For the Facebook profile, how do you quickly see which of your recent posts did the best in terms of got the most engagement? So let me go ahead and show you on screen. I'm going to go ahead and give you the link below to the link that I'm showing you here because the link that you click on below will bring you to this place. And I know a lot of you are using Facebook profile for building your community, building your audience rather than the Facebook business page. The Facebook business page has its own metrics that are more detailed. But the Facebook profile has some metrics too, particularly if you have turned on the professional mode of your Facebook profile, I would recommend doing that. If you don't know how to do that, you can Google it. It's not hard to turn on professional mode. But once you do, you will be able to click on the link I give you below and find a place like this, which is where you could see from the last 90 days only, unfortunately, which they would go longer than this. But you can, I think, let's see here, yeah, you can sort by date. You can, you can see here, right? Once you get here, you see the last 90 days posts. I thought I've posted more than this, but I guess maybe not. Let me go ahead and let me go ahead and just double check this here. Last 60 days, last 90 days, yeah, I haven't been, I haven't been super posty. Okay, so I think it's buggy because now there's fewer in the last 90 days than when I first showed it. So just know that there might be some bugs still happening here. But hopefully it'll work by the time you see this. And then you can sort by date or you can sort by post reach. Post reach, by the way, I would say is now suddenly last 90 days, sort of by post reach, there's a lot more posts. Okay, so you might want to, you might want to play around with the, with the, with the setting here. But post reach, I would say generally is the best overall metric for how successful a post was because even if people didn't so-called engage, people, you know, these engagements are measuring certain things like how many comments did you get? How many likes did you get? How many people clicked on see more? But they're not measuring other hidden engagement metrics that Facebook is measuring, such as time spent on screen before they kept scrolling or things like that. So Facebook is tracking things that they don't necessarily show us here in the engagement numbers, which are built into the post reach, meaning if people, for example, scroll, stop the scrolling and look at your thing for longer, even if they didn't click see more or didn't click like or comment or share, whatever, it does build into the algorithm like, Hey, Facebook says, Hey, maybe this is interesting for people. We'll, we'll reach more people with this and we'll show it to more people. So anyway, post reach generally is a good overall metric for the success of a post. But you can also, of course, sort by engagement to say, Well, these are the ones, right, from most engaging, most engagements at least, these are the ones that got the most clicks, likes, comments and things like that. So anyway, I hope this is helpful. And if you have any other tips for others who want to look at their Facebook profile stats, you can comment below and share that with us as well. Thanks.


So we are excited folks want to let you know as you're listening and if you're like hmm I like that. I want to hear more of this gentleman Well, you can hear more because I put their links in the description right down there So that way if you're listening you can hear plenty more where that came from at their links and also want to let you know It's gonna be a fairly flexible kind of debate today So it's going to be a roughly 10 minute opening statement from each side And they can use that 10 minutes on their side as they decide to as they go and then we'll have open discussion Followed by Q&A. So if you have a question fired into the old live chat And if you tag me with at modern-day debate, it's a little bit easier for me to make sure I don't miss any while putting them in the old list and then super chats also an option So in that case you get to make it not only a question But you could also make a comment toward one of the speakers during the question and answer to which they Of course get a chance to respond to and it would push your question to the top of the list during the Q&A So with that without any further ado, we are very excited for this folks We are going to kick it over to our dearest. Do I remember right that it was Dry Apologists also known as Caleb as well as Craig that you guys are going to get the ball rolling The burrs Spur, well, thanks so much guys. It's a pleasure to have you in the floor is all yours All right, so I'm going to go first so this is going to be real quick to start I wanted to find what I mean by a rational belief I take it that a belief is rational if the Suggest that it's true is greater than the reason to excuse me to suggest that it's false So one should weigh the strengths of the positive and negative arguments for a claim in order to examine How rational it is with that being said I'm going to present what I call an argument from convergence the argument goes like this Jesus was an unusually impressive moral and religious teacher who existed at a time when a messianic figure was expected by at least some people It's very unlikely that such an unusually impressive moral and religious teacher Or figure would come about at a time when a messianic figure was expected That could if Christianity is true, but it would be less expected if Christianity is false Therefore that convergence is reason to believe Christianity is true now that arguments not approve that Christianity is true But it does suggest that Christianity is true. So in the absence of any stronger defeaters I think it is rational to believe that Christianity is true. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Craig Okay. Well, that was pretty straightforward. I thought I was only gonna have five minutes But if anyone who's listened to my YouTube channel knows that I can go and go and go so it doesn't really matter I'll have two main points Is Christianity rational or is it reasonable the first one? You don't necessarily have to be a Christian to understand matter of fact It's tailored strictly to naturalists and secularists this morning as all mornings I do what I talked about a thousand times on my YouTube channel I have a series of rituals and practices that produce in me almost routinely total peace of mind Is it rational to participate in some is it a rational enterprise to Participate in something that produces total peace of mind. Yes, it's eminently reasonable dare I say it is actually wise. So how it works is like this.  It's actually even worse. All my immediate family lives in New York City That's my mother and my sisters and it's there are some scary things going on The the outside world has to work a lot harder to rattle my gauge internally because I have a powerful prayer life That connects me to a subjective experience that almost nobody would argue Produces within me peace of mind. So that's one thing It's eminently reasonable to practice something that produces peace of mind. I would say it's wise Point number two. I've talked about again on my channel hundreds of times If somebody told you this group of people I always say about bigfoot But I guess I'll change it for bigfoot because that never seems to work The nighting question when I became a christian I went to a church wasn't expecting anything to happen And I had a really powerful intense Again subjective experience, but it was really powerful and I honestly believed it's god Now that experience was real to me. Is it rational to predicate your beliefs on something that you directly experience? Yes, normally people especially atheists mishear this and say it's rational for an atheist To now believe me that god exists. Was it rational for me to change? My beliefs Predicated basically on what I directly experience. Yes, let's say for example Somebody said to you this group of people when they bang on drums. They can make a horse dance I'm I'm agnostic about that. I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical So I go to a room where people are participating in that ritual sure enough. They're banging on drums as a horse is dancing I am no longer skeptical up to that point. That is sufficient reason for me to go. Okay. That's true. I can now It is completely and a hundred percent reasonable to predicate your beliefs on that which you directly experience Matter of fact, empiricism is based on sensory observation. If you cannot trust your direct sensory input, you then you can't trust Science that's that's the root of science is what you directly experience So if you can't trust your basic sensory apparatus, you can't trust anything And I get that an atheist will not believe me that the experience was god But as I'm going to try to do in the the months to come in my my channel I believe that I can actually Put up a have a way for people to participate in those experiences for themselves Nobody denounced Doubts that there is such a thing as a numinous experience a spiritual experience The only thing that you're doubting is the reality of what's animating the experience, which I get It's not rational for necessarily someone to hear this and go craig's right god exists But it is eminently rational and reasonable for me to predicate my beliefs based on my direct experience matter of fact It's totally correcting to do and you know, I guess we can go to discussion I don't we can we can that can be enough. I don't need to go on necessarily You got it. Thanks so much craig and we will kick it over to skylar fiction and dr. Josh as we welcome them Thanks so much guys for being here. The floor is all yours.  