 welcoming everyone from all walks of life. If you're looking for even more fantastic debates, please do not forget to like, follow, or subscribe, including tonight's debate on Did God Create the Universe? With our debaters, T-Jump and Ronnie Cameron here to help us find out. And if you enjoy what either of them have to say, our guest links are in the description below. Though with that, I am going to hand it over to Ronnie for their up to 12 minute opening statement. The floor is all yours. All right, thanks, Amy. Okay, so I have five arguments for why I believe God created the universe. Three main arguments. First, science can't explain how something comes from nothing. This is a classic one. Obviously, T-Jump is familiar with this. The ultimate origins of the universe is basically beyond scientific explanation. Therefore, a supernatural explanation is the only plausible one. The existence of God explains why there is a universe instead of absolute nothingness. This is my second main argument. Science cannot explain a reason for why there ought to be a universe instead of nothingness. Non-existence continuing to not exist is an easy concept to imagine, right? Eternal nothingness and nothing ever happening. But nothing, absolute nothing creating something is unimaginable not only because it's impossible but because there is no reason for why it should happen. However, if God exists, it's then reasonable and easy to imagine him creating things as opposed to just doing nothing. There is no reason for absolute nothingness to do anything, but there's plenty of reasons for why God would wish to make something happen. My third argument is this. Science can't explain the fine tuning of the fundamental properties of the universe in another classic one without resorting to multiverse theory. So multiverse theory is illogical. It just doesn't make sense philosophically and intuitively, and it's just a really bad argument. So without using multiverse theory, we can't get around the fine tuning of the universe. And then my two second arguments are these. Why does math exist? It's kind of a fun one. And why is there consciousness? Why did the universe create consciousness? Life can exist without consciousness. Things can work in a mechanistic way and we don't really need consciousness. Now, if there is a God, it's easy to believe why. It's easy to see why there would be consciousness. But without God, we actually don't know why consciousness exists in the first place. So that's my opening. Thank you, Amy. Thank you so very much, Ronnie. And with that, we are going to hand it over to T-Jump for his up to 12 minute opening statement. The floor is all yours. Anything the supernatural can explain, the unknown natural can also explain. So any made up explanation for God having some motivation to do X, if that counts as an explanation, then we can make up any explanation we want and it's equivalently justified. So simply saying that God has some nature has some desire to do X. If you count that as whatever you think is required for justification, we can say that there's some nature to the quantum particle, the quantum field that is necessary and this nature determines it to do X, problem solved. So simply saying that I can imagine God has some desire isn't an explanation. Nobody counts that as an explanation science. It's why nobody in science appeals to a God for anything in physics ever at all no matter what because it's not a legitimate explanation. If you want a legitimate explanation or say fine tuning or the origin of the universe, you need to explain the specific questions asked in the field of physics. What is the perturbation density of space time? Why the speed of light? Why the difference between the matter and antimatter particles? Why is the gravitational waves the way they are? There's lots of specific questions you'd answered. And if you have a theory of everything and needs to answer those questions, otherwise it's literally not a theory of everything. So simply saying God done it is not a theory of everything. The multiverse is a theory of everything because it explains answers to each of those physics questions. So when he says the multiverse is illogical, like no, literally the multiverse is a simpler hypothesis than an infinitely powerful God that could create infinitely many multiverses. So if you say the multiverse is ridiculous, that's like saying an apple is ridiculous, but the tree that created the apple, no, that's not, that's fine. That's totally, totally rational. Makes zero sense there. All the arguments you presented are easily debunked, something from nothing. Nobody says something came from nothing. He believes God existed and never didn't exist. We believe the quantum field existed and never didn't exist. There was never a nothing. Nobody thinks there was actually a philosophical nothing at any point ever. It's not a thing in science. The hypothetical explanation that God done it is equivalent to the hypothetical explanation. There's an necessary quantum field. That's the explanation, problem solved. No, there was never a nothing. Okay, out. So there ought to be a universe. I don't know, I don't understand the second one whatsoever, why there ought to be. I don't understand what he's trying to explain there. Like, there are no oughts. There's no ought. It is, there's not an ought. Like, why does God ought to be the way God is? It's just the way it is, I imagine. Fine tuning is very easy to debunk. Any fine tuning argument is reflexively applies to a God. The universe itself has many, many constants. And if you change them, then life would not exist. I agree. But for each possible variation of the way the universe could be, there's a possible variation God could be where he could want that particular universe. So if there's a universe of nothing but black holes, God could want that. If there's a universe of nothing but puppies, God could want that. And so there's equally as many variations of God as there are variations of the universe. And so if you think the number of variation demands an explanation for a universe, then they also demand an explanation for a God. So the fine tuning would apply to both. And if your solution says, well, God's necessary, we can again just say, well, the laws of physics where they are necessary due to some underlying law of physics. He's simply wrong when he says this can't be explained without the multiverse. Dozens of different theories that explain it that are not the multiverse. One could just be there is an underlying law that interdetermines all the forces and there's only one universe, problem solved. You don't need the multiverse for that. Why math? Math is a language made up by humans. It's English. It's like English. It's just a language we made up to describe the way things are. The fact that things have a way that they are doesn't need an explanation from a mind. Why consciousness? Evolution explains consciousness. Evolution is the best explanation of consciousness, which is why materialism and naturalism are the consensus in every single field of brain studies. Neurology, psychology, cognitive science, philosophy, psychology, everything. All materialism, there's not even, none of them have a consensus outside of that because it's the only one that makes testable predictions. So all of his arguments are very easy to explain. They're better explained than naturalism. Therefore, no, there's no evidence that the universe is created by God. Thank you so very much, T-Jump, for your opening statement. And with that, we are going to move into 50 minutes to an hour of open conversation. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours. Well, first. Could you clarify the second one first? Because I don't understand what you mean by the second one. Or to be a universe? The reason for why the universe exists. So there's how does the universe exist, but there's also why does the universe exist? So Richard Dawkins once famously said that why questions are silly. They're childish questions, but we can think of several situations right off the top of our head in which why questions are very important. Say, for instance, in the criminal justice system motive, why did you do this? Why did the suspect, you know? Go back to the universe thing. Why does it need a why answer? I don't know, I'm not following you. Why questions are important, okay? So when we look at, say, for instance, the animal kingdom, we don't just ask how an animal does something. We ask why an animal does something, okay? Whether it's human motivation or animal behavior, why questions are very important. So to just dismiss them as being nonsensical, well, I disagree. And I think at a fundamental level, we can ask. Well, I didn't say they were nonsensical. Okay, yeah, you're just asking for clarification. Yeah, yeah. So I'm saying, why do we need to answer the why question? Because normally if you're saying there's a question, like a phenomenon that we can't explain and we wanted to understand why or how it happened, there must be some evidence that that thing exists or something. So like to say why is the universe existing, you would need to have some evidence that like didn't not exist at some point or did not exist at some point where we don't have any evidence of that. So like, there could just be a feel, a quantum feel that didn't not exist, never not existed. So you don't need to ask, why does it exist? It's a necessarily existing object. From a conceptual standpoint, we could think of non-existence. We could think of there being no universe. And that doesn't, you know, if there's no God, it wouldn't be so surprising, right? Why would nothing ever create something? We're gonna get into the whole, see how- We can imagine there being a non-universe. Put simply, God explains why there is a universe. Without God, there is no explanation for why there is a universe. Before that, you said, we could imagine that there's nothingness or something. Well, I wanna put it more simply. So just go with my last statement. God explains why, if God exists, that's an explanation for why there's a universe. But without God, there literally is no explanation for why there is a universe. Okay, so if you're saying that, if there is a thing that created the universe, and the thing is the explanation of the universe, I can say the quantum field created the universe, therefore the quantum field is the explanation. And I get- The quantum field doesn't explain why. Yes, it does. The quantum field's nature does explain why. Or let me- It would explain to how- Why does God exist? It could possibly explain to how, but how and why are two different things. Why does God exist? How did you kill somebody? Why did you kill somebody? Why does God exist? How did the lion attack- Stop, stop, stop, stop. Why does God exist? No, no, no, no. I let you go on for your little bits. You should let me go on to- No, no, you're not addressing the point. Why does God exist? Okay, but that's not what I'm saying. Why is there a universe? And we're discussing whether or not God created the universe. So God explains, if God exists, that explains why there's a universe. If there is no God, science cannot. It doesn't even attempt to answer the question of why there's a universe. Why does God exist? How would you answer that question? Well, you're shifting gears. You're pivoting. No, it's called mirroring. Well, first you're asking for clarification and now we're just- This is literally clarification. This is clarifying. Like my original question is it was, why do you think there's a need for an answer to the why question? Right, that was- I started explaining that originally with- What you're saying makes no sense. You're cutting me off again. Because what you're saying makes no sense. So in order to explain it, answer the question, why does God exist? Now, if you answer that question, that will help clarify why we need the answer to the why question. Okay, so originally this is what I'm saying. If God exists, that explains why there is a universe. Without God, there is no explanation. If you want to move to why God exists, we can do that. We can talk about that. But right now, I'm focusing on why is there a universe? And it's fine. Maybe science doesn't have an explanation. Maybe it doesn't care about answering why. No, none of that I said. And that's perfectly fine. There are many scientists who say we don't care about why there's a universe. Focus on what I'm saying. Don't bring up the relevant things. No, no, no, no, no, yeah. But what you're doing is trying to refer it. Okay. So again, my point here is that I think the universe does not need a why answer. This is a stupid question. It's irrelevant. Fair enough. Like when I ask the question, why does God exist? You're gonna give some answer like because he's necessary or something. And I'm just gonna give the exact same answer for the universe. So any answer you think applies to why the universe exists is also going to apply to God. Why does God exist? Can I explain why it's important? Yeah, what's that? To ask the why question? Yeah, absolutely. For existential reasons and spiritual reasons. Okay, but wait for me to finish the point. Okay, fine. Finish, but I'll go right back. Point of my argument here is the argument that the universe needs an answer to the why question, any justification you give is gonna be paralleled one for one for any God explanation, why God needs to have an answer to the why question. Firstly, I didn't say that the universe necessarily needs to have one, but with the existence of God comes an explanation for the universe. Without God, there is no explanation for why the universe is. I can repeat that many times. I'm sure the audience can grasp that, but what I want you to understand is that most scientists would agree that science does not care to answer the question why does the universe exist? It only cares to answer how questions regarding the origins. I don't care about anything any other scientists have to say. Well, you even said so yourself. You don't care about the why and that's fine. For the universe, for the universe. Many people do, and God said it satisfies that answer. For the universe, I don't care about any other scientist. Don't bring up any other scientist. It's just a waste of time. Why does God exist? Okay, so we're gonna shift to why does God exist? The same point. Even though the conversation is to answer the question, stop evading. Answer the question. Well, I don't feel that. I'll explain to you why. I'll explain to you why it matters in like five seconds. I know where you're gonna go with it. And so you might as well just go there right now because the topic of the debate is not why or how does God exist. Why are you evading? It's just did God create the universe? Why are you evading? Why does God exist? Why does God exist? That's a hard question to answer. I would say that God would be the one thing that would be beyond explanation in all forms. The why, the how, the where, the when. God, by definition, is capable of being beyond all of that. But science is not. Science is within the confines of causes and effects. I don't care about science here. So your answer. I know you don't care about science right here. No, I'm more qualified than you in this. So you said that it needs an answer to the why question. No, I didn't. The universe, the universe needs an answer to the why question. It doesn't need one. I'm saying that with the existence of God, it satisfies the why. Some people might not care about the why like you and that's fine. But for the people that do care about the why. I'm following, I'm following. So, E.G., I follow you perfectly fine. It doesn't matter how hard you grab your nose or squint. Stop interrupting. It's a really bad debate tactic, by the way. So you said that there's some benefit to getting an answer to the why question. Whether it needs or not, you