 Ladies and gentlemen, we have another interesting debate tonight that is going to prove to be epic. Tonight, we're going to have Darth Dawkins and Mark Drysdale. We're talking about Christianity versus atheism. If this is your first time tonight to our channel, we just want to say this is a bipartisan platform that we are a nonpartisan platform even, that we like to give everybody a fair and equal footing and even playing ground to come on and discuss their views. If you haven't already, like the video and subscribe if you're new to the channel. And if by chance you come on and you're like, hey, I really like these guys. Their links are in the description, what links we have for them. And I know Darth's discord is in the description if you want to check that out. And then what we're going to basically do is we're going to start with two to five minute openings and then we're going to do an open discussion followed by Q&A. If you want to submit a question, just tag me at Converse Contender and I'll answer your question or I'll ask your question. And then you can send a super chat in that'll push your question to the top of the list. Now let's keep it to a, let's keep it professional, right? Let's keep it to the topic and let's keep it away from the personal attacks. I know there's going to be a lot of room for that tonight and just try to keep it clean in the live chat. Make everybody feel welcome here tonight. All right. So with that, I just want to introduce the debaters tonight, Mark Drysdale is the atheist tonight. You want to go ahead and introduce yourself and say a little bit about yourself? Yes, hello, it's it. Like we're saying it's Mark Drysdale. I know my little picture there is coming up with Tammy Drysdale. That's my wife. I guess I logged in under her account tonight. But basically my job is looking after lions and tigers. I train lions and tigers for the movie industries. And also because I love them. And I'm here tonight to basically argue that to me, there is no God and there's really no need for there to be a God. And I know that's quite the statement to make at the beginning of a debate, but that's my position. There's really no room or reason for God. That's who I am. All right. Thanks so much for that, Mark. Now get over to Darth. Darth, you want to tell us a little bit about yourself and any statements you might have before we get started? Well, probably most of your audience are familiar with me from previous debates on YouTube and on Discord. I'm just a Bible-believing Christian. I debate against all other worldviews. I defend the Christian worldview and I especially debate against atheism. That's basically it. Other than that, I wanted just to make a comment, which I think needed to be addressed. There's been an increase of slanderous and defamatory statements being repeated by the atheist community on Discord and some on YouTube. This needs to stop. These false rumors are slander, their defamation. And in some cases, their appearing in print are libel. And these are not true. And people who are hearing this need to understand that this is the internet. And most of these rumors are coming from only a small number of people who know that they're just making it up and this just needs to stop. Other than that, that's all I have to say. All right. Thanks so much for that. Again, anybody that's got a question, you can throw it in the old live chat. And I'll check. I'll be watching it. So I'll ask your question. Just try to keep professional and just want to say thanks for being here. And if you need anything from me, let me know. And let's get started with Dart. Do you want to give it like maybe a two to five minute opening? Just let kick us off. No, I just take the basic position that historic Christianity is true. That God, the God of the Bible, the Triune God has revealed himself in through the entirety of scripture, not just based on some facts, but all facts. In addition to that, he has revealed himself to the course of human history through various individuals, and he has secured this interaction through his sovereign inspiration of the Christian scriptures. And so those two combined indicate to us that God exists. Now, the denial thereof is going to be an implicit counterclaim, which will have to be defended. One cannot take a neutral position toward God. One cannot even take a neutral position toward the God of Christianity. If you do not accept it, it is an implicit denial, which must be defended. And that's it. All right, we'll kick it over to you, Mark. You want to start with your opening? Yeah, I understand what he's saying. But one thing that I did want to weigh in on is if anyone out there understands libel and slander, it's me and it is true. People will just make things up. They will post it on the Internet and then somebody will repeat what they say and that will back up their truth and it'll make it real. So I do understand what he's saying. These debates don't need to be done in hate. And people like myself, Darth, Tenthoven, all the people that get involved in these types of debates, we don't do this to bring trouble on ourselves. We honestly do it because we're looking for we're looking for honesty, we're looking for answers, we're looking to listen to the other side and, you know, see if one day somebody can make you believe something slightly different than what you believe. It's human interaction and it's the human condition and this is what we do. And this is how we learn is by talking to each other. So what I heard him say there at the beginning, I completely understand. And there's really no room for it. And the setting of these debates that we put ourselves through is to start up the hate, start up the slander. So yeah, I just wanted to weigh in on that. And like I said at the beginning, I pretty much summed up my view. I just it's not that I don't accept God. I don't accept any gods. I don't have any belief that there is a God or there'd be a reason for a God. Or it just it makes no sense to me. And I find it very hard to shoe God into reality, shoehorn God into reality. I don't find it the other way around that it's hard to get God out of reality. I find it very hard to find room for a God of any kind in reality. And I, you know, I would just like to add, we've been through tens of thousands of gods and one by one, we have struck them down. As we start to understand, like I've said before, once we start to understand lightning, once we start to understand what tornadoes are, hurricanes, floods, we've one by one, we have struck in those gods down. And in time, those gods become almost laughable, you know, when we make cartoons about them, you know, Thor and, you know, all these other gods of the past and it becomes laughable in time. And I honestly believe that as Christianity moves on, I just I see it over time becoming completely irrelevant just due to what we learn in the future and where I think we'll go. I think the last few holes that we fit gods into are going to get closed up pretty quickly now. All right, thanks so much for that. If you want, we'll just jump straight into the open discussion and you guys can show your ideas. You want to start that off, Darth? Yeah, well, Mark, is your atheism the denial that there is no ultimate eternal creator God or do you define your atheism as merely autobiographical that you lack a positive belief that there is a eternal creator God? Well, no, like I said, I I don't accept there to be a God at all. I don't even like calling myself an atheism because to to be, you know, atheism is is theism. I'm bringing myself into an arena that I do not believe exists. And I know I do these debates a lot and I do bring myself into this arena. But even the word atheism has the the understanding that we're going to talk about theism that we're going to talk about a God. And like I said, no, I don't believe that there is a God at all or room for a God. And I grew up with no God's God's. Gods to me were were something that I like I've said before. I just seen them Sunday afternoons on TV, wondered what that was all about. Like I was not brought up in a religious family. And again, being from Canada, we're not what I would call a religious country. Depending on where about you live in this country, it's not it's not pushed on you. It's not pushed on you in school. So no, I just I really don't accept it just like the the millions of other things out there that I don't accept as being real, that you could make any of them up today, you could come up with a lollipop God. And no, I don't believe in that either. So, you know, none of them make any sense to me. And I don't accept them in in any form or yeah, that's pretty much sums it up for me. One second, Darth. Mark, people are saying that you're a little loud. Are you able to turn down your mic just a little bit? Yeah, yeah, no problem. Go ahead, Darth. OK, it seems to me that you're representing your position as a kind of lack theism rather than there is no God. OK, am I clear in understanding your point that you merely withhold positive belief because you're unconvinced that you're in some type of a neutral position? No, I wouldn't say that I'm in a neutral position. I have no I have no understanding of a God whatsoever. I see no spot for a God. I like I said at the beginning, I find that putting a God into things really adds a layer of confusion that is just not needed. Like I would ask back to you, where is the need for this God for things to exist the way they exist today and for our reality to look the way it looks today? Where does this God fit? OK, so that's a good question. Why is there a need for a God? So what we have here is a contrast between two worldviews. We have the God worldview and the not God worldview. The need of the God worldview is God is well, first of all, we need to define what we mean by God. God is that which is eternal, absolute, unchanging in terms of this essential problem properties. And he is the creator and instituter and sustainer of everything that's possible and impossible. So what we have here is called the creator, creature or the creator creation distinction where God is what is identified as being what is fundamental and ultimate, dictating why anything is, can be or cannot be. Now, the reason why there's a need for a God, I don't mean psychologically, but that without God existing and his self-disclosure of his existing, then there's not going to be any metaphysical background information to place and interpret facts. Facts would just putatively exist in a metaphysical environment of a complete mystery. So you wouldn't be able to know why anything is, cannot be or can be. On the other side, when you say there's no God, I'm taking it unless you want to correct me that your position is no ultimate creator, God exists. And do you actually have an argument that what is ultimate and fundamental in reality that is the basis of all possibility is not a personal agent rather than what is fundamental, ultimate is impersonal. Do you have a rationale for what is fundamental, is impersonal? Well, no, like I'm saying to you, I don't. So I would ask you this, so I would take this back even further. I understand what you're saying there. You're saying that nothing can be and there can be no, like I've heard this argument before, that you cannot have intelligence, God is all knowing, he puts his knowledge upon us. But what happens when we go back, say, five, six, seven, eight thousand years ago? Like we know that man has been around now for what, a quarter of a million years. God only showed up on the scene how long ago, six thousand years ago, according to the Bible. Did we have no understanding? Did we have no guidance? Did we have no way forward? Were we just out bumbling around in the forest, completely lost? Because we didn't have any of the revelations from God? Like, you know, man existed before the Bible. How did we get back then? And I don't think I answered your question, but to be honest with you, I didn't really understand what you're asking there. I, your mic, too, is to me very low. I don't know if anyone else is finding your mic is low. We're we're hearing from the I'm hearing from the comment section that Darth is low and that you're still too high, Mark. Oh, I'm too high. I actually turned mine up. Sorry. So if we can take a second here, why don't we all adjust our microphones? I will go first. So I am too loud. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, you're too loud. Come on, come on down. OK, how about there? I'm sorry. How's that there? I'm sorry. I thought I was told that I was too low. Sorry. Yeah. OK, so OK, I go down a bit. OK, let me do that. Let's get these mics right so we don't so we don't have people screaming. How's that there? That's better. Darth, can you come up in that good? Yeah, that's better. That's about it. I can't get any louder. You're fine. All right, go ahead. OK, so, so, Mark. Is it that you do not accept that there is anything at all that is fundamental and ultimate, dictating what's possible and impossible? Or is it that you what you do believe is fundamental and ultimate to all possibility is not a personal being or an agent? No, it's not a personal being or an agent. No, that's what I'm saying. There to me, there is no God. There is no personal connection to a God. Pardon me. How did you do? How did you determine what is fundamental and ultimate is not a personal entity? Because it was never introduced to me like I like most people say, God is introduced to people. If you were to take a thousand people and put them on an island as children with no guidance whatsoever, chances are they would go through. Well, not chances are it's a for sure. They would go through the exact same thing that man has gone through. They would create God's for everything that they don't understand. So, you know, you're putting a lot of philosophy behind this. But, you know, down to the core, I've asked you, where does God come in? And what is his purpose? You know, I understand what you're saying and you want to get into this philosophy, you know, a way of asking me questions. But I've asked you, where does this God exist and why do we need him? Why do we need there to be any God? Let's say it's not even the God of the Bible. Let's just say any God. Why would we need it? OK, so I'll be glad to answer that, but I just want to point out that you did not answer my question, OK, how there is no God. All you've given was an explanation of how you believe people using faulty reasoning came to believe in God. OK, that is the that is the genetic fallacy that because people use improper incorrect reasoning to reach a conclusion, therefore, the conclusion is false. So what you have just said is a fallacy. All right, you understand that? I think I heard you. I think