This is exciting So what I'm going to do is I figure, you know, I'm not going to use any old testament violence tonight You know, this is something that I talk about so often and I probably people are so tired of me talking about babies So I'm not going to talk about those things tonight. I'm going to talk about other things with christian They make it not rational Right, so, uh, I'm going to share my screen here. I actually Formed an argument today thought this might work. We'll play around if you guys We'll see where you guys disagree with the premise. Uh, let's see here Chrome I'm going to start to scratch uh sharing the screen up guys. If that's all right Let me know if you guys can see it. Is that good It's fine with me But I can you guys see the as long as you can see me and you guys to see the argument we're good All right, let me know if something goes wrong here Here's here's my argument. I thought we would focus around one of the major characters I just you see mirrors. I don't see the argument Uh, that's lame. Let's see here I think that is the argument though.  Sorry That wasn't fun. That's right. That's right. Can I mute myself again? No, I don't I don't see any argument. All right here. I'll just read it Then we're gonna have to I'll just read the argument We'll just do it this way and if you need me to run it later Yeah, yeah, and if you need me to repeat it well, we can always bring it up. All right Premise one using like I said, we were talking about a main character in the bible, which is the devil say Premise one god desires god's desires come from his nature Premise to god's desires god desires to save the maximum amount of souls possible Premise three satan is a real being that attempts to lead souls away from god and salvation. Keep in mind folks I'm putting this in the perspective of using doing internal critique. This is the christian's worldview. Obviously not mine I'm setting up these premises from a typical christian's view on satan and god and stuff like that. They can feel free To disagree with any of these premises and we can get into that Uh, so premise three was satan is a real being that attempts to lead souls away from god and salvation Premise four god does not desire that satan lead souls away Lead souls away from him and their salvation Premise five human beings would still have free will if there was no satan Premise six god has the ability to poof satan out of existence Premise seven if there is no satan more souls would be saved Conclusion god goes against his own desires, which means he is going against his own nature This is logically impossible making your god not logically possible Uh, so, you know the gist of this argument is is the idea that you know god obviously I would hope like well, you know, actually we'll wait till we get the dialogue And then I'll we'll see what kind of premises they accept from there What they disagree with But I would I'd have to argue if god desires that to save the most amount of souls and you have Being out there that is your adversary that is actively leading souls away from you By eliminating that adversary it seems pretty simple that You would save more souls I think that's good. You know, we won't go in too long and then uh, dr. Josh Maybe you want to top it we have a second topic that we can argue about also But what we'll present both and you guys can kind of you know feel it out where you guys want to go Good dr. Josh my man So I always feel inclined to say something like this in particular on a topic like this It's not my field of study. Uh, I haven't uh, I haven't done theology in quite a long time but um And we'll see how it goes So I pulled malart ericsson systematic theology off the shelf and uh, I just wanted to talk a little bit about Some of the core doctrines of christianity that While I I wouldn't say that Um anybody could necessarily prove given the position of Orthodox christianity that these things are contradictory They seem contradictory and I wanted Sorry, that was siri um So I wanted to talk about the trinity So ericsson writes and this I just pulled ericsson because he's One of the standard theologies that I read back in the day Although it seems on the surface to be self a self contradictory doctrine and is not overtly or explicitly stated in scripture Nevertheless devout minds have been led to it as they sought to do justice to the witness of scripture And at its conclusion he writes in the final analysis the trinity is incomprehensible We cannot fully understand its mystery Those aspects of god that we will never fully comprehend should be regarded as mysteries exceeding our reason Rather than as paradoxes that conflict with reason And I think that's a fair statement. Of course, he's coming from the position of orthodoxy and Uh, so he would say as all of you well know Um that this is not a contradiction that the threeness and oneness at the same time Um of the godhead is not a contradiction strictly, but it it is beyond our reason Um now, of course, there have been many attempts to try to figure out throughout history christian church history um, you know one divine essence in three modes uh or Christ took on jesus took on the lagas um Yeah, but but orthodoxy says you have three persons but one essence and the essence is undivided It, uh, it is fully, um Um possessed by each member of the trinity but yet undivided um, and You know, if we if we come at this from a rational standpoint from a from a logical standpoint Even though this is definitely outside my field, um As ericsson says it certainly seems like a contradiction to us and it is beyond our reason But the faith position says It's not a contradiction. I believe that it's not a contradiction. Um, and I think that that position Is the honest position to take that you you can't rationalize to the trinity And I think that's a that's an important distinction to make in my opinion um Being able to say that from that strictly logical rational standpoint something like the trinity something like the Theanthropic person of christ. These are not things that we can rationalize to we can logically get at with our finite reason Uh, but if you adhere to that position in the christian faith that it's a faith position that you take and say I believe that someday You know mate, we won't be able to understand it fully but we'll be able to understand it perhaps You know more like more as god does so if I have any time left scyler go for it Yeah, I would just add a couple things like when when it comes to the idea of the trinity. There's a lot to Uh, I talk about I mean first of all, uh There's lots of problems first.  I love you. You're supposed to be in bed, but you're up Say bye. Bye. Say hi to the fans. All right. Say hello to everybody. Go back to sleep now I'm arguing on the internet. What am I supposed to do with you up here? All right, so I would say there's a lot of problems right usually when we talk about uh, when we distinguish human beings or, uh Beings we we do it by their minds right beings don't have multiple minds Uh in the bible it literally talks as if Jesus has a separate mind and the father and then the spirit has its own mind So you have three thinking minds Yet it's all the same being Uh, it seems more polytheist. I think more than anything else when you read the bible Uh, I think also there are problems with I mean you look at someone like jesus praying To himself. I mean praying to his heavenly father But he doesn't seem to he doesn't seem to have direct access to him in some level He's he's talking him in a way that he's almost like relift this burden from me. Uh, and I think there's problems with that But I but I'm really more interested to be honest. I love this. There is definitely problems with maturity Uh, this isn't a view that's shared by all christians.  Um, which is interesting. Why do so many people have so many different beliefs? But yet these things are fundamental somehow, uh, but I'm really interested more here about the satan stuff. So Sorry, it's my favorite. I it's one of those topics never get to talk about and satan is such a weird character that I don't understand why how you could logically Logically follows that this being would even still exist. He's an enemy Of god, he leads people away.  All right. I think that's it for right now You got it. We'll go right into the open discussion. So thanks so much guys Excited to hear this Where do you guys want to start? I can start two places And then anybody can go from off. Nobody has to address what I said But just based off of what you guys said Part of the reason why I have such easy time interacting with atheists is that I don't necessarily demand That anybody believe in satan as a literal beings perfectly I'm perfectly content if somebody wants to think of satan as a metaphorical construct that is That is anthropomorphizing human evil and talk about it that way and actually I still think the bible can be eminently useful In defeating evil as a metaphorical construct not necessarily a little being as far as what josh said You know, again, I'm not I'm not 100 convinced that that you need to actually believe in the trinity to be a christ There's plenty of christians I do believe in the trinity and I do believe it's coherent But there's plenty of christians who don't and I don't consider them not part of the family Some christians do i'm not one of them. I doubt josh is either I believe it's rational But as far as what he said which I thought was really interesting which I hope we can talk about is The the idea and I think that's what he was trying to get at his faith is beyond reason What the bible will say specifically is that my ways are not your ways My thoughts are not your thoughts as they have in his eye above the world So my thoughts above yours and then it also says trust the lord with all your heart cling not to your own understanding Now it's entirely possible from a purely rational point of view purely reasonable point of view If I were talking to a physicist right now And he were trying to explain particle physics to me