 Christian God are reasonable. I'm really excited about this. Some of them have been on here before so really excited. We are a channel that hosts many debates so if you really like debating please hit that subscribe button. Also we have linked all of the speakers below so if you really like what they are saying please feel free to go and check out their content in the description box. So first off I'm going to let the speakers introduce themselves. We can start off with Maddox. Maddox what can people find in the link in the description for you? I appreciate you having us on should be fun looking forward to the conversation and the dialogue and the combat from a mental and verbal perspective. My channel is logical plausible probable if you're ever there. I mostly focus on looking for the self-explanatory logical plausible probable reasons for our existence and one of my main focuses right now is kind of attacking abogenesis and evolution kind of decimating the high-level talking points that the average person doesn't actually go and substantiate for themselves and have some fun having dialogues like this but should be fun looking forward to it folks. Awesome all right Smokey what can people find at your link? Sure absolutely thank you so much Clarissa and thanks for hosting and being the moderator appreciate it. Yeah you'll find me to be very similar to Maddox yet quite different in the sense that I tackle it less on the scientific level and more on the theological and philosophical justifications. For the existence of God I host open mics regularly topical discussions please come on by you can come in share your opinion give your objections and if you're really really dumb you might just get smoked. All right Amy what can people find at your link? What would people be able to find? All right I guess do you have any social media anything that people can look you up after the stream Amy? I think you actually might be muted wait you know what we're going to come back to you Amy James how about you anything that that people would be able to find at your link? Is going on they're both muted James you're muted. Oh okay can you hear me? There you go okay so I was I'm not a YouTuber I don't have any content uploaded as of yet but James is nice enough once in a while to let me on to discuss important topics like this so I appreciate the chance to speak with these two representatives of Christianity. Oh right sounds good and how about you Amy? Oh it looks like we had a slight little switch here can you hear us Amy? Yes can you hear me? Yes yes yes what can we find at your link? So you can find a bunch of I would say skeptic based comedy I'm working on a podcast and uploading more debates. All right sounds good perfect so the structure of the debate tonight is going to be five minute openings from each of our speakers we're going to start off with the affirmative Maddox and Smokey are going to start and then Amy and James are going to finish up we're going to have about an hour of open discussion and then that's going to lead into about 30 minutes of question and answer so we're definitely really excited and Maddox Smokey the floor is yours. All right Clarissa thank you so much I guess I'll go ahead and get the ball rolling here well sincerest thanks to modern day debate for hosting this exchange and of course to our opponents and my partner I'm actually glad to be able to accept this debate challenge from my atheist Patreon James W who has certainly been anticipating this debate so thank you so much brother appreciate it for laying this up and I'm excited to do it with you. As is expected the theists have the burden to prove for this debate yet again as is typically the case but one might wonder why the implication of the God deniers the naturalistic unguided mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of life and cosmos it is an assertion made through the denial of the existence of a deity while they expect so-called evidence for this deity to lack the ability to recognize the lack of evidence for what they hold to be true in pure hypocritical fashion the acceptance of the existence of God is an inference carried partly by our recognition of the necessity of the divine mind in the emergence of our reality the God deniers will simply deny this inference to draw one of their own that has even less evidentiary support than that which they are rejecting ultimately an atheist justification for the nature of reality is fallaciously circular it tends to go like this if everything wasn't fine-tuned and uniform we wouldn't be able to be here to have this conversation the atheists will use the conclusion to justify the premise but this doesn't actually explain anything and it isn't any actual evidence for their justification and the belief in pure naturalistic processes to me the denial of any deity at all has become a fool's errand a world of limitless denialism and shifting goalposts of the nature or the amount of evidence required no atheist can actually make a generally all-encompassing statement that there is not enough evidence to accept the existence of a God the statement is simply of the insufficiency of evidence the statement of the insufficiency of evidence is only a statement to their own epistemological or ontological perspectives which may or may not be functioning properly and additionally they may or may not even have a functional definition of what qualifies as evidence the true absurdity of the pure naturalistic atheist position is to ignore any and all inferential evidence of the divine and usually find some way to set a standard of evidence that is unrealistic to reality or the claim it seems to me that atheists will often try to set the burden of proof just outside the nature of the claim of what is even realistically expectable similar to the demand that God must manifest a square circle in our three-dimensional reality atheists ultimately have no reasonable reason to me at least to not at least be deus believing in a non-personal deity that was required for the emergence of the universe and life based upon all the fine-tuning constants and variables but they even deny this and their attempts to set the standard unreachable by proponents of a personal deity atheist challenges to the falsifiability of a theistic claim are generally fallacious with some sort of mild scrutiny expecting something outside the nature of the claim is not operating in the honest pursuit of knowledge but is simply an attempt at self-validating sophistry expecting the christian god to violate his nature to do something with his power that is logically impossible is not being honest to the claim and trying to set an unreachable standard for acceptance of the very rational conclusion that God does exist it is similar to a requirement of a deistic God to reveal himself in order to believe that the deistic entity is exists but by fact the nature of the deistic entity is not interested in us enough to reveal himself or to care to so to set that standard for belief in deism would be unrealistic and atheists do this very similar trick with the christian god claim as well setting standards that aren't realistic to the nature of the claim the atheist denialism is one that doesn't stand on the actual evidence itself simply the evidence that the presented evidence isn't enough to substantiate the claim but again this is just a personal epistemology and has nothing to do with the nature of the evidence or the existence of any truth behind it atheists have no evidence to support their case for purely naturalistic mechanisms and tend to rely on only a series of faulty falsification criteria for the claim presented and this is no more clear when put to the christian god claim some atheists do actually hold water to many theists claims i'm sorry some atheist challenges do actually hold water to many theist claims but not to the christian god claim and as we unpack some of the anticipated attacks to our claim while full blown avoidance to provide any justification of their own we hope to show that atheism is indeed not logical plausible or probable all right thank you so much smoky maddox go ahead with your five minute opening all right give me just one second here smoky always taking my tag line all right is my audio coming through okay all right all right so tonight we are addressing the topic of does god exist and is it reasonable to conclude that he does or does not this coincides with an additional element of what we discussed you know offline for tonight's debate and incorporated the subject and that is whether or not christianity is also reasonable now obviously if it is not rationed to conclude the former then by default the ladder is not reasonable on its face and the entire discussion would be an entire incomplete waste of time so let's quickly look at an overview of what i would consider just a few reasonable arguments with emphasis on the plurality of those available rather than the singularity and contemplate if when looked at from the macro level they create a powerful and rational case for the existence of god first we have the cosmological argument second the teleological argument third we must face the ontological argument fourth the contingency argument fifth we have the fine-tuning conundrum that my partner just referenced six there is the moral argument seventh the argument of moral knowledge these are just to name a few of the very substantive arguments that have been developed over the centuries and this is before this is all before the gigantic issues which have arisen over the last 50 years in relation to a biogenesis and the dramatic need for external intelligent agency prior to the existence of life as we know it now each of these is worthy of its own debate but ironically in thousands of debates hundreds of books and who knows how many papers and individual conversations on any of these topics in almost every case they end with the atheist claiming i don't know if this is 100 true you can't prove this is 100 true therefore i think you are 100 wrong to me this would be like an individual member of a jury arguing that when determining guilt or innocence each piece of evidence must only be considered individually not collectively in addition to in addition to thousands of pieces of circumstantial evidence which should be completely ignored and in no way used to support the core pieces of evidence that have been presented then if that's not enough then to adamantly insist that nothing presented was evidence at all because in their opinion unless each piece of individual evidence could stand alone as 100 proof it should be 100 removed from discussion and consideration in this context there's an extremely high probability the juror in question would be removed and the vast majority of rational people would not consider their opinions to be substantive in the slightest let alone worthy of recognition in determining a legal case why is it then that in relation to something which has much greater significance than jury selection do atheists attempt to act as if the individuals arguing in favor of the existence of god are the ones who are not being rational they are literally doing exactly what i just described and it seems rather obvious to be nothing but a massive need for projecting their own insecurities onto opponents in order to justify their extremely fragile worldview let's take this one step further in relation to what is reasonable when i'm about to address applies to both the existence of god and christianity itself and that is the juvenile and rebellious insistence if they were god they wouldn't do it this way therefore god does not exist now obviously these arguments are used ad nauseam to supposedly debunk all facets of religion while refusing to even concede that if the entity in question is literally the creator of all that is was and ever shall be that guess what it doesn't matter if you don't agree with something that's how it is now this concept is hastily dismissed but is exactly why i used the words juvenile and rebellious if god both made us and ultimately set the rules then it doesn't really matter how much you don't like them or how forcefully your denial of their existence becomes it still doesn't change them i view the atheist arguments like a child being angry and refusing to accept that the football game they're