I'm hearing you better now, but I got to get really close to my computer. I'm honestly catching every other word. But yes, yes, I do believe that I I look like you said, God was never introduced to me and I have no feelings of a God. Um, and I have no understanding of why we would need a God because everything, OK. But what you've said so far, the fact that people have used faulty reasoning to come to the conclusion that there's a God, it doesn't necessitate the conclusion that there's no God, that's a genetic fallacy that you've committed. Well, no, not really. Like you can claim that there is anything. And and and then put put a a title to it and say that it's faulty reasoning to come up with that there is or is not a God. Again, I will I ask you to go back even further than that. Go right back to the basics of where did this God come from? When did it come on the scene? And how did we get by before? Are you a believer in in Adam and Eve and the whole six thousand year old year ago, Genesis creation? Is that, you know, is that your belief? Yes, I am. But we're we're getting a little bit off topic here. I mean, well, no, I got to know where you're coming from. I would have to know where you're coming from. I'm a young creationist. OK. OK. And you know, Kai Nielsen, the famous atheist author. OK, he's an atheist. He's on your side. All right. He wrote the Encyclopedia Britannica article for atheism. OK. He stated that all of the reasons for God may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. The fact that people in your view incorrectly came to the conclusion that there's a God, it doesn't follow from that, that what is fundamental and ultimate is not personal. Now, do you know what is fundamental and ultimate and that it is not personal? Do you know what that is? No. No. If you don't know, I don't. OK, if you don't know, what are you asking me here? I'm trying to hear. I I'm really having troubles hearing you. Did you say, do I know what is fundamental and personal? Is that what you just asked? No, I said, do you know what is fundamental and ultimate that dictates what's possible and impossible? Do you know what that is? No, it is fundamental and dictates what is possible and impossible. No, I don't know what you're asking me. Well, then, if you don't know what is fundamental and ultimate, how do you know what is fundamental and ultimate is not personal? How do you know that? How do I know that? This this sounds like, you know, side 10, I used to hear him do this cycle babble. And again, you know, your question, it really is, though, it really is, because what you're doing is you're going into these philosophies that, you know, it has to be this way or it doesn't exist or it does exist. That that's really not what it comes down to. You have got to come up with a better reasoning as to why there's a God than the way that our human mind works. Our human mind is going to manufacture gods. There's there's no doubt about that. So to ask me these these well, it doesn't follow from that, that there's no God. Now, is it your position that what is fundamental and ultimate, the source of all possibility is impersonal? Is that what you are serving? Is I ask it again very slowly. Ask me what you are saying or somebody put it in the comments here so I can understand what you're asking. Are you are you asserting what is fundamental and ultimate, that what is the source of all possibility is not personal? Is that what you're asserting? No, it's it's not personal. No, it's what we did you arrive at that because every single person on this earth has a different interpretation of what they believe and what they don't believe. So everything that that why is it irrelevant? Because that's the genetic fallacy, which I just explained to you. The fact that people might use wrong reasoning to come to the conclusion that there is an ultimate creator God, it doesn't follow from that, that there is no God. That's the genetic fallacy mark. No, what what does follow, though, is that if you can't come up with a reason for a God or a reason that we can't be here without a God, then your your whole your your whole premise starts to collapse. You know, like I said, you can run down these side 10 style and actually Eric Holden's getting good at this. Well, you're not letting me let you're not letting me answer. You're you're asking these circular questions and you're asking them over and over and over with the same words just put into different orders. So so let's let's give up on that. You've you've asked that question. I've answered the best to the best of my ability. So you don't have a justification or do I have a rationale for what? Yeah. What is your what is your rational for what's fundamental? Yeah. What is your rational justification for what is fundamental and ultimate? Is impersonal? What's your justification for that? Your string of words. What would you like me to say there? I don't even really understand what your question is and I'm not stupid. Again, you're just putting together side 10 style questions and you don't want to discuss any of the reality that I'm talking about. You want to go down these radicals of philosophy. I have told you my position and you can ask it as many ways as you want. I don't believe there's a God because I don't have a use for a God. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm shunning God. I am saying to you, there is nowhere in our reality that you can fit a God in. So so answer that for me. Why do you need this God? Why do we need a God to be here? And what does God have to do with our day to day living and our reality? I will ask you that. I've already answered that question twice, but you are not answering my question. OK, do it again then. Do it again then. The reason the reason why we need God is because God has taken the initiative to reveal himself through all of creation and through the course of human history. He has revealed that he what he is, what is fundamental and ultimate. Now, you obviously do not accept that. Now, if you do not accept that God has revealed himself, then whatever facts that you assert, it's going to emanate from mystery. Since you don't you haven't identified to us so far what precisely it is that is fundamental and ultimate, that is not God, that would then dictate what is can be or cannot be in this world. All right, so can you please tell me what specifically is it that is fundamental and ultimate, that is not God? What is it? What is what what is what is what is there? That we need there to be for a God to exist. There is nothing there is nothing that we see in reality, like I told you, that I feel has anything to do with the God, nothing whatsoever. And you say that he's he's presented himself through revelation. When? Where? Where do we want to go to the first Bible or do we want to go or do we want to go to the second Bible that had to be watered down to even make it believable? We had to get rid of the, you know, the people walking around dead with Jesus when he resurrected three days later. You know, which Bible do you want to go with? Like, you know, as we've grown up, Mark. No, because you want to ask the exact same question for for an hour, because that's how Eric and Psy do it. And I'm done with that question. So move on. Well, you were not done with the question because you didn't address it. Can you please tell me what is fundamental and ultimate? I'm not going to address your question. Jen, now we're going to move on. And we're not going to sit here and play word games all night. That's not what I was to position, right? There's two positions on the table, two positions on the table. There's got to move on to what it is. Hold on a second. You are you on the internet at the bulk of the time, right? Mark talking the bulk of the time and I have been quiet much of the time. All right. All right, now he's we lost up his completely come into a stop. Mark, hang on one second. You you faded out there for a minute. You were roboting real bad, but now you're yeah. Yeah, I think my wife was on the internet. We only got so much bandwidth and then it all. All right, then it all blocked down. Right. So what we have right here is we have two positions. We have God, not God. You've asked me the reason for my presenting this position. I explained to you that God has taken the initiative to reveal himself through creation, through all facts and through special revelation. Now you have. OK, stop there. Matt, stop there. Instead of not done yet. No, instead of continuing on with your word, Salad, and instead of moving on with your word, Salad, hang on one second. Let's let him finish his question. We'll come right back to you. I promise. OK. OK. So what we have here is God versus not God. You have asked me my reason several times for my God position. I've explained it several times to you that God has revealed himself. We could not know or posit God unless God took the initiative to construct this world in a way that he reveals himself. Now, you obviously reject that. Now, you have yet to make a case for what is ultimate and fundamental, the source of all possibility that it is impersonal and not God. Telling me that people have faulty reasonings whereby they concluded what is ultimate is God is a fallacy. It's called the genetic fallacy that you have committed. Now, please tell me how did you arrive and conclude as to what it is that is fundamental and ultimate and that it is not God? Can you please explain that? So, Mark, you're robining a little bit here. OK, I think you're back. I might have to get rid of. I may have to get rid of my camera if this keeps up. OK, you're good right now. Go ahead. OK. Have you? OK, let's leave it there. It all broke up. Well, he started to ask the exact same question that he's going to keep asking for the next hour, so let's get on with it again. No, it's a legitimate question. I'd like to answer it. Well, for starters, I will tell you that I'm going to ask you where has God revealed himself? OK, I already explained that to you. God has revealed himself in creation and through all facts. And I stated that you rejected that. Now, what I'd like for you to do since I have made a case for God, which you have rejected, I would like you haven't made a case for anything. May I may I finish, please? OK, you've done all the talking where I'm not doing all the talking much of the time I've been silent, listening to you. Now, I've made a case to the existence of God and you have rejected. I would like for you to make a rational defense for what is ultimate and fundamental, the source of all possibility and that it's not God. The rationale that you gave is a fallacy, the genetic fallacy. Now, do you have any other rationale for what is ultimate and fundamental is not God? Do you have one? No, no, let's I'm done with that question. Move on. I'm not going to move on. You need to answer the question. Otherwise, so you're going to do it. You're you're just going to play. You're just going to play side 10 here all night. Is that what you're going to do? OK, no, no, I don't claim that you've won. Because I am telling you that no, there is no God in my my view of of reality. There is no God. And I've asked you to show me why we could not exist right now out of God. And you haven't said one thing except he has revealed himself in creation. How has he revealed himself in creation? Because you say so. OK, well, I'll explain it to you. All right. Because in a world where God is and God creates the world as ultimate creator, then all facts in creation would end in the Christian worldview. And in order to understand your position better, you have to understand what you don't believe, right? So in the Christian position, all the facts of creation that surround us, whatever they may be, they start in the mind of God, and then they are implemented into creation, right? Because because of God's nature and character. Now, if if you if we if you do not positive God by virtue that he has revealed himself, then there will be no background information for you to place and interpret facts, because any fact that you say there will be no metaphysical background for it. You would you will have uninterpreted facts. There's no reason why these facts exist, because as you have just done, you have not identified or defended what is fundamental and ultimate dictating what's possible or impossible and that it's not God. But to show my point, can you since you do not believe in God? OK, is anything impossible? Is anything impossible? Mm hmm. Yeah, of course there is. We we already know that we. Yeah, we already know that we can't get out of a black hole. We already know that we can't exceed the speed of light. What else would you like to go on with? OK, something things that are impossible. Yeah, God's God's are impossible. Supernatural is impossible. There's lots of things that are impossible. OK, so when you when you say things are impossible, what is it that is fundamental and ultimate that dictates possible? Why do you just got to keep saying the same words all over and over again? What makes it fundamental and impossible? We can't see science. Science tells us science tells us what is possible and what is impossible. We don't look to the Bible to find out what's possible and what's impossible. There's no science in the Bible. Actually, actually in science, the philosophy of science, they hold to an open system that anything can appear tomorrow. OK, all conclusions in science are provisional. All right, are you aware of that? That everything in science is provisional. So you're saying that anything in science is possible and anything can appear tomorrow, is that what you're telling me? No, what I'm what I'm what I'm saying is within the philosophy of science. This is not something I personally agree with. But you're not in a position to say what is impossible unless you can tell me what is fundamental that imposes that when you say science tells us what's impossible, they cannot tell us what is possible because science can't even establish the laws of nature. Science has to presuppose the laws of nature in order to do investigation. Are you aware of the fact that science has to presuppose laws of nature? It cannot demonstrate them. It can't demonstrate laws of nature. No, they are giving me an example. The laws of nature are universal in nature. Are they give me an example? You cannot you cannot demonstrate that gravity works the same way at all times in all places. Can anyone do that? Sure, we can. We know we know the acceleration of gravity. What are you talking about? Of course, you're not understanding. I said it all times in all places at all times in all places as their gravity. Of course, there is. Of course, there is any time that we we have a any time that we have an amount of