A chance to explain of the silence that is in my brain It's a simple miscommunication, but it's one soak into the legs You know, can arm compound fractures? Was it all too far? Never mount the wrist while I'll feed off your... Like a spill, you're forever feeling overfilled Tired of sitting here all alone Broken mind, broken bone It's a simple miscommunication, but it's one soak All right, well, thank you for this opportunity. I'm glad to join you all on a modern day debate of this day. And since the topic of debate is on the validity of Christianity, I am granted the burden to demonstrate my case. And therefore I would like to go first and say that I am going to give an analytical argument. And again, I'm going to give my opening in a day or night. I'll just go back and forth, hopefully. I'm going to give an analytical argument for the existence of God, because the Christian faith is founded upon the Christian scriptures.  But before we try to demonstrate the Bible empirically or through evidence, we need to first establish that there is a God to give a word. So I will begin with an argument from contingency or from causality on the existence of God. And when we begin our back and forth, I'll ask for a few fundamental presuppositions from David to grant me. And then we will proceed through the argument, seriatim or through a logical step by step way. And so I'm not coming to give an argument for the idea as to whether the Christian God exists in a probability sense or in an evidential sense. Generally when you're trying to demonstrate something there are two ways to do it. You can do it through empiricism and evidence, which will give you merely probability. This would be kind of like the scientific method. It's always changing because our senses are always kind of tricking us, if you will, in some minor ways. And then you've also got the opportunity to prove a case, which would be like mathematical proofs or demonstration, which is not evidential in nature. It is a probability. It is a proof. It is an analytical verity that cannot be questioned if the premises are granted of the argument itself. And so that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to first begin with the existence of God, and I'm going to demonstrate that there is a creator. And then as we proceed from there, then we can go into the specifics of Christianity, which will not be analytical arguments. They'll be evidential and they could be questioned because they're not necessarily true. And then we'll just proceed from there and see what David's got in order to refute my perspective. There we go. Take myself off mute there.  Thank you so much for that opening statement there, Trey. And to the live chat, I'll just let you know that modern day debate, we are a neutral platform. We'll host debates on science, religion, politics. You name it. You know, if it's interesting, if it's happening, we're interested. So, you know, definitely give some love to our speakers here for being here tonight to have the discussion. And over to you, David. Yeah, so thanks for having me. It's been a while since I've been back on. Thanks to Trey for agreeing to do this as well. I thought you were going to have, I put your argument forth in your opening statement and you kind of just laid out an agenda, kind of what we're going to do. And I think we're both pretty easygoing in that we just want to have the discussion sort of in a Socratic style of question and answer to find out where each person stands. And you're right, you do have the burden of proof. I'm so glad you acknowledge that in the beginning because my, you know, I often get caught up in people trying to pit atheism against Christianity as though they're opposites. And in fact, you know, atheism is no more the opposite of Christianity than being transparent is the opposite of red. Atheism stands aside from the religion saying I don't quite see proof for my belief. You having a belief is different. It could be, you know, it's, you know, personal experience or whatever, as you said, analytical versus evidential. And whatever's happened to you personally for you to believe is perfectly fine. But to determine whether something is true or not would require, I believe, substantial proof outside of your own experiences. So I'll just end it with that and say that's what I'm looking forward to, not that it's true to you or that you believe it, but that it is true for everyone, regardless of their beliefs. And I've analyzed this stuff for many, many years, had my podcast for 13 years, I've had theology professors on of. I've really tried to get an understanding of why people believe what they believe. And I've yet to be convinced that Christianity is true. And I'm still searching, I'm still looking, and I'm wondering, you know, if it's so clear to you, why is it not clear to me? So I'm interested in seeing what evidence or analysis you have. Excellent. Awesome. Well, thank you so much for that, David. We're going to kick it into an open discussion. I want to remind everybody in the live chat that our guests are linked in the description and they will be linked in the description of our podcast as well. So if you like what you're hearing from Trey or David, definitely check them out in the description below. As a secondary reminder, we are doing a Q&A at the end of this discussion, so get your questions in there and we will read them out. We're going to kick it into an open discussion, as I said. So Trey, we'll kick it over to you to open this up. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you so much. All right, so David, when we begin our inquiry here, I said that I'm going to need a couple of groundwork presuppositions, if you will. I am not a presuppositionalist, just so you know. Good. I'm actually an ardent opponent to presuppositionalism. I don't think it's reasonable. I have many wonderful friends who I think are very, you know, wonderful, godly people who hold to that. But in my opinion, it's transcendental idealism with Christian lipstick. It's not biblical Christianity. It's just enlightenment philosophy dressed up like Christianity. It also doesn't make for a very productive conversation. That's the problem with it. It commits the pituitary hypocrisy, you know, the begging to question. And my presuppositional friends or minds are exploding right now in disagreement, but it does. And that's the problem. And I'm also not an evidentialist. Evidentialist, as I stated, are folks who look at empirical evidence regarding claims of the Bible and they often tackle focus on the resurrection. And they can never give you analytical certainty. That's the problem with it. And so what I'm going to do, I'm a classicist and I'm going to use some arguments that will be a forms of cosmological argument. And my favorite one is from the argument from contingency. But I need a couple of epistemological tools that will enable us to inquire and get beyond the same page because, you know, if we don't agree on these, then. Then we can't really go anywhere. So the first thing I want to ask from you, David, is will you grant me rational coherence or the law of non-contradiction as we begin? This sounds like a trap. It's not. I've never had anybody question these ever. Because if we don't have a lot of contradiction, are you familiar with the principle of explosion? Yes. I mean, nothing makes any sense at all unless you can say coherence. Let's guide our discussion. We've got to have rational coherence. That's all I'm saying. There's no trick. I understand. I understand. But I've been in conversations before where the end result is. And I'm glad you said before you're not a presup because a lot of times when that is stated, it comes down to, I can't be rational without God. Therefore, I have God. I'm just denying what I know to be true. And then it kind of goes into the fool has said in his heart, there is no God. But yes, on its face, I, of course, I mean, you know, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I'm not, I'm not appealing to that at all. Okay. All I'm saying is, here's a here's a problem with presuppositionalism because what the precept will tell me they'll say, well, all argumentation is circular trade because you are presupposing logic. And the problem is, so we're all presupposing. I would say is it a good circle your argument or a bad circle and my rebuttal to that is that no to to assume the the instruments for inquiry is not circular argumentation is not committing to pititio fallacy because what the presuppositionalist is doing they are saying that they're taking a material proposition that God of Christianity trying God of scripture is the foundation for all reality. Therefore, you must epistemologically accepted a priori in other words without reason in order to have an engagement. And that's ridiculous because you can't you can't know Trinity until you learn it. Everybody doesn't know that innately. So it does it does shut down conversations like I said so. It's irrational. That's the problem. What's your next thing to accept. Okay, so logic we have to have logical coherence of law non contradiction and then secondly or other laws of thought, you know, excluded middle and identity. And then you got to have the basic reliability of sense perception. Your senses must be perfect. But again, we have no connection to this world unless we will grant ourselves a presupposition that we somehow are our senses relate to the world in some fundamental sense. Yes, with the caveat that sometimes those senses make mistakes and sometimes sometimes those senses correct those mistakes and sometimes they don't. And sometimes we misinterpret the information our senses are receiving with those caveats. Yes, mostly reliable. Okay. And that's why I said basically reliable. Yeah, mostly reliable. All right. So beginning with those two instruments of inquiry again, they're not propositions. I'm not telling you something is true. Those are just the tools. You don't have the tools. You don't have any inquiry. All right. So with those, then I say that if something exists on that piece of paper here, if you want to write you down, but if something exists, there's only four possibilities. Okay. And if something exists, it is either an illusion, or secondly, it is self-created, or it is self-existent, or it is created by something that is self-existent. Those are the only four possibilities. I've been arguing this for nearly a decade now. Nobody's been able to come up with a fifth option without just impinging on one of the other options. So if something exists, there are only four possibilities. You have an illusion, self-created, self-existent, or created by something that's self-existent. All right. And I want to go through these four here and demonstrate a problem with them. And you're welcome to jump in at any time if you need clarification or you want to rip up me or something like that. All right. So the first one is, go ahead. I was wondering aloud if something could be created by something else that was self-created? I think that would be self-created. No, self-creation is the violation of the second one there. It doesn't work. Let me just go through them and then let's chat about them if we can. All right. So the first one is, that which exists is an illusion. And are you familiar with Descartes' Cogito ergo soon? Yes. I think this is where I am. Yes, yes. Okay. So for that, if there's a thinker, there must be someone asking a question. Therefore, if you could be an illusion, this computer could be an illusion, our conversation could be having a dream. I'm having it right now. But one thing that I do know is that I, the inquirer, am asking a question. And therefore, everything cannot be illusion. Everything but me could be an illusion. But I know that I, myself, am not an illusion because otherwise there's nobody to ask a question. Not necessarily. Okay. If you could write quick there, Trey, just for a live audience there, just give a quick summarization of how, or just as you're going through these breakdowns, if you can keep pushing in how that relates exactly to the Christian claim. And I think that might be useful for the specific topic, but I'm going to jump back out here and let you guys continue. Sure. As I stated, I'm first making an argument, an analytical argument for the existence of God, because if there is no God, then there's no word for him to give, which would be the specific claim to Christianity. And as I stated, the arguments for the existence of God are irrefutable. If you grant the presuppositions that I gave you, they necessarily follow from the premises that I make. And I've not had, not only this argument never been defeated, I've never seen a serious question to it. And so maybe David will be the one. Well, yeah, I was trying to make one, but you asked me to hold on. So I'll, I can keep waiting, but I am interested as well as, because I could even potentially grant that just for the sake of this conversation that God could exist. And Christianity could still be false. That's true. So I don't, Absolutely. I, in fact, many of my discussions, I'll go ahead and just say fine, let's say there is a God or a first cause or a creator. Let's find out if your holy book is from a God that loves humanity. Let's get into that and see if it checks out. Let's check the Bible's credit according to this creator. I don't believe that there is a creator. I don't believe that there is a God. I think that that if the universe exists, it came either either self created, which is a whole bag of worms we can get into, or it could have been created by the implosion or explosion of something else that was self created, meaning something came into existence in an unknown way, fitting one of your options. And then the death of that thing or implosion or explosion of said thing could have created the universe. We know that I think is a fifth option that you haven't allowed. You just, you just, you just added another step to the second one. You just, you just did a topological. You said basically something created itself by something that created itself and you could just have an infinite regression. No, no, it's not self created. It was created by something else dying or exploding that was the thing that died or exploded self created. Yes, but that's different from something else. No, you're just repeating yourself. No, no, no. You're not, you're not, you're answering nothing by saying, No, no, no, I disagree. If our universe, you're just, you're just adding different, you're adding complexity to a simple argument. You're, you're violating Occam's razor actually. No, no, no, no, no, no, let me, let me, let me explain. Let's say, let me put forth the argument that aliens, very high intelligent beings created a universe. Okay. That universe reached its peak, whatever, and imploded or exploded in the explosion of that universe that was created by an intelligent being. This thing exploded in its death and on its own natural processes occurred, which became our universe. I don't think that is the universe creating itself. I think that is the universe being created out of something else that was created. I'm not complicating the second step. I'm saying there is a fifth option. I mean, that's not, you're not accepting it as a fifth option doesn't mean it's not a fifth option. Well, you're bringing it up. Doesn't that make it true? Sure, sure. But I'm sure there are people who disagree with both of us, but I'm just saying it doesn't matter. What do you want? It doesn't matter. It's what's true. Something could have been created by something else that was self-created and you haven't allotted for that. Because me, an alien making universe, an alien making universe, that universe exploding and creating this universe does not mean this universe is self-created. It came from something else that was created and you haven't allotted for that before. Okay, but the thing to create is self-created, right? Yeah, but that's not part of your options. You've answered nothing. Absolutely nothing. All you've done is make it more complex. In other words, you've taken a problem. You just compounded it eternally because what created that? Which created? All right, let's go to the second. Let me go to the second. And this is actually the problem with the argument right here. That which exists is self-created. Why is it a problem for something to create itself? You know? This is actually the answer to the objection you have. I mean, something has to exist in order to do the creating? Yes, it violates a law of non-contradiction. This is why I ask this is one of the beginning presuppositions I asked for. In order for it to create itself, it would have to be and not be at the same time in the same relationship, which is a violation of law of non-contradiction, which you've already granted is one of our planks for understanding reality. Right. So, whatever you say about self-creation, it doesn't work.  