in has a set of rules and know how to no matter how much they don't like them they still exist and ultimately somebody came up with them however when they realize the field actually has an impenetrable force field around it they then go plop down on the 50 yard line and scream about how none of this is actually real and more importantly there is no reason to conclude that there is something outside of the force field that contains them i'm closing as you can if you contemplate what is being discussed tonight you know what you've experienced that your own personal life and you know as you progress on a daily basis towards a conclusion regarding your own existence i strongly argue that you must analyze all of these pieces of evidence and ask yourself is it more reasonable to conclude that a god must exist in order for you to exist from there if you conclude it is no tremendous leap of faith and there's not a massive leap of faith required to believe in a god you must only then rationally consider the evidence presented and determine which god is true not if there isn't one to choose from and it is my position that the christian god is the correct conclusion but at the end of the day for me and from the ultimate cosmological and all the other ology considerations the creator does not need my defense for his existence is obvious and i in reality all of you should be humbled beyond expression for the capacity of understanding that has been granted to us all for if not for the mind given to me and the one given to you a gift that we all possess i could never have hoped to even gain a modicum of comprehension about existence in the first place nor even known to search for it and that is something we must all consider i yield all right thank you so much amy jeans either one of you who wants to go and you guys you're making yes all right give me one second and start screen sharing if you might have to set that oh no i got it now do you guys see it in powerpoint form all right welcome everyone to does god exist more specifically does the christian god exist the short answer no not only is there no evidence y'all away is real there is evidence he's not real this goes for the characters and many of his fables like adam and eve noah and moses and especially when we get to claims of men coming back from the dead multiple days after decomposing which is a biologically incoherent concept however since zombies aren't an easy concept to defend there's a good possibility all we're going to hear about today's deism or arguments like a first cause of the universe even though this is also an incoherent concept which would need to be demonstrated see us merely assert this proposition even though time and space began with the big bang meaning you can't have a cause before quote unquote causality theists might say we can't have moral values without a god or even that we can't know anything at all without a god this is ass backwards especially when we know that in the bible y'all away is such a genocidal maniac killing whoever he pleases and torturing his playmates if they don't love and obey him but who gives us the right to judge such a being well we're thinking agents literally the only creatures we know of that can make judgments this is because our biology is the foundation of ethical decisions and knowledge is a subset of belief a deity does not in any way factor into the question of ethics or epistemology or how about the genetic code a watch has a watchmaker don't they well sure because we contrast what is natural with what is artificial meaning in a watchmaker world everything including the sand and water is a watch yet all evidence currently shows that a watch is merely a tool humans use to tell time and that fungi bacteria and even humans are naturally occurring phenomena there is currently no evidence the genes in our officially created code that came into existence through creation and as a being monitored by another agent which brings us back to Christianity which on top of these deistic claims would need to prove a man came back from the dead 72 hours after death and that he coincidentally disappeared with no one able to see him again meaning that Jesus seems to have died and stayed dead other miracles fall into the same category of cheap parlor tricks did Jesus turn water into wine did he walk on water because if so he should be front lining in Vegas literally none of these illusions are evidence of a deity someone could come back from the dead and not be a son of a god someone could be born of a virgin mother and not be the son of a god these types of traits only fit in mythic structure finally we should be glad there's no good evidence for a god or Christianity the notion of having a human sacrificed to forgive humanity's sins is downright evil and this would be an evil god there is literally no rhyme or reason as to why Jesus would have to die adam and eve was not a literal story thus there wasn't a reason for this rabbi's murder to take place we're thus stuck with the conclusion that Jesus if he existed died merely because he pissed the Romans off and nothing more that there is not some celestial being watching us 24 7365 while caring who we have sex with for us to believe anything else we need a massive amount of sound and valid evidence thank you all right thank you so much James if you want to go ahead with your opening statement okay is my audio working yes it is hold on your audio just went out again and for those in chat we're going to try to get can you hear me yeah okay i'm sorry go ahead all right um again i want to thank the distinguished speakers for agreeing to this debate maddox and smoky and thank amy for agreeing to help me in this endeavor and you know the real challenge for me and amy and trying to prep for this debate is that when you when you start looking at Christianity there are literally so many problems with it that we could be here for days and still not address each and every possible problem that makes Christianity not logical it's certainly not plausible and most definitely isn't probable now i i do feel bad for smoky and maddox because everything the walls are closing in on their worldview god is under attack from every single side from every single field of science has chased god out of almost everything we used to attribute god to in fact ya way basically now only has two safe houses the origin of the universe and the beginning of life we pretty much understand how almost everything else works except for these two events that have only happened once in the course of recorded history not recorded history once ever so uh it's a little hard for science to research it but we are working on those problems and when you look at the track record that we have so far every single time humans have investigated a claim or a hypothesis to find out why or how something works we have a hundred percent track record of everything being naturalistic that's why science has that bias toward naturalism because it's always worked every single time before a hundred percent of the time you've never had to invoke magic or a god or a deity everything works through natural processes that and uh they're going to disagree with all that they're going to say that well god's somewhere behind the scenes making it all happen and you know that's the uh the basis of Christianity um you can't prove a biogenesis happened therefore it's just as plausible for me to assume that pixies farting out animals one by one is a logical explanation for the universe and or for the diversity of life and it's just not um and the first thing that makes Christianity unreasonable is that what it's built on uh Judaism is also not true and it's built on that faulty foundation let me see if I can do screen share here I have a few quick slides I wanted to illustrate uh let's see is it on yes it is all right so in the historical record israeli culture there's no firm evidence of them existing before about 950 a 50 bc so all these stories that happened before then are most likely myth they're made up and in at this time period we have two people who start writing books and writings that have become uh the jewish Torah and historians know they don't know the identity of these authors but they know who wrote it based on writing styles and they can track the different authors and what we find out is that the Old Testament is a heavily edited cobbling of writings that have been modified and revised several times to scrub out the truth and that truth is is that Judaism began as a polytheistic religion and you will find all throughout the Old Testament you'll find litterings of polytheism all over they they didn't question the existence of other gods so we have here in 750 three prophets started uh writing books as the assyrians were making preparations to invade israel I think that's Hosea Amos and Ezekiel could be wrong on that but I think that's who they are and then we have in Judah King Josiah 622 bc him and these other uh these prophets they were strict Yahweh's they did not want to promote the worship of any other deity aside from Yahweh it's not that they didn't believe other deities existed they just wanted to devote primary attention to Yahweh and uh when Yahweh according to the story when he first identifies himself to Abraham he he's at that time he's doing business as El Shaddai now the Canaanites who were one region over they had a god with a similar name to that it's called El Shaddai so why is Yahweh the god of the bible doing business as a Canaanite god you almost might think that they're one in the same you you might think that and then when Yahweh meets goes to meet Moses he has to tell Moses he has to tell him I'm the El Shaddai who talked to Abraham as opposed to any other gods who might be sending telepathic messages to Moses so King Josiah 622 he promoted strict worship of Yahweh and his high priest stumbled upon what he claimed was a old book of the law called Deuteronomy that had uh I guess got lost in time and uh but even in Deuteronomy even the strict Yahweh's you see polytheism and so this uh he went through and he added chapters and he modified all these other books to give it a Yahweh slant to uh disparage the worship of other gods but yet even even in Deuteronomy you see you shall have no other gods before me it's not claiming that there's no other gods in existence he's just saying they suck I'm better than them you better not worship them or I'll kill you basically so it was monolaterous polytheism they didn't deny other gods existed you see frequently in the stories basically anytime the Israelis were left alone for more than five minutes the first thing they did was start worshiping other gods and this is even after witnessing miracles and Yahweh suspending the laws of physics on their behalf and yet Moses takes a little long on the mountain so they're melting gold and building a calf I don't think these stories really stack up to reality I don't think people this dumb we don't see anything like this today now unfortunately for King Josiah Judah eventually was conquered by Babylon in 604 BC and here we say in the Psalms how can we sing the songs of Yahweh while on a foreign land well what do you mean he's the god of everywhere you can sing to him anywhere why does that make a difference it's because gods back then had regions that they were associated with they were not in Yahweh's area anymore so it was an unusual experience for them so at this point we have a guy come up called Second Isaiah who started putting out writings he acted like he was the first Isaiah but the scholars can clearly tell he wasn't the writing style is different all sorts of things that the historical scholars use to determine the authorship and legitimacy of a text and here in Isaiah for the first time we see I am the first I'm the last besides me there is no god that's a stark contrast from what's what we've seen before where even when Moses goes to Pharaoh and he does his parlor tricks the bible says that the Egyptians they were their gods were able to manifest magic their gods were able to do things Yahweh's just saying hey my magic is a little bit better than theirs come worship me and then either Second Isaiah or he could be the priestly source not scholars aren't too sure about it but either way the priestly source then went back and added again to these