matter, we know that it's gravitationally pulled towards something else with a mass. So that's not all times in all places. That is a tiny subset of all events. So that's not all times in all places. So what are you doing? You're just going off into your imaginary world again of these places that don't exist, so you just want to come up with these places and. I don't your understanding. I don't think you're understanding the issue. So in order to explain to you the dilemma that naturalism puts you in, you have to understand it opposed to the Christian worldview. In the Christian worldview, God creates the world. He sets the parameters of existence and its regularities according to his plan. So therefore, that's why there are regularities in the world because of God's power and plan. But when you reject that, then you're going to need to tell me is why there's anything absolute. If nothing is ultimate, if you cannot identify what is absolute, then you have no basis to expect that the future will be like the past. So I ask you if there was anything impossible and you said yes. But then when I ask you, what is it that imposes that? You said science, science is simply a body. Well, no physics, physics tells us, physics tells us. OK, can physics tell us? Can physics tell us that there are absolutes? Yeah, there is. Yeah, we know the absolute speed of light through space. We know exactly what it is. Yeah, we know exactly what it is. Mark, you're quite mistaken. Light cannot be measured one way. It has to be measured round trip. So they do not actually know what the speed of light is. The speed of light is estimated in a round trip. So that's a fallacy. Number two, have they measured all? Oh, back up there. Back up. You're trying to tell us. You're trying to tell us that we don't understand the speed of light. Is that what you're telling? Telling me? No, that's not what that's not what I'm saying to you. What I'm saying is, is that the speed of light cannot be measured one way. It has to be measured round trip. And then the round trip speed is divided. OK, so I don't want to get it. I don't want this to derail into a discussion of physics. What I want to know is what is it that is absolute that will institute? No, of course, of course, you don't want to go off, of course, you don't want to go off into into physics. You want to stay in the world of philosophy. I'm going to tell you guys, well, Mark, your world, your world has nothing foundational that can claim that that the future will be like the past. Do you know that the future will be like the past, Mark? Yeah, I think tomorrow will be a lot like today. I think I'll wake up a lot the same tomorrow. The sun will rise in the east, it'll set in the west. Yeah, I really do. And that is, again, why we really do know that there's no gods. We see no magic in the world. We see no nothing varies. We don't get up one day and all of a sudden the sun doesn't come up. Pardon, Mark, you're not you're not understanding this. You need to focus on what I'm saying. Yeah, because you're talking philosophy. I'm not here to talk about philosophy. That's that's not that's not. I am Darth. Let's let Mark finish it. What are you saying? Let's let Mark finish the statement. We'll come right back to you promise. I have asked you over and over and over, why do we need a God? And then you go on with this cycle babble about how we need it for this reason and we need it for that reason. But I'm asking you, why would we not exist today as humans, as as apes? Why do we need a God as an ape? Why do we need a God and monkeys don't need a God? OK, yeah, I don't think you're really understanding the issue. OK, well, you just keep saying that and I don't care about your issue. I've moved off of that and I've asked you to start a new issue. I know every time I try to answer you, you're being rude and over talking. Are you aware that you're doing that? Yes, I do because you keep telling me that I'm wrong and that I don't understand. And I don't know how I don't understand my question to you. OK, because you want to keep circling back the philosophy when I. Well, you can't you can't escape philosophy because everything that you've said so far is a type of philosophy. You're you're telling me that the laws of nature simply just exist. Now, are they is does something institute the laws of nature and secure them? Or are they simply brute fact that they just they exist with no identifiable reason? Yeah, they exist as as the laws of our universe, the best that we can understand it as a as a a group of apes that has been working really hard on it for the last 200, 250 years against religion. Well, we're not we're not we're not talking about evolution here. What we're talking about is the laws of physics, the laws of nature. Have the laws of nature been imposed and secured by something that is more fundamental, or do the laws of nature just simply exist with no identifiable reason? So no, I just explained that to you. The laws of nature exist as we can identify them in this universe, in the part of it that we have been able to observe. That doesn't explain to me a brute fact is something that just simply is without any identifiable reason why it is. Are the laws of nature, as you believe them, do they just simply exist without being imposed by something that is more fundamental or do they just simply exist without derivation in your view? They just simply exist. There is no creator for them. Yes, there's no overseer. OK, well, here's the problem then. OK, are those laws of nature then fundamental and ultimate? Well, why are we asking the exact same question again? I just told you are they ultimate? They're ultimate. Did the laws of nature just pop into existence from nowhere? Or do you think that they're eternal? No, they came from the Big Bang and no, our universe is not eternal. OK, so the laws of nature are not eternal then? You're gone. Are the laws of nature? Your mic is really low. Also, Mark, we still have people saying, could you get Mark to turn down his mic? And then, Dorothy, you can't really turn yours up any, but yeah, we're just trying to get the best audio as we can. So, Mark, if you're able to and we're going to go for about another. We have the volume turned up on you. If I turn way down, can you turn everything way up? Yeah, sure. It's up now that I'm down. Yep. Give that a try. Because honestly, I've heard maybe every other word that he's saying tonight. I'm really struggling to hear him. OK, I'm going to turn it up right now on everybody's. So all right, we should be good now. Just try and talk as loudly as you can. OK, we'll go for about another 10 or 15 minutes here and then we'll go to Q&A. OK, so, Mark, are the laws of nature that you claim exist without derivation from God? Are the laws of nature in and of themselves eternal and without beginning? Or you said it's the Big Bang. Well, then, what is it then that is fundamental that instituted laws of nature? Mark, just the way just the way that the Big Bang happened, the way that everything came about from that point, that is that is where we're at. And there is no hand of God in this and we don't see a hand in God. But really, what I find disappointing. What is fundamental about what I want to know? What is fundamental? Let's let Mark in instituted laws of nature. What is it? I have yet to hear you. We'll come right back to you. Let's let Mark finish. I have just told you. So, so basically what we've done is we've just spent a whole hour you saying the same words over and over and in a different order, asking you the same questions. And all I really wanted to have tonight was a discussion on where your God fits into our reality. What about that to you? You rejected it. No, you haven't. You haven't. You keep telling me that he reveals himself. He has never revealed himself to me. And I'm not on the chat here. I should have got on it somehow so I can watch them go by. But I guarantee you a majority of the listeners, it has not been revealed to them either. And we don't see God's God's handprint dripping from everything that we see. We don't see it anywhere. OK, well, the reason why I'm saying that all facts are indicative of God is because without them being indicative and revelatory of God, they couldn't be facts because the facts that you claim would be shrouded in ultimate mystery. So is the ultimate nature of reality that you think produces laws? Is that ultimate nature a mystery or is it identifiable for you, Mark, by which you can say there's no God? Because unless you tell me what is specifically fundamental and ultimate, then you cannot logically and coherently say there is no God that is ultimate. That would be a fallacy if you don't do that. So what is it that is fundamental and ultimate that imposes these other things that you claim? What is it? So so what is it about your God claim that couldn't exist and not your exact same question back at you that wouldn't exist with 10,000 other gods that people have made up? What is it special about your God that this reality would not exist without your God? What is it about your God that's so special? I'm not. I'm just I'm sick of you asking the same things over and over for an hour. You're able to maybe ask your question in a different way or some try to clarify. Well, here's the problem. Well, instead of asking questions, I'll just I'll just make a comment. OK, you want to assert that there's no God. God is defined as what is fundamental and ultimate. You do not believe that which is fundamental and ultimate is a personal being God. In order for you to say that there is no God that is fundamental ultimate, you're going to need to know what is fundamental ultimate and that it is not personal and not God, but you have not answered that question the whole time. So you are making an empty claim that there's no God. And then you keep on falling back that you are personally unconvinced, that you don't see God. It doesn't follow from the fact that you are unpersuaded or unconvinced that what is fundamental and ultimate is not a personal creator being. So the reason why you have refused steadfastly not to answer the question is because you cannot answer the question. And in your failure to identify what is fundamental and ultimate, then you are not in a position to say there's no God. Number two, you said you do not see the facts of creation as necessitating referencing God. Well, that's another case that you're going to have to make. I made a case for why all facts collectively necessitate referencing God, but you rejected that. Now, I want to know from you is how did you determine that all facts do not necessitate referencing God? The only way that you can defend that statement is to tell us what is fundamental and ultimate and the source of all facts. What is the fundamental source and ultimate of all facts, Mark? So you, you, PsyTen and Eric Hoven have actually, this is the road you go down is just to continually ask questions over and over that you know there are no answers to is, is that, is that really the best case you have for a God is to sit there and to try to say that because we don't understand this completely and we don't understand that completely. And we can't answer your philosophical questions with a perfect answer of how we know that there is no God because of acts. Then there must be a God. That is an extremely weak thing that you're asking. What you've done is you've come up with a way of asking questions that, that you know cannot be answered. Therefore, there is a God. Is that really where you stand? Because you could do that with anything. What I'm saying to you is this, is that when you reject that all facts necessitate referencing God, because without, without God, OK, they wouldn't be facts because it would be shrouded in mystery. Are all the facts that you believe in, may I finish, please? You know, I've been very circumspect not to interrupt you, right? Now, do you are all the so-called facts that you believe in? Are they shrouded in ultimate mystery? Or do you know what is ultimate and fundamental, Mark? I know what I know what is my reality. Put it that way. And you know what is your reality and you're sitting there. You're sitting here arguing that because my reality doesn't line up perfect with yours and that I believe different facts and a different way of looking that, that I just don't understand in our reality, the people who do not believe in God, our reality is flawed because we can't answer your philosophical question that has been specifically put together to ask it the same way over and over and over for an hour. And yet when I ask you to tell me where God has revealed himself to you and all you can say is creation, is that the best you got is in all creation? I've said God has revealed himself through all facts and creation, and he's revealed himself to the courts of human history ultimately in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, which you reject. I understand that you reject that. Now, when you reject that, you are making an implicit counterclaim. Do you realize that? Of course I do. Good, but that doesn't mean that every time you come up with a question, you need to defend that counterclaim. So this is why you have said fastly, you want to assert that there's no God, but you don't want to defend the rationale of how it is there is no God. If we, if somebody says A is false, the only way that you can defend that A is false is by defending not A. You have said that the existence of God is false. God is defined as what is fundamental and ultimate, the source of all possibility. You stated that that does not exist. That presupposes then that you know what is fundamental and ultimate and that it's not God in order to rationally say God is not ultimate. Now, I'll ask you again, what is it that is fundamental and ultimate that is not God that you will use as a rationale to say there's no God? What is ultimate and fundamental that's not God, Mark? Do you know how flawed your thinking is? I can prove that your your thinking is completely flawed because I could replace your word God with any word, any word whatsoever, the magic black box in the sky, and it would have the exact same meaning and outcome and lack of answerability in philosophy that you are trying to continually push on me. So the fact that I can say to you that you can replace the word God with black box in the sky for your whole argument tonight tells me that your entire way of thinking is completely flawed and without base. OK, well, in your world, there's no, wait a minute, in your world, there's no metaphysical grounding for reason because nothing ultimately dictates anything, including reason. Is there anything that is ultimate and fundamental that dictates reasoning? So so what you're saying then is we