think that there's some benefit to having an answer to the why question for the universe. I'm saying with the existence of God comes an explanation for the why. But without God, there is no explanation for the why we can move on. Which makes it better, right? Which makes your hypothesis better because it has this. You're asserting that. I'm not making any of those claims. I'm just simply saying that God is the only thing that could possibly explain the why. And for those who care about the why, they probably will end up believing in God or at least searching for some answers down a spiritual path. But science simply doesn't even bother to provide one. So if it doesn't matter that there's an answer to the why question, that means it doesn't add any benefit to your hypothesis, right? No, I'm saying that for those who do care about the why, it absolutely does. But for those who say, listen, I don't care about why there's universe, well, it's not really that strong of an argument. So your argument is that if people think there's a why, then they would want to believe in a God, something like that. I'm saying it's reasonable to ask the why question. Many people do ask the why question, and God is the only thing that could possibly give an explanation. Science can't. It definitely can, but that's not the point here. So you're saying that- No, it can't give a why. It doesn't can. Anyone can make up a why. Why making up a why? Why is different than how, and you're just gonna use our arguments. You're not gonna use why arguments. You said anybody can make up a why. We can add why in this design. Yeah, but they could be implausible or nonsensical. Like your God hypothesis, I know. But so the question here is, why are you saying that, you brought these up as arguments to indicate that God created the universe, right? Yes. And your first argument was, because it answers the why question. There is no reason for why a quantum field would create a universe or why a quantum field would even exist. There could be a how explanation, but there is no why explanation. I want to know why you think the ability to answer the why question counts as evidence that God created the universe. Because for those people who care to ask that question, God could be the only possible explanation. For those who don't care to ask the question, then I mean it's just gonna be a Richard Dawkins explanation. I don't care about the why. Why does the fact that people want an answer to the question equal that there is, that that is more plausibly true or that the probability of the answer is true. What I'm saying is by definition, science can't give you an explanation, but God can't. I don't care about science. I don't care about science. So this is why it's important. The question was, are you pretending to be like, is just this obtuseness coming from you? No, no. What you're saying is so stupid, I'm trying to baby step you through this. You made an argument. You're saying these five things are arguments. Now an argument is something that increases the probability a proposition is true, right? Yes. So we want to know, is it more likely God created the universe versus did not God created the universe? Right. And when we pull back, okay, you let me know when I can say something. Yes. Happy to. So your first argument was is, or this is the second argument that needs to be a why. And the answer to the why is the argument, which means it has to increase the probability that God is true. That's what makes it an argument, right? I can talk now, right? Yes. So what makes it an argument is that it increases the probability is true when you're saying that having an answer to the one question. When you pull, when we, yes, I'm going to say yes to that immediately, right? I'm giving you an honest answer. Now can I explain the yes? Well, I don't need an explanation. Well, actually, yes, yes. Thank you for being, for allotting me some time to explain that. That's awesome. Even though you don't need it, that is really cool of you. Well, actually, I think I do need it here. So I think, because my next question is going to be, how is it the case that an answer to the why question increases the probability that one proposition is true? Because if we look at the whole question of, did God create the universe? We can look at things of how? We can look at the features of the universe and we can ask the question, why? Now somebody might say, I don't care about the why, it's irrelevant to me, like Richard Dawkins and many other scientists. But for those out there who do care about the why, God is the only explanation. So let's say half the audience listening cares about the why. They will look at this segment and be like, yeah, you know what, it's true. God is the only possible thing that can give an explanation. They will realize, yeah, science, this quantum field, that's not really answering a why. So I hope you understand that and maybe we can move on. No, I didn't understand that at all. So how does the ability to answer the why question increase the probability a proposition is true? And then you say- Because people care about the why question. Now what people care about means nothing. It's zero evidence for anything what people care about. Do you not forget what I originally said about why questions are important? Because they pop up in life all the time, so it's not, we shouldn't just disregard the why question. So let's say we're talking about whether or not somebody's guilty of a crime. And one side can explain the how, but the other side could also explain the why. Okay, the defense or the prosecution, whatever. The why adds to the whole argument. Now motive alone isn't going to prove a case. That's why I said some people might not care so much about the why, but it is an argument. It is a point for the side that has motivation, that has a reason. So there's no motivation behind the quantum field or for whatever created the quantum field. There would just be mechanistic things happening. But with God comes motivation, comes reason. I hope you can understand this. How does that increase the probability of the proposition God created the universe? Well, just like in a court of law, if one side has motive, that increases the probability that their side is true. No, it may not be insurmountable evidence or case closed, but it is a point. Zero evidence. So like, if we see somebody who was crushed by a rock and we say, well, why did the rock do this? And well, nobody, it was just gravity. There was no why. It just didn't happen. So asking the why question and saying, well, maybe Hitler decided to push the rock. Therefore there's a why answer now. Doesn't add any probability to the Hitler hypothesis. Add zero. So simply adding a why answer doesn't add probability to the proposition. Well, within the realms of motivation here and sticking with the whole criminal justice system, if we have, say, two advocates, one is saying that, hey, I think this person is guilty of the crime. The other person's saying, I think this person is guilty of the crime. If person A, or sorry, if advocate A- I'm saying no person. So the option is person A and gravity. You're not letting me finish. If there's no motivation. I don't care what there's so much. The comparison here is. You're constantly interrupting. That's because what you're saying is so insanely stupid. I'm trying to baby step you through this. It's not person A and person B. I know I understand the point. Is no person A and person B? No, you don't. If you understood the point. And a hypothetical. It's a hypothetical, okay? So of course there's no person A and person B. Person A, rock. No person B. Does the fact that there is a why answer increase the probability person A pushed through? I need you to let me speak for like a little bit of time here because I need to explain this. I need you to answer the question. And why it makes sense. And you're just trying to corner me and ask these ridiculous questions to make it seem like what I'm saying doesn't make any sense. And it's really frustrating because it's not on it. You keep doing that squinting thing. That's a sign in any debate. It's a sign that what you're saying is so stupid. You've done that to Daniel. You've done that to so many people. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. This whole time. I mean, we could make a compilation. If he's not going to actually answer the question. What I will say is why don't we just answer Ronnie, if you would like, and then maybe you ask a question and we'll just get kind of a better back and forth. When somebody asks a question because somebody have maybe like 30 seconds to a minute to respond. Not if you don't answer the question. So I'm not going to give you 30 seconds to say bullshit and not answer the question. The question is, I'm not going to give you 30 seconds. What do you mean you're not going to give me 30 seconds? So I'm really against that bad, but right now it's just spicy. And so I'm just going to ask both of you to obey the queen of sound bites. And besides that, whoever would like to ask the next question or... Yes, okay. So I'll try to explain this to you again because you're a dumb ass. You made the claim, why statements increase the probability the proposition is true. That's what you said. That's why you said it, dumb ass. Which means you have to contrast two options, one with a why question or one why answer and one without a why answer. And you have to show that the why answer increases the probability over the one that has no why answer, right? This is basic fucking logic. So if you have an example, like someone died from a rock falling on them, one possibility is that a bad guy pushed the rock. And now we have a why explanation. Why? Because the guy pushed the rock. But maybe there was just an avalanche and the rock just fell, there was no why. And so your argument is that simply positing a hypothesis that has a why increases the probability that hypothesis is true. And I can prove that's false because I can give an alternative hypothesis that has no why avalanche. And that hypothesis doesn't go down in probability just because you imagined Hitler did it. That's no evidence is provided there, which proves it does not provide evidence. Okay, shut the fuck up and let me talk, all right? Cause that's just been like, honestly, is that even a question, man? Is that even a question? Because it's so convoluted. It's like, I'll give you a perfect example of for why is a reasonable question to ask and why it can make- I don't care if it's a reasonable question. Shut up, shut up, shut up. And what I'm getting there, D-jump. Shut the hell up, seriously, shut up, man. Dumbass. Like this is just so annoying. Why is it evidence? You just keep talking and you really don't get me any time. We're good at it. Even if I was, it still doesn't give you the right to act like that. And you should be smart enough to know that. So with that, Ronnie, the floor is yours for a response back. Thank you. Okay, so let's say there's two people that are suspected of a crime, person A and person B. With person A, we have reason for why that person may have committed the crime. And that's it. For person B, we have nothing. So all things are equal. The only thing difference is we have motivation for one. We don't have motivation for the other. This explains how a why question could increase the probability. If all we have to go on right now in a vacuum, which what we're trying to do with this whole why is the universe here? If one side has a reason, the other side doesn't, it makes it more likely. If D-jump doesn't get that, I mean, I'm sorry, but you're the dumbass. You absolute fucking moron. In the case of someone where we know where someone was killed by another person, then having someone with motive increases the probability. If we know someone died and we have no reason to think a person did it. Is there a universe? It doesn't add evidence. Is there a universe? Yes, there's a universe. So that could be, that could basically be equivalent. Did somebody die? Now we're asking the question, who created the universe? I'm saying, well, we have a reason for why there's a universe. We have a how, which we can get into, but you're not even allowing us to get past this whole point of why. So stupid. So what you claim was that having a motive increases the evidence. So if we know someone was shot with a gun and by like another person, we know it was done by another person and we see two people, one person has a motive, one person doesn't. Yes, that's evidence. If we have someone die of natural causes and some person has a motive to kill them, that's not evidence because they could die of natural fucking causes. The only way it counts as evidence is if we already know they were killed by a person, you moron. So it's begging the question to think that the why question is automatically evidence that the universe is created by a mind dumb ass. The first thing you have to do is show it wasn't a natural process. Okay, I'm perfectly fine to move beyond the why because we're just gonna end up repeating ourselves. God, you're dumb. Okay. I mean, it's a really not a good indication that you're doing well in a debate. If you don't understand why you just got destroyed. When you're resorting to these cheap tactics, like the, oh, every five seconds, interrupting. I mean, every single thing, you're checking off the list here, but instead of picking on an argument, let's go, Ronnie, would you like to ask T jump a question? No, I don't really have another question for you now. I'd like to get on to the how something can get from nothing. It can't problem solved. OK, so you say that the universe or sorry, whatever created the universe just always existed. Do you think that's a scientific claim? Do I think that sort of? Do you think something can be a philosophical cause? Yes, you do. You actually think something can exist without there being a reason or a cause for it. So do you. Let's not get into what created God, because I'll just say God, I can use a supernatural explanation. You can't science doesn't allow it. The belief in God does. I'm saying you're not. So you're saying God was caused by something supernatural. I would say whatever. If God emerged at the moment that anything emerged, or if he is the creator of all that is, it obviously involves a supernatural explanation because science basically couldn't explain it. So God, by definition, is supernatural and science cannot use a supernatural explanation. So you're saying God came from. Hold on, shut up. If what you're saying is that something always existed and has no cause, that's not scientific. You're not being consistent. It's philosophical and it is scientific. But no, it's not because science depends on some sort of cause and effect. And if you regress infinitely into the past, you're no longer being scientific or philosophically. Science doesn't matter here. So you just did God come into existence from nothing? You're pivoting. We're talking about what created the universe. This is called a mirroring argument. This is this is this is a literal thing. But that's a pivoting. No, no, it's a pivoting move by you and you constantly do it whenever you're stuck with something that you cannot explain. You just say, well, I'm just going to bounce this back. It's formal philosophy. You can't say it's it's a move of mine. It's literally the topic of the debate is, did God create the universe? Not what created God. So if you cannot explain what created the universe, if you don't have a satisfactory answer, you cannot just pivot back and push it at me and mirror the point is to say, you're so stupid. You're going to give a dumb ass answer and I can just mirror the dumb ass answer. Dude, I really wish we were talking in person half this debate because you would not say this. I would say exactly the same thing. At least you would not do it