No, the fire has the necessary conditions and sufficient conditions of a combustible material. Oxygen is something to spark the fire. It's not self-created. It's something that is a natural process that is brought about. Which one of your four would describe the fire? The fire is not ultimate reality. We're not making that claim about the fire. It's just an accidental property to reality. Tray, you said if something exists, one of these four must be true. I'm asking, which one of your four would describe the fire? Ultimately, the four was created by something that self-existent. It has to. The dependent being cannot instantiate independently because it's dependent by definition. Okay, so which one of the four describes the fire? Ultimately, four. Number four, that it was created by something that is self-existent. Okay. That's actually the argument for the whole thing. Because, all right, let's go to the third step. It says that which exists is self-existent. Anything that is self-existent cannot be changing by definition because anything that changes is dependent upon that which enacted it to a new state of being. In other words, in Aristotelian sense, when something reduces from potentiality to actuality, like I'm potentially bald. I'm almost there. All right. And so there are many factors within my own body and even some external factors that affect that. And when something changes, it must be affected by something outside of itself that is already actual to bring it to this new state of being. And therefore anything that changes cannot be self-existent. You would agree that we're dependent beings, right? We're not self-existent. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. It's because we were born, we're contingent. We did not make ourselves. Anything that changes is contingent upon whatever it is that brings it to its new state of being. Like for example, I went from six foot three-ness to six foot two-ness as I age and gravity is having its way with me in a very small sense and other things as well. So all existence that changes cannot be self-existent by definition. So it's contingent. And what I'm going to say is that contingent being cannot instantiate non-contingently. In other words, it cannot be dependent independently. That violates the law of identity. Dependent being is dependent being. But dependent being cannot create itself and dependent being cannot be self-existent. Therefore, there must be something somewhere that has the attribute of self-existence that gives rise to dependent contingent. And I disagree with that because of my fifth option that I brought up. So this is going to be a returning problem for this discussion because when you point to a single thing and say, how did that come into existence? This universe, if you're pointing at this universe, it could have come into existence created. So technically, partially number four, it could have been created but by something else that was self-existent. Right? That's all I'm saying. You're conceiving the argument. No, I'm not. If your argument is God is self-existent and self-created or self-existent and therefore created and then created our universe, I could posit the same concept and just say a universe was self-existent or pre-existing or created by some alien species and then exploded and then that inanimate whatever is what created our universe. You haven't allocated for that or allowed for that in your fore. And you also haven't really, I guess, factored in for the unknown, for mystery, for other causes other than God or a thinking-knowing being. Have you considered aliens? Have you considered aliens making a universe that expands and explodes that creates a universe and then that universe expands and explodes that creates another universe and 50 trillion years go by and, you know, the 94th universe is the one that we're in that has been the result of multiple universes that were not created by an intelligent being were exploding. How does that fit into your theory or your hypothesis, I should say? Every one of your examples there, you're appealing to self-creation. Oh, no. The aliens come from, you can see it at the beginning and then you went back into the self-creation. When I said this was a trap, this is exactly what I was talking about. I feel like there's one simple piece here that we're missing each other on. And I think for the sake of the viewer and the listener, we should probably try one more time and then just move on because us talking in circles isn't going to be entertaining for anyone. So the baseline here is I would grant you that in my analogy here, the first universe that the aliens created, yes, is definitely number four on your list. It was creating. No, no. That which is created is not self-existent. I didn't say it was self-existent. You're not even understanding the argument. Sorry, I didn't say it was self-existent. I said it was created. The aliens. The aliens. Okay. It's not that difficult. No, no, no.  I apologize. If the whatever it was, let's say it aliens, let's say, let's say God exists and God created the aliens or let's say the aliens are self-existent. Let's say the aliens are whatever you envision God being. The answer is that's really an alien. It's not God. Okay. That alien God creates a universe. That universe is created. That's number four in your list. Right? Right. And then that is a natural universe that is just going on about its business. The aliens have nothing to do with it anymore. They don't intervene. They don't mess with it. It goes about its business for roughly a billion years. And then that universe implodes on itself or explodes.  And then that explosion creates universe B. That universe B is not self-created. It is created by something else that was created by something else. And what I'm saying is if we go down that line over and over and over and say this happened for billions upon trillions of years and then the 1,000th universe just happens to be the one where we exist today. You can't look at this universe and say this universe was self-created. No, right. Okay. You've granted my argument. Then you just conceded the argument. Okay. I don't see how I have. You're saying there's two types of ontologies in the universe. There's self-existent and there's contingent existence. Now, we know through modus ponens. We know that contingent existence because I'd inquire. I know that I was born. I know that I'm dependent in my being. Therefore, if A implies B and A is granted, which is contingent being, then it necessarily follows that a self-existent necessary being must exist. Now, we may differ on the name of what this ultimate reality is, but you're conceding the argument, at least you did for a moment there. I don't know if you're going to stick with it. All you have is irrationality or concession so far. And all you have is arrogance and... I'm not even proud. I'm just... Things got to make sense for me. I don't care about emotional arguments or people not liking things. I want you to tell me the problem with the argument. Same. No, I mean, we came here to discuss if Christianity is true. And I want to know, for the sake of the people who tuned in and clicked the link, how you're going to get from this self-creation to Jesus dying, raising from the dead and floating to an invisible heaven. I need you to make it make sense for the viewers. Yeah, well, we can't have a word of God unless there's a God to begin with. So do you concede that God exists? No. Okay, tell me what's wrong with my argument. I already have and you don't accept it. So I don't know what... No, you conceded the argument. You said that there's some God who made the aliens, who made the universe, that made the universe, which really, it doesn't matter how many times you do it. The number of creations doesn't matter. The number of iterations of universes doesn't matter. As long as there is beginning with a self-existent being. So you're taking the properties of the first thing that you're saying created it and applying it to everything that comes after that? No, I'm just distinguishing. That's the problem. You're trying to mash them all together. You can't do that. I'm saying for the sake... Well, we didn't come here to have a deistic argument. We came here for you to prove Christianity is true. Do you concede deism? No, I don't for my own... Okay, this is the problem. I just gave you an analytical argument and you don't like it. So you're telling me it's not good enough. But I need to demonstrate what's wrong with the argument. Trey, I did and you're not accepting it. I think we need to move on and prove how Christianity is true. How do I move on when you won't grant the analytical certainty of the foundation of my argument? Because it doesn't have analytical certainty. You're missing a piece and you won't acknowledge it. Tell me the piece! Tell me. What in the fifth option? You conceded the argument, David. I did not. I've added the fifth option. This conversation is getting pointless. If you won't talk about the topic, we came here to talk about. This is the topic. This is the fundamental part of the topic. You just can't refute it so you want to change the subject. No, I've already refuted it. Number one, number two... How did you refute it? God could exist and Islam could be true. God could exist and Hinduism could be true. God could exist. So you can see that God must exist though, right? No. I said he could. Did you say something wrong? Yeah. I was just saying just to let David wrap up his point there. I think it probably would be a good time. We have been talking for what? Like 25 minutes about for the open discussion so far. So we're going to keep going for probably another 25 minutes, but it would be a good idea to shift the topic and maybe talk about maybe the Bible or if you've got criticisms for that, David, that might be something a little bit more relevant to the actual topic here as far as like the title we have, but I do understand where this argument is kind of coming around to, but I think we've hashed this part of it out. So let's try to move into some of those other parts of the discussion if you guys don't mind. Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, I don't understand how we're going to move on when I've made an argument, David won't rebut it and it just says, let's talk about something else. How does that work? I don't understand. When you have a debate, somebody makes an argument. The opponent is their job is either refute the point or to concede the point and not to say mystery or we don't know or anything. Saying I don't know is a concession, right? I gave you an analytical argument, David. It was compelling and it was mathematical in nature and you didn't refute it and you just have an emotional aversion to it and then say, well, let's not talk about this anymore. Okay, sure. I'm a very analytical guy.  I'm not trying to say that I'm smart. I'm just saying that argument itself has not been addressed in a rebuttal form. It has in a way that you disagree with, which makes sense because we're here from two different sides of this argument. Our primary job is to be reasonable. You want to lay out what's supposed to happen in a debate. You want to lay out, you make a this and I do this and you want to lay that out. You forgot step one, which is stay on topic. You came here to say why Christianity is true. We are a half an hour into this. You have yet to make an argument for Christianity. Please take your time. I am beginning with the premise that Christianity is true. If you have no God, you have no word of revelation and you can't remember about the argument. So you want to change the subject. All right.  Well, of course we like I told him I like spicy, spicy conversations, but it is expected in this type of format of debate that, you know, you're going to disagree with each other, sometimes on the fundamental points. And it's fine to move into another aspect of the conversation. Since, like I said, I think we have hammered this point and we know where, where the disagreements lie at this point. If, you know, I don't think like I said, we're going to get too much more out of that part of the discussion. So if we could move into something more about scriptural base or even other types of arguments. Let me say one thing to trade really quickly. I don't have to. Concede agree with or refute your first point for you to move on. So please just tell me the evidence you have for specifically Christianity being true. I don't have to agree that a God exists in order to move on for the next phase of the argument. I'm excited to talk about Christianity specifically. Okay. All right. We'll go ahead and do that. So we'll just mark it for the record that you cannot rebut the argument and you just want to move on. So for the sake of argument, I'm not, I'm not going to accept that. I did refute it. You're not accepting it. Christianity, please. Please. That's what people came here to see, Trey. Okay. There must be a, do you agree that there must be a God in order for you to be a revealed word of God. So let me answer the caveat. Technically, if I'm taking your words at face value, yes, but I think that people can believe they have received a revealed word of God without that God actually existing. I'm not talking about epistemology. I'm talking about ontology. I'm talking about being. I'm not, this is, this is a big thing we have in our, you know, during enlightenment, there was this big shift and this is the problem. I know what people tend to do is they'll take Christianity and they'll put that up here to talk about fact value morals. It's like the, the upper ethereal form and you've got facts like science down here. And this is because of a manual Kant, Kant's transcendental idealism. And basically what he said is that you can't experience God with your senses. Therefore, you got to take it by faith. And that's kind of what I think you're alluding to in your statement there. I'm not talking about what people feel about God because who cares about that really? What matters is what is objectively demonstrably true in reality because if I really want there to be a God and I really try really hard and he's not there, is that going to bring him into existence? No, but you could, you could believe he exists without him existing. That's right. And is it good to believe in things that are not true? I don't think so in most cases. Sometimes I think it can be a beneficial, but I think that's a rabbit hole. Like what? In most cases, I mean believing that you're capable of doing something that you can't do, but along the journey you accomplish other things you never thought were possible. No, but to purposely obscure reality is not a good thing. I would agree with that in most cases, to purposely. Okay, so if I want to believe that