that I wouldn't understand at all just rationally like His intelligence might be so beyond my capacity that I might not be able to understand what he's talking about So I don't necessarily see it as this irrational faith position That there are things beyond the purview of human intellect that god only is privy to I see that as kind of a normal aspect of faith Um, and then I'll let dry apologies talk Well, I just want to I want to clarify something though because Sure, do you so most from what I understand most christians believe there's a saint So are you denying there's a satan or yeah, you can interpret that people can make up whatever they want about the bible Believe whatever they want that's true. They can interpret it however they feel but I want to know you And you seem to have traditional christian beliefs like I do But I don't you believe you do believe in satan. Do you not believe in satan or yes But just like you will adopt a rhetorical position for the purposes of being the debate I will tone down what I actually believe so I can have a conversation that's open-ended with people who don't share my beliefs You know, that's not what it's about. It's not about you. I want your beliefs I don't want you to tone down what you believe we're having a discussion on the facts of the matter so like if you We're not having a discussion on the facts of the matter We're having a discussion on philosophical speculation neither of us are god neither of us are privy to all the facts So we're having a discussion on philosophical philosophical speculations So if you're just saying that everything's opinion, why are we having an argument? If we're just going to say everything's just human opinion Why would we just have a debate about this then because we have different opinions. That's a no-brainer We have different I mean, okay, so if I if I pull up an argument And I and I put an argument in syllogism form I ask you like what are you like basically what what premise do you disagree with here?  Well, you said you do believe it I do you just tell me I have to oh my god, this is this is pedantic like this is it's not about It's okay. Yes, you don't have to you can believe whatever you want. Obviously, right? Okay, great. That's obvious It's obvious. I don't I shouldn't have to like preface it I shouldn't have to like literally explain myself further that literally that you All right, so let's deal with my argument. Maybe Caleb. So who what premise do you guys disagree with with the argument? Okay Well, I just want to make some general statement So I think where Craig's coming from is that he's saying in a more like general like mere Christianity A christian wouldn't have to be committed to those positions now From my perspective, I do think somebody has to hold to the trinity to be a christian I don't think satan is something somebody has to hold to but I do agree that it does seem like it's starting to rub With traditional christian beliefs. I'll I mean I believe both of these claims. So I'll defend it I'm not going to take the the lesser route, but Craig can defend his own perspective here. So in regards to I'll start with the trinity first So, I mean like I've done a whole debate on the trinity. So it takes a long time to sort it out Like jim majors and I had a whole debate on this but So with the trinity, I don't see any contradiction. I'm really not a fan of the idea that like we can't understand it It's not something we can have a perfect analogy for but there's no contradiction and I really don't have a problem with grasping the basics of the trinity even though probably a majority of theologians Right as if there should be a problem like that sounds like the person that dr. Josh quoted from I mean basically god has one mind and his divine nature But there's three different persons that partake of that one mind now jesus Is god and human so he has a human mind and a divine mind when jesus is praying He's praying to god the father. So he's praying to the person that partakes of that divine mind So his person his humanity is praying to them. So he's not talking to himself So it's three different entities. It'd be like Three different so like somebody asked me the other day like what if you had three different people that were all Like they all had the same powers. Would that be a trinity? I would say well, they're they're Disconnected but if you had three people that were ontologically connected and they all shared the same mind and powers That would essentially be a trinity. I don't see any contradiction in that So now moving on to and I'm not saying that totally settles it But to me like I really don't see a contradiction or even an apparent contradiction with the trinity once it's broken down Now with skyler's argument essentially, this is a theological Version or more theological pointed version of the problem of evil and I've had a discussion on the problem of evil and skyler's channel And I recently wrote a short book on it So it's another topic that takes a long time to sort out But the premise that I would deny would be I would deny both premise six and premise seven So premise six god can poof the devil out of existence is what I remember premise six being so yeah physically Yeah, how would you defeat premise six? Yes Well, when I when we say defeat i'm gonna undermine it right So god physically can take the devil out of existence Well, what I would argue is that would conflict with god's moral nature his moral character Which would need some unpacking and again I talked about that you know a number of months to go with you But we didn't talk about the devil and then premise so we can go more into that but basically I would say No, no, no my premise isn't incorrect though. You agreed that he could do this It doesn't change the premise No, I gotta talk So premise six I would question. I'll go back to why I would question it But hold on premise seven if there's no devil then more souls would be saved I also disagree with that premise because god Judges people's hearts and I don't think if the devil exists or not I mean not not all christians will necessarily agree with me, but I don't think that The number of souls is contingent upon that but let's focus on premise six because that's where the meat of the art I mean you just kind of just brazen over like well, okay Well, what okay premise seven the idea well if someone's trying to attempt to lead souls away Are you saying he never succeeds? Right. That doesn't succeed in this. Oh, okay. Hold on. Wait, wait, wait. I gotta finish. I gotta finish. I know Succeeds in tempting people But my perspective Which not all christians will hold this perspective is that god still Judges people's hearts so say there was less temptation in the world It's not the point the point wait does he succeed in tempting them if he tempts them does he succeed? He's saying that god only allows the temptation up to what the person was going to do But okay God let's put the pornography there But god only allows the temptation up to what the person is willing to do That it's a test where where and when you so if the person is willing to do it He would have still allowed the temptation So say somebody's a line was the sin. We'll just give an example line was the sin, right? Someone was willing to lie God would still allow satan to tempt his creatures to lie If he knew they were going to do it Oh, yeah, but let's what I wanted to talk about was the the premise that you guys were in dispute of where god could just Poof satan out of existence God does do that according to the scripture at the end of the era God puts satan down into the pit for a thousand year reign of christ and he poofs him out of existence And that and then we have the world without evil We have the world without sorrow sickness or death for for a thousand for a thousand year reign of christ And then you I mean so this actually does happen The the point of the bible or the point of life isn't we live a perfect life now I mean I can understand why you might be asking why but to me it makes perfectly reasonable sense That we live a life where there are temptations and trials and tribulations and evils to be overcome in this life And the promise of the gospel is that at the end of this life and at the end of the era Yeah, god puts satan in a box and he's done And then the people who are on the winning circle all live forever without sorrow sickness temptation evil death But we've all chosen to be there. I don't see it. How that's unreasonable at all But I'll let you I mean all you're saying to me is that basically god allowed the devil To lead all these souls away from him for thousands of years until he finally gets away Gets around to poofing him out of existence There's no reason why he couldn't poof the devil out of existence in the beginning So logical reason all the devil In fact if sin is that that goes against god's nature Why would you allow a being even if it's not about saving them? Why would you allow a being to tempt people into doing things that go against your own nature? Because those that's the whole point what they wait. Okay, let me explain I these are philosophical questions by the way, and this is the problem of evil But why would you allow a being? To do what a being would do. Why would you allow Satan say not humans? Okay, listen I'm so I'm listening to you But you're I understand christian theology, but what i'm asking you is like so So you're saying Satan has free will also if you believe satan has free will i'm gonna ask you to justify Excuse me. Listen means listen. It doesn't mean. I'm sorry.  It's really not it's Okay, look, you just get to actually making the dealing with the issue what i'm actually saying to you when I say listen I mean listen So why would god allow set take satan to tempt human beings because those human beings become There's a trial period called life where human beings become what they actually are free will means that Heinrich Himmler becomes evil.    