Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not Christianity is true, and we are starting right now with Tray's opening statement. Thanks for being with us, Tray. The floor is all yours. Right, thank you very much. I'm very grateful for this opportunity to engage my ideas in the marketplace of free exchange. I'm grateful for the modern day debate, and James Coons, he's always very kind and charitable, and I appreciate his willingness to host this exchange. I'm also grateful to Skyler Fiction. We go back several years. We have been interlocked tours probably as much as many as eight years ago, and I haven't seen each other for quite a while. So Skyler is glad to see you. I'm glad we can have this interaction. And as our topic for tonight is on the veracity or the truthfulness of Christianity, I bear the burden and I'm very happy to do that. And therefore, I need to go first and to give my opening remarks. And I'd like to, when I begin, I'd like to delineate my approach from other approaches that most people use today. Not many people have seen to be familiar with my perspective. I'm a classicist, and most people in these areas seems like are generally evidentialists, and an evidentialist is someone who seeks to gain knowledge through sense perception primarily, and which is a wonderful way I'll use this some in my argumentations on what. But at the foundation, I don't like to use evidentialism because it cannot give certainty because our senses, you know, trick us in this is why science is always changing our empirical science. And so I prefer to have some kind of approach that can give me a greater level of certainty. That's what I'm looking for. I'm not looking to make a case from my perspective to say, well, at base it's, it's probable, it's more probable than not that God exists, which is what most evidentialists will do. They'll usually have a cumulative approach where they'll give evidence for maybe the reliability of Scripture's predictive prophecy, you know, usually, you know, focus on the resurrection and say it's more likely than not that God exists. I'm not going to make that case tonight. I'm going to make a case for the analytical necessity of God. And so, so my case is going to start out as a rational one and analytical reasoning can get a certainty. I can some some examples of analytical truths would be like two plus two is four, or which I will use employed with my perspective which is a great argument from contingency, I will employ the causality argumentation, which basically relies upon a principle causality itself is an analytical statement. It's analytically true. It's not something that's empirically necessarily perfectly verified. It cannot. It must be true by definition. Skylin and I can probably dig into that more as we engage further in our exchange, but then there's also presuppositionalism, which is another popular approach. And it, like me is seeking to make a rational argument and employs the transcendental argument for God, and says that, you know, you cannot have something instantiate like the laws of logic or more code without a eternal personal and changing being, which argument is fine as far as it goes with the problem is as they employ informal fallacy in the formulation of their perspective, and that commits a pitidio for hippie fallacy in other words it says you can't get to the God of scripture unless you begin with the God of scripture what they do is they're confusing the order of being or the order of Cindy with the order of Cognac Cindy or the order of knowing so epistemology and ontology they confuse and conflate those categories, and they commit this fallacy and therefore render the perspective unworkable in my perspective, although I think I have many friends who hold to this perspective, and I myself but I should say this I'm a, I'm a reform Baptist in my orientation. And so I very much appreciate a lot of my presuppositional brothers I just think their apologetic methodology is deeply flawed, and I think that it needs to change. My perspective presuppositionalism made its way into the church through the enlightenment so from my perspective presuppositional is not faithful Christianity is just a content idealism with Christian lipstick on it. Anyway, I don't want to go up too much on that but. And then finally I've got my perspective which is called classicism. Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to begin with an analytical approach, and similarly to presuppositionalism, but I'm not going to employ an informal fallacy in the way that I argue. So usually when I make my argument I do it in three, three parts. I will first demonstrate the necessary existence of basically necessary being or a self existent being in order for there to be contingent being, and then I will move on to a little more clarity with the existence of God and I'm going to argue for moral law or purpose within the universe basically saying that purpose cannot instantiate unintentionally in the universe and so we're we're proposing to have this conversation therefore there must be something eternally purposeful. And so those two arguments correspond with chat Romans chapter one and Romans chapter two in the Bible, and those are usually categorized historically, not as theology but as philosophy because it's information that is available to everyone. And it is information that is irreputably true. If you grant my epistemological presuppositions, then those two arguments are true by definition, they are irreputable, and they think logically follow from the facts that I will lay out when we begin. Okay, so, but then once we get the existence of God and teleology established and we move into the specifics of the God of Christianity. And, and so what I'm going to do is I'm going to move into a realm, not of analytical certainty when I go into the evidence for Christianity but it will be an evidential argument there with not the same level of certainty, but it will give reasonable definition to this God that has been demonstrated, who is moral in nature and to whom we are accountable. I'm hoping we can actually get through the argumentation some I think Skyler is this was this debate was categorized as atheists versus Christian but I believe Skyler is a deist or a theist of some sort. And so, if that if that's the case, we will probably zip right through the first approach and then move on to the other two. I'm hopeful that we can do better than we did with Matt Dillahunty and him, whinging and crying and calling names and acting like a child. So, so I'm going to give my first portion of my argumentation is going to say that if something exists. There are only four possibilities. If something exists either as an illusion. It is self created. It is self existent. Or it is created by something that is self existent by the way apologize that I shouldn't you're right it shouldn't attack matter if he's not here to defend himself. But anyway, so those are the only four possibilities and maybe scholar can come up with another one I've not heard one in over a decade but maybe he can add something to that, and we can discuss it. And so, with that, that is my opening argument again it's a contingency argument and once we begin after scholar gets his opening remarks, I will ask for a few epistemological tools if you will grant them and we've done this before on those scholar members and I know that you will grant them, and, and we can move into the distinctions of that argument and engage them further. You got it want to say. So many mute buttons so many unmute buttons. So folks, thanks for being here at modern day debate. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from Christian Muslim atheists you name it. We are glad that you are here and want to say folks, if you haven't already hit that subscribe button we have many more debates to come. You don't want to miss them so hit subscribe right now. We'll kick it over to Skyler. Thanks for your opening. Right. Skyler the floor is all yours for your opening as well. Yeah, I just, I want to say first of all, thank you for having me on again. I've been here since the early days and talk about me and Trey having conversations but man, I was looking back and I've been on this channel coming on for years and years and years and James always been a great friend. I do want to be clear what the topic of the debate is, which is Christianity true. It's not that we're not doing a comparison of worldviews of my particular God belief versus your God belief. So what there is it is does definitely adds a interesting dynamics for Trey here because he's probably used to talking atheists quite a bit. And I, I believe in a God. So I'm going to grant a creator already. I'm going to grant that morality is rooted in its foundation. Right. So I'm going to, I'm going to grant objective morality within that God that I believe in. So when we talk about Christianity today, it's going to be Trey's job to try to show Christianity is the case and that these beliefs of Christianity are rational and reasonable. Now, I often like to just kind of lay out a basic idea like to kind of like how the Bible lays out Christianity which I've talked to Trey quite a bit he is a Bible believing Christian. He takes a lot of these scriptures very literally. But we can start with the whole idea of how Trey is going to be forced to argue that there's a thing called original sin that exists. All right, and that's original sin that people were born with because of Adams federal headship because God made Adam, because he chose to I guess just wanted to made Adam the federal headship of all human beings. Because Adam failed in the garden all human beings are born in a way that makes them punishable in any way that God chooses to this doesn't matter what age it's all justified. In Trey's view he's going to he's going to tell you that he's going to give you the argument that the Potter gets to do what he wants with the clay. Right. And typically what he would try to do is kind of argue that, you know, it's not. He tried to argue against like a moral subjective this position like the person would you be hold and be like well you don't think morals are really real. But I'm granting the objective morality exists. Right. And as we go through, you know, we have all types of things that happen besides. We have original sin, and we're punishing children for the parents actions. Right, we've got a promise to Abraham that was made, and the promise was future lands, and his descendants would be many, and he'd have great wealth. Right, this was because of obedience. I think about some of the interesting things that happened in that story that you know God makes people mutilate their genitalia as a covenant to show that they are with God, but not only, you know, the followers of Yahweh but like the slaves.   He tells you you can own women as property tells you can own when you can sell your daughter as a slave to get out of debt and unlike the men, the women don't get freed after seven years. And of course that's for the Hebrews, like for non Hebrew slaves. These folks can be put in slave meant for life to consider property that can be forced to work with rigor. We have examples all over the Bible of God, who's supposed to and this, this is what I remember was that we was actually watching an older conversation to train us. And one of his main focuses that humans have intrinsic value. I agree God gave us intrinsic value but then your God that you worship completely does the opposite of showing that he had that humans have intrinsic value. Right. He does violent things to them when not necessary. He drowns children and babies has humans mutilate other humans and cute children. He allows for sex slaves for men Israelites to be able to capture other nations women, force them to marry him. And then they get to have relations with the woman. You know we can go through all these different examples in the Bible and how this Old Testament God or the whole God really it's the same God. The whole Trinity things a whole other strange paradox when you think about the idea it's one person but three different minds, three different wills. But somehow it's all the same well but that's not really I'm not really here to focus on Trinity. I think you can do good with enough examples of how God says he loves and cares about people, but does the complete opposite in helping them. He loves millions of people stars. Lots of people died of diseases that he created as a repercussion of Adam eating from the tree. Right. You don't have to believe in a God like that. There's no evidence of God like that exists. Right. It's just what Christians think God is based on based on reading the Bible. I'm happy with an open conversation.  