there's a God and my belief has nothing to do with whether he exists or not, and if you as an atheist want to say that there is no God, your denial means nothing about reality. Would you agree with that? Well, I don't necessarily make that claim of a denial. I make the claim that there's lacking sufficient evidence for my belief. But your belief has no effect on reality, right? My stronger point is that I think someone can honestly believe and feel in their heart that they are getting revelation from God and write that word down, fully believing that it is from a God when in fact it is not. So then as that comes into the document and it's called the revealed word of God, yes, that could exist without a God existing, but a real revealed word of God could not exist without a God. So as long as you're okay with that. Right, and so that's why I say it's imperative that we establish that there is an analytical certainty of a God in order to exist, in order for him to give revelation. And if you're going to say as an atheist, you're not having enough evidence, and if I give you, not evidence, but I give you proof of it, and you cannot rebut it, then all you're doing is obfuscating the argument rather than going where it leads. I think we need to follow the facts wherever they go, no matter what. So your evidence for Christianity is... That there is a creator who has given us revelation of himself with the specific claims of Christianity. Okay, and how do you factor for the revelation of claims from the creator in the Quran? Well, from the scriptural perspective, there were miracles in the Bible to verify the word of the prophet. What miracles did Muhammad do? There we go. Okay, fine. So miracles is your... Is that the... No. No, I'm talking about... Miracles is not how I know that my Christianity is true. I know Christianity is true because there is a creator who is moral, who is personal, who has given us his word of specific that can give us salvation. So the first category of analytical certainty can't give you salvation, all can give you as damnation. In other words, if there's a moral law that there's a creator and that we suppress the knowledge of that God, that's what it can do, cannot give you salvation. But when you talk about miracles, that's talking about the specific claims of Christianity for salvation or redemption from sin. Okay. So I mean, so you think... Let me ask this. Do you believe it's possible for both Christianity and Islam to be true? Do you think multiple gods could exist? Okay. If Islam and Christianity have mutually contradictory claims, can they both be true? Remember, Bob, not on contradiction. Right. They can't, right? Right, they can't. All right. So they could both be wrong, but they both can't be right because they have fundamental differences, say, for example, in the nature of God that are actually incongruous and therefore cannot be true. So it's possible that they think they could both be wrong, but they both can't be true. Okay. So Judaism also wrong? Insofar as Judaism, now, because my tradition is a Judeo-Christian tradition, so we believe in a continuum of Judaism is there's no contradiction in that insofar as Christianity is just a fulfillment of the promises of Judaism in the Old Testament, which, you know, the God's revelation always comes sent around Christ, the Messiah. Okay. So of the roughly 8 billion people on the planet, I believe roughly 2 billion are Christians. What is your, because of time constraints and everything else, what is your best evidence? Not that you know or you've experienced, what is your best evidence you can put forth that Christianity is the true one and the others are not? Okay. Well, there are several lines of evidence that I would point to. But firstly, the one thing that I know for analytical certainty is that I have a creator and then that there is a moral law. We have this sense within us that there's a certain way that we should look, and it's always going to center around the sanctity of existence. Everybody agrees with that. You would agree with that. There's a moral code that says that we are supposed to value existence. Would you agree with that? I mean, not necessarily a code, but a general understanding. Sure. So and that's a great point. I agree with you. That's the other part of the analytical argument. So that's, I agree with that. So let's talk about that basis of morality. And according to Rappaport's rules, let me state this position to see if you agree with it. Okay. God exists. Who are Rappaport's rules? Is that Andrew Rappaport? No, it comes from a it may be Andrew, it may be it comes from a Dan Dennett book where he talks about a list of rules that you should do to debate. And one primary rule of Rappaport's rules is to be able to state someone's argument back to them in a way that they go, I should have said it that way, right? Oh, like steelmaning an argument. Yes, so clear that you're like, yes. Okay. So tell me if I'm wrong here. I believe that God exists. The God of the Bible exists. Important caveat there. The God of the Bible exists. He is the source of morality. He created us with a moral code and that's where we got morals from. Do you agree with all of that? Um, that's where we got morals from. I think so. I'm not sure which before that we haven't we have a moral instinct. Yeah, from him from him. Right. So he created us, created the morals. Okay. And we use those morals by which to judge other things. John 7 24 pass righteous judgment. That would be according to our morals. Correct. Okay. Passing righteous judgment means doing what's right, doing what's not right. Things that are in accordance with God that are good that are love that are peace, right? And then someone is acting in a way that is not that we according to John 7 24. We don't judge by appearances alone. Right. But by the behaviors by the heart by the insights, right? Because we have that moral code that is given to us allegedly by the God of the Bible. So my question is if God gave us these morals and gave us the ability to pass righteous judgment based off of our morals. What are we then supposed to do when God that same God behaves in ways that are directly conflicting with the morals he gave us by which to judge good and bad. Okay.  Why are you complaining? What are you talking about? Your acting is that there's a problem, a moral problem with in Christianity. You've already conceded that there's a moral law. Okay. And you won't acknowledge a moral law giver. I didn't concede a moral law. I said a general understanding because it implies a written word. Okay. Let me drag this back into the weeds again, Trey. I was very specific with my question. What do we do as Christian trying to skip over the fundamental part? You're deflecting the question. I'm deflecting. I asked you a question and you answered with a question. Why do you have a problem? What's your problem? I'm asking you specifically in order for you to say that God is immoral. How do you judge him? Trey, is God good? What do you mean by good? I'm asking you. Is God good? I need to have clarification of your terms in your question. Whatever you think is good. Is God good? Well, yes. I think yes. Congratulations. You just judged God. And you know what? You judged God according to the morals he gave you. That's your... You passed righteous judgment by saying God is righteous. That is a judgment call. Not all judgments are guilty. You just judged God. So if I... I'm a Christian, David. I know. If I have moral... You're not a Christian. I was. And when... You don't believe in God though. Yeah, but you don't believe in God. So what basis are you complaining? When I was a Christian, when I was a Christian, I didn't come out of the womb as an atheist and start having these long debates just with my ears closed. I've been studying this for many, many years. I've had many, many conversations and I started my journey as a believer. It took me 14 years through my journey to say I no longer believe. And throughout that journey, the one thing that kept coming back was... God gave me this moral code according to Hebrews 8. He wrote his law on my hearts that tells me that when I open the door for someone, I'm praising God. When I help someone with their groceries, I'm praising God. I'm loving my fellow neighbor. I'm loving my fellow humanity. This is from God when I was a believer. And then I would read the stories in the Bible of God acting horrifically toward humanity, making a man's bowels fall out of him, having a man killed, saying if people are gay, they should be stoned to death, just line after line after line, condoning slavery, kill the Amalekites and in nursing infants. As a believer, Trey, I'm going, why would God give me this moral code? Tell me to pass righteous judgment on those that violate that code.  What am I supposed to do with that as a Christian? Okay. Let me try to explain this the way that you haven't thought about this, obviously, in your inquiry on this. You believe that existence is special, right? Everything that you just complained about, you are assuming that existence is special would be very interesting. It seems to me that your strategy for this is to respond with an assumption, an insult. No, no, you have an assumption that you haven't thought about. I ask you a very direct question. You make an assumption about... And I'm saying you are overlooking a funding issue in your complaint. You can't answer it.  I am not insulting you. You're... You're doing an ad hominem attack is what you're doing. You just did that to me. You cannot answer the question. You're deflecting, you're projecting. This is not a productive conversation. I ask you a very specific question, Trey. What do Christians good moral loving Christians do when their moral code given to them by God is violated by the God that they worship as good? How do you deal with that cognitive dissonance? I want you to justify your complaint. You have no reason. You believe that existence is special. Do you? Tell me yes or no. You're assuming my position in order to criticize it. Everyone is watching what you're doing right now, Trey. You're avoiding the question. Everybody's watching me. I'm telling you as a believer when I was a believer. I'm talking about this only today. Do you believe existence matters? Answer the question. There are Christians there are Christians watching you right now, Trey. They're watching you. They are in a position right now where they have a moral code. They believe that code is from God. They flip through the Bible and they see God their source for morality that they look up to and worship violating the moral code he wrote on their hearts while at the same time saying he is good. That causes Christians to struggle. It causes Christians to lose sleep at night. I was one of them. For those Christians watching right now what do you say to them? What do they do when the God they worship violates the moral code he gave them? Okay. You're not going to go there. So we'll go ahead and skip over the second point that you can answer so you want to jump over it. And we'll talk about that. What more law do you have that are you offended that God breaks issues you think is so holy? Okay. Let me just tell you a quick side note, Trey. Over the 13 years that I've had my podcast I've had Christians on long debates sometimes 3-4 hours I'd get a handful of emails every single month sometimes 20, sometimes 3 throughout the years the number one most common email I've gotten is David, you posed a question I've always thought of and always struggled with and the guest on your show had an unsatisfactory answer and avoided the question. That's making me go back and rethink my position. I'm not sure I'm a Christian anymore. I just want you to know you sidestepping these things is not doing a service for your faith. I promise you. Well, thanks to the Dunning crew, my friend. And there's the ad hominem. I'm asking you to justify your perspective, but I'm willing to go on. Let's go ahead and move along. You cannot give a justification for complaining but we'll go ahead and give me an example of a biblical man that God contradicts. Um. Um, when Psalms 121 7 and God says at least the song says that God has said I will keep you from all harm. I will keep you safe. Yet he condoned slavery in Exodus and allowed slaves to be passed down to the children because they are property. This was not indentured servitude. He condoned slavery.  Are you saying that God loves all men equally? I believe that as a Christian. Well, that's not what the Bible teaches. So some people deserve slavery? Uh, no, I think that the are you talking about uh, let me give you a specific instance. Are you talking about him being able to hold slaves of people of the nations around them and to keep them as property? That's one piece of it. Sure. Okay. Well, let's take it one more time.  You can do what you want. That's God literally condoning the beating of a slave. How do you reconcile that with God loving humanity? Okay. Well, being able to beat your slave is something that would fall under the indentured servitude as well as the slaves that are taken from the nations around them. Why would he allow slaves to be taken from the nations around them if he loves humanity? Those nations are a part of humanity and in fact this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you or I were to go do that, we would judge that as negative today. We would say you can't go take slaves and beat them and drive them. Why would we say that? Does existence matter, David? I mean, I suppose that's relative. It does to us now. That's what I've been asking. It may not someday. It's a relative question. That's why it's not a simple yes or no. No, existence always matters. That's why you're complaining. You know that. Does your life matter, David? It's not existence. It's quality of life. It's happiness. That's what I mean. It's a sanctity of existence. It's not just being able to live perpetually. It's to have fullness of life. No, because if I were diagnosed with some terrible terminal illness that was going to be extremely painful, I would rather not exist than to suffer in existence through the pain. I can't just say the existence is the stronghold. It's the quality that is a stronghold first. That's exactly right. If God loves humanity and we are all God's children including those nations around the people who were told you could capture these people and beat them and pass them down to your family, how do you reconcile as a Christian given moral code by God you would judge me if I wouldn't do that. I would judge you if you did that. Why do you still worship God when he condoned slavery and the taking of people from those other nations? How do you make that fit? Do you love pulpite? Answer the question. You said that we're supposed to love everybody. They came here for a discussion, man. It's too much for you. Answering questions with other questions and you seem like you don't want to talk about this. It seems to be the two of them. I got a whole piece of paper here ready to write down all of your evidence for Christianity. I have one word here and it's morals. That's where we've gotten in almost an hour. No, you wrote down the four things that you couldn't rebut. Those weren't arguments. Those weren't arguments for Christianity. Those weren't arguments for Christianity. They aren't arguments for Christianity. There's no Christianity without God without a moral law. Christianity is a reconciliation of a broken moral law. But Trey, those arguments could also be the beginning of Islam. They could be the beginning of So you grant the arguments then. They're compelling, right? I don't grant them. I'm saying those are not arguments exclusive to Christianity. But do you grant that they are compelling? The only argument you gave for Christianity throughout this debate is morals. And