books and revised them to make it look more monotheist and then by the way he wrote the book of Leviticus and then they went back and added to Genesis one a creation myth that wasn't in the original text and that was in about 600 BC that's when basically monotheism got established in in Judaism now what some astute people like smoky hermatics might say is all those references or some of those references to polytheism in the Torah they're gonna say aha that's a reference to the Trinity well not really because those references stop at a certain point only in the older text you see these references to we or us that eventually gets cleaned up later in the gospel so it's more probable they're not talking about the Trinity they were talking about originally they believed in more than one gods and you know you can talk about the New Testament but if the foundation it's built upon is a faulty foundation then you don't even really have to go further you know that they're telling us that their god is incapable of telling a lie so if someone's incapable of telling a lie how many lies do you have to catch them and to disprove them only one they only have to tell one lie and then you don't have to believe that they're incapable of lying anymore and it doesn't disprove everything but it just proves that this is another man-made religion just like all the others there's nothing really special about it Maddox and they both happen to live in a country where Christianity has been the dominant religion for a long time so that happened to be the one that they latched hold to but is it more is it logical or plausible maybe even probable if they would have been born in Saudi Arabia or Iran that they'd probably be devout Muslims and all their arguments would probably also apply to that too I think that makes sense thank you all right so now we're gonna go into our hour of open discussion just to remind those in chat if you do have a question definitely shoot it into the super chat and we will guarantee an answer to that question and without further ado let's get into the open discussion well uh so I think between Amy and James both myself and Smokey are should be proof of the Christian gods since we were both just very prophetic about what we're going to listen to in their opening statements I mean the I mean I use the word ad nauseam for the talking points for a specific reason I mean the level of well just the embodiment would you agree with that smoking of the literally embodying what we were talking pretty much with with the exception of James actually going through the effort of finding the most asinine mentally backwards of liberal scholarship he could possibly find to try and justify some really horrendous assumptions about the text based upon literary stylings which are nothing more than pontifications so so I mean so again desperate crab it really blew my mind James that you would go to that level like well so you know you know all those things you pulled up have no actual evidence to them this is something dreamt up in the last you know 3040 years by a bunch of hyper liberal scholars by the way did you ever go to anything that wasn't a buzzword to get any of this like actual information or did you just go well let me find every source that seems to doubt the scripture and pack it all into my opening was this kind of just where where it went with you this is the mainstream scholarship smoky this is no it isn't you know and which you guys are saying smoky you're you're you're discounting it but you are also the one who is saying see the issue is strange but then let me make my point smoky and then I'll come back to you're the one who's saying the entire field of biology is bullshit they don't know what they're talking about don't say that that's a straw man creation is true you're you're also you say geology that's not true no I don't say that either it tends to disprove a global flood no I don't say that either I don't believe in a global flood are you really going to just straw man me the whole time dude you don't even know what I believe might be prophetic for a minute specifically smoky so hang on so James James so you're in this is where the hypocrisy is very self-evident and kind rather ironic because one you are a patreon on smoky's channel I've witnessed you guys interact you're in there all the time and I know beyond doubt that what you just accused smoky of are positions that he doesn't hold at all so I mean so are you just like I pay attention or you are attempting to be a straw man and a direct liar smoky actually he's an old earther but he does not subscribe to the theory of evolution so when I say discounts the entire field of what are you talking about I've said it multiple times James that I actually you said with with the exception that I don't accept the caveat of the pure hypothesis religious nonsense of assuming everything is naturalistic when those components of naturalism hasn't been proven that's your faith requirement I'm not going to accept it just because you tell me I have to let's let's let Amy chime in first oh no I just wanted to be prophetic it's just I James did you hear any evidence for Christianity in their opening well well no there there is no evidence they don't know what you don't know about you don't know that hey Amy you like to avoid like all of Maddox's opening where you're just not paying attention he literally lined out I heard it I just didn't hear evidence for Christianity ontological teleological fine tuning all these name ones the problem is oh name one see this is the problem Amy maybe you're just mentally defunct at being able to recognize that what turns me on when you insult me keep doing it maybe you don't know what evidence is so that this is I do now this is exactly why I was hesitant to engage in a yet another debate with you Amy is because as in every single previous debate you literally don't listen to a word that is said a concept that is presented you deny that they ever happened that if you've ever been count contradicted or have evidence that's flat wrong so I don't know why you're saying did you okay so going back to your first one uh one of our first interactions did you ever go in research code mapping code on the code on did you ever go in research code mapping and information theory yes or no first of all it was code it was code on did you go did you go and reject your premise you know what code mapping is what is code mapping oh god so obviously no so you're learning to be a dev still right and you don't know what code mapping is and you again are still going to claim it but then you brought up in your opening statement you brought up it doesn't apply to genetics in your opening statement as a denial but you still didn't go and no no no that's the foundational piece in context of god being required for existence which I'm pretty sure in my very opening paragraph I talked about that being a fundamental to whether or not Christianity is a reasonable conclusion okay but you didn't give evidence for Christianity like Jesus being resurrected any of that stuff nothing all deism yeah Amy by the way maybe your standards of expectation for evidence for the resurrection isn't realistic maybe maybe you expecting a standard of evidence for an ancient people that like isn't even within the realm of reality it's just a you problem not a problem of the existence of the actual event maybe you just have a really ass backwards idea of what qualifies as evidence for an ancient historical biological okay gave it to me 72 hours of decomposition and then resurrection what's the other that's a naturalistic issue Amy if the whole claim is that god did it the whole issue of it doesn't apply to naturalistic mechanisms again is a you problem so unless you want to sit here and prove naturalism is true what you can't do you can't use it to judge the event that's your own fallacy you don't get to impose presuppose your worldview onto us and say well since it doesn't fit in my worldview it can't be true that's a new problem is it just your feelings that you feel Christianity is true do you have actually any evidence any of this yes Amy but apparently you're not able to yeah I literally named it several times I think you just didn't recognize anything that people say I think you're just in pure a biogenesis not evidence for Christianity oh wait not evidence oh so I'm assuming you actually haven't gone and looked at any of the paradoxes and the conundrums facing a biogenesis which per the admission this year of atheist a biogenesis researchers they're actually getting further away from having an answer rather than closer to in spite of your perpetual fantasy land projection that somehow that's being answered I'm assuming you didn't go and research it at all is that right oh that's not true the premise is unfounded and you're still not presenting evidence for Christianity are you a deist have they just want to become a deist just have you have they solve the annealing problem the what's the annealing problem annealing annealing so without claims to everybody without enzymes once you get about 30 nucleotides bonded you can't get them to separate without an external enzyme and this is this is proof of Christianity no you brought up a biogenesis you literally just addressed you here because you said it because you used it as evidence for Christianity but it's not so stop trying to prove deism in my opening actually in my opening I literally said I'm not even gonna go down that rabbit hole I literally was making the point that hey we could go down this but we don't have to because you know it's all this other stuff so the point I originally opened with and you're obviously trying to do it to dodge with the usual atheist move I'm gonna focus on this one little thing and say oh it doesn't matter it doesn't prove anything is from the macro level if you're presented with seven eight nine ten twelve fifteen twenty a hundred a thousand arguments and conclusions and deductions and logical construct constructs that would be evidence in favor of god are you going to dismiss them if I ever were able to get a valid syllogism maybe but they don't make valid syllogisms they make like first cause arguments which contradict themselves you can't have a cause before causality so you're you're fine we're all conceding you made the foundational argument we're all conceding that we don't understand biogenesis it's it's a biogenesis but the we're we're conceding we don't know exactly how it happened and you don't even know what the difference between biogenesis and a biogenesis but you're claiming that doesn't have any relevance to the overall topic well I misspoke but going back to Amy you talked about the uh there is no first cause needed there is no first cause needed for the big bang incoherent concept incoherent you are basically saying before we have causality requirement for you said there's no need of a cause for causality do you have any idea how assinine that statement is where'd you pull that one out well yes because anything else for god there's no need for a cause for something cause god is by his nature uncausable okay so there the universe might be by its nature uncausable we do have no evidence for that so you're saying god is uncausable no you have no philosophical justification we have philosophical justification you have nothing so you guys have been debating the same concepts for years with absolutely no validity or reason to believe it other than it's not god that you the only reason you have to accept it is your own personal bias and that's not a statement to trust for the nature of reality so you are saying cause out something happened before causality you're saying there was a cause before causes could exist i'm saying something instigated the cause of causality doesn't that sound like a cause well well think of it this way Amy the beginning of all that is in our reality had to have a very beginning it had to have something that started it because it by its own nature is causational so it has to have something to have instigated the cause of it to be a causational framework that means it cannot be by its nature caused by something causable it has to be uncaused unmoved uh time less because it can't be constructed of the things which it originates another incoherent concept of course it's not it's perfectly valid