Then let me articulate. You miss the point of what I meant then fine. You miss what I meant What I meant is you have children Some of those children are are going to turn into destructive evil douchebags That's not what you would want for them, but you have allowed why are they going to turn that way because he is allowing us To choose who we want to serve choose you this day who you will serve God or the so but why would we naturally go to evil?  I'm sorry. You want we have to take this point by point. We might sit there and you storm roll a bunch of ideas out Like all these assumptions without a deal in these point by point in the in the just because this has been going quick and intense And I don't blame you guys for having passion. I do just want to make sure that dr. Josh and uh, kaleb if they Want to jump in as well I don't I don't have passion for this go ahead kaleb I Josh No, I just want to I just want to go back to focusing on premise six We can I mean premise seven is minor like I have a technical disagreement with premise seven But premise six is the thrust of the argument So god can poof the devil out of existence. Well, that needs to be um unpacked Otherwise, it's begging the question in favor of a perspective that necessarily accept Physically god has the power to poof the devil out of existence just like physically god has the power to lie But that would conflict with his moral nature. So god cannot lie not because he physically I have to be able to finish. Thank you So it would conflict with god moral nature to poop the devil out of existence And this would go into explaining my whole theodicy which is going to be a time consuming affair But that's why I test premise six now go ahead The problem is is you you admit that he can do something So then premise six is correct. You're just saying he won't do something because of his nature Well, he can't first of all, I don't know where you would get the the justification to say He can't eliminate whoever he wants to eliminate Right though as the potter has the right to do with the clay as he pleases As many christians argue when we talk about old testament ethics All right, so now this idea that somehow god is impotent and can't Uh, just poof satan that exists is you're gonna have to justify that you're saying he goes against his nature He's gonna do it anyways later on. I'm trying to understand if he's gonna do it later on How does that go against his nature? Caleb? Well, I explain this on your not this particular aspect But the wider theodicy on your show about six months ago So god, I'm not all christians aren't agree with me, but it fits well with roman's aid That for the pre-heavenly timeframe God is working in a more limited context and that's allowing creatures not just the devil But other people as well. I mean this argument could be just to fit just as fine with an evil being like hitler Why doesn't god poof hitler out of existence gods working with Where people have where he has limited himself not because again, it's not his powers are physically limited It's that his powers have to work alongside his moral nature and you're saying well Where's the justification for that? Well, it fits in right with your argument because you've said god desires come from his nature Yeah, I agree. So it all has to work alongside his nature I'm sorry you have it articulate You're just saying it's his nature not to poof Satan out of existence But he's gonna poof say when I'm gonna poof it. He's gonna get rid of satan out of existence later So it obviously doesn't matter what time period it's in that he goes that he gets satan out of existence He's gonna do it anyways So you saying that it would go against his nature to get him out of existence doesn't make any sense He's gonna do it later. Also, I don't know where you get this idea of a limited time period Right. Why is there a limit on time and when god's time work and framework how he's gonna do things So I'm sorry. I don't know how that works now What fits in the wider context of the theodicy that I argue so I argue that god His um relationship with the pre-heavenly world is more limited. So when we get to the eschaton Then satan won't be a part of the heavenly universe So it's at that point when satan doesn't have the power to tempt people and that fits fine with scripture So it's like I don't understand the report and then you made this He won't have the power to tempt people then why does he have it now? Because it fits within the wider context of my theodicy. I explain this No, your theodicy you're talking to an audience that hasn't heard your theodicy I talk to a hundred people bro. I don't remember the particulars of every conversation that we have So like and also for the audience's sake tell them they have no clue what you're talking about So when you say that like your theodicy makes it fit tell us tell us how it makes it fit sure So I just want to pull up this verse and Okay, well, it's roman's chapter eight. I'll find a second So my theodicy is that for the pre-heavenly universe god's relationship with the world is more limited Because he couldn't justifiably not again because he lacks the power He couldn't justifiably conform the laws of the pre-heavenly universe to perfectly match his will Because then that would force the pre-heavenly universe to perfectly conform to his will I don't know what that means Hold on Our interrelationship with him and then that would by force everybody into a relation with him And that would go against god's moral nature.  I can go to that. That's fine Our I'm willing to come back and debate you on this one by one or you can debate me I feel things that this is good enough for me. So I believe it I don't know what you want me to do with your opinion based argument Caleb at least has some type of argument in syllogism or something before I'm arguing You have an argument based on your opinion and what's good enough for you to reasonably believe something There's nothing that was excuse me. Hold on a sec. That was far Too charitable and dismissive an interpretation of what I said, that's what you honestly believe I don't respect that opinion at all. I really don't I don't really like how this is going down My opinions are irrelevant to this debate. Can we get back to what I was talking about was saying And then we'll come back to your argument and I could deal you could put up whatever premises you want You can ask me whatever question you want But I'm trying to understand what Caleb's saying here because he's saying I'm trying to understand what Caleb's saying here But I'm trying to understand what Caleb's saying here because he's saying somehow that There's a limited time frame Caleb like now I've lost what cable was actually saying it All right medication. I was trying to understand is Is you're saying that God somehow satan was limited to certain actions of one time period and then a different time period He is He is more. He's able to do more in one time period in less than another. That's one thing you said, right? Is that correct? So I'm so let me just Yes, yes But I need to clarify. But yeah, if you want a yes or no, yes So yeah, so basically somehow like Go ahead. Go ahead. Finish what you're gonna say Okay, sure. Thank you. So the time period. It's not like the time period is like on Monday God is limited this much and on Tuesday. He's back to full power, right? The argument is it's for the pre Heavenly time period sometimes Christians refer to this as the trial time period. That's when God's powers not his physical powers But his relation with the world is more limited and then we move into the That's what I want to talk to the eschaton To check with you about How is he more that's the unlimited He's on. Okay. How is it? Where where does the difference? How does it change? Where does satan's powers become limited? How do they limit the powers of satan? No, no, it's not that it's not that satan's But so in the eschaton satan's not part of the new heavens and new earth. So he can't Exercise temptations upon people. So right now satan can't exercise any temptations on us No, he can't we're not in the eschaton. Okay, when okay So right now could god stop him from allowing us to for him to tempt us Could he stop us could he stop him? And if he can't if he could stop him, but he won't what's the reason why he won't stop it But so my argument is and i'm not speaking for craig or anybody else But my argument is that god can't stop him not physically But it would conflict with his moral nature, right? Okay. Why is it conflict with his moral nature? That's what i'm trying to ask because Right because his relation with the pre-heavenly world is more limited. He only can exercise Basically How how is it more limited? I'm explaining you got to give me more than five seconds to explain Tyler it's not a five second answer. What on earth? It's not a five second answer Go ahead. Just chill dude. I'm sorry chill. It's frustrating when I ask a direct question, right? Good. It's frustrating It's also frustrating for us and we're trying to be patient Okay, can I can I be just can I just sorry for us try to be patient Try to be patient Can can commandeer yourself? and and relax chill We can't you can't have complicated philosophical conversations someone's ready to bounce on you second you talk you can't Well, just try to get worse because all i'm asking people Okay, but chill chill, please. I'm asking you nicely to chill, please Please this isn't fun. And this isn't really Dr. Josh go and stop complaining Dude asking you nicely to chill Ready for dr. Josh. Go ahead. Let's all just take a breath um so maybe to clarify um So Caleb, are you saying that that he has decided god has decided during the pre-heavenly period Based on his plan based on his his will that he's he's done like a philippians 2 sort of thing that jesus did when he said All right, then when the logos came and made himself