wouldn't have the human condition without God yet while you're talking over me. So you're saying that we wouldn't have the human condition. We can't know anything. I've heard Siden inside note. You've taken some of this better fight. Let's take it once I get back to you. So so what you've done is you've just turned this into asking questions to people and you kind of and you do a really good job at it. You do this this good job at asking questions that you know aren't answerable, but that doesn't make there a God. No matter how many times you ask me the same thing and I tell you the same answer doesn't make there a God, but what really does make your reasoning flawed is like I said, I could repeat to you the exact same. We could have this exact same debate, flip sides, and I could have a little block black box in the sky and you would not be able to sit on my side and answer it. Well, you couldn't answer me that you're contradicting yourself because you just admitted that you don't know what's fundamental and ultimate. You don't have a rationale for what's funny. Mark, I didn't interrupt you this whole time. OK, you've been interrupting. I just ask you a question. OK, now I've asked you a question and you didn't answer it. You keep on tap dancing and dodging. Now, you just conceded that you cannot answer the question as to what is fundamental and ultimate, right? If you don't know what's fundamental and ultimate, then you cannot say there is no God. The only way that you could say there is no God is to do it without a rational justification. It would be an arbitrary declaration. Now, is your declaration that there is no God arbitrary without rational justification or do you have a rational justification for what is ultimate and fundamental that's not God? Can you tell me what is ultimate and fundamental in order to rationally defend what is ultimate and fundamental is not God? Can you please answer that? Yeah, we don't we don't need to answer what is ultimate and fundamental about anything that somebody can dream up. We don't need to do that. Why do you need to answer your question at all? One second, there. Yeah, you're not. Why do we need to answer your? You guys, we know I know I'm not in here in your question. We may be as you're asking. One second, you guys, we may be at an impact on this question. If we do need to go to Q&A soon. Why don't we do this? Well, Mark doesn't answer if Mark doesn't answer this question. And by the way, he has answered the question. He stated it's unanswerable. He stated that he does not know what's fundamental ultimate. Is that correct, Mark? Yeah, well, your question is designed to be asked that way. Of course it is. You know the outcome of these debates. I've heard you in other debates. I listened to a couple of them today and it's the exact same thing. You've you've learned how to structure a question that you know is not answerable, but you just cut me off. So I'm going to say to you, how can you prove that the little black box in the sky is not responsible for everything that we see today? And you would not be able to answer that question. So I ask you again, how? Of course I can. Well, I'll tell you why. It's because that little black box. Am I under the correct impression that this little black box that you're referring to is impersonal? Well, all I can tell you is that we know little black boxes actually exist. So there's already a lot more proof for my God, the little black box in the sky. Mark, we're talking about what you are putatively putting forth as ultimate. Are you putting forth that there's something that is ultimate and fundamental in order to negate God is impersonal? Are you doing so right now? Yes, absolutely. I'm telling you that your question, everything that you say could be flipped around on you with the little black box in the sky with what we think is what you cut me off with the garden, no minute. And it is responsible for everything that we see, every reality that we experience throughout life. See, what you're basically doing is you're trying to make our lives based in philosophy and not the reality that we see every day. So I wanted to come here and just ask you straight up questions. Where do we see God? Where do we see God's hand? Just you can aid God. And where is it? Where do we see that? OK, that question, that question presupposes that all the facts that you're acquainted with do not necessitate referencing God. Do you understand that? No, you don't want to answer the question. No, you should be able to say to me, you should be able to say. Mark, listen, you said you could deposit any ultimate if it's impersonal. You couldn't put it on the table because you would never be able to know something that is ultimate and eternal, that it is ultimate because impersonal things do not communicate. Now, what is personal about your body? Mark, can you tell me if it are either you are asserting that there is an impersonal ultimate or not? Are you asserting that there is an impersonal ultimate and impersonal ultimate? What are you asserting that as a defense against the existence of God? There is no God, that's correct. I am telling you, there is no God. You can word it however you like, word it impersonal. That's right, there is no God. Ultimately, yes, no God. I understand that. Are you asserting that what is ultimate and eternal is impersonal? Why do you just keep asking the same questions over and over again? Because you need to answer that question. No, I don't, because you're asking everything based on philosophy. And like I told you, this could honestly, we could take this entire debate. I hope somebody does and turns it around on you as the little black box in the sky with a garden no minute. And you would not posit that because impersonal things do not engage in revelation or communication, Mark. Guys, we're going on. Let's see, let's go ahead and one minute. You want to say one second. You want to say what is fundamental and ultimate is completely unknown for everybody. Then you want to turn around and say, well, I could assert that it's a little black box or a garden, but you just contradicted yourself that what is ultimate and fundamental is unknown. So basically, your God denialism is irrational. You don't have a rational justification for what is fundamental and ultimate, thereby negating God and your claim that you don't see. Let me just wrap it up here. So when you say that you don't see God or that you don't conclude that all the facts that you're acquainted with necessitating God, that's another claim that you have not substantiated that facts don't necessitate God. The fact that you are unpersuaded with my presentation does does not support your case. If you are not neutral, you are making an opposite case for naturalism, which is a positive case. You have not you have not defended metaphysical, metaphysical naturalism, Mark. You just asserted that it was so. All right, Darth, let's we need to go ahead to the Q and A section. Mark, we'll let you have the last. Yeah, we'll let you have the last. Can I have a minute then? Yeah, we'll give you the last word. Can I just have a minute? Yeah, take a minute and then we'll we'll take you in a just a minute. Yeah. Yeah. So so what I what I would would would put back to you, Darth, and I have enjoyed talking to you. I these philosophical talks for everybody, it just it hurts everybody's brain. I know it. I've watched them many, many times. You don't want to get into the nitty gritty of of your God. You don't want to really back anything for a God, any substantial proof. You don't want to go back and say, well, I know there's a God. You don't want to defend the Bible. You don't want to defend the writings in the Bible. You want it to be all philosophical that if we can't answer X, God must exist. And I really think it's one of the most let me finish up. What are you saying? Just let me finish up and then I'll let you let you talk for a sec. I think it's an extremely weak. I honestly think in the debate community, you do come across as winning these debates because philosophically, yes, we can't answer what you're asking. But you still haven't made a case for God, in my opinion. And tonight, nothing you've said has made me think that, wow, I really missed the vote. I missed that part. God must exist. You haven't even you haven't even touched on your God. I'm not even sure what God you're talking about. That's how weak this argument was. You didn't get into the Bible. You didn't get into the proof of Jesus. You didn't hear me. Yeah, I heard you say God in the Bible. Yeah, there's that. Yeah, well, which Bible is it? Your term memory lapses, Mark, because I mentioned the God of the Bible repeatedly throughout this conversation. And I mentioned that God has revealed himself finally and openly in Jesus Christ. Now, the point is simply this. You you you just keep on saying you're unconvinced, but that that that claim of being unconvinced is an implicit counterclaim. But you have not defended the implicit counterclaim that is behind your claim that you're unconvinced. Do you realize that you have not defended your implicit counterclaim when you claim you're unconvinced? You have not done that, Mark. All right. All right. So, Mark, do you realize that he says that you got it? Do you realize that you haven't at all defended why your God exists? Why you haven't made a case? You haven't made a case for a God at all? Yes, I have. What you have done is all you're simply saying is I haven't made the case because you don't accept what I have made, but you haven't given. You haven't defended the counterclaim of your non-acceptance. Have you defended here tonight your counterclaim, which is inherent in your claim that you're unconvinced? Have you defended your philosophical naturalism, Mark? Or metaphysical, have you defended that? Absolutely, I feel that I have. I feel that you have asked me a bunch of philosophical questions. All right, guys. Hang on one second, Doris. In your in your metaphor, okay. Back to asking the same question. Defend it. I think we're at an impasse here. What a question. Yeah, I think we're at an impasse here. So you have defended nothing but just your own incredulity. That's fine, Doris. So let's let's go to the Q&A because I mean, unfortunately, I'm not going to have time to be here a lot all night because I've got. I've got I got I'm going up to the mountains more. But I do want to go ahead and go to the Q&A because we had a lot of questions. I feel like you guys have kind of went over the same subject a few times. So with that, let's just go to the Q&A real quick. And everybody, thanks so much for all the questions and super chats. If you if I missed yours, please let me know. You can tag me at Converse Contender. So the first one, let's see, John Wrapp. Thanks for the two dollars super chat or the two whatever an A is. I'm not sure about the currency. Didi, can you elaborate on revelation? Yeah, revelation is broader than most people think. Revelation entails God's entire creative process. So when we look at the leaves blowing in the wind, that's a revelation of God. When we look at the light reflecting off the moon, that's a revelation of God. When I look at the my palm of my hand, that's a revelation of God. The Bible says the heavens declare the glory of God. So that's referring to natural revelation of creation. Then there is special revelation where God communicates with various individuals through the course of human history and then through his sovereignty and providence, he records infallibly these interactions. Now, whether or not somebody else accepts that, that is that is the Christian position. So there's both natural and special revelation. All right, thanks so much for that. Hey, you guys, I'm going to ask the next question. But we got almost 800 people watching and only like 150 or 160 likes. Let's get some more likes going on this video if you like this or give it a dislike, I don't care. Well, that's that's that's because your people will be predominantly having Darth Hader's, OK, well, we got we had quite a lot of people, about 800 people here. And I've seen both back and forth. I've seen both saying you won. And then people say that Mark won. So our next superchats from Chris Gomin, they're smoking. All right, our next superchats from Chris Gomin, he says, I've been frozen for the last four days. I hope this debate is warm and juicy. I think it has been. Malog Hawks, thanks for the $5 superchat says, I believe in the lollipop gun. Ordinary citizen with the five bomb says, darks talking too much. That's just kind of like a comment. Mike Billers, $5 superchat. Thanks so much, Mark says. Your Mark or Mike Billers says, Mark, you mean you're not a Berenstein bearist? You're just suppressing the righteousness of Papa and Mama Bear. Thanks for that. Mike Billers, again, I'm calling it. Mark asks, where is God in our history? Indeed, he said he'd be glad to answer that, but he never will. And if you guys want to respond to any of these, these are kind of comments, but I'm just going to keep going through actually, I did answer that. I said God has spoken to various individuals for the course of history, and he has, through his providence, secured, transcribed his interactions infallibly and finally in the person of Jesus Christ. Now, whether or not people who are listening to me are going to accept that, that is still the Christian position, right? The fact that they don't accept it does not mean that it has not been answered. All right, thanks so much for that response. Next, Chris Gomin 499 says, Didi, can you define word by word, what fundamental and ultimate being personal means? This question makes zero sense to me. Yeah, what it means is what is the ground of all existence? Why does anything at all exist? OK. So when we say what is ultimate, we're talking about whatever is eternal and the source and the foundation of what's possible or impossible, right? Unless somebody wants to believe the incoherent notion that nothing is foundational, fundamental or ultimate, and therefore our world is just an array of unconnected, eternally existing, unrelated, ununified particulars. If that if that is adopted, then you're not going to be able to make sense of anything. So what is ultimate and fundamental is the ground of all beings. All right, so if I can just add something there, so basically what he's saying is, as I had mentioned at the beginning, there are still holes for a God, and that's exactly where he's slipping it in right now. He is saying that if we do not understand everything to the nth degree and I, and I'm really paraphrasing here, then there must be a God. And there is just no reasoning for that. We're only 250 years into this and and really a lot of it has happened in the last 100 years. So, yes, there