when I ask you directly, how do you reconcile God giving moral code while he's allegedly good? You can't answer the question. Do you love I am rebutting your answer that God loves everyone and he should love everyone. Do you love I mean, if you guys want to reschedule me when someone wants to have a conversation, I'm happy to come back on. All right. Yeah, if we have no other parts of this discussion to move into we can jump into our Q&A. So I just want to remind the live chat to keep your questions friendly in the old Q&A and to keep them coming in because there's definitely more. I think we can go over here in this discussion and hopefully we have the time. How are you doing there for time, David? I'm okay. We're doing all right. The comedy shows not for a couple hours, so I'm good. Awesome. And how are you doing for time, Trey? I am fine. Whatever you need I'm here. All right. Excellent. Let's move into it. Oh, Flamie. Oh, I see you in the live chat. $5 you put in there earlier to ask you guys a question. Thank you so much. Trey, who created God and why does God need money? Is this supposed to be like a George Carlin thing? Needs money. Was I supposed to say it with that voice? I'm sorry. Yeah, I think it's much better when you do that one. It's a all right. So who created God? This is a common argument from in modern history with John Stuart Mill and was picked up by Bertrand Russell, which in Bertrand Russell's why I am not a Christian, he outlined that and basically said, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? And Bertrand Russell was a genius when it comes to mathematics, but when it comes to causality, he would completely miss the point for the principle of causality. Causality doesn't say everything needs a cause. It says every effect must have a cause. So if you're saying what caused God, then similar to what David was saying at the beginning, that the aliens created themselves and then they created the universe, you're not answering the question at all. There must be something that is necessary in being a philosophical term necessary in order for there to be a contingent being. So if something created God, if God is changing, then God is not God. He is yet another creature. Everything must go back to an ontologically necessary, unchanging being that is not subject to change. So when God, you say God doesn't change, you mean at all, his opinions, his emotions, his thoughts? Yeah.  Well, no, okay, so when you are talking about the law of the Old Testament, it's going to be broken into three categories. You've got moral law, you've got civil law, and you've got ceremonial law, okay? And so in that law, you have like the animal sacrifices. Those are the ceremonial laws which were done away with because Christ fulfilled them. They were shadows that pointed to Christ dying for our sin. So obviously we're not sacrificing animals anymore. So the ceremonial law. But then you've got civil law, which is law under a theocracy which God made as a special people for a specific time, showing the lex talionis, the harshness of the law if we are to look at it without any grace. And so I do not believe that homosexual should be stoned or adulter should be stoned, but I do think that it is morally evil and a society should not condone or bless those sexually perverted which go against God's natural order. So we're not into civil law because we're not at theocracy. Okay, so just last follow-up.  Well, let me finish this. The apostle Paul is real clear about that. The words are that they are detestable. They have committed an abomination and that they shall be put to death. So you think it's to ava. It's to ava. It's like to be condemned. To be condemned. The sin of homosexuality.  That part we shouldn't do anymore. God no longer wants that. But he doesn't change Malachi 3.6 I the Lord did not change. I agree with you he doesn't change.  He wants them to repent and come to Christ. That's what we see apostle Paul saying in 1 Corinthians chapter 5. But if they don't, then he at one point he ordered them to be killed. Yes, under a theocracy, under the dispensation of the law where God is showing his holiness and our inability to keep his law. At that time, yes it was.  Yes. What about pedophiles?  I'm just asking you. Can you be consistent? No further questions. No, I think pedophiles should be locked up. I wouldn't... Why? Is that some kind of holy act or something? Because they're a danger to children.  No. Okay, why are you so offended when somebody engages sexually with a child? Because of consent. And a child agrees. Because of consent. The act is not holy, remember? Informed consent. In your position I just want to take a step back from a bird's eye view in order to defend the Bible and God and Christianity you have to make arguments that are in support of slavery, of pedophilia, of these things that our society deems to be detestable that we would never in a million years condone but because your God didn't, we have to worry about that. I don't know where the Bible condones pedophilia but why are you complaining again? You're trying to steal from my perspective in order to refuse me. I don't need your perspective to recognize harm for children. So harm is sinful from your perspective? No, no, no. Trey, if you'd like to do a show based on moral arguments, I'm an atheist. That's what we're here for, my friend. No, we weren't. We were here for you to prove Christianity to be true. We're doing Q&A right now, my friend. If you'd like to do a show based on morality, it's something that I I actually do acknowledge some objective moral truths as a non-believer. I have some basis for that. How do you justify that? It involves, again, it involves... It's not that hard a question, my friend. Well, I mean, it's a longer discussion and it's a short version. That's what I'm talking about the arrogance. I was about to and you're telling me I can't and you keep telling me what I think and what I want and what I'm unable to do. That's the arrogance because you have been obfuscating for 30 minutes, my friend. No, I believe that's you, my friend. I believe that's you, but I'll give you the short answer for this. Our ability to recognize basic harm coupled with the lack of justification coupled with as a mechanism John Rawls veil of ignorance. Those things are how I can build a secular argument for objective moral truths. I think we have other questions for more people. So existence is objectively existence is objectively special then in your view. I've already I've already You're assuming that and you haven't even thought about it. See, you're telling me what I thought. You don't think it's a you don't think it's arrogance to tell me that you just told me existence is special, but you want to answer the question right? You're telling me what I have not thought of. Where do you get the arrogance to assume you know what's in my mind? All I'm judging is what you're saying. No assumption on my thought. You're telling me because you're not satisfied with my answer that you know my thoughts.  Let me go to the next question. All right. Please. Let's continue on. Lots of thoughts there on that one question alone. So this is going to be a fun Q&A everybody. So get your questions in there and we're going to keep it rolling. Once again, thanks David and Trey for being here. You know, keep your chats friendly in the live stream there. Bugmaster ten dollars. Thank you so much for your super chat. I think both of you are off base. He's coming at both of you cause and effect is just a model like up and down. It's not a fundamental ontological thing. It's just a useful yet a priority. Priority. Yeah. Sorry. Idea humans came up with. No, it's not. It's just an application a lot non-contradiction really. It's analytically true. The only way you can describe a cause is to invoke the reality of effect. The only way you can describe effect is to invoke the idea of cause. So it's analytically true. It's like 2 plus 2 is 4. The only way you can define it is by using the other term. Therefore, it's true by definition. It's not a construct. It's just a reality just like a lot of the logic of our world. Any thoughts on that, David? I don't care. Alrighty. Hates stairs. All right. Take the elevator. Five dollars. The massive issue with your argument is assuming there was a beginning. If the universe has infinitely existed, point me towards the beginning. Okay. Well, again, that's just exacerbating the problem to infinity. If you're saying that the universe is an eternal regress of dependent being, then it would have to be dependent independently by violating the law of identity. That's not a viable option. Turtles all the way down doesn't work. Any thoughts, David? It also has nothing to do with Christianity. All right. Let's continue it on. Yeah. You guys, if you got some questions, they're related to the topic as well. You know, I got lots of different questions here, but if you have any specifically related to Christianity, get them in the super chats because we're getting close to wrapping up here maybe a little bit early if we don't get any more super chats in the line. What are some of the questions that aren't about Christianity? Are they about his first cause arguments? Cosmological? Is it about... They just want to know whether or not I wear underwear? What are their questions about? Well, as I say, we'll keep moving through because there's not too many right yet. So, you know, if some more come in, then they might change. But as for now, we've only got three more questions to go through. So, Bugmaster for $5, on morality, we don't need to have any particular moral code to notice that God commands A, then does not A. Doesn't matter if we like A or not. That's a great point. Is contradiction as simple then? I guess the question, Trey, is does it matter to you at all that God gives the laws and then doesn't follow them? He doesn't follow them inconsistently, though. In other words, there's no contradiction in this. This is why I asked you if you like Pol Pot because you're upset because God doesn't love everybody equally. Well, he doesn't love everyone equally. You don't love everyone equally. You believe in a sense of justice that those did not sanctify existence. In fact, those that destroy existence are worthy of condemnation. And so does God. So it's not just about love. You're right. I don't love everyone equally, but I If God appeared to me and told me to go kill an infant, I would not do that. I would defy God to not hurt that infant. Why? Is that infant special?  Now I'm asking you why? Let me now step in to say let's now, for the sake of argument, presume that that God exists. I could not because of my morals I could not worship a deity that seemingly has a lower morality than I do. I would not harm those kids. I would not stomp out the Amalekites. I would not kill nursing infants. I wouldn't.  I would not do that to humanity.  I think it's very difficult to be a good person and be good at Christianity. I think you have to pick and choose and break away from Christianity in order to embrace humanity and love one another. That's what I'm saying. I could not even if I knew God existed I could not bow to him and say I worship him truthfully knowing what he has condoned if the Bible is actually true.  Okay, so you're saying that God does not sanctify existence as much as you therefore he is not worthy of worship. I'm saying God is equal to a different standard because of his power. Do you have a standard? Because of his power and because of his I'm saying his own standard because of his power and because of his knowledge. I'm not like your standard. My standard would be harm and I know that... So existence is objectively valuable, huh? Harm isn't always tied to existence. When I say existence I'm not talking about dying. I mentioned this before. It's fullness of life. It's happiness. It's joy. It's flourishing. I'll go with flourishing not existence. I cannot agree with that. And flourishing is necessarily tied to the sanctity of existence. Do you think existence is holy? Not holy, no. Special. Valuable. Objectively valuable. Valuable, yes, I would say valuable. Okay, so it's an objective fact. It's not your mere opinion. It's true that it is valuable. It is to be set apart as being special. Well, I think that animals know this. Animals take care of one another. I'm sure you're familiar with. That's right. I'm sure you're familiar with kin selection and prairie dogs and white-tailed deer giving warnings to other family members that are predators close by. We've sort of evolved to have compassion and love for creatures like ourselves and beyond our species. There's countless videos on YouTube of a bear saving a bird from drowning or a hippo saving a deer from a crocodile. These things are innately within the animal kingdom of which we are apart. And I think reducing harm is something that's just generally in beings that are alive for the most part unless there's something wrong or experiences the way the creature was nurtured things like that could obviously change that. But for the most part, I think we all recognize value in not being harmed. So I would hold that to a higher standard than taking an order from a god, a leader, a president, whomever who had ordered things in the past that they also find abhorrent.  And you've ordered a man's bowels to fall out of him and ordered a man to be killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath when you should have been honoring your name.  I don't care what happens to me. I don't want to do a tyrant like that. Okay, so you would say that all sentient creatures are determined to value existence? No.  Yeah, but she just said they're broken if they don't value existence. You said that earlier. I say they're broken. I mean, there could be things that are wrong. There's something wrong.  You go ahead or you say no. I can help you. Yeah, I would try to help. I think it's an oversimplification. I wouldn't call them broken. I just don't think needing help is... I don't think needing help is equal to broken. Broken implies... We're all broken in some way. I'm not saying it as a pejorative necessarily. I'm just saying it's a feature that all of us have things that go wrong with this. My hair fell out. It's not supposed to fall out. I wish it would not fall out. It is supposed to fall out, actually. In a perfect world, I would prefer... I have illnesses all the time. All of us are broken in some way. We know that we're not oriented toward perfection. We're a human. Would you agree with that? Yeah, we just disagree that to err is also broken. I feel like broken just has a finality to it or irreparability to it, if you will. I don't mean to say that. Because that's why if somebody wants to commit suicide, they're broken. They're broken. The whole purpose is to remedy them and say, no, it's not that bad. Let me give you a hug. Let me help you. It's just a sign of something of moral entropy, I guess. Yeah, and my whole point in that was to me, if God gave us morals, why does he tell us he's good and then act in ways that are directly opposite to that moral behavior? I don't see that. It doesn't matter to me, it's a special pleading fallacy to say God orders this as a good thing and then when God does the opposite of that we say, well, now it's good because God said it's actually subjective morality. I would say my morality is more objective because I would hold you to the same standard I would hold God to if Jesus... What's the source of your moral code? Law somewhere? Well, no, it's the facts of reality and ability to recognize under harm and so if Jesus were to appear and I knew it was Jesus, let's sidestep the fact that there could be illusions and whatever, let's actually say that it's the real Jesus and then I see him kidnapping a child my moral code says stop Jesus from kidnapping the child, your moral code would say whatever God does is good Jesus is God and therefore this kidnapping is good. I would say it's more objective from my perspective I would hold Jesus to the same standard I would hold you to. Your moral code is subjective because it's subjected to whatever God feels in that moment. If God says God doesn't change, remember? If God says do not kill anyone, do not murder okay?   