while looking in my eye. I would say the exact same thing. No, you wouldn't be saying dumb ass. You wouldn't be saying if this is how you do it. Fucking moron. You fucking moron. I love watching you go after Alice, man. I would gladly look you in the eye, smack you up the side the fucking head because you're a dumb ass and tell you you're a fucking dumb ass. I do it all the fucking time. Oh, T. Joe, you're great, man. You're great. Now shut the fuck up and get back to evidence moron. This is a basic fact in philosophy. If you think you have a better answer to a question where there's two hypotheses and I say, how do you answer that question? The way to prove that your answer is not fucking better, you fucking dumb ass is if it equally applies to the alternative hypothesis. So you're saying that hypothesis X has a better explanation of some phenomenon and to do that, you're gonna have to provide an answer and to prove it's not a better answer. All I have to do is show that hypothesis Y can use the same fucking answer you dumb ass. This is basic fucking philosophy. I know what you're doing, T. Joe. You're talking so far below me, it's hilarious. I completely get the problem you're trying to make. No, no, no, I completely get what you're trying to say. But here's the problem. God, if we say God exists, would it be reasonable to assume that he could create a universe if God exists? Sure, yes. Okay, so we're not debating whether or not God exists. Okay, we're talking about the creation of a universe. So you admit if God exists, bam, that explains how the universe was created. So now what is your explanation regarding how science can explain the origins of the universe? You can't because you're relying on a situation that either doesn't have, sorry, isn't congruent with- I'm saying I can't. I'm saying I can't explain it. Or you regress infinitely into the past. No, no, no, I'm saying I can't explain it. And both of those, okay, so explain to me how you believe the universe was created. I'm going to use the exact same answer you use and explain to me the exact same way. I'm allowed to use that answer and be consistent because God, by definition, is supernatural. I would say it's a supernatural explanation beyond science. You can't use that explanation. I can say it's uber-duper-natural. Problem solved. Okay, there's only two doors that hold the answer. Either science is true and there is no God. Yes, T-Jump, either there is God or there is no God. It's not exclusive to God, what the hell? This is so dumb. I'm trying to break down it so that we can both agree on one thing here. Do you agree that there's only two possibilities? Either God exists or he doesn't? Sure. And either God created the universe or he didn't? Sure. Okay, so those are the only two possibilities, Lady Gila, either God created... So what is a third possibility? God created the universe or he didn't? Please tell me a third explanation. Multiple gods, something else could exist and created the universe. The universe could have come into existence from quantum fields and God exists at the same time and didn't create the universe. There's lots of possibilities there. Okay, so a combination of the two, you would say, somehow God did and didn't create the universe, whatever. If we want to break it down to just a simple understanding of what it is we're talking about, either God did it or he didn't. I'm not arguing whether multiple gods did it. You don't believe multiple gods did it. You believe it just happened. I believe God did it, just to put it simply, right? Right. We can agree on that. So, here's the thing. If God exists, which I believe, he would be supernatural. So if I say that explanation is supernatural, I'm being consistent. Now, if you don't believe... Hold on, let me finish. You only believe in science. Science cannot answer the question without using a supernatural explanation. Therefore, you can't be consistent. So, okay, give me your explanation for how the universe was created. Uber-duper supernatural. So all you've done, as you've said... Then that's by definition, you believe in God if you think it's supernatural. No, you fucking moron. Saying that there's a new ontology called supernatural is something you've made up and pulled out of your ass with no evidence. Now, I can make up a different new ontology, not the supernatural. It's a different thing. Uber-natural is not supernatural. Both beyond the natural. And uber-natural is a kind of material stuff and the material stuff in the uber-natural created the universe. Problem solved. If what you think counts as an explanation is making up a bullshit new ontology with no evidence, we can do that too moron. What I'm doing is proving that there's nothing beyond door number one. So logically, the answer has to be behind door number two. Door number one is science. It has no explanation for how the universe could be. It literally doesn't. We can explore it. And by definition, it comes to a dead end. It either runs into the wall of cause and effect or you're just simply saying that there's infinite regression into the past. Those are the only two things science can do. And it fails at both. Therefore, the only other explanation must be behind door number two. Even though I can't open that door and show you God, it's literally the only thing that could explain it. So please again, Tijup, explain to me how a universe can just create itself or come from nothing or just always be while staying consistent with science. You're so so the possibilities are foundationalism, like it's a necessary being infinite regress where it's the eternal past thing or cause itself through. Do you think infinite regression is possible? Yes, every physicist does. No, it's that's so that's so untrue. Every physicist does. It's quite the opposite. No, that would mean that the past is literally creating itself as we speak. No, that's circular. Oh, my fucking god. Creating itself with me. If time is going infinite to the future, then it would have to be going infinite to the past. Both parts are creating themselves as time. Dude, all you keep doing is saying dumbass, squeaking, grabbing your glass. It's very annoying arguing. Stop fucking dumbass. I wish we had a moderator. Stop you fucking dumbass. I will say we do want to go less ad hominem towards people on both sides. I'm enjoying this fight. I need to address all the stupid shit he just said. So first thing she said time infinite regress is create time creating itself. No, you fucking dumbass. That's called circular creation. There's three options in philosophy. Infinite regression, circular reasoning, foundationalism, those are the three possibilities. If time was creating itself, that would be circular, not infinite regress, you fucking moron. Infinite regress is that there's always been a thing. It hasn't created itself. That's the consensus info. I would argue that the circular argument is illogical. Infinite regression is illogical. I don't care if you think it's illogical. No, I'm arguing it. I know you don't care, TJ. No, no, no, no, no. You say this all the time in the piece in which you're releasing. I don't care. Dumbass, this is a mess. You don't let me finish. You don't let me finish. What I was objecting to was when you said infinite past is time creating itself. No dumbass, that's a different one of the tri-limits, not that one. Secondly, this is the consensus in physics. Literally every physicist thinks this. There is no logical paradox, no logical contradiction in an infinite regress. All of the models pretty much have an infinite regress with a few external options, which are all like foundationalism. Every physicist knows there's no logical contradiction. William Lynn Craig knows there's no logical contradiction. Now, he's admitted it on camera. Infinite regress does not entail a logical contradiction. Every philosopher knows this. You're a dumbass. So what's your argument against- Am I allowed to speak now? Sorry, I thought I was muted there for a second because he said a- I have not muted anyone. I just want to give another PSA, keep spicy. We just want to give insults towards arguments, not people, but I'm enjoying the debate. Okay, so with respect to infinite regression into the past and so far as a universe being created, it's illogical because what we would have to assume is that the past is literally creating itself right now. So what does infinite mean? Infinite means beyond measurement, it's basically the biggest thing possible, right? So if we were to say time is moving forward into potential infinite time, we would also have to assume that the past is doing the same. And since in order for time to move forward, we have things creating themselves. We have moments creating themselves. We have cause and effect. So we would also have to assume that some sort of cause and effect mechanism is working, but applying into the past, meaning that the origins of everything right now would be creating itself and the origins of that would be creating itself and the origins of that would be creating so and it just keeps going and going and going. And so we actually wouldn't have an ultimate beginning. We just have this nonsensical explanation of how something could just be eternally moving into the past, creating itself, that can't be. Time can move forward infinitely, yes, because there's an infinity yet to be explored. So we could say that the potential of time to move forward into infinity is infinite, but the potential of time to move into the past, infinitely, that just doesn't make any sense. Oh my God, that's so fucking stupid. So the past existing infinitely is not creating itself. It's not like the future, which is continually going forward and more of it is being created. B theory of time, this is one of the top two theories or top three theories of how time works is that all time all exists concurrently. It's not creating itself. All of the infinite past is there. All of the infinite future is there. They're not creating themselves. They're there. They always existed. They're always there. You don't need it to be like every negative one second in the past, then creates the negative two seconds. No, that's not how it works. Can I ask you a question really quickly? It's a quick, do you believe right now there's a T-jump who exists five minutes ago in the five minutes in the past? If that's how time works, yes. Do you believe that's how time works? I am agnostic on how time works. Okay, so what's your position on the origins of the universe? Not what could be, how do you actually believe? Okay, so where did the quantum field come from? It's necessary. It was never created. Why is it necessary? Why is it necessary? And how is it necessary? It's part of its nature. Well, what gave it that property? It's nothing gave it that property. It's necessary. So there's no explanation for it. Right, that's what necessary means. So you literally don't have an explanation for what created the universe then? No. Brute facts, I guess, are the ones that don't have an explanation. Necessary facts are explained by their nature. So a brute fact is a thing that's true and has no explanation, which are totally fine in philosophy. Necessary things have an explanation, which is their nature, and their nature is the explanation. That's circular. That would be like saying, why does a dog have a tail? Well, a dog needs to have a tail. Like that's, you're not explaining why or how a dog has a tail. No, like if something exists and has a nature because it's the foundation of all reality, that is a perfectly fine explanation. Like, what's the problem there? Because you're just stating it. We'd have no way of determining or you would have no way of determining. I think you're conflating epistemology and ontology here. Like, how did we know that? No, no, no, don't interrupt it and take a little detour here. I want to say specific with this line of thinking. No, this isn't a detour. You're basically philosophy because you're dumbass. Like, it seems like you're asking the, how did you get to know that kind of a question? Like, the... No, that's not what I'm asking. Listen, I'm saying that with a lot of people, like, say Stephen Krauss or I believe that, is it Stephen Krauss? I might be getting his first name mixed up. Krauss. Stephen Hawking? No, no, no, Krauss. Lawrence Krauss. Lawrence Krauss, there you go. When he talks about nothingness, he actually states how it has a weight to it. There's actual features to this nothingness. So it's clearly... It may not be definition. So it's clearly not nothing, right? It's, there's something going on and it has features which we can explain their origins to. So you're not actually explaining the origins of everything. You're just explaining the origins of the big bang. Lawrence Krauss has made up definition of nothing to do with anything I said. I'm just giving a little bit of, I guess, insight or enriching my point here by saying that this quantum field certainly isn't nothing. So it doesn't... I never said it was. Okay, fair enough, fair enough. But nonetheless, my main point there wasn't that. So if you missed my main point, that's unfortunate, but I can repeat it. What's with the shaking of the head? Are you okay? That's what I asked. What is your main point when I said, how does Lawrence Krauss's quote have to do with anything I said? And we just went through it. I'm just enriching my point a bit. It's not refuting anything you're saying. What is the point? You're now dragging this out so far longer than it needed to be where if you just let me say the point and focus on... I'm waiting. I've been waiting this entire time. The quantum field itself has features. It has properties to it. And we have no explanation for where they came from. So you can explain where the Big Bang came from, but you can't explain where the thing that caused the Big Bang. So it's just, you're right back at square one. Okay, a lot of people... I do, wrong, wrong, wrong. The explanation is its nature. Necessary beings, the way they work is the explanation of the necessary being is its nature. That is the explanation. Okay, that's what you're saying, but that's not satisfactory because you would have no way of knowing for certain that it is at the origins of everything because we were at a point in time. Let's say, for instance, Einstein. Okay, dude, Einstein's a really smart dude, right? He didn't believe in the Big Bang. He believed in a static state universe for a very long time. I don't care about Einstein. Like why are you... What I'm saying is that a lot of people had different conceptual ideas. Of course they do. That's how people work. So when you sit there and say, oh my God, like everybody knows the quantum field created the Big Bang. Are you fucking stupid? I never said that. I never said that. It's so condes... Okay, so what I'm... My whole point here is that we don't know what created the quantum field. You have no explanation for it. You literally just say it just is. And that's not satisfactory. Okay, so... To me, that implies cause and effect. To me, it implies eternal regression into the past or some sort of circular time that doesn't make any sense. And if we want to stay consistent with creation, cause and effect... Dude, you're impossible to talk to. Yes. Even the one thing you feel to realize even if you're 100% right in this debate, the way you conduct yourself, and it's not just with me. It's with... There's with plenty of... That's great. I don't care. I don't care about your opinion. You act the same. And you don't care about your opinion. So earlier, I said... It makes for a poor conversation. I don't care about your opinion. You're your nobody. Earlier I said you're confusing epistemology and ontology. Do you know what epistemology means? A refreshment of mine. It's been a while since I've gone through it. How to know things. So when you said we don't know how... It's like the lit, yeah. Wait, we don't know how the necessary being's nature got that way or something. That's an epistemology question. Knowledge, right? How do we know something? Now, the fact that something has a nature is ontology. What exists, whether or not we know it is irrelevant, right? Epistemology is different than ontology. Whether or not we know it doesn't matter. What matters is, is it the case? So if it's the case, it doesn't matter if we know it. So like, if it's the case that God exists, that's true regardless of whether or not we know it, right? Sure. So if it's the case that the quantum field has a necessary nature, that would be a fact whether or not we know it. Because it's ontology, right? If the... OK, but you're talking about this as if it's a proven fact, which it's not. No, no, I'm not. I'm literally not. I'm saying if it is the case. Like, yes. And I'm saying yes to if, both yes. OK, so if it is the case, the quantum field exists and has a necessary nature, it has an explanation. Now, we don't know it. We haven't discovered this, but it has an explanation. OK, so here, here lies the train of thought that we need to explore. So you're saying the quantum field does have to have an explanation, right? It doesn't have to. Well, I need you to clarify here. Does the quantum field need an explanation or does it not? Because you've gone back and forth here very slightly, but you have. It doesn't have to. Both are possible. So I can grant it does. Now you've just gone back on your previous statement, which says that the quantum field does have to have an explanation. We just haven't found it yet. That's what I never said. I never said it has to have an explanation. I said it does. OK, so now you're saying it doesn't. No, I'm saying it can have either, but I'm saying it does. So it doesn't have to have. Let's just teach you. But enough with the bullshit. Do you believe the quantum field has an explanation? Yes, yes, necessary nature. OK, do you know it doesn't? It doesn't just to clarify. I want to try to explain this to you. When I say it doesn't have to have an explanation, that means there's another possibility of a brute fact. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. I'm going to use your line. I don't care. I don't care. Just move with the train of thought. I don't care about your side. Because you said something stupid. You said something stupid. So I need to like try to work you through this. Here's your possibility. Fucking forward with it. You believe the quantum field has to have an explanation. Yes, there's two. Sorry, no, no, no, it doesn't have to. You believe it does have an explanation. Possibilities. So you jump. Do you believe the quantum field has an explanation? This might come up later. So you jump. Do you have now? I'm going to get my not letting you to take where we go with it. I'm going to continue to ask this and we're going to go this way. Mute him so I can mute him so I can continue. No, I'm asking you a question. And I just want to continue with it. Mute him. I prefer Ronnie. If you don't mind, just let him ask you the question. I'm not asking the question. Well, so I'm not asking a question. So OK, then I'm just trying to go back and forth. Clarifying what's in there. So Ronnie keeps doing this stupid thing where he keeps misrepresenting things I said before because he doesn't understand philosophy. So I want to clarify. Brute facts is a fact that is true and that doesn't have an explanation, has no explanation. That's the definition of a brute fact. A necessary being is different than a brute fact. And that's being is a being that has an explanation, which is a nature. Both are possible. I'm going with the necessary being one. Go ahead. OK, so do you believe that the quantum field has an explanation? Yes. OK, do you have an explanation for the quantum field? Nature. OK, so what you would basically say is science is yet to get there, but we will find an explanation, correct? No, we may never get there. It's irrelevant. That's epistemology. Epistemology. I just do you think right now that let's say it is epistemology. I don't really care. What I'm asking you is, do you think that there is an explanation for the quantum field and we just haven't got there yet? Or yes. Yes. OK. So my next question would be, say, you know, in the future, we find that out, I would be, OK, what created that? And logically, you're going to have to say, well, something must have created it, because if you believe right now, this thing that you can explain where it came from, say, the quantum field, you would have to then continue to say, well, this next thing probably has an explanation, too. And then the next thing we discovered would probably have an explanation, too. And now you're stuck with going infinitely into the past, and it's not an actual explanation. You're just saying, you know, it's the past is essentially creating itself, but God could actually be beyond all of that because by definition, God would be supernatural. So my whole argument is if we look behind door number one, which is science, it can't give us the answer. But if we assume that God is real, then we have all the answers. So this doesn't prove that necessarily God is real. But when we're talking about what created the universe, I believe it's more likely that a God created the universe than a non-explanation because you literally don't have an explanation. As I said in the beginning, anything the supernatural can explain, the unknown natural can also explain. Science does not know those one millionth of one percent of anything, which means in the natural world, we could discover a necessary property, a property that has no cause by its essence or nature. We discover it. It can't be caused like energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It is not caused. And so if we discover the essence of reality is a necessary being, we've discovered in science an object that can't be caused. It does. It's not caused by anything. If we discovered that there wouldn't be a why. There's no why was it created. You wouldn't ask that. You would be wrong to ask that. You would be an idiot to ask that because you discovered that right now. The quantum field is all there is to explain. It just always was. And there is no why. There is no explanation. I said, if you asked if in in the future, science discovers this, then there won't be one because they've discovered a necessary being. I'm saying we have the tools right now to know that we are going to be this in this eternal deadlock of never knowing whether we right now have all the answers or if there is more answers to be in the future. No. And yes, because right now, Tja, let me explain. Oh, yes, because right now in the scientific community, they could say, for all we know, the quantum field just always existed. But then there's going to be another batch of scientists who say, well, no, there might likely be an explanation for that. You're always going to be stuck with those two options of, is there more mystery into the past? Or is this basically the foundation of all creation? And what I'm saying is that science basically is illogical at that point because you're going to have to depend on infinite regression into the past, which is illogical. Or you have to say something just always was unless we discover a new property of reality, which in that property can't be created. We discover that problem solved. No, we have. What do you mean we've discovered that? No, no, no, right now, if we discover that, but we will never know because Tjump right now, what tools could we possibly have that would tell us we found the ultimate answer? I don't know, but it's possible. It doesn't exist because it logically can't. No, there's no logical. Tjump, it literally can't. If we find that substance, let me walk you through it. Let me walk your little brain through this, Tjump. I'm going to pull the condescending shit. If we find that substance that you just brought up, somebody could easily ask the question, where did that come from? And how would you know or anybody know if it just always existed? Or if maybe science has yet to be able to answer the question and we will never know that. Science will always just have a question mark in terms of the origins. What is the logical contradiction in a property that we know could not have been created? Sorry, repeat that again, say that again. Before you actually ask that, once again, we're going to keep the insults towards the arguments, but we have about five, 10 more minutes of open dialogue before we switch into the Q&A. I do want to send a love out there to everyone watching in the live stream. Please don't forget to like, follow, and subscribe. I am actually enjoying the spice, that is right. And so I'm just going to hand it back over to both of these gentlemen to keep on going and having fun. You said it was logically impossible for there to be a property that we know wasn't created because somebody could ask the question. No, I'm saying it's impossible to know if we've found the true origin or if what we've found has another explanation. And we can actually play this out mentally and you'll agree with me. Why is it impossible to know? Let's say we find element X or element Google B with any properties you want to assign to it. I could always ask the question, where did that come from? And you would not be able to prove. That's the part of the view zone. That's the part of the view zone. You would not be able to prove if it has an origin beyond it or if it is the beginning. Stop interacting with me. Why does the fact that someone can ask a question mean anything here? Like, I can ask the question. It's a mental exercise, T-Jump. And we can understand that we are confined with a certain amount of options. Either it always existed or it requires another explanation. I can ask the question, are we in the matrix? Does that mean that we don't know we're not in the matrix? Okay, T-Jump, let's go down this confusing little road. Spin this little web you got set up here with the matrix. Right, so I can ask the question, are we in the matrix? Does that mean that it's impossible to know we are not in the matrix? Well, I don't wanna get too far in the weeds here, but we could actually do some testing and come up with a reasonable explanation. I mean, if we wanna get down to how the matrix is set up with you using humans' batteries, it just doesn't really make sense, the amount of energy that would be required to put into such a process to derive this, the whole matrix is set up about using humans' batteries. We don't produce enough electricity for the system to function. So even though I can ask the question, you can still say, no, I know we're not in the matrix, right? Yes, just by using logical thought, like I just did right there, but I don't wanna get too far into the weeds with this one, man. That's fine, that's enough, that's enough. So even though somebody can ask the question, you can still know stuff. So if there's some fact we discover like a necessary particle and some dumbass asked the question, well, maybe what created it, that doesn't mean you can't know it, right? You can still know it. T-Jump, whatever it is that we find that you could argue is the original source or original realm which created all things, you could easily ask the question, just use your imagination, why couldn't you just ask the question, well, where did that come from? And if let's say we find an answer to that, you could then ask the question, well, where did that come from? And now you could beer back at me and say, well, let's apply this to God, but God can actually escape this problem by saying, he's beyond science, he's beyond explanation. Our science, our brains literally cannot comprehend how God works. Our brains can comprehend how science works perfectly fine. I mean, we've traced the universe back to the first seconds or, you know, minute seconds of its existence and we're now pondering the quantum field in which Earth did. So I believe we will find an explanation for the quantum field. We will find an explanation for whatever created that and it will keep going and going. At the end of the day, God is the only thing that could be an absolute original creative point. Otherwise, you're stuck with eternal regression into the past or just something always existing and you would never know whether or not the thing you found is the actual original creative point. You would never know. God, there's so much stupid there. So if you can know things, even if somebody asks a question, the fact that somebody can ask a question doesn't mean you don't know it. You can still know it, just like in the case you're talking so far under me right now, T-Jump, just rewatch this part because you're so stupid. Like you didn't even understand what I said. I completely disbunked your argument, but you're so stupid to understand it. So yes, explain it to you like a child again because you're so dumb. It's just, that's the best I can do. So your argument was that just talking below the main point. The fact that someone can mute him so I can just finish because it's like the closing statements anyway. Well, in fact, since it is about to hit that mark, if you want T-Jump, what we'll do is we'll just hand it over to you when you're done, say so, and we'll hand it over to Ronnie. You guys can feel free both to say whatever you would like and also where can people find you on the intro tubes as well as it's in the description. But yes, T-Jump. Yeah. So his dumb ass argument was the fact that somebody can ask the question where did this come from or what could have made this means that you can't know that it's a necessary being therefore. It's impossible for us to ever know that there's a necessary being. One, this is again, confusing epistemology and ontology, whether or not we can know it doesn't fucking matter because it could still be that way. Secondly, we can know it. The fact that there's a way to ask a question doesn't mean you can't know something which he himself demonstrated that yes, we can know we're not in the matrix even though someone can ask the question. So there could possibly be evidence that we don't know about yet that we could discover that'll prove this is a necessary being. And even if some dumb ass asks a question like he does, that's not gonna mean we don't know it. So his own argument, he debunked it himself. I'll just conclude there because it's like too much stupid, too much stupid. Thank you so very much, T-Jump. And we do want to remind everyone out there in the live chat to keep on sending in those questions. And we have a lot of super chats. So thank you guys all for the support and the love and we will get to those right after Ronnie, the floor is all yours. Where can people find yet and your final thoughts? People can find me on Telegram, you can find me on Twitter. Yeah, I mean, I don't wanna plug myself too much or I just wanna kind of keep going with the debate and just close out. So when I was younger, well actually I grew up as in a Christian home mostly like not like seriously religious but for the most part my mom, she believed in God and my aunt, my grandpa, everybody like that for the most part believed and so I believed. And when I got old enough to question it, I became an atheist. Christianity just had some bogus answers for the explanation of how earth was created in six days or seven days, whatever. Adam and Eve, a lot of the things just from a young child's mind didn't make sense to me. And I would get into debates, I'd get into arguments with Christians and Muslims at school. And I would say to them, like, why do you believe in fairy tales? And I felt like I typically would beat them at that side of the debate. And one day we were talking about what created the universe. And I said, well, there was some gases or there was some sort of field that