I won't grant you others. You're going to have to demonstrate or show certain arguments and things that you're making here during this debate. But you know I think I'll leave it there. I'm trying. I think that's fair. Okay. Thank you so much. I look forward to the discussion. Thank you very much for that opening as well. And I want to say, folks, if you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers and your ears, and you didn't know modern day debate live and in person is going to be in Houston, Texas on Saturday, September 15th. You don't want to miss this. If you are in the Houston area, there is a link in the description box right now to get tickets. We're going to have two debates there, at least one of which is the one that you see at the bottom right of your screen. That versus Daniel. You don't want to miss that one. But my dear friends, it doesn't just stop there. We have another one in particular also on the bottom of your screen now. Aaron versus Jake Muslim Metaphysician on whether or not God exists. You don't want to miss this. It's going to be huge. So check out that link in the description box for tickets so you can watch it live and in person in Houston, Texas on Saturday, September 15th. We're going to jump into the open dialogue. Thanks for your questions, folks. We'll have a Q&A, like always, for the end where we will read questions. You can tag me with at modern day debate in the live chat, or you can use a super chat to read those first, and then we read through the standard questions if I'm permitting. With that, we're going to jump into the open dialogue. Thanks very much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. Great. You want to start somewhere? Sorry, I forgot to unmute myself. So, Scholar, so you will grant that there is a self-existent creator who created us and sustains us, who is necessary in nature, self-existent, and it gives rise to our contingent being and enables us to be. That'd be fair to say. I believe in a God. I believe in a creator. God who has created everything. That's as far as a language. And you don't make any assertions about that being at all? No. Well, I'm not here to argue my specific religion anyway. The debate topic is Christianity True. Right. But I need to know if you will grant my presuppositions therefore. No. I'll grant that there's a God that's real. I'll grant that there's a creator God. Well, that's what I mean. I shouldn't say presuppositions, but you grant logic and sense perception, right, as a testimonial. Okay, but let's get to the argument, man. I want to hear the argument for Christianity. Scholar, before you have a whole conversation about what tools we need, what you're going to need me to grant you, I just want you to make the argument. But before you have a word of God, you've got to have a God of the word. There must be a Lord before you have him give revelation. Would you agree with that? We can talk freely here. I don't grant that there is a word of God. Okay, so he has not revealed himself in this creation. I'm just saying I'm not granting you that, that the God has revealed himself. And I'm asking you, you do not believe. I'm not talking about my position. I'm not talking about my position on God. Do you ask about like the word? I am saying my perspective requires that. Will you grant that it's analog? No, I won't say that. Well, wait a minute, analytical truth, I'll grant you analytical truth. I'm not granting that your God has a book that he wrote his word in. So how do you, how do you believe in your God then? My God beliefs are not real. We're not having a debate about my God. We're having a debate on is Christianity true? This is how I know that my God is exist. Okay, not only does he have a book that he has written that is special revelation, but he also has a book that's equally infallible called natural revelation. And that's how you know that there's a God, right? I don't grant you that he has a book. You just have a natural revelation. Hold on, gentlemen, just so we can, so we could, I'm open to hosting you guys for real. Like I'm not just being, I'm not just, this isn't just cheek and tongue. I'm willing to host you on, you know, what reasons does have the Skyler have for his position of some sort of whatever it is. But I do, but it's whatever it is, it's not Christianity. And so given that tonight is on is Christianity true? I do want to talk about like, I do want to keep us focused on there rather than on whatever Skyler's position is. Okay, so from my perspective, I'm going to say that there is a God who has revealed himself, but he hasn't revealed himself merely in the Bible. He has revealed himself in nature. And this is the first two portions of my argument were for unnecessary self-existent creator and that there is a moral law which basically is going to say that there is such a thing as a sanctity of existence. And the reason I'm challenging Skyler now is because that's why he believes what he believes, but he doesn't want to go there. But that's fine. But I'll tell you just what you believe, even if you don't want to admit it. Well, I don't, regardless of what Skyler believes, that is a different debate. I just said two minutes ago we can have that another night, but I do want to actually have the debate on whether or not Christianity is true.  That's another debate. It's true. Look at him smile. It's true. But I just want to redirect us. I just want to keep us focused on whether or not Christianity is true. Okay, so what I'm saying is that God has revealed himself both naturally and specifically, and that there is a moral code that is in this realm. And my second point is basically that we all know that existence is holy. All right. And so when you look at Romans chapter two, it says that all men know that there's a moral law. And at base of the moral law, what you're saying is when you're saying there's a right and a wrong, which Skyler said, you believe him, but I'm fine. I'm with me, but this is why I believe what I believe that there is a specialness to existence. And if there's a specialness to existence, then it must be valued by something outside of itself that's unchanging and necessary and being so I'm saying that God is of Christianity at base. Not only does he exist, not only does he create all things, but he values things and sets a moral standard for everybody to keep. And that standard is always going to be centered around the sanctity of existence. In other words, that existence is special. If that's the case, then why does he treat women as property until fathers in the Old Testament, they can sell their daughters in the slavery. And these girls don't get to go free as the men do. So if you value somebody's existence, if you have intrinsic value, telling them that you could make them slaves for life because they're a woman in no way shows that they're intrinsically valuable to you. Okay, okay. Well, in the Old Testament, when someone would sell their daughter into slavery, what would be the reason for doing that? You're the Christian, right? Because they thought it would be fun. Well, I'd like to have some interaction. Well, I mean, I'm going with the Bible. They sold them to get out of debt. That's what I said. Okay, so they sold them so they would not starve to death, right? Yeah, they sold their daughter. They didn't have sense of security. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. They sold their daughter into slavery so they wouldn't starve. You're right, right? But yes, you're right. There's no social security, but God can give them other rules. I don't know you to have the situation where it's either, hey, become a slave or starve. This is a false dichotomy. You limit your powers of your God and say, no, he couldn't make a better idea or plan like a, hey, instead of becoming a slave and keeping the woman for life, how about you just keep her for seven years? That seems a little fair, right? Well, why don't you, why not just have it where there can be no such thing as sin? In other words, you're saying, well, I think God should have done it a different way. That's your argument. No, no, that's not my argument. I'm just pointing out the differences. Like I'm pointing out how you say human beings have value, intrinsic value, and they're special to God. But then you show how God tells you to treat them, which is contradictory to what you're arguing. Which if you're going to say, hey, treat women as slaves in order to get out of debt, and then you're going to say, God, this is valuable to God. This is special to God. That's contradictory. God gives standards in the Old Testament to regulate the way people live, just like having multiple wives. Jesus said he never desired that anybody have more than one wife, but God, rather than judging men according to their sins and wiping them all out, he gives variables because he knows it, or I should say variables, parameters for doing things that they've done, rather than wipes them out for everything that they've done. In other words, he's accommodating them in their simpleness with forbearance and charity, even though it's not his desire. Because from Christianity. Yeah, I mean, selfish and slavery. OK, like we could ban selfish. We can complete men with crust testicles can't go to church, right? We ban those things. But slavery was just a step too far to ban first society. OK, do you know the difference between the moral and ceremonial law in the Old Testament? Yeah. Hold on. So you say, is it moral for people to own women as property and keep them for life? Is that a moral action? No, it was at that time it was. Is it immoral? Is it immoral? Is it immoral? Your worldview to own a human being as property? No, no, I don't know. Not necessarily. Owning a person is slavery. Like not. They don't get like they don't get freedom like the woman in the story where she had. She was sold. Hold up. She was sold not by her own free will by her father. She doesn't get to go free. So in that scenario, how explain how that's moral. Or how it's not immoral. Well, from my perspective, I don't understand what on what basis you can complain against it unless you agree that the sanctity of existence. Hold on. Questions aren't complaining about it. I asked you a question. Let's let's get that straight. I asked you a question. I'm not complaining about it. So can you answer the question? Okay. What do you mean you're not complaining about it? You're saying it's a question. Questions aren't questions aren't complaints. No, that's a fact. It's not. It's not. It's a contradiction.  A contradiction to say that God values people and they're special and kind. And then his how he treats women in the Old Testament. Hey, you can be bought as slaves kept permanently for life and never released. Yes. And why is it that people treat each other that way? According to Christianity. Oh, yeah.  What are your thoughts judgment on them? Okay. What are your thoughts about it? I'll tell her. Not a fan. Not a fan of eight off Hitler. Okay. Do you think he should be punished? He's dead. You can't punish him.  He killed him. He was punished. Well, hold on. He killed himself. He didn't. We wasn't killed for what he did. I'm saying, do you believe that people like Hitler should be punished? Do I believe in a death penalty for people like Hitler? Yes. Or even to put him in jail so much. I mean, just think that they should be punished for action. How does this get you to Christianity is true? Well, because I'm appealing to a moral order must be a moral law giver. A moral law. I could say that morals are rooted in God's nature. Yeah, but you can't tell me what that moral law is. Sure. I can give you examples, right? It's a moral to drown babies. Why? Why? Because it goes against God's nature. How do you know? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. It's not about your personality. You don't want to argue with your personality. Because then I could just know how do you know, right? And then you're going to be called the Bible Special Revelation. Whatever.  But just to be sure, we don't do some sort of examination of Skyler's view per se. Just so we have focused on the case for Christianity. Let's say theoretically, for the sake of argument, that Skyler had like the worst position ever. It's awful. It's terrible. It's not real. But I do just want to, so in that case, you know, like it wouldn't mean that Christianity or Islam or atheism is true. So I do want to focus us on the question for tonight. Yeah. Okay. But James, what I'm saying is great for him to complain against mine. He must assume my position. That's the problem. I'm not, I'm not complaining to see your, that's a straw man. I'm not complaining. It's your position. I'm showing you how it's contradictory. You're saying it's contradictory. Hold on. What is it by doing by doing an internal critique? Right. You agree that you agree that contradictions can make something in value. Yes, I do believe. Right. So we agree in a way that we do things. Okay. So you say that God. God feels that women or babies are special and he loves them. He cares. And they have an intrinsic value, but God does not treat people like they have intrinsic value. He tells them to mutilate their genitalia. He has them think that they're going to have to execute their own children. Sometimes he does have them execute children. So you keep saying intrinsic value. They're everything. And then we look at the actions and they contradict that. Right. It would be like me saying, oh, I love my child. I love my children. And then you find out I'm abusing them and hitting them and hurting them and vocally and emotionally abusing them. Right. These actions are contradictory to you saying that God values these people. Well, no, it's not. I would say, do you believe that children should be spanked? No. Okay. Do you think they should be punished for bad deeds? Bad deeds. Can you define bad deeds? Mouthing off to their mother. That's an example of a bad deed. It doesn't even matter. Should there be some form of discipline for my children? Yes. I discipline my children. All right. Does it hurt them to do that? Physically, no. Not even really mentally. They get more annoyed. Okay. So you don't believe that...  No, no. I want to do a reductio. I want to keep it as soft as I can. That's fine. I'm not criticizing my morality. We're talking about the Christian God's morality. So you're saying that... You're criticizing... I'm not criticizing. I'm showing a contradiction. It's just a criticism. No, it is not. It's not like me saying, oh, I don't like your morals because they're bad and mean and ugly. Yes, you are. That's exactly what you're saying. No, I'm saying that you have contradictory views. You're saying it's because I believe in something evil while still holding to a standard of holiness. Right? So is it evil to drown babies?  And God drowns babies. What do you mean? You said God drowns babies.  I'm talking about for humans to do it. What does the Bible say about human... Oh, wait a minute. So it's only a moral to drown babies sometimes. No, it's God's prerogative to take life and give life. Do you agree with that? No, I didn't answer. You didn't answer my question. Let me phrase this. Is it always a moral to execute a baby for a human to execute a baby? Yes. Okay. So God has humans execute babies in the Bible. So God has humans doing more actions. Yes, because God orders it. But it's not my prerogative to do that. I cannot do that. It's always wrong. It's God's prerogative to have babies sliced open in sorts. Because babies are born sinners. Right. That's what the Bible teaches. Do you agree with that, Skyler? No, I agree. I agree. That's what you argue, right? So you're saying that because... Okay, that's what Christianity says. Hold on. Sure, sure.  It is... Yes, it is fine for him to bring judgment upon wicked people. Right. And there is corollary damage to the children. How does the judgment work in that case? First Samuel. So what does he do? What does he tell the people to do? First Samuel what? First Samuel 15. Or any example where he goes, just tell me what he's ordering the judgment. First Samuel 15 is the simple one. You know the Amalekites? You remember the Amalekites? Oh, destroy them and do not let one person live among them, right? So that... Do you know why he did it? Because they are wicked people. They deserve judgment. Sorry, you've got to go to the scripture. The scripture actually says it because of what their generations had done before. It was revenge. These people hadn't committed the actions that God would... No, no. You don't understand Christianity, Skyler. Go to First Samuel 15 and read it. What does the Bible say about it? Hold on. I will read it for you since you want to get away from it. No, I don't.  Let's see. I know I got to have it here. But you're not reading it in context. Once again, if you want to tell me... It tells you the context in there. Hold on. No. It really tells you the context. Would you let me talk? I am letting you talk. There's no stopping you from talking. No, I'm trying to explain to you. All men are born sinners. Everybody who dies, the reason there is death in this world, according to Christianity, is because of sin. We're all dying because we're all sinners. I got the scripture now. I know this. I know your theology. I know you blame Adam for everything. And now everybody's bored with his nature. No, no, no. I don't. Adam is our federal head so that we can have a federal head. I said all this earlier. I didn't misrepresent your religion earlier. I said this is what you believe. You believe in a federal headship. This is your justification. But you just took 1 Samuel 15 out of... Well, no, no, no. I'm going to read what it says. It says, look, 1 Samuel, I said to Saul, I am the Lord who sent to anoint you king over his people, Israel. So listen now to the message from the Lord. This is what the Lord Almighty says. I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waved late to them as they came out of Egypt. Now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy them. Everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them.  It gave you the context why God was executing the babies. It was for something they didn't do. Now, yes, you can say they all had original sin, right? But everybody in the Bible has original sin except for the little bit before Adam. It's kind of like a red hair. It doesn't even matter, right? So here you go. Why doesn't that matter? What? What doesn't matter? That all men are born sinners worthy of death from the womb. Because you have a context where God is telling you why he's doing it. It isn't because they were just sinners born in the womb. He's telling you. They were exceedingly sinners. That's not what it says. It says it was for revenge for what they had done. That culture, it isn't the same people. So even in the infants and the children, you're saying it is perfectly moral to have infants and children execute it that had nothing to do with the violence the Amalekites committed against the Israelites. Would you agree, Skyler, that no child has actual sin when they're an infant, right? No, you're saying they do. They have an original sin. No, no, I'm talking about actual practical sin. I'm just talking about... We don't share our same definitions of sin. So you believe in a world where people are born, babies are born in a way that God can do whatever he wants to them to punish it. I mean, it would be justifiable. I don't believe it's not like that. Skyler, all men should be dead. And babies. The fact that God would say one person... You could say it. You could say and babies. Yes, and babies. Babies deserve hell, right? Do they deserve hell? Do they deserve hell? In the imputed sin of Adam, they are born sinners.  Now, when it comes to infants...   Yeah, can I finish? When children... That's fine. I just want to make sure everyone heard you. Okay, from my perspective, there is a possibility that the imputed righteousness of Christ could be applied to the children, but I don't dogmatically hold to that. I don't know what happens to babies, but I know this, that they deserve damnation and death because they are born in Adam. They are born enemies of God from the womb. And if God were just to save one person, that would be an amazing act of kindness. And the fact that he saves as many as he does is again, it's an amazing act of kindness. It's not an act of injustice that God is killing those that he does. The fact that it's amazing is that he would save anyone. I mean, you can call it justice.  It is. You can say it's justice. That's fun. I mean, that's because all you're doing is saying, justice is rooted in my God's morality or justice is rooted in my God's nature. And anything my God does is just by definition. So whatever you want to put in, you can just fill in the blank. God drowns babies, it's just, right?  You're just saying it's just because God does it. It doesn't mean anything. No, I'm saying it's justice because... And none of this is the argument, none of this. Any of this gets any argument for Christianity being true. All right, Scott, is it true that you are a sinner? No. Do you have a moral standard for yourself? It's not. No, I don't have one for myself. No. God has a moral standard. Okay. How do you know that standard? Once again, if you want to have a Christian... Again, this is what's ridiculous about this. No, because what's ridiculous is... All I'm doing is preach you and you can... I'm just trying to get you to make an argument that shows Christianity is true. I knew this would be awkward for you to have another God believer and another God believer who could root morality and it's in their God. Yeah, but you're not a God believer. I am a God believer. Before we talk about Skyler's beliefs, I do want to redirect us to whether or not Christianity is true. Folks, also, if you want to hit the like button, we do appreciate that support. It means more than you know. We are at 459 watching and 85 likes. So we do appreciate your support. Thank you, guys, for your likes. Go ahead, gentlemen. All right, so the fact... Here's what I'm trying to do, Skyler. I'm trying to make a point to say that you want to say it's unjust or hypocritical or to forgot to bring judgment upon men, even babies in and of themselves. But we all know practically that we sin.  And you know that you don't keep the standard that you want to be. Empty claim, empty claim. Neither do I. Empty claim. Empty assertion. What do you mean? This is just an empty assertion on your part. You're the one that's asserting moral law. You're saying that I know that I sin. And I don't even equate sin in the way... I don't even use the word sin, first of all. Less than perfection. Everybody has that. Yeah, yeah. No, that's not everybody's definition of what a sin is.  