is still a lot to be understood, but we don't need to fit a God in there and there is no room for a God. And I, you know, for any Christians out there, I'm sorry to say that. And I like show me where this God ever existed, not just a story in the book, where he existed and where we just see the hand of God. And Darth has said that you see a leaf blowing, it's God. Is it really, is it God? Is every single leaf on this earth blowing, every wave breaking, every dust in the air, every snowflake falling. Is that really God or is this just a wheel in motion that we call the universe, that we call our our galaxy, which we call our solar system, which we call our earth, which we call our backyard? Is it really is everything being spun by the hand of God? I say no. All right, thanks so much for that response. Let me just a quick comment. OK, you said there's no reason to believe in God. One reason among several to believe in God is that without God, you won't be able to defend that there are grounds for reason. In other words, everything will be shrouded in mystery. So what you claim to be a fact today could be falsified tomorrow. And then that could be falsified tomorrow. You're in an open system, whereas God would be a closed system where he is the creator, this creation is operating according to his plan and parameters. But when you reject God and the closed system, you're in an open system where anything can happen. And if you're in an open, metaphysical system, Mark, then you have no reason for anything because everything is shrouded in ultimate mystery and you confirm that you said we do not know what is fundamental and ultimate, you have now agreed that everything is shrouded in ultimate mystery. And if everything is shrouded in ultimate mystery, you don't know that what you think are facts are facts because tomorrow they could turn out not to be. Yeah, but that's called science. That's called the human condition. We're learning. Don't try to wedge a God into everywhere that we haven't got to yet. And that is what you're doing. You're wedging God into misunderstandings. No, I do understand what you're saying. You're basically saying is everything that we. Yeah, but you can say that about anything. You can say the little black box in space is the foundation and I can't prove it's not. No, I explained to you why you can't. Because you just said you don't know we will never know what is fundamental ultimate. So you you're contradicting yourself now. All right, thanks for those comments because I don't believe we got to move on to our next questions. Kent Hovind, CPA, two dollars. Shriver Chats is that is a humorous question. Comment about Smoky Saint will move on. Esteban. Yabaka, I hope I pronounced that right. Says doubts questions should be due laws of nature and universal constants. Yeah, due laws of nature and universal constants were programmed by a creator. The simple answer. We don't know. Thanks for your twenty five hundred CLPs, whatever that is. And also for everybody who has been like tagging me throughout the whole debate, saying like, why don't I stop and clarify that what's being asked? Or why don't I, you know, interrupt and tell one person or the other what the other saying or something like that is it's just best practice to stay out of it. Because if you try to rephrase it or help somebody, then most most of people think you're being a biased moderator. So I just try to stay out of it. Next super chat from Mike Billers, DD. So you're telling me we have gone to blame for this train wreck of a reality. You got any comment or you want to just move on? Dara, you there? Yeah, I'm here. I have my mic. Yeah, what he's saying is no, the current condition of our planet is a temporal judgment because of the rebellion of man and the inherited sin nature. There's a fundamental problem with human nature. OK, now if they want to try to impugn God for the bad way people think and believe, good, be my guest, attempt to blame it on God. OK, now in terms of natural disaster, things like that, these are all temporal judgments as a continual reminder for human beings not to be complacent and to repent and turn to God and escape the disaster of eternal judgment that is coming. If you do not repent and turn to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, you're going to be doomed for eternity. Jesus Christ not only saves us from eternal damnation. He saves us from the incoherence in a world where nothing can be said to be controlling everything. Mark himself admitted there is nothing identifiable that is ultimate or fundamental that is controlling anything. So in Mark's world, anything can happen. And if anything can happen, there cannot be any intelligibility. Right? If anything can happen, there's no intelligibility or reason. All right. Thanks so much for the response. Next, we've got a five bomb from ordinary citizen says, is it ethical to eat tigers if I'm hungry? I think that's just a comment. Let's see. Five dollars super chat comes in from Rodent. No last name. That's his last name. Darth, if God can break the laws of physics at any time, then they are not laws and your universe crumbles into incoherence. Any comment? Yeah, that's a fallacy. In the Christian position, God does not break the laws of physics. Miracles are a display of the power of God that are highly unusual events that supersede, but do not violate the laws of nature. If somebody says they're violating the laws of nature, that's an interpretation. OK. All right, fallacy, what he said. Thanks so much for that. Our next super chat, five, whatever an A is in currency. P barn says, I know it was asked earlier, but can Darth unpack revelation? Full marks for not mentioning the Bible. I'm not sure if he means can you do it without mentioning the Bible or something like that? Revelation is how God has constructed whatever parameters that come into contact with us to communicate certain things for us to know. Sometimes God uses the natural things of the world to make us to know things. We know it externally. We know it internally because of the way he's constructed this world, the way he's constructed our cognition. And God has taken historical developments through the course of human history to make us to know things through the various prophets, ultimately through Jesus Christ, to know things that we he did. He did not plan for us to know through natural revelation. All right, thanks so much for that. Isn't that handy? Isn't that isn't that extremely handy that things exist the way they they exist because of God? How would we know if they existed another way that it wouldn't be because of another God? If we lived in a different reality where water was in the sky and we had oceans of air and we had to swim around, what's to say that this reality shows a God any different than if we lived in another reality or if things were another way? If we breathe water and swim in air, what are you saying? You're saying that what we see, therefore, God and that does not make sense. OK, well, the problem with that is you're presupposing the causal principle and laws of nature, but you have yet to identify what imposes causality and laws of nature. You just say they're there. OK. You don't know what you think or that. OK, well, you're not working on it because science presupposes the uniformity of nature. Science cannot demonstrate the laws of nature. That's why they presuppose it. If you take a one-on-one course in the philosophy of science, you will learn in the first week that there are a number of things that science presupposes because they cannot establish it because it would be circular reasoning. The bottom line is you keep on appealing to fiction and fantasy. When you've already admitted, you do not know what is ultimate. Since you don't know what's ultimate or fundamental, you don't know what's absolute, you can't make an appeal that the past consistencies will continue into the future. Mark, I'm going to ask you a simple question before the audience. Do you know the future? Of course not. All right, then you cannot then you cannot say what what will be. OK, you can't say the laws of nature. OK, well, what I'm saying here for God, if you don't accept God's self-disclosure of himself because you love your own autonomous reasoning, you will be we will prove to you, God, due to the impossibility of its denial that you will have no ground for reasoning. You said, I don't have a reason to believe in God. Do you have a reason at a fundamental and ultimate level of reality to believe in reason? What is fundamental and absolute and ultimate mark that grounds reason? What is it? Everything that I see every day around me. No, the way things are fundamental. Yes, my reality is my reality absolutely is. And if you know something from the day I have been born, it has never failed me. I have never ever seen like one of the questions work. Why doesn't God? Why doesn't God reach his hand down and change a parameter for us so that we would stand back and go, wow, now we know there's a God and we've never seen it. Every day goes forward as the last day. Yeah, the fact that the fact that God doesn't run this creation the way you would wish it to be doesn't mean that there's no God. You have yet to answer the question. What is it that's fundamental and ultimate that will secure that there can be reason? What's fundamental and ultimate mark? What is you tell me? Are you going to you told me you don't have a reason to believe in God? Well, there must be no, you tell me. I'll enter. OK, I'm waiting. You tell me. You tell me that exact. So so I asked you that exact same question. Is it answerable? All right, so guys, we need to move on. We need to move on, then you cannot defend that anything's absolute mark. So we need to move on working on stuff. Darth, I'll give you the last comment. That's a question was for you. Logan is a mark. All you've been spewing here tonight are cliches and slogans. All right, so we're not spewing. I've been asking you for proof and you went down the road of philosophy. You went down the road of philosophy and that's fine. You you got me on a lot of your on a lot of your questions because I'm not a philosopher and I haven't put together the the circular questions that that you studied from side 10 and you know, you've done a good job at what you've done. I'm not upset here. I'm just telling you, you haven't studied side 10, my friend. My questions all come from the Bible. Dorothy, your mic just went way up in this. All right, so we'll move on to the next question. All right. So I'm a milk gun. Darth, we had a lot. We've actually had like three or four people ask, will Darth be willing to debate? Ask yourself in the future. I actually talked to Darth about that. Do you want to comment on that at all? That's already been addressed. I've been asked that dozens of times. I've already given that answer. I'm just going to waste my time. All right. And in all probability, the people who are asking the question are just trolling. That answer has already been given. Got you. All right. Next super chat from Jordo says, stands in a ditch. 10 CA says, honestly and seriously, Darth should be OK, so he's just a comment on he doesn't care for you too much. Richard Roman chick, Mark might just. OK, that's another thing where he didn't care for Mark. Chili Wiltson, both debaters. Don't you think if you're going to do internet debates, you might want to spend a book or two trying? Oh, they're complaining about the mics. Yeah, sorry about that. Yeah, and I do apologize for that, too. And a lot of that a lot of that was based on me. And I take responsibility for that. I'm sorry. Yeah, not wrong. Skinny Pete, $5 super chat says when is they're basically asking, are you going to debate Tom Rabbit? I'm not sure if that's been addressed or not. Darth, you may be muted, I'm not sure. Yeah, if he's muted, all I can say is I know there's a lot of there's a lot of people out there. I yeah, I'm sorry, that are a hell of a lot better. Yeah, I just realized I just realized that the volume setting in the stream yard was at the middle setting when we do that. If we do this again, Converse, I'll increase the gain. Oh, yeah, because I can I can hear you perfect now. And I honestly may be caught every other word when we were. That's why my head was I really was struggling to hear you. And I'm sorry for that. We spent the first 10 minutes of setting this up, trying to even turn my mic on. So, you know, I have to take blame for that. We really didn't have a lot of time to do sound checks and stuff. So I do apologize. That's not modern day debates fault. I take full responsibility and I'm sorry. That's all right. The question again, Darth from Skinny Pete, $5 super chat was he was asking just kind of paraphrasing that he's saying, what are you going to debate Tom Rabbit? I'm not sure if that's been answered or not. Oh, that's that's already been addressed. I've attempted to debate atheism with Tom Rabbit on discord on at least a dozen or more occasions. And he always runs runs away. What he wants to do is he wants to set up a formal situation so he can have people feed him answers through direct messages. Right. So the issue. Yeah. So I've every time I've encountered him on discord, he's run away. OK. Mike Billers, $5 super chat says, Dede, how can you say there are regularities in reality when God can just do a miracle and change literally anything? Your worldview is pure case. So did you already answer that earlier? Kind of another. Yeah, I already I already already answer all the reason why we know the uniformity of nature is because the God of the Bible makes us to think that way we couldn't think otherwise as human beings. Show me show me somebody who doesn't for moment to moment hold to the uniformity of nature. And I'll show you somebody who belongs in a mental institution. And I've already explained that miracles are a manifestation of God's power producing a highly unusual event that supersedes the laws of nature but do not violate them. If you're going to say that miracles violate the laws of nature, you're going to have to make a defense of that. OK, we got a $5 super chat next from Bugmaster. He says that's what a miracle. That's what a miracle is. If it didn't violate the laws of nature, we wouldn't be able to recognize it. No, you're we wouldn't recognize it as a miracle. No, you're defining it. And that's why we've never. Can God we've never seen a miracle. OK, can God's power in the Christian worldview, Mark, even though you don't accept the Christian worldview in the Christian worldview, can God have a display of his power that supersedes but does not stop? If God, yeah, if the Christian God existed, we should expect a hell of a lot more out of them than we have. Why did we just go through