flesh that he emptied himself that he chose to limit his power but Um as part of his plan, it's not like all right satans here and so that diminishes my power This is this is based on choice as part of the plan and because it's part of the plan that He can't go against the plan I think that maybe that's where the confusion is Yeah, kind of so it's the argument is that god By necessity of his moral nature. He wants to he creates being so they can enter a relationship with him, but A world where everybody's in relation with god is a world where all the physical laws perfectly match god's will but He can't create people in that immediacy. So otherwise that would coerce them into relations So he has to given his moral nature if he wants to create create Them in a pre-heavenly world that's not perfectly conformed to his will But then that opens the door to being able to exercise their wills In ways that go against what god would want for the pre-heavenly universe But once the um the beings have entered into a relation that are going to do now They're in perfect harmony with god and since satan won't be in harmony with god. He's outside of that realm And i'm not saying you guys agree with that, but I think that undermines premise six of their argument The reason this doesn't work is uh You're acting as if it's against god's nature to take out an enemy That's what basically you would have to articulate. It doesn't matter what timeline it is Right. He took out lots of people that did that went against him There is no reason that as soon as he went against him in heaven That satan would not have been removed. It would have been. Can I ask by god? It would have been just by god. You're interrupting me It would have been justified by god Uh to remove him. He's already justified removing removing him from the future. Okay So what you're saying doesn't match up to the argument. Okay. Can I ask josh? I thought I answered this josh Did you understand my answer because kyler doesn't seem to that that allowing satan to try humanity Isn't just about we all understand satan is evil It's allowing to try human beings so that human beings decide they're evil too and he They can join satan at the end of the end of the age. Do you understand my answer? Not saying sure i'm just Do you understand it because he doesn't seem to understand it? I can give you a rebuttal to it actually because uh, so do that and and tony down so we can have a conversation All right. Listen, okay. Thanks. Thanks. You're saying I got put put it say it one more time just really clear. So that way I could well can josh Can you explain it josh because I want to say one more time for the audience say one more time for the audience So people have it short. I don't want to miss articulate. I want to I want to misrepresent what you say just say it one more time Hey, it's probably a lot more productive if you articulated it first You know what? I'll do I'll do it for you. That's fun. Dude.  Do you want to ask a question or do you want to keep doing this and attacking me personally? I wanted to answer the question. That's what I asked He did answer the question. No, we did. He started to and you jumped in josh. Do you get what I said? Do you get what I said josh? I I yeah, I think so. Um So I mean I I would say that orthodox christian theology Particularly given You know what some I guess kind of going historically here a little bit when you when you start to run into um late second sample period and you start entering into this apocalyptic idea the stuulism of um where the problem of evil really becomes um Perhaps more pronounced amongst people's e Sorry, I'm kind of going round about but something like the book of daniel where you have the the question of why is it that? um You know, there's all this turmoil in the world. Why is it that? um, you know this This eruption of uh, you know the divine Uh of god coming into this universe and saving room. Why isn't this happening? And there becomes this sort of dualistic approach Uh to understanding How god is interacting with the world and he's for a period of time And I think kaleb is probably is tying into what you're saying for a period of time. He is allowing um the powers of this world to have more control than You know what what they will have later. Yes exactly and the purpose of that would be that uh if See if I can give an analogy if potential purpose, but yeah, go ahead. Yeah, so the office There's a there's an episode of the office where they find out that there's someone that used to be in prison working in the office And dwight finds out who it is and he's walking around In front of this guy and he's got like a hundred dollars and ones hanging out of his back right pocket And he's bending over and you know push in the cash out in front of him And I think that's sort of a it's crazy. It sounds like a similar concept It's it's not causing the person to sin necessarily or directly, but it's it's allowing In dwight's mind. Yes. Yeah, it was allowing him to manifest what was inside of him What was inside exactly and could you possibly see the purpose why god would want to test and ground for human beings? So some decide to love them and some decide to become what they want to become and give voice to their evil inside of them I can totally understand that can you I mean skyler doesn't seem to Let me I can so many things. So first of all like, okay, if we need to test people's love for somebody That's pretty bad. Okay anytime Yes, just give me a chance to speak. I'll let you go through that All right, so if you when you like we basically you're saying that he uses satan to test people And to bring out what uh, you know, what's what could come through about through their free will Um, that's why in the if you guys looked at the argument in the premises If there was no satan people would still have free will That was part of the argument So having satan there doesn't stop the ability for human beings to be able to sin And do all types of things that you would consider to be immoral All it does is eliminate the being who's trying to take people and lead them away from god Out of the picture so there are more people saved So what you're specifically using as an argument doesn't work Well, it it does but you you put you put a lot of presumptions that aren't necessarily I I'll go over this in detail In my analysis and you can object to every single thing I say, but you're putting a lot of presumptions first of all Okay, so okay. Thank you. Can we because this needs to be talking about I just want you to get to it. Let's start to be rude, but like you're talking about I'll do this in the analysis Okay, well, you've been here And I'll I think you're on with it my man. Jesus Christ. Okay. I just get to do I don't care if you think it's a tactic. It doesn't matter. Good. We're talking about everything but the debate right now Good. I'll go over this in detail. I think it's a tactic. I don't buy it I don't think you're as charged up as you get to the argument or are we just talking about me Just go ahead. You said you had things to rebut it You said you would wait till the review of the video the debate for some reason just tell me now where i'm wrong I didn't say you were wrong. First of all, you're trying to put this in zero sum. Let's combat I said you are making presumptions like this isn't the debate like you're acting like this is a friendly conversation Well, there's just a dialogue. We didn't come We can add a dialogue like we're here for a debate bro. Let's stop just get to your point Okay, I honestly thought that this was going to be a lot more conversive and a lot. I I honestly did I said it in the video about the topic Okay, so I'll get to the topic the um So you you understand the first part that makes sense to me that satan would try men's hearts so that they They do what so they become what they actually are I didn't say he forced anybody love them I said people are people Satan satan puts the temptations some temptations are relatively benign. So he put pornography I did it everybody else did it. It's not that big of a deal. Some temptations are really disgusting And you wouldn't do it josh wouldn't do it Caleb wouldn't do it and some people would do it Yes, thank you God wants those people to separate themselves From him forever that makes sense. No, but I mean Patient in front of them. Maybe they won't do it that temptation adds To the ability to question. Okay. See I want to say that's a good question But I want to really converse about it. It's a good question All right, so in life just like life when you have temptation it makes things harder Would you disagree with that general premise? No 100% you you would say that pre that when people tempt you with something It doesn't make it any more difficult Right, but some temptations are denied So I I do you agree or disagree. I misunderstood you said you disagreed first. So you agree now No temptations make things harder for you to stop to not do Yes, exactly. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Okay. Perfect. Perfect. We agree. We agree it So It makes it harder for people to do good If we had no satan Okay, wait, let me explain Because I I yielded to satan for a long time.  You'd yield to some of them.  I don't think job. I know for a fact. Josh would never become a nazi Let's say that I don't think if any of us were raised in nazi germany You'd be nazis But you'd be a nazi up to a point where it was where it was like you wouldn't actually torture human beings Enjoy why why not?  Didn't like grow up in this culture that taught them to do it or got whipped in like got convinced by it So they yield to the temptation up to a point, but they wouldn't go past the point where they become actually So some people are born evil Craig why and so we'll get Craig a chance to answer why but this is actually this is actually this is fine This is rough, but it's it's not crazy. No. Yes. I that's a really good philosophical question Are some people born evil? I think that's the whole point of tempting people so that yes some people Do you think you could ever do what joseph mengel they did could you ever torture children?  