Come on. Yeah. Argument for Christianity. Okay. Well, I'm making an argument. Everybody knows that there's a moral law. What would be premise one? Is that premise one? Everybody knows there's a moral law. Premise one. Yes. Moral laws exist. Okay. Perfect. I'm going to grant you both of those. Let me do premise three for you. Premise three. One of those moral law is objectively immoral to drown babies. It's number three. How do you know? Well, it's not about what I know. I want to see if you agree. You're made the assertion. You did it. Premise three. Premise three, right? You said one, objective moral values exist or a creator exists. And then you said objective moral values and premise two came from that creator, right? And then for premise three, I'm saying the objective moral value of not hurting children, not drowning babies is part of its nature for premise three. Do you agree? How do you know? You made the assertion. You don't have to agree with the premise. It's okay. Yeah. You can't do it. You made the assertion. Now the burden is yours. I'm trying to get you to see if you agree to a premise. That's all I'm doing. And you can't. You want to play game, Skyler? Oh, right. Name calling is always easy. But you who asserts must prove you said it's morally immoral to drown babies. Did you not say that? Yeah, I'm granting that it's objectively immoral to drown babies. And I'm asking you, how do you know? Because it's part of God's nature. He communicates that through my mind. He's able to communicate with me. Okay. So you mean you just have these visions at night? Oh, yeah. I said visions at night. But once again, I'm still waiting for that argument for Christiane that you're trying to get away from. Where's the audience? I am not trying to get. I'm trying to defend Skyler and you're running away. You don't need to yell. You don't need to yell, man. What's premise one? Let's work with premise one. Premise one, bro. Premise one is that moral logs. Okay. Premise two. That that moral law is based on the sanctity of existence. Premise three. I don't agree with that one. That moral law is not based on the sanctity of existence. No, how would you make that argument? How would you make that argument? It's not my job to give you how else to define it. Let me ask you that. All right, Skyler, every moral code you can think of, this is a thing. I don't really think about this, but it's. I can't, I've not seen a defeat or two. Every moral law that we have is based upon the idea that existence is special, whether it be like speeding tickets or speeding. I'm sorry, speed limits, lights or crosswalks or rate or medical procedures. Everything says that existence is special. Every moral law that we make in society is based on the sanctity of existence. Now, sometimes people. Okay, but why? Right? I think that's just your opinion. I don't think there's any fact to it. There's no argument for that. Okay, demonstrate what's wrong with my argument. No, it's an opinion. It's not even an argument. You're making an assertion. Okay, but do you have a reason for your opinion, Skyler? Because you have it made an argument to support your premise. Your answer to me was, how could it be this other way? You basically made an argument from ignorance. You're like, tell me a way, Skyler. It could be defined some other way. I don't know when it made an assertion for moral law, Skyler. Premise to what's your premise to again? That all moral laws are based on the sanctity of existence. I don't grant you that. You're going to have to make it. Tell me why? You have to tell me why. You can't just say I don't like it. That's not because it's not an argument. That's a premise. You haven't argued with the merit of the premise. It's not an argument. But we have to, Skyler, listen, we have to agree on the premises of the argument. Do you agree with that? I can't make a premise that she don't agree with it and somehow get a conclusion that we're going to agree on. Exactly. So it looks like your argument is not going very far. All right. So tell me what's wrong with saying that all moral laws based on the sanctity of existence. Because it's just a claim. You haven't demonstrated that claim to be the truth or the case. I gave you several examples and you said, well, I just, is it my intonation that you don't like? So giving a couple of examples does not mean you've demonstrated all cases, right? Give me an example that is a defeater. That's an argument for mignors. Now you're asking me to give you the argument. No, no, no. I don't know what it is. Skyler, listen, my friend, I gave you an argument. I said that every single more, give me one example of a moral law in our society or society ever that was not based on a sanctity of existence. Moral law or legal law? Moral law. Well, legal law is based upon moral law. Who's moral laws are you referring to? The one that you say does not set on sanctity. You're talking about all though. Why would you just be referring to mine? You made an objection to my claim. You now bear the burden to show me what's wrong with my claim. No, that's not how arguments work. Would you add premise? Yes, it is how it is. When you have premises in a cell, you have to rebut it. If you say, well, I don't know, there must be some rebuttal. You say there must be some rebuttal, but I don't know what it is. Raptor Jesus, Trey, Raptor Jesus created everything. Debunk it. Well done. Well done. Debunk it. Raptor Jesus, is Raptor Jesus historical? Yes. Give me the history. You're not aware of this? The Raptor Jesus history? How are you going to debunk something you're not aware of? Right. Did he freeze? I thought he froze. No, no, no. I can't. No, you need to do your own research on Raptor Jesus. Oh, you made the assertions and I need to do the research to debunk it. Well, yeah.   You could see name calling, name calling. I'm sorry. Well, no, it's the Christ loving you. You can see the frustration. This is what happens when people like. I'm really frustrated. I can assure you. Yeah.  And then calling the names. Yeah. And calling me names. Like it should be better. You should be better than this man. Okay. So tell me about Raptor Jesus. Tell me about Raptor Jesus. It's not really relative. Okay. I want to go back to Christianity. I made my point. Yeah, you sure did. Do you think owning a buying children is immoral? Yeah, you want to go back to that? You know, I want to ask you, do you think buying children is objectively immoral? Buying children is property? I think that it is a time that is a time that I have no desire to return to. Are you a moral relative to this? Talking about the time period and what's moral here? Yes. Yes, I do believe. I believe the time and the covenants have an impact on the way that we are to live. Oh, so God is God's morals based on relativism or his nature here? It's based on his nature. And he deals with man in different. No, what you. No, no, no, no, you can't. It's like what you're trying to do is try to like when you make the claim like God is the moral foundation. It's like you're saying he's the truth teller, but then you're trying to say, but he can lie in certain situations. That's what you're doing. So for instance, like you want to say it's objectively immoral to rape, right? And I could list every scenario and you're going to be like, it's objectively immoral to rape, right? But then I find one scripture where God tells people they can rape and you're going to be like, well, in certain cases it's okay to rape, right? And I can do this with all these violent things, genocide, rape, slavery, right? And then you want to say God's the moral foundation, right? But if I ask you, can God lie, Trey? Can God lie? I would hope you say no, right? Why? Because that would go against his nature because he's a truth teller, right? So if I say, hey... No, he's not frustrated by anything. A lie is something... Yeah, a lie is an imperfection. And God, if he's imperfect... It's also not telling the truth. It's also not telling the truth.  It's also not telling the truth, which is my point, right?  Whatever, right? That's not the kind of... You want to say that God can do immoral actions. He could tell people they could rape women. He could tell people they could own slaves. I didn't say that. I didn't say it was immoral for God to give... I know, I know. To kill them or to take wives for themselves from women who deserve to die.  That's exactly right. And I'm not saying I had that problem. So, I mean, by that logic, why can't he just... Why can't he just kidnap these children and force the women to marry him at some point? Like, you can kidnap a little 13-year-old girl in another year. You can marry her, I would imagine, right? I didn't understand that point.  Yeah, of the enemies of Israel, if they're a virgin. Yeah, this God sounds really reasonable. Well, he's certainly not something to be trifled with. Well, no, I just...  Here, I'll give you a moment. I talk about my God for men to compare it, right? These actions you're talking about are monstrous, right? The ideal of a God telling a human being to go execute a child. Let's think about the other perspective. Here's the Israel life, right?  Because God couldn't just go and make their souls come out, make the babies drop dead, right? You couldn't do that. You wanted to make soldiers go through and slice them open, cause them PTSD, all kinds of sufferings, right? That's just cruelty, cruelty. And a God of love, a God of kindness, a God of generosity would not put such cruelty on its creation. Those are not things of love. What you have is a Mesopotamian religion that is exactly like the culture was, and you guys still worship it. Go ahead. The Mesopotamian culture was not monotheistic scholar. I think you missed the bigger picture. Go ahead. Well, I think that that's a fundamental part. It's not like all the religions that were around it. It's quite different actually. The violent stuff that was going on actually is very the same in Israel as it was in the nations around. That's my point, right? They were, Israel sacrificed their babies to Yahweh, so the other nations around them, right? The same level of violence. No, no, no. God rebuked them for sacrificing their children to their gods, right? No, they did used to sacrifice. Yeah, of course. Yeah, he rebuked them, and then he has people sacrifice children. Like who? Like he was going to, well, for instance, you're sacrificing and killing children when you're going in and you're executing these towns, these little kids. No, no, that's not a sacrifice to him. That's executing judgment upon a people. It's just for being born. For being sinful, wicked people. No, no, no. It's just for being born. They were born in a way that makes them worthy of punishment. Not many of the actions that they did, because the actions were kind of irrelevant. That's right. They already had them. Right, yeah. I mean, listen, you can feel free to worship that God. It's cool. You can worship a God that like targets children and makes people do violent, heinous things. I don't find that rational. I don't find it reasonable, right? A loving and kind God doesn't have to do those types of things to his creation. You want to make the argument that God does those things? Have at it, bro. It's just very... Well, it's contradictory if you say that God loves and cares about people. I have not expressed one contradiction yet, Skyler, not one. You may not like it, but I'm not being contradictory in any way. If you say God loves children and then he does those violent things to children, he doesn't love them. Yeah, he does have a general love for children, but not everybody has the same... God does not have the same love for every single person equally. Would you agree with that? All right. You tell me more. Tell me more. What kind of love does he have for other people? Is there something he doesn't love? Well, there was... Well, for example, with Jesus, there was a sign from Jesus' love. Are you a Calvinist? Do you have an elect? I am.  Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. First of all... I thought it was a reformed mechanism. No. Well, it took me a minute. I thought I should have thought about that. Okay. So you believe in an election, bro. So people... God literally... This is... This is what Tray believes. God elects people before they're even born. Right? Who he's going to offer salvation to or offer grace to. Right? And what that means is now, if he's offered grace, they have the ability to be able to accept Jesus Christ that died for their sins. Right? But unless he offers you grace, you don't have that opportunity because you're not elected. Right? So you want to talk about a system and if I were to ask you, Tray, what is the criteria for election? Could you tell me? Yeah, for his own pleasure. Right? What does that mean for his own pleasure? For his own pleasure. Do you not know what those words mean? Well, no, I don't understand what that would mean to a God, how a God would feel pleasure in choosing some to offer salvation to and then others not to offer salvation to. Well, Christianity teaches a God not only his love, but he's also holy. Do you agree with that? Right?  