you guys just don't have anything else to refute it with you have to look at it from the perspective that she'd also tried to bring up the the puddle argument which literally requires the suspension of intellect right in order to be justified i thought we've kind of put that one arrest i mean it's it's honestly at this point the fact that the atheists continue to spew these like such well i use the words juvenile arguments i mean she she claimed that there is no found substance of civilizations that have ever been presented i think there's a hell of a lot of atheist phd's that would disagree with your position there yeah and you do realize amy that's only a statement of your own epistemology and you might have faulty logic which you seem to demonstrate an awful lot of evidence for so why should we trust your standard of whether or not something is viable as evidence to something can i just jump in here really fast i just want to give um amy and james um a chance to respond because i think it's kind of in a little one sided so amy james if you guys want to go ahead and respond we'll get right back to you maddox and smithy well what mad what maddox is saying is exactly what i said you can't explain exactly how a biogenesis happened i happen to have this book of ron's age writings that talks about a vegetarian talking snake with legs thwarting god's plan and therefore millions and billions of people have to be tortured because some guy ate from the wrong fruit and i answered that and then we're going to have a a jewish zombie come back to act as a loophole to get around rules that god created it's just it's you're using these big philosophical concepts and then you're shoe horning in a book written by bronze age goat herders who thought sprinkling birds blood around a house with some type of medicinal thing for plague who thought that putting different sticks where goats copulate would affect their fur that's in your holy books you have to take the whole thing you're you're you're just taking the parts that you like and well the parts that we don't like those are um you know those are not mentioned that amy so many straw man make a comment no i haven't even heard it we're even in there yet we haven't gotten to christianity yeah we're still yeah okay amy yeah you just keep being useless in the corner that's fine i'll engage james that's okay james you know keep on talking the assumption is by the way did you look up any actual exegesis or any actual commentary or scholarship this is what you do smoky and i think you learned it from maddox so you're just not going to answer the question you're just going to deflect you're just going to deflect i'm just making a quick a quick observation i'm trying to find out how honest you're willing to be to actually digest the text or you're just looking for ways to falsify it that's what i'm trying to get at james and well smoky here's because you just straw man the claim you should keep straw manning what i believe and i don't know if you're doing it intentionally that's mainstream christianity i don't give a crap what mainstream it is mainstream christianity chased me away from the faith too so you want to debate mainstream christianity go find a mainstream christian why are you bugging me i'd like to hear any christianity tonight amy yeah you know again your inability to recognize any arguments or evidence is not our problem okay so james because you're in the debate you're supposed to try and convince me i'm supposed to try i'm not no i can't convince the mentally backwards to generate that can't recognize evidence i don't try to don't project like that that's not fair to yourself stop it so smoky i get it maddox i know why you didn't want to have to do this again now no so smoky so and the and the audience um because the whole purpose of this debate is obviously from the atheist perspective to just say deny deny deny nothing you say is valid um but ironically they are again proving the fact that god exists because i'm a prophet um obviously sarcasm not literal for all you uh literalist idiots out there um but they are literally embodying the analogy that i was make i made in my opening statement about the juror who refuses to look at anything as having relevance unless it proves the position in 100 percent entirety and just like i will not consider any of it and i mean it's automatically refused to consider any other piece of it and look at the overall macro view so apparently you do either refuse to or you lack the intellectual capacity to look at anything beyond one stone in a mosaic you can't step back and see the big picture it's it's obvious well here's what your mind is and how juvenile you clearly both are no here's what's going on maddox okay so we're we're thrust into this world with a god who you you've said oh you don't have to agree with his morality if he wakes up one day and feels like drowning a bunch of babies he's gonna drown babies uh that's just the way it is nothing we can what are we gonna do about he's god that that's how he does things and we have to ascertain his will for our lives so he doesn't kill us or do even worse things to us yet he refuses to communicate with us we he refuses to say anything to us the only means we have of ascertaining his will is again a book of bronze age writings that if it says things that happen to make sense stigmatizing it james can you stop stigmatizing it when you well i'm just telling you i'm just orders and stuff you know like can you try to be less racist just please i'm not being i don't know what race the people i'm not racist i don't know what race the people are i don't know you seem to be pretty condescending to jews you seem to be pretty condescending to jews and by the way james you're all of your all of your crap talking about how you know fail all the statements and all the laws and all the things that the jews adopted guess what they're the only one to have survived among their contemporaries to modern day so now maybe you as a naturalist want to give god's zero credit for that for this small little nomadic tribe historically managing to survive to modern day beyond a whole bunch of ancient powers much greater than them that persecuted them and tried to genocide them out of existence yet they still survive to this modern day to do something unparalleled and refound their own nation once again and you're gonna say well god had nothing to do with it fine could you at least give credit to their freaking culture and their traditions that allowed them to survive the modern day or you end anti-semitic bigot that just wishes that they were extinct and that's why you hate their laws coming after that their their culture it has nothing to do with who they are they're no worse than anybody else smoky they all cultures have had theology okay and guess what they're all wrong the jews are not more wrong than anybody else it's just that christianity is built on that so that's why that's why we're talking about it it's not a there's no evidence for their claims smoky there's no they're not more wrong so are they more they're not more wrong than all religions are wrong i like you've heard before i go one god further and this is the problem with what you what you guys do is when when the evidence in the logic when you think it's there to support your conclusion you're happy to present it but that's not really a requirement because whenever you have a position that doesn't make sense or you can't wrap your head around it you just say well that's god he's too big we can't understand we can't comprehend him all right this is a really dumb rabbit hole i'd like to go back to one of the things wait can i make a point we could go ahead oh i just wanted to say i'll make the claim that the jews are more wrong because the giant majority of their holy book didn't happen there was no adam i am i am i am i am i am you're a closeted nazi i know it's okay like camps are jewish yeah well maybe you're just a self hating one then i know oh no hello not speaking about there was there was some there's some jude that liked it huh there was some jews that like to usher that their fellow brethren onto the trains in nazi germany you might have been one of them so that so you broke in god what's law how early i mean i mean god didn't show up in in Germany, did God showed up at the exodus? Yeah, God doesn't show up to mitigate the nature of the fall of man, which was part of the curse. You might have liked the Holocaust. And he doesn't show up to violate the nature of free will that he established, which is basically what you guys generally require in order for reality to be different. You guys would become slavers, which is really ironic because you guys claim to think slavery's bad, but you would turn humanity into slaves in order to instigate your will to mitigate suffering or you would change reality in such a dynamic. That would ultimately make it worse because none of you guys ever think about your assertions more than a second later. More ad-habbams. But James, I'm really- What does this have to do with free will, Smokey? What does it have to do with free will? Free will is an essential component of reality. Okay, so what are we saying that violates that? Yes, James, when you say that you believe that God should have done it differently or imposed things differently or micromanaged the choices of people in order to keep things from maybe having to wipe people out from their horrible decisions of wanting to slaughter children and brutalize their servants, and the Jews were sent in to stop all of this, so you would have preferred God to do it different, which generally requires from your assertion to be a negation of free will in some way, shape, or form or a micromanagement from a hyper-Calvinistic perspective. And I don't hold that. So I agree. I understand that atheists are generally extremely predeterministic in their own worldview and they try to smuggle that into the God claim. And that's a problem because it means that pretty much every challenge you're making is extremely fallacious and a straw man, certainly from anything I believe. Well, I haven't made the moral argument. I can see the dematics. If the God exists, then he's right. Morally the Jews were right. Morally the Jews were right, which is what makes Amy a monster because Amy wants to defend all the child rapists and all the horrible things in the Canaanite regions. Amy thinks it was horrible to stop those things. Amy wants those people to continue brutalizing people because Amy enjoys that, I guess. That's good moral structure. He only stopped it back then. He doesn't do anything today. James, I want to try this. When Yahweh commands people to do genocide, Smokey is like, go take all the little ones from us selves and all the women and virgins from us selves. Yahweh told me. You don't get to separate from the narrative that those weren't actually children. Those were born in the Nephilim. You like to try and leverage that. Born in the... You have to stay inside the narrative if you're going to lay a critique on the narrative. So evidence for Nephilim, any evidence outside of scripture for Nephilim. Nothing other than the narrative. Nope. And by the way, if you expect regular bones that wouldn't have any chance of fossilization to survive to modern day, you're being ridiculous. So anyway, let's get back to the one part of the science argument. I wanted to talk... You have bones way older than that. We have bones millions of years old. Well, fossilized or mineralized or gone through some method of preservation. These people that were slaughtered in these region weren't given proper burials. They were left out for the forces. They were left out to disintegrate, intentionally so. And by the way, that was nature of what was to deal with these fallen. And they were considered guy and earth born What was your free will argument? What if we said the contradicts that? I already addressed that James. I don't want to go really too down that rabbit hole because I don't think you're capable of following it. I really want to go back to your scientific argument because I already addressed it and now you're just asking me to readdress it. So you understand that for a vast majority of history that a lot of scientists were actually a theists or deists or believed in some sort of higher power. In fact, I