You have to acknowledge that whatever God says to do becomes good because he's God that is subjective, that is objective based on God's whim of that moment. I would hold God to the same standard I would hold you to, to me that's a stronger moral. Okay and I'm trying to ask you, how did you get how are you determined to sanctify existence unintentionally? And again we disagree on the word existence but flourishing it would be... Well no but when you say flourishing, you're saying that that which promotes existence. Comfortability? Yes, that's fine. But it also improves life itself. I don't want to answer so vaguely and then have you go oh so a child starving to death that should be protected, no, no, no, the existing in a negative way. I'm asking you, why are you so upset that children starve? Where did that come from? You had this idea that from the atheist perspective, life doesn't matter do you agree with that objectively? No. Trey, this is life is special. This is a fundamental... I'm not talking about subjective, I'm talking about objective fact. Are you going to let me answer? Sure, you're the one that's been talking this whole time. You've been giving very long answers my friend. I've been very differential too. Let's try to wrap up this question and... Atheists are most atheists I know and I would have to say I don't recall meeting an atheist that doesn't fit this bill but I'm I'm hesitant to say all for the sake of lack of absolutes. But every atheist that I can account for is also a humanist. They are a person who values life, they value reducing harm, they value flourishing, they are helpful, they love humanity, they are about inclusivity, they are about helping marginalized communities. Sure, there are disagreements, there are caveats, but as a whole non-believers feel like we are here for a limited amount of time, I want to help as many people as I can, I want to leave a good footprint, I want to do as little damage as I have to do in order to survive and we disagree about what that damage is, but for the most part our hearts are in the right place and we want to reduce harm.  There are unspoken rules in chimpanzee troops that if they steal they get kicked out. I don't need a God to tell me these things are bad, the facts of reality allow me to recognize undue harm and attempt to prevent harm, period. Let's try to wrap that up in like 30 seconds here. No, you can go ahead and go. Let's move on through then. Let's see here. One second. I was counting on you. No, I'm kidding. So, Kent Hoven, CPA for $2, the world is a better place with David Smalley in it. Ooh, a fan. That's kind of nice. Well, thank you for that. Thank you. I appreciate that. Positive comments are always appreciated. Let's see. Forte, $10. All right. If an argument for God is morals, why do ants, dogs, monkeys, and rats all display moral behavior? Are morals evidence for God or is it evidence for a survival mechanism that we call morals? Love that. It is a survival mechanism and it is teleological. In other words, it's purpose. This is what I'm trying to bring up in our conversation just previously I just gave up on it, but you cannot have purpose instantiating unintentionally. And so if something is striving toward purpose, it cannot be that it evolved out of unintentionality. I always use this example if you imagine a whole universe as a big ven circle, all right. And it's purely unintentional at some point in time. If there ever were a time in the past when there was no intentionality or purpose or tell-offs or survival, desiring to survive, what would you have today? You would have no desire whatsoever because unintentionality which is the state of this universe is all unintentional cannot intend intention because it's unintentional. You're violating the law of identity. So if we have intentionality today there must be something that is eternally intentional and intention is only something that person or volition can do. So do you believe God gave ants morals? He determined them to have an instinct to survive. That's determination. That's why I was asking earlier, do you think something is determined? Are you open to the possibility just from an intellectually honest perspective are you open to the possibility that that same survival technique came about the revolution? Is evolution unintentional? Is there an efficient cause for the evolution or synthesis? Early on let's just call it survival. The ants ancestors who worked together continued to survive. The ones who were selfish fell apart because they were unable to build and so that gene that genetic predisposition was passed on and passed on and passed on and so we look at it now and call it moral behavior when in fact we can both acknowledge it is a survival instinct that we put a label on. But are you open to that coming about through evolution? If evolution is intentional, sure. When you say intentional, you mean If it's personal, why does it have to be personal in order to work? Because unintentionality cannot intend intention as a process without violating the law of identity. You're saying unintentionality is intentional. It doesn't have to be intentional. It could have just happened. Okay, you're just giving me a root you're kippling just so story. You're not actually giving me a reason. I just said it's just a story that works through your perspective but you're not reasoning with me. I'm saying as a possibility two separate ants colonies a million years ago one worked together the others did not so they died off and that just kept on going there was no intention there. It just so happened at a pure chance that this group worked together and that turned out to be better for the survival and so they continue to pass on genetic a genetic predisposition to be more helpful to the colony and that's why they're so efficient today. Are you open to that being a possibility? No, because chance cannot intend. You just said chance decided that they would have chances has no ontological status. It's just a word. I just don't think intentionality is necessary and I don't know that the evidence backs that up. Well, it's a logical proof. It's not. Quite a few super chats coming in here so we'll try to keep moving along we'll try to restrict answers to around like two to three minutes if you guys are okay with that. If you're really in like something juicy then I might just let it go. But let's continue on. Bugmaster, $5, thanks Bugmaster. Trey, is it possible that a god created the universe then walked away without messing with it in any way? Contingent being cannot exist unless that which gives it is existent upholds it. So for example I do not believe that if God were to remove his hand from the universe a lot of people would say, oh everything would just fall apart and go into bits of nothing. No, I believe that if God were to remove his hand from the universe it would cease to exist. It wouldn't even exist. It has to have his providential care in order to be because dependent being is dependent upon that which gives it its existence. By definition. Alrighty let's continue on. So I just want to make one statement about that really quickly. That sounds like God would not be all powerful because that removes the ability for him to create something that could be self-sustaining. If he does not have the ability to create... No, then he wouldn't be God. If something can exist independently then God is dependent upon that thing. No, because he could bring it into existence so it was dependent upon him to exist initially, but he creates it in a way that it continues perpetually without his involvement. For it to exist without his power is an imperfection, not a perfection. I don't know. It had to have his power to begin existing but he could have created it to be perpetually existing without his involvement. Then it would need to... It would be something that it could exist self-existently dependently. It's an imperfection, not a perfection. You're arguing like Richard Dawkins right now. So who cares? If it was... It could have been by him. God could have been the first cause and then left it alone, the deistic argument. If he is all powerful, he could also have created the universe with the power to continue without his involvement. It would still be dependent on him to exist because he created it but it would not need his constant involvement in order to continue existing. That's kind of like Richard Dawkins saying that I can change my mind. God cannot change his mind. Therefore I can do something God can't do. Changing your mind is making a mistake. It's an imperfection and it's something to create itself saying God cannot create itself that could be self-existent which is impossible. Something cannot be dependent and independent at the same time. It doesn't make any sense. I just explained it. It could have been dependent. Let's move on. It could have been dependent on him in the beginning. I've already said it too many times. I don't know what else to say. All right, you got it. Let's continue on. Manga Fan Dan for $5. Thank you so much. Jesus was Jewish. If Christianity is true, why don't Christians keep kosher? Because kosher laws, as I talked about earlier, it's part of the ceremonial law. All the ceremonial laws to holiness laws, people say, why don't you, why do you wear mixed fabrics and why do you allow to touch pig skin or something like that. All of those things were signs or shadows that pointed to Christ. If you remember in Acts chapter 10, Peter was up on the roof and he had a vision of God and God says, here, take up and eat these unclean animals. Peter says, no, I've never touched anything that's unclean. God says, what I have made clean do not consider unclean. At that moment, Cornelius the Gentile preached the gospel to them. Once Christ comes, the ceremonial law is fulfilled and those things do not matter to us anymore. They were the shadows that pointed to our holiness that we are to keep. A fleshy sort of way now points to our spiritual holiness that we are to have in Christ and those shadows have gone away. We're not sacrificing goats anymore because Christ fulfilled those things. My one problem with that is that's not what Jesus said today. I implore all Christians grab your Bibles open to Matthew 5, 17 through 20. Don't just stop at 17 and 18 and 19 where he says it will be it is fulfilled. Keep reading through verse 20. He says until heaven and earth disappear until heaven and earth disappear not one jot nor one tittle shall be removed from the old law. So when Jesus is questioned about this he says you gotta still follow the old law or you'll be called lettuce in the kingdom of heaven. Now in Hebrews 8 I believe in Hebrews just read all of it it does say in there that God's law will be written on the hearts of his people and that the ceremonial things aren't as important and in acts as Trey said but when Jesus had an opportunity to address that he said still follow the old law so that for me when I was a believer that was a contradiction I couldn't really tie together because I I'm not sure about heaven but I know earth is still here it has not yet disappeared so when Jesus was asked he wants me to still follow the old law and you can't just say you believe you have to do the will of the Father that's Matthew 7 21 so I was very confused by do I do what the what acts and Hebrews tells me or do I follow what Jesus said in the red letters in the Bible so I'll let you as a Christian not you Trey but the viewers and the listeners decide how you're going to work that out for yourself I couldn't make it make sense one of the reasons I'm a non believer. Okay well it's your it's your poor acts of Jesus it's the problem here if you look in Mark was this chapter 877 17 a time at Jesus he was the Pharisees were worried about cleaning their hands and he said you wash the outside of the cup inside your full you know all types of evil they said after the let's see after he had left the crowd and entered his house the disciples asked him about this parable because he's talking about the Pharisees saying that you know they won't help their parents but they're worried about being holding the outside and he said do you not see that anything that enters a person from the outside that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile him for it goes into the heart but into the stomach and then out of the body and in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean so if you want to go out of the words of Christ he said do not keep the ceremonial law anymore we don't need sacrifices because the sacrifice is pointed to Christ we don't need the dietary laws because the dietary laws pointed to us for the purification that Christ gives us so the problem is not with the scripture it's with your a faulty understanding of the scripture just like what Jesus said started on that but Matthew was after Mark so when Jesus was asked about it in Matthew which came later you could say it's further from it or it's more updated when Jesus was asked about it he said still faulty old law so make up your own mind but Jesus doesn't want to sacrifice okay go ahead we actually had a super chat come in here that's kind of pertinent to what you guys are discussing right now so thanks for your first super chat there Black Helm for $5 so are you saying that a civil law is still moral law but not under the moral law if that is the case why is homosexuality immoral homosexuality falls under the moral law it's not a part of the civil law civil law basically deals with the law that the way that they punish and the way that they you know meet out the punishment under a theocracy under an Old Testament dispensation where again Alex Talionis is the standard in other words the whole purpose of the Old Testament one of the main purposes is to show God's perfect holiness and our inability to be able to please him so God says do my law we fail do my law fail fail fail finally man comes and he cries out and says God I cannot do it and God says yes now you get it now I will send my son to keep the law on your behalf so that in him you can have forgiveness of sin and not have to fall under the condemnation of the law so the moral law stands basically 10 commandments is a summarization of the moral law most immoral things I could imagine killing your own son why don't you just say sin for someone else you're cutting out a little bit there David you've been breaking up a little bit your stream seems like not some quality there but maybe it'll be okay well let me see maybe I could just close a few things here no I just I can't imagine I said I just can't imagine one son who's innocent for somebody else who's guilty I don't see that as a gift it sounds like sounds like child abuse any thoughts there Trey um no my question to David again is where does he get this desire to sanctify existence or to say that existence is objectively valuable I said the facts of reality to recognize harm do you believe chimpanzees can recognize harm yes they're determined to value existence how do you get determination indeterminately though yes so they get it through God you think chimpanzees get it through God that's how they recognize fire is bad is because God yes how do you have purpose instantiating unintentionally I just think the ability to recognize that a fire is coming through you're just assuming your answer my friend it's a begging to question you're saying that we value existence because we value existence no I think it's pretty