I don't understand what's the reason here. He does it for his own glory and it glorifies him to execute justice upon the wicked, but also to show mercy on those who deserve his justice. But don't all of them deserve mercy? No. Why do only some of them deserve mercy? Because that is, if everybody deserved mercy and everything works, in other words, if there are no such thing as evil in the universe. No, no, no. Why? Why doesn't everybody deserve mercy? Because God has ordained it that way. Perfect. Yes. So all you're saying is all people don't deserve mercy because God has ordained it that way. He has ordained that not all people will have mercy and that only some will have mercy and some will have mercy. Some will have justice, but it's not, but mercy, first of all, mercy is the turning away of justice, not turning away, getting rid of justice is the relinquishment of justice, right? Because you're not doing the punishment for the crime. It's been taken away, right? Right. It's kind of a negative end. Yeah. But then Grace, it's actually showing kindness, a positive showing of kindness to that vessel of mercy. Well, I mean, it's not, there's no free will for human beings. They're basically robots. It's no, there's no free will. There are robots in this area. Can someone go against God's decree? No, they cannot. No. So if God decrees a human to do X, can that person choose to do otherwise? From our perspective, yes. Everything has changed. This is the thing. You've got two perspectives. That's what we're talking about here. We've got God. You're not answering my questions. No, no, no. You're not answering my questions. No, you just interrupt me constantly. No, no. If somebody does, if God ordains, Schuyler is going to do X, right? Can I go against God's ordination? No. I don't say that God ordains this. I don't have free will. Schuyler, can I please answer? You interrupt me every time I start talking. Okay. If God, I'm not saying God ordains what Schuyler is going to do. I'm saying God ordains everything that comes to pass. Like pornography. Everything. Pornography. Every pornographic video. He doesn't make that. He makes use of secondary causal agents in doing wickedness, but everything he works according to the council as well. And toward those who look at pornography, he ordains justice for that. He created pornography through secondary, secondary uses basically. He didn't directly do it. Well, what is it? Matt Schwick says direct, direct decrees and indirect decrees basically where you're setting up the chess board for it to happen. Like he didn't make people make porn, but he set up the environment where they would make all these interesting adult videos. All from what he wanted for his good pleasure. He ordained. Yes. He ordained the reeling. I mean, Saint Augustine said, Oh Felix, Oh, Oh happy sin. It is through. If there were, let me ask you this scholar, when you go to a movie, what do you go to see? Kind of a kind of movie. Well, any movie to be entertained, just to be entertained. Right, right. And what, so you got the, you got the protagonist, you got the antagonist, right? And then you have some kind of conflict. All right. And then you have a climax and you have a resolution. All right. When you go to a movie, you are going to see, in some sense going to see and be entertained by evil, not the triumph of evil, but the destruction of evil. If there were no such thing as evil, can you tell me what the idea of valor or courage would mean? I don't use your terms when it comes to evil. I don't even know how you define evil. No, you know what? It's the lack of the good. You define evil as the lack of the good. And what is good? Right. It's a, it's a privation of the good. Good is a sanctity of existence. What is that? What is the sanctity of existence? Existence is special. Anything that promotes existence is sanctity of existence. Good is that the existence is special. I don't understand how something would be good or bad by that definition. Helping an old lady across the street would be sanctifying her existence. Would you agree with that? I don't know what you mean by saying, like you just said, sanctify. Do you know what it means to sanctify? No. To set it apart. Why are you, why do you keep, like, why are you allowed with me? I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here. Am I raising my voice? Yes, you keep raising your voice towards me. So here's the thing, right? I was asking you about... Oh, they were always too loud. No, it's not the volume. So here's the thing. I asked you to define what that meant and you said specialness of the universe, right? And then I was like, well, what is, how does that make something good, something special? Then you gave me an example of like a granny and helping like a woman across the street. But I don't understand how that's the specialness of the universe there. No, no. The specialness is a granny a part of the universe. Of course she's part of the universe. Okay. So I am sanctifying... Yeah, I mean, I am sanctifying existence for that portion of the universe that she is sanctifying existence by helping across the street.  That would be evil. It would be a privation of the good. It would be a shortcoming of sanctifying her existence. How about holding her as a slave? Would that be unsanctified in her existence? I think that it is possible, theoretically possible to have a slave and sanctify existence. Hold on. You can hold somebody against their will. Can I... No, no, no. I'm not... I'm not talking about that. I'm going to defer to Trey on this one. Let's hear the rest from Trey. We'll give him another 30 seconds and then we'll go over to you, Skyler. Okay. So today we, in a sense, we indentured servitude is what we do when we go to work for somebody else. We'll say, I am going to come and work for you. I'm going to do what you tell me to do in exchange for you. Give me money. And of course, it's a very, very limited authority. They have over us, but we are subjecting ourselves to that person in servitude to them in exchange for money. So I would make the argument that a very fundamental basic light sense that we all do that to each other in indentured servitude. I'm not talking about people who are kidnapped because kidnapping carried the penalty of murder, or a death penalty in the Old Testament, but I'm saying that people are taking people as a slave in order for them to live and not starve to death. They could indenture themselves, as you well know, in the Old Testament. Now, there's a difference also in that with the people who are the enemies of Israel. They were not indentured servitude. I'm talking about slavery. I'm not talking about indentured servitude. I was talking about the example of slavery. No, it's not. Okay, let me give you an example, right? First of all, this idea of... Well, let me say this. Okay, we're talking about slavery. We're talking like the example of the woman, right? Our children. Like, how about the example of... If the slave master gives his slave a wife, at the end of the seven years for the male, usually they go free, right? But then he says, hey, you know, if the master's given him a wife and they had children, the children belong to the master, right? Now, that's ownership of children and these children are kept for life here, especially through little girls, right? Now, you're going to say that that is not a deprivation. You're not going to say that's bad, how you defined it. Is that...  Yes, because the purpose of going into indentured servitude was to be able to survive. It was an indentured servitude. It was not indentured servitude. An example I just gave you. Yeah, it is. That's what that was. You can go be a slave and if he gives you a wife, you can have that one. Wait a minute. Okay, indentured servitude... Yes, do you know what happens to... Yeah, hold on. You sign a contract in indentured servitude. Those kids don't sign a contract. The woman doesn't get to go free like the men do in indentured servitude. These are not the same. It is not indentured servitude. Okay. Scott, when a woman is in the old Mesopotamian culture, if a woman was somebody else's wife and then she's kicked out on the streets, what happens to her? If you're going to give me a historical example and you can quote me something, I'll believe what you're going to say. But asking me a question is not arguing for any point that I have made. I am saying that a woman has no hope because no man is going to want her. I don't accept that. And so therefore you can't just... Okay, well, that's what Christianity teaches, but you don't like that sign.  I mean, you've got all types of crazy things Christianity brings. You believe in talking serpents and original sins. And you think that God's going to make humans eat their own children in cannibalism. Right? You've got all types of strange ideas about your God based on the cultures that wrote the stories. Right? They're just as violent as the cultures that wrote the stories.  You'd be like, oh, well, no, the slavery we're talking about wasn't the bad kind of slavery. When you own people for life, when women don't get to go free, Trey, that's not a good thing. And your definition you gave me of good and bad, it would fall under a bad thing, but you're being contradictory here because you're forced to, because the Bible says it's a certain situation. No, no, I... Okay, to rape. Okay, to commit genocide. I gave you a justification and you didn't like it, but you did not prove, not once had you proven me to be irrational or to be contradictory in one specific instance. Not yet. Have you done that? Listen, you think God loves children. God feels that children are special. Women are special. And then what you do, and then you have God treat them in awful ways and call that special. I'm sorry. That's fine. I guess we just have a limit of language, right? Your idea of what's good treatment towards people, how you can treat them special. The things you identify as good. I just don't share those values. I don't think slavery is good. I don't think genocide is good. I'm pro-life. I'm consistently pro-life. You don't sound consistently pro-life. You sound like, hey, baby's lives matter sometimes. Okay. Well, I don't think that any man has a right. We're close to the Q and A. I'll give you a chance. I'll give you the last word, Trey. And then we're going to jump into the Q and A. I'll give you about 45 seconds. And then we're going to jump into it. So folks, if you have any questions, get them in now because Q and A is only going to be about roughly 30 minutes. So we're going to try to move quickly through it. Go ahead, Trey. Okay. So, Scott, I wanted to say that I don't, I'm not saying to children that anybody has a right to murder a baby ever. But the thing that we're arguing over is whether it's right for God to have that prerogative and to have his people do that, particularly in the Old Testament dispensation. We're not in that time now. But that is what you're saying it's not possible for God to do that. And I'm simply saying that mankind is born sinful. And these people, these peoples that he called the judgment were wicked. And you said that the Israelites were just like the nations around them. No, they weren't. That's why God judged them because they became like the nations around them. And they participated in those wicked deeds. We're going to jump into the Q and A. I want to say thanks so much for your questions, folks. And I want to remind you, our guests are linked to the description. If you would like to hear more from our guests, you certainly can. I encourage you, even if you disagree with either of our speakers, there's nothing better than going straight to the source itself. You could say, in other words, the primary source to hear and understand firsthand what their position is if you disagree on it. I want to say in addition, thank you very much for your questions. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Manga fan Dan says, because Hinduism has similar accounts of the Creator God coming down in human form. Hinduism be considered just as true as Christianity. Is that a question for me? Yes. Okay. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion, or you might say all the gods are the one of the Brahma or whatever, but Hinduism, polytheism doesn't work, because all of these gods that they have and these differences that they have within them all have these accidental properties, these distinctions that are different from each other. And therefore they cannot be the ultimate reality. If you're going to talk about a rational, coherent view of God, it must be a singular one God who is the perfection of all that he is who does not have what Aristotle would call accidental properties. These are properties that we participate in, but they're not defined by us. For example, my hair is an accidental property. I'm still trade whether I have my hair or not. And anything that produce that participates in accidental properties cannot be the ultimate reality because it is affected by something else to bring it to, in other words, it's changing. So these gods in Hinduism does, it's irrational doesn't make sense. And actually the Socratics and the Greek thought is classical theism. That's why it's very similar to Christianity in their view of God in that they've got it many things right just by thinking about what the necessary corollaries are for an ultimate reality or in that period on. And Hinduism does not meet that standard. You got it. This one coming in from do appreciate it as well. LHRPG official says the tech difficulty suck, but thanks for trying. Thanks for your support. Thanks for hanging in there with us and thanks for your positivity. We appreciate that. Brad H says Trey, let's see, says please with your opening instead of giving broad overviews make an actual case for Christianity. They say you just give a broad description of apologetics types. Give you a chance to defend yourself. Oh, yeah, so that's fine. I for the opening remarks for me, it's like I kind of would get a background and try to give an idea of what I'm going to do and how I am different. And then I end it with the opening of my argument for the existence of God. I don't know. Yes, I could do more, but to me, I like the Socratic method. I keep asking Skylar these questions. I love Socratic Dialogue. Unfortunately, it wasn't able to be done much today, but I love to be able to ask questions and to try to move things along with my opponent by asking questions. And so I like to get into the meat of my arguments in the cross-exam. For me, the cross-exam is the best part, but that's why I like to just chat chat and talk about things in kind of a freeform format, because to me it's more, you're more able to get to the heart of what your opponent's view is and to be able to test your own view by the way. You got it. This one coming in from Contrary in 420 says, Skylar, if you grant a God, you should be agnostic, not atheistic. If that's in reference to the thumbnail, that was my fault. I'm sorry about that. Skylar, you've corrected me many times. They say, one can reject the Christian notion of an external entity as God, but believe God as universal consciousness like some in the East too. Yeah, okay. I think they're referring to my blooper on the thumbnail. I put you as, so anyway, all updated. Thanks for your feedback. Genius Tracks says, Let's see. They say, so proud of this channel. I'm a day one fan. Thanks so much, Genius Tracks. And I remember, Genius Tracks, no joke. I think it was like, I remember you as one of the oldest people being here with the channel. So thanks for always being so supportive. Thanks for always being so sincere. I love you.  If so, why do six-year-old children still have pain during childbirth? And they say in parentheses, a specific punishment for inherited sin. How is this moral? Six-year-old children have pain in childbirth? Is that what they said? That's what it says. I'm rereading it just to be sure that I, but it does say it says, if so, why do six-year-old children still have pain? I think maybe you could- That's the real bad pain. The argument still holds though, like let's say like, why does a six-year-old, like sometimes a six-year-old will, you know, have cancer or another painful type of experience. Yeah, so- If they're sinless or- Right, well, no, they're not sinless. That's the whole issue. That's why there's pain and suffering because all men are sinners and death is a judgment for sin. That's why all men die. And that's why Christ's resurrection was the ultimate, you know, pinnacle to reality because since Christ has risen so we shoot up. So we too shall and we shall be free from sin Sunday. So Christianity teaches. This one from Pointless Poppies as well as Trey, how come God gave female slaves a lower price than male slaves? Does your God believe the quote-unquote intrinsic value of a woman is less than a man? Sure, well, see, a female slave is not able to make as much money, I'm guessing, for the slave. That's not something I really know a lot about, but just off the top of my head, I would say that a male slave is going to be able to go out and work and make more labor for the master. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Well, Flamieo says, Schuyler, thank you for taking my criticism of your last debate with your heart and fixing that resolution. Trying to be a nice and common Schuyler fiction. It'd be fair, though, my last opponent wasn't, well, let's not talk about people in here. We'll just say that it wasn't the friendliest opponent. What was it you said that fixed the resolution like the resolution of your camera or? Oh, I don't know. Whatever it is. You look great. Very tremendous resolution on your camera. Great List Poppy says, Trey, what are the names of the 500 that Jesus supposedly appeared to? Why did God not ensure that they were each accounted for so that we have a solid foundation for the resurrection? Well, Paul was saying, if there's 500 people, you can go and ask them, because he didn't give us the names of those people. You're simply saying, well, I wish God would have done it a different way. Therefore, it's wrong. And I don't think that's a very strong argument. Let's see. They say, by the way, this one from Flamieo says, Trey is Yahweh afraid of babies. I don't know if they mean, like, was God punishing them because he was felt like and threatened by them. I don't know if they're trying to get it that in terms of the flood came up. Tyler said, like, I guess I could just simply say no. No. Okay. This one. I'm not afraid of them. Not really much to be afraid of with a baby. Yeah.   A human being could kill an infant pretty easy, right? But like, your God does it for sport. Doesn't because it pleases for his own good, his own good pleasure. So it is what it is, man. No, he punishes sin for his own good pleasure. Yes. The sin that he created them with. Yes. The sinful nature, the repercussions.  You got ordained sin. Yes. God is punishing people to the sin that he ordained in the world. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He didn't create it though, as if he's trying to, cause destruction to people directly. Sin is destruction. He gives man. Sin is destruction. He gives man. I'm sorry. Sin is destruction. Yes. But it's, it's. So he ordained destruction. Thank you. It's okay. Yes. He ordained sin and destruction. He did not cause me to ordain. Yes. I will grant. To ordain is to cause it. No. To bring into existence, ordain. No, there is no. You're talking about secondary cause. There's second. Yeah. That's right. Secondary cause. Yeah. So it'd be the same thing as, it's like me setting up a trap for a robber. Okay. I didn't make. No, it's not like that. Fall in that trap. I just set up the traps so the robber would fall in. No. It's like setting up a chess game. It is. Have you ever, have you ever heard my quote for Jonathan Edwards and says, how can God be happy and decree calamity? Well, consider that he has a capacity to view the world through two lenses through the narrow one. He's both grieved and angered at sin and suffering. But through the wide one, he sees evil in relation to his life. He's grieved and angry about what he ordained. I don't know what he'd be grieved and angry about. He ordained this. Like a mosaic, the individual is ugly, but the whole is beautiful.  It made you a better person. He literally is grieving and mad about what he ordained to happen. Can you answer the question? Have I ever had something good come out of something bad? Is that your question? Yeah. Have you ever had a hardship in your life that made you a better person? Yes. I've never had anybody tell me no. Not once. I said yes. Okay. But that, but what's good, but I, yeah, I think like, so you're like, never mind. Go ahead. No. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Maynard saves says the federal headship of Trump just busted. I don't know what that means. I'm behind on the news. Maynard saves. He just got arrested. Gotcha. Maynard saves says the hilarious subscribers only chat, but they'll take money from anyone. It is true that super chats, anybody can send it, even if they're not a subscriber, because YouTube doesn't even give me the option to make super chats, subscribers only. Otherwise, frankly, I would. I don't know why you're, some people in just, I want to have some, you know, reason to, you know, I'm just baffled by this. They don't even know what they're talking about. And they want to act as if they're resentful. I'm baffled.  And you're complaining. I like, I'm just baffled. People are just looking for some reason to fry. I'm just, wow, Maynard saves.  Pointless Poppy says, would you punish your grandchild for your child's mistakes? I would not. No. Why would you do that? Well, God says, God says that the children should not be punished for their parents' sins. Say that again. Say that again. That children should not be, will not be punished for the parents' sins. And you, earlier when you gave a justification for why they could be punished for their sins, like in first Samuel 15, we're punishing these, these infants for the parents' sins. No, no, those, those infants are not being held accountable for their parents' sins. They are, the fact that they die, they are justly dying. But when they stand before God, God's not going to say, you are guilty for what your parents did. Of course. How are you going to, wait a minute. There is such a thing as collateral damage. But they're, but they're guilty for being born, right? He's going to stand, they are going to stand to be like, listen, you were born in a way that makes you guilty. You, yes, you were born represented in that way. Why are you blaming the children of Adam for Adam's decisions? Are you saying Adam is a direct clone of every individual in the being? Yes. Can I, can I explain it? But that's just not true. Can I explain it? Well, no one's stopping you from explaining it.  Go ahead. Skyler, James was just, James was just talking about this, this, the whining that's going on today.  I would bet. Just, just go ahead, James. That's good. This one from Pointless Pop. He says, would you pun? We got that one. Contrary and 420 says, Trey, do you grant that God is transcendent and that even the Christian concept of God is limited? That description is not one to one with the described. I don't understand what that meant. Yeah. That was transcendent and imminent. He's imminent through Christ and he's transcendent in that he is distinct from humanity.  