found a Pew Research Survey that 51%, I think it was back in 2006. I didn't save it for the debate, but 2006 51% of scientists believe in a higher power or a God. So yet none of these scientists ever way out, propose or put out hypotheses were actually substantiating any part of that. They only focus on proposing hypotheses of naturalistic mechanisms. This means that scientists will actually violate their biases to stay within the constraints of what they're actually critiquing otherwise it'd be an argument from authority fallacy. Like expecting scientists to weigh in on the existence of God is tantamount to expecting theologians to weigh in on science. It's nonsensical and expecting science to propose anything other than naturalistic mechanisms is expecting science to stretch outside of the required scope it's been required to stay in. So your claim, your challenge is fallacious, nonsensical and completely asinine. Go ahead and respond if you want. Right, so your religion, it makes a lot of untestable claims about this God, right? We can't scientifically test, okay? Unfortunately, it makes other claims too and when we test those claims, a lot of times they fail. They fail pretty often. So if we had a miracle- It doesn't exist, so he's not anything. He's- Well that's just your assertion and your opinion. It is. It doesn't mean anything. So it doesn't mean anything. That's all we have. Oh, we only have your opinion. We only have our own opinions. You're not, I promise you're not quick enough to be judging for everyone's benefit, okay? Let me tell you that right now. Just picking up on that, Smoky, do you know what the word ad hominem is? Have you ever heard of that? Yes, I do. It's applying someone's nature to the characterization and then applying that to the argument they're presenting. Yeah, do you think- And I'm not ad homing, let me explain the difference to you since you're too slow to catch what an ad hom is. I should have done a video on this. An ad hom is actually directing your character to the argument and that's not what I'm doing. The nature of your character, which is the attack of the Jews in a disgusting, filetian, presentist, bigoted way is a argument in and of itself to your disgusting, substandard, inferior character, okay? That's its own argument. Cool, that you feel that way. I'm glad you feel that way. Yeah, something to do with your inability to recognize anything that we're actually saying, okay? Thanks. It's not. You're making ad hominems and then when I point out that Yahweh is a genocidal maniac, you're like- I already showed that that's just you wanting to indulge and protect the cultures of genocidal maniacs themselves that were brutalizing people. Because you're a presentist bigot and you enjoy those ancient cultures not being- Cry about it. I'm politically incorrect. From doing the horrible disgusting practices, you enjoy that. You like to promote, I guess, murder and rape. That's ultimately your secret fetish. I would never promote Yahweh's motto. Oh, you promote the cultures that he stopped. You enjoyed that, I guess. Yeah, yeah. You were three seconds away from going to like a march and then you came to Jews for coming in and stopping these people from being disgusting. I love my parents. They're burning their children alive on altars to Moloch and engaging in bloodletting rituals and killing their servants at whim, something that Jews were never allowed to do. Everyone in the Jewish realm had to have the same value of life, slave even for a slave master. You are such a bigot. You don't even recognize the benefits and progressive values of these ancient cultures. I get it now. If I was moral, I would send a rabbi down and I would murder him over and over. You don't have morals. Just really bloody and then that would undo. Yeah, I don't know why you don't. It makes no sense. Nothing to you is morally wrong, Amy. Nothing to me. No, I have. I'm in a moral response. Okay, okay, okay. Okay, everybody, this is going, we're degenerating into madness. The, what amazes me about all of these conversations and this applies in the context of Christ's, both theism in itself as well as Christianity, the, you know, all of these supposed negatives that are being tossed out to supposedly disprove God. It's like you suspend the entire premise from a Christian perspective that God literally created the mechanism for everybody to be immortal and to not have to experience any negatives after this stage of existence. Right. And if you, so the point where I'm going with all this is, and I've used this analogy, other people have used similar analogies. If, I know Amy does not. James, do you have any kids? I do. Okay. When, boy, girl, both. Son, he'll be 11 in January. Okay, I've got a daughter. His mother is Jewish, by the way. Okay, I've got a daughter. She's 10, she'll be 11 next summer. The, when you first held your son, did you have the moment of realization that you were ultimately responsible for their existence and like ongoing survival? It's something you can only understand when you're in that position. It's a very surreal feeling. I'm sure you understand. Absolutely. Now, the, as you, after you took your son home and those first days, you know, they slept a lot, but you know, the first, after the first, after the little time out you get, did the, your son start screaming, crying and freaking out when he crapped his diaper? Yeah, from time to time they do. Okay. So from his perspective, having a dirty diaper or wet diaper, whatever was the worst thing that ever happened to him at that point is like in his existence, right? Probably so. Okay. At two or, you know, let's say two and a half, whatever age when it starts walking, right? Or two, we can start walking, right? The, and they fall over and like cut his leg and he screamed and cried, was experiencing intense pain, all that kind of stuff. Was that the most traumatic thing that happened to him at that point? Probably, yeah. All right, at five when he first, you were teaching him how to ride his bike and he fell off. Was that the most traumatic thing that happened to him? Yeah, I understand. Okay, so you extrapolate all of this out. Now, when he reaches your age and you as an adult, when you look back to similar instances in your own life, do you chuckle at how at the moment when it occurred, it seemed like the world was ending? No, of course. Okay, when you had in high school, when you had your first heartbreak, was it just like devastating? You thought you would never love anyone ever again? It happens to everybody. Okay, so at each stage, and I'm sure other things similar in this context have happened as you've gotten older and older and older, right, like there's things that's oftentimes they're even more, they're actually real, they have real significance, right? And like paradigm shifts in your life. Have you ever looked back on any of them and been like, hmm, I learned a lot from that? Sure. And now I am actually a more substantive person than I would have been if I'd never experienced that. Are you trying to, that's the morality argument? Are you trying to make? No, I'm making just a basic common sense argument. It's the meaningfulness argument, dude. If God is the parent, and he knows that just like you did when your son fell off his bike and you knew it was not the end of his life. But from his perspective, it was why would you let this happen, right? Why did this happen to me? Well, if God knows that we are immortal and have an immortal soul and everything is in place for us to be able to have eternal existence. How is, but the things we're going through right now are ways for us to learn and appreciate our very existence in and of itself on a fundamental level. How is God allowing things that at the moment in time seem to be this most horrific thing, but when you actually look at it from the macro view are just like the way you look at things like, oh my goodness, I can't believe how much I freaked out and thought the world was gonna end when I fell off my bike when I was five now that I'm 35. Okay, but I mean, that still doesn't establish the fact that he likely exists just because maybe he has a reason for certain things that he does, maybe we can't understand it. So again, I literally just use that as yet another example of countering one of the pieces. Like there's multiple pieces of the evidence. Again, you're doing exactly what I talked about in my opening statement, which was, well, this doesn't prove every single aspect about God's existence. Therefore, let's dismiss it. Well, you're coming up with a philosophical construct. It's not, it's assume he is real then. What you're saying is believe first, ask questions later, assume he's real and then everything will work out, work itself out and oh, okay, well, maybe it kind of makes sense. Maybe he's like a parent and teaching us and maybe my brother getting cancer and dying was just to teach me something about life or maybe because God likes to punish people for things that their ancestors did. Maybe my great grandpa, Piss, got off so he's stricken him with cancer. I don't know, but it all works in your theology because we can't understand God. He's smarter than us. By the way, James, just so you know real quick, that might be our theology, but it's not our soteriology. And you should learn the difference because what you've done this entire debate is pretty much straw man. Every single Christian belief I have and I don't know how well you've actually been paying attention to anything I've been saying on my channel, but you have an extremely pre-deterministic view of reality and you have dragged that into the perspective and critique of the Christian God claim and I don't hold that and neither does Maddox. Well, I know you have a more nuance for a Christian. See like, well, you look at it like God killed your brother. God killed your grandfather. Hold on, hold on, let James finish. He didn't, that was just an example. That was just an example of what he's saying that God does things to help us and to guide us and to teach us and maybe, but it still doesn't really provide any evidence that he's actually there. It could be all just happening because shit happens in life. It's all unguided. That it assumes that the evil in this world isn't as bad as it really is. That really there is something that is going to have a judgment for it. But if someone had something horrible locked in their basement, raped for years, begged, nothing came. I do not think and I cannot see any reason any reason why this would happen and why they, what is the learning from it? Where, what judgment? Cause there's no judgment that's going to undo that. That really is the evil. It's not falling off your bike. It's not pooping your diaper. There really is evil. And as far as we could tell that God would just be watching. Amy, if I may, you seem to always ask why there's so much evil. Have you ever bothered to ask why there isn't more? Why there isn't more? Not really. Cause it looks almost exactly what would happen and it's just done with animals. Your fallacy is a fallacy of perspective. Cause you can't actually justify an understanding of what a reality with more evil would look like for all you know. Oh, I could picture more evil. Oh, I could definitely. Well, okay. But it's, okay, well then fine. You can picture more evil and reality isn't that. Yeah, it's about 50-50. So the idea that you're assuming there is no God because you assume that what exists right now is the maximum potential of evil. But it could be mitigated and scoped by a divine mind just like the fine tuning for the rest of the universe which you also deny has a cause, a purpose or any type of reason behind it. Could you admit it could be an evil God? It could be a God that actually likes to see rape and murder and that this is what he actually rewards. No, that's a Cartesian challenge to the nature of God and it's self-refuting. It's fallacious because then there's no, well, because then what happens is you have evil being good which means that you have the inverse of the recognizability of what is evil and good. So, and the idea that the Christian God claimed the reason why it's coherent Amy is because goodness is a co-eternal component of God. So God couldn't by his nature create a reality where evil is good because it would violate who he is. So that's