this. Couple of things. One, kind of curious if we get, while we've got everybody here, if you can give like one or two sentences to say why if you want to, but I'm curious about this, because it's coming up and it's on everybody's mind in the back of their mind because we're still a number of months away. Four months away or so? What's your probability assessment that either Trump or Biden wins? Biden's gonna win by a small margin. Yeah, I think so too. Yeah. I think Trump's gonna win. Trump 2020. I make perfect sense now with the homophobic. Oh, sure it does. Yeah, because I'm not homophobic. That makes perfect sense now. I'm not homophobic. You just give me. You just called someone Santa homo, but you know, not homophobic. As I explained, it came out wrong. It was supposed to be homophobic. You're the one to excite a run later on. You're deciding to run later for 20 minutes. Well, no, I explained it right away. Come on, guys. CJ's answer. I personally believe Trump will probably win in 2020. It's pretty rare that the incumbent loses. And also I do think that Biden did himself a major disservice by kind of attaching himself to Sanders when he was supposed to be the moderate candidate. But I have a feeling Trump will be the first president to lose the popular vote twice. Gotcha. And James W., thanks for your question. Appreciate it. Paul says, if Christianity is true, isn't having kids evil? You'd run the risk they can't believe in Jesus on faith and thus be tortured forever. Wouldn't it be better to never exist? No, no, not even close. In fact, that really sounds a lot like anti-natalism for one. For two, the Bible is quite clear. Go forth and multiply. It's a literal command. Well, and plus, the idea of depriving the choice in that particular context would be wrong because it's outside, it's again, it's the judgment of us versus the judgment of God. It's a temporal mind with agency, with temporal agency versus a non-temporal mind with non-temporal agency. So it's a false dichotomy, it's a false comparison. Next, we must continue on. Want to say thanks so much to our guests. Thank you everybody in the chat for making this a blast. It was a party. I enjoy reading your feedback as well. Just thanks for hanging out with us. Just kind of keeping it real, even if you're just sitting back. So with that, keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable folks. We hope you have a great rest of your Monday and we'll see you tomorrow as Mr. Batman for the first time joins us on a debate on atheism versus Christianity. So hopefully we'll see you then and have a great night, folks.