Well, that's no. I don't think that's what actually happens I think how the people are evil god didn't make them evil. He wants them to be good, but they're truly bad I think there's a real difference How did they become that way? I think what I honestly think it is and this is just speculation That's why this has got to be toned down. I don't have answers. This is a debate. Yes, it could be rough But this is just speculation What I honestly think it is is I think that evil people delight in evil for evil's sake that they're that despicable They torture children and they like doing why are they like that? That's I don't know The bible even says that the mystery of iniquity that is in the world.  Well, you didn't say I just think is baby or people are born with an evil inclination That's what I can demonstrate the claim to say claim.  We're appeal to light. Go ahead. Go ahead, please Now you're back to gamesmanship. Do you want to have a conversation or not? You're back to gamesmanship I can demonstrate the claim. I don't I don't Think you styler if you were born in nazi germany I don't think in your heart as it was when you were a child growing up in nazi germany I don't think you'd ever become capable of becoming a dr. Joseph mago. What I think there's something fundamentally different about that human being He's a child of the devil and his evil Tell me your opinion right now If I sorry All you're saying is you don't think how to do this. That's an opinion I don't know what the argument is to support your position Whatever then it's all my opinion Go ahead dr. Just I'm sorry I'm trying to be direct But honestly man, you've got to recognize that was an opinion what you just said. I don't think you stop I appreciate you saying that about me That is a kind thing to say about me and I appreciate that right But you just saying this is my opinion. You wouldn't do this You have to recognize this is an argument and might be why philosophical speculation is just opinion speculation That's why you've got to say I have all the answers. You got it wrong. You can't do that in a philosophical conversation I'm not saying I have all the answers And you were need to do it go ahead Maybe Caleb would love to jump in probably I don't have a lot to say on that I mean There are different debate. I mean there are different perspectives on like original sin And I mean I don't take a Calvinist type perspective that like People are born inherently evil people's wills are not fixed on Definitely doing what's good because I'm arguing that that's when people are in perfect union with god But people have the potential to do evil and there are evil desires. So that's all I have to add on that But your point about free will you said well people could still have Okay premise five humans would still have free will if there's no devil. I mean I I agree with that So I was I questioned premise six Go ahead. So and when you deal with premise six, which is what's premise six up here? Uh, god has the ability to prove satan on these you admit he has the ability he just won't because of his nature That's the physical power Well, yeah, physical power but not He has the power to do something. That's all I'm saying in that premise. Yeah Yeah, but that's not okay, but they're Hang on there could be an equivocation going on here. I'm not saying you're doing on purpose But when you say god can yeah, he physically can both saying What I question on premise six is can he justifiably and I'm saying he can't Justifiably given his moral nature. So When we unpack the broader implications of premise six is what I object to not Yeah, yeah, the way it's phrased sure but the way it's phrased is a little too general when we start bringing in some theological distinctions So Not do things that god can't do things against his nature. Is that what you're saying? All right Okay, so god can do nothing that goes against his nature Uh, and it's against his nature to uh, basically eliminate satan At that point It's against his nature. No, that's that's not no. It's not against his nature to eliminate satan. It's against his nature to Perfectly conform the pre-heavenly world to perfectly match his That's not the word premises. That's not right. Yeah, no Well, dude, you got to recognize that there are broader implications here. Come on like this isn't well Then you need to articulate them better because you're not you're not being clear about what you're saying You're if someone if I if it's in my nature That I cannot grow wings out of my back and fly then it's not possible for me to grow wings out of my back and fly Then you need to say with that premise Uh, that it basically it's not possible Uh, how would I say this? No, uh, god's ability to secrete that existence. Um You're gonna have to show why you're already admitting that it's possible. You're saying it's against his It's weird the way you're phrasing. I guess that's what's bothering me. I guess you're trying to say that like nature somehow Something's against their nature that's separate from his ability But if it's in my nature that I don't have the ability to walk But I You but you want you know this one god It is it is against god's nature to tell a lie But god obviously could technically lie physically able to do performing. No, that's what I'm saying. He can't That's the point and that's the reason He can't lie He gets his nature because like to use my example It would be against my nature to grow wings out of my back and fly because my nature My essence doesn't the ability to grow wings out of my back and fly So that premise he would have to say that it's just not possible For god to stop satan because he's right against his nature But that's not he's starting this huge caveat. I don't want to get that ability wise He can do it, but it goes as if it's a decision being made. It's not a decision. He just simply can't do it Right, but I I went back to I went back to Josh to talk because he had something I I guess I just wanted to Can obviously go back to this But I mean just maybe to to take a step back more broadly. I think part of the thing that You said something interesting Caleb in the beginning where you said this is not like a deductive proof This argument's not a deductive proof but it You know it's suggestive. I suppose that's not the word you used but Yeah, yeah, it's not something that's deductive, you know, like it's a married bachelor or something And I think that's part of you know, when I think about this That's kind of where I go So I sit back and I think okay, let's let's think about all the ways that christian theology Post-talk is probably not the right way to describe this, but you know sort of looking back in a In the way that mythology does I'm not trying to make that equation here But in in the way that mythology does mythology looks back Or looks around at things that have already happened or already in existence and say, well, how did these get here? Right? um, and I think that There was a group Probably still is called the congregation of lord rielle That I debated on the non sequitur show and one of the things that they they they worship this this guy named rielle who's supposed to be the reincarnated Jesus, I don't know if you remember that craig, but But one of the things that they one of the things that they said was always one of the proofs that they had For lord rielle being the reincarnated jesus is that Is that there was a hurricane that was coming at my thing is beeping at me for some reason But uh, sorry Yeah, that there was a hurricane that was coming in the hurricane You know redirected and it was uh, they said oh it was because lord rielle You know did this he he redirected the hurricane So it was it was taking an event and giving a post-hoc rationalization for it And what i'm saying is that in a lot of these cases and I think this is probably where scowler's coming from please correct me if i'm wrong scowler But it's looking at these Sort of post-hoc rationalizations and saying okay. Why is it that for example? We see evil in the world Well, we look at these different texts that are coming from Um, you know god's word and we're saying okay. It like the trinity Uh, you know the sun is called god here the father is called god here the holy spirit's called god over here There's no direct statement about the trinity, but how do we make it all make sense if these all are correct? Well, this is our sort of again post-hoc might not be the right word, but our our way that we make Logically systematically. Um, and so I think from just taking it back to like a rational standpoint or you know reasonable Um, I think that that's not a defeater necessarily, you know like a deductive proof or something But I think for me it's it says okay. Does this Does this make um, how did how did you say kaleb? There are um more things essentially more things going for it than going against it and that's sort of how I come to a lot of these things. Um Because i'm not a philosopher, but what it seems like there are more things going for this is somebody This is uh, this is a theology this systematically looking back and trying to piece together What it is that we see to make it make sense to us Right, but that's that's the whole point of a theology or a philosophy is you're looking at the things that actually are And you're trying to circle those squares with Either the ideal world or the ideal theological constructs constructs So you you are by definition doing post-hoc rationalizations And the key root the root of the word rationalize is rational You're trying to to give rational voice to us the only thing that I said to you that hasn't been brought up Is that it's entirely possible that there there is there is an element of this