He is a distinction in his perfections. But he's not like a grown up man, but at the same time there is a correlation between us and him, for example, like justice gets its meaning. Everything in its universe gets its meaning from the nature of God. The color red gets its meaning. I'm a Christian Platonist or Christian Realist. You got it. There's some coming in from. Well, just to go back to the original part though because I know the last one was confusing, but do you grant that God is transcendent and that even the Christian concepts of God are limited? Well, I don't think it's possible for any contingent being to fully grasp God. We can apprehend God as he reveals himself. But no, I don't comprehend God in completeness. It's not possible. I never will. You got it. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Big thang flying Wayne says, Trey, asking people to agree with your assertions is not evidence of your assertions. Do you know the difference between assertions and evidence? Well, here's the thing is when I when I make a point and my opponent disagrees with that point, I would like them to know, tell me why and scholar wouldn't do that. How am I supposed to know my point is invalid unless you can show me how it's invalid? No, they're talking about when you were trying to get into my idea of my worldview and you want to talk all about my God morality from my God. Because you make assertions and those assertions in form are a line of questioning and I'm just simply saying you're inconsistent.  You haven't even explained how I'm inconsistent. You just threw an inconsistent claim here. Right. All I did was literally grant you a couple of things which is and things I could believe God is real and he's a creator and that objective morality is real. Right. You can't tell me why. But this is where we disagree. Right. This is where we disagree on what is immoral under objective morality. Right. I would say executing these children is immoral. You disagree. Right. I would say owning people or property or slavery is objectively immoral. You disagree. Right. But you're not giving me a reason why. Yeah. But no, I'm just making some claim and saying you need to believe what I view is objectively immoral is different than what you view is objective. You're just giving me a flying spaghetti monster answer and I'm saying that's not good enough. First of all, raptor Jesus not flying spaghetti monster. Secondly, I'm comparing the two things here. We have a religion. Your God belief tells you that it's not objectively immoral to own people's property to take women and children as plunder to execute babies. Right. My objective morality says it is. Because it's just it's nature because it would go against God's nature. Yeah. And I say, how do you know that? See, then it's not that I see now.  That's fine. You can do that. No, so for God, God has given me that revelation. Okay. This one. Revelation. Well, God can give revelation to me. Right. You believe God can give revelation to people.  Right. They're based on their intuitions. They're feelings that you have, but they're not. Oh, go ahead. We can. I'd love to have a conversation together. If not here, but in the future, do you like to talk with I'd love to. Well, I'm happy to compare. Listen, anybody who wants to have a debate my, my religious beliefs versus their religious beliefs. Absolutely fine. But you need to make sure, James, you got to make sure, James.  I believe in a God creator. Right. And I can root morality and it's in God's nature, just like Tray does. And then I can believe just like Tray does that God can give us some type of special revelation, some kind of revelation. And so, and Scott of believes that it's irrational to not believe in God. Yeah.  You think it's rational to believe in a God. To not believe in God. Yeah, it could be rational. Anyway, I don't I don't know what that had to do with anything. Okay. Listen, once again, you're not an atheist. I'm just saying that. Yeah, yeah, I'm a God because it's irrational. Well, that's fine. Right. I would say it's a question. We want to jump to Simon Allen says, have a pint on me, James, I don't know what ops means. Is this a new slang that the kids are using? You guys sound like an old man, James, what are these kids saying? Let me get my cord to plug in. Skyler, can you Google what ops means what the young people mean by that? I think it's like operatives, maybe post post opera post operations and it's probably the operatives. It's like a that's right. Post trains post operative. I can't be this one coming in with me. That's a that's right. Yes. That's not his real name. Anybody know that his real name? Skyler. It's Jesse with it's Jesse with I'm not. No, no, no. Trey Jandler is my real name. I wish I could remember I think like that's the one time years leaks. Somehow I heard it's Skyler and I was like, really, that's your real name. That's and I was like, really? That's your real name? Well, it's probably not my first name. My last name shouldn't have been leaked out, no. People are desperately want to know. They're like super curious. They're like, really? That's not his name this whole time. It's never actually like it doesn't say Skyler Fiction on your birth certificate. I screw up on my show all the time. I'm saying my first name, so. That's what's coming in. Oh, by the way, you do want to say folks, thanks for your support. Well, I am always, oh, they say opponents. John Robertson in chat. Thanks for catching me up on what's hip. And they call me a boomer. This one, oh, Lori Clark all over Katwell and Scott Mitchell. Thank you for being super amazing supporters. We do have channel memberships folks. Those are, if you want to check those out, but this next one coming in from, where did it go? There it is, Mr. Greenin says, Ray and Atheist foundations for objective morality are supported by game theory, animal morality, and original position. I'm saying that there's objective order to the universe. That's unintentional, unintentional. That doesn't make sense. This one coming in from, ops means opposition. No, you guys know what cap and means, right? I've heard that recently. Some. Are there any, I saw there were other questions. I think that they're earlier back. Sorry folks, I was a little bit behind on putting a copy and pasting in them into my little note here. So if you have questions, submit them. We've got nine minutes left and then we've got to wrap up. I'm actually excited. Someone in chat, I won't say who, but they are excited to try to moderate for modern day debate. So that's exciting. By the way, I want to give huge street cred to Ryan who's hosted both Skyler and Trey recently. As Ryan's been filling in for me, I've been pretty just wiped out basically trying to get my dissertation done this semester. I'm really wanting to, I feel like Andy, what's his name? The full name Andy in Shawshank Redemption. Andy. But Andy, the main character in Shawshank Redemption, I'm almost free. I'm so close. I'm like clawing a little bit at the wall with my little stone hammer. Germania says, if Christianity is true, what's the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? I think it's for you, Trey. Okay. Well, you've got the testimony of Paul and you've got the testimony of the apostles who gave their lives for this truth.  They said that they saw in me at several appearances and like Paul said, he said 500 people have seen him or risen. And the whole thing about the Messiah is that he would conquer his enemies. And it also said that he would die for our sins. And if he dies for our sins and if it was death as a judgment for sin, then resurrection is the reception or the justification for that satisfaction. And so a lot of people follow this and the Messiah was promised to be died for our sins that he would rise again and be a paragon for us for what we can have. Courtney Hendry says, for Trey, what are you looking at? I need to know. I think this has been referenced to you looking at the ceiling. Is there something in the room with you, Trey? Yeah, I've always teasing me about that. I might, you know how when you have a place that you look when you think about things? Yeah. Like 11 o'clock toward the ceiling is my favorite place to think. Whenever I'm thinking, which is a good thing. That means that if you're talking to me and I'm looking up, I'm actually contemplating and trying to, you know, concentrate. But I don't know why, but that's just how I am. Sorry about that. He used to make jokes and says, yeah, he's got his notes on the ceiling. That's funny. But no, there's nothing I'm not looking at anything. Courtney, let's see, we got that one. Thanks, Courtney. Gurminia says, oops, correction, question for Trey. Christianity is true. What's the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? Like that's what you said the first time, right? Trey, are you a fan of the minimal facts argument or do you think that's fluff? Do you think it's a, like you don't use it? Do you know what I mean? Yeah, no, I think it's good. It's just an evidential argument. It can't give you certainty. Like I said, in my inquiry, I want to find out. I want certainty. I want the strongest possible proof rather than evidence. And that's what my argumentation relies on. You got it. Mr. Kreen says, astray, are we churns of God's mind or God's dream? How can anything be as real as God? It's real as God, but we're not God. I'm not a pantheist. I believe that we were created ex nihilo. We are contingent on our being. If dependent being exists, then if it were not that for which gives it its existence, holding it up, I don't believe that if God removed his hand, we would all fall apart. I believe we just cease to exist. Not only fall apart, we just cease to exist. It's Andy Dufresne. No, I'm not a pantheist. Sorry. I thought you were at the end of your sentence, but... No, it's not. It's Andy Dufresne from Shawshank Redemption. You guys have seen Shawshank Redemption, right? I saw it for so long. I don't even remember the movie. It's been 25 years or so. I accidentally dropped, but what I want to say is folks, I want to say thank you guys so much. We've got maybe a time for a couple of questions as I look for them in the old live chat. Thanks for that, letting me know about that, it's Andy Dufresne from Based in the Live Chat. Thanks for all of you guys being so positive. I want to say 99% of you are so positive. Seriously, we appreciate that. And we do once in a while have people who are nasty, but we want to say we're nonetheless excited about the future. Modern Day Debate is going places, and thanks to you guys, thanks to the speakers. They're the lifeblood of the channel. We're excited about the future at Modern Day Debate. And so I want to say thank you guys for all of our speakers who make this channel. I mean, they really do. Like if it was me debating myself every night, it'd be a terrible channel. Mr.  Like let's say theoretically that somehow it was like historically, there's a historical case that can be made that was like irrefutable. And it was like, wow, this just proves that there was no Jesus. Absolutely not. This one from Euromania says, question for Trey, what's more plausible? Jesus was brought back from the dead through a tri-omni deity. In other words, like omniscient, all-knowing omnipotent or something else. Well, it's not just that particular fact. It's everything taken together when you look at Christianity from a historical perspective in the main script 11s we have and all that. Nothing even comes within the same state in this Christianity for compelling nature. You got it. Some people in chat are saying, James, mute yourself. Oh, was it the sneeze? Did the sneeze freak you guys out? Sorry about that. I didn't mean to. That one snuck up on me. You know, I thought I saw somebody in the chat saying, we should bring back inspiring philosophy to have a debate with scholar fiction. I was looking at the channel, it was one of the first debates on your channel way back in the day. Myself and Michael. Well, you know, Michael, I would love to have you back, man. And so we can have a conversation. It's kind of tough these days.  