like challenging God to do something impossible in order to prove that he's God. It doesn't- But that's just the claim in the Bible. It could be that there is an evil God. It's just, I mean, just because the Bible says there's a good God doesn't mean there is a good God. Well, but you're taking the idea that if there was a, you're basically a mouthiest then if there's a God and he's evil. I mean, it just looks like a universe where there's no God. It looks like exactly the right amount of good and evil. But how would you know you have no other, you have no other universe to compare that to? So how would you know a universe? We can see good and evil actions. Okay. So a universe with no God, would it have all the fine tuning variables? It does or no, a universe? Yes. Because the fine tuning is just saying that if it was any different, us ourselves would not be able to exist. But there may be other creatures that get we'll see it from different variables. You just asserted, let me, let me insert real quick. Amy, that argument, like real... Just, just, we thought it. Don't tell me how bad it is. We literally say that that is a stupid argument. Okay. I disagree. If you're paramount, then they don't think so. So I guess we're even... Yes, they do. Yes, they do. I'd love to see Amy debate a scholar. Even a liberal one, actually. I'm not a liberal, but I, cause I'll take it. That whole, oh, it could be something else. This argument has been flayed for years at this point. Let me ask a question, Smokey. You tell me what you believe. What do you believe as far as the book of Natives or Babel? Do you believe that was a literal event? I think you were robotting super hard there, bro. I'm sorry. I think you said something about the Tower of Babel. The Tower of Babel. Do you believe... I don't want to straw man what you believe. Sure, I appreciate it. That's a literal story as written in Genesis. Well, and you say that literal was such a hard line and I know what you mean when you're doing it. You're kind of trying to lay the trap for it. Do I believe it's an actual historical event recorded? Yes, I do. And do I believe it's a literal representation inside scripture is accurate? Yes, I do. Do I believe it's all-encompassing and hyper-specific and full of minutiae and detailed? No. Do I believe it's corroborated with other cultures that also have an unbroken cultural chain back almost as far as the Jews? Yes, including China. China has records of the Tower of Babel, also the flood narrative and creation events that line very much with scripture. And they also have an unbroken cultural history of nearly 4,500 years and they record similar events. And since the rule of thumb of ancient scholarship of discerning whether or not an event took place, if you find one record of the event, you tend to believe it's true. If you find two, you take it for almost an absolute fact, especially if they're from corroborating cultures that didn't have any interaction with each other but have record of the same event. So yes, I do believe there's very strong historical evidence to believe the Tower of Babel was a real historical event. Okay, so you would concede then that linguists who say that's not how language evolved, you would say they're wrong and that your book is more authoritative on that. No, and again, you're requiring, this is the, you ignored what I said in my opening statement about your requirement of minutiae and specificity. The method of which God confusing tongues is not revealed. So the idea of it being done by perhaps the separation of tribes, which then also instigated collections of languages, which then evolved and changed over times in these collective regions, which then caused splits in culture, which then would have caused people to move away and this could have been the method God used. I'm fine with that. You simply require some sort of specific scientific minutia to be included in the text, otherwise you disbelieve it and it's a fallacy. He was communicating to ancient peoples that languages and methods that they were able to understand. You required something unsubstantive. Couldn't it have just been that it was a story that a bunch of people who are trying their best to figure things out, wrote down and that was the explanation they used until we found out the answer. Yeah, you can go ahead and believe, contrary to scholarship, Amy. And again, that's a you problem. It just to protect your bias, but that's not an argument for me. There's no scholarship for the Tower of Bible. I'm just going to point that out. There's no modest. What did I just say? What did I just say? The rule of scholarship. Contradictive. We have two corroborating accounts, which we do. And what mainstream secular scholarship, it predominantly accepts as a conclusion is ultimately irrelevant. Amy, just like James's stupid point about all the things being added into scripture, the only evidence James has for that is a few liberal scholars that took the updating of language with time and took that to be actual full blown insertions. And they have no evidence for that. There's no actual textual historical evidence. And he said so himself. They actually look at literary stylings to make these assumptions. And no one beyond the last 30 or 40 years has been doing that except these hyper liberals attempting to make names for themselves and poor useful idiots like James, sorry to say James, are the first to run over there and try and bite it up because it helps protect their bias. It's gross. Well, thank you for that commentary there, Smokey. I appreciate it. But as I was saying, well, let me preface this is that when we read the Bible, we want it to, we expect things to make sense when you're telling us that a supremely- Make sense to who? Supremely wise, we, again, because your God- Make sense to who, James? To the reader, to the person who is intended- Oh, everyone. To receive the information, right. Because God refuses to communicate directly with us. He pretends like he's not there. You have these old books. So if that's our only way of ascertaining what he wants us to do or he's gonna do really bad things to us, then he better be pretty clear in those texts what exactly he wants us to believe and what he wants us to do. This is the Romans 9 challenge, James, unfortunately, which is the subversion of the finite agent attempting to demand what the infinite agent should do or construct. So what you're saying is God is not allowed to manifest the vessels of his mercy and righteousness how he sees fit. And see the problem, James, I wanted to answer your original inquiry about the necessity and essentiality of God creating an agent of free will. And it's the same thing, like both of you have a problem with slavery. And the idea that you could somehow program a woman to love you, no matter how well you could program that woman to love you, it still would be a foe. Love, it'd be fake. No matter how good you would program it, no matter how good you would succeed to the Turing test, it would still ultimately in the end be fake. You made it happen as opposed to creating a dynamic environment of actual free will where the manifestation of the choice actually has meaning instead of just a pre-programmed event. See, a God that wants to love is going to want to be loved. And only in an environment of free will expression can such a thing be expressed. So you are requiring God to manifest something contrary to what he desires for his nature because you think it would be better for you. It's just bad. Because I think he should communicate clearly. He decides he's gonna communicate, unclearly deal with it, right? I'll tell you what, James. What do you want to do to deal with it? I'll tell you what. Can you think of any evidence that is immune to skepticism? Mathematics maybe, perhaps? I don't know. Well, that's a field. I mean, like evidence of a conclusion of something that would be... There are very few things outside of mathematics that we know with absolute certainty. So there's always... Well, but mathematics is an abstract. I want you to pull it into the tangible. Like, for instance, the cup sitting in front of you. If you have a cup sitting in front of you or whatever. Imagine you have a cup sitting in front of you. You have a cup sitting in front of you. How certain are you that cup exists and it's actually sitting in front of you that you're actually sitting in a room that you're actually there at all that you're not plugged into a matrix? How certain are you? As certain as one could be. Exactly, exactly. And so it's only based upon your personal epistemology, James. It has nothing to do with the nature of reality. And you imposing your will onto God has nothing to do with whether or not God exists or is required to impose his will to yours because your reality is generally micromanaging. Decision. Do you want us to know we exist or he exists? Well, of course, Amy, but not to the detriment of the faithful or the negation of faith or the increase of accountability whereby his righteous nature, he would have to judge you instantaneously for your sins. This is why all the people in the Old Testament, this is reading between the lines in the Old Testament, people believe that if they saw God, they would die. Well, why lie about that in the text? There's no reason to. But they believe that there's some sort of idea all passed throughout the culture since the fall of man that the interaction with God by his righteous nature would require you to actually be judged and killed. This was the belief. Now we find out later in Hebrews 11 that it was by faith they were justified. And by faith was the buffer of God to work with them and deal with them. Okay. I also think it's weird that God likes sacrifices. He seems to like animal sacrifices and human sacrifices. Well, let me tell you, Amy, what were they going to be doing with the animals? Oh, let me ask you something. What were they going to be doing with the animals if they weren't sacrificing them? Eating them. Thank you. So still killing them, right? So what is your issue about the methane? Well, this is, yeah, they would too. That's what the Levites lived on what was supplied by the Jews for the sacrifices. That was their sustenance. That was their taxes. It was part of their system. And the idea was, you know, you're such a disgusting bigot. Let me tell you why right now. This is the issue. This is the issue right here. All that God did in this instance was take the things they were already doing, killing and eating animals and instigating a method where he was part of the communion by acts of faith. That's all. That's it. It's interacting by part of it by saying, do this act of faith. And then we're having a type of community was reaching down to the people. It's actually beautiful. And you try to put it with your disgusting present is pretty disgusting. I would say you sacrifice sacrifice. Not only is it very low. I don't want to say I because I don't want to. I'm not going to insult you. The thing is kind of that you could know. I'm the closest you can get to an animal rights active vessel being an omnivore. OK, so what is the issue with killing animals? I think what she's saying, Smokey, is she's challenging the theology of how killing animals allows God to do something he couldn't do otherwise. How do you make that connection? Again, Hebrews 11, everyone is justified by faith. All these acts were acts of faith. And it was instituting methods and systems that were already familiar to their culture. You don't you don't come down the people and say something stupid like you got to climb to the top of Mount Hebra on ever 15 days and, you know, sacrifice a third of your children or something crazy like that. Who would ever ask the sacrifice? It's taking things they were already doing. It's taking things they were already doing and then actually working into them. And by the way, Abraham was a very specific instance. And by the way, the only reason that would have been cruel, Amy, is if there was no promise for Isaac to actually be the son of promise. See, Abraham had faith that again, Isaac was the promise. He wasn't even supposed to have Isaac. He was late in his age. He wasn't expecting to be able to have Isaac naturalistically. God had revealed himself, shown himself by faith, and he knew that God was going to keep his word. And