that is beyond the purview of human understanding completely And that's entirely possible just from a philosophical point of view and the bible says that all but says it Like if you were talking to a physicist there'd be a part the part where he'd just be Sounds like he's talking gobbledygook where he's actually talking really really complex equations And you just can't process it properly because you don't have the tools Think so what we what we might do is give josh to the dr. Josh the last word just because we will go into the q&a pretty quick here unless I'll definitely go back to dr. Josh if anybody else has any other like key points that they're just like absolutely wanting to Kind of draw together those threads from the debate. We can do that. But otherwise We might just have this be the last word It's fine with me Go for it. Okay. Um, yeah, I guess I don't know why the last one. Um But I'll say something really grandiose. No, I think that um in the end Craig I absolutely agree and if I were to go back to christianity Um, that would have to be the position that I would take because I think this this idea that we can In some of the core tenets of christianity rationalize our way Um to these mysterious, you know aspects of the divine I think that's very problematic and I don't Uh, so I hear uk. You know, like when you think about the trinity. I would probably disagree with um, it's The way that it sounds modalistic a little bit unless I misheard you which is entirely possible Um, but I mean, you know, I think that there are things that if if I were going to come back I would have to say these things are above me right here outside of my pay grade Um, and I would have to be okay with that So but if that's the case then I would have to say this is a faith-based position It's a theology that I'm forming not based on some rational justification um Like epistemologically I suppose Um, but I'm having to have faith that at its, you know, at god's level there is You know, no contradiction Thanks so much gentlemen It has been a lot of fun. I have to add by the way if you have not known this folks Dr. Josh is like a superb impressionist. He has If you haven't heard there is a very funny video of uh kent hovind An impression of kent hovind. I should say it's hard to tell We're real from from an impression, but that's on skyler's page and I uh He also has a superb impression of praise So you have not that praise folks Oh, no praise is a regular debater here and regularly, uh, one of his key phrases is Well, it's already been totally debunked, but I can't do it quite like josh. I when I first heard josh I was like, oh my gosh. That's perfect. So josh. I won't put you on the spot. I would say When it feels appropriate if you want to spontaneously let that one rip I will never hold it against you because I just it's one of my favorites. I've ever heard Praise is currently in control of the stream. I'm just gonna point that out Yes, praise we didn't like it's an endearing way praise. So we'll jump to these questions. Thanks so much for your questions folks Praise are you there? I don't know. Maybe he's praise I don't know but uh, thanks so much He left. He was insulted. He just took off Steven steen thanks for your super chat who says congrats kaleb and craig on your rationally easy win Yes, our friendly Friendly benevolent troll plenty means means means more means Steven steen thanks for your other super chat who says skylark is a james asexual Appreciate that. Maybe I can't say I'm not flattered Not that please not that is a me That's a kind of sexual. I want to be That's very I've never heard that one before too much information james sexual Thanks for your super chat from club or has he also likes to be called kaleb who says irrefutable argument by kaleb and craig Gotta fan out there gentlemen. Totally totally right. Totally right. These are great super chats Keep them coming Locan 16. Thanks for your super chat who says raptor jesus is the truth Hmm raw man Under his cross a loyal follower out there. Frank mick avoy. Thanks for your super chat Who says i'm a trinity too, aren't I? Super ego ego and id so good freudian. Yeah, that's a trinity of sorts sure Appreciate that michael dresden. Let's see this guy's a troll. I'm not going to read all these just This is okay. I think he was here the other day for tom jump skyler So take these with a grain of salt. He says in all caps, of course Skyler lost already and still hasn't even realized it Oh, that's the worst kind of loss too. That's brutal It is you're right the worst is what he lost you you haven't realized it. That's true.  She's quoting isaias 65 17 She says I will create new heavens and a new earth The former things will not be remembered nor will they come to mind And then she says there is from this verse There is no reason for evil in this lifetime A challenge for our christian speakers if either of you wants to I can read it over because I know it's To make well Reasons for you guys if you'd like All right, I mean I have I mean I have an explanation that I offer for that So I mean the new heavens a new earth won't have suffering and that's what I have to argue Did what happened? What I thought he was talking where to go did he did did he drop or something me? Caleb No, I'm here. Oh Can't even tell he's there I there is I think Caleb is a bass player Caleb and dr. Josh have bass player personalities the bass players like the cool guy who's really mellow and he And he gets all the girls. Yeah Ladies that's well damn well Very aloof It's so true folks. I'm curious in the live chat to get your opinion Dr. Josh made a very keen observation at the beginning. He said Caleb is the most peaceful calming person you have ever encountered Just look at him true We love Caleb. We love beautiful next up. That's beautiful Schuyler and I are like too. I'm from New York and Schuyler Schuyler You bring out some of the Philadelphia enemies Oh Appreciate your super chat from Again, club as he likes to be called appreciate it says Schuyler is the atheist equivalent of Duncan atheism Loud obnoxious and interrupts. Oh Oh, it's rough. It's rough And I don't know what to say feel a little hurt Yeah, that's true. I'm not an atheist It might be the first thing But uh, you know, what are you gonna do man? What are you gonna do? You're not an atheist. I thought you were you agnostic. Yeah, I'm agnostic Oh, I'm an atheist towards the christian religion, but like generally like a god concept. I don't I think I'm open to it Okay, I was a deist for a long time Yes, I didn't know that I've heard that That's true. Yeah, that's right. And let's see Club thanks for your other super chat. He says Schuyler. You're just or you're trying to justify being rude and it's not working You're the same in every debate. No justification for it. You make debates unenjoyable. You've got a critic coming at you Yeah, it's weird here here's my thing and I listen I made this whole thing is if I don't feel like my answer is being My question is not being answered directly or we're going off into a tangent about something that's not directly related to it I'm gonna continue to follow up Right, uh evidence of this last debate is watch the sdb. A lot of people gave me crap saying I was a little aggressive towards sj But go to the portion of the debate where we go over my premises I think it was premise three and watch how when I allow her to just to kind of go on a tangent for like a minute or two She talks nothing of what my question was which was hey, do you agree with this premise? At the end of her diatribe that I interrupted in two minutes after I was like, hey Well, was that a yes or no the premise her question was what was the premise? so like Yes, I'll get a little burnt out sometimes when I feel like someone's not answered the question directly or understanding what i'm saying That's why I do it. I think at the end of that debate Schuyler. I think you would agree. She wanted to change your location Yes, she certainly wanted to change my location I Sorry Next up I appreciate your super chat scott lot appreciate it said craig couldn't your opening argument be used to justify any belief Well, that was part of the point when I you know the the fact that i'm trying to make this as user friendly as humanly possible Which I guess you know people can argue against it on those grounds But I thought it was eminent eminently reasonable eminently rational I'm trying to yeah I'm trying to point it out that you could participate in this and get something out of it hence reasonable hence rational Yes, it kind of could but that's part of the point of what reasonable means that it's user friendly and a lot of people go Yeah, I find that reasonable. Okay. I don't object to that It's a point of reasonable as far as I'm concerned. So yes, but I consider that a strength not a weakness call me I mean if I if like so it maybe in the same way that Right or wrong, I suppose if you were standing in the middle of the street And you thought there was a big crocodile coming at you and so you jumped out of the street and You know a bus missed hitting you because you thought there was a crocodile And you jumped out of the street because of that even though that wasn't like a justified true belief because there was no crocodile It was beneficial. It was reasonable Uh because of the consequences of it. Is that well, I use something that actually occurred now I get that you don't think that there was something actually Occurring to predicate the belief but no not necessarily, but I mean either way Oh, well either way, but it makes a big difference because the crocodile Uh, I mean it's sketchy when you put it like that because that's that's moving the goalpost is something that clearly isn't Rather than something that debatably is like something that's more More potentially true not like, you know, the unicorn I open the door and see unicorn in my bedroom is that reasonable But that's not what i'm saying to make the analogy to something outlandish Is to make the analogy on grounds that make it sound more irrational than it actually was like monk For my actual beliefs, okay I went to a church in the real world and it actually occurred on a real night with real people talking real There was no imaginary delusions involved and I didn't necessarily even become a christian that night I just said these people know something about god that I don't I want to participate with these people I didn't say i'm now a christian. Let me go preach the gospel to everyone in the neighborhood Everyone's gonna burn out. I said these people know something that I don't sign me up for this church So it's more reasonable than that. That's my point.  