led to the Big Bang. And they said to me, well, what created that? And I said, well, I don't know, well, what created God? And they said, well, God just always was. And I said, well, what if this quantum field or this state just always was? And they said to me, well, if you feel good believing in that, all the power to you, but I believe God did it. And it really stuck with me because I realized that we are left with that choice. We either have to believe that there will be this eternal explanations for how something can come from nothing or there is this kind of substance which essentially acts like God. It created the universe, it created all things. It created me and you, it created everything. We could even call that original substance God. So at the end of the day, I was just, I was turned from, I guess, an atheist into a deist or a theist. I don't even know what you wanna call me just from rational thinking, just from that beginning point of, well, the universe either came from nothing and it's just, we have to believe that somehow there just was always this thing or something came from nothing or God did it. And with the belief of God, you can actually use a non-scientific argument and stay consistent. With science, you can't. Science, you have to stay within the realms of how science operates and that's typically caused in effect. And my opponent here seems to think that it makes logical sense to have infinite explanations into the past as to how the universe could be created. You cannot have infinite regression into the past in terms of explanations for how the universe was created. There had to have been a beginning point. And so we could always ask the question, well, what created that beginning point and science breaks down? But when we get to God and say, well, what created God? The atheist turns to the background and say, oh, well, where did God come from? You can actually say, hey, it's a supernatural explanation, not just unknown science, but literally beyond science, beyond, it literally defies science. And God is the only thing that is allowed to do that. So I think by kind of like a process of elimination of science can't explain how the universe came to be in a satisfactory way, it must be God. Thank you so very much, Ronnie, for your closing statement. And with that, we are going to start the Q&A. Keep on sending in your chats at Amy Newman and your super chats, including $2 from Cameron Hall. Why add God when it's just another problem to solve? So can you repeat that? Absolutely. Why add God when it's just another problem to solve? I don't understand the question. T-Jump, can you clarify the question? Yeah, the question is why are you solving an unknown with a bigger unknown? You're positing a new thing that we don't have evidence for to solve an unknown that we do have evidence for. Okay, so what I would say is that if we're only gonna use a scientific explanation, a non-God explanation, we're basically stuck with eternal regression into the past or something just always was and those two things aren't scientific. So there has to be a supernatural explanation slash God. Thank you so very much at $10 from Stupid Horror Energy. If God is the explanation for the universe, why didn't he make the Higgs mass and top quark mass slightly different? Which would result in a completely stable vacuum that won't decay? And I can read that again. If God is the explanation for the universe, why didn't he make the Higgs mass and top quark mass slightly different, which would result in a completely stable vacuum that won't decay? I have no idea. That's beyond me in terms of the science. Maybe T-Jump might have something to add to that, but I would just say, people ask the questions, you know, why not give humans wings? Why not allow us to live to a million years old? There's a lot of reasons why we put rules into games to make them better, right? If we could just use our hands in soccer, it would destroy the game of soccer. I think God or the designer or the universe, whatever you want to call it has a certain plan and to just embed cheat codes into all of us so that we live forever, can fly and have infinite, we won't learn, we won't develop a conscious wisdom that we would if we were limited. And I think God with, you know, his graciousness, I'm not Christian, I'm just messing around, has given us a good go as humans, right? We have all the tools necessary to be happy. Thank you so very much. And a $10 super chat from Sunflower T-Jump is the scientific process necessarily conductive to your moral theory? For example, what if novel testable predictions somehow eventually result in more involuntary impositions on will? Based on how the question is asked, I'd probably say no. The method of science is how we know things, but in our discovery of things can be immoral, that's fine. So it would not be the case that doing science would be inherently moral or that we would need to be able to have science be moral. Like no, like there may be some things we can only discover by doing immoral things, sure. Thank you so very much. Another $10 super chat. Thank you so very much from Sunflower T-Jump's rock analogy sucks because there's no incomprehensible paradox in the rock falling. But there is in the origin of matter, space, time, etc. There is an obvious paradox in one and not the other. That's literally a real... So the only point of the rock analogy was to devote his claim that being able to answer the why question adds evidence to one hypothesis. The whole point of the rock analogy is that there can be two options, a mind did it or a not mind did it. And so simply the fact that you posit a mind you can imagine the mind has a motive doesn't increase the probability a mind did it because it could be a not mind. Like if a rock fell on somebody, it could have been pushed or it could have fallen because of an avalanche. Simply the fact that you imagined somebody pushed it and that person may have a motive doesn't increase the probability that's what actually happened. Yeah, and that's just a very retarded way to look at the situation. The better way to look at it is if all things are equal and one side has a reason for something happening, the other side doesn't, I can't explain the why. The one side has a stronger argument. And if we're talking about, how was something done, whether or not the universe is created? One side says, okay, we actually have a reason for why the universe was created. God wanted there to be living things and for there to be life. Why did the universe create anything? Why did the quantum field decide to be or why did whatever created the quantum field do what it did? There is no why explanation from a scientific standpoint. So one side has- I literally just proved that false. You just said the stupid thing I just has proved well, I'm gonna adopt that stupid thing like, okay. If one side, say all things are equal and one guy has a slightly better haircut than the other guy, you could say slightly better looking. So if all things are equal and one side has an explanation for the why and the other side doesn't, then that gives them just within the vacuum of all things being equal, a slight point. It's a slight point. I'm not saying that the why question is a home running winning argument, just because God can explain why there is a universe, therefore he did it. I'm just saying that without God there is no answer for why there is a universe. And you have no rebuttal to that. Baby stepped you through this before. Yeah, you think you did, but you're just looking at it from a wrong framing standpoint. My question, I get the final word. I baby stepped you through this before. If you have someone who you know was murdered from another person with a mind and you see one person with a motive, that's evidence. If there's two possibilities, one is a murder and one is not murder, he just died of natural causes. What if somebody just died and you don't know if it was murder or natural causes? T-Jump and the one side has motivation. There you go. The other side has no natural cause. Let's say all things are equal. Both sides have no evidence at all, but one side has motive, the other side has nothing. There you go. It's not evidence. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Motivation is, oh my God. So dumb. Dude, you're insane. The fact that you don't think motivation is a form of evidence, you're just wrong. You're just wrong. The fact that someone may have a motive to kill someone if they're in the middle of a desert and a rock was on them, the fact that they have a motive doesn't increase the probability that it's true that they murdered them. No. It actually slightly does. Yes, it does. T-Jump, mean you go on a camping trip and a rock falls on your head. Do you not think me having to say maybe motivation, like let's say you slept with my wife? Do you not think that slightly increases the chances that maybe I did it over if that did happen? Of course it did. So you're just dumb and wrong. You're just dumb and wrong and you think you're a lot smarter than what you are. Fucking moron. If someone said that went to the courtroom and said, I imagined that person did it and that's the reason that this hypothesis is more likely, that person would be thrown out because they're a dumb ass. Simply the fact that you could imagine someone answers the question. When you don't know they exist, you don't know if they have a motive, you don't know if they have a brain, but you imagine they can answer it. You imagine the person has a motive. You imagine the snuffle of a guess is an existing being and he pushed the rock. This is your argument for God. You imagine an imaginary being. No, my argument is that science has no explanation for the why and God does have an explanation for why. What's the scientific explanation for why T-Jump? You don't have one. Well, guys, why did you have to eventually mute him over to the next question? Come on, mute him. I get an answer here. This is my question. I get the final word. Mute him. Just have your final words, T-Jump. And then we have Spice coming your way in the next question. So... This absolute dumb ass moron doesn't understand that what he's saying is he has an imaginary sky daddy dumb ass and he has imagined the sky daddy has a mind and an intention. And the fact that he imagined him on its own, imagined he has an intention, adds evidence to a hypothesis. No, it doesn't, you fucking moron. It literally doesn't. The fact that you can imagine an imaginary being has an imaginary intention does not add evidence to a hypothesis over something did it with no intention. A $2 super chat from Franco in all caps says, oh, the Spice L-Jump, he sent him. Uh-oh. Okay, solid argument, bro. $5 super chat from The Legend Ribs, T-Jump, your mod Scotty in Discord is a power-hungry mean bully, but would you be willing to have another conversation with Ryan Dawson about, I think that says 9-1-1? 9-11. That was the joke. Oh, no. If you pay me. But yes, another $5 super chat from The Legend Ribs. If no convo about 9-1-1, it seems, with Ryan, would you talk with him about deism? I'd prefer that probably, but yeah, he's still just gotta pay me. And all right, thank you so much for the super chats. Another $5 super chat from Franco. What reason do we have to believe there is such a thing as the supernatural? Because science can't give a satisfactory explanation for why there is something instead of nothing or how there is something instead of nothing. So if there's only two doors we can open to find an explanation, science being door number one, if we can open that thoroughly and realize, okay, we're left with something just always existed with no cause, or there's infinite cause into the past. To me, that's illogical. That doesn't satisfy my brain. I can literally think of, okay, well, the first moment, what caused that, okay, this caused that, okay, then what caused that, you just keep going. But with God, if God exists, we accept that he's beyond the natural sciences. God, by definition, is the only thing that can be. So therefore it must be the explanation for why the universe is here. Thank you so very much. And another $5 super chat from The Legend Rives. David Talbott, remembering the end of the world and the fifth kinds, why are we here, explains God. Atheists need a DB perfect for their theory to work, DBPRCT. No idea what that means. David Talbott, remembering the end of the world and the fifth kinds, why are we here, explains God. Atheists need, in all caps, DBPRCT for their theory to work. Best guess is, well, I think anybody can make up an explanation, like atheists can make up an explanation, science can make up an explanation, anybody can make up an explanation and they're equally good or better than the Atheist explanations. It's like, I don't know why he thinks that people can't make shit up, like anybody can make shit up. Yes, people can make shit up. I totally agree, people can make shit up. Never said they couldn't. You kind of did. You mean I kind of didn't? You said science couldn't offer an explanation for the origin of the universe. Not as satisfactory one that is logical. It can be made up. Giant nose needs the universe out. Great, yeah, so anybody can, science can make up an explanation that's equivalent to yours. No, they can't because they're not allowed to in order to stay consistent. It's like saying somebody who advocates for not smoking can sit there and smoke and be consistent. No, you can't. If all you're saying is that a natural cause must be used, a rational, logical cause and you're Mr. Scientist, you can't do the thing you're saying you can do right now. You can't make up a silly explanation that's beyond science and natural explanation because you wouldn't be consistent. But somebody who believes, say let's say a Christian, if they believe God created the universe in seven days, they would be being consistent, correct? They're not allowed to say no, God didn't create the universe because then they wouldn't be consistent, correct? Sure. So what I'm doing is saying, okay, everybody being consistent, this Mr. Scientist, Mr. Christian and Mr. Deist, who is most likely to be right? The Christians say God was the universe created in seven days, God pulled the rib from Adam, sounds all bullshit, I don't believe in it. Then the scientists say, well, the universe just popped into existence out of nowhere or it just always was, we don't really know. That sounds like bullshit. Then you have a Deist or just believer in God who says, well, I'm not really sure what God is but it only makes sense that a God can create the universe. It only makes sense that a God could be beyond science. How, where is the inconsistency of positing a new ontology? How is that inconsistent in science? How, positing a, well, yeah, sure. You can posit a new ontology, but the thing is you're still gonna run into the same problem of Noah. Okay, yes, think about it this way, TJ. We can think of math that's beyond our understanding of math, but it's not going to necessarily destroy our understanding of math in so far as its basic principles. One plus one is two, simple addition, simple subtraction. Those things are always going to be true. Math will be true in all possible universes. Okay, we didn't even get to this topic of how there's math and why there's math. Humans discovered math, we never invented math, right? We could say that a greater form of math will come to be about, but what we know right now logically is etched into stone, okay? Two plus two is for multiplication. All of that makes sense and you can't think of another form, you know, you can't think of another principle like subtraction, addition, multiplication. How does this tie back to the new ontology thing? Okay, so what I'm trying to say is that even though we can think of there being more math, greater math, it's not going to change what we currently