 Good evening everybody and welcome to modern day debate tonight We're going to be debating creationism on trial and Luke is here to present his opening arguments So 10 minutes on the floor Luke and it's all yours All right. Can you guys hear me well? We certainly can Okay, awesome. Um Let's get after it. All right Welcome to creationism on trial guys. Thank you for having me here I thank you to the hosting the interlocutor the whole shebang the audience I will be using terms creationism and intelligent design being essentially synonymous since they are if a belief is a Platform each piece of supporting evidence or reason-based argumentation is a leg supporting that belief or that platform I'll offer several legs, which I will be focusing on tonight Atheists love asking specific questions about specific gods or their morality or verses in the Bible and how they apply to science And that's all good. Those are fine conversations Foundational questions must be addressed first. Where are we in space in space time base reality simulation theory brain in a bat? How do we know anything random chance and time yielding predetermined natural actions versus purposeful design a conscious self and free will Are there are moral absolutes? And if so, how do we justify them arguing about anything else is like arguing over the existence of symptoms without first testing for the disease We have to establish these foundational topics first for several of the legs of my argument I will be we will need to answer the premise behind the questions about intelligent design addressing the framing Addressing the framing first kind of like the popular question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? If you answer yes, then you admit that you are beating your wife or that you used to beat your wife If you say no, you admit that you are still actively beating your wife in a question like this You must address the framing first in doing so we will find that often atheist use tools to disprove theism Which they have no logical logically grounded reason to use they pretend We are in a designed reality in order to discredit a designed reality The first leg we'll be looking at is fine-tuning. There are too many factors that are Simultaneously perfect for life to exist for a chance to be an explanation the moon's distance from in rotation speed of the earth Not causing floods earth distance from the sun not causing Unlivable heat or deep freeze the makeup of the atmosphere and decay rate of various elements You could list hundreds of factors which had to simultaneously be perfect or else Not even cellular life could exist on earth Dr. J. Richards points this out as too many Including atheists who recognize the strength of the fine-tuning approach like kitchens Dawkins and Sam Harris Recognize how both the existence of nothing and some and the existence of something both seem to have been designed in a compelling manner And they also recognize the strength of simulation theory, which is ultimately the belief in a design respectively Next leg is morality and free will and the fact that they exist if free will exist It necessitates God as I atheist Alex O'Connor grants free will needs an ultimate source of will which grants our brains and our very being and Aboutness which is beyond what could be called physical natural nerve synapses firing If free will does not exist laws and punishments are both unethical If we are acting on natural impulses given our surroundings We ought to at the very least Prosecute friends and co-workers of criminals because they contributed to the natural occurrences Which ultimately resulted in crime and the environment which resulted in that crime Morality exists good must be grounded somewhere or else we cannot make statements like grape is always wrong Here atheist T jump agrees with me But neither he nor my opponent tonight can define where the moral grounding is Sunday agrees with these points on morality and free will even though I suspect he might act as though he does not in a video Which sees destiny reacted president Sunday Sunday discusses whether or not it is wrong to be a grifter and receive money for things you do They in that same debate They also discuss whether or not it is right or wrong or justified in multiple factors surrounding the Kyle written house case These types of conversations make no sense without an absolute moral grounding if you keep tracing this cord It brings you to the belief that some extremist atheist hold though very few which is that the intent that which is that intentions and mental Experiences do not exist at all. They say this because in being intellectually consistent and honest They recognize that intention and experience of the self requires an aboutness beyond neurons firing in your brain Bringing the parts of your self-consciousness together emotions thoughts experiences, etc with what may be cut within what may be called a self is is Self seems to dictate in other conscious beings philosophy and metaphysical expert Rasmussen and atheist so con Alex O'Connor agree on this point The next leg we'll look at is that time space matter and energy require a source outside and beyond themselves The cosmological argument is that everything that comes into being or begins to exist has a cause Why is the universe even here is being a property of the universe like having three sides is a property of the triangle We have no evidence for this regarding the universe Atheists love to push time back further and space and matter smaller But they cannot answer where they came from a note on this leg is that God is not that God as an answer is not Special pleading the Christian claim and other religions is that which says that God is beyond space time matter and the source of energy Long predate the scientific need for such a claim that is to say the belief existed before the need was Established and thus it is not special pleading two other problems with this being special pleading One is that all too often a theists themselves special plead when they say of matter space time and energy that at some level Those things must be eternal second saying that God is special pleading it as an answer shows a fundamental Misunderstanding of how theists define God. It's like asking so the North Pole is north then what's north of the North Pole? It shows that you fundamentally misunderstand the thing that you're asking about Real quick. Where are we on time like five minutes about here? You take finish. I yield whatever time he needs You got four minutes and 30 seconds left there. Oh God The next leg I'd like to look at is the existence of non physical realities like logic and consciousness This is how we would search reason measure evidence for and understanding of a God or gods Such realities have no grinding no grounding in a random physical universe Even if they did we would have no reason to trust our own ability to test these realities Why would we trust your brain? Your brain the naturalistically predetermined result of random time and space and if my brain disagrees with your brain Why should we even look for a reason to trust one over the other? What is the general atheist answer to this sadly in my experience It's sneaky coping misrepresentations and gulp post-moving as can be seen in my debate recap of my video with t-jump In which he was either misinformed or deceitful about whether or not science has disproven free will and the existence of something out of Nothing spoiler alert science has not explained these things. I encourage you to view that video if you want full citations The quant in the various views of quantum theory none have ever claimed to definitively explain origins and in various fmri studies the scientists involve have got involved have gone out of their way to say that free will had neither been explained Nor disproven professors Pearson Haines and others attest to this Atheists tend to appeal to science of the gaps coupled with undefined non-existent standards for proving or disproving God the problem with science of the gaps is That God didn't get smaller as our knowledge grew as fine-tuning addresses God got bigger and more necessary with the more we learned It used to be that God was only needed to explain lightning sexual attraction floods and some other natural dangers and phenomena Now he is needed for every life permitting constant We discover and and there are many with that I'll pose one question and what I have like a minute 30 left. Do whatever you need Thanks, I'll pose one question I'd love to explore and have answered and we could return to and I encourage the audience and my interlocutor to think about this one Would it be wrong for a first-world nation an advanced first-world nation to invade? Take the resources and enslave or kill all the inhabitants of a less developed third-world nation say would that be right or wrong in an Evolutionary-minded atheistic mindset there would not be anything wrong with that and to say that there would be something right about that Might also be misleading because right and wrong wouldn't truly exist. However, as we see In Darwin's work and the work which followed Sure, we can get into that Basically, I'll just wrap it up is in saying that in Darwin's I think he deserves an extra three minutes for that interruption We would see that the survival of the fittest dictates that those who are the most fit would and to an extent should though Not in a moral sense be used to Procreate and further their species. So again, what would be wrong with a first-world nation invading taking over and stealing from a third-world Nation under a Darwinian atheistic mindset. That's a question And let's let's get into all right. Well, thank you so much for your introductory statement there Luke We are going to hand the floor over to you present Sunday to respond to some of the things you just heard there You do have up to 10 minutes and you are welcome to yield whenever you feel like it and put this into the open discussion But I will remind our audience that we are going to do Q&A at the end So if you have questions for either of our speakers, you can get them in now and they'll be asked nice and early So present Sunday, you have up to 10 minutes. Thank you very much So first off my apologies to my interlocutor. I did not remember a single word of that So you'll have to remind me when we get into the back and forth But secondly before I get into my open statement proper I want to take the opportunity to express some long-standing issue I've had towards James the owner of modern-day debate and our host not this host This guy's cool with James himself who I was told insisted during the organization phase that he only wanted to debate between Atheists and theists virtually guaranteeing that rather than an interesting exchange between diverse approaches to socially important topics That are very dear to many people's hearts and their decisions in the real world We are treated to endless repetitions of the same debate again and again between the same self-selecting Stereotypes with one of these roles more often than not as indicated by my interlocutor being played by T-Jump This is why so much of modern-day debates Don't make me spend all the debate doing this Content is not only extremely irresponsible giving a megaphone to racists, misogynists and crackpots of all stripes But also extremely boring never evolving beyond a repeat of the same old talking points and making it I gotta have to ask you to actually get into an introduction against creationism I can't just do cleanup for the channel and how you feel about how things might unfold on modern-day debate Even though some things we may agree or disagree about I do have to ask you to Present a case that's directed to the thing we're talking about tonight. So I'm just going to ask you to come off the mute there and Let's get into the creationism versus An atheistic argument here. Totally fair. By the way, your audio is echoing a little bit Yeah, so very quickly. So this is why those debates are all so extremely boring never evolving beyond a repeat of the same Old talking points and making it increasing on a watchable channel I urge James to do some soul searching about the state to which this channel is descended Which is essentially a freak show on repeat. Thank you. Now to address the poor bastard. I'm actually debating There are a lot of arguments for and against the creation of the world by a christian style god And they run the gamut from biology to physics most of which being well outside my wheelhouse the many and unless find Things within them to worry about in terms of their coherence or trustworthiness I'm going to spend my opening statement What's left of it targeting an argument that isn't completely outside my abilities Namely god's personhood just to give a taste of the kind of issues that I tend to take with arguments for a creator god We'll frequently hear theists argue that god is personal And the reason this matters is to account for a seeming contradiction pointed out by skeptics between the claim that god is Responsible for curating the universe including space and time With other properties god is asserted to possess namely his perfection and his timelessness Being perfect the skeptic asks why would god be motivated to create and being timeless? When would he do so? And god's personhood is invoked to address each of these god's character is such that he would tend to create worlds such as ours Thus making the creation of the world end of time not at odds of god's perfection But rather its consummation solving the first question of why god would create and making the when questions seemingly irrelevant Since the creation of time itself on this view has become a necessary part of god's perfection Problem arises however when we consider that second question of when more closely because it seems like in the very invocation of god's personhood We have reinserted time into the creation account prior to itself Namely in this respect if god is capable of occupying multiple different states And we know that he is because god at one point must have initiated his creation Then at a later point observed his creation was completed God therefore appears to be capable of change doesn't have to be the kind of radical personality change We associate with a traumatic brain injury or psychological trauma or some other kind of mind-altering experience But it's nonetheless relevant that god on this account seems to be capable in advance of time existing of of time existing he's capable of switching between modes of not creating and then creating And when we ask along what dimension does a change of states? We can simplify our language here and just ask along what dimension any sort of action can occur Find it will be time And so we appear to have engaged in a subtly circular argument when we say that god created the world and is outside of time Despite his perfection due to his being a personal being because we appear to have quietly reinserted time prior to his creation In order to justify assertions about the tendency of the being Two specific actions at a point in the story for the conditions of these actions being possible has not yet been satisfied That's just sort of the the type of the type of issue I'm going to take with the kinds of arguments I suspect my opponent is going to bring to bear and with that I'll yield the rest of my time All right. Awesome. Let's get into it and once again I'm going to remind everybody to hit the like and subscribe if you haven't already and let's go into an open Discussion so uh, luke. I'll put it back over to you to respond to some of what you just heard and Feel free to jump in as you see fit Sure, um, I'll take the first 15 minutes here to say I think modern day debates got some real issues. I'm just kidding No This was the scheme between the two of us to just come on here and trash them mdd um No, I would I there were some interesting notes there. I kind of see a lot of um A lot of dancing around issues without without defined measures of of logic right wrong And anything that we would use to make a decision, um, whether moral or scientific or logical Um, but I I just come back to to the first question So I mean I established the when I would consider the For tonight the support beams for my argument For the the the platform of my argument. Um, and my question is is Uh, one of those is the existence of of things like morality Of absolute morality. And so for that I'd come back to the question I posed and if you want me to restate it I can but but that's the one I ended with is which I'd like to address Uh, it would it be moral for A greater power to um purely dominate a lesser power Well, it's a little bit more pointed than that. So so I'd say not just a greater power, but we're but specifically human So in the modern day In advanced civilization, let's say japan I I meant I meant power in the in the human So so let's say an advanced civilization like japan which under a darwinian construct Is the more fit the more advanced and you could even say the more evolved structure than some lesser developed regions or cultures um Would it be bad or wrong? For them to kill enslave and take the resources for the betterment of humanity because you could argue that if there is Their cultures today that live as as king. I would assume we agree, right? They're still there's that essentially live in the stone age or the bronze age. Um, they are not using their resources Again, I don't believe this but in a darwinian construct to the same effect and efficiency that someone like japan a first world advanced highly productive Human structure would so would it be wrong to invade enslave kill and take their resources for the betterment of the utilitarian construct that that's my question for the utilitarian construct I don't believe I've asserted a utilitarian construct Um, I also think that last the lindendoms a little bit unnecessary I think we can probably tell a similar story in any case where one party find itself weaker than another one in material terms um I suppose I suppose my my immediate question is because as far as I am Uh, where I haven't actually asserted any particular moral framework whatsoever And I have no trouble biting a bullet of a greater power doesn't have some supernatural or overarching authority to Uh, judge it wrong or right in sort of absolute terms to respect to whatever it does I'm a little bit perplexed as to uh, what this question is supposed to do for your side of the argument here well I just find that in the in the opening and you said you you didn't remember it So we could we could go back to it But um, it would be the second leg that I spoke about which is that free will and morality exists And um that they both point to a creator or creators and and again just to Define this a little bit you mentioned a christian style god Um, I am a christian, but tonight i'm not arguing for a christian style god I'm arguing for a creator or creators the the debate is intelligent design or creationism on trial. So so I'm not sure what you meant by christian style god, but well a christian a christian style god is essentially what's meant by a creator god That's uh, that's a a set of religious creeds that involve Displacing god from the world making him in some sense prior to its existence, etc, etc That's uh, that's a pretty specifically judaeo christian islamic Sort of style of approach to god very very uh very few other beliefs I'm not actually really aware of any make that specific metaphysical distinction between the world and god himself Yeah, so that's an interesting note there. So um the the I would agree that that is a specific style of god I just wasn't sure what you meant by christian style, but that's clear now Um, but I would say that the reason that I would be arguing for that style of god is or gods Is because that is what is necessary For the inception of the universe for the creation of the universe because take a god like zoos, right zoos is is um He's a an olympian which came from the primordials which came or which is the guy. He's a guy with superpowers. Yeah He's not the guy, right? He's he's essentially superman. He is dependent on time. He's dependent on matter He is subjects to aging. He is subject to energy to energy resources. He runs out of energy He's not he would not be a sufficient answer to the questions that we're raising tonight Which is ultimately origins, right origins of the universe and then everything that goes into that time space matter energy So zoos and those like him Shouldn't be Supposed as as an answer to to these things because they wouldn't make sense. They're not sufficient, right? So um, so would we agree on that? Well, I I want to poke out a little something you said earlier. God would be required for the inception of the universe Uh, why do you think so? Tell me tell me that Well, I think that was that was uh outlined in in my opening. I think I would yeah, I'm sorry There was a lot in your opening. I did not follow it. Uh, if you'll humor me My apologies very rude for um for One of the one of the legs that I think would most directly speak to this Is the idea that um time space matter and energy require a source outside or beyond themselves No, certainly, but why would that necessarily take the form of god? Well, what what form do you think it could take that is not god? I'm in the dark about that. I have no idea. In fact, uh, just to show my hand a little bit here um, I rather suspect that if an explanation of what comes outside of the universe what is prior to the universe Uh relies upon its coherence within it That would actually suggest something of sort of a reverse chain, right? It seems like we're actually projecting something that's reasonable to us given The parameters of existence that are familiar to to beings in the world um outside of it Like the idea that you can identify something in terms of having like specific properties in terms of doing things acting on things When we're talking about like what uh, what creates the world We're not just talking about what accounts for the existence of stuff. We're also accounting for what accounts for the conditions under which stuff is even even conceivable and It seems to me that even even by sort of enumerating Uh the parts of the activities or the the things which god must do outside of the universe in order to Satisfy the conditions of creation. We're doing exactly that. We're putting things that only make sense within the context of a universe already existed Into a quote-unquote space you see and like an additional problem here where uh, These things are being held to have not yet been instantiated Okay, can you define that that additional problem a little more? I'm not I'm not sure I recognize it as a problem When we conceptualize the world as being distinct between some outside and some inside We have made a spatial distinction between the universe as such So you said that when we conceptualize the world as being some outside inside some of what outside of what what are When we conceptualize the world as having an inside and outside And the outside is presumably the zone which god occupies that sort of is province so to speak We've spatially divided the universe in a certain sense from something that is supposedly prior to space There's a there's a little bit of there's a little bit of a conundrum there for me Is that is that right when you say when we when we? Segment off the the world you mean all of reality the universe every all of Yeah, when you so when you say god is prior to the world or god created the world right you distinguish between god and the world Yes, okay. Yeah, so before we have god and the world We we need something that makes such a division Sort of possible like we need we need some some bedrock of reality established That allows for division and for the conceptualization of difference and difference apart from god more specifically so That's something that makes sense to us that sort of reflects our experience of of objects as they're presented to us in the world We we understand objects by their difference from one another But when we're talking about the creation of the universe, we're not just talking about the creation of the matter of which Differences are are comprised. We're talking about the creation of the possibility of difference itself Right. We're going really really nitty-gritty here Sometimes I've I've heard some people argue that the the laws of logic for example demand god They're just inexplicable without it So on and so forth. Well I throw that right back at you then. I'm not you specifically you haven't I believe said that tonight The generative Yeah, so like okay fair enough, but then if you're if you're using the the Fundamental conditions of logic in order to justify god. Well, it seems you now have things that are Simultaneous with god you've already introduced a principle that doesn't really get You know to the heart of the question, which is why god and why not something else? You seem to occupy a similar status with respect to us I think the claim there would be twofold one would be that god is the ultimate measure and source of logic Whatever god or gods exist Um would be the ultimate measure and source of logic without which we could not Logically measure anything because there would be no grounding to logic Um and the second would be which would I think most theists would agree with I could speak for myself and and I think many others Is that the existence of those non physical realities? Points to god and I think I think you said you have an issue with with people saying that logic Requires god or was that the word you use requires or dictates? Well, what you say is logic points to god. Um, you also said afterwards was that uh, god provides the grounding for logic Otherwise, there wouldn't be logic Maybe we can dig a little bit further into that. Yeah, and why do you why do you think so? To make that to make this point clear and then we can go into yes Whatever question you just asked um So when I say points to god or or supports in the sense of as I introduced my my opening statement A a leg supporting the structural argument for or of a god or gods Um, I look at this like puzzle pieces, right? So different pieces of logic reason and evidence There are people that can make a puzzle and that puzzle can look like anything And so we take these pieces and we say what does this puzzle given the pieces we have look most like My argument tonight is that that puzzle looks most like it points towards a god or gods that created And if I may how have you made that judgment? Well, I will be determined that this is what a pointing to a god looks like Yeah, well, I think I addressed that in the opening with the pieces of evidence that that we have I think that they are best explained By a god that is outside of space time matter That is the source of logic and morality A god that gives us the reality of free will which we experience recognize and exercise regularly No, no, just let's let's try to let's try to stay focused on one thing at a time I understand that but you asked me I just gave you the frame. Oh, yeah, but but we went we went immediately from we went immediately We went to immediately we went in just one second. We'll let him wrap up his thought and then we'll kick you back Go ahead. That was you your uh, your floor there president It's my floor. Well, that's what I say. I was because he oh, I thought you were giving He was he was the one who was being interrupted. I thought you're gonna give him space Well, just a matter of trying to make sure you're both getting a equal time here So if you got a thought I want to make sure you're getting oh sure, but I mean opening statements. I don't think should count for that um Yeah, so you were going on and on about how like and this is what God is x y and z etc. But I really wanted to get an answer to that specific question By what methodology using what tools did you come to the judgment that the laws of logic points to the existence of god by itself as that which Grounds logic, I suppose How like how did you make that judgment? How did you get to that conclusion? I think one way would be by saying that Logic needs a grounding are we we together so far logic needs some sort of absolute grounding Sure okay I'm not agreeing with that. I'm just following All right. Um, well if if you disagree with it, I think we have an issue So I'd ask you why you disagree with it. I mean because I'm giving you my process of my order of operations in my mind And so I think that if you disagree with one you have to stop me there and show me why you are justified in disagreeing Well, it's that word absolute. I'm sort of ambiguous about you haven't really like Defined your terms are really specified what you mean by the words you're using to describe your methodology I'm just letting you sort of play it out Yeah, well, okay, so Um, I said I believe that logic needs an absolute grounding meaning that there have to be some things that are Absolutely correct 2 plus 2 why why do you why do you think so? In order for us to know anything Or to even execute things like the scientific method Or to have interpersonal communication in any meaningful way That would have to be true Well, that's a pragmatic argument for what we need logic to be in order for us to make positive use of it But I was asking specifically How do you how do you know that to be true that that uh that logic requires some sort of fundamental foundation Well, what do you what do you use to get to that? I just said it's a pragmatic pragmatic argument based on observation Why would you say it doesn't? Why would I say it doesn't? Well, I'm sort of in the dark about that the reason why I'm asking is because it seems to me In the dark about it, but that's not an answer. That's not you say I I haven't defined Well, I was I was gonna I was going to give you an answer So the reason why I was asking that the reason why I was asking that particular question Um is because it it seemed to me As though you were making statements presuming certain axioms of logic About logic in order to get to some sort of meta statement about god's relationship to logic as a kind of background grounding for it And I'm I'm a little bit. I'm a little bit curious as to How you sort of get around that because it seems like you're reasoning in a bit of a circle here You're you're starting from the assertion that god grounds logic and then using the conditions under which logic is useful Or under which logic is logic say in order to get at something that's behind logic But it seems to me that you haven't actually done that you're still operating sort of within The system that you're asserting stands by itself as evidence of something else that is only recognizable by the internal mechanisms of that system Am I making sense? A little bit, but I I don't think that that's a I think that you might have misrepresented a few steps there And I don't think that the argument I'm making well by all means correct me, please Sure, so I'm I'm saying logic exists And in all observable instances ever logic has been reliable um And that Number one that existence first. Oh Can you guys hear me? Sorry. I just got a low battery. Oh, you're totally slowly me. I can't hear anything No, we can hear you fine Just messing with you Okay, great, great Uh, okay, so the the existence of a non-physical reality like logic is an example Of how we would measure something non-physical like god I think that that is one that is just one conceptual example that we can look to um, and then the other piece that logic kind of plays into here Is that logic has to be grounded in something? I won't even say someone it has to be grounded in Something and I'd ask what you think it's grounded in and the example I gave is if we assume A a reality And I'll say universe but when I say universe, I don't mean just physical matter. I mean full reality that is uh the The product of random time And chance ultimately Um, there's there's no reason to believe that that logic is grounded And reliable in such a reality and I'd be interested in hearing where you Might disagree with that and how you justify disagreeing with that Well, what does it mean to measure something metaphysical? um to measure that sort of the require sort of like uh You know marking in some sense some some sort of dimension, right? That's that's what measurement involves. It's it's it's uh It's it's comparing it's comparing Like like things in order to get a sense of Relative scale or duration or whatever like that. That's what measurement entails. What does it mean to measure something metaphysical? To measure something metaphysical I'm not sure that that you would put that in the realm of of um physical measurement if that's if that's what you're saying I'm I'm metaphysical measurement if you will what what does that mean measure in the sense that you would um Measure measure the character of a man to assess Assess something character. Well, what is what is what is measured when you assess the character of a man? It's using the the uh observable realities that you have and and the formerly observed realities that may not even be a uh, um connected to that reality that you're currently observing and compiling them all And making a conclusion so for instance if I look at you and then I measure you based on my former experiences with other humans Those aren't tied to you But they are they can be tied in the sense that I use them as reference points and comparisons and averages in my mind To measure the person that i'm talking to in this case you even though you're not directly tied to other People and beings that I have observed in the past Well, god, uh, god, would you agree is uh Since we're talking about metaphysics god is spaceless timeless so on and so forth um, I would say that god is outside of and not restricted by space and time So god so god is a spatial be He can be but uh If if he wants to be because he is all powerful But he is not restricted by and is outside of space and time. So god is also finite. That's interesting It's not a typical uh christian position. What do you mean by finite? Well, you've just uh delineated the distinction between what is god and what is not god by making him outside of space and time. Yes No, I said he is if he is outside of and in control of it He can be anywhere at any time. He can be everywhere It can be can be in potentia But the fact that he's outside of it would represent like a distinction between spacetime and god So that would be a limit. Yes, space time are not god If god or gods choose to limit and if god or gods which are powerfully Explained origins choose to not be present in the creation or realities, which they Created and brought to be then they can but that doesn't mean that they are limited in a finite sense They can choose to withdraw but that doesn't mean they have to limit Tends to imply a a need when you say for instance when you say i've reached my limit There comes a direct implication of a need to rest or not necessarily like the ocean has a limit right between the The water and the land like that's that's a limit Yeah, and it needs to stop there right so so that doesn't need this it doesn't need to stop there It does stop there doesn't need to a bit of a dishonest comparison there How so I just explained why because the ocean needs to stop where it stops so it is finite There is a need it can't go further than the shoreline Well, I think I think what you're talking about is that there's some kind of external imposition that causes it to stay fixed there Sure, I mean that's that's not that's not the language of the need though It doesn't need to stop there when they need you typically talk about or like a it is an appetite that needs to be satisfied or something It needs to in the sense that it is forced to in the sense that It doesn't matter It in the sense that it is Forcibly stopped in its progression there that would not be the same as if as an infinite Um god or gods who created uh who account for origins. Okay, so finitude doesn't Doesn't have anything to do with the the power of a being or the potential of being finitude simply has to do with the fact That a thing has some point where its extension ceases So that if you were compared to something else that thing would go on where that thing doesn't go or vice versa Um, so the reason why I'm I'm I don't agree. I mean no so finite Means to have limits or bonds on you that is that is the I literally just looked at I can co-op really mean limits or bonds when we're talking about physics. It really just means like So you're kind of so and this is I've seen some of your stuff before you come up with these definitions with a few sat words and you throw them in there Authoritatively and you're very good and and frankly I appreciate how respectful you've been But you have this a little bit of an error of throwing an sat word with a an authoritative definition that you have approved of And then a simple google search can show that that's not actually the right definition of that word. So the first I'm gonna level with you It would be loverly if you won this debate tonight completely unconvinced me. I think that would give me a lot of peace of mind I'm not convinced that you're going to but i'm actually legitimately asking these questions because these are the questions that can certainly about this kind of debate that you'd win either but uh, but Um, having a limit or a bond is the definition of finite So I think I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm not going to let you kind of sneak away Well, why don't we why don't we just pretend I I made up a definition out of hand and I'm specifically talking about spatial finitude I'm sorry. Go ahead. Can you repeat that? I didn't hear you. Why don't we pretend? I I was erroneous in my I'm not by the way But why don't we pretend it was erroneous in my initial use of finitude? And we'll we'll restrict it to the spatial because there's a specific reason that I'm asking this Which is pertinent when you say restrict it to the spatial. What are you talking about? I mean when I say finite I'm specifically talking about a spatial finitude I I still grant that no because because a god or gods that choose to either That have the ability the full ability to be everywhere at once or to take a physical form and be present in South africa at that time. Um, that is not that doesn't make them finite That that if god chooses to be outside of space and time you follow me They've got chooses to be outside of space and time then what he chooses to do is to Make it so His infinity doesn't extend Into the domain of space and time Do we agree with that? If he chooses to be outside of space and time. Yes, however, I'm The god or gods who are capable of accounting for origins don't necessarily as he retains the power to go back in afterwards Okay, all this could be reshuffled. Sure. That's fine. But what I'm saying is The argument doesn't even have to dictate that they are Exclusively outside of space and time I'm saying they can be outside of and inside of space and time at the same time But not limited by space and time So not in space and time in the sense of being finite and limited Okay, but you're discreet. You're you're you're talking about limited in the sense that you're worried about My attacking God's capacity for infinitude, but I'm not doing that I'm just literally asking like would you agree that if god is outside of space and time Then what we are describing is a relationship of finitude be a being outside time stops where god starts by being Uh outside space time god god stops wherever time starts advice versus like am I am I making sense? I I feel like that's a pretty no, I don't think so because you just said time starts where god stops That's not the argument if we imagine if we imagine space and time as being this circle And god is being This circle. Yeah, and we agree that god is outside of space and time Then the god's circle does not overlap with the space The argument so so to so what it was asking a question. I wasn't making an argument Well, but you're you're making a statement about My belief and I think I just think I'm literally I'm literally just asking So for instance The argument is is more akin to this would which would be can you even see these? I don't even know so This It's a it's a nasty look and donut This would be god except for this would be or the best kind of bagel limited And this would be time space and matter that he has created which is Within his or their realm But not but he or they are not restricted by that thing So it's not god existed and then stopped and then here comes time space and matter It's that god exists and within his existence. He chose to bring in what we Limited beings of Europe as time space and matter. Show me the bagel again I'll show you what I mean. Okay. Yep. Okay. So put it for the screen. This is we have a yeah, thank you Go ahead Oh, no, no, because it's it's the illustration. I'm talking about the illustration It's an oh in and out go ahead I'm thinking you ruin my whole copy of foreign affairs. Do I have a blankish page? Uh, that'll do. Okay. So You got your donut, right? All right. So as you can see here There is a line separating the space in this donut from the space within the hole Okay So the matter or the substance or whatever you want to call it of the donut is finite with respect To the space occupied by the hole, which is not the hole. Obviously, this is not if not the hole with an h not a w The hole with a w does have an h in it, but you got the idea Yeah, I got you Not if what that hole is within think of it more of us a sphere than a circle or in Ever-expanding eternal sphere or whatever That circle within that sphere. This is three dimensional It would be a better way by doubt that either of us could could draw it is Part of the hole. It's not it's not a finite limitation. It's not like hey Here's the circle and the outside circle can't get in or or even isn't in no it isn't It's just part of the it's part of the hole. So it's it's part of god. Yes It is it is it is within the reality of Okay, but it is it is it is a part though. You're specifically using that language. You're comfortable with that It is Yeah, yeah, sure. You could call it. Okay. What what what is a partition? A part what is what is a partition involved? A partition is a being a part of something bigger No, um a partition is when you take a part from something and separate it, right? That's what I said. So The the mother part if you will now has a relationship of finitude with respect to the space occupied by the partition This this part It's not identifiable with this. Okay, that works for me. Just fine. We would call that I'm sorry to say that again There is a relationship of finiteness with respect to the hole and the part i.e the main part ends At the point where the part begins Along whatever dimension you like the part is intrinsically part of the hole It doesn't matter if it's intrinsically part of the hole. It is still part Yes, it is a creation out of the essence of the hole and it is within the hole It is not part. Okay, but but but but within the hole is a relationship of spatial difference Within is a relationship of spatial difference. You have identified a thing That is distinct from the surrounding ambient stuff And therefore you have a spatial division so that we can say Time is it does not encompass god and god Encompasses, but it's not inside space and time. Yes um, no Not you just said god encompasses which is is around but it's not with space and time But that's that's the that's the donut And he is within it or they are within it. So god is within space and time God is not outside of space and time. So we did this is what I literally started out saying though is not restricted by You can be in but not restricted by okay, but a restriction and a separation are not identical with each other So for example, I I retained the capacity to enter a movie theater. I have technically been gated out of that Is a thing I can do just jump over the little rope, right? That's that's that's easy Okay, so I retained the power to put myself into the movie theater But I am in so far as I'm on one side of the line. I'm on the other side of the line Yeah, but that's not No, so whether or not whether or not god retains the ability to manifest in space of space of time indefinitely No, but does not space and time Using space and time is in it but is also out of it is this is the this is where I talked about I think a a This is a ground level misunderstanding between atheists and theists and I think that this this is kind of like you saying um Okay If we look at it, did you listen to that whole thing that our host just muted? Like like we're talking about like oh, what what does You what does the what is the general atheist thing? First of all, I don't I don't think you know what the general I don't even think I know what the general atheist thinks But secondly, like it feels like you're arguing with a bunch of stereotypes. You're asking a simple question You're you're extremely It's you're extremely insecure about uh, oh, these are the games those Those those sinister atheists play in order to to undermine us because they just they just love gay sex and need god Like like just just work with me here. Like let's no, no, no, no, no I'm gonna impress you on that. When did I say or even imply that these are the games sinister atheists play? Well, you referred to the general atheist multiple times in your discussion I'm assuming that's not a ranking system within the the army of atheism, right? I never said ranking system I never even implied. I know that was a joke. Well, yeah, I think it's absolutely true to or it's absolutely fair And accurate to speak to generalities within beliefs. You could speak about general christian beliefs Generally christians believe that jesus rose from the dead Generally islamists believe that muhammad was the unique prophet of prophets No, but you you were like you were like loading and you were loading an argument I never even made with respect to like the morality of japan If you want to attack nanking or something like it's not You can push on it, but I reject you saying that Speaking in generalities when we're talking about beliefs held by millions is a bad thing If there's a specific one there that you want to push back on go ahead and it's it's with respect I think it's bluntly an anti-intellectual thing when we're talking about very high-level issues And setting relationships of space time and being to fall back on and this is this is what those Slavenly god-hating atheists always do they just it screams it screams not serious When did I say I would just like to I would just like to have a conversation Sure, uh me too, but you just you just you just leveled And I don't believe you about about something that concerns you when did I say or allude to that can you give me the quote? Uh, well just not an accusation but just the the example that you brought up Like there's a whole Give me the whole thing the whole thing like we're talking about creation for example You're asking me about whether or not it would be moral for a greater political body to Dominate a lesser political body along. Yeah some spectrum. Yeah, but we we haven't even gotten to that part of the conversation You're just you're just gish-galloping a million different grievances. You have With like the t-jumps of the world and it's a little bit terrorism So I don't I asked you a very I asked you a very very simple question Do we agree that there is a spatial distinction involved in a partition between space and time and god A 10-minute opening statement is not a gish-gallop using a 10-minute opening statement to To establish your parameters and beliefs. It's not a gish-gallop Whatever you say I really know I reject that accusation and then um, and then you look I get your feelings are hurt, but I really do actually care about We gotta let him at least you know get you know try to answer the question And if you don't feel like he's answered it, you know, you can press but uh, we gotta let him have a chance to respond Well speaking of pressing I'm not gonna let him get away from this. He just leveled quite a few accusations I want examples. He just and then when I asked for examples, he hand waved and said, uh, well When when you talked about that thing and he said When you talked about the the japanese and the first world nation question our conversation hadn't even gotten there yet Um, excuse me. Yes, it had because I brought it there I asked that question because it was a piece of the supporting evidence that I wanted addressed And you hand waved it away and said, ah, we hadn't even gotten there yet Um, so I'm gonna ask you again. Give me a quote or a statement. I made that supports the claims that you just made against me about Um about dodging and generalizing and and I think generalizing is the actual dishonest way And to insulate cool We'll throw that back right back at you whenever I accused you of dodging or or I did accuse you of generalizing But more I was pointing to uh, but but you have generalized the word general was used specifically by you multiple times Yeah, but that's that's a generalization So if you're if you're asking me to provide a quote or you generalize I don't I don't know why because I think we both agree that you're generalizing about atheists My question is you just made accusations. You made very pointed accusations. I'm asking for a quote with an example I I asked you why did you bring up? The the example of a greater power dominating lesser power and you specifically referred to this is what atheists generally do Yes When did I say this is what atheists generally do Never look at the vod like what are we doing here never said that we are getting just into a spiral about meta discussion So let's try to get back to uh, the creation on trial discussion rather than uh, I guess say talking about Yeah, yeah So the reason why I was asking all of that I'll answer that that question that he just asked why did I bring that up? I brought that up because I'm back to my supporting Excuse me. We're going back to creation stuff now. We just said Yeah, that's the reason I brought that up is because in my introduction That is one of the pieces of supporting evidence of that puzzle I told you I'm trying to make in my mind Of what does this look like does this point towards a creator or creators or not? um The fact that morality exists and that there are absolute morals points towards A an intentional creator and source of morality. So that was my point That was the reason I raised that question. So go ahead and engage with it Okay, so the obvious just to wrap up the previous point we were talking about that was actually germane to the question of creationism um, the reason why I was asking about the uh, spatial relationship between god and space and time is precisely because you are relying upon a spatial division in order to uh Describe the relationship between god and space and time and playing that spaces at least co-eval with god in your analysis Which which poses I think a number of problems We're going through the gods outside of space and time because god therefore and they being able initially To create something separate from himself is creating something that is separate along essentially spatial lines Whether or not you regard spaces for example vacuum or whatever is sort of a material um a division between two concepts even in the abstract is an inherently spatial one You're you're describing a a a entity over here that has x y and z properties that are not shared by this And you can draw a line between them. Boom. You already have the prior existence of difference and therefore something is prior to god Otherwise god himself wouldn't be able to for example have identity. There must be some Thing that uh describes that the contours of reality such that god as a concept is even conceivable Yeah, so I think you're you're just misunderstanding whether this is a creation within or a creation without And I've tried to make it very clear. This is a creation within Which exists within and well, that's lame space aliens could do that Not a creation without so you keep trying to make it as though god's over here On this side and he creates you true the donut my dude not me He creates and he creates a world and it's over here on this side that that's not the theis argument That's never been my argument. So so I don't I mean you can you can repeat that claim all you want I mean, I mean you've described the relationship between yourself and a pop tart when it's in your stomach Okay, it's still separate from you spatially. Yes Not if I made that pop tart out of my essence and it was always within and reliant on being within me and I was eternal and all present which is the claim about the or origins god or god Do the role of favor and never describe a pop tart as being made from your essence ever again Uh, so let's talk about let's talk about the morality point. You're the one who asked a a red herring question. So I mean I don't think that was a red herring question. I think that's that's directly germane to the uh relationship between god and and the And the foundation of logic If god if god can be described by logic Then he's he's clearly not outside of it because he he abides by its terms and can be encompassed in some respect By it and if he can be discovered by logic, then outside of logic must be a relation that is conceivable within the terms of logic Uh Thereby making god ensconced in a system that goes beyond himself like it just doesn't make any sense Not if he is the source of logic that that if he is the source of logical absolutes Then all of what you just said goes away. Yeah, but how would you how would you determine that's something that is outside of logic Is the is the existent source of logic without deploying that same logic in order to arrive at that conclusion And how are you not doing in a circle? I don't think I ever said outside of logic And if I did that was a misspeak, but I don't think I ever said I said is god is god within logic absolute of logic Is god outside logic or is god within logic the ultimate source of something is not being outside of something Uh, not in like a definite sense, but it absolutely does imply that there is In some respect a difference between some element of the source and the thing to which it gives rise Otherwise, they would be co-evil with each other. They'd be simultaneous The argument so my question to you is is god encompassed by logic or is logic outside of god Logic is part of god it it is Because logic is a part of the eternal god or god careful is god and essentially is god logic an essential part of the eternal It is co-eternal. It is it's like saying if luke is eternal Yes, and luke is the source of goodness Then is goodness co-eternal? Yes, that's not a problem. That's not those pop charts kids. Um Well, you are fundamentally misunderstanding these things and you're doing your best to define them in terms that help you But we get to a point where I just say yes, that's what theists believe. Okay, so So god Has logic as an essential part of his no, how about this? Okay, so I've I've just interacted with him and uh and Answered two of your questions in a row. I'd like you to come back and answer mine What actually like clarification on that statement you made that didn't actually come equipped with an argument You just gave a description I'd like you said that you said that logic is a part of god. Can you elaborate? I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? You just said that logic was a part of god. Can you elaborate? Yeah, so the argument is that god is The source the ultimate grounding Of logic in the same way that you might say if in the example I just gave if someone were to believe or if it were true that I am The ultimate good and the source of goodness itself Goodness could be called a part of me and all goodness that flows out of me would not be separate from me It would actually be because of me and so you can't say well But then goodness would would be co-eternal with luke. That's a problem. That's not a problem That's the argument. That's the understanding you might disagree with that argument and that understanding But that's not a problem and logic a relation of out of even if we represent it with a gradient We'll have one end that doesn't have the property of being logic And the other end that will have the property of being logic And so there will be a distinction within god between that part of god Which is logic that part of god, which is not right Because even if it's a smooth transition, which comes a little bit of logic More logic that I think we have full-fledged logic or the laws of you or whatever you want from that Like there's still going to be a part that From which logic is emergent Otherwise otherwise god god would be identical with logic if they were all just the same thing across the board. Yes So identity works If if he is the source of logic of anything then in a sense logic is not the source of god Is not limited to that identity But that is So in the same sense and again if I am the source of goodness I am identical to goodness that doesn't mean that goodness is all I am or that I am limited to just being goodness But if I am the ultimate source of goodness then yes goodness or in this case the source of logic logic Is a very It is the identity it is In a part of that again, I'll use a word you don't like essence. It is an essence of I never said it I don't I don't dislike the word essence. Um, I disliked I disliked the idea of a popular being filled with your essence Um, when I was talking what I was talking about previously though It was so there is a there is a distinction then between the part of god That gives rise to logic or that justifies logic or whatever like there's a part of god that is not Identifiable with logic. Yes, even if they're co-evil There's a part of god that isn't identifiable with logic God gives rise to logic for god to give rise to logic. There must be god on the side Well, logic on the other side doesn't matter if you blend together you look on this side. There's god on this side There's logic, right? No No, what does it mean for something to give rise to is the source of logic? Why would they be separate like that? Can you justify that? Well, because you describe god as the source And logic is not the source of god Okay, so that's just a semantic. So if he is that's not a semantic you're using that specific essence of the thing Then why does that thing have to be separate from he is the definition of because they're asymmetrical Because you would not say that logic is the source and the essence of god. Would you? Careful I would say that logic is grounded in the source and essence of god. Yes, exactly So they're different one has a subordinate relationship to the other one. Yes Logic is subordinate to god in some respect god encompasses logic luck job logic does not encompass god We're in agreement there is god It is it is if he it is what he is Not limited to but he is the source of that thing ultimately It's not like you would cut out You know say, okay, so let's say that logic resides in his left arm cut that out And now god no longer has logic and all we have of god. All right. All right. Look, let's just work with me So god if god is not no just just please please please please if god is not limited to logic And there is a part of god That is not within the domain of logic, right? No, because god's not limited to logic if all god was within logic then god would be limited to logic No, everything okay, everything this is where the word essence comes in Everything that god or gods of origins have are and represent Is logic is logical It is not all that it is but it's like saying again if I am that source of goodness Everything I am going to do and represent is going to be part of that goodness that doesn't mean that that's the Only thing that I absolutely am Okay, so what what other what other than that thing that is not the only thing that you absolutely are could that be? What do you mean When you my my hair is quote unquote mean, but I am not only my hair. Thank god. Yes so so if if you are the source of goodness Everything that you do and are And represent is fundamentally good, but it doesn't have to only be good It can be good and logical and wise if you are the source of those things as well So it follows that as the source of the essence of that thing Everything you do carries that essence with it But it can also carry other things that you are also the source of I don't understand But the point is logic is a different part of god From his goodness and from these other properties which you have distinguished from each other. Yes It is a it is a different category of His nature good. Yes. Different category of his nature. All right. So within god, there are categorical distinctions That we use to understand. Yeah But that's cheating though because you're using this as a justification for your argument that god created the world It can't just be that we use to understand god that presumes that god exists and that we are simply translating him You need to justify if there is a thing that you are quote unquote measuring in order to make that argument No, my argument was to come back to um Excuse you guys still hear me. No um My argument was that this is the existence of something like logic which We use measure observe and is non-physical is a piece of the evidences that point toward and when compiled with the rest of the evidences Paint a very convincing picture of a god or gods that are outside of spacetime matter And could account for origins of the universe within a rational mindset. So I'm sure you think so, but the the contradiction the contradiction that I'm Really With a lot of points that that you raised I want to come come to the point I raised so would it be wrong the question I asked I doubt I need to repeat it, but if you need me to I can would it be wrong Um, just give me a yes or no, and I'd love to explain why yes or no as well Then somebody ask I'm asking you Uh, I would I would disapprove of it and I would hate it. What I would I say it is absolutely wrong as in I have the Stamp of some universal principle to declare that that action would be wrong. No, of course not Why would you disapprove of and hate it? Uh, I I I like people and I don't like people getting chopped up for abstract notions of of nationalism or whatever I never said nationalism. I I'm Well, we specify Japan as an example. I'm just telling you why in that particular case. Why do you have real palestine? same deal, I suppose wanted to uh Uh, how about why don't so So if it is a survival of the fittest situation because uh, let's flush this out a little bit When a larger and or healthier lion pride wants what a smaller and or less healthy lion pride has Uh, the males go in take any fertile female kill any offspring that isn't their own And kill rebel males that are too old to be brought into their own pride. That is what happens Uh, that's not I haven't seen anyone and I certainly don't think that that is bad per se It's just the way that nature operates. So If we products if we are highly evolved products of nature Why do you you said hate and and uh hate and disapprove of I think or or something along those lines Why do you hate and disapprove of? These highly evolved products of nature doing something that is ultimately best for their species just like for that lion pride It is best for them to procreate with the stronger more numerous Uh more well established pride. All right. Well, there is such a thing. There is such a and then ask your question You had earlier there. So uh, go ahead. There is such a thing as perverse effects So I I would take a little bit of issue with the idea that that is necessarily better for the the stronger party in any case, but leaving that aside um Why why do I you may as well be asking a historical question if you're asking Why do I in the sense of I am elevating my distaste for that kind of thing to the level of a universal principle? I I haven't done any such thing. I mean for someone who's complaining about semantics That's a little bit of an odd move to make and answer to your question. There have been a a series of of cultural developments that have led ultimately to the formation of how my mind works um, and I've decided after judgment that I'm comfortable with sitting with some Uh after reflecting on on, you know, their contingency and so on and so forth and other ones that I'm not And that's that's basically all there is to it now. Is is it the case that it is universally? cosmically acceptable or good Uh for a a a stronger nation to brutalize a weaker one for its own benefit I I'm quite sure I have no idea Um, but I'm also pretty confident you don't either so You can't with any sense of certainty say that doing such a thing would be wrong You would dislike it because of your cultural influences. What do you mean by wrong? You couldn't look at it and say What do you mean they're wrong? What do you mean by wrong is morally wrong to do? Okay, what do you mean by what do you mean by what do you mean by morally wrong to do? It is something that should not be permitted because it is in and of itself bad and wrong just like Have you ever had occasion to read cons? Uh round up for the uh for for the Foundations of morals. I can't quite remember ground up for the metaphysics of morals. Pardon me I guess I mean sort of the same thing. You ever managed to you ever managed to down that as a short one No, okay. So basically the argument that comes It actually does come to bear so the argument that comes when we're talking when we're talking about the moral in this key We're talking about the moral in this key. This actually does come to bear very strong. I'm not muted. Am I I can still be heard? Okay, um, so one of the points that comes makes is that when we are talking about the moral while the moral um, what we are talking about is That which you that which is an imperative irrespective of any contingency so This is one of the reasons why and this is this is a Like a vastly reduced sort of um impoverished version of this But this is why the continuity of morality often involves sort of uh A rejection of anything that you personally benefit from emotionally or materially or whatever It's actually better if you don't get any enjoyment from the action whatsoever because then it is more purely a simple imperative And there isn't contingency loading onto it. This can include the human by the way So for example, one of the issues, uh, that's really uh, this is actually a very christian idea of morality If you're if you're familiar with the idea that you should absolutely not be praying in view of the public Where you have the pleasure of the enjoyment of being observed to be pious by the people around you And that you should not let your right hand know your left hand know with her vice first I can't remember which one comes first when you're like giving to the poor or something like that because It's like that line from uh, if you've ever read the screw tape letters It's like uh, it's like that person, uh, who's who's managed to achieve humility reflecting upon himself and going by jove I'm being humble. It's a notion of pride. There's sort of a paradox there Um, well, we're talking about the moral. We're talking about that which is a pure imperative something to which You are oriented completely absent any interest whatsoever. And so when you're talking about like what do I feel? I mean, it's distinctly possible a person is raised Uh in an environment in which um, they uh regard the immoral things that like for example Like maybe if there is a god they regard the things that god commands as being quote-unquote immoral or having more of that sort of like uh, indefinite uh, gravitational pull towards in terms of a decision and and and and You know something that is as moral treating that as as bad I suspect you probably have a similar frustration when you get into abortion arguments of people Where they'll regard like bodily autonomy as an absolute good and they'll regard um, any sort of like restriction in favor of Uh, the the humanness of the fetus or whatever as as like an absolute bad or something along those lines Well, when you're asking me like Uh, how how can I? Uh, regard something as being bad or good and the absence of making some deep metaphysical statement I mean like we really are just referring to a materially bounded being You're inquiring as to whether a materially bounded being can make absolute statements that make absolutely no reference to the world and and My answer that is obviously I can't but when I'm saying moral I'm meaning moral in the ancient sense of literally just I am accustomed or the people around me or my society are accustomed to regarding This thing as a thing you you shall not do and this thing is a thing that you shall do And it's really that simple. I don't I don't have to go beyond that to to justify that before, uh, some postulated cosmic super entity Right or and if I do I I'd be curious to see how you How you how you argue that I mean, it's a very modest claim to say that I regard something as bad I'm not saying it's absolutely bad if you want to say well as as someone who is agnostic about the existence of god You can't make definite claims that require the existence of god to make I mean sure if that's something you consider like an advantage to your side But I for one don't consider it an advantage in a philosophical debate certainly to say that well I can use unproved statements to do things pragmatically that seems to be against the spirit of philosophy Which I'm assuming is what you're trying to do. I don't know if you heard me there Earlier luke. I did say feel free to jump in at any time here. Just because uh, I did Yeah, sorry. Yeah. Yeah, sorry. I didn't think you heard me because I was gonna say Yeah, he had the floor for a while there. So yeah, feel free to take some time to respond Sure. I mean, I figured we were maybe just just giving him uh the time for his opening statement that he didn't get But um, I think that was a pretty Lengthy non-answer and there were some good words put in my mouth there, but unfortunately they were words placed into my mouth um I I think that Fundamentally what you just said is that you can't say that any atrocities Including those which make sense like the one I outlined under a Darwinian atheistic perspective Are inherently bad or immoral and by immoral. I mean Things that are unacceptable and should be unacceptable Within humans within our fellow humans. You said that culture shapes what you find acceptable And you're at peace with that and that's fine. If that's your statement feel free. Well, I didn't say I'm at peace with that Okay, I didn't say I'm at peace with that. I thought you specifically did I thought you said that you're out of place Where but but go ahead correct me there, please. So where are you at with that statement? No, I'm I'm at peace with specific cultural inheritances. I'm not at peace With their contingency, obviously not that's actually one of that's a major source of tension Because this means that now there are social developments They need to maintain in order to keep these things that you value the kind of thing that values into perpetuity It's actually a source of great stress If you want to talk about pragmatics and perverse effects like one of the issues with With a lot of christian believers not all of them But with a lot of them is that they take the eternality of the afterlife or whatever To be essentially a license to be to play fast and loosen reckless with the things of this world that's actually Well in the sense that there isn't a particular urgency about addressing time critical issues involving the the fate of our ecosystem say it's like Good example for the simple reason that well the world's going to end anyway And ultimately what really matters is that we have opportunity to exhibit all the virtues so that we're judged Well at the end of days that we are saved and so on and so forth Like these these two things are sort of at odds with each other For example, for example, like I mean I mean the the just one second there uh sunday He was trying to cut in but his mic's cutting out Just a little All right go on Okay, yeah, yeah, I mean that so so you just said that that The the inaction on important issues that are threatening to us. Um an example of The bad that comes from those who are heavenly minded in various religions christianity islam. Is that is that fair? Sure, it doesn't need to just be christianity, you know, but okay, so so there are so many things wrong with that statement So what do you mean by bad? So so what is what is bad about that? And I'm going to take back at you. What do you mean by bad and the other question is The inaction on important topics, which is a definition you just you just agreed to What makes those topics important? um And and real quick side note here for just for the record. I believe as a christian Yes As stewards of creation we should take care of creation. I think that's actually the goods that we should do But um, so that you know Maybe maybe we don't we don't Sure, maybe we don't but but so so you you just again and I addressed this in my opening You borrow first you push back against my my use of words like bad and moral and good And then you said important things go on addressed and that's bad I don't think I actually I don't think I actually push back against your idea of bad and moral and good I think I ask for clarification as to what you mean because you layered on additional terms to to justify Making those statements. Yes, sir. So like for example, for example, so when you say when you say When you say morally good as an absolutely unacceptable What do you mean? What do you mean? I just totally I think it is something a moral good You said morally good is something that is absolutely unacceptable. That's not what I think moral good is something that is absolutely Acceptable and praiseworthy and moral bad is something that is absolutely unacceptable Within humankind and we recognize these things like I don't know what does what does my what does my inability? Say something is absolutely bad or absolutely good Due for your side of the argument the world is created Couldn't the conclusion simply be that the world is not created and they simply don't exist and that we have habits that maybe sort of Defy what we absolutely know But that we we use motivated reasoning to sort of propel. So for example, like I'll absolutely Uh concede that in the absence of like a metaphysical principle justifying my ideas of good and bad If somebody else stronger came along and deleted me and those ideas would simply cease to exist No, that's not something I'm I'm at peace with but like I don't think I'm actually required to be at peace with anything uh for my my reflections upon the world to be valid or for my my Uh My my doubt about there being a metaphysical principle of good or bad being valid either I think that's an important part right there where you said that you're not at peace with it I think that is an important indicator of the idea that there is something more that we are um I would I want to say created with but to be fair to to your side. We'll just say that we are we are um Hard to go with that. It's fine. It's fine. Don't be discredited with I I think I don't think it's cowardly. I'm trying to respect your What terminology that you would accept while not straw manning you so I think that there's something that we inherently have that makes us not at peace with the idea of saying Hey Anyone's definition of morality is okay. If there's if there comes a time when all of society says that um Grape is is a good thing or at least is an acceptable thing. Ryan are we allowed to say rape? This is kind of silly Am I I don't know it's kind of it's kind of it's kind of it's kind of crass stop saying grape. It's weird Just use a different example. Yeah, sorry. Oh sure sure. Yeah, I I didn't want to get the stream banned I know words like that can yeah, um, let's let's just carry on but um Things like that atrocities things that are we would generally agree are inherently immoral and bad There's something in you that you just said you're not at peace with saying well Well, well inherently we have to be careful there, buddy Because inherently isn't isn't just a moral judgment inherently is a metaphysical judgment And if I and if I and if I if I don't follow count and regard the moral as that which It is absolutely Sort of pure imperative without any contingency whatsoever because the word moral I don't know if you're familiar with this. Do you know what means like historically I'm sorry. Do you know what the word do you want the word more moral like the root of it? Do you know what it means? No, what's the root? It refers to custom So for example, if you read Aristotle's ethics, it's often translated as morality the word the word ethics Um, what he's talking about specifically is the types of characters that are developed by different political systems These are the types of people and the types of virtues that are maximized or minimized or whatever based on whether or not you have a democracy or uh or a monarchy or Whatever like those kinds of things That's that's what it refers to. So like like for example, like virtue ethics virtue ethics is is completely viable Provided even under a Darwinian frame provided you you recognize the contingency of the cultural contingency of the things that we recognize as virtues There's no contradiction there You can be self aware of the fact that a structure has limited application It doesn't extend into eternity say but still like use it to to judge your decisions We do so all the time with respect to diet the food. That's appropriate to us depends on our health That's a specific organic structure in the world. That's not always going to be there. That's contingent as contingent as any moral system actually a lot more so so I mean like I there's no there's no I don't I don't know what kind of Contradiction you're trying to draw here, but it seems if I may just I know I've been going a little bit Like but just to wrap up this thought it seems like you're you're essentially engaging a little bit of moral blackmail here you're saying that well if uh If if you if you want to say that there is no god Well, then you don't have a basis for any of any of the the the good or bad judgments that you make in the world And therefore like you basically have to you you're basically on the side of the Nazis or something like that But that that doesn't logically follow at all. Um, it's perfectly possible to have motives that are founded to to to like uh to to observe that you have particular tendencies and to observe that certain activities as opposed to other activities I have have a a maximizing relationship to those tendencies opposed to minimizing one and therefore To to apply your powers to support one as opposed to another because it's more interesting to you repeat that part again I'm sorry, which part the the last two sentences you said, please Oh, I wish I could but I'm quite sure I can't remember them Okay well long long story short like When when you say like you keep loading in this word essential But nothing about this world is essential everything in this world Is is a construction of matter even you and me if this is not inconsistent with your bible Which says they were made of dust So to say that there is an essential right or wrong Uh, that's you got to be a little bit careful there because it seems like you're kind of You're cheating a little bit and you're saying that this thing that we need god to justify Well our discourse about it therefore implies that it must therefore metaphysically exist and therefore our discourse about it Is also justified By that you see how circular that is Like like we act as if morality is an actual like principle of the world It's a thing that exists outside of human culture and so on and so forth But there's reference within that discourse about morality this being that sort of grounds it Therefore in so far as it self references this thing It therefore is evidence for the existence of that thing, but we could just be wrong It's possible that there are patterns of human behavior that have more longevity than others And even if they that's some point in their history reference a certain thing Doesn't mean we aren't licensed to take from it what we In human behavior that references a certain thing discourses of morality Like when you're talking about how when you're specifically leveraging um My referring to things as good and bad as an argument in favor of A different kind of good and bad than I am discussing I've been very upfront about the fact that um my my notions of good and bad are indeed mine Even if they're shared by a lot of people they're limited obviously um If you're if you're using that to sort of imply the metaphysical truth of something that is uh sort of a A component of the historical emergence of that discourse That's kind of arguing in a circle. You're using the the effects of an idea to justify the truth of the idea so You just you mentioned good and bad and how and how using it to Point to a metaphysical truth. I should say the use of the idea to justify the use of the idea Sorry, as you were so you said the use of of the ideas of good and bad to Define or point to a metaphysical truth is in your book a problem or circulate circular reasoning The use of this language No, what you're what you're trying to do though is say that if I were gar for example The rape of nan king as bad forgive me, um then uh Then there then therefore um Uh, I I'm in some sense tacitly assenting to the existence of a metaphysical principle justifying that in all cases But I've been very upfront about the fact that when I say good or bad I mean that within How I intellectually conceive these things I rank this thing as an undesirable a very strong undesirable and it's I don't know what the opposite would be but like the the opposite it's not existence as as desirable That doesn't that doesn't commit me even if historically or even if conceptually That requires to be absolutely coherent the existence of god that doesn't actually necessitate that I follow through on that all the way I can be inconsistent That's not an argument in your favor. That's just an argument against that's just an argument against the consistency of moral behavior Well, that that might be your your best quote of the night there So I'll congratulate you on that you can be inconsistent and that's fair But at least acknowledging that you are inconsistent. I think is a point in the favor of oh, I didn't acknowledge that I just said I could be Okay, okay at least I'd say that's step one towards that piece in the puzzle of um Another thing that points to an ultimate source of morality, which is what this whole question is about So a few things that you mentioned, um, you you mentioned that uh, I basically Implied that you are essentially on the side of the Nazis if you don't believe in moral absolutes Um, that's not what I said Actually, what I believe is a little bit more nuance than that and by a little bit I mean a lot and it's this It's that you can very well not be on the side of the Nazis if you don't believe in moral absolutes What you can't do is justify Why it's gonna bite me in the ass you can't do is justify Why you are not on the side of the Nazis or at least why the side of the Nazis is bad That is what you can't do. So you can absolutely stand against sure. I can sure I can with conditions right thing argument like, um I've seen many atheists accuse christians and granted some christians are not very good about defining their terms here But accuse christians of saying well Christians think that atheists can't be good people or can't believe in good things and against bad things bad actions No, that's not what christians believe christians believe that you very well can You just can't define why you do or justify and ground why you believe or even prefer those things Moving on you you noted that um morality Comes from a word more more akin to customs. That's fine Uh, we I can grant that and my point still stands Which is that we have customs customs are are erected preferences that have come out of culture and my question is Why do those preferences speak to things in a way that seems absolute and I won't use the word We don't like anymore. So I'll say murder. Why is murder? um Almost universally treated as a bad thing That you suppose that you suppose it couldn't be because you're raised in cultures that have those things instantiated already So they are more absolute than you are already You're you're raised with these ideas from childhood, dude I mean even even biblical law for example, they don't they don't make metaphysical art Appeals to the existence of god to to justify the 10 commandments. You're just taught them in sunday school You the the philosophical arguments come much later. Am I correct in I don't want to misrepresent you here. You're saying belief against atrocities like the word we can't say like murder like dominating and Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, thanks um belief um that those things are bad Come from the way that you were raised and that's your explanation Well, of course they do From where did you get the commandments from god my dude? You think that are am I correct in saying then that the next logical step would be if you were raised and nourished by soulless Robots who didn't talk on a deserted island and then you came to society And you saw a man get stabbed to death and robbed and kicked in the head until he was dead You wouldn't think that was wrong That is that is that a belief that follows But there there are humans in this world who have that exact reaction. They have not been raised among soulless robots my friend so Just cut in here just because we have been talking a lot about concepts of morality with creation We we have been going for quite a while And I got a pee. Oh, well, yes. Take advantage of this moment then president sunday and go have yourself some Time to yourself and I'll remind everybody that we will move into q&a shortly But well luke while I have you here. Uh, were there any other Talking points that you wanted to move into because like I said, it seems like we really honed in on this one surrounding morality, but if you had other Other talking points we wanted to get down to before q&a That might generate some discussion and I'll also remind everybody in our live chat, uh, you know smack the like button Get your super chats in if you do have questions Regarding the topic of the debate which is creationism on trial. So, uh, yeah luke back to my question there. Um, how you feeling? Sure. Uh, sorry. I uh, It was just texting my wife, uh An update real quick. I do have a hard out here. I should probably get out by 10 if we can try try for that um, but um Yeah, I would just say um, I don't want to say too much that would that would require a response Because that's not really fair. Well while he's gone, but I would point out um In the beginning, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to like say like, uh, you know, if you want to bring up those points now I'd smell like when he gets back. Did you want to bounce any other ideas? But uh, that's that's fair I mean and and he's he's been after deferring his opening statement. I think I think we've made up for that I'll just say that um, but uh, he Noteworthy did not interact with the lion's share of the arguments that I made so I'm Now you're not waiting for me to be back He just said you did not interact with the lion's share of arguments that he presented Just as he put his headphones in, right? Uh, you can't do that. Just a little hair wheel I'm just picking. Um, we're doing great. Uh, we're just about to jump into q&a. I think uh, uh, Luke was basically saying there that uh, uh, you know, this is probably where we should move in now So, uh, thanks everybody for uh, contributing and uh, we'll get into it Do you want to know the punchline of all this luke? Sorry, you want to know the punchline of all this What's the punchline give it to me? You didn't really pay you didn't really pay attention to my opening statement. Um, I am christian. I have a lot of philosophical problems with your stance I actually come from a similar situation as you and I feel like I'm being I'm paying some kind of penance for the arrogant way I've treated other atheists in the past. So dear god I don't I I wouldn't agree that that is a punchline because you could be a christian who has a very poorly formed worldview that happened. I've I've I actually have a very carefully formed worldview. I spent a lot of time dealing You could believe that I've I've I've considered things that you haven't And I'm less and I'm less insecure. I don't I don't require my entire opening statement, for example To be arguing that well all these bad people they have all these negative attitudes towards my position. Um, let me tell you why We were really saying that I don't require my closing statement to be ad-homs and straw men's that my opponent It's not an ad-hom. I'm just psychoanalyzing you Just before we jump into q&a, I do apologize just because originally we did have this uh, Looked as an atheist versus creation debate. Uh, and I had put that as your tag under there I'm just going to yeah, and that's that's kind of a that's kind of a problem I do yeah because the the conversation can literally never evolve It's guaranteeing virtually that every single debate is a clown show So that's embarrassing. Would you prefer that it's it's insisting It's insisting that even james he claims to be a christian bath and they just like running a freak show Like it puts you guys into a position of of literally maximizing the possibility of the worst voice is possible getting The biggest megaphone. It's it's the pluribal bluntly. Well, I just updated you to present company not implicated during my apologies And I I understand but yeah, I did update you to non-creation just my apologies there just because that's how it No, no, go go go with atheists. It's fine You try not throw me through a loop for no reason. I am I am All right, I'm sorry ryan. Are you after this? Oh, yeah, exactly. I'll be in your dms later. It's fine. No, I'm kidding. No, I'm pretty chill everybody knows that I just Ryan's great. I like ryan Thanks, buddy. I like you a lot too. I think that this has been a great discussion So once again, I see that a lot of you could vote in our poll So why don't you take those tap and thumbs fingers and bring them over to our like button And see if you can give that a tickle. So, uh, joshua jamie says how do we know a universe could exist In any other way than to have life on a knife's edge Not sure Can we get clarification on who that's for? Yeah, I'm not entirely sure. Let me just check some of their other questions. I'm gonna move on I'm just check that that's a really cool question though. I just want to know who it's addressed to first Yeah, let me see what uh, some of the other questions are and I'll get a feel for this. Uh, super chatter Sean 666 says, uh, why would an super intelligent god have errors in human DNA and make unintelligent animals like primates? Isn't your creator supposed to be a master human master at human genetics? I think that was for me. Yeah Okay, uh, so The first part of the question would be why would he do that? Um, that's my simple answer there is that that's irrelevant to the topic that the question is whether or not he did It's not why did he do it? We can talk about the why is all we want and those are all 100 Percent speculation as they are when we're talking about other people. Why did I come here tonight? Why did president sunday come here tonight? Anyone other than me or president sunday can't give an answer to that? Um, but the other part is that if you are going with a christian worldview, which I do I won't Claim that since I am I'm representing the theist worldview, but I'll answer from my christian perspective It's that we we live in a fallen world. We live in a fallen reality and uh bad things including sickness and uh, and genetic degradation happen Well, I mean First of all point of information Immediately following original sin, uh after which adam and eve had already Uh, you know self-reliantly sewed together clothes of of leaves God provided some clothes of animal skins. It doesn't appear as if there is any In any process of of sinful degeneration leading up to uh, the the The violence done to animals and so on and so forth. Um, there is sort of a a conjectured period in which uh these these animals that have been equipped with Organs specifically meant for ripping and tearing the flesh of other animals Apparently lay down peacefully beside them and all was well uh, it just it's I mean fundamentally like when you're when you're dealing with an an approach to questions of like the origins of how things are and you have endless reference to a a a A tale that simply asserts that at one point this wasn't the case and therefore it wasn't I mean, I mean there's just You can you can just just say whatever you want at that point. It's like well, why uh Why does the earth appear to be to be older than the chronology? I'm not saying he's a young earth creationist, but why does the earth appear to be older than the chronology given in the bible? Well, um when god left this world it maybe took on a A a the form of a godless world or something like that after the fact like whatever it's like, yeah plausible Not not particularly compelling which is kind of what we're looking for There's a million things that could be that could be plausible that aren't very compelling But uh, that's when when when you when you want that particular explanation to to fly like you'll you'll make it fly Any other thoughts to look before we move on? I For someone who who accused me of gish galloping that was a good gish gallop ramble. Uh Not much I was I was answering a question. I wasn't not much that substantive there to interact with But uh, yeah, all right So that first one from joshua jamie. It seems most of his questions are pointed at uh, you third luke So how do we know a universe could exist any other way? Then to have life on a knife's edge So that one is for you luke. Oh It can you read it one more time, please Oh, yeah, let me just pull the calm back here How do we know a universe could exist any other way then to have life on a knife's edge Oh, okay. Okay. I think I think this is a question about my fine-tuning uh presentation for which was one of the first legs of of the supporting evidences for for a creator or creators Um, and so his question is how do we know that there is any that a universe could exist any other way than on a knife's edge? Um, we don't I think that's that kind of plays into the argument Which is that if there is only one way for it to exist and all of the necessary presets are exactly right Simultaneously for it to exist. That is a good piece of evidence for an uh for an intentional compilation of those pieces Okay, that was it Any thoughts on that question that uh a response present sunday Yeah, so uh this type of design argument sort of uh hinges around the fact that there's apparently a lot of um consensus around this that the On that conditions that the cosmic conditions that permit life in our universe are very very very small um But to move from that to assert the existence of a god sort of presumes Something about the the total range of possible Uh universe, um, let's say arrangements that could uh that that could have have Uh, something that we would call akin to life or could have something that maybe We would value similarly to life for that something like god would value similarly to life And so it's it's just one of those things where it's like Yeah, when when you look at like the the specificity of the and I i'm not familiar with these not a physicist when you look at the specificity of uh Of the the the conditions under which the universe Apparently will will collapse if they are uh deviated from even just a tiny little bit Then it seems like well, this is this is so specific Why not anyone's other numbers in the absence of anything that seems to definitively decide which of Which of these is which that you know that we can be aware of and understand Well, it seems like we there must be something outside of it to sort of you know pick that and when we think of like well, what what, uh What what kind of what kind of thing would prefer life? Well, we Think something that's sort of like life. We think of like god or something or whatever But it that's presuming that the actual range of possible universes That have a thing about which we would make that kind of inference is very very small But the fact of the matter is we're kind of in the dark about how many of those there are Like we flat out don't know Um, it's distinctly likely that there are potentially like very very many types of universes that could support life or something Like life or what have you? Um, and so it's just kind of we just don't know it's it's question begging All right, uh, i'm gonna close the poll uh here and then we'll continue with the super chat. So, uh, is creationism true? 60% voted no 31% of you voted yes and 8% voted unsure so Close that out everybody and i'll start a new fun one for you guys to interact with while we finish up our super chats all right, so, um josh would jamie asks again for you to hear luke hurricanes killing children points to an intelligent designer If you don't know why this happens you can't say it's intelligent um I don't think I ever said that hurricanes killing children point to an intelligent designer um, but I think that they can be Explained within the framework of an intelligent designer or designers and i'll tell you the christian worldview again I I know that i'm not representing exclusively christians tonight But the worldview that I hold and that I know best would simply assert that In all knowing all powerful god Is by definition going to have a much broader purview than you do and so if we're talking about something like the ultimate good or the um The greatest amount of possible good, which seems like this question is alluding to it in Why would we justify things like hurricanes killing killing kids? the christian answer would be that your observation and your ability to judge that situation is Is immensely more limited than a creator god or gods would be And and then you couple that with the belief that we live in a fallen universe and you come to A pretty similar situation to hurricanes killing kids and diseases killing people who don't seem to deserve it May I reply to that? Uh, uh, yeah, we should have time. We only got a few super chats to go through So I think I think it's one of the more interesting ones. So this this sort of uh, The sort of argument from evil um type of argument against the existence of god is not Uh, you know particularly compelling for the simple reason that it's it's very easy to imagine Mere different reasons that god could have for permitting certain types of bad things in the world Um, despite apparently having like a good nature, etc, etc I think one of the things that that uh type of argument really gets at though is Um, and a specifically christian conception of of god There is this assumption that god is motivated out of love for his creaturely creations and it seems that, uh Allowing a large numbers of them to wantonly die in advance of Um having any any particular chance Injectually maybe luke wants to insist that literally every single person who has died in these cases is either You know under the age of being morally culpable or has in fact encountered a missionary somewhere and has had the opportunity to Uh, accept christ or reject him or so on and so forth. Um, that doesn't seem to be something that we have Uh, an easy time reconciling with the idea of love Um, we tend to associate love with putting in fact, this is actually a biblical state And we tend to associate the idea of love with putting the well-being of Uh You know some some other some other thing or person, uh, even above ourselves to the point that we will Be willing to sacrifice ourselves for that thing or person. That's that's what god identifies as love um When we're when we're talking about like well if god is is So identified with love we will literally say in in the context of scripture that god is love. Well Why why is is a loving god supposedly? You know perfectly comfortable with the wholesale destruction of children to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs to such right It it seems to run a contradiction. So if there aren't ways to possibly square that logically, but it's uh It's it's a hard sell Okay, can I jump in here with it with a last a last thought on this? Yeah, this is your question So last thought I was gonna say are we doing the whoever it was addressed to has the last word thing? Okay, um, so Yeah, real quick. Um in response to to prez and and to the the asker Um, I think what we have to actually fundamentally understand here is that we're really drawing an arbitrary line Based on our personal preferences of what's acceptable and here's an example. I'd give um When we come to pain and suffering and loss, um That line is very arbitrary and it changes person to person because if you're walking through your living room And you stub your toe that's pain. That's a level of suffering that hurts. That's not pleasant That's a bad thing you stub your toe and you bend down to look at your toe Ouch And just then a car crashes and a piece of shrapnel flies through the window and you see that. Oh my gosh By stubbing my toe and bending down I missed that piece of shrapnel that otherwise would have taken my head off Actually now i'm thankful for that pain. I'm thankful for that stubbed toe We can all understand that we can all accept that conceptually But then we say, okay, so might there be a source of good a source of Shrapnel if you will and um from an analogy um That does justify kids dying in hurricanes because we can arbitrarily define. Okay, the stubbed toe is okay We're okay with that But then when we get to the hurricanes, we're like, ah, we drew the line somewhere We don't quite know where but somewhere it wasn't acceptable That's what I'd say and and I think that uh, we need to expand our our understanding of how much more God sees and understands than us Can I retort to that very quickly? Uh with well look if it's all right with you. Um Yeah, go go for it. Cool. All right If god's understanding of what love is is so alien to human beings that It can uh, it can both be his his it's so high a property of his being that he is identified with it directly in scripture And yet can uh, delete wholesale in a brutal miserable fashion Body and soul the Entire masses of people including innocent people and a whole host of animals that haven't done anything wrong either Um, then I feel like the language of love in that case and of good and evil generally Is is so divorced from anything that human beings would have a conception of that it is misleading Uh, if not to say like a total deception to describe God in those terms if we're going to assert that he exists And hold those two thoughts simultaneously All right, any closing thoughts there luke or do you want to carry right on? Uh, if you want an example of someone appealing to things that they have no right to appeal to Rewatch that answer There's an appeal to absolutes and an appeal to an absolute definition of love and what love should look like without any Right presented for him to hold or apply that standard All right, we'll use a reference with an appeal, but okay medical mass media says Demonstride says go to discord dot gg slash demons tried to have more religious debates Thank you for that Making me read your your advert there I'll also remind people now you reminded me that a lot of the people that are hanging out moderating the live chat are also Hanging out over in our modern day debate discord where we have tons of swear discord chat rooms. So, uh Yeah, definitely check that out joshua jamie Uh comes in again luke at what point in the formation Of the universe do we think the choice had to be made rather than a naturally occurring event unfolding? The choice okay, can you read that again, please? Yeah, luke at what point in the formation of the universe Do you think a choice had to be made rather than a naturally occurring event unfolding? A choice i'm assuming he's alluding to the choice of a creator or creators to make that universe I think that's what what he is alluding to In which case the choice would predate any of the existence of of that universe And that would end It would predate it in a sense That is beyond our understanding because predate Directly implies that time has to be put into motion But it would be put into motion by an entity or entities that are not restricted by And are outside of and in complete control of the passage and even very existence of of time So, I mean at what point kind of kind of like assumes that I point to a time scale when I'm saying there wasn't one Um, but but it would be it would be before the existence Yeah, so it's it's fundamentally incoherent because you're asserting a relationship between uh action and agency That presumes things that are common to a we understand agency and action in the world But that requires time that the very notion of action Um, it directly implies some sense of duration because there's going to be some movement between states Now whether or not this is experienced in the sense of there being like a an eternally changing instant in which you have the memory of things past and the uh intellectualization of things forward is sort of the material because already You have an idea of a a timeless god Also, scripturally a changeless god, but our my opponent hasn't actually asserted that tonight Um occupying different states and so the question of well, how does he move from one state to the other outside of time? Well, you really can't because that's what time That's what that's what time essentially is and we're discussing time We're talking about the track along which a thing moves um, so if if If if the the question is sort of getting at what I was getting at with my opening statement It's like at what point would a decision have to be made? Well at a point at which no points are possible It's it's kind of it's it's kind of a conversation stopper because What you're kind of pointing to is like the the absurdity of god Is being used as sort of a cover for referring all all justifications to his mystery, but it's it's I mean Then what on earth are we even arguing about you have no basis for for justifying any of these conditions Except for the the bare fact of it's too crazy for us to know. That's not very compelling It's it's just not final word over there luke Yeah, I don't think that saying it's too crazy for us to know is is Exactly the way I put it But I think that saying that there are some things beyond our knowledge That are necessary whether you're going to say it's a god gods or That the universe came out of nothing which some atheists do believe I've watched debates where atheists posit that as as a A um solution to the problem of origins either way you have to say There is something beyond our knowledge that we don't understand because we don't understand how time, space, matter, energy Could come out of nothing whether it's from something intelligent or not So you're kind of setting up this false Um, the we do know god moves between those right we have we have an issue that is Acknowledged as the issue to be solved But you're trying to make that issue unique to one side and I think that's a bit disingenuous for you Oh, so I don't think it's particularly unique to either side if they're making a similar scale assertions But I'm not making an assertion about the the emergence of of time or the emergence of the universe. I'm I'm simply Uh giving you problems that I'm having with your particular description of the way in which it must come about And one of the things I'm pointing to Is that the descriptions that you've been giving throughout the course of this debate have been things that all imply a familiarity with terms that are Only things that make sense within the context of the universe already extent So you're you're arguing in a circle you're arguing from the principles that we observe in the universe Something which is entirely alien and outside of it Sort of a necessity because god god has properties that the universe doesn't have and vice versa All right Yeah, no, no, I don't think you could say and vice versa. I don't think that would be true um That all the universe's properties that it has are within