clear that chimpanzee recognizing a fire in the forest and moving away from that fire because they don't want to get hot uh and burn I think that's uh that does not require a God I think that that's uh natural survival instinct that we can put labels on after the fact but to say that a God is required for a mammal to recognize harm is just absurd to me are they determined to do that because you're saying it's determined indeterminately I say they've involved they've evolved to do it as a survival survival instinct an indeterminate system has determined them to do that it doesn't make any sense you're violating the law of identity it doesn't make any sense that it has to be that something has to think in order for something to to be you can think you can you mean rocks can have goals with even though they're not sentient so thank you for confirming that you do understand what a strawman is Jesus Christ well to keep it all in tune here uh we had another first super chat come in and uh we're gonna give it priority just because it is uh like I say march into the same beat there uh so from john for six six six oh no I've been iron maiden triggered what have you done to me john all right trey do all morals come from christianity the christian god does your argument rest on the assumption that the christian god created the universe no it's not an assumption it's a deduction um and as as as david and I were talking about you've got all kinds of religions in the world and in so far as those religions make contradictory claims if you're gonna be reasonable they all cannot be uh equally valid and so and like I said it's possible that all religions could be false on that level but they all can't be right as well if we're gonna be reasonable people I have a question for you now trey that that triggered something for me this idea of intentionality and morality coming from god in all creatures that includes the eight billion human beings on earth why would god make sure that those eight billion people and beyond the ones who have all lived before let's just say the eight billion that are here now why would god create those eight billion people with his moral law written in their hearts with intentionality of moral behavior but leave out that christianity is true in six billion of those hearts knowing that they will go burn in hell for eternity when he could have just added that to the stock apps we all had okay so you would agree then that um it would seem that god does not love all people equally yeah i do that's part of my problem with the god will keep you from all harm he's got special favorites and things like that but um not loving everyone is not the same as in six billion to torture and why is god angry with this people with the people of the world you're answering my question with questions again trey i'm trying to i like socratic dialogue if you make my point for me it's a lot easier because therefore you can be demonstrated that it's a viable point i understand but what socrates would do is answer a question and then ask a question of his interlocutor so the idea with question and answer not question question question question no no i can answer your question by your answering me do you believe that um um let me say this okay i'll go ahead it doesn't matter what i believe for this i'm saying i'll state it again you you you i'm not i'm positive this you've positive this argument about god this point you've positive this argument that that god has written certain things on our hearts by default we have these sort of when you get an iphone it has apps already on it and then you can download more stuff right so so our apps that are preloaded are basic morality and intentionality and that existence is valuable there's a core apps there are core apps that we were installed with yet in in six billion of the eight million of the eight billion the vast majority he left out that christianity is true he's saying divinely hidden as a divine hidden argument he's saying divinely hidden from those at least at least he didn't make that part of the core knowledge every human had why would he do that knowing that six billion of those people and beyond would go burn in hell for eternity and be sent to torture the lack of love is not the same as sending everyone to be tortured so why would he allow that when he could have just made also christianity is true as part of the default human condition okay what you're assuming is that god sends people to help because they don't have jesus god sends people to hell because they suppressed the knowledge of god that they already have about him they do not give him thanks that's what roman's one of roman's too is and has been demonstrated in this conversation now the judgment that we receive from god is not because we don't believe in jesus although jesus is a savior it's that we suppressed the knowledge of his being our creator and giving thanks to him for every moment of existence that we have the jesus was a condition the jesus not say it was a condition of believing in him in order to enter the kingdom of heaven the remedy to our sin is found in christ but men are not going to hell because they didn't believe in a jesus they never heard of do you agree i believe that would be immoral i mean i agree that that would be immoral okay that's not why they go to hell they go to hell because they suppressed the knowledge of god in unrighteousness they know god exists and yet they hold it down in a blaspheme his name rather than giving thanks for every moment that they have so a four year old child born in india who's raised in a muslim family he knows god and jesus are real and he knows he has a creator and he knows he's a sinner and he deserves hell if he were to die at four years old if god is holy there is no hope for any of us apart from a satisfaction a good thing do you get upset at people who do evil things a good thing we're all safe because that god doesn't exist so i'm pretty happy do you do you get upset at people who do evil things not always is it wrong if you don't um not always this is these are very vague scenarios but i'm not actually they're very clear and you're wanting to make them vague it seems like no see you're telling me what i want again you're telling me what's in my mind you've been obduscating this whole time my friend yeah i think you'll i think you'll find the opposite is true well let's let's continue on there if you care to explore how people feel about this conversation oh yeah and i want to try to get through these quickly because i know you probably gotta get going there david in a little bit so we're gonna try to make these ones quick um that was john's first super chat thank you so much john business mall five dollars hey tray what makes you think a child would consent to uh pedo by your statement pedo in all quest shows a three year old can consent just the flow of the sentence didn't make a lot of sense but yeah i think they're asking you a three year old can consent sure a child can easily be groomed to do any number of things the question is why if sex is just like eating a meal or something like that is it so damaging to the child and why it makes people so angry when something like that happens we know that sex is special but then on the other hand we want to live it freely without any bonds and so we tell ourselves oh it's just like eating but we can't do that consistency can inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument and that's simply what i'm trying to point out would you would you say it's abusive to force feed a child beyond food that they want uh i do not think if i strap the three year old in in the uh in the chair and force them to eat broccoli i deserve the death penalty do you agree i'm just i don't just mean broccoli i mean keep feeding and keep feeding and keep feeding and they they vomited no let's let's make it a candy bar that i force that child to eat a candy bar do i need to go to jail for the rest of my life you're making the meal small i'm saying force feeding beyond you're not answering the argument i'm asking you a question okay if you force feed them so they die or what is it abusive yes of course to make to strap them in a child and to make them anything is wrong if you're not the parent or some other person you grab somebody's child that's what i'm presupposing and you force it it is wrong so sex could be like eating it you're talking about you're talking about traumatic stress you're talking about psychological issues that will develop over time you're talking about physical harm to a child's body you're talking about all necessarily problems well we can move on from there we got lots more to leave through there azion talks thank you so much says good job david wish i wasn't so busy with work so azion sorry couldn't make it out here for tonight but i'm sure you'll check it out tomorrow you better check it out tomorrow i'll be bugging you in discord all right c e for two dollars tray can non christians go to heaven non christians go to heaven any everybody who is holy goes to heaven and doesn't pass doesn't need to go to jail or anything all holy people go to heaven so if you are take to be and what's that what does it take to be holy to be without sin to never do anything wrong so none of us are going right unless we have a satisfaction that's the point so we agree that none of us are going to heaven high five none of us on our own merit can because all of us failed all right let's continue on eric salas two dollars tray how is the bible and christianity true how is the bible and christianity true well again it starts with an analogue argument and he goes through the evidence of the bible and for example luke is considered to be by sir william ramsey the greatest historian of antiquity by as he checked out the book of luke acts through archaeology dedicated his entire life to that endeavor and he went there actually to try to disprove he was part of the tuban gen school fc bower basically said he was imposing hegelian philosophy on the bible and basically he was taught that the book of acts was written a hundred years later then when it was reported to be done and so he as an archaeologist went there to verify that that it was actually was written a hundred years later and he said that luke is a historian of the first caliber he said he's the highest you can push him as far as you want and he will stand the most strict scrutiny with his historical analysis so we know that the bible is an accurate representation of what happened in early palestine generally speaking from an archaeological perspective he became a christian as the result of his work because he went there as an enemy not he just believes that the bible was not one of the supposed to be written and it wasn't accurate and he actually said he is the greatest historian to ever live and another scholar rated him on the level with Thucydides who is considered to be the father of historic scientific history who recorded the Annals of the Peloponnesia War so we know that we have a very accurate rendition of what happened and you have a christ making very strong statements about the authority of scripture saying that not one letter stroke will pass away until all is accomplished so jesus went beyond general reliability and said that it will not pass away until it's perfect basically not just accomplished until heaven and earth disappear which is my argument but it's important to keep reading beyond 17 and 18 and go all the way to 20 well let's continue on it doesn't change it let's see here I'll try to keep this quick bugmaster $5 again thanks bugmaster is it possible for a thing to be valuable to us humans without being objectively valuable in the grand cosmic sense no here's the problem because see you've got to give a justification for your determination to value things and so just to say well I subject this is the question I was asking if it didn't come up in this conversation but I'll say does the universe matter objectively and they say no but it is valuable to me in other words they say it's subjectively valuable but what you're doing when you're saying that is that you're saying value on something that's not objectively valuable in other words I'm lying to myself about reality because I can't stand the thought of it not having any meaning at all so what I do is I have a crutch to help me make it through life and I lie and tell me something is valuable that is really not valuable because if you're going to say something objectively valuable there must be an objective objective value and this is what we've been kind of going on you just Trey you're just talking in circles man I'm talking in circles I'm giving a linear argument you're the one talking in circles you just said that the atheist acknowledges that it's not objectively valuable not objectively valuable but it's valuable to me which is subjective and then by the end of your argument you talked yourself back into the atheists now lying that it has objective meaning and objective value you're talking past yourself you acknowledged when you started speaking that the atheist said it doesn't have objective value and by the time you finished talking you called the atheist a liar and then you lied about what the atheist said yeah no I'm saying that he is saying that it's subjectively valuable but not objectively valuable but if he's going to say that it's subjectively valuable but it's not really true it's not objectively true then you're just lying to yourself that it's really true you can't live consistently with your perspective no you could just Trey you could just be making a statement of preference without claiming that that's true for everyone some people may say this doesn't have any value at all and we're going to live on space rocks and we're going to blah blah blah and earth doesn't mean anything it doesn't mean that that has to be true for all of us right so so the atheist saying it doesn't have objective value they're saying if humanity doesn't exist and animals don't exist then the earth becomes meaningless and doesn't really need to exist and there's all these philosophical sort of discussions that just goes all the way down but to say it's important to me is a statement of preference it's to say that what's the reason you're saying that that's a question I'm going to give an analogy that's going to explain it I'm not sure what I promise if you're going to come to my home for one hour and I can do anything I want with you and I say at the end of this hour I'm going to wipe your memory completely you're going to have no memory of what happened would it matter what we did would you and then you had two choices do you want to spend your time watching your favorite movie and having a pizza or do you want to spend the time strapped to a table while I'm beating you and stabbing you with knives I mean I'm going to wipe your memory I'm going to wipe all the wounds I'm going to magically make everything go away and it's not going to matter tomorrow but for that one hour do you want to be in anguish or do you want to be at peace that's what we're saying it may not matter in a trillion years but while we exist we would prefer a peaceful existence that's what matters that's what has value to us why is that a moral dilemma for you it's not a dilemma for me to say that we're not lying you're acting as if it's something that we need to be thoughtful about it matters to us how we exist and why I'm asking you how you came to the point where you sanctify existence where did that come from is it an accident is it unintentional you're not giving me an answer my friend I don't need to sanctify existence according to your satisfactory standards in order to I'm not God I stand and recognize the difference between a peaceful existence and a torturous existence even if they are both temporary I can acknowledge that