what we just went through for a year? Where do you? Because why are we living like this? That's not a defense of your statement. Asking questions is not a defense of your accusation. Absolutely it is. You're telling me that this is God's creation. God has set this up and it's obviously set it up because of our reality, because of our human condition. And yet we look at our human condition. We live in a first world country. The human condition is not the way me and you live. The human condition is brutal. Animal condition is brutal. There's nothing nice about living in Africa. Go look up jiggers. Go look up what these poor people go through. They're these worms crawling through their feet, through their legs. I've been to Africa squeezing mango worms out of lion's ears. Like, come on, there is nothing that we see on this planet that would make us think to ourselves, wow, was this ever beautifully orchestrated by a God? Yes, we live in a first world country where we live on carpet. But that is not the world and that is not what. All right, this is what science has built for us. This is what science built for us. Do you know? Do you know that the problems in our present world today, do you know that they're not a temporal judgment by God as a constant reminder not to love this present world and to seek communion and salvation with God? Do you know that's not the case, Mark? Oh, I would hope not. That would be a brutal. That would be a God. So yeah, yeah, no, no, I'm telling you. I know if no, what you are saying is no, what you are saying is well, now you're making actually what you are claiming is a form of megalomania that if you were God, you would be able to institute a redemptive plan of human history that was better than God. That's megalomania, Mark. All right, we got to move on to the question. I would have done it right. We have a. Let me answer this because this is great. This is great. I would have done it right the first time. Yeah, that's megalomania. Being so that may be, but a being that's all-knowing shouldn't have screwed up. I mean, Mark, you're fine. You made is megalomania that if you were God, you could you could create a world that is a redemptive plan of human history. See, what you are discounting is that the good and the bad that occurs during the course of human history is not a part of God's redemptive plan of human history. But the bottom line here is simply this. You are making a claim of megalomania. All right, guys, we need to get moving on to the next question. I say, I say, if God, if God puts us through pain on purpose to remind us of him, he's sick. All right, so that's not what the Bible says. The temporal judgment that God has implemented in this world is a constant reminder to seek eternal communion with God and not to love this present world. You see, your megalomania has blinded you that you're not that smart. All right, Mark, since the question, no, actually, actually, my science world has put me in a position where I live a good life. I don't I don't deal with parasites every day. I don't have to deal with viruses every day. I live in a first world country. I don't deal with what everybody else is dealing with in the world. So I guess I guess God's judgment. No, let me answer. No, please answer, Mark. Wait a second, Darth, I don't have any up here where I live, but just let me answer. You said you'd let me talk. We'll let you go. Your God, your God extremely punishes Africa and the third world countries over the first world countries. And I find that interesting. So yeah, and yet they're the ones that don't know anything about God. We have to run over to Africa with Bible instead of food to make them realize there's a God. So what you're saying makes God obvious. The pain and suffering we go through is extremely, extremely biased towards the poor. That's interesting. I'm glad you brought that out. The question is for Darth. Let me just answer that. The reason why we go over there to Bibles is not to inform them that God exists, we're to inform them that the God that exists has a redemptive plan of human history and for them not to delay their present hope in this lifetime, but the hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ and that in a future creation that he will restore, your megalomania has blinded you to a system that is not the Christian God. OK, so we don't bring Bibles to tell them there's a God. We teach we bring Bibles to show them that the God who created this creation has a redemptive plan of human history. OK, so your megalomania has blinded you to right judgment. All right, guys, we've got to move on to the question. We have so many catch up with that Bible, so they can at least eat it. Take that trip next time. We we need got so many questions. We need to get to some of the rest because we're running out of time. Super chat at your own risk right now, because we we got just a lot. Bugmaster five dollars says I reject the dichotomy between possible and impossible. So do real scientists. Absolute statements are worthless compared to probabilistic ones. What do you think, Darth? Can you repeat the question? Yeah, sure. I reject dichotomy between possible and impossible. So do real scientists. Absolute statements are worthless compared to probabilistic ones. In order in order to make probabilistic statements by anyone, something is going to have to be static and absolute, along with what is dynamic. But apart from the Christian worldview, you're not going to be able to provide any absolutes in order to reason probabilistically. They reason probabilistically by presupposing and without defending that there are in actuality any absolutes that provide for that. All right. Thanks so much for that. We'll move on to the next question foundation. We need a foundation to build off of. So yeah, we do have to presuppose some absolutes. We really do. All right. We need a foundation. Thanks so much for that. So your absolutes are not rationally justified, Mark? Are they rationally justified? They're to the best of our ability at this point. Like I said, we're 250 years in. Give us a break. That doesn't answer the question. We're working on it. All right. Thanks so much. Saying we're working on it doesn't answer the question. All right. So the next question is from capitalism, right? Spelled like K, A, P, P, A. $5 Super Chat. Darth, I'm not sure if if you have any history on this question or not. So I'm just going to ask you, just be like pass. If you he says, will Darth debate Pogan on a modern day debate? Do you have any comment? Yeah, these are these are these are just questions. Same controls. Same thing. OK, pass on. Um, Bugmaster $5 says, does Darth Scott intervene in physical reality in any way? Or does he just sort of exist if he sits there never doing anything? What's the point? I guess you said earlier that it does intervene. Well, in the Christian in the Christian world, you God has complete providential oversight. He permits human beings to do good things. He permits human beings to be bad things. If it were not for the power of his will and his word, all fundamental things are I should I should say maybe particles would would not even exist. So God is not in their micro managing, but he is he's in control of everything through the course of his redemptive plan of history. So if we do not accept God's revelation, self disclosure of himself, that he is what is controlling everything, then what we have is there's nothing ultimately dictating what is happening. And we live in a chance world where nothing can be predicated. There cannot be any absolutes that are defended. And we saw here tonight when I asked Mark, what is your rational justification for any absolutes at all? Mark's answer was we're working on it. All right. Thanks so much for that. No, my answer was that you're fitting God's into holes again. And everybody knows that's what you're doing. You're fitting God's into our holes. All right. Thanks so much. God is what is fundamental and ultimate the basis of possibility. But you, sir, are saying God does not exist as what is fundamental ultimate. But when I ask you what is fundamental ultimate in order for you to say not God, you just say, well, I don't know. So therefore, your claim there's no God is arbitrary and irrational. All right. We'll move on. You're the only one. You're the only one tonight that has claimed an absolute. OK. All right. You claim that we don't claim absolute in science. We're not ignorant like that. We know we're learning every day. Then if there's no then if there's no absolutes, you cannot say what is can be or cannot be without absolutes. Can you say what is can be or cannot be? Mark. Yeah, the sun will rise will rise tomorrow in the east for me. And it will set in the West. OK, you just contradicted yourself because earlier I said, do you know the future? And you said, no. I know this future of the sun tomorrow. OK, how do you know the future? I'm going to get up at eight o'clock tomorrow. I'm going to get up at eight o'clock tomorrow because that's when the sun's up. Mark, are you omniscient? How do you know the future will be like the past, Mark? Because I know there's a God that's going to put that sun in there tomorrow for me. How do you know the future? The sun God will do it. I'm going to rely on the sun God. No, you can't say a sun God because you don't believe the what is ultimate and fundamental you said is unidentifiable. So how do you know the future, Mark? No, you asked me if I believed in the Christian God. I don't. I believe in the sun God and the sun God is telling me. See now, see now you're lying. No, I'm not. No, Mark, we're not talking about talking about you believing in the sun. I'm asking you, what is fundamental and ultimate so that you can tell us what what the future will be? Okay. Well, you know, for a fact that science doesn't doesn't deal in ultimates and and it absolutes, you know that already. We have a few absolutes. So there are no. But we don't need it. I just contradicted yourself. You just said there are no I didn't what are they? Speed of light. OK, have you measured all photons? I don't have time. It's not my job with all your by the way, people to do that for me. Mark, have they mentioned, have they measured the speed of light one way or two way? Have they bounced it off a mirror and returned it and measured how long it took? Of course they did. But you can set up. You can set up. You know, you really don't know what you're talking about there because they can have an emitter and a receiver and measure it in one direction. I don't know where you're getting this round. I guess I'm moving off into another direction. The one way speed of light cannot be done. So, for example, Mark, the speed of a photon when it is emitted, it could hypothetically be instantaneous, but on on round trip, it could be half the total time after it was admitted. I know. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. I'm not necessarily saying that that is the case, but it's a possibility. They have not measured the speed of light one way, Mark. All right. Is that because it's easier to bounce it off a mirror and just measure the speed of it? We've done that long ago. You're not understanding, Mark. We've understood the speed of light for years. How are you guys going to move on to the next question? I know you have to move on, Mark. I have to correct you right now. You don't know what you're talking about. The reason why light is measured round trip is because it cannot be measured one way. Why? You don't know what you're talking about. Because why? Because clocks can't be synchronized. Why? I just hope we do it with GPS all the time. We do. All right, Mark. Mark, what are you talking about? We deal with special relativity all the time with our GPS systems. Are you guys aware of tangential point here? Mark, that is just absolutely an error right there. Let's just move on. No, I'm not. Mark, if you don't mind. It's a category error, Mark. Darth, if you guys don't mind, we'll just move on to the next question. Yeah, let's just move on. We deal with special relativity every day to run our GPS and keep our satellites. Everything working properly. All right, thanks so much for that. Mark, did you know Einstein's theory of relativity is contradicted by quantum mechanics, which is right, Mark? Well, I'm sure it's all wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. All right, you guys, we're going to have to move on. I don't want to meet you guys. Let's just move on to the next question. We had a five to five C.A. Super Chat come in from Richard. Roman Chex says one hundred bucks. Mark turned his volume up instead of. Yeah, so you're right. He did. He said that earlier. Chris Gaumann, another five dollars of chat, you guys, let's move into like a speed round that way we can get through more of these because we are running a little long. Chris Gaumann says, Darth, I don't understand what you're talking about. I demand you tell me what's ultimately fundamental. I think you already answered that question, so we'll move on. Patience Stark asked, can you ask Darth Dawkins what a fallacy is? He stated that there being no God is a fallacy. I don't think he understands. What do you say, Darth? I think you might be muted again. Yes, sorry about that. Yeah, I didn't say what he said was a fallacy. I mean, I consider it false when people say there's no God, but I didn't use the word fallacy. I said that Mark's reasoning is fallacious. He used the genetic fallacy and you can actually look that up. He says he basically said in his outset that the reason why there is no God is because people have faulty reasoning reaching the conclusion that there's no God. That is a fallacy. Gotcha. And when I explained that to Mark three times, he would not even concede that that was fallacious reasoning. But that was his number one argument, why there's no God. All right, thanks so much for that clarification. We had another five dollar super chat coming from Bugmaster says, is there a practical difference between knowing the sun will come out tomorrow is fundamental and ultimate in a fundamental and ultimate way and being only 99.99999% sure. Yeah, I don't understand the question. It's already poorly worded. OK, he's just saying is there a practical difference between knowing the sun will come out tomorrow knowing would be in these kinds of conversations. Knowing would be a justified true belief. What what Bugmaster is doing is commonly what unbelievers do when we introduce discussion about knowing they want to introduce a colloquial usage of the word known, meaning varying degrees of psychological confidence that a belief is true. I never or I rarely, if ever, use the word know to refer to any percentages of psychological confidence. I almost always use