know. So if we think about how could something be, we already have the tools within us to know that it's either A has to always be or B, it had a creation point before it. Those are the only two explanations. You know this, Tiju, I'm not pretending to be. No, no, so science, here's what we know about science. There's only two explanation for how something is. It either always was or something caused it. Do you not agree? So here's the stuff we know about science. We don't need any more knowledge to understand that this is always going to be missing the point here. So you're missing the fucking point. You're literally missing the point. Tiju, answer the question. Does something either always have to be or have a cause? Is there another third explanation? What is the third explanation? I explained that before. So circular causation doesn't make any sense. See logical. You don't even believe in circular causation. Stop bringing up irrelevant bullshit. It doesn't mean nothing. There's science right here. You're honestly like just not that smart. Little tiny dot. You make up a supernatural. Here you go again. Right, right. Totally going in a separate direction. You're super because you know, you only have two options. The question was about how does supernatural positive new ontology? You posit a new ontology of supernatural. I posit a new ontology of uberduber super materialistic. Yes. Why does your made up ontology have some magic power that my made up ontology because yours would by definition be believing in God or the supernatural. Dude, let me answer your fucking question. Your premise doesn't make sense because when you say a superduper natural explanation, you're no longer being scientific and you're now making up a religion. No, my definition. Yes, when you say it's superduper and unnatural or supernatural, it's no longer scientific by definition. No, no, it's still. Yes, yes, yes. You fucking dumbass. Yes, yes, yes. I don't know everything. Same more stuff exists that we don't know is not unsigned. I said earlier, you wish you were in the same room as me and you'd slap me upside the head. Oh, yeah. We are and with that I am pushing you both aside. We are moving forward though. The spice is coming from the super chat. Logical plausible probable for $2 says, has T-Jump lost his mind? Let's discuss in an after show. That is right. We will always support all after shows on here. So feel free to check out logical probable as I have to show right after the debate. And all right, keep on going. The legend ribs. And I look down. So I'm gonna, he sent in another super chat for explanation, which was DBRCT means double blind placebo randomized control. So with that, I'm gonna go back up and he asked another question for $5 that says DBPRCT needs to be a model of parenting versus non-parenting in children after birth. That would prove humans could survive without parenting. What? Okay. Double blind controlled trials are ways to verify a hypothesis. Okay. Another $5 super chat from Franco. The lack of answer on our part doesn't mean no answer. So jumping to a supernatural explanation seems unfounded. It's the only other explanation. It literally is. I mean, this is something that a 13 year old can grasp quite easily. The universe came to be in a very mechanistic type of way, the same signs that can be applied to why there is plant life or anything like this can be applied to the origins of the universe. Or there's some magical entity that's beyond science called God. I can even be little my position and it's still basically is the only other option. Either there is a pure, raw, hard scientific explanation for why there is anything or God did it. Those are the only two explanations. We could break down God and say, okay, it's a watered down Christian version or it's a sexed up type of deist position. Or we could, whatever, it comes down to that. T-Jump, like he's confused. What are you talking about? There's so many different positions. No, basically it's science or God did it. Really, that's what it comes down to. I'm gonna tell all the philosophers because they all say you're wrong. Every literally every single one. No, they actually say that I'm right, but they'll say that there can be a mixing of the two. What, T-Jump, give me a third explanation that isn't a mixing of the two. One God could exist and he did it in a scientific manner? Mixing of the two. Mixing of the two. That's what I believe in. One God exists and he did it in a scientific manner. That's literally what I believe. There's only two possibilities, that God did it or science did it. One. Yes, please give me a third. There are Christians who believe in science, so they're the same, so there's not. No, no, no, no. Both. The same time. Would they say that God requires a scientific explanation for how he was created? They would say no, he's beyond science because literally how could that make sense? God would just be an alien if there could be a scientific explanation for how he exists. He wouldn't actually be God, the creator of all because there would be something before him that created him, therefore destroying the definition of what God actually is. No, no, Christians agree with me that God's a necessary being and so it's easy to understand his explanation is his nature. Like, that's the thing. Why do you have to be so difficult? Christians don't believe there's a scientific explanation for how God came to be. You know this, stop shaking your head like you're spas-free tart. Just be a normal human being and agree to something that we both know is true. Christians do not believe there is a scientific explanation for how God came to be. They believe God uses science to create the universe. You fucking idiot. Oh, dumb. No, you're absolutely dumb. If any Christian would believe it would agree. You have a problem with past infinite because you think there is a time zero, there isn't. Infinity is a real thing. Physical qualities exhibit singular behavior becoming infinite at the critical point. That's incorrect. If time is circular, how did the circle get there? We could just ask that question. Let's literally say, okay, time is circular. Everything is happening all at one time. There is no now and before and present, it's all just one. Okay, well, where did the circle of time come from? If time is linear, we can ask the question, where is the beginning point? And if time spirals off into different directions, we could still ask the question of where did it come from and where was its original point of spiraling from? Okay, and we'll never get answers to those because science literally can't answer them because it requires a non-scientific explanation. There has to be something beyond these confines to explain how all of this came to be. A line going in one direction infinitely isn't a fucking circle. Learn basic geometry. Yes, you misunderstand what I'm saying then. Okay, what I'm saying, a line going forward is very different than a circle, absolutely. And in terms of the big bang and cause and effect, I keep going with that linear function. And what I argue is you cannot move infinitely into the past and have the past creating itself because that would mean right now, the universe is creating itself from the beginning moment. The whatever created the thing that created the thing that created the universe, it right now is creating itself into the past, which doesn't make sense. Creating itself, infinite past. Circle one. I can't see what you've written there. I don't know if it's fine. Creating itself is a circle, infinite past is a line. Creating itself is a circle. So where was the beginning point? How did the circle get there? Infinite past is a line. So the person who made a comment was about a line, not a circle, no circle, no circle, no created itself, no circle, that's a circle. Yes, okay, so we don't believe in a circle of time. Correct. So you believe in a linear form of time? Line, yes. Yes, so... Wasn't creating itself, creating itself as a circle. No, but infinite regression into the past is also creating itself. No, literally not. Literally not what it means in any version of physics or philosophy, literally no. When we're talking about the origins of the universe and how there is something instead of nothing, if you're going to say that time exists infinitely into the past, then what that implies is that the origins of the universe is right now making itself up. And even right now, that thing is making itself up. Yes, it is. You do not understand infinite time into the past. You've never thought about it. No, that's linear. That's circle. Dude, okay. We're here in the present moving forward. The past is that way. If what you're saying is that the past always has continual explanations, that means the past has to be moving infinitely into the past, you fucking retard. And so... Maybe do a little bit more thinking about it and your understanding. If you're going to have one more comment, because it was Ronnie's question, we have to let him have the final statement. So if you're not either way, Ronnie, your final statement on the question. God is the only thing that can be beyond science or nature. God is the only thing that can be infinite. Time itself into the past cannot be, we cannot have infinite origin stories for why there is something instead of nothing. And we cannot have something that just always existed without an explanation that's unscientific. God is allowed to be unscientific by definition. Thank you so very much for your answer and for your question, stupid whore energy. And a $5 question from Mr. Monster. Is God outside of the universe or is God made of the universe? I would say that God is beyond our universe. Like, okay, so this is my personal position, right? I try to keep my personal beliefs out of the debate, but I believe we are all part of God. So kind of like a pantheist type of view, but I do believe there is a true God source. So like you could say, you know, my hand is me. My hand is definitely part of Ronnie, but is it as much part of Ronnie as my brain? No. So what I would say is all the physical matter in the universe is part of God, but there is a God source that is more, you know, actually God, like his brain that is beyond this universe. It is the conscious realm or the conscious part of God that we aren't necessarily one with. Other people do believe, you know, other believers think we're all one with God and everything is equal, but to me that doesn't make any sense. How could a picnic bench be as equally part, close to God as a human? How could, you know, a human be one with God? It doesn't make any sense, but I think we are part of him. Thank you so very much. A $2 super chat again from logical, plausible, probable. Is T-Jump in meltdown? Come discuss in after show. Not only that, but I went out and found his link. And so I am sending that link for the after show into the Chateau sphere. So come on and join. But thank you so much LPP for the support. And with that, we are moving forward with $5 super chat from Mr. Monster. Has the telescope disproved Big Bang Theory? Has the new telescope disproved Big Bang Theory specifically? So in here? Nope. Okay, moving forward. Logical, plausible, probable. Oh, the spice is real. Is T-Jump's ego insane? Discuss in after show. Thank you again for all the love, logical, plausible, probable. And the link to your after show is now in the chat if anyone would like to visit. And if you ever wanna host your own after show for one of our debates, feel free. And we will always support you right back. The legend ribs $5. Quantum Fields align more with a possible creator since it is the birth child of Newton and other electromagnetic founders on macro and micro scales. No, Quantum Fields are an actually existing thing. They weren't invented by humans. So no. Thank you so very much for your answer. Moving forward again in all caps. After show will be a dumpster fire. Don't miss it. I'm gonna hand my little dumpster. Thank you so very much, LPP again, sending so much love. And yeah, for the support. And $5 cap and crunch. Rumor has it the butt print on T-Jump's clam chair is deeper than the Mariana Trench. Moving forward, thank you, Captain Crunch. $2. Once again, more billboards, more billboards. Logical plausible probable says open mic after show right after the debate. Don't miss it. It's like now I'm thinking James Jenison, the guy from Spider-Man. We want after shows. Give me pictures of after shows. But sending so much love. Logical plausible probable and yeah. Azira Schizophrenia for MYR for 20 bucks. Sending so much love. Ronnie Cameron in the present time, money is the most important thing. We need to work. We need money to survive. So how can God be more important? Well, I mean, you can pursue wealth and still believe in God, right? So I don't, it's kind of like a false dichotomy. But yeah, I think to say that either one isn't important, you're either missing what's right in front of you or you're missing what's up above. So I think you need to have kind of like a ground floor outlook on life. You know, you got to be able to pay your bills. You got to develop relationships and be a functioning member of society. But if you don't ask the bigger questions, if you don't have a spiritual aspect of yourself, well, you're missing a view from a higher elevated point of consciousness. Thank you so very much for that answer. $5 super chat from a madman with a soapbox. God is a lazy solution to the problem of existence that has done far more harm to the world than good. Is this for me? I will assume so. Yeah, well, I'm not a religious person, but to defend religion, I would say that money and resources have been a much bigger cause of war. I personally believe that many of the rulers throughout the ancient worlds didn't actually even believe in the religions, they just used it as a way to kind of quell or control the masses. And, you know, obviously war can come from that. But yeah, religion certainly is responsible for a lot of wars. But in the last couple of hundred years, I think you'd be really hard-pressed to say that religion has really been at the backbone of wars. It's been mostly economic and political, like social reasons. Thank you so very much, $5 from Anthony T. Jump. Why do you feel the need to threaten someone in the middle of a discussion? Your conduct sucked the life out of what it could have been a great debate. Ooh, the spice is real. He said I wouldn't say it to his face. I said I wouldn't, it wasn't a threat. Saying what would happen. Okay, so it's a good debate cause he's too stupid. This is what happened. He first he threatened me, then I said he wouldn't say it to my face. And then he said, yes, I would. He just tried to say, no, I never threatened him. He just pulled this thing out of his ass thing. Oh, you wouldn't say this to my face. And then I said, yes. No, you literally said I'll slap you or I should slap you and upside the head or something like that. No, you said I wouldn't say it to your face. And I'd say, yes, I would. I'd gladly say it to your face and slap you upside the head. Okay, there you go. So you'd say, you would say the thing to my face and you would slap me upside the head. So yeah, so that's pretty much when the person comment, that's not a threat. No. Okay, I mean, I don't care. I would never call the police idea. You're too cute and adorable to possibly do that too. And plus I don't hit people who wear glasses. But yeah, like you did. And the way you conducted yourself was horrible. It really took away from a lot of the conversation. And trust me, I've had conversations with people who I do know aren't the smartest. But surprisingly, a lot of the times they have something of value to bring to the conversation. So even if you do feel that you're the intellectual superior, the fact that you feel the need to dominate, attack and be so immature, I really don't