I would rather be peaceful even if it's temporary than be tortured even if I have no memory of either at the end I grant you that alright let's continue on so that was from bugmaster yes sir I can't say that I'm so sorry I can't say that Samard ten dollars Trey are you able to presuppose a world without a creator if so could you concede that an atheist worldview is still a view capable of morality um it seemed like there were a couple of questions within there but I cannot imagine a world that is self-created or self-existent because if it's self-existent it can't change the idealistic situation where a first cause was necessary but the God didn't interact is it possible for morality to evolve and exist without the God it's the same as it is with the evolutionary process unless there is a purpose for evolution behind it there cannot be any purpose whatsoever none are having this conversation that purpose cannot exist unintentionally the intention that we are imbibed with must be intended yeah I just think that's categorically false all I wanna be is philosophically and logically consistent well let's continue on from there it's been a lively chat everybody we still got quite a few super chats to go so once again we're trying to keep it quick we're gonna let you guys kinda set the pace there as we continue through the last I think we got about six or seven more now in to go so we'll try to keep it going CE $2 David what is the reason the universe exists I don't know and I don't have to know I'm okay with hopefully one day we will find out and researchers are definitely looking into it and trying to figure it out but I don't know and I don't have to know in order to continue with my life or be a good person and treat people with respect alright let's continue on from there I was gonna just try to keep it at that if God appointed me prophet would you follow my command assuming you would lose salvation if you didn't assuming I would I don't believe there's such a thing as prophets anymore so no I wouldn't bother you so you wouldn't believe his revelation no why would you doubt his revelation because there is no more there's no more revelation coming special revelation coming how do you know because the apostles at the closing of the canon of the scriptures there's no more special revelation you're not gonna believe a man who says he has revelation because another man said he was the last one to receive revelation no well we know that they were we know they spoke for God because they had miracles that's the difference like Mohammed never performed any miracles he said his only miracle was to produce a Quran he never claimed it to perform miracles alright let's continue on from there everybody I see there's still 400 people out watching here at modern day debate if you've got time if you've got the fingers or some means hit the like button don't let us get crushed by those YouTube algorithms we want to get these these conversations out there continuing on black helm five dollars so are you saying that a civil law is still a moral law but not under oh I've read that one that one we can skip on from and I'm just going to switch my mediums because I got some other questions over here so Rebecca young why does a self existent thing have to have a mind free universe stuff could have always existed that's a great question the reason that this is kind of goes to the same thing I'm saying before if it doesn't have a mind only minds can have purpose and if we have purpose today there must be something eternally uh uh volitional that has purpose and therefore it must be internal personal mind otherwise we would not have purpose today if god has a cause a cause cannot invite something that itself is not have it's called the principle of portion of causality I can I impart something beyond myself when I'm causing something else if god has always existed the universe could have always existed no because it changes that's that's number three it changes contingent by definition okay we already had that discussion so go ahead all right in defense of the gospel 499 thank you so much for your super chat assuming you are pro-choice why is it a moral right for women to murder her offspring but it's morally wrong for god to do what he wants with his that's the question's for I can it's for David can you read it again I'm not pro-choice okay yeah it says assuming you are pro-choice why is it a moral right for a woman to murder her offspring but it's morally wrong for god to do what he wants with his yeah I don't consider it a murder because the life is still forming it's not done and so I don't consider a fetus in early stages of pregnancy to be its own life it's a life dependent upon the mother's body and it is a medical condition and so if the woman chooses to end that medical condition she should have the right to do so it requires her body to exist much like Trey has made the argument that the universe requires gods constant intervening to continue existing that fetus that embryo is a dependent being and if the mother decides she does not want that if the pregnant person I should say decide that they don't want that medical condition any longer they should be allowed to end it so I don't consider it murder alright it's the prevention of life not the ending of a life alright I yeah we'll try to move on from there John 777 is that like when you used to play that game is that Carl the devil's evil brother because it's not 666 777 thank you John again Trey saying it's a deduction not an assumption that the Christian God created the universe as a cop out is there extra biblical evidence for that did you was that person even here I never appealed to the Bible in my argument of the existence of God that's my whole argument doesn't rely upon scriptures to make a creator and that's the part that's analytically true where we're going to we're going to we're going to we're going to we're going to we're going to wait for David to come back here and we'll ask the next question um pointless poppy Trey are you unaware of the mountains of evidence for severe mental damage observed in sexually abused children and the lack of evidence for any damage due to homosexuality be it mental or social um I'm not even making a statement um because you're talking about the child being molested so you assume I guess this person agrees that molesting a child is very bad because sex is somehow super special but then they want to say that homosexuality um is normal but biologically a physiological perspective it's a perversion nobody questions that really we don't need to fertilize poop and to say otherwise it's it's it's I mean the purpose of the procreative act is procreation and whether somebody says they get hurt or not it's irrelevant to me all right a couple of questions we had come in are for David and for both of you um we'll go to bro marco how or why do either one of you assume reason for existence I think David you already explained your side of that and just said that you don't um so tre will give the floor over to you I'm sorry could you repeat that I didn't really explain it uh what how we how or why do either one of you assume reason for existence oh oh you mean do we assume logic is that what they're saying do you think or assume that there is a reason like what why are we here yeah okay um it could be that it that it's not there's no reason whatsoever but if that were the case that we're consistent for it that would destroy all inquiry because the reason that we do science the reason we do inquiry the reason we search things out is to save the phenomena of existence because we assume there is a reason it is to survive it is special life is special if you're going to be consistent say nothing is rational nothing is reasonable and there's no reason to be here then you're not going to want to try to save the phenomena of existence if you're going to be consistent but nobody I think you're conflating um reason for purpose and I would say that once you do exist you start to focus on your purpose being continuing existing for most for the most part but that's not the same as uh a god thinking ahead of time going I would like to create humanity and here's the reason why um well the reason is the sanctify existence that is the reason in other words the whole goal for everything is existence god himself is subsistence existence therefore we should give praise and thanks to him who is the perfection of that which we think is so good he didn't need us right he didn't need us to exist he didn't need us no why why did he create us he was just are you saying that he cannot be volitional because he doesn't need us that is a strawman you're saying that you're saying that you're asking in order for us to exist and I'm giving an answer sorry I'm not making an argument man chill I'm just asking you conversationally god's chilling out in the cosmos for I don't know 73.86 cajillion years and then decides I'd like some pets why did he time began at the beginning time began at the big bang so it's nice but why would he why why would he just decide to create us why what did he need why what's the point you're assuming that he has deficiency in order to create and I'm just saying it's not that doesn't follow okay where's the logical problem there I don't see it well let's try I'm just trying to I'm just trying to find out why he would do it doesn't make sense why he would create us to begin with especially knowing that the vast majority of us were going to be tortured in his torture chamber I don't know why he would continue on existing knowing a very small percentage is going to make it to the paradise I would rather this exist at all ever then for us to exist for a few million years only for the vast majority to be tortured in a torture chamber it just seems sadistic all right well let's continue on from there just reminder to our live chat to smash the like button that helps a lot so David from debugging ignorance I don't support Christianity but atheists of today are extremely immoral and arrogant if God were to smite evil again immorality would go by like bye bye I don't know how you could just make the broad claim that atheists are immoral is that what that says uh yeah atheists of today are extremely immoral and arrogant I would have to know I mean if you're basing that off of Facebook you're probably mostly right but I don't know that that has anything to do with the vast majority of people who just lack of a lack of belief in a God and are perfectly good human beings so I think the premise of your question is absurd to just make a broad brushing statement that atheists are extremely immoral and arrogant is a pretty arrogant thing to say so I can't even follow that with a cogent response because you kind of built your premise on a swamp there it doesn't really make sense if you'd like to have something specific to say and you want to come on and make an argument you're more than welcome to go to my website and this goes for everybody davidcsmalley.com click on be a guest I'm happy to have you on my podcast anytime if you want to challenge my views atheism or make an argument for why I should believe what you believe I would I would welcome that you heard it here everybody get your butts off of Facebook stop that keyboard warrior stuff and go join David and have a conversation with him if you want to push back against some of the things he's saying there so he's extended the invitation once again from debunking ignorance for $5 David I don't support Christianity oh that's the same one oh okay never mind I thought I had two there let's continue one because there was another one for both of you how can morality be justified to exist outside of a human mind given it's a man-made invention I never said it was a man-made invention that's for me or for Trey very general question so we'll let Trey start and you can inject there because we're getting close to the end what this person is doing is they're making a case for what's called conventionalism that moral code is just basically what the mob basically decides and with that type of view morality is reduced to power might makes right rather than the sanctity of existence which I think is a real reason that people base their moral code so what they would say a conventionalism would say the only person that sins is the person who disagrees with the mob but we all know that if Adolf Hitler would have won World War II he still would have been wrong we know that those who do not sanctify existence are the ones who are the bad guys not those who all agree that you know like I use example of an island with two men and one woman and they have a consensus two to one that rape is okay that doesn't make rape okay and we all know that yeah I actually agree with him morals are not man-made that's not what either of us has said actually Trey's position I believe that morality came from God and my position is that morality evolved within us and exists in other creatures already we have recognized it and built communities based on it but it came about the revolution it was not created by man all right well let's try to continue on from there unless you had any like if you could wrap up in like 15 seconds if you had any thoughts there Trey we can move on all right cool thanks for being so amicable there tonight Trey and David this has been a great conversation we have a few more super chats to go so let's keep it more rolling black helm for five dollars Trey so are you saying infertile people shouldn't have sex no because people who are infertile are broken that doesn't has nothing to do with the institution of procreation just because you know if if I don't have a ability to do something because something is wrong with my body that doesn't destroy the actual institution itself it's just we're all broken in some way that doesn't mean that whatever we want to do say I get my tongue cut out well then we shouldn't eat it's just a feature of an individual that has struggles and I'm not saying sex is merely it is primarily for procreation but it's not the only thing what else is it for it's for social bonding I think it gives a picture of unity and diversity of the trinity of God's person and being it reflects Christ in his church it's a picture of many things of Christian illusions but it is primarily because in heaven there will be no sex and so it is a temporary ordinance for the purpose of making people so then if I hope my friends in the LGBTQ community will forgive my terminology here but if I use Trace terminology and I say let's presuppose gay people fall in line with your broken example that there is something wrong in the brain that makes them attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite just like someone not being with someone being infertile there's something broken according to your terminology and they can't produce children they should still be able to love and experience sex for social bonding and other things why can't gay people do the same thing if there's still social creatures what's different about being gay and just saying well there's just a little broken just like the infertile person and they're just attracted to the wrong person so even though they're not going to make a baby let's let them continue and experience their love consensual love with who they are attracted to and who is attracted to them for the social bonding aspect okay I just said that the primary purpose of procreation is for procreation did you get that part I did and then the question was okay the ancillaries don't define the fundamental okay fine but then the you acknowledge that the person who's infertile is broken but they should still continue to have sex for social bonding so why not just say the gay they should be able to have it because that's the order that God has made in the universe do you agree that there's an order to the