it to mean a justified true belief. All right, thanks so much for that clarification. Joe Schwartz, $5 super chat says if you love, got so much. Why don't you marry him? Great comment. Move on. Oflamio or Oflamio, whatever. Sorry if I mispronounced that. Darth, you are you are an indeterminist because you believe some events do not have a cause. Is that the case? No, that's not my position. I believe that everything that exists and all events that occur have their grounding in the eternal God of the Bible. All right, thanks so much. Brian Stevens has a Patreon comment says Darth interrupted Mark and then 10 seconds later said, please don't interrupt me. So it's just a comment about the debates. Cillian Holland. Yeah, I'd like to comment on that if we were to count up the times that I interjected, compared with Mark's, his would vastly outweigh mine. I'm sure somebody will do that leg work at some point. Sure, if I can just comment on that, it's just I just I just don't want the questions to get too long that they're unanswerable. You like to put such a long string of words together with so many questions in them that they become unanswerable. And to be honest with you, very hard to remember what your point was from the beginning. So I do apologize. I do try to be polite when I do these things. And I do apologize. I'm not your enemy. We're just no, no, no, no, I don't I don't think you're a bad guy, Mark. I don't I don't think you're a bad guy. I don't know. All right, thanks so much for that. We had a 10 euro or 10 pound super chat from Cillian Holland says, Darth, how are we supposed to take a serious reality of the age of the earth around the world? OK, so it was just kind of like a comment just saying like he he thinks some of your beliefs are are untenable, I guess. Next from Bugmaster, I know China made my wireless mouse because it says made in China on the bottom. If I were to look at a live mouse, where is the made by God stamped? Any comment? You know, that's a that's a that's a guy who has appeared on the friendly neighborhood Atheist stream coming from somebody who is such a strong atheist. That's one of the dumbest questions I've ever I've ever heard. OK, I mean, that's that's the kind of questions that I would expect from an ADD rebellious teenager who didn't take his riddle on. Sure. Thanks so much for that comment. We have no, it's actually not because if you were, if could I just make a quick comment here? Can I just make a quick comment? If you were to take a look at at life as a whole. Seventy five to eighty percent of life that exists on this earth is here to kill us. Bacteria is far, far outnumber all mammals combined. Most life on this earth is designed to kill other life. That that is what life is all about. And that was the type of stuff I really had hoped to speak Darth about tonight is, you know, you've got this this Bible belief that there was no death before the sin, which makes no sense. Like I said, and it's actually higher, it's probably ninety nine percent of life on this earth is life that we can't even see. And we step on it every day. We consume it every day and we kill it every day. All right, thanks so much. And it will you say you say it makes no sense. But you you have no identifiable absolutes to point to. So you have no a plumb line or foundation for anything to make sense. If you had some absolute or you yourself said you don't know what it's fundamental absolute, all right. So therefore, when you say it doesn't make sense, your world has no metaphysical foundation to make sense of anything. All of your facts that you invoke are all shrouded in mystery. So they're not facts. So your whole world doesn't make sense. You have no grounding in your world. All right, thanks so much for those comments. Again, I think I think we're comparing our world today. And and and the religious like to look at our world today as being reality. Seventy five eighty years ago, if we didn't have antibiotics, man, you got a paper cut, you died. That this world is not the way we see it. This is an artificial world made by science. We do not live in nature. And if you claim nature is God and God made a crappy nature for us, you stepped on a thorn, you died from infection. So so is there something that is absolute that would guarantee the truth of that statement? Absolutely, if we didn't have antibiotics, well, we are not understanding me. I said, what is it that if we didn't have shots, we are dead. They came from science. I'm saying, Mark, Mark, sorry, go ahead. What is it that is fundamentally absolute that would secure the truth of your statement? History, no, you are you are now conflating man's ideas about the past versus cause and effect and biology. OK, you see, this is the problem. I ask you a straightforward question and you give me responses that bear no resemblance to the question that I asked you. So we need to move on with this. Yeah, you guys didn't ask me questions. We're almost at two, we're almost at two hours. So we need to keep going. All right. So we had a super coming in 20 pounds from Jordan says no man spoke like Jesus did. Jesus's words have changed lives throughout the past 2000 years to compare to a black box to Jesus is dishonest. You want to comment on that, Mark, real quick? I agree, Jesus, Jesus, if Jesus existed as a man, he has he has built a religion that has become unbelievable. It's become strong. There's lots of believers. It has it has changed society. And it has turned a lot what society is in certain areas into what it is. It was an incredible, incredible movement if it existed. But we don't know it existed. And that's what I wanted to talk about tonight. The proof of Jesus, the proof of God, the proof of the resurrection, the proof of us in bringing on death, the proof of Adam and Eve, genetically, where we can show it. And instead I got a lot of philosophy. But but he has veered off his philosophy and given me some answers. And I'm actually fairly happy with some of the answers that he's given me. And it's going to you know, it's it's going to be I'm going to have pause for thought probably when I go to go to bed tonight. And that's what I ever hope to get out of this. I never hope to get a win. I always hope to get paused for thought and just think about things. Well, thanks for that comment. Well, let me just make a brief comment unless we acknowledge that God exists by his self disclosure, then nothing is provable. OK, because you have no ultimate, you have no foundation, you have no absolutes to appeal to. So you keep on talking about proof. But your worldview doesn't have the necessary ingredients in order for them to further to be proof. All right. So just only in a world, only in your world, let me just finish. Only in a world with a God in the Bible exists with his attributes set. Can there actually be proof for things? If you deny that, you have no metaphysical grounds for proof. All right. Because the question was for Mark, we're going to have the we're going to let him have the last word on this question. Go ahead. Says God that, you know, says the Christians. And that's that's the thing says the Christian. So the Christians will tell you if you do not believe in their way, if you do not believe in their thought, you have no basis for reality. You have no basis for your claims. And it's it's just a faulty way of thinking and you can replace God with any word and make the exact same assumptions. You contradicted yourself. OK, hold on. Contradicted because you just stated you just contradicted yourself because the question is something he contradicted himself because he says we could assert other foundations. But I asked him, what is it that's fundamental, ultimate and absolute? And he says, we don't know it and we can never know it. And now he's contradicting himself. Well, Mark, you want to make where did I contradict myself? I don't know where I contradicted myself. You could pause it. You could positive these other foundations. You can't. What I basically said is that Christians are the ones that claim we can't know anything without God. That is their foundation and it's faulty. It's just they assert how do you ultimately know something, Mark? What does that even mean? Can you know what that means? I want to know how you ultimately know anything. So you must ultimately know everything because you have God on your side. So what you're telling me is God believing Christians know everything and we can't know anything. So what do you know? What do you ultimately know as ultimate truth? Because you're a Christian. What can you tell me what I have? OK, well, no, I'll be glad to answer the question, but I want the audience to notice Mark has dodged the question for the OMP team time tonight. OK, I didn't hear. I know you're asking it over and over. Your favorite team must be the L.A. Dodgers. Actually, they are because Don Drysdale was my uncle. Yeah. But all right. So so we got it. Let's let let Mark get in the last comment because the question was for him. I'm doing the same for you. Yeah, so all I'm saying is is they make these these assertions that you cannot know without God. And it's just it's not a legitimate argument. You know, it's it's just not it's it's like me saying you can't know unless you believe in the little black box and how do we know the little black box because it's revealed itself to us. How has it done it? The little black box makes the sun come up in the morning. It makes it go down. It's not true. Because you stated doesn't make it true. OK, thank you. That question and you and you were you were going to move on. It doesn't make it true, Mark. We're going to move on to to Canadian from super chat from ask yourself says, Mark, please stop. Well, he's just a comment. He thinks you were done. We'll move on. It's not a question. Peaborn says I'm trying to I'm trying to answer unanswerable questions as good as I can, and that's what philosophy is. Philosophy is designed not to be answerable. These questions are designed not to be answerable. That's why the audience keeps chiming in. What do you mean by this? And even he can't answer what he means by it. They're they're questions that are designed not to be answered. And then all of a sudden they stand back and they go, you see, I got you. They're for God. And it's just it's faulty in all of its. No, no, no, no, no, Mark, Mark, Mark, do you know what a reductio ad absurdum is? OK, it's using an argument that the denial of the proposition leads to contradiction or absurdity. It's a legitimate form of argumentation is called a reductio ad absurdum. OK, so it's not polishes that the denial of the proposition leads to incoherence. We can't have a tangential conversation on every question. We've got to move on because we're almost done with these. And then to be fair, the next question from G Houston 69, Mark, to be fair to you, he said basically the exact same thing about the earth on the next super chat. So that kind of, you know, it's back and forth in the comments. It's like one guy is winning the other guy is winning. So just to be, you know, it's pretty even for you guys, actually. Bugmaster five dollars says in personal things, communicate all the time. Crickets, ants, arguably amoeba computers, for sure. Computers are communicating right now as we speak. Any comment on that, Darth, or do you want to move on? I'll be honest with you. I couldn't understand what you were saying. Sorry, I'm just trying to read them fast. He basically said that in personal things, communicate all the time, like crickets, ants and computers and stuff. Any comment or do you want to move on? In person in personal things, communicate like like crickets. Yeah. No, no, these these these animals are not agents. They're biological robots. OK, that would that would that would be that would be that would be like saying a telephone is communicating because the telephone rings. OK, thanks so much, Mark. In order for there to be in order for there to be communication, there has to be one agent to another. That's the one of one mind that's a sender and a mind that's a receiver. All right, thanks so much for the comments. Mark, we have a five dollar trip chart chat from Oflamio, I believe it's called name. Please, if I forgive me if I mispronounce that says, Mark, you say that there is no God, but you agree that George Washington existed? He is worship. Oh, he's worshiped as a God in Hawaii, Shinto shrines. OK, it's just kind of like a joke, I think. Yeah, we have proof for George Washington. That's the thing, you know, that George Washington is recent in history. And there's no claims of miracles. There's no claims. You know, the God claim is pretty extreme. You got to admit it's it's a pretty extreme claim. And claims like that had better had some pretty extraordinary evidence to back them up or else, you know, they just have to fall into man's imagination where I feel God of the Christian God of the Bible. That's right. I believe he he exists. All right, thanks, Mark. You said there's proof for George Washington in your atheist world view. What I want to ask for you is simply this, can you defend the reliability of your cognitive processes and your memory capacity, what what institutes and secures that those are reliable in order for you to say in your atheist world, there's proof for George Washington. Is your memory aptitude in your well, obviously it's reliable. It's not in my no, it's not in my memory. But what it is is we've been a pretty reliable species so far. We've been keeping track of things. You could ask that about Trump and Trump's OK. So Trump was in my memory. Trump. Sure, I am. Again, you're going down the road of philosophy. Is there something that you are doing that George Washington didn't exist? No, I'm asking you in your atheist world view. Is there something at a fundamental level that imposes the basic and regular reliability of your memory aptitude and your cognition? Does something impose that? What are you? Why do you ask these questions like this? It's a legitimate question. The question was, the question was, how do we know that George Washington exists? I'm telling you. OK, Mark, hang on, hang on, hang on. We move on. It's going right over your head. All right, hang on one second. Of course it is. It's not meant to be answered. All right, let's move on to the next question. But you're not you're not equipped to answer it. Let's let let's move on to the next question. That was just kind of I think the question was even a joke before. But he says we got a super chat, a tin bomb from Rich E. Says, Darth, why does something need to be absolute in order for things to be impossible? Also, do you recommend a particular book or writing to understand more about this subject? Yeah, if if if nothing is deemed or designated to be absolute, that means everything is in flux, OK, that everything is changing, right? So you can't you can't claim that how shall I put this if not if nothing is absolute, then anything can happen. And if anything can happen, there cannot be human intelligibility. So, for example, let's say Converse Contender says the Eiffel Tower stands in Paris. If there's nothing that's absolute, he could make that intelligible statement because facts could could change in any any given moment, right? Or I could say, well, because there's rocks on the moon, therefore, the Eiffel Tower doesn't stand in Paris. You could say, well, how does that follow? That that would be impossible for one to follow another. But without absolute, you can't say what's impossible. So without identifying that something is fundamental, ultimate and absolute, you cannot assert and defend what is can be or cannot be. No absolute and you have no human intelligibility. Ladies and gentlemen, that is your brain on religion. There you go. All right, thanks for those comments. Well, you know what? That was a perfectly legitimate philosophical analysis. And because either you didn't want to understand it or or couldn't understand it, what you do is typically what atheists do and you resort to mockery and ridicule when you don't understand something. Not mocking yet. I'm not mocking you. I'm telling you that I can call somebody right now in Paris and say, hey, is that Eiffel Tower still there? And they say, yes, I'll get them to send me a picture of it. Good enough for me. I don't need to go down a long road of philosophy that says because there's rocks on the moon, you're cutting off because there's rocks on the moon. The Eiffel Tower doesn't exist because of philosophy. Let's move on. Understanding nothing's absolute. You can't make true statements, Mark. All right, let's move on. We've got two more questions right through. Got two last questions. OK, all right. So ZQs, I think I'm pronouncing the right ZQs. Thanks for your ten dollars. Super chat says, unfortunately, I came to this late. But no, Darth, a genetic fallacy is a fallacy where one attacks champions someone, something based on its history or origin. It has nothing to do with being agnostic. Do you get that? Yeah, that. Yeah, that guy's cool. Let's move on. OK. Thank you so much for your ten dollars. Rich East is. Nope. We've already asked that question. Oh, yeah. His second part of that question, that's all the way back to it, because the second part of his question was, do you have a particular book or writing to understand more about the subject? Darth. Yeah, what you can read is a book called Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt. Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt. That's the best book you can get that's easy to read and an introduction to the biblical apologetics. All right. Thanks so much for that. I think those are the last super chat or last question. If I missed yours, so sorry about that. The chat was exploding tonight because there was like one time there was like almost a thousand people in watching. So it's it was moving. Oh, good. Excellent. Yeah, there was like eight ninety nine or something like that. I mean, it was pretty. So there were about a thousand people. So ninety nine hundred ninety nine of them were my fans. There was actually a lot of Darth fans in the chat for sure. Or is it the reverse? Well, there was a lot of people in the chat for sure, for Mark as well. Like it was pretty even, I think, or I mean, as far as I can tell, it was moving quick. But there were a lot of people saying that you didn't include me. I'm your fan, too. You got to include me as your fan. Yeah, I mean, I got to say that because there's a lot of Darth haters out there. No, you can't think that way. You really can't. And people, if you hate either of us, it's not right. Like we're we're both good groups of people. Christians are good people. They believe what they believe. It's just, you know, we come to these debates just for that reason to try to get answers and to go around in in philosophy circles of philosophy doesn't really get us anywhere. And if someone wants to look into it and then I'll be quiet. I know we're trying to wrap this up. Go see Eric Hovans. He had a debate with some poor woman. Go try to find that somewhere on YouTube. And it is honestly excruciatingly painful because he just would not let this woman off of this question. And he asked it for almost two hours and she was almost in tears. And it was just philosophy. It was questions designed not to be answered. And that does not make for a winning team. It doesn't make you got to come to these things with proof for God. And I kept asking you for a word without God, there can't be proof for anything. Says you. OK, if nothing is absolute and ultimate, how can you prove anything, Mark? You're right back to asking me the same question you started it with. Yeah, yeah. So all you're simply doing is you haven't offered a reputation. All you've done is just be dismissive. That's all you've done. That's been your strategy just to be. Well, I'm not trying to be dismissive and I'm not trying to be rude. And that that's the truth. I don't think I came to tonight. All I came to tonight with with was the question. What was your best proof for God and your best proof? If I'm understanding you right and if I got it wrong, please clear it up. Is that there cannot be any understanding? There cannot be. Basically, our reality cannot exist in any form without a God. And that to me is not for God. I could say that's not what I said. What I said was without acknowledging God's self disclosure through natural and special revelation, then you're not going to have any rational grounds for intelligibility whatsoever. Your world will all be absurd. So whatever you assert is can be or cannot be. It's grounded in nothing. You keep on asking for reasons for God, proof for God. But when I ask you about your world, you have no reasons at all. You have no grounding for science. You have no grounding for laws. You admitted that there are no identifiable absolutes. It's nothing if there are no absolutes that you can identify and sustain, then you cannot be in a position of making any true claims. You understand? You said, I don't have a reason to believe in God. The reason to believe in God is without him. The reason to believe in God is without him. You don't have a reason to believe in anything, Mark. No, I understand exactly what you're saying. You're saying if we don't understand everything about the human nature, we can't know everything there for God. That is what you're saying. No, what I'm saying to you is. How can we make an absolute claim that there's no God? If you do not acknowledge God as the foundation of everything and that he has revealed himself, you will not be able to lay claim that you know anything given your model of reality, given your model of reality. There are no identifiable absolutes whatsoever. So since you have conceded that you have no identifiable absolutes, then by your own concession, you don't know anything. All right, guys, I want to give you I want to give you guys each like one or two minutes to wrap up just to give like a closing statement. And then we'll go ahead and get off there. Yeah, who would like to start? Well, I would like to go first because I feel that I got to get the last the last in. So just in fairness to Darth, I will go first. So basically I came to tonight hoping to speak to a believer about what makes him believe, what really shakes him to the core and make some wake up in the morning and go, my God, there has to be a God. When he walks out of his house, there is a God. When he reads the Bible, there is a God. I know there's a God because of this. What is the feeling he has? Is it a feeling? Is it a belief because of a book? Is it a belief because he's been told it since a child? Is there does he really believe that nature cannot exist without a God? And tonight I got a lot of philosophy and I am going to go back and re-listen to this. And honestly, I'm really going to try to put his word salad back together. And I'm sorry to follow that, but I was really having troubles following where his philosophical questioning was going. And then I started to understand what it was. There are questions that are that the answers are already presupposed to not be answerable. Therefore, God, I win. That, that to me is the weakest of arguments towards a God. I would rather sit down with Ken Hoven as silly as that may seem and have him tell me there are fossils in this layer of stone. Therefore, God, at least I can go. I can look at that and I can go, come on, Ken, that fossil is not there because of God, that's fossils there because that fish died. Sediment built up on top of it. It was replaced by minerals. There you go. We got a we got a fossil. Come on, what are you talking about? And we can argue that it's really frustrating to argue philosophy. And I'm really impressed that a thousand people stuck in there. And especially if they're kind of on my side, because they're not as used to this way of arguing for God, where, you know, my questions are unanswerable. They're designed to be unanswerable. They're designed to be confusing. They're designed to be what they are. But at the end of the day, please, everybody out there, ask yourself, just because you can't answer a question, how does that lead you to God? How does that presuppose a God? And really, what his statement is, is if we can't know everything, we can't know anything. And if I have misrepresented him, I'm sorry. And I am honestly not going to interrupt. I will mute my mic now and I'll let him finish up. And hopefully at the end, we'll get to say goodbye. And if not, again, I'd like to thank modern day debates. I think they put on some of the best debates that are out there. I think they're very fair. I would like to thank you for moderating. I think you did a great job. I'm sorry that, you know, we did end up talking over you a couple of times. But I think you did a great job. I don't think I've seen your face on here before. So I don't know if this is your first time to do it or not. But I think you did a great job. And I really do appreciate it. Thank you for giving us a platform to speak on. And to everybody in the chat who was polite, thank you for being polite. And, you know, we're all on the journey of knowledge. We're all trying to learn. And that's why we're there right now. We have a thousand people on here. And you are unique people. You are people that are trying to learn. Some of them are on here hoping for a fight where, you know, I start calling Darth names and he starts following me names. But that's not what we're here for. And I'm honestly not knowing for that. The only time I've ever got upset was on a flat earth debate. And I just couldn't I couldn't handle it anymore. So I will wrap it up there again. Thank you, modern day debates and thank you, Darth. And I'll let you I'll let you take your finishing comment. Yeah, I appreciate it. I think it was an interesting discussion for sure. Yeah, I'm not on here as much anymore because I'm really busy. But yeah, let's just kick it over to Darth to see what he's got to say. And then we'll wrap it up. OK, so Mark asked me what my reasons were for God. And I gave him that because God has revealed himself through natural revelation and special revelation, there could not be any other answer other than that. If anyone says that there is, that will be inco incoherent. The only way that we can know that God exists is by his own revelation and self disclosure of himself, either through the parameters of natural revelation and special revelation, Marcus basically acquainted with Christianity. He's basically acquainted with the account of the Bible. He's acquainted with my case that I made for natural revelation and he rejects it. All right. Now, he objected that I'm saying, oh, because we don't know all the answers. Well, that's not the position that that he is speaking from. He doesn't know anything because there are no absolutes in order for it. And by the way, I made a case for the existence of God via a reductio out absurd absurdum that that God has revealed that he exists and that he is the ground of all being and the basis for any truth statements or the acquisition of what's false. When you deny that you're in a position of absurdity. You have no identifiable foundation. You have no absolutes to appeal to. Therefore, you're not going to be in a position to make truth claims. Truth claims presuppose that some things else are going to be true, that there's going to be some absolutes. No absolutes, then you cannot have truth. Now, you might want to define truth in an obscure way, but without absolutes, you cannot have truth. Now, almost the entire time, Mark was just dismissive and just simply dodged the question. Then he says, oh, it's unanswerable, what is ultimate and absolute? But then he turns around and says, well, we could pause it. You know, this little black thing over here that's absolute. But why would he offer that when he says it's unknown and can never be known? So what we had is flipping and flopping. And what I have done is I've succeeded in showing that the denial of the revelation of the God of the Bible, ultimately through Jesus Christ, who died on the cross, rose again from the dead for our sins. And he commands us to repent and believe on him. The denial of the revelation of God, both through creation and through special revelation, results in metaphysical absurdity. Right. Mark has basically conceded, whether he realizes it or not, that his entire position is absurd because he has no absolutes. He has no foundation for anything, yet he wants to continue to make truth claims as though he had some foundation or basis. He says, well, give me reasons for this, give me reason for that. There can't be any reasons for anything in Mark's world because he admitted there are no absolutes. So I have shown the truth of Christianity through a reductio out absurdum, OK, the denial of the proposition leads to absurdity. The proof of Christianity is that that without God, without Jesus Christ, you can know nothing. All right. Thanks so much for that closing statement, both you guys. I thought it was interesting and I'm sure a lot of people are going to watch this back a couple of times just to kind of. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mark. You had a good time. Yeah, the debate. Yep. And thank you, Darth again. Thank you, modern day debates. Not a problem. Good seeing you guys. And hopefully we'll do this again soon and everybody else out there. Thanks for tuning in and all the super chats and everything. And as usual, keep sifting the reasonable from the unreasonable.