Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not atheism is unreasonable and we're starting right now. With Nephilimvri's opening statement thrilled to have you here, Neph, the floor is all yours. Okay, thank you. Uh, so let me screen share something, please. Let me see, uh-oh, um, zoom is a little bit different. You'll want to hit that green share button in the bottom center of the zoom window. Right, did that. I got a box, screen share, and share with computer sound, no. Uh, okay, so, but I don't see what I'm trying to share. Hmm, it's not showing up. So usually it'll show the different windows. Okay, right, but I have a Windows, I have a Microsoft Edge presentation open, but it's not showing up for his something to share. So let me try it again. I'll close that and click screen share. There it is. There we go. Okay, now it should be sharing. You got it. It's crystal clear over here. Okay, so, um, one of the intellectuals of our time, Dr. David Berlinsky in his book, The Devil's Delusion, Berlinsky is a PhD in philosophy from Princeton, a postdoctoral and fellowship in mathematics and molecular biology from Columbia. He states in his book, The Devil's Delusion, and I quote him, Has anyone provided proof of a God's existence? Not even close. Now he's an agnostic and I agree with him about, I disagree with him on that point. One or two others here, but nonetheless he says, Has anyone provided proof of God's existence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it's here? Not even close. Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be finely tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good, not even close to being close? Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt dead on? I would have to agree with him. Now on atheism, human beings are mere complex arrangements of matter with no spirit. Yet these 14 things and numerous others revealed the philosophical materialism of atheists, ideological, irrational, counter-scientific denial of what it means to be human in order to deny the existence of God. The persistence of self-identity, personal intentions, philosophical reflection, consideration that results in a change of mind, unconfessed lies, the comprehension and processing of time, the recollection of past events, the existence of private personal experiences or qualia, the truth that people are genuinely moral agents, the ability to understand and appreciate a state of affairs. That is how complex interactions and circumstances yield a broad picture. How do you explain that with chemistry? The aptitude to evaluate a plan for future activities with inbuilt contingencies, the perception and appreciation of beauty, the aim of improving an activity one performs by concentration, and the continuous volition of intending and attending. These things by themselves verify that humans have a non-physical sentient component. It's impossible for materialistic, atheistic, philosophical materialism to explain the existence of these 14 much less the numerous other things I could list if humans do not have a non-physical sentient component. Impossible. Is atheism irrational then? Absolutely. It's a denial of everything about our world. Atheists believe that a cosmic uncaused dot or self-caused dot exploded, resulting in planets and stars and galaxies for which scientists admit they have no knowledge of an explanation of how they formed, resulting in the Earth, which is a molten ball of magma once glowing hot, cooled down to become rocks, organized itself into cells, then outrageously, unmind-bendingly complex organisms which wrote Beethoven's symphonies and wrote novels like War and Peace, came to believe in God and then considered themselves in the cosmos and their place. Is that rational to you? The cosmic dot explodes, