 Hey everybody, today we are debating scientific evidence for God and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a fun one, folks, as we have a new guest with us. First time, we have quantum creation visiting and this should be a lot of fun. We have Tom Jump, season debater with us as well and we're debating whether or not there's scientific evidence for God. This is gonna be a lot of fun, folks. Wanna let you know really quick. If it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up. Oh, give me one second, Dennis, just cause basically I have the picture set in Zoom where they right now are seeing your slideshow instead of the pictures of your guys' faces. Just until we get started with the openings if it's possible. Sorry, I didn't tell you that. I should have mentioned that. But wanna let you know, folks, very excited as I have put the links for both of these speakers down in the description. So if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that. Well, no worries at all. You can hear plenty more where that came from by clicking on their links. And also wanna let you know, we are thrilled to let you know we are a nonpartisan channel. So we have no views per se. We ourselves just host the speakers who make their case and then you get to be the person who you could say judges or says whether or not they think that one side was more persuasive than the other. So thanks so much. And with that, we are going to jump right into it. So we appreciate Dennis. Thanks so much for being here. We're going to hand it over to you and the floor is all yours. Well, thank you and hello. Thank you for having me. I'm not gonna share my screen until later. So I'll speak right into the audience, but I look forward to having the interesting dialogue today with Tom. I propose there is an overwhelming amount of cause and effect science that supports the possibility and better yet, plausibility for the existence of God. And therefore claim that belief in a monotheistic God is a viable belief. Now note, since I believe in Yeshua Christ, my argument's going to include some biblical testimony. However, I invite other beliefs to utilize this evidence if it supports their beliefs. Now I believe that since God created the universe and everything in it, then science should be finding evidences for God in their studies. And that's what we indeed find. There are writings by a number of authors throughout the timeline of the Bible, such as Moses, Job, Christ, John, John of Revelation, with these verbal testimonies over 2,000 years ago, and of course longer, claiming that God is light. Now I'm looking at the literal interpretation of light. And the beauty of these biblical assertions is that light is quantifiable by science. Science can examine these statements, examine light and determine if they have any merit to playing a part of the creation of the universe, creation of life or other aspects that are discussed within the characterization or existence of God. And I will add that God being light doesn't mean that all of God's character existence is light, but light is an aspect of God, just like my voice is a part of me. It's not all of me. So when discussing light, we need to know that it's synonymous with electromagnetic radiation. So light is just the propagation, a photon particle of light is a propagation of electromagnetic radiation. And so it's one in the same that I talk about. And when we discuss light, we need to include all seven known categories in the light spectrum. So we're talking about radio waves, microwave, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma ray light. And some people ask, how did God do it? How did God create the universe? So here are 10 scientific discoveries involving light and what light has to do with the universe and consequently giving support for the existence of a God that has an attribute of being light and how God created the universe. So one, God created and transitioned matter, transitioned into matter at the Big Bang. E equals MC squared, which is energy equals mass times the speed of light squared has been proven to mean that energy transitions into mass, into matter. And at the singularity moment of the Big Bang, only energy existed, no matter, no spacetime. And so all the matter, the electrons, porcs, et cetera, everything needed for all the stars, planets and eventually you and me, were created right at this instance of the Big Bang from light energy, specifically science knows it's in the gamma ray spectrum. So for example, science knows that 1.022 mega electron volts will convert or create an electron-positron particle-antiparticle pair. So we can discuss that as a subject. Two, light is a causal factor to form for atoms to form. Quantum electrodynamics, QED explains how electrons maintain their orbital shell consistencies because specific light frequencies engage with electrons. And without this light energy acting upon the electrons of atoms, atoms simply would not exist. Three, light is a causal factor for physical reality tied to our five senses of sight, taste, smell, touch and hearing. So light is a causal factor for the wave function collapse where particles that exist as wave functions collapse into a particle state. And many people have heard of the observer effect in the famous double slit experiments. However, what most people don't realize is that light is required to be utilized as a measuring device. They're in making light the observer. In other words, wave function collapse does not occur exclusively by a human observation. Four, light is a causal factor for molecules to form, hold and break their molecular bonds. We know that specific light frequencies are needed to be absorbed or emitted in order for atoms to bond together or break apart. And pi and sigma bonds are examples of light engaging to hold molecular structure. In addition to the intermolecular bonds of the atoms which are very weak bonds on their own. Five, light moves atoms and molecules around. All the atoms and molecules in the universe are jiggling and moving around. And there are ranges of velocities that allow different molecule structures to form. So for example, if there is too much light energy, the velocities of atoms is too great for an atom to bond into a molecule. Six, light is the source of energy that counters the law of entropy. Orderly systems, they move towards disorderly systems. For example, the Earth once existed without life. It is not possible for life to develop at this point unless an added source of energy is introduced to the system and counters this law of entropy to allow more orderly system to emerge. And science knows that for life to develop and be sustained, light energy is the source of energy that allows for that to occur, which brings me to seven. Light is a causal factor for a biogenesis, the origin of life. Working off number six, we can specifically see how light, we can see studies that are now showing the effects of specific light frequencies in the development of original life on Earth. And we can discuss maybe Nancy's studies on iron sulfur clusters, which I think he should be up for a noble prize in chemistry or physics for his findings and we'll see where that leads to. But number eight, light frequencies are the driving force for evolutionary change in adaptation. Nine, light energy is required by living organisms to function. So in order for functions such as the movement of muscles, the energy released through ATP, that breaking of the phosphate bond is actually light energy being emitted. And so even to move a muscle requires light energy. Number 10, light allows for eternity, defined as a state not bound by time to exist. So Einstein's time dilation, we can discuss in how it explains how light is not bound by time and light's ability not to be bound by time now allows for a monotheistic God, B, it allows for an eternal God, C, a God that is the same yesterday, today and always, and D, God can be both omnipresent in this finite universe and eternal apart from the finite universe. So my position is that God being light is the most probable and plausible explanation for the orderliness and intricacy of the universe and life on Earth and is superior to other theories such as the naturalistic belief based on randomness. So I challenge you or anyone to provide scientific proof that God cannot or is not light and the absence of any proof allows the possibility that God is or at the very least can be light. And with that said, atheism can continue to believe that God doesn't exist. However, I don't believe atheism can any longer claim that God cannot exist. Thank you. You got it. Thanks so much. Quantum creation, pleasure to have you. And as mentioned, both of the speakers are linked in the description. I did forget to mention at the start. Quantum creation actually has a number of books published and I've linked those in the description as well. So you can check those out folks and he's done a number of speaking engagements. And so we are thrilled to have him here. And with that as well, Tom Jump who's also had a number of speaking engagements. Glad to have you back, Tom. The floor is all yours for your opening statement. All right, so I just go with, there is no evidence of the existence of God. It's all just made up ad hoc nonsense. There's no evidence that can, evidence is that which can differentiate imagination from reality. If you don't have that, you don't have evidence. So just saying God could be light is like saying, well, there could be an imaginary unicorn somewhere in the universe that's possible but there doesn't give you a way to differentiate is it imaginary, is it real? So it's not evidence. So just the fact that God could be light isn't evidence he is or that he exists. God could be a toenail clipping for all we know. He's hiding down there for no reason because it's just for fun apparently. I mean, there's lots of possibilities but possibility isn't actually evidence that it is the case. What you need is evidence that what your imagination is perceiving about light is actually true about reality and you haven't presented any of that. You just said light as in electromagnetic radiation not visible light, just all electromagnetic radiation causes pretty much everything, which is true. There's nothing to do with the God. It's just science, just a classic God of the gaps. Like we know light does stuff. We don't understand why exactly. So God did it, that's why. It's a classic God of the gaps but it's not actually evidence. You're just presenting your imagined explanation for some unknown and presenting reasons why you can imagine it to be the case but none of that's actually evidence because you need something that can differentiate your imagination from reality. That can conclude my opening but I do have a few questions. How exactly do you define God? I define God is, well, I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and so that tied to the monotheistic God. However, I could see where other beliefs that have a monotheistic God or a God that is tied to their writings and doctrine that God is light could use this very same evidence, science cause and effect evidence in their descriptions or doctrine but I believe in God who created all the universe, everything in it and is eternal. So science now has all this here information that is. Wait, so I'm still asking like, how do you define a God? Would it be fair to say you define a God as eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, conscious, personal agent thing? Yes, sir. That is also light. And so he's not just light, it's light plus other stuff. Yes. Okay, and so I agree light exists. Electrobanic radiation exists. I'm sure all scientists agree that is true but you presented no reason to think that is a God, that electromagnetic radiation is a God. Well, when we look at biblical scriptures that we have a number of authors over thousands of years taking a lot of people like, hey, if Jesus came to earth, why didn't he tell us how he did it? How did he create the universe? How did he create life? And I say he did. He said, hey, I'm light, God is light. And from there, it took us thousands of years of science to figure out what light actually is. Back in their days and for thousands of years, people are thinking, oh, light helps plants to grow and we can see so light is good. And oh, darkness, so we can't see and so darkness is bad and no understanding of light. Now that we are coming around to the age where we with quantum physics are able to find out what is actually going on at the subatomic level, we can now collaborate the writings of God is light which is no small feat. You might be sitting there going, so what? He said, you know, Bible says God is light. Well, it's quantifiable and it's declared at an age when nobody knew what light was. And now we find out that light is the only explanation of all the particles in the universe to put all these things together to reinforce and to give evidence of what was said thousands of years ago. I understand what light is, but I'm not saying the connection. I don't think you do understand what light is. You're talking about electromagnetic radiation. I do know what electromagnetic radiation is. But you seem to be saying that the Bible said so, therefore, that's evidence that this is true. That seems to be your evidence. Well, it's a strong thing to be putting verbal testimony before something is proven to say, this is what's going on. And then later you collaborate and find out, oh yeah, that is accurate. So if the Bible were to say God was gravity, then I wouldn't be able to say what I'm saying today. Or if God is fire. You see what I'm saying? It is so astronomically difficult to pinpoint the exact how God is present. And so when you're talking about light, for example, God is omnipresent, the Wilkinson Anisotropy probe. I didn't ask you anything about that. Anything about that at all? But you asked me if I believe God is omnipresent. Well, I just did you give a definition of what you meant by God. That was it. So I'm good with that. I can accept your definition. But I can discuss these things on those if you want to about explaining why I think there's an importance between light and God and how science, cause and effect, actually supports this existence of God. So as far as I can tell, the only evidence you presented is the Bible said so. And that's not evidence of anything. Cause the Bible says a lots of ridiculous things and it's an analogy, essentially. Like just saying that. What do you mean analogy? It's, I'm saying it's a, if we take the literal meaning of light and we look at what light does. There is no literal meaning of light. The literal meaning of the Hebrew word is not at anything like electromagnetic radiation. It means nothing like that. So you have to extrapolate from their use of the word light to our use of the word light to our scientific discovery that changed the complete definition of light entirely into something totally new. So like in terms and science don't stay the same over thousands of years, they can begin new meanings. Like the word Adam used to mean the smallest constituent part. And then we discovered Adam's actually have smaller parts, protons and neutrons and electrons. So now Adams don't mean that anymore, even though they did in the past. So the original use of the word light has been modified because of science. It wasn't true in the Bible that God was light and it was talking about electromagnetic radiation. How do you know? How can you make such a claim? Because did you live back then? Electromagnetic radiation. Did you live back then that you could make such a claim as that? Electromagnetic radiation didn't exist in Hebrew so it couldn't have meant that. It's not possible. That's just facts. I don't understand what you mean. Just because they didn't have the terminology but Jesus said, I am light and God is light. Doesn't mean that as time goes on man understands what he's actually talking about. I think your claim is weak to say that this is what they meant and it can't mean anything but what they meant. That sounds ridiculous to me Tom. It can't mean anything than what they meant because it's what they meant. Like it makes no sense to say, oh, we're gonna imbeg you with the terms to make it fit our current terminology uses. Like obviously no, like all historians reject that completely. If light is a thing and you find out more and more and more depth about what it is, then it's just building upon what the same terminology was whether it's a thousand years ago or 5,000 years ago. No, that's false. You cannot make a claim that, oh, they didn't know that it meant electromagnetic radiation. Yeah, I can't believe you didn't. If God exists and he says it is then God knows that it was electromagnetic radiation. I mean, we didn't even know that's what it was gonna be named so it could be named something else. Or they just made up a term and made an analogy to God being something that they saw like they did for everything, like every God did for Hinduism. They just made everything a God and God's called lots of things in the Bible and you could have just picked. Now, that's a claim that you can't back up. That's just your personal opinion that, oh, they made everything up. What claim? You're claiming that they made everything up. Yeah, well, we can essentially show that definitively, like there's logical contradictions in the existence of God. So it can't actually exist, but specifically, we know that people make stuff up all the time. That's a pretty common thing. Well, of course, yeah, we make up things right now. Not done yet. We can look at the political environment. They're making things up. Stop. So people in the religious sects make up lots and lots of crap and they say God is light. God is sound. God is the word. Like that was actually the original statement in the Bible was the word of God is the magic, not light. And so there's lots of things you could interpret in the Bible and say, well, God is this, but that gives you no evidence. So it's all just your imagination. You imagine it to be the case that God is light. That's nice. Now, give me a reason to think it's true. And the Bible said so is just a thing that you imagine. Like you can imagine God is light because the Bible said so, but it isn't evidence. He is light. That's something different. You'd have to go beyond that. Well, if I'm making the claim saying, look, God says this is how he did it. He's light. You have to say, and you've already admitted, okay, God can possibly be light. God can possibly be a toenail clipping. God could possibly be my left toenail right now. It's possible. So I can God possibly be light. Sure. I could be God. That's possible too. OK, so you're pretty much admitting that God is possible. You just so you can't. I take it you don't have the claim that God can exist. You just have a position. You don't believe God doesn't exist. Certain gods definitely can't exist. Like the Christian guy can't exist. It's logically contradictory. A God in general, like a deist, a God is possible. There are certain theists, the gods that are possible. The Christian God isn't. Why? Logical contradictions in his nature. What logical contradiction? One, the problem of suffering. It can't. If an all good, all powerful God existed, it wouldn't create involuntary suffering. There is involuntary suffering. Therefore, there is no all good, all powerful God. A God can't be all powerful because it can. There entails logical contradictions like it can't create a rock heavier than it can lift it. That simple omniscience creates logical paradoxes, which is Wittgenstein's paradox of omniscience, which says you can't actually know something outside of yourself, so it's impossible to actually be omniscient. Every one of the omniproperies has logical paradoxes well known in philosophy. So those, that God's out. That God. I've been really happy to talk about those right now. We can talk about those right now. And the reason all those paradoxes exist is because we don't have any cause and effect to counter them and put together an argument that would support and explain how those paradoxes can work and no longer be these paradoxes. And so. And it exists because of logic. So if they're gonna break, if you're gonna break the laws of logic to say God exists, well, then that leads to the principle of explosion. I can just say anything is God. No, no. Yeah, yeah. Let's just Google the principle of explosion. That's how it works. I, well, let's talk about it. How can God be, which one do you wanna discuss and what can get into it? Well, I mean, I don't care. Like again, so my argument. You know, for example, God, a typical example is God can't be a monotheistic God because I didn't say what created God, right? What? I didn't say that. I know what you're talking about. Well, that's a typical argument that how can you have a monotheistic God? God created the universe than what created God. No one says God can't be monotheistic because he must have been created. That's not an argument people make. The people make the argument that if the universe must have a creator, then you can say the same thing about a God. There's no reason to apply the same logic that you do to a God. Just say, well, God is the first mover. You can just do the same thing to the universe. You don't need to have a God to explain the universe. So if you have a way to say God can be uncreated, we can just say the same thing about the universe. That's the point of the argument. It's not that God can't be monotheistic. Of course, it could be. OK, thank you for admitting that God can be monotheistic. Everyone grants that. That's like saying there could be unicorns we don't know about. That doesn't help your position at all, but it's not evidence. Same things are possible. Isn't evidence? Well, it's obvious you're just kind of skirting along, trying not to discuss specific topics. I've asked you for specific topics. Give me evidence. Like, I don't need to bring up contradictions that even if there weren't contradictions, that's still not evidence. Even if God was perfectly coherent, that's still not evidence. Yeah, I mean, my position is still no one can prove that God is light. But now that there are claims that God is light and the proof aligns with what light would do to be how all creation works, then you would have to be able to say God isn't light to say that God can't exist. And so I'm putting it back on you. Not the position. Because it's easy for the last 500 years that people would have the position that, oh, God can't exist because there's no scientific proof. I don't have any scientific proof. So God doesn't exist. Show me some proof that God exists. And so I'm giving you scientific proof that aligns with God's character is. That's, again, irrelevant. My left toenail could align with God's character. That's perfectly possible, irrelevant. So I need evidence. Yeah, but nobody in the Bible is saying that your left toenail is God. I don't care. What people say in the Bible is just what they imagine. So that isn't evidence at all. But give me evidence. God is in your left toenail. God created your left toenail. I'm glad you can imagine that. Now, give me a reason to think it's not just alienation. Because all matter in the universe was created from light. And so we are basically made of light. You might say, hey, we're made of stardust. And we are, but that stardust is made of light. I understand what light is, but that isn't evidence of God. I say it is. How so? That's the question. How is it evidence of God? Because God says that He is light. And so I'm attributing it. And saying, OK, quantifiable, if God's going to lay it on the line and say, I'm light, go find out what light is. And we find out that light actually can explain how God is eternal. It doesn't at all. What do you mean it doesn't? Light isn't eternal. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Had a beginning at the Big Bang just like everything else. Well, a photon particle that propagated at the instance of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago. Today, 13.8 billion years later, has not aged one second. And 13 billion years from now will not age another a second. It is the same yesterday, today, and always. It does not age from light's perspective, from our perspective, from our perspective, because of time dilation, then light would age, not from its perspective. Why are you saying this? I know what light is. The fact that light doesn't age or isn't affected by time the same way we are doesn't mean it didn't have a beginning. That's not what it means. Yes, it does. No, it doesn't. If you look at the moment of singularity, where we have a super force of the four forces of nature, combined with one super force, at that moment was perfect. Our universe couldn't exist until those broke apart. But if you look at that, and you look at Einstein's time dilation, you would see that light, from light's perspective, not our perspective, outside looking at light, but from light's perspective, it is not bound by time. There is no time from light's perspective. It doesn't expand like the universe does. So light exists in space. Space and time are the same thing. So light is confined by time, just not affected by that part of space time. Yes, this is just basic physics. Like, we know that light exists in space, and space and time are the same thing. So it is confined by time. It's just confined on a specific dimension of time. This is basic physics. Like, none of this is my opinion. We know for a fact it is. I know what I'm talking about. You don't know what you're talking about as far as what time dilation from light's perspective. You're describing light from a universe's finite four-dimensional perspective. You're not looking at it from light's perspective out. And so if you look at that from what light is, it is not bound by time. So all of the universe, it takes zero time for light to transverse to universe from light's perspective. Which I agree with, and it still doesn't support your position. Like, everyone in physics agrees on this. Light came into existence at the same time as everything else during the Big Bang. And it just tied to time just because of space. Yes. No. Yes. Not right. OK, show me a paper that shows us wrong. Where? OK, I can email you differently if you want to study what a singularity is at the moment of the Big Bang. Do you not know one? So you don't know one. I do. I can actually give you the paper. Stephen Hawking, 1984, where he showed the singularity is false. He proved himself wrong on that. There is no singularity. There was no singularity. That's not how it worked. A lot has gone on since the experiments at CERN in Switzerland with what's going on at the Big Bang compared to what Hawking wrote 30 years ago or 20 years ago. Everything is exactly consistent with that same paper. Like, it hasn't been overturned at all. There was no singularity. The singularity theory came before this paper, and it was refuted. It's not back. The singularity theory is done. You just go to any physics resource that says no, no singularity. It's not how the Big Bang works. Most of the theories involve quantum mechanics. No singularity here. So you bring up a singularity. That's already been proven false. Hawking himself destroyed that theory pretty concisely. And so we know light came into existence at the Big Bang and everything else because it's electromagnetic radiation. The point of general special relativity is that all of the electromagnetic radiation that equals MC squared stuff, all of that came into existence at the Big Bang. That's the point. So say that some of the lights. What was before the Big Bang? We don't know. Could be lots of things. Amphitheater and emergent spacetime, Sean Carroll's model, many world-type opposites. It could be lots of different things. You see, there's no consensus on what was. How did this universe come into things? You've got the virtual reality holographic Copenhagen. There's all these theories or hypotheses that have come together with no consensus. Why are you bringing up a consensus? Like you said, what is possible? What could exist before the Big Bang? I didn't say there was a consensus. I don't need one. It just needs to be possible. Exactly. And that's what I say. God can be a light. God is possible. Which isn't evidence is true. You have not bring anything that says that God can't be light. I have strong convictions that, hey, God is light. And keep saying it's possible. Like the fact that it's possible doesn't mean anything. It's possible that I'm God. Does that mean I'm God? No, you need to go before that. You need, again, evidence is that which can differentiate your imagination from reality. The fact that it's possible doesn't do that. It's possible I can lift 20,000 pounds. Is that is it true? No, does that give you a reason to believe that it's not imaginary? No, the fact that it's possible does not differentiate between imagination and reality. So it's not evidence. It's not only possible. It's plausible. And it's a better argument than saying, oh, everything came into existence because of random chance. So if that's what your position is, is random chance? Nope, that's not my position. So don't don't try to label my position if you don't know what it is. I said, if it is, I didn't say it is. OK, so it's not the position. And as far as I know, so what is your position on how the universe came into existence? So again, you need to preside. You said it was plausible, more plausible. Yeah, you presented no reason to believe that. The only thing you presented was it says so in the Bible. And that gives us exactly zero evidence because that's, again, just imaginary stuff that doesn't. The Bible doesn't give us a way to differentiate imagination reality, just like saying it's possible. Doesn't give us a way to differentiate imagination reality. So I'd say there's a lot to it for evidence. If you were to go on a in a court and you say, hey, I have these witnesses that say this. And then we see what the evidence is. It's like walking into maybe a cave. Where the culture of that time is no longer round. And you look at the cave wall and they've got pictures on there of certain animals that aren't in that area anymore in green fields. And around that cave area, let's say it's arid and there's no vegetation. And people say, hey, guess what? These paintings say that there was some culture here that had these animals present. And this is what it was at the time. It doesn't look like that here. They do some digging. They don't find any, let's say, human types of remains for DNA studies, whatever. But they now start to see some animal that would align with what the cave paintings are. And so people say, would you say, hey, they're just imagining that those people live there? No, we have some evidence that actually coincides with what verbal testimonies are trying to describe of what's going on. And so when we collaborate those, I say that's some very, very strong evidence to put things together. So you mentioned a courtroom. In a courtroom, if an eyewitness testimony says someone got killed by magic or miracles or mythical creatures, the paranormal supernatural UFOs, it's immediately thrown out. It's gone. It's not evidence. Doesn't matter how many people say it, it doesn't matter how many we saw it. Throw in witches did it or magic or miracles. Anything that doesn't have an empirical basis, it's immediately thrown out of the courtroom. I actually did a debate with Jonathan Shefffield, who actually listed a bunch of court cases that had examples of all of these being thrown out and why they were thrown out. So if you have eyewitness testimony from the Bible saying that there was a magic miracle, mythical creature, God, or whatever, that's immediately going to be thrown out of the courtroom, just like all the other examples. So that isn't evidence in the courtroom, just like it's not evidence, as I'm saying. I'm not saying it's a magical mythical unicorn that was written in the Bible. I'm saying they said, God is light. And now we find out what God is and is a collaboration. You said God is powerful. Strong evidence that what they're talking about is has truth laid in it. Go back, go back, go back, go back, go back. I'm going to put them together and say, this is a lot better than somebody saying, everything happens by range of force. You're jumping too far and go back. So again, you think of God as a disembodied, non-physical mind that is conscious that exists outside of the universe. That's magic. If you put that in a courtroom, it's going to be thrown out just like a unicorn. The exact same reasons a unicorn is thrown out. So if you P.F. people who are right, it's testimony to say there is this non-physical being that is conscious that exists outside of the universe, a supernatural mind of some kind, that's going to be thrown out of the courtroom. It's not evidence. I'm not bringing that into our discussion today. You did. You just asked me if that's what I believe God is. I'm not saying I'm bringing all of that into this argument. I'm trying to stick to just cause and effect science that collaborates and supports the existence of God. Yeah. You just find God as light. I mean, we all accept light exists. Like I say, God is my cell phone. My cell phone exists there for God exists, but that's clearly not what we're talking about. That's why I asked. Okay, well, if you believe God is your cell phone, make a case for how a cell phone created all the universe. Magic. Okay, you don't have a very good argument. I'm saying God is light and light collaborates and says, this is how the universe is made. So I have a better argument thing here. If you want to use your cell phone and as that's your explanation, it's not very strong. Irrelevant. So go back. You said that God is light. Now we accept light exists, but if God is light, that means God is meaningless. It's just light is light. Light is light doesn't tell us anything. There's no conscious being. There's no creation of the universe. It's just light. Light is physics. Naturalism is true. No God if it's like God is light. So either you're arguing that God is light and light is light, therefore naturalism is true, or you're saying there's something else in addition to the natural part that is like a non-physical mind as an example, a supernatural something. And that part is the magic part that's going to be rejected in every courtroom. So if you're just saying God is light and light is light, we all accept light exists and that's purely natural. There's nothing non-natural about that. There's nothing conscious about that. It's just light. But if you're saying light is conscious and there's this additional thing to it, there's no evidence of that. That's the claim there's no evidence of. I'm not saying I'm saying that God is like, my voice is the aspect of me. So I'm not saying light is all of God. And like I say, I'm not here to argue about how God created, like why God created the universe the way he did, and why there's pain or something, why there's this. But I would say that God created a perfect in his design, it's a perfection. You just can't take outside, you can't take outside in the wholeness of God's creation. If there's the heaven that's described the heavenly realm where that has to be inclusive of what the finite world. I wanna address your point now. So you do accept or you are arguing that God is not just light. There's also something else, something that is in addition to light that God is. Right, but that's not what I'm claiming here to cover in this debate. Because I'm trying to stick to my position of God is light and that brings on evidence is how God did it. I understand your argument. I'm not trying to make you defend those other properties. That's not my goal. My goal here is to say is that if we accept just God is just light, which isn't your position, I know. So then that would be naturalism is true because we accept light is natural. So if God was just light, then naturalism would be true. Why is that? Because light is natural. All the scientists who accept light, every property of light is a natural property. But if you think there's something else in addition to that, that's the question is like, when you bring it up evidence in a courtroom and you say, I saw light, I mean, yes, that would be evidence. But if you said, I saw light plus this other thing, whatever it is, doesn't matter what it is, that's going to be not evidence. That's going to be thrown out like the unicorn. So if you're saying that the biblical testimony of the apostles or whatever said, God is light and this other thing, whatever it is, that's going to be thrown out of a courtroom, just like if they saw miracles or magic or mythical creatures or anything like that. So that isn't evidence. Well, if I was going into court and I'm saying, my goal is to take a position, say an atheist position that says, okay, it's silliness to believe in God. It says made up, miss of ancient days of naive people, with their imaginations coming up with this type of concept from out of nothing, no basis to come up with this. Then my goal coming to the courtroom is not to prove that God exists and prove it by light. My goal and my goal here in discussion is to say, look, you think it's silliness and there's no possible way that God can exist. And I'm saying, you can't make that statement that God can't exist. You can only make a statement that God doesn't exist. And I respect anybody who says, hey, I don't believe God exists. That's fine. You can have your belief in your perspective and say, I don't believe God exists. That's cool. You know what I mean? But you cannot, I don't know how anyone can ever say that God can not exist. I thought when I'm going to talk about the topic of the debate, the topic of the debate was like, is there evidence, right? I didn't think it was his God possible, right? Did I misunderstand? Well, that's it. I'm bringing scientific evidence of how God created the universe. But God is possible isn't evidence like evidence. This is the scientific evidence of how God did it. That's not evidence. That's just how it happened. And then you're assuming God did it. But that's the evidence. Wait, wait, wait. That's the evidence. Go back, go back, go back. So again, the topic of the debate was, is there evidence of a God, not is God possible? So I'm not trying to argue God is impossible here. That's not my goal. My goal here is to show there isn't any or evidence for the God. So there's infinitely many things are possible. They're all contradictory. But to have evidence, you need something that can differentiate the imaginary ones from the real ones. That's what evidence is. Just saying it's possible isn't evidence. I mean, and that's not the topic of the debate. So I don't know why you keep bringing that up. It is evidence. The fact that it's possible is evidence. It's because, you know, I didn't make it up that people said God is light. But if God claims to be light, then that has to be, it has to align with science and it does. You're giving no credence to that magnificent correlation between what was said that was unknown to what we find out now is absolutely the true. It's the only possible way that it does happen. And they nailed it. And you're giving it like no credence or no... Right, because it's not evidence. Merit. There's a reason no one takes... But it has tons of merit. It has merit. It's better than random chance. No, even if that's not the position. And all these other positions of... Again, you haven't addressed my question here. So again, you keep bringing up possibility. You said your goal is to address possibility. That's right. Not the topic of debate, remember? So the topic of debate is evidence. So possibly it doesn't matter to whether or not there's evidence. Those are two separate things, right? Well, that's the outcome of what happens with the evidence. What? I present this evidence of how God created the universe because God claims to be light. And if God is light, this is what it is. It aligns science and the belief in God are not like this anymore. It's not like science is over here, has nothing to do with God and we're battling like this. No, they align together. It's like, okay, the Bible says that God holds all things together. Oh, atoms and molecules are held together. Oh, guess what? It says that the things of this world come from the invisible into the visible. And guess what? That explains quantum electrodynamics. We have a process where a wave function and we can take an atom, let's take an atom and you've got your electron in there and it's going through this. It doesn't orbit around the nucleus of an atom like once thought and it's an ongoing state of matter. It goes in and out from wave function to particle, wave function to particle and that process of collapse to a particle is caused by light. Why are you bringing this up? Like, I mean, I understand what light is. I grant light to exist. I grant electromagnetic radiation. So talking about those things is just bringing up facts we agree with. So that doesn't... I'm bringing up just, yeah, facts you agree with. So yeah, we do like this. But these are writings in the Bible that are in addition to just saying God is light. And what's that? Where does it say anything about electromagnetic radiation? It talks about this process of quantum electrodynamics. Where does it talk about that in the Bible? Please find out. It talks about it when it says things like... Colossians 1, 16, for by him, all things were created both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible. And it goes through about this process that the things that are visible are from the invisible. And that's a description of wave function collapse of a wave function that is invisible that collapses to a particle so that can be a physical presence. And so that there's a description of quantum electrodynamics or this observer effect. We have God saying... No, that didn't say anything about quantum