universe like you're against pedophilia because it goes against the order of the universe right this is the problem with this conversation Tray I'm being very talk about gay people and now you're talking about the entire universe you just said I'm trying to make a case for realism you're trying to make a case for normalism you just said that infertile people are broken but they should still be able to have sex why not just say gay people are broken but they should still be able to have sex because you can't have babies if everybody practiced homosexuality then we would go extinct it is a perversion having sex with your wife that infertile is not a perversion why not if you can't have babies and you're doing it just for the pleasure of sex how is that not perversion because you are given that order it's a part of the order of the universe that's why I'm saying the order of the universe is absolutely disordered it's perverted by nature they can't have babies no it's not disregarded by nature 4 to 10% of basically all mammalian species has homosexual populations they're young it's a part of nature well before you respond there before you respond there David because I don't want you to feel like the live chat we're teaming up on you here because we got a lot of questions here and this is pertaining to exactly what you're talking about so I want to get it in there while it's pertinent John for another $5 Trey are all sexual acts committed without the intent of procreation equally immoral and why is masturbation as immoral as homosexual intercourse I'm sorry some noise went off in my ear you said are all sexual acts apart from procreation is that what you said immoral yeah so Trey are all sexual acts committed without the intent of procreation equally immoral and why is masturbation as immoral as homosexual intercourse sorry every time I touch my headphones I had to get out of that page it goes off I love this question great question thanks again for the super chat John I beg your pardon could you read it one more time on my ear please hey you know stuff happens we're live streaming right now you know there's been a few audio glitches here and there and I've been tweaking with settings I think we've got it figured out now so John $5 thank you so much for the super chat Trey are all sexual acts committed without the intent of procreation equally immoral and why is masturbation as immoral as homosexual intercourse oh okay okay I wouldn't say masturbation is the same as homosexual but I do think it is disordered because the purpose of here we're having this problem right now in western culture almost every single country in the world has a negative fertility rate and it's my opinion it's because of the advent of pornography and masturbation people don't need anybody else so they just make love with themselves it maybe get a couple of boobs but on themselves so that they can not have anybody else and everybody turns into themselves so I think by making that normative first of all it's not satisfying and it's when we follow what God has given us as a standard we can have satisfaction and that means saying no to certain things means saying no to a sex outside of marriage to masturbation and of course the homosexual behavior I think that God has made us a certain way we can have joy when we embrace that which God has made Trey people are getting boobs installed so they can enjoy themselves and play with them it's called apogynophilia David have you ever heard of it? I know that there are one-offs and I get it I get it but that's not what's happening I'm not saying every single person is like that there's not nearly enough transgender people on the planet to cause a change in our population decline and if you think we need more human beings right now you've never sat in LA traffic David do you realize that every single developed nation almost everyone has a negative fertility rate do you know what that means what's wrong with that the average age is getting older can you extrapolate what that means you yelling you yelling and leaning forward doesn't make you correct okay you know what let's move on we're doing a whole other show here yeah no I mean I just there are lots of places that are overcrowded and overpopulated and there's a big there's a big financial I apologize there's a big financial shift as well there's a lot of reason the number one reason in this country right now that people are having less babies is because of financial reasons well I'm gonna super chat in there because it's continuing in this in this vein pointless poppy 499 trace sexuality primarily for social bonding is not procreation so again why do you think homosexuality is wrong well as I stated earlier homosexuality by definition is unnatural and perverted you don't need to fertilize poop as I stated earlier that's not the purpose even from biological perspective it's a perversion not all homosexual acts are fertilizing poop well that's a primary issue not necessarily there are procreation is nowhere on the map with it I can assure you that procreation is nowhere on the map with people who are infertile but you're in favor of them having sex for social bonding but you're not in favor no I am saying because it is the order that God has made there is an order to the universe and they are obeying it and homosexuality is not so why do we have gay dolphins did God make that order because they're broken why do we have mammals eating their young just because other people do it or other species do it does not make it moral do you realize that no because you observe something doesn't mean it's good no but when it happens in nature doesn't that mean it's part of God's order no it's part of the fallen world so you think things can happen in God's world that are not according to God's will his preceptive will not his decreedive will everything is according to God's decreedive will but his preceptive will there is an evil in this world which is falling short of what God has commanded gay dolphins are evil no I am saying it's a part of a broken order dolphins are not a morally culpable moral creatures can we just move on they're a part of nature and 4-10% of almost all mammalian species have homosexuality in them cows whatever it happens all throughout nature it is a part of nature and they also eat their young not all of them I don't know any gay cows that have eaten their calves let's continue on there spicy conversation here tonight sunflower $10 David your hypothetical with the memory wipe what if one person gains pleasure from stabbing the other why shouldn't they stab them knowing both memories will be wiped tomorrow beautiful question as a matter of fact I was on the side of it being peaceful and torturous John Rawls veil of ignorance is what I'd like you to look into the basic idea it's more complicated than this but the basic idea is take any moral situation trays at my home I'm there knives are available and one of the options is me stabbing tray and torturing him for an hour the veil of ignorance is freeze the situation take both of us out of it take both of us with the veil of ignorance not knowing which person we're going to be in the situation would we go back and experience the same thing do we still want the torture to be an option in that situation knowing that I might be the torturer instead of the torturer would probably decide let's remove torture from the table as an option John Rawls veil of ignorance is a very good mechanism by which to judge and remove the subjectiveness of the ideas it's still subjective for that piece of it which while I keep saying the moral discussion is longer than something I can answer in a quick one or two minute answer but John Rawls veil of ignorance is a very good mechanism by which to judge basic moral decisions to make you make you look at the situation as though you could be on either side do you think it's moral now that's the general idea alright let's try and move on John is there again in the old live chat with $3 Trey our wet dreams immoral yes or no please no because there's no there's no abolition involved in that so you can ask a quick question do you think people are choosing to be gay or do you acknowledge that they're naturally that way no there's natural inclinations we have natural inclination for every single act that we do do you agree with that there's not one act that we do not have some genetic predisposition toward whether it be hang gliding playing chess or torturing spiders but just because we have that inclination says nothing about the morality of the said act right well it's more about how much blame should be put on the person who is gay if they can't help that they are attracted to other men what should they do should they if they do not find women attractive and they are only attracted to men and other men find them attractive they should just not experience love and sex and even within maslow's hierarchy of needs of affection and tenderness and all the things that we crave as humans should they just deprive themselves of that because they have a broken piece of their brain that doesn't comport with God's order well first of all I don't hold the maslow's hierarchy it's a russonian idea of mankind but I would say that what would you say to somebody who is intergenerational attracted or minor person attracted you're doing it again Trey I asked you a very specific question about a gay person and should they just just because you have a desire is a minor attracted person oriented that way they have nothing to do with it well you're changing you're moving the goalpost I'm trying to make I'm trying to make a point I just want you to answer the question Trey you're moving the goalpost into age of consent yes you are because a minor attracted person is a pedophile and they are is that a bad thing now you're going to say according to what and what do you have a moral standard they are determined to do that though who are you to impose your morals avoid answering logical questions oh yeah I'm all about it answer the question Trey should gay people deprive themselves of sexual bonding just like the person who beats their wife should deprive themselves of their natural inclination to be gay I'm not saying homosexuals are beating people I'm not saying that or the person who over eats they love to eat food they need to deprive themselves for their own health because it's the right thing to do yeah but some food is okay it's not analogous what? beating someone you're equating love and this is the problem with Christianity this is why I oppose Christianity because your values equate fevery and beating and lying and backbiting and stealing with love when two gay people are in love with one another and they have sex they are experiencing love with one another consensually in order to be against this you have to compare it to a man beating his wife or someone eating themselves to death or pedophilia a person taking advantage of a child you have to talk over me you have to interrupt why can't you answer that question about why you hold gay people who are experiencing love to the same standard you would talk about someone being physically violated or forced to have sex as a child that's not the same thing who adults consenting to have love is a good thing why can't Christianity embrace that okay somebody go through this debate and go back and see who had more time talking and it was you David I'm not filibustering it seems to me like you do for me more than anything let's go to the next question yeah I wouldn't have to talk so much if you'd answer the question the first damn time I have to keep repeating myself to drag answers out of you because you avoid and deflect okay yeah I'm scared to death of logic well let's try to I think that's where we're where we're gonna get with that one for now these people our live chat they don't want you fellas to go they have tons of questions and they keep pouring them in so we're gonna try to keep going quickly just let us know if you run out of time there David pointless poppy 499 Trey we have evidence that you're eating your babies and or sexually abusing them is harmful we do not have evidence that homosexuality is harmful we do have evidence that God has spoken and given us a moral law which we all know exists there is an order to the universe we have evidence that someone wrote down words that order exist and claimed it was from God we don't have evidence that God actually inspired that and they are they are reliable accounts that are attendant with miracles in order to verify the message of the messenger no they're not alright let's move on from there doo doo doo doo doo scrolling sunflower using up your membership question for the month there David we don't have the ability to pause though no but when we're talking about hypothetical moral dilemmas there are thought experiments and in thought experiments you do and I would pause it that in most situations you do have the ability to pause not time but your actions if you're about to do something you always have the ability to stop and ask yourself if everyone got up today and behaved this way would the world be a better place or a worse place and way multiple options with that and go if I'm if I'm about to do something to someone if the roles were reversed would I be ok with what's happening to me would I enjoy the support and love I'm about to receive or would I hate the person for harming me you can in most cases stop and think about John Rawls veil of ignorance almost in a way of thinking about others as you would have them do one to you or as someone once said the platinum rule do unto others as they would have you do to them considering that persons thoughts feelings and emotions rather than projecting your thoughts feelings and emotions upon to them so I think in most cases we do have the ability to take a break and see if what we're doing is the moral thing excuse me Forte $5 is the word God essentially just a simple word to explain everything we don't know what do you try um no I'm not making an argument for ignorance I'm making a positive argument from analytical necessity so nothing could be further from the truth for me got ya any thoughts on that David or do you want to continue on I think it's a I think it's a shot at the God of the gaps argument it does sound a little bit like Trace position but he hasn't really got it all it's not he's touched on it but he hasn't really leaned on that so I wouldn't I wouldn't feel the need to dive into it all right we're getting close to some closing statements and maybe a little talk about what we'll find at your link sunflower $10 David if someone doesn't think they'll ever be in the position of the one getting stabbed let's say they're wealthy powerful etc why should they bother considering with John Rawls veil of ignorance yeah I think you're missing the point of John Rawls veil of ignorance because the veil of ignorance would include them losing their money so in fact the first time I ever heard that used it was rich people treating poor people in a certain way in John Rawls veil of ignorance if the billionaire could look at how they are treating the poor person if they could go behind John Rawls veil and reimagine the situation as though they were the poor person and a billionaire was coming toward them would they want what they are about to do to happen to them so I think you may be missing the point a little if if that is your question because the point is the entire roles are reversed the point isn't to say what I want this and me in my world the idea is am I behaving in a way that is causing harm to the person and if I were that person literally that person not in their situation with billions of dollars in a private jet if I were literally that person how would I feel in this situation it's about weighing moral decisions it's simply a mechanism by which to judg