get it. It's because you were too stupid to actually listen to what I was saying. You say that to everybody though. You say that to Harvard grads. So nobody takes you seriously, Matt. No, you say that to Harvard grads. That's an accusation. So again, Daniel, the Muslim, the white apostate, you literally said that to him. He has more credentials than you. He is a dumbass. He's 100% dumbass. And the reason I called you a dumbass was because you weren't listening to what I was saying and addressing the arguments. I gave you a favor. What I'm trying to say is you call everybody a dumbass. So it means nothing to nobody. You constantly insult people. And it means nothing to nobody. Because you do that to everybody. When you say somebody's a fucking idiot, it means nothing. No, he insults me. I get to respond. He insults me, I get to respond. So the fucking dumbass, there are 700 videos you can clearly see. I don't insult everyone. The only people I insult are the ones who have their head so far up their ass. They won't listen to what I'm saying. I gave you a clear, concise explanation of every one of the arguments. And you had your head so far up your ass, you didn't take the time to listen and address the points I made. You're a dumbass. That's why I called you a dumbass. Hey, $2 Super Chat from Bubblegum Gun, also bringing the spice petition to ban T-Jump from all debate platforms. Can I comment on that? Well, I would say only if... 10 seconds? See, the problem is, is that he would have to have the last word and if he doesn't want to have a word. 10 seconds each. So I think T-Jump used to be a lot better before, I guess maybe he started getting burnt out or bored. And now, if say he's debating somebody who has far less reputation, it's a win-tie scenario. If he beats me, he just ties. If he loses, I mean, that's horrible. He can't actually really win in these debates. So I kind of feel for him. I have to give T-Jump the last statement. It is for you. Well, I don't care. Nothing he said was to be here. Okay, $5 Super Chat. Do you agree that God being able to do things people claim to have witnessed it to do doesn't mean it is capable of creating the whole of existence? Say that one more time. Absolutely. Yeah. Do you agree that God being able to do the things people claim to have witnessed it do doesn't mean it is capable of creating the whole of existence? I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what they're saying here. Okay, because I don't believe in the fairy tales within religious text or whatever Christianity. How is it that I could believe God created the whole universe when I don't believe maybe he took a rib from Adam and gave it to Eve? I think the workings of God are scientific. Like what T-Jump said earlier, if there are plenty of Christians who believe God is scientific, absolutely. But no Christian or myself would say that what comprised God, what made up God has a scientific explanation. We would all say that no, God's origins is literally beyond science. He is the creator of science, essentially is what we would say. So the fairy tales in the Bible, they're not scientific. They don't match up with what I see in the real world. So I don't think God just selected this one little point in time where he was gonna do all this interaction and then for the rest of humanity, he just backed off and said, you know what? That's enough. Just let them figure it out from here. Doesn't make any sense to me. Thank you so very much for that. Moving right along. Five dollars from the legend Rivets. Also thank you, Kwanah Upstate for the last one. The legend Rivets, five dollars, was just reminding us, this is where the double-blind, placebo randomized controlled trial came in. Thank you so very much. As well as a follow up with that for two dollars. Thank you so very much to Rivets for the support. Thank you so very much. Two dollars super chat, Nicky in all casus say, and Amy is awesome. I am sending that love right back to you. It has actually been a fantastic fun debate. So I wanna thank both of our debaters for all of their wonderful arguments and back and forth so far. And thank you, Nicky, for the support. And all right, the Christian metalhead for 10 dollars. What would allow the necessary nature of the universe to actualize other objects into reality rather than just simply be without conscious intent, including the property of our own intelligibility? I might have to read that one more time. It's because it's inside of its nature. It has, quantum fluctuations are a function of its nature and the quantum fluctuations can bring into the universe. And you don't need a choice or a decision to do that. Thank you so very much for that. Answer another 10 dollar super chat from Sunflower. T-Jump, when we discover what appeared to be cave drawings in places we previously thought impossible, why do we rearrange the anthropological record to account for how people made them? Could have been rocks. Because cave drawings, there's no natural process that produces cave drawings. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the, if you come across a watch on the beach, surely a man created it. Therefore the universe was created by the God. I mean, that's a huge stretch, right? It's taking something that we already know is created by man. So right away that the whole analogy is kind of poisoned. So yeah, I just, I don't even really like that form of argumentation. I'd probably be with T-Jump on that. Irony, so much, so much juicy irony. Well, here's the thing. The fine tuning we never even really got into. I try to just keep this as the debate is simple. By irony, I meant that what you just said is pretty much what I said about your first argument. I know, T-Jump. Again, you say something, I begin to talk and you just assume that you've talked over me and it's really funny. It's just hilarious at this point. Because I was literally just about to address that we didn't get into the whole fine tuning thing because obviously you're gonna say that, you know, I'm saying the universe must be created by this thing, I'm invoking, whatever. You know exactly where you're going with this. I know where you're going with this. I wasn't talking about the fine tuning. I was talking about the argument you made about the cosmological argument coming to an existence. I was saying the argument you just made about the fine tuning argument is the same argument I made against your cosmological argument. And I do wanna just say that if you have chance now, this is the last time to get in a super chat. So I will read all of them, but because we value our interlocutor's time, we want to also let them have a fantastic night and thank them for being here. So get them in now, but we do wanna keep on sending love out there to everyone on the interwebs, having a good time with us. $2 super chat from counterintuitive Ronnie, how is that not a God of the gaps argument? Well, I would argue it is a bit of a God of the gaps argument, but I don't necessarily think that makes it a bad argument. I think the wisest people throughout time kind of looked at God this way, you know? All the scientists, I guess, pre-industrial revolution, Renaissance era, they all believed in God, yet they were all scientific thinking people. And so they would get to a certain point and they would say, okay, you know what? I think maybe this is where God comes into play. And then we push our understanding of the universe back a little bit and we think we're at an origin point. So we say, okay, we think this is where God came into play and then we keep pushing it further back. And it's very similar to what the atheist does or the scientists say, okay, well, we now believe in the Big Bang. What created the Big Bang? We don't know, now we have a quantum field. What created the quantum field? We don't know, maybe we will. So it's a God of the gaps either way. Basically, we're stuck with the same question that we've been dealing with since Plato and Aristotle. Why is there something instead of nothing? And I think all cultures throughout the world have asked this question and the only satisfying answer is there is a God. Otherwise all cultures wouldn't have believed in God. There is nothing else that can satisfy it. So in philosophy, a God of the gaps is more formally known as an argument from ignorance fallacy. You probably don't wanna say it's a good argument. Listen, just because I can concede some ground and I understand where the other side is coming from, like, okay, that's a bit of a God of a gaps argument. Yes, but you don't really do that with your arguments. You don't like to be an honest, good faith debater. So even when there's a point where you probably should see out, okay, I got you, or I understand what you're saying, that is a bit of a problem. Nonetheless, you just right away try to make it seem like your opponent is a complete idiot for even suggesting something. That squinty face you do right there, that's your go-to thing. It's- If you're an idiot, like- Well, no, you just never like to be, I guess- Check my conversation with- And good faith or- Greta Rausser. At least late, no, because in the past, you were like that, but something happened and yeah, you're just a different- Check my conversation yesterday with Tobias Singer. I'm like that too with non-morons. Like, you're like that too with non-morons, so that you're just saying that's just how you are. No, no, no, I'm like what you mentioned, like before when I was nice and kind to smart people, I'm still like that with people who aren't morons. Like, check my conversations like yesterday. Okay, people who, all right, yeah, sure. Non-morons. $5 Super Chat from Franco isn't posing the supernatural God explanation as an origin that needs no explanation, special pleading. No, because it's all about staying consistent with your belief system. So if we take a look at, say, all the Muslims out there, all the Christians out there, we understand that they believe in God. So we wouldn't really be so confused if they say, well, God punishes and rewards people. We wouldn't be like, what are you talking about? God punishes and rewards people? We understand that this is basically following the premise of their belief system. If there is a God, he would most likely punish and reward people. That's basically where they're coming from. So what I'm saying is that if there is a God, we have an explanation for the universe. It makes sense why God would create the universe. Without a God, we don't have a how, we don't have a why. So even though I can't prove that God did it, by process of elimination, if science can't, it must be God. That's special pleading. Well, I don't really care what it is. It's still staying consistent. You would have to say that, again, like we're talking about believing in God here, right? Somebody believes in something that can't be proven. Special pleading, by definition. And they believe that thing is supernatural. So it's not a stretch to believe that there is going to be that type of supernatural response in their explanation. But the thing is science can't use a supernatural explanation. So it's not like, hey, I'm allowing person A to punch person B in the face, but person B can't punch it person A in the face. No, no, no, no, no. That's not what I'm doing at all. If I'm keeping each. No, see, that's the problem because you. So it seems like you're saying natural scientific, nothing in the natural scientific world can explain the origin of everything, but the supernatural can't. Therefore the supernatural must be the only explanation. That's special pleading. So it's simply saying because you assume this person can't do it, which you haven't proven. Therefore the other person can do it. That's actually our ignorance. But no, no, because you have to think of the framework. Science by definition can't use a supernatural explanation. Do you agree? No. Science can use a supernatural explanation. See, this is what I mean with your obtuse. It's just be fucking real and answer a thing. We both agree that science can't use a supernatural explanation. Yes or no. Literally, there are papers about science, scientific papers about man. I don't want to even know one. I don't know one because it's impossible to find a middle ground and point where you could even agree on it. No, you're actually just that annoying. No one in science says you can't use supernatural expression. No one in science. No one ever. Are you fucking retarded? Five dollars, super chat. Unless they believe in God, that's the only way. While being scientific, you can't use a supernatural explanation while being scientific. Who believe in a supernatural? Somebody in the chat, please provide a source. Email us a link in which a scientist uses a supernatural explanation and who isn't religion. It's an atheist using a supernatural explanation. You find it to me and I'll admit T jump is right. But we all know that's bullshit. We all know T jump is capable of saying the most retarded possible. Sarkiris. It's it's absolutely. So I Google Sarkiris on my YouTube channel. He's an atheist who believes in the supernatural. Yeah, and probably some outlier. Like psych psychology journals. You want an example? I gave you an academic journal. Psychology journals on. Yeah, he's probably some sort of deist. And he describes himself as an atheist because I describe myself as an atheist. So there are many atheists who believe in the supernatural and wear glasses. Yes, spirits and ghosts and but no God and no God. Yes, this is very, very common. How are you so dumb? How are you so ignorant of basic human knowledge? It wouldn't be supernatural. Then it would just be a science that we haven't discovered yet. Supernatural means beyond natural. That's all it means. There can be stuff beyond. So then there has to be an explanation for it. Oh, my God. If there's no explanation for it, then it's it's it's within some sort of other spiritual realm. What realm would it be in? If you wear glasses, you can call it supernatural. But if it has an explanation, it's not supernatural. It's not anything that has an explanation. It's supernatural. Where in the definition of supernatural? Let's look it up. Let's look it up. And while you are looking it up, I am going to five dollars. If you wear glasses and look like a soyjack, you're probably just going to blindly believe whatever an authority figure tells you. Supernatural, the manifestation or attribute of some force beyond scientific understanding. Yes, you fucking idiot. Where does it say has no cause? Well, beyond science. It's literally beyond science. The supernatural is beyond science. So therefore, a scientist can't use the supernatural. You fucking idiot. You just proved yourself so goddamn wrong. You're so fucking dumb. Science is a method. I love it. That was great. Can you just repeat that definition again so that I can hear it? Supernatural, a manifestation of or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding of the laws of physics. Scientific understanding is the current amount that we currently know, which means gravity. Five hundred years ago was beyond scientific understanding. But it wouldn't be supernatural. It's just right on science. Right. So you're sorry. Beyond their understanding of science at the time. So what I'm arguing is that something that really can't be explained by science is supernatural. And what is supernatural? Definition in the definition. I just read what it says beyond scientific understanding. Listen, OK. Me, what does it mean? Webster's dictionary, the meaning of the supernatural is of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible, observable universe, especially of or relating to God. Sure. So especially or means it can be something else. Here you are being so obtuse, trying to say, what are you talking about? Supernatural has nothing to do with God. Do you have any idea how many