mechanics. It's called an ambiguity fallacy. You're taking the fact that you can interpret that in infinitely many ways and you just apply it in a number of ways. Yeah, it is. It aligns with what science is. Like literally anything can if you interpret it with ambiguity like that. No, not literally anything. I mean, this is actually a known problem in science called the problem of undetermination. There are literally infinitely many ways to explain all possible data, no matter what. Exactly. Like if you just took all exact scientific facts, E equals MC squared, F equals MA, gene entropy, everything, you could explain that infinitely many ways even without anything vague. Like exactly the data points we have scientifically you can explain infinitely many ways. And then you're applying this interpretation of the Bible where it's so vague, it could apply to just anything, like whatever the universe is made of, it would apply to that. There isn't something that the universe could be made of that that would not apply to. Oh yeah, you could apply it to the many worlds theory. You can apply it to the virtual reality holographic theory. You can apply it to the Copenhagen theory. No, I mean, literally if the world was made of cream cheese, you could apply it to that statement. So like the statement says, the scene comes from the unseen or whatever. We clearly don't see everything. So necessarily. Yeah, I mean, you don't want to have a serious discussion on this, that's fine. Come back, come back. So whatever created the universe necessarily came from the unseen because we don't see anything. We literally do not see everything. The only way that statement could be false is if the things we see, like that camera did it. Like clearly not. So the fact that the universe came from the unseen is just obviously true. So that doesn't tell us anything. Like all of the statements in that quote are just true no matter what. Like there's no way to make that false. It's, it's, it's ambiguous. Then you can make it false because there would be no science to align with it or support it. No, I mean, like the statement in the Bible, like how could that statement be wrong? What possible set of conditions could make that statement not true? If like the world was made of cream cheese, then it would still be true. Like we'd still be the scene came from the unseen. If the world was made of magic puffins, it would still be the scene came from the unseen. Well, I agree that you could have that position if there was no science attached to it to collaborate with it. But we have quantum electrodynamics, the observer effect that collaborate and say, hey, this year collaborates with that statement. And so there is some credence and to support it. I don't think so. It's not made up. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. So like if I said, whatever created the universe is a wobble, I mean, well, I mean, whatever happens to be the case, I'm going to say that's a wobble, therefore I can't be wrong. It's always going to be the case that my statement is going to be true no matter what because it's so vague, it can be interpreted to be anything. Okay, where's your science? Where's your science to back it up? Science, literally anything we ever discover, I'm going to say that's a wobble, so any science that exists, I'm going to say that corresponds to my word. What does that mean? I want to ask you what it means. Well, that's that's the point is that it doesn't mean anything. It's ambiguous. Ambiguity means that the word can be interpreted in infinitely many ways. Just like it can't be interpreting infinite number of ways. It's a finite number of ways. What? No, for this statement of things from the invisible are manifest from the invisible type of statement. Can I admit, be interpreted in some other ways? But not an infinite number of ways. Now, if you say something that has ambiguity like that, then you can make up whatever you want for it to mean. Yes, exactly like the Bible statement. Now, let's you said there aren't aren't infinitely many ways. There's only a number of certain number of ways. Yes, I'm about to address that. And so if you have a science that's going to back it up, false, I'm just saying you can cooperate it. So let's go back. OK, so there are infinitely number of ways to enter to interpret that statement. Now, we know that's a fact because we can just look at. No language works. Wait, there's an infinite number of interrupts. Interrupt your interrupt. Don't interrupt. So we know there's an infinitely number of many ways to interpret that statement because of one, we can just look at linguistics in the natural ambiguity language. We know it's a fact from that way. Two, we can just give you a list of examples. Like maybe it's created by just pick a thing that we don't see and then say how many how many possible things are there that we can't see? There are infinitely many things. There could be lots of things in science we haven't discovered yet that we haven't seen. And any of those infinitely many things could have created the universe. And if any of them did and like other than light, then those things would still conform to the statement of the Bible. Infinitely many of them like protons, quarks, wimps, whatever just infinitely many things, all of the possible things we can't see which there are infinitely many, any of those if they created the universe would make that statement true, right? No. How? Okay, let me ask you this. Do you have any belief in science? Yes. Does science give us any evidence of foundations for truth? Sure. Why? Because if science says something, then there's an infinite number of interpretations because it's ambiguous. Novel testable predictions. What we do is say. You can make it say whatever you want. No, that's why we have novel testable predictions. We can say that if there's infinitely many ways to explain why that cup fell over, and then we say, well, my explanation is is that a squirrel knocked it over. And if the squirrel knocked it over, then we're gonna find little bite marks in it. And then we can test it and say, ah, we look at the cup, ah, there's little bite marks. And the fact that I could predict that before I knew it is good evidence that it was done by a squirrel. Right, I agree with you. I'm just saying that I'm trying to refute your position that just because something's written in the Bible, you say, oh, well, I can mean an infinite number of different things. And I say that's ridiculous. I'm not disagreeing that ambiguity, something with ambiguity can have an infinite number of outcomes or meanings to it. But a statement of something occurring with a description to it limits the amount of meanings that can have to it. Not really, no. So like if I said- Or here's an example. The Bible says that a man named Jesus Christ or Yeshua existed on the planet. Okay, can that mean a million different, an infinite number of things? No, you got- Hey, this man on the earth or not. So it doesn't have- No, it can. It can mean infinitely many things. We're talking about a unicorn, not a person. I mean, what you're saying sounds ridiculous to me. So go back, just to use your example, one of the interpretations of the Bible that's not very common. One is that when it says Jesus exists on the earth, it's proverbial and it means in the earth, the Greek of the word can be interpreted to mean a spiritual realm. So he's next exists on the physical earth. That's one of the many, infinite interpretations. Again, natural ambiguity of language, just Google it. We know for a fact that words can literally be interpreted infinitely anyways. But to use the specific quote you got from the Bible, the quote says, the scene came from the unseen. That statement can have infinitely many things. That make it true. Like if anything we don't see, like there's infinitely many things we can't see. Like we don't see everything. There's like, we could just go off in any direction. It's infinitely many things in that direction we don't see right now. If any of those created the universe, then that statement in the Bible would be true. So there's infinitely many things that could have created the universe that would still make that statement true. In fact, there's nothing that can't make that statement true because we don't see everything ever. So the fact that there's infinitely many things we don't see and any of them could have created the universe and that statement will still be true. Well, let me put it another way for that thing. If you believe there's an infinite number of ways that that could be interpreted, which I don't agree with. But let's just say you're saying there could be an infinite number of ways that that could be interpreted. It could, you know, and I come to you and say, okay, well, let me just tell you this, that science says this is what happens from the unseen to the seen, quantum electrodynamics cameras, because science doesn't have an infinite number of explanations of how things in the unseen become seen. In this world, we've got quantum mechanics that can explain it. And so this is tied to light and God is light. And so we have this connection now that takes an infinite number of possibilities down to one that collaborates with science that says there's one. And if you wanna say, wow, that's just lucky chance. And really it doesn't mean anything to me. Then, you know, I think you really have a bias looking at really the possibilities where science supports the existence of God and are not open to the possibilities. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, you're taking the conclusion and then taking that interpretation and applying it to the Bible and not the other way around. So I mean, literally anything science discovered ever would always fit that statement, no matter what. Anything science ever discovered is always going to make that statement true. There's not something science could discover that could make that statement false. It's on false Bible. It's just applies to anything. Like if science discovered it wasn't light, if science discovered that water created the universe or something, it would still be true. That statement would still be true because the water that we can't see created the universe. Okay, that's a great statement. I'm glad you made it because if the Bible's, if water created the universe, then the statements in the Bible, we'd sit here and say, they're wrong. Oh, we have no basis really to believe that God created the universe. It's actually counters the belief that God created you because the Bible says God is light and we find out through science that water created the universe. Look at that, here it doesn't collaborate, boom, God. We have proof now that really scientifically science does not support the existence of God or if the Bible said that God is water and created the universe and we found out that light actually does all these things about creating and sustaining and development of life, then we'd say, hey, there's no connection here and you have a null void argument. But what we do have is a collaboration that has perfect alignment for the explanation of how things from the unseen comes in. What I'm saying is that if it was water that created the universe, you wouldn't be here saying that light created the universe. Someone else would be and they'd be saying that the Bible corresponds to water created the universe. It doesn't matter what created the universe. They're always going to quote that exact same passage and say, ah, the scene came from the unseen. Where does the Bible say water created the universe? You can interpret it in any way you want. That's kind of the point of the natural ambiguity of language which is just a fact of linguistics known by every academic thing, Google natural ambiguity of language, the thing. So you can interpret it in any way you want. That's why there's 30,000 denominations. That's why there's 30,000 denominations Christianity, all ridiculous different interpretations that are all crazy and none of which give evidence. I disagree. I think religion is a lot like science when it comes to areas that science doesn't know. And for example, how does the universe come into existence? And we have all these different theories, Copenhagen, Prello universe, string theory, multiverse, cubism, pilot wave theory. And it's like, well, it could be this, could be this, could be this. That to me sounds a lot like people getting together about God going, look, there's God, a supernatural being. How does he, how does it work? How does he exist? And some people say, oh, it goes like this. Some people go like this. And so people come together and put things together on how, what is God? And so I see a lot of, in areas that they really need to know the answer to and have no way of proving it. Science cannot prove. Yeah, but there's a difference. There's a difference. There's a difference between science. It's a hypothesis with no way to prove it. There's a difference there. The difference between science. There's a difference. Still a difference. You can prove it. Still a difference. Thanks so much. What I want to say is maybe in a few minutes we'll go into Q and A. And also I think it might just be me because I know that my connection hasn't been super strong tonight. But I think sometimes quantum creation I'm losing you a little bit. So is that, can you hear it as well, Tom? Yeah, he's lagging on my server. Am I lagging for you, James, or is it just him? No, I think it's just coming from quantum creation on your side. And it's not a big deal. We can hear you decently well, but I'll try to let you know if it gets any worse during the Q and A, which will as much as we frozen on my screen. He might just be standing really still. I don't think so. Oh, you can move until talk? Yeah. Dennis? How's that? Maybe he's a ventriloquist, I don't know. He doesn't look like he's moving. Yeah, yeah, it's just your image is fixed on our screens. We can't see you moving. Yeah, you're frozen. How's that? I'm moving. Okay, well, you said that you thought science and religion were the same when dealing with unknowns. The difference is that science has only allowed to use combinations of principles of particles and laws that have been verified to exist and aren't imaginary. The reason that it's science is that and religion doesn't is what makes religion bad is that it doesn't. You can just make up whatever you want and put it in the theory, like the non-physical mind, it's eternal, powerful, annoying, blah, blah, none of those properties are principles, particles or laws and physics that have been verified to exist. The reason the physics theories are better even though we can't prove that the multiverse is real or whatever is because it's only a combination of principles and particles and laws that have been proven to exist. Whereas God is made up of a bunch of other things that are just kind of asserted without any evidence. I'm not debating that. Okay. I'm ready to go to Q and A, that's why I'm good with that. Yeah, sounds good. We will, in just a second, wanna say thanks so much to our speakers. It's been a total blast to have these guys wanna give you a quick reminder while we've got everybody here, their links are in the description. So if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that, I wanna hear more. You can hear more by clicking on those links. Basically think of Craig from Parks and Rec. But also, yeah, so well, we'll get started with, thanks for new subscribers. I think I might have missed one or two in the very start, but Lois Ray McGinnis, thanks for subscribing as well as Roy Stigal and Colonel Tube. Really appreciate having you here. Welcome to the community. And also, just so you know, folks, I don't know if the timing is like exact, but usually if so, if you subscribe for the first time, what it'll basically do is light up, my studio will light up a green and then in the middle box on the bottom, super chats and new subs is hopefully at the same time, it shows the new person who just subscribed. And then red lighting up is a super chat coming in. And then, of course, again, you'll see in red letters in the middle there. So thanks so much. We're gonna jump right into these and appreciate your super chat from you guessed it. Doesn't anybody wanna take a guess who the first one is from? It's Stephen Ward. That's right. Here he is, Stephen Steen, nasty guy. Thanks for your super chat. Oh, you know, Dwayne Burke beat him this time. Stephen was second. Dwayne said, T jump, next debate, evidence that my chair reclines. Yeah, yeah, it doesn't happen. That chair, that chair gets more attention than like 50% of the debaters. But thanks to your super chat, Stephen Steen, who says, James is all the evidence I need of a perfect God. Gosh, you're sick. Dave Garner, thanks for your super chat, says, God is light. So Thomas Edison is Jesus 2.0? Michael Bresden, oh, oh, Tom, your arch nemesis in troll. Thanks for your super chat. Michael says, where is it? Tom doesn't even get the argument. He already lost. I think that was in your first opening statement. Let's see, movie theory of the control. Ryuzinski, thanks for your super chat, says, QC, quantum creation. If I turn on a flashlight, am I turning on God? Well, the photon particles see the way God designed the universe. It looks like it allows for humans to manipulate and utilize light in different devices. So yes, that is part of God working. Even our cells in our body are all comprised of light particles as well. So we are made of light and everywhere there's light, there's the evidence of God. Gotcha. And thanks so much, Eric Sikora. Saw you just subscribe, appreciate it. Glad to have you with us. And thanks for your super chat from, oh, we got that one. Ryan, we got that one. Ryuzinski, part two, thanks for your other super chats. I just want to give you money. Appreciate that, Ryuzinski. We're excited. We have like, okay, so this is like, these are like pipe dreams. We have debates this summer that seriously you're not, you're like, we're kind of like using the super chats for good reason, namely, we're trying to arrange some like heavy duty debates that will shake the foundations of the debate world on YouTube, at least in the philosophy of religion debate world. And maybe even the political one where like, maybe a tag team one. So we're excited for some like cool stuff coming up. So appreciate your support. Donald Trump. Get on Donald Trump. We might, we'll try. Roy Lindsey, thanks for your super chat, said Tom Jump is God, confirmed. Apparently I have a fan out there. Robert Luscombe, thanks for your super chat says, QC, if you ignore all reference to the Bible, 90% of your argument falls apart until you can prove the Bible as a reliable source, you should stop using it. Well, I think there's plenty of evidence out there for the authenticity of the Bible. And so I'm not a theologian. So I'm not gonna necessarily get into that, but it is a source of explanation of what's going on in the history and God's relationship with his creation. And so I try to keep my arguments tied to science and the evidences of how science supports and aligns with biblical scriptures that gives it credence and yeah, for God's existence. You got it. And thanks so much for your Patreon questions. First, Brian Stevens asks, does he accept Joseph Smith's eyewitness testimony for the book of Mormon? I think that's for you, quantum. That's for me, no comment. You got it. And Adam Albilia, thanks for your super chat says, quantum Genesis predicts water creation, quote, now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Wow. Yeah. There are a number of explanations that can address this whole Genesis story of creation. And one of my favorites is by a Dr. Hugh Ross with reasons to believe and he's done extensive research on the six days of creation, not being literally 24 hours, but being the meaning of those words being era or an age. And so he does a very good job of explaining how that Genesis can coordinate with a 13.8 billion year evolutionary process. By the way, I'm a big fan of Charles Darwin in evolution and that whole process. It's quite enlightening, it's beautiful. But evolution is basically a description of what's going on. And when you bring light into the equation then you start finding out how to answer many of the issues going on with the orderliness and does way things work in evolution. It's quite fascinating. Gotcha. And by the way, the wow that I said at the end of that was built into the question. So that wasn't me. Appreciate your super chat from, let's see, I think we didn't get, yeah, no, we got that. Chaos Theory, thanks for your super chat support, appreciate it. And Arn Rurvik, thanks for your super chat, said quantum, are you even wrong? Am I wrong? I don't understand why they would, I don't understand the question. It's a reference to, I think it was Pauli, physicist, quantum mechanics. It's a famous quote where he said, he used to criticize models by saying it's not even wrong as like the highest insult he gave out. That's, it's a reference to quantum mechanics. Okay. How do you like them apples, quantum? Okay, next. Roy Stiegel, thanks for your super chat, said welcome, quantum. I don't agree with anything that you said, but I enjoyed your presentation. At least this wasn't versus a guy that rhymed with B-man. Tom Jones, well done. You know, well, I don't know if you guys know it, but this Saturday, a person who rhymes with B-man will be back and he'll be debating in a tag team debate. It's going to be juicy, believe me. Okay, so thanks for your super chat from, Arn Rurvik was speaking of the devil says, I miss G-man, don't read. Oh, okay. Didn't want you to read that one. Hey, I haven't gotten into debating against G-man yet. Come on. Are you serious? Yeah. Oh, we have to get that this June for sure. It's going to happen. Fat man, thanks for your super chat says, quantum is God light or is light God? Well, if you said light is God, then that's probably a pantheist type of view that and not a supernatural. And so I would put it the other way around that God is light, light is not God. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your super chat from Joey Spagnoletti, appreciate it. Says quantum, your Bible is your only evidence, except it's been proven false time and time again. Therefore you have zero evidence. Sorry, sir, that's game over. Sure, you can take that position if you'd like. I know I can't come in here and convince everyone. I'm just here to bring new information in a new perspective. One that I don't think a lot of people have heard before. And for those that are listening to say, hmm, I never thought of this before, but light does this, does this, does this, does this. And I mean, wait a minute, maybe there is some connection between God and how everything is created. And maybe, yeah, there could be a God. It says, I can get upset if I don't get an answer to a question in an hour. If I go, I have a question about my health and I go to my doctor, oh, I don't know. And I ask somebody else, I don't know. Somebody else, I don't know. I get upset and say, you don't know what you're talking about. And so I think a lot of people over the last couple of thousand years even are sitting there going, how did God do it? How did God do it? How did God do it? Give me some science. Tell me how he did it. So I'm just bringing forth the how science can explain how God did it. And for those who say, huh, I never knew that before, you can come to this and say, wait a minute, let me rethink this and not be bound by this whole, oh, science has nothing to do with God and I'm not gonna believe in God. It's like I'm explaining how science supports the existence of God and how he did it. And so for those that have ears to hear, I'm excited to give you new insights to widen your worldview. Thanks so much. And also wanna say thanks so much to Leo123 for subscribing. Glad to have you with us. Welcome to the community. And thanks for your super chat from next one up is from Robert Lescombe who says, Tom, haven't you learned yet that you can't argue with someone who believes in magic? They're coming at your quantum. Oh boy, we read Tom's trolls. We've got to read your trolls. So thanks for your... No problem, no problem. I'm not surprised to get comments like that. It's people that don't believe in God, they really have a strong view. And so there's no difference if people can come in and say comments about Tom and his belief. And so I'm sure he's used to those as well. Next up. They hurt, they cut me deep. Tom loses a lot of sleep. And Joey Spagnoletti, thanks for your super chat, says new game during the Q and A. Drink every time James says, quote, gotcha. You're the man, James. Thanks for that encouragement, gotcha. And the fat man, thanks to your other super chat, said, if God is light, why didn't he say, let there be me instead of let there be light? Well, if you look at a scripture such as God saying, I am, but I am. And it's like, well, what does that mean? It's like, are you this? I am, I am. Are you in me? Scripture says, Christ says, I am in your midst. I am within you. And so when we look at our body and we're filled with light, I mean, you could go in a dark room, turn off all the lights, be pitch black, and then put an infrared camera on us and we just are filled with light, you know, the infrared light that's working in our cells and having everything activate. So we are filled with light, even not just visible light. So when you look at God saying, why didn't you just say that I am? He did say, I am. So I have a question. Are you this? Are you that? I am, I am the I am. Wait, I have a really question. Is heaven and hell also made of light? I don't know what hell is made of, but I do believe that heaven is light. You know, there's a scripture in Revelation that says that in heaven, there's no need for the sun or the moon because God illumines all heaven. This is radiance. So there's no need of it. And again, that's a collaboration of God is light and within light, God is light. And so in the heavenly realm with time dilation would mean it's not bound by time. It's no beginning, there's no end. There's no chronological, there's no entropy. Entropy is really the only thing in our universe that gives us any real indication that there's this thing called time. And so if you are in light and not bound by this entropy or time, then there's no beginning, no end. And so, yeah, God is light. And so God is still light within light. And that's also explained in that passage that saying that God illumines everything in heaven and there's no need of the sun or moon because of his radiance. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your, they're right, I do say, gotcha a lot. Next up, thanks for your super chat from, let's see, Timothy Foster said, Tom Jump brought his A game today. So he got a fan out there, Tom. Then Dan Dan, thanks for your super chat, said light didn't create the universe, but if it did, how did you determine the Christian God is light? I suspect anything could be God if it served you. Anything could be God if it served me. I think they're saying that you're kind of like, you just happened to kind of want it to be the Christian God. Like why is it that if granting light created the universe, like why should we think it's the Christian God that is light? Well, I started off my opening statement saying that there are other religions. For example, Islam. So I don't want to speak for Islam. And but I have had Muslims email me and say, hey, or in my YouTube channel, Quantum Creation, and they say, hey, the Quran says that God is light as well. I say, awesome, awesome. Go look at that, take these findings of light and apply it to your faith and see where it lands. And so I'm not, I know what I believe and so I don't try to use just anything. If the Bible, for example, if the Bible didn't say that God is light and there are almost a hundred passages in the Bible that say God or Christ is light. Now, some of those I would admit would it be applied as a metaphor? But many of them can be taken literally. And as a statement, say God is light and in him there's no darkness at all. Is a scientific statement that is true. And but if the Bible didn't say God is light, I wouldn't be sitting here going, hey, I believe God's light and this is how it explains it. I only, I'm doing it because Christ said it, not me. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your super chat from, you guessed it. Stupid whore energy has entered the building. She says, quote, virtual particles, unquote, can become real photons under the right conditions. Your gods are little created beings that scientists can manipulate. Laughing my butt off. I'm confused. I'm confused too and so sometimes it's, sometimes we have to deal with sarcastic remarks and it doesn't do anything to really build up the dialogue. I think the arguments making that virtual particles aren't electromagnetic radiation, but electromagnetic radiation can be created by virtual particles. And so it seems like if God is light, then there must be something greater than God, which is whatever the virtual particles are, the Hilbert space or whatever. Yeah, but virtual particles are still tied to the whole electromagnetic radiation process, especially with when you're dealing with quantum electrodynamics. So virtual or physically manifest, we're still dealing with the same thing. No, virtual particles are not in the electromagnetic spectrum. That's kind of the point of the argument. Next, I don't know if that's actually what she meant, but I could be wrong, but we can let her clarify, I'll keep an eye on the chat. Brian Stevens, thanks for your other Patreon question, said, can multiple religions be true? So I guess either of you can, both of you can answer that one if you'd like. That's really interesting, like multiple religions could be true. I think there's a position called Omnism where there's multiple ones. And then universalism by David Bentley Hart, who held that position. I think atheism is probably true. That is a good question. And I wouldn't say I'm a universalist, but I do believe that because man is trying to interpret God is not an easy thing. And so there can be overlap between different doctrinal beliefs. So for example, yeah, if there's 30,000, maybe just within a Christian umbrella, it's like there's a lot of overlap there. But then you start bringing, say Mormonism and other things is like, where does it end? And it's like, so I'm not a theologian to answer those. I try to stick to the science side of things. Thanks so much for your super chat says, Tom Jump, your awesome love watching you keep it up. You got a fan out there. You got a lot of fans in the crowd here tonight, Tom. Chaos Theory, thanks for your super chat, maybe not a fan. He says, Tom, can you prove bestiality is wrong? Like where did that come from? But go ahead, Tom. Well, animals have the same intellectual capability as like a four year old child. So it would be the same in that sense. It's immoral for the same reason that they can't consent. If animals developed intelligence, it wouldn't be immoral. It would be like aliens, totally fine. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. S-Gluble, appreciate it. It said Tom Jump since the evidence such as the Volinkan theorem shows that space time had an absolute beginning. Doesn't that mean that the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial by definition? I think he's referring to the board Goothe-Volinkan theorem, not just the Volinkan theorem. And as Sean Carroll accurately pointed out in his debate with William Lane Craig, he had Alan Goothe, one of the other authors of the paper, hold up a sign when he was asked, is the universe, did it have an ultimate beginning? And Alan Goothe said, no, it's a turtle. So the board Goothe-Volinkan theorem doesn't actually show an absolute beginning, it shows a beginning to inflation, which only applies to inflationary universes. And the consensus is that there were things before the Big Bang, it's just not what we know of. So when physics talk about space time and energy, they're talking about our space, our time, our energy, not all the stuff that ever existed. There's always, whatever was before our universe would just not be in our stuff, but it's still probably gonna be some kind of space time energy, just a different kind. Next up, Taliesin Oberlander, thanks for your super chat. Said James, you said you'd vet my next interlocutors. That's funny, I have been talking to Darth on Discord about the possibility of him coming back. Yes, I want Darth. It's not likely, but yes, maybe. He's a character for sure. Mayard saves things for your super chat. Says, is God darkness? Is he not also the void of light? There's a lot to research and look into darkness and what it is. I got to spend some time at Fermilab, outside Chicago, particle accelerator. Had a great time and talking to some scientists there about dark matter and dark energy. It was quite exciting, but it is interesting that there is a scripture and Job 3819 says, where is the way to the dwelling of light and darkness? Where is its place? And so like this is God talking to Job in this conversation, something where there is a place for darkness, absence of light. And when you look at dark energy and dark matter, it is because we can't detect it. There's an absence of light there. So it'd be interesting here where time brings out more and more in this field, what it might consist of, of actual place that has an absence of light. Although one of the gentlemen getting his PhD at Stanford on this subject saying there's a possibility there are actually dark photons that actually can work within dark energy, but it's a hypothesis, there's no proof, but it's interesting subject that there's no actual darkness. There's an absence of light. And so just because it says dark energy doesn't, we don't know what that substance is, the dark matter, it's just can't be detected by light, at least in the spectrum of light that we have capability at this time. So yeah, there's not like a dark particle or anything. It's this absence of light that we know of. Gosh. So you're saying that darkness would just be able to keep moving. We do have to keep moving. We have a lot of questions. We've got to keep moving. We've got a lot of questions so we have to keep moving. Ryuzinski, thanks for your super chat said, you can't say you're using science to do something if you're not using science to do that thing. Think that's toward you, quantum. Okay, I don't understand the question. Frankly, neither do I. Ryuzinski, thanks for that. Clarify if you cannot keep an eye on the chat. Stupid horror energy, thanks for your super chat said, how does A equal B, but B not equal A? I don't understand that either. Although I would say that if you say light transferred it's into matter. So let's say light transition turns into an electron particle. If that particle were to transition back into energy, it would transition back into light. So it would be A equals B, B equals A if that's kind of what they're addressing. Gotcha, and thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from chaos theory says, I wanna see Tom jump to beta Christian on morality. Well, you may get what you're wishing for. It could be G-Man Shane, the atheist. Thanks for your super chat said, does quantum agree with Tom jumps definition of evidence? If not, what is his own definition? Tom, what was your definition of evidence? Evidence is that which can differentiate imagination from reality. Yeah, I'm using evidence of cause and effect throughout my whole presentation. I gave 10 different evidences of science on how the universe works and the evidence of testimonials that were provided and just clabbering those to say there is a plausible explanation that supports the existence of God. And so I'm using cause and effect evidence for my case. Gotcha, and Bill McGuire, thanks for your super chat didn't see a question, but if you have one to attach, let me know in a normal chat in the chat. Philip, thanks for your super chat said, if God is radiation, does that mean he kills people from atom bombs? We wanna make something clear too that there's free will. And so we have the ability to manipulate what light is and make an atom bomb. And so, but if there's something that you might say, say a volcano or something like that, that might erupt that if you wanna attribute that to God killing people, then that would be attributed in a sense that is short changing the whole design of God because you cannot separate. If you wanna get into God's design, you can't just say, oh, God created the universe and that's his design and that's a false statement. So if you wanna discuss it, God's whole design includes a heavenly realm that is perfect where there's no pain, there's no dying. And so you have to include the perfection part of God's universe design where there's also a created temporal world that has entropy and a breakdown for, so that it is not eternal. And so, I can't say why God would do certain things but I do know people with free will play a big part in things. But in the whole design, when you bring heavenly into it, for example, I'm sitting here going, I believe in an afterlife. I believe that I am already have a spiritual side of me and I'm getting outside of the realm of cause and effect science. But since you ask, I believe that I have a spiritual side of me and that is already in an eternal state that would reside in a heavenly realm. And I like to discuss string physics and additional dimensions and where that goes. I'm an advocate of that type of interpretation of how the universe works. There's strong scientific evidence on that. Although like multiverse theory, you're not gonna be able to prove it scientifically but it has the support. And so anyway, you have to include the wholeness and totality of design if you're gonna get any questions like that. Gotcha. Now, going back to one of the questions Ryuzinski asked, he clarified his super chat. He said, originally he said, you can't say you're using science to do something if you're not using science to actually do that thing. He was saying, when you say that you know that light is equal to God or something to that effect, I don't wanna butcher it. He said, like that, knowing that part isn't done scientifically. That is true. Next up, thanks for your super chat. Raptor Hovind, like Kent's brother, says, quantum better get his own DAL. I don't know what DAL stands for, very embarrassing. Is anybody? Nope. Nope. Um, dog attack lubricant? I don't know. Ryuzinski, thanks for your super chat. Says, if any claim correct or incorrect can be taken on faith, then faith is not a valid pathway to truth. Science and faith absolutely do not coexist. I disagree with that statement because I believe that when you align things, we see more of this coming to alignment and not this. So I think that comes more from a person who is not open for looking at the alignment and how things support biblical claims and might be a person that just would not be thinking that that's possible and who knows, just hates the idea of God altogether. And so we make a claim like that and that's their belief though, that's fine. Next up, Nathan Thompson, thanks for your super chat. Says, quantum wanna lose a debate on the shape of the earth. Okay, I'll say the earth is a sphere and if you wanna take the earth as flat, let's go to it. Well, perhaps we'll see that coming up. Fat Man, thanks for your super chat. Says, quantum you pulled a bait and switch. Your opening statement said that God is light. When I challenged you on that, you said light is an attribute of God. Do you realize that's not the same thing? Well, maybe I could have used a better word then. But yeah, God is light, whether you wanna say it's an attribute, just like my voice is a part of me or my hands. I have, for example, a friend of mine who is a sculptor. He does some beautiful work with alabaster and you look at one of his, for example, Dolphin he made and it's like, wow, hey, Ron, that's beautiful. It's like, when I'm talking to him, I'm not talking to his hands and saying, oh, Ron, you know, I'm just talking to his hand. There's more to it, but his hands are a part of him and so that's what I'm trying to say, a part of creation. So I might be wrong, maybe all of God is light, but I am believing that this point anyway, in my studies and research that I'm saying God is, light is a part of God. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your super chat. SuperHor energy strikes again. She says, doesn't string theory predict multiple universes? It can, it doesn't disprove multiple universes or parallel universes. Gotcha. And thanks so much for yours to protect. Dwayne Burke says, James, thank you for the debates from all the subs. Appreciate that support and all credit to the speakers as the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel. We can't thank them enough. And so all credit to the speakers. If you've enjoyed tonight, we wanna say thanks so much to our guests. They're the reason you enjoyed it. So really appreciate these guys. They're linked in the description folks. So definitely can hear plenty more where that came from if you'd like. And then Ryuzinski, he's just coming at ya like a dog with a bone. He says, I'm out of money, but you said, quote, if you're not looking for support in biblical claims, you won't see it, quote, unquote. That's called bias and ain't scientific. Boy what? Is that, it must be like the young people slaying. I don't know. But yes, let's focus on the first part. Liz said, if you're not looking for support in biblical claims, you won't see it, quote, that's called bias and ain't scientific. I don't know where I'm doing that. At least sticking to the subject of light and what like does and it's tied to biblical claims. And so I try to stick pretty close to the subject matter. So if I've swayed from that, I apologize. I'd like to know where I've done that.