the control of god So vice versa sort of follows logically. No, if they don't share properties and they don't share properties I'm saying I don't think the universe has properties that god doesn't share. They are all within god They are all controlled by god and thus they are his They they're parts of what he controls and they are from him. So They're they're not separately, but the universe is created by god. Yes And then um, but the universe is created by god. Yes, you seem to be you're you're kind of You're pointing at an issue with my worldview and i'm saying to call it even an issue if you can't ask that question You've categorically lost it to me What the universe was created by god, right? Call it an issue with my worldview is He just I When it is a an issue with the entire discussion of origins Regardless of what your belief about origins is it is the issue that origins seek to solve So it's not an issue with my belief It is the issue that this belief seeks to address as well as every other belief about origins Important question or else. I'm just gonna dump the call because it's actually really critical to this. Uh luke Was the universe created by god I'm sorry to add again. Was the universe created by god Yes Okay, so the universe is a property that god doesn't have because god wasn't created Right first is created within god. So if it is Entire universe has a property that god doesn't have god is created Sorry god is not created the universe is yes So they have they have they have different properties from each other that that's a that's a Categorical distinction you can't be both created and not created All right, did you want to move on to the next question or uh, did you want to engage with that there? Sorry, it's it's lagging real bad. Uh, what did you say ryan? Oh, I asked if you wanted to carry on with the other questions or if you wanted to engage with that further Uh, yeah, sure. I I don't yeah, I don't think there's really much there to engage with okay All right, uh, medical mass media says I meant to say more religion debates. Uh, sue me. So that's that, uh I'm sorry if I messed up your pitch there and you did pay for it So they asked you to go to discord.gg slash demons tried Uh, let's see here Joshua jayme, thank you so much for the uh interactions here helping the conversation keep going And I also will say sorry president sunday that we haven't had more questions for you Our audience is very interested to Unpack here with you here luke so well, that's okay. That's okay They can just subscribe to president sunday if they want to ask those directly Yes, uh social animals Need, oh, sorry. This is the question social animals need rules for how to treat one another So the ones that were able to understand emotions of others are better or others better Were able to pass on their genes the most A built-in morality Sorry, I'm trying to cadence that properly, but So I'm sorry. Is this uh, the claim is social animals need to understand one another and the ones that developed that ability Pass on their genes the most And this is an argument for some kind of built-in morality That is yeah, I think that's a summary of what they're asking Yeah, um, no, it's not Because uh, because there there comes a point when in a in a Very utilitarian way That built-in morality is no longer functionally beneficial Um, and I think that the example I gave about a first world country Using the resources better using the manpower better passing on stronger healthier genes That is an example that you can't make the argument that that questioner just made about because actually the better use there from a utilitarian built-in morality perspective Is for the stronger more prosperous healthier group To take what they need to further their prosperity and health and strength So no, that's not a built-in morality. Actually, it's the opposite of of of that And it would lead to many things that many of us find immoral even though they would be beneficial from a utilitarian survival based perspective Okay, so that's what what the questioner has described is a possible argument for Judging some moral systems or some like systems of behaviors or whatever to be better than others along a specific track But this isn't going to track directly alongside morality. So it doesn't really get at the heart of the question that being said The comparison to uh, well, this might lead us to value things that we currently in our present form don't consider Moral or or through reverse the spectrum to consider immoral. That's um That that's sort of irrelevant because the the What has not been actually established in this argument was that our moral conceptions and feelings and attitudes Aren't engendered via a historical process of a series of accidents. Such and such happened. This caused this cultural uh, uh, set of behaviors to Out survive others or to become predominant and therefore we are raised with these conceptions from early on We are conditioned by them to like this and hate this and so on and so forth um The the the question doesn't really get at the question of morality, but I think the response is equally inadequate All right last word there loop for our last super chat uh as so far Yeah, I mean that the limitations that president sunday put on that system that was proposed by the questioner to Properly address morality and the existence of morality and our preferences for morality and the words like judging some practices That's just it's uh, that is inadequate and those words are doing a lot of heavy lifting there because there are Many practices that don't fall into those some That wouldn't be explained or justified by what the questioner proposed All right, same questioner coming in josh with jamie asks I knew you would say only god knows if it's good So how can you say it's good for hurricanes to kill children? How do you know your god is good if he's the only one that knows if he's good snap I don't think I said only god would know if it is good actually I don't I would challenge anyone to go ahead and drop that quote in in the uh in the uh Livestream there because I didn't say it Um, however, I think that we can know what is good and bad because we are created in god's image We can't know it to the extent that he does because he has And we understand this this is not a difficult concept. Uh when a child who knows things that are good or bad in a limited sense Uh, doesn't understand as much as their 60 year old grandparent who knows more has more data inputs into their mind has more knowledge has more experience Um, they can make a better and more widespread judgment about good and bad But that doesn't mean that the child can't know anything that's good and bad or can't even authoritatively state that Hey, when I saw that man get shot in the head yesterday, I'm only eight years old But I knew that that was bad. Um, so so no, I didn't say that and it's a question based on on a miss quote and a misunderstanding Hey, if you want a minute there to respond Uh, yeah, so What what the question really gets that is um Luke seems to be asserting that uh Even before We have any exposure to language or customs or to other people we have ingrained within us a specific set of behaviors I am I I'm sort of in the dark about that with respect to things that we consider in the domain of morality But I would wonder how on earth the hell he knows that what experiment has been done to demonstrate That a child for example raised on a desert not raised but left alone to grow up to adult in our desert island Would would therefore upon being exposed and having made legible somehow without any sort of acculturation um To uh to some active murder say what we would identify as murder that they would have the same Or something akin to the same moral response of someone who's been raised within a family within a given culture in a certain time place Like that that just doesn't I I don't know how on earth you can say that with a straight face Is if there's any you have any way whatsoever of knowing the truth of that statement All right one minute on the floor and then we'll move uh, I should be got one last super chat So we'll try to keep it to a minute response there. Luke. I'm not on a rush Yeah, so I mean what he just claimed is is just patently false. I mean we can we can observe um things within various cultures which historically before the advent of modern technology had no contact with each other and which had very similar um foundational level morals um things like That murder is wrong. Um, these are cultures that for all intents and purposes other cultures I said not a cultrator before on diverted islands with no With no communication to one another and yet they came up with very similar standards of intrinsic things that we recognize as right and wrong um, and then he mentioned that um that I believe that we would have preset behaviors. Um, I don't think I said that again. That's a misquote I think a closer idea that I might have shared is that we would preset beliefs and more time and some were too complicated to do in five seconds. Well The ability to recognize uh, right and wrong in a moral sense that that is what would come preset in all humans And I will apologize uh president. Uh, while you were getting a drink, uh, Luke did ask to be out Well, I've kept him five minutes over his asking time. So um, I don't blame him Well, uh, we do have two more coming in here. So if it's all right, I'll set a one minute timer. Um, are you all right with responses? Luke if they're just for you or do you want to just beg for me? Yeah, we could probably do like two more. Yeah, okay. Cool. I didn't I'm sorry for keeping you over time But thank you so much. So um, and yeah, sorry if I didn't tell you that president if you were wondering why I was pushing things along there No, no, no worries. Uh, you said uh, so josh of jayme comes in again says you said god is the only one that knows if it's good For hurricanes to kill children So they're okay, they're quoting the same that they're quoting you Yeah, I think that the former claim was that I said god is the only one who can know what's good That's not the same thing. Um, I understand that you and possibly my interlocutor here might like to twist and misuse quotes Or change little details so that they better fit your argument But that doesn't make that what I said. Um, so if god is the and I'll go back to the analogy I said, right That I shared, um, the child who can understand some good and some bad And the 60 year old grandparent who has a lot more data a lot more experience to reference Um, they can understand more So in this case god would be the person who has a much wider Base of knowledge and can judge whether or not a hurricane is good or bad You as the child in this analogy Probably can't maybe some people have enough knowledge that they can I doubt it So that would be more in line with my quote. Um, and I just encourage you to uh, to be careful to actually actually Reality and not what you wish I said All right, one minute response there present sunday if you have anything That's what it's moving next one. Okay. All right last one Coming in and thank you everybody for the super chats. Thanks to all of our mods hanging out in the, uh The chat room there and uh, everybody kept it really civil in the uh, the chat room tonight and on point So, uh, thank you to our viewers as well Uh bite g pt says do you guys believe in higher dimensions that exist simultaneously that we can't see Similar to how we can't hear high frequency sounds or see infrared What do you guys think those realities are like? Oh I've had a lot of questions. So feel free to take no no be my guest you first um Yeah, I mean as a christian that necessitates that I believe in Other dimensions and I think I think it would be fair to call them higher dimensions Um, that's not perhaps exactly how I would state it if I were just formulating the the statement myself But if you want to call them higher dimensions that are Uh, simultaneously coexisting with us and with each other. Yeah, I mean that that is that is a foundational belief in in christendom So, uh, yes, I do believe that Well, I disagree with that one the idea that there are higher dimensions. That's a very specific metaphysical conception of the world I'd like to see a justification for that that doesn't just rely upon the analogy between how we discuss uh different dimensions and and sort of relations of higher and lower and in Christian scriptural texts. Um, god is described despite uh in job Sort of laying down the measure of the world He's described as hovering over the surface of the waters a specific spatial relationship He's described as flying into the air in the new testament after he's he ascends Um, he comes down on a white horse and so on and so forth like I There's definitely a compatibility there if you take a lot of literary license with the language of scripture But I think that's a that's a wild claim to say that this is an essential part of how christians view the world I think it's a It's a it's it's it's it's something you can make christian language amenable to with a lot of a lot of stretching But I I think I would need to see some kind of argument there besides some sort of like poetic compatibility All right, uh, thank you to both of our speakers Josh with jamie has one last question We'll just keep it to 15 seconds for the interest of getting to our closing statements for uh, Respect for our speaker who has to be out of the room is so it is good for hurricanes to kill children 15 seconds Because we have entertained it a bit. That's unfair All right 30 seconds No, I mean the question's unfair 15 seconds screw Okay Yeah, there there can there can be a good an ultimate good that comes out of it That doesn't mean that it is good in and of itself just like I said with the stub toe if the stub toe is all you have It hurts its pain. It's a level of suffering a low level but a level nonetheless Um, but is there an ultimate good that came out of that stub toe when you bent down to look at it And your head didn't get taken off by the piece of shrapnel from the car crash Yes, there is an ultimate good. So um an oversimplified concept a concept But uh, but yeah, you could say that there is an ultimate good I would just throw that extra word in there and that extra word matters when we're talking about definitions All right, that was our last super chat So i'm going to close the last poll that I had put up there Which was who made the most compelling arguments tonight So we had 66 percent for president sunday and 32 percent for 33 sorry percent for luke eddison So, uh, we're gonna here's your god now. We're gonna close it out. I apparently need your god too, man I don't know what you're talking about I don't know he he he so ordered the universe that the the entire history of causality led to this moment When the theist was roundly defeated in the marketplace of ideas Praise the lord dirt the pot right in the local masses, which is notoriously notoriously reliable, right? Hey my dude christianity conquered the entire tire globe And yet here we are It defeated itself All right, so uh, yeah, let's close it out there guys But yeah, I realized as I closed the poll that I was kind of stirring the pot and that's always uh, that's always fun so once again, everybody hit the like whether you're watching this here or elsewhere and uh Yeah, definitely check out our speakers who are going to be linked in the description if you want to hear more from them And uh, yeah cheers everybody. We'll see you in a couple days Godspeed river durchy