What, I'd be open to being here and having a discussion. The funny thing is that is one of our, it's a pretty old debate. Modern data has been around since fall of 2018 is where we started to like transition from, does anybody trivia? Anybody know what we used to be called? Modern data. It was instead. Modern day hysteria. That's right. Yeah. I had you on my channel, bro, as modern day hysteria back in the day. Oh, that's funny. You can actually still like, if you search the word hysteria on the channel, you can still go back to where like, we had that word in like old descriptions and stuff. But I'm looking back at Trey's old debate with Jim Majors. So Trey, you and Skyler, we had like a hiatus. We had a time where we didn't have you guys, like the last year. Other than a month ago, like we started having you guys back on again. But it was just like, we for a long time, it was like, you know, we were missing out on you guys. And I'm looking back at this. This is, yeah, when we used to have the modern day debate logo where it would look like the SmackDown logo from like 2001 and it had the wolf like breathing flames. That was our little mascot. That was. Oh yeah. That was great. That's some greatness. It was, yeah. That was around the same era as our lasers firing out of the eyes of our gas in the thumbnail pictures though. That was, yeah. That was the Matt Slick trilogy. That's right. I was gonna say. We had three battles within a couple of weeks and it was a, it was very fun. So true. Carag Nightwolf is in the chat. And by the way, Carag Nightwolf is a long time viewer. I bet they've been watching since 2018. Carag Nightwolf used to be so determined to get his question in. I'm not joking, like years ago this was. He would email me before the debate and he would say, you know, this question I really wanted it. Like I'm submitting it first. And they say tonight, would Trey recognize Jesus if he saw him? If so, how? I don't know. I don't know. I mean, when he comes and returns, it's not gonna be any question. He's gonna come in glory at the end of time.  So it will be unmistakable when he, in the second return, it's Parisia. So juicy. I'm gonna pull, by the way. Oh, I have to go in like literally, I have to go in a minute. Actually folks, I'm excited. We are, I'm gonna have a quick like chat over Zoom with I think I mentioned earlier, a new potential moderator for modern day debate, just as I try to wrap up the PhD. It's been a huge help to me to have guest moderators like Amy, like Ryan. Converse contender about a year ago, he was helping out again. Staz, that's hosted a ton of debates. Now I'm linking in the live chat, a link to Skyler's debate with inspiring philosophy. So folks, if you wanna watch that, right now I just, I'm gonna pin it at the top of the chat. I highly encourage you, this is like a, this is like, you'll be, if you watch this, it's like a down memory lane and you can see this old debate. Let me just see, I'm trying to get it so I can pin it. Two seconds, I need intense focus to do this. YouTube has changed where like, it's not as easy to click on the three little dots. There we go, okay. I just pinned that folks. So you have to go check this out. I'm actually like right now, and then you can see some of our old so-called artwork or, oh gosh, this was so long ago that it was before we even use like the overlays that you see on screen. It was- It was one of the first people to come on your channel, man. I'm telling you, it was early days, man. That was one of our first- I loved James Lowe long, yeah. This, I'm reading the live chat of that debate. No joke. I'm like, I can see, cause the live chat is still on that debate. Let's see, what does it say here? It says, I saw one with your name it. Hold on two seconds. You're going to debate on moral realism. We had a debate on moral realism on top of the debate. But yeah, folks, you got to check that out. It's got 12,000 views. It's from four years ago. So I leave you with that. You got to check that out. I've got to wrap this up and I've got to say thank you to our guests. They make this channel, seriously. And they've been doing it for years. Like I said, Skyler and Ray have literally been coming on here for years. And so we do appreciate them. You guys, thanks so much for coming on. It's been a true pleasure to have you tonight. Thank you. Thank you, James.  Skyler, it was nice to see you. Thank you for the challenging debate. I was fine, man. How you doing? Okay, all right. Amazing. Folks, I'm going to do like a two-minute post-credit scene letting you know about upcoming debates. So stick around. I'll be back in about 14 seconds. Can you stream? Amazing. My dear friends want to say thanks so much for being here, seriously. It's always a pleasure. Let me tell you, you might be thinking, James, is it though? By the way, my dear friend, Justin, don't worry, I'm going to be there like literally in two minutes. I'm going to send you the Zoom link. So let me send you the Zoom link in two seconds. But I got to say, folks in the live chat, I wanted to tell you about this. You might be thinking, James, what are you going to tell us about? What do you mean? Are you going to tell us a dirty joke? No, it's not that. Come on, you guys. I've got something better, believe it or not. As some of you are thinking, what's better than that? Believe me, stick around and I'm going to show you right now. So at the bottom right of your screen, you guys, this is going to be huge. If you didn't know about it, we are going to be live and in person. Matt DeLahunty, Daniel Huckigachu, this is going to be in Houston, Texas on Saturday, September 16th. I always say 15th. Ah, it's going to be the 16th. Saturday, September 16th in Houston, Texas. My dear friends, seriously, it is going to be so good. I am honestly pumped. I think this is going to be our biggest debate. I think that in terms of how, you can say how well it goes in the algorithm, like I think this debate will probably get the most views we've ever gotten on modern day debate. I really think that's probably going to happen. So it's going to be epic. It's going to be huge. See it in person. You have to. If you are anywhere near, like anywhere near Houston, Texas, you have got to see this debate. Seriously, this one right over here, the one I'm pointing to right now, is it's very affordable. So if you want to watch both of the debates, namely, Aaron is going to be debating Muslim metaphysician on whether or not God exists. That's going to be the first debate. Then Matt DeLahunty versus Daniel Huckigachu, or the Muslim skeptic as he goes by on YouTube, that's going to be the second debate. It is going to be huge. Seriously, you don't want to miss this. So in the description box, there's a link to the in-person tickets. This is going to be huge.  So you guys, I'm pumped for this. Grab your tickets now. We do expect to sell out. So we do think that like we will run out of seats. So really exciting, but want to say thank you guys for all your support. Want to say hello to you in the live chat really quick before I bump out. Simon Allen, thanks for being with us. Amen, Namor. Geometrics, thanks for being here. Unknown friend, thank you guys for being here. Thank you for being here. John Stern, glad to have you here. Gurmania, good to see you. Gurmania has been watching for a long time too. Seabass, happy to have you. Y-O-Y, thanks for being with us. Coffee breath, glad to have you back. Another long time viewer. Sim Life, thanks for your channel membership support and Ozzy Gold, thanks for your channel membership support as well as BlasterMaster80, who's also been a long time viewer. Thanks to your channel membership support. JD on YouTube, thanks for your channel membership support. Sim Life, thanks for your support. CRISPR, C-A-S-N-I, another long time viewer. Says, what's your dissertation page, Conet? I don't even, I can't remember, but it is, there's very real progress. So I'm excited about that. I'm pumped to be Lord willing done this December. It's possible with data collection, it could spill over in a January, but I think that I can get it done this semester. That's the goal. And if it's January instead of December, it'll survive. But my sister's keeper, thanks for coming by. I see they're in the old live chat. Crave Fubar, thanks for coming by. Jerry Johnson, happy to have you here. Sim Life, thanks for your channel membership support. Thanks for being here. Just incredible, thanks for being here.  Thank you guys for being subscribers, by the way. Seriously, since you're in the live chat right now and we have subs only mode on, I know that you're a subscriber, so I want to say thank you for being a subscriber. Peter, two apologetics, Earth, Planet Earth. Thanks for being a subscriber as well. Thanks for all your support. Jerry Johnson, The Freedom, let's see. That word, air nays. Thanks for being a subscriber, as well as spooky bed hair, another long time viewer. Thanks for being a supporter and a subscriber. And Rhonda Santis, as well as Neo Dinsen, as well as Jerry Johnson, T.J.Azien. Thanks for being a subscriber. Louis Preciado, thanks for being a subscriber. Thanks for your support, folks. C. Bass, thanks for being here. Pointless Poppy, thanks for all your support. Thanks for all your questions. Coffee, breath, good to see you there. Jerry Johnson, theological introspection. Thanks for your support, but I should go. As I said that I'd be meeting with this person right after, so. We were excited though. We got modern day debate is growing. We got big things that we're doing, you guys. We're working on like some really big stuff behind the scenes I'm plotting. I'm like figuring out like our next big steps for modern day debate. Join us now while we are young, because seriously, join us now while we are small. We are just a fraction of our potential. We're gonna keep working on things, keep improving things. We are going to take it to the next level. Modern day debate is going to be the premier debate channel on YouTube. It's going to happen, believe me. I've gotta tell you, we're excited about the future and we are excited to provide a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level planning field. Thanks for all of your guys' support. I appreciate you. I love you guys. Thanks for always being with us. Thanks for backing us as we continue to grow and excited within the next few days. Thank you guys for all of your subscribing. Within the next few days, we'll be at 120,000 subscribers. That's huge, you guys, that's nuts. I remember when we like hit 20,000, it's like, wow, I was like, this is kind of growing. So we're excited about the future, you guys. I love you guys. Seriously, you make it epic here. You make it awesome. Thanks for all your feedback on how we can improve as well as, I gotta tell you, there's so many of you and this is what the difference is. We have some, I mentioned earlier, there are some haters I wanna be clear and make a very clear distinction. That's like less than 1% of the people.  And I'm amazed. I'm like, why are you watching then? Why are you in the live chat?  There are some people that hate us maybe because we're making an impact. And I think that's for whenever I always remind myself, if we're doing big things, we're gonna have some haters, it's just inevitable. Those are the ones that I'm like, yeah, just ignore them. But we do still want constructive criticism. So it's like, hey, if you're like, hey, James, you know, like I noticed that sometimes, like the picture quality could be better at your live events, this is a camera I would recommend. That's super helpful. Like that kind of constructive criticism is where I'm like, thank you so much because I don't really know much about cameras to be honest. So like our events like, you know, we're shooting on like basic like DSLR, like they're high definition cameras, but they're not fancy, but yeah. Monkey Monty thanks for your support. Says, this is the only debate channel I get notifications on. Thanks for that. Appreciate that. I love you guys. Thank you guys. Seriously, we're excited about the future. And seriously, we're gonna take some big steps. Join us while we're small because modern day debate is just getting started. I'll see you at the next one. Keep shifting about the reasonable from the unreasonable. I love you guys.