scientists and atheists use supernatural explanations? Especially mean, especially means it's like possible. Sometime. No, it doesn't mean possible. It's especially, especially. Especially means not like like it's not every is the office. Especially means like like specifically pertaining to or I don't even I don't want to get. Not every dude. This is where obtuseness gets you. It gets you down a realm where you're searching up definitions of supernatural. I try to make it easy. Supernatural beyond science. Anything that has a scientific explanation is the study of nature. Natural laws. Anything that we can measure and determine the huge. Skip the first definition of a relating to orders of existence beyond the visible, observable universe. I said that. No. And then it says of or relating to God. I said both definitions. You are a selective listener. You're a fucking fool. So supernatural applies to a lot of things. But I have a lot of fun. I have a lot of fun. And it's stupid that you don't know the supernatural things other than God. Two dollars, super chat. A God, demigod spirit or devil. A spirit can exist without a God. Yeah. Oh, God. That's what I said. Oh, God, it's all in the spiritual realm. It's all within this realm of God. You can call it a spirit. You call it an angel. You call it whatever. I'm trying to break it down into science, natural. What we all understand is so you're just so you're just so obtuse. A dollar, super chat from the legend. Rives, we keep on. Thank you for all the support and love you gave us. We send it right back. Spicy is tea jump. Ro Ragan. What? Ro Ragan? That's what it appears to be. We're going to keep on moving forward. Five dollars from Robert Summers. And it looks like these are going to be the last few questions. Looks. Ronnie, why do you get to say what this God is or isn't and that it is beyond human understanding? Well, I don't define God in terms of exactly what he is, but I can define God in terms of what he isn't. God certainly isn't, you know, a snail under some dirt that created the universe. It just doesn't make sense because we get asked a question, where did the snail come from? So clearly we can start to use that type of thinking to rule out what God could be. He's not an eagle. He's not this. It has to be something far beyond that. Now, why do I get to use a supernatural explanation? I've already explained that. Anybody who believes in God, a Muslim who I disagree with Islam, they are allowed to use supernatural explanations while being consistent. It's whether or not they can argue and defend their positions. I'm not just going to say, oh, that's supernatural. You're therefore wrong. I would hear them out. And then I would attack them in whichever way I could. So like the story of Adam and Eve, the story of Noah's Ark, the parting of the seas, there's a lot of things there that I can attack. But I wouldn't be like, oh, you know, you're not allowed to use these supernatural explanations. In fact, they are. A scientist isn't allowed to use supernatural explanations. So if a scientist says to me, well, you know, how do we know that a giant squirrel just didn't poop out the universe? I would say to him, come on. You don't believe that because you're a scientific reasoning individual. So don't give me these types of obtuse answers. Just be real with what you think actually happened or what is possible to be able to happen. So yeah, scientists can't use ridiculous answers. Like we don't know what it could just be anything, blah, blah, blah. They're stuck with having to be able to explain it scientifically. Most atheists and diagnostics believe in supernatural powers and that there are forces of good and evil, even though they do not believe in a God. New study finds. OK, so we're in the realm of semantics. So I will define supernatural as being of God or pertaining to a godly realm. If you define supernatural as being, say, UFOs or a lot of people would say Bigfoot is supernatural. No, those things aren't supernatural. No one says those are supernatural. Well, supernatural is a force outside of the natural universe. That's what it means beyond supernatural nature. Beyond the natural. And you have the last because it was your question. You have the last word. Yeah, I would say that anything that is beyond the universe and not just part of another dimension or part of another multiverse. I'm saying something that is literally beyond scientific testing. We can't get to it. It's like a person in a video game trying to explore our universe. It's in this digital realm. It literally can't get out here. It's in this totally different thing. That's what I define as the supernatural because if we do find something that's in, say, a different realm, like even stranger things, that wouldn't be supernatural because it could all be explained scientifically. Nowhere in stranger things do they say there's God or heaven or hell. It's all just, you know, a different dimension, which obviously would have its own scientific principles and all of that. So at some point we would no longer call it supernatural. It would now be called natural. True supernatural is beyond nature. Not just our current understanding of it, but eternally beyond nature. So when he describes, you know, gravity used to be this supernatural force. No, it was just a natural force that was beyond our current understanding. Supernatural would be something like an angel, something like God is something that is just beyond any sort of scientific rationale. Yeah, like the Elysian field. Can you explain that? It's the place where people go when they die in different religions that have no gods. Like there's fields that are there, like Buddhism has no God. There's just a field of consciousness that's there outside of the physical world is supernatural. There are supernatural hypotheses. No gods. It's very, very simple. I think Buddhism does have a problem with the explaining origins and getting into the real nitty gritty. People believe in supernatural things that don't include God that are outside of the natural completely. Yeah, but I think even Buddhists would, when you press them, they do believe in some sort of God force. They just define God differently. He's not a person. He's more of a force. And that's actually how I view God. God is necessarily a person pulling levers. God is more of like a force. And Buddhists do believe in a spiritual type of force, which could be called God. It's just semantics at that point. If it's not conscious, it's not God. No, not necessarily true. It could be a God force. It could be more like a program, which it doesn't necessarily have its own sense of itself. And then $5, this is going to be... Look at that face. Like, how is it different from doing that, man? It's not good for you. It's not good for anybody. How is that different from a quantum field? What is the difference between what you just said and quantum field? Because the quantum field would have no intentions, a spiritual force, which is kind of like angelic in nature, which has some sort of will. It doesn't necessarily have to be conscious of itself or aware of itself. You can have intentions without intelligence? Let's not get it twisted. I do believe that God is conscious of itself. But I can stretch the definition of God, and most people can, to the point where Buddhists do believe in a God force. And I've talked to many Buddhists who believe... How can a force have intentions if it's not conscious? Do it have intentions. You have to be conscious. No, it could be consciousness, but not a... Okay, so you know how philosophers talk about what it's like to be love instead of to love or to be the admirer of love? Like, to actually be love itself is to be beyond the loved or the person loving. If you haven't heard this, well, I mean, that's a thing in philosophy. Love doesn't have intentions. And then last statement, because it was you, Ronnie, your question. So if you would like to... Oh, a question for me? Oh, no, no, no. Last statement if you want to have a period on there. Oh, I kind of lost sight of the original. That's okay. And I will say, we have these two from Stupid Horror Energy and a last one from the Christian Metalhead, and then that is going to be it, folks. So if you send one in, we appreciate the support. But, like I was saying, we have just enjoyed our interlocutor's time. $5 from Stupid Horror Energy. Hey, Ronnie. I asked basic cosmological questions that you couldn't answer. Pick another hobby. Oh, spicy. Okay, well, I mean, I never... I don't know what cosmological question you could have asked. Like, somebody right now could ask me, what is the exact rate that the universe is expanding? Define specifically the strong and weak forces. It doesn't matter. I don't need to know those things, right? So people use these tactics where they're more knowledgeable in a certain field or a certain area of study, and they use all this jargon to try to trip you up. But what we're talking about is actually quite simple. How does something come from nothing? Or how does something just always exist? Do we have eternal infinite answers into the past that resort to an infinite system or an infinite series of the same thing? They just created that. That created this. It just never stops. No, that doesn't make sense. There has to be an original point. So that's really all we're debating here. Did God create the universe or did the universe just spring into existence? We did kind of push over some fine-tuning aspects. We didn't talk about math or consciousness, really. But yeah, maybe at the end, towards the end, I don't know if I can ask T.J. a question. Why do you think math exists? Or how do you think math exists? What is a language invented by humans to describe the fundamental nature of reality? Math was never invented. It was discovered. No, it wasn't. Yes. A language of math. Not the language. Math itself. There is no math itself. Math is, if you just go to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, classical logic, first sentence, math and logic are formal languages with a system of semantics. Everyone knows this. Doesn't matter. Back in, say, caveman days, if you have one apple and then you take another apple, do you have two apples? Yes. And that would be true even if no one was there to understand that, correct? Yes. OK, so math exists regardless of our ability to identify it. So if I said dinosaurs existed before humans, is that sentence true? Don't pivot. Well, I mean, I just want to agree, like for us to agree with something without it being so conflictive so we can move on to the juicier parts. So if I say to you, do you think math was discovered or invented? You say, no, it was invented. Then I basically proved how it was discovered. Now you're just pivoting on to a different point. You depreciate the idea that math was discovered. It was never invented by humans. So my question right there is an alien race that uses the same add that we have, even music. You don't invent this to discover the skills. So the reason I asked that question was because it disproves everything you just said. It says, like, your argument was that because math is true before we discovered it, therefore math must not be invented. But guess what? English sentences like the sentence dinosaurs existed before humans, that sentence was true. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. The sentence dinosaurs existed before humans is true even before humans existed to discover that sentence, right? The sentence didn't exist until the 17th century. Man, you're so boring to listen to sometimes. How are you? I'm trying to explain this to you. I don't care about this stupid. You're doing a Vosh argument right now. Well, technically water doesn't even really, we don't even know what water is because in Mexico they call it agua. That's essentially what you're doing. Dude, two dinosaurs were two dinosaurs regardless if there was anybody there. What silly point are you trying to prove that you think I don't understand? The fact that we made up the numbers one in one in the 16th century. You're looking so far below everybody right now. It's annoying. We all know humans make up numbers. We all know people make up languages. What we're arguing is whether or not math existed before we invented a language for it. And the answer is yes. So just shut the fuck up and agree. No, you fucking moron. The fact that we make up sentence because you cannot agree on anything. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. You cannot agree on anything. Language of math was invented just like the language of absolute child. And we can use those to describe facts of reality. And the facts of reality are true. The math is a language to describe those things. You're a dumbass. Stanford is like a pedophilosophie. We are logical logic. Mary first. I'm down to finish the questions, Amy, but I don't want to kiss with this camera. And there's only two. Well, I just want to say I send love to both our interlocutors. There's only two more left. I will let you have a period if you don't have a question mark on it. If you want a period on that, did he, I can't tell if he froze or left while he was making a statement. Do you see that? Well, that's okay. We're going to send love to Ronnie Cameron who is in the description below. I will say there's only $5 from Stupid Horror Energy Boundary L in a paper lays out how a theist can have a successful, supernatural hypothesis. Thank you so very much. More spice from Stupid Horror Energy sending so much love. She gives love to us. We give it love back. But this is the last question of the night, folks. And it's going to be a 1.5 because I want him to feel like he's getting his money's worth. He's bringing the spice from the Christian metalhead. Says T. Jump owes me $10 unsatisfactory answer and we'll even go back for $10 from the Christian metalhead. He asked what would allow the necessary nature of the universe to actualize other objects into reality rather than just simply be without conscious intent including the property of our intelligence. I remember the question. So I gave a formal answer. The answer I gave was Graham Oppie's answer, a professional academic philosopher this is agreed upon by all of the theists. It's like, yes. Oh, that's a possible answer where the quantum fluctuations in its nature can create these things. Its nature without a consciousness can cause a shift in reality to produce new stuff just like God's sky daddy can. In fact, it's more plausible than God's sky daddy making the decision because we have no evidence decisions can exist as a fundamental part of a nature. We do know that quantum fluctuations can. So this is a formal answer by academic professional philosophers. You're done. I actually had a question on my inform but some dog million are super chetted. Is God all good? If God is good but also allows evil then wouldn't a non-motivated eternal being be more likely to allow evil than an all good God? And that makes sense. But he's, he bailed. So I can't, you can't answer the question now. That is okay. I do want to thank both of our debaters. In fact, do, do, do, do. I would like to thank all of you out there for joining us on modern day debate. We are a neutral platform welcoming everybody from all walks of life. Please, don't forget to like, follow, and subscribe if you enjoyed Ten Night's Debate on Did God? Create the Universe with our debaters T-Jump and Ronnie Cameron here to help us find that answer plus if you like what any of our guests had to say tonight. All of their links are in the description below plus if you're looking for even more fun after the show feel free to check out our MDD Discord plus there's an after-show more love out there to LPP and with that I am Amy Newman with modern day debate. We hope you continue having great conversations, discussions, and debates. Goodnight! Muah!