I promise Maybe like a better analogy I keep going to tv shows but the show monk, you know, he's a germaphobe Right, so he always thinks that he's every time he shakes somebody's hand But I was thinking about it if if monk were around right now He he would certainly not have the coronavirus ostensibly. Exactly. Yes. So so maybe that's a better analogy Maybe they were germs. Maybe there weren't but it was beneficial. It was reasonable Uh, the yes and that would be considered ritual Yes, and and actually we start to see the wisdom of people like that now My wife is was a monk like person Where and she'd like take your shoes off I want to you know, she didn't do it before the coronavirus, but she almost did and I wouldn't let her I want to wipe your shoes down before you step in the house now. I let her do it and it makes sense Her positions are a lot more eminently reasonable. She's always buying health shots. She's always Building up inside of herself anti toxins and healthy stuff in in In preparation for what might not occur. So yes, eminently reasonable along those lines. That's what I thought we were gonna talk about You got it and let's see Thanks k-024 for your super chat Ask question for the christians How do you rationalize the fact that the christian god is just another in a long line of deities? humankind has created through history Okay And it begs the question because I don't we don't think the christian god was created now, of course The ancient israelites conceptualized aspects about god that you know, perhaps I would argue reflected their understanding at the time and the cultural You know had cultural, um, they drew upon the wider frame of their Culture, but that's not the same as saying that the christian god was totally created I mean that would that would just beg the question against our position So I mean I would give arguments though like I presented one at the beginning and then yes Gotcha, thanks so much and appreciate your super chat from club as he likes to be called Caleb thinks he says this is like a debate with three aracas and one Duncan Oh snap Oh No Okay, that that would be a debate uh, james, why don't we get dorth dawkins on? To the agnostic Version of him apparently that would be an epic to you know, I'm on his block list So it might be a little difficult, but we could get that magic to happen. I would totally do it to it I'll do a super chat. I'll do Yeah, I could not sign me up for that james. That'll be great Uh, but we'll see he's you know, he's tough to get but you know everybody it's um And speaking of erica people just love erica and I get it, you know She was a good sport the other night. She had to run in with Nathan Thompson So that was a wild one. We appreciate and give a lot of street cred to erica for being so patient and uh Caleb strikes again. Thanks. Caleb for your question. She ain't this Caleb is just ripping into you tonight. Skyler.  He says skyler was james's only mistake in life What the heck Caleb? Okay That is like Geez, I am man. Why don't you make it personal Caleb? Okay, nick thanks for your super chat Nick says Caleb is not making sense and craig seems very angry You've got a critic out there you guys we've got and this is they're not referring to the last Caleb with those super chats It's the reference to you Caleb and craig okay I I don't think I was unreasonably angry the beginning of this debate was a little rough And skyler brought it back down to earth So you could he could be rough but at the beginning it was Out of the bounds of like, you know, automatically jumping on top and it was unpleasant Then it then it was fine. I don't mind him being rough and you're not answering my question and jostling around Like I said, I'm a new yorker. I can handle it up to a point But at the beginning, I don't think I was I don't think I was too angry I thought I was appropriate to the situation, but I'll let skyler and dr Listen, I gotta learn to cuddle a little bit because before I get you know into bed is what I should say I gotta do a little bit more foreplay Before I start jumping into the you know full action of the love making Perhaps maybe maybe going rough too early was not the The most uh Most profitable for open and good friendly conversations But you know what things that I for the uh, you know in your guys's defense I think it's kind of like yeah, somebody says like rough and tumble But you know afterwards you're like, ah, you know, yeah, I'd be there for you if you needed it like You know, it's kind of like, you know, it's like it's like, you know You hit somebody in like football wrestling something like you're like, ah, it's not personal You know, you walk away and you're like, we're friends. I'm fine. All right. Thanks for your super chat from k o 2 4 Who says for the christians if god created everything then he created the worm that eats children's eyes, which is called the Loa Loa filarial word. Well, I've talked about this in my videos. That's the evil anomaly argument There's there's the majesty and a perfection to creation and then the atheist always jumps to except for this one evil anomaly I think the evil anomaly is the exception that proves the rule. Yeah, it's there and it's it's weird But there's not there's not these type of worms all over the place all the time eating our eyes all the time Life is basically benevolent and good and you know positive Dry up how so you can you could go Well, I mean, I would argue that the I mean the same response that I'd give about Satan it's like any Example of evil. I'm going to argue that it's because you know the the pre-heavenly Universe world that we live in isn't perfectly conformed to god's will including, you know, these laws of evolution that bring about this worm So that's a hard response Gosh, yeah, and appreciate your super chat from pierce mckew. I didn't see a question Can let me know if you do have a question Just fired into the live chat as a normal chat and I will ask it for you Maynard saves. Thanks for your super chat who said raw men Dr. Josh and Skyler It fires up raptors It's good to know that like It's it's it's really it's it's good to know so many of these people out there still You know, they're still practicing The raptor jesus beliefs, you know, it's good to know that you know a lot of people now It's so easy to get wrapped up in the world and everything that's going on with coven 19 But you got to remember there's there's a big guy up there with big sharp claws That wants you to be under them and want you to be saved by By raptor jesus, so I appreciate you you raptor baits out there Keep in keeping hope alive during these tough tough times Preach it skyler a true man That was beautiful. That was beautiful Thank you all for being here tonight. We really appreciate it that the debaters are what make the channel fun They're like so I can't thank them enough They are as I mentioned their links are in the description folks So if you're listening, you're like, hmm, I like that. Well, there's plenty more where that came from and also want to let you know Thanks so much for your questions folks.  My philosophy is we are not an anti What's up? We're not a D platforming channel.  Well, I'm actually going to cut my own hair tonight It is uh Yes, so Dude, this is a channel man. This is like seriously cool entertaining channel. This is good stuff Because of me cutting my own hair And like some really controversial thing happens tomorrow The most controversial thing ever I feel like I got blue-balled on what's actually going to happen here. Like you just built all that up Right, and that's like we got these two controversial points tomorrow. Then you're just like You didn't tell you didn't deliver You gotta watch Yo, where's the money? Basically, you know that I We have we have only one rule and it's the rule that I'm like Ideally, I mean because well if people are abusive we'll say hey, can you come level with us?  I'm sympathetic. It's not an easy question. So anyway It's not easy question. I lean on the sides of let people expose themselves and don't Don't hide these beliefs under rocks because they get worse in You know, they they they fester in secrecy let these people expose themselves and maybe they maybe they'll even change your mind They'll have them debate scarlet. Maybe scarlet would change the mind Maybe yes, it is a concern of mine that when we push people underground I don't think that all of them are just going to kind of go quietly I think some of them will it will fester and build up and eventually come out worse, but Yes, thank you again to our speakers. This has been a true true fun time and frustrated atheists Just asked a question namely question for dr. Josh.  This should have been their argument if they had put like like evidence, there's a god Dr. Josh's beautiful sexy face. It would have been game over How could I have argued against that during this debate? Like how could I have done that? so Josh answer. I'm sorry You just it's a given I feel like we're putting the cart before the horse here. Isn't that uh, can you can you hear me? Hello That was james gone Okay, so sorry my internet just froze up, so we're gonna go. Thanks so much everybody Why is Josh so sexy?