that one way or another, Isaac was going to be the son of promise, which meant he was either going to be stopped or resurrected, which, by the way, is a typology to the beautiful story of our redemption because God himself sent his own son up to a very similar hill. And when it came down to it, he didn't hold back and not like he did with Abraham and Isaac. And he actually sacrificed his son for your filthy, rancid, disgusting life choices. All right. I know it's pretty horrible and evil, wasn't it, that he would go down and murder a random person for no reason, for rules that he gave. So you do realize that your counterpoint here literally ignores the fundamental reason that Smokey was just outlining. Yes, he was trying to make. I'm going to throw all horrible, horrible. No, no, you're saying I'm going to throw out the foundational reason for why Christ was sent. Yes. That's the whole point. Have you been listening? That's the whole point. We're going to suspend all that from your worldview. None of that applies. There is no reason for it. There is no substance behind it. Literally no reason. Let's just toss out the window and say, hey, God does not exist. Christianity is false because I'm going to completely ignore what the foundational premise is. He's getting it. Yes. Human sacrifice is evil. Animal sacrifice is evil. So what's going on? Abusive relationship and their gaslight is abusive relationship. So basically you just, again, as I said in my opening statement, again, I'm a prophet, apparently you are now sitting on the 50 yard line screaming about how you deny the rules. There is nothing outside of the force field and there and nothing could have ever happened to make all of this happen. It's just completely random. I'm going to jump in real fast here. You have to exist for the rules. That's the point you're trying to prove. We don't think there are rules that he made. Amy, I'm going to let you respond. I'm sorry, just let me get in here for one second. Sure, I don't mind my passion. No, I understand. If everyone's OK with it, after Amy gets to respond, we can go over to the questions. Is that OK with everyone? Are we doing closing statements? Yeah, can we have a few minutes for closing statements? I mean, it's fine if they even have some, too. Yeah, I mean, that's that's fine. We can do that. Have fun. Amy, you know what, if you want to go ahead and respond and wrap up with your closing statement and then James and then we'll go over to Maddox and Smoky and then we'll get to the question. Oh, sure. I don't think any more. I don't think either team convinced each other, but I had a fun debate. And in the end, I do not. It's not that I don't want to because of this being existed, I would want to know. But it's just I not only do I not see good evidence for a deity and specifically the Christian deity see many, many reasons to why they don't exist. Thank you. It was kind of fun. You want to do a closing statement? Oh, and and you can find more of my stuff at my channel down below and get some comedy and skepticism. Thank you. Thank you so much, James, if you want to go ahead with your closing statement. Well, again, I know I enjoyed the discussion today. Again, I'd like to thank these two distinguished representatives of the Christian faith for indulging our questions. I don't think anybody's mind was changed. Like I said, there's so many things to talk about. It's hard to cram that much soy into one debate, but we certainly tried to pack in it as much as we could. But I'm definitely open to continuing to outline the claims why Christianity is not a reasonable position. It is the antithesis of reason. It is the suspension of reason. It's a suspension of logic. It's not plausible and it's probably not probable either. And we didn't really hear any good evidence for that today. So all right, all right. Smoky, if you want to go for it. Yeah, really disappointing, really disappointing in terms of even what was presented. And in fact, I am going to probably take James's little slideshow opening and have a fun time just picking that apart in asinine hilarity that it is with Dr. Kenny Rhodes at some point on my channel. And I guess I'll kind of go ahead. I'll come in and do it with you. OK, focusing. OK, that's a good idea, James. I like that. So so focusing on that, too, is the idea that what James tried to do was smuggle in a bunch of assumptions, some scholarly, some his own into historical acknowledgement. And this is commonly done with a misunderstanding of what the evidence scholarship is actually pointing to, which is that there are alterations in language throughout the text. However, there are justifications for the text having been meticulously maintained over the generations, including something. James, unfortunately, probably isn't familiar with this, is the work of Dr. Ivan Pannon in the heptatic structure of scripture, which gives us very strong evidence that not only was the Torah meticulously given to Moses, but potentially probably letter by letter. So there's lots of evidence to support the fact of the preservation of scripture. And the only evidence James has to appeal to is the hypothetical assumptions of hyper-liberal scholarship to attempt to assume these alterations or updates in language or terms is somehow an addition to the text. And it's just not. And that's just his desperate grasp of attempting to yield to the most liberal, ridiculous, more recent versions of scholarship that just so happens to protect his bias. Also, we heard all sorts of fallacious arguments, challenges to the morality of God, which Amy is known for. I appreciate what's been revealed in that ridiculous moral nightmare. But yeah, I really think that all of us should focus and spend a little bit more time attempting to be a little more genuine to the actual book, realize this was written in an ancient culture handed to an ancient people in terms that they would recognize and to assume for it to manifest as anything other than that is you just acting in your own hubris and desperation for self-validation to reject the obvious that the Christian God does indeed exist and is the most reasonable of all God claims. I yield. All right. Thank you so much, Smoky. And Maddox, if you want to finish up with your closing statement. Well, tonight is yet another proof of the standard atheist position that they don't actually have to rationally look at things that don't enable them to escape any accountability to to God or just anything external to themselves. And the level of desperation knows no bounds. I mean, the the irony is this is now I think the sixth or seventh debate I've done where I have made predictions in my opening statements to which my opponents literally act like they didn't ever happen. They never existed. It's very ironic it continues over and over again. But I think the audience, you know, I've come to the read, you know, the my opponents talked about how we didn't convince them. Well, I don't think they actually have any intention of being convinced and because the level of the same denials continue in fight them. But I don't come on these debates to actually try and convince the opponent because I don't think they have an intent. I do this for the people who in now and in the future will think about these things. And as I said in my opening statement, begin to ponder, consider and perhaps at some point take the time to go and research for themselves and go beyond the standard talking points that are spewed ad nauseam by the desperate atheists and see if it is actually a more rational conclusion to believe that it got exists. All that said, going to be having an after show. I usually do after shows after a debate that I do because I'm tired. But this one decided I'm going to so head on over to my channel. I'm going to post a link in the chat. Have a good time. We open mic and love to get in inputs from other folks. So appreciate your time and whether in spite of our confrontations, Amy and James, you have bigger courage than the average person. So at a minimum, I got to give you guys credit for being willing to come on and accept the challenge. Oh, and thank you, Carissa, for being an awesome mod. Well, thank you, Maddox. And we will get over to questions now. I'm really excited about these questions. It looks like there's a good number. We're going to have to go through them somewhat quickly. But I think we'll we'll definitely get through them all. Thank you. What's that? Bring them on. All right. First one is from Nightmare. Thank you so much. Says awesome openings, smoky and Maddox. Thank you, Nightmare. Appreciate it. One of my favorite that love you, bro. Next one and doing the decent order is from Maddox Mano. He's thank you for the five dollars. He said the moderator is hot. Next one. She's married back off. I don't know if he knows this, but in chat, there were many people complimenting like Chris's hair is so hot. I don't know if you saw that. Don't let it make you feel uncomfortable. They do the same thing to James. I know. James and I are just. So next one is from Berry Berry. Thank you for the five dollars. Say that's smoky and Maddox. Exactly. How many bales of hay did it take to construct all those straw men during your opening statements? Which, well, you see, like most atheists, it's just kind of an assertion of emotions of everything was terrible. It's all straw men. You know, you took the entire characters to summarize something that we can't even respond to as opposed to I don't know, put a specific example of something that you thought a straw man was. Yeah, nice try, bro. Gotcha. Next one is from experience and rebiotic. Thank you for the 15. Say, atheists and all powerful, all good God would intervene whenever there is evil and suffering. Bottom line, Satan knows that God exists and that he choose to rebel. So the free will argument is BS. That's that's a requirement for us to accept a predeterministic paradigm into our worldview, which I already addressed with James multiple times, is not something we believe. You need to be able to prove predeterministic inside the narrative. Otherwise, we don't have to hold to that. Otherwise, God is open to allowing a reality to emerge of free will choices and then respecting them from his moral agency. It's not just him being all powerful and being all good. He's also all righteous, which means he has to actually operate within the confines of his righteous nature, just as he does his goodness. Those things sometimes compete just like being just and being merciful sometimes compete, but he is the highest a supreme version of both. You just require these absolutist ideals in your challenge, which don't actually fit to the claim. You're the ones straw manning this one, unfortunately. I wanted to make a response, unless you wanted to go Maddox. Oh, go ahead. I wanted to say, you know, I think it's funny that when we see the dichotomy in the Bible, we see in the ancient past, God had no problem actively intervening and actively doing things to affect reality. As we've moved forward where we could expect evidence of that, he just decided to invent the doctrine of divine hiddenness. And now he pretends like he's not there. He was active in the past, but all of a sudden now he doesn't want to do anything anymore. You ignored my response, James. You ignored my response. No, no, you did. It was answered in Hebrews 11. There was something that changed. People were operating, or there were some people that were operating by walks of faith, which allowed a buffer for God to actually violate the divine hiddenness ordinance because they were living by faith. But this is also why those people had an extremely high level of accountability. It's not the type of thing that's generally a good environment for everyone because you're accountable for what you do almost in an instantaneous basis in a theocratic system. So the Jews were inside this system. There was a different measure, a different construct. You're trying to equate. It's a false equivocation. God said. I don't understand how it looks, but thank you. Next one is from Stupendor at Energy. Thank you for the $10. Why would God use cytosine in the DNA code? It's prone to demenation and has to be repaired, but repair isn't 100%. So it's a major contributor to mutation rates. An engineer would replace cytosine. Well, that's a bad X question for sure. Stupendor Energy, I'm pretty sure you either you're copying somebody else's question or you've asked me that question before. And apparently we're paying attention to the counterpoint that I made the last time. So what have we discovered recently? You should go Google this. There's papers about this in nature of how from an epigenetic perspective, the fifth position of the cytosine has dramatic importance in relation to methylation and different epigenic factors which are directly relevant in a whole plethora of functions and the ability for it to be modified is what enables so many different facets of life to add functions of life to occur. And there's specific repair mechanisms that are dedicated specifically to that issue while also maintaining the flexibility. So go check up on that one. All right. Next one is from Barry Berry. This is addressed to Amy. Maddox and Smoky have no good evidence for Christianity and apparently that's your problem, LOL. Was that a question or a statement? A statement, just toward you, yeah. Next one is from also Stupid Moray Energy. He said, what makes you so sure that re-anitin, I'm not sure what they meant here. I think re-analyzing the problem won't be solved. Sorry, I did not understand that. I don't, I'm not telling you essentially what they mean. I think she's trying to say there's problems like with the biogenesis but why do you think that we won't find an answer? You know, the more experimentation we do and the more we understand about it, that's how I took it. Oh, I mean, that one's pretty straightforward. I mean, the more experiments we do, the more complexity and the more barriers to entry that we find. I mean, we're not getting closer, we're getting further away. Like we're understanding more and more of what is required but not accounting for how it could be pulled off. I mean, it's a, it's a major problem. I mean, people just need to go and read books on this. I mean, from 2020 and it's, is it freely admitted by many atheist, a biogenesis researchers? Next one is from Rodent Nolo, no last name. Thank you for being the dumpster fire that warms my heart. Next one is from Barry Berry, smokey if God stops the killer then you say it's a violation of free will but if I stop the killer then it's not a violation of free will, the fuck. What, no, they're both violations of free will. It's just the acting agency is different and you don't know, this is the problem with atheist perspective. It's all based upon their own finite scope. So again, it's the guy's always asking why is there so much evil never asking why there isn't more. The hand of God could be in so many instances where you wouldn't notice because you only notice things when they go wrong. It's like, you'll hear about the story of the mass shooter who shot up a theater with 30 people. You won't hear about the story about the mass shooter stopped outside the theater with the armed guy with the handgun. That's the issue is you guys focus and fixate on why it's so horrible. You don't even ascertain and try to ask questions of why it's not worse. And maybe that has to do with the fact that there is a good God that is ultimately looking over some of these things and not allowing it to get to a certain level of bad. Gotcha. All right, next one's from Mike Billers at Maddox. When your child talks to you, do you respond? Can your child see you and interact with you? I could respond to a juvenile question like that. Obviously, that's the case. All right. Next one's from Angel Goree. He'd say, God creates man, sets him up to fail and then condemns man forever. This is about it, what loving God would do this. That's an assertion, again, predestinarian approach. That's not what we believe. You're requiring God to actually make a pre-judgment is what you're doing. You're requiring God to violate his actual righteous state. This unfortunately would have to be a longer answer. But if you judge someone before they actually do it, they're being unrighteous and God is righteous. So he is, by his nature, taking a morally passive as opposed to a morally proactive stance to respect his nature and also respect the nature of reality, which is an environment for the expression of free love, which requires the expression of free will choice. You're just, again, requiring an alteration to the nature of reality, which is inconsistent with the claim itself. I would just wanna throw in there that God has no problem judging people for the sins that their parents committed. So I'll see what happens. That's, no, now you're trying to shoehorn in again, that literalism, James. And you know what, that's a really bad, you don't get to make a whole new point in the question and answer period, due to especially another straw man. So why don't you just save it? You wanna come to an after-show and ask it, I'll go and destroy it there. Just making a point, Smokey. A horrible one, appreciate it. I know. All right, next one is Helian, Helianthus. Thank you so much. They say, Amy, you said, my parents are Jewish. Does that imply that you're not Jewish? Are you invoking the ideology in not listening to me? And what does that prove? I don't call myself a cultural Jew. I'll celebrate Hanukkah with my parents when they do it to go over, but I don't celebrate it myself personally. And yeah. Well, are your parents- What was the end of the question? I thought it was kind of asking if you were just ethnically Jewish or just like religiously Jewish, or your parents were- I mean, it's complicated. I have my whole family's Ashkenazi. But, and so I could sometimes say, maybe my ethnicity is Ashkenazi. And you should say, maybe I'm an Ashkenazi atheist. But, you know, it's complicated. Because on one hand, I'm trying to get rid of Judaism. On the other hand, I really hate the Nazis and all the people who hate Jews. And so I'm stuck in like this weird middle thing. Oh, will you stop it? It's the book I hate. I mean, you know, I'm fine with this though. It's a thing and I'm fine with my ancestors too. My ancestors, it's their religion. Like I like bacon and there's not going to be a book that's like, yeah, no, no, no. Bacon's really bad. Tell me, the guy up there told me. Trust me. You know, it is actually generally considered to be unhealthy food, right? Actually, no, pigs are actually healthy or clean creatures. They don't go, they only go in mud. They don't go in shit. No, but the actual caloric and fat content of pig meat. There was a time where, before like fire, where you could say that you could get diseases from them, but the fire still did. No, I mean, okay, Amy, again, in a general sense of modern nutritional standards, pork is not a good meat to rely upon. Would you agree or no? Well, now you're trying to go from health standards. I'm just going by what tastes good. I mean, it's literally, if you were to say, okay. I don't know, maybe God just wanted them to like be like, by the way, this food's not good for you, but whatever. Well, Smoky, let's move on from this one because, as Amy just showcased, she likes the way things make her feel or not whether or not there's any substance to reason to do or not to do something behind it because she loves the way it tastes. All right, I'm gonna let Amy- Strap like that out to anywhere else. Wait, wait, wait, once again, because these are two Christians who eat bacon. So they throw, they yeeted the Jewish rules and they're like, yeah, that's not in the 10. The 10's like my throw pillow. That's what I like, not the 600. I'm not gonna follow the 600 rules of a deity that I don't follow. It's just a guy, it's just a bunch of guys who wrote stuff down and then people just kept on following it. They weren't special guys, they were normal guys inspired by themselves who wrote the Bible. All right, next one, thanks for so much. The next one is from James Labrado. He says, James, all religions are wrong. It's an unsubstantiated claim. Science's discovery of natural phenomena does nothing to disprove a God. Read William James, the variety of religious experience, by the way. Okay, so it's very difficult to prove beyond a doubt that something doesn't exist but we generally don't believe something exists unless we have evidence that it actually exists. What we're saying is there's no justifiable reason to believe in a God, not that it's objectively impossible for there to be one. Why do you get- I can't prove that, but- James, can I ask you, why does your standard get to be the standard everyone else is supposed to accept? Well, it's not, everyone decides for themselves. I'm making- Thank you. I am making the case- So your statement just doesn't matter. I am making the case that it's my opinion and you can do with it what you will. You're here giving your opinion, people can do with that what they will. That's all we can do, Smokey. Well, I've been giving actual evidence. That's all we have our opinions. You've only been giving your epistemological opinion as to what constitutes a standard of good evidence. We actually provide evidence. See, this is the difference between your stance and ours, James. I'm gonna let James respond to that since the question was directed toward James and then we can go on to the next one. You know, if there was real good evidence, I would convert back to Christianity today. I just haven't seen any. I didn't become an atheist because I didn't like Christianity or because of any other reason other than I became convinced that it wasn't true objectively. And why follow something- You can't say that. You can only say subjectively. I'm sorry, but that's a lie. It's my opinion that it's objectively untrue. So it's subjective. It's your subjective opinion that it's objective opinion. That's a word salad, but I guess so. Not to quote G-man too much, but subjective, objective opinion. All right, next one is from Shad Thomas. You say the only place you can find proof for God is through this video. One, two, three, four, five proof of God. What, okay, well, I don't know what that's about. Yes, we're done now. One, two, three, four, five. Next one is from K.O.Champ of TT. It says, one Samuel 15, three, God orders the deaths of every man, woman, child and fictional people who can't be proven to exist. God wills it, I guess. Well, I guess if they're fictional, then you don't have to worry about making a challenge of the claim, do you? All right, I know there's a few more. I was thinking that it's gonna be a little longer. I refreshed it, so can we do that? Can you give me one second? No problem. All right, next question is from Stupid Horror Energy. C to T, mutations break alpha helix's genius. Oh, good Lord. You've asked me this one before too, I think, as a follow up to the last time. And it's also known that alpha helix's are more robust to mutations than beta strands. So it seems that that engineer that you're claiming doesn't do anything to account for optimization and variability actually accounted for that and that the structures that you're saying disprove that are actually more robust in relation, in anticipation of what you're referring to. So why don't you go look up on that, genius? Oh, right, and that is actually all of the super chats that we have for today. Oh, and Carissa, I always talk trash to Stupid Horror Energy. I love you too, I saw it in the chat. I was gonna give you good zingers. I'm smoky and logical, I heart you too, I just wanted to say that, even though we get heated after it. Hard feelings. No heart feelings. James is a Patreon, I can't have heart feelings. Gives me money. You do a lot of work for our cause, Smoky. Yeah, I figured you'd say something like that. So, Smoky, are you ready today to give your life over to reason and to reality? Are you willing to accept the reality on its own terms and make the truth before you give your life? You know, James, you haven't presented anything that leads me to believe that you are operating in anything close to what I would consider reality. So if it's reality based upon how you're judging it and justifying it, I think I'll pass. Oh, right, and with that, thank you so much for tuning in tonight, and thank you to all of our speakers tonight for taking times out of your busy schedules. Don't forget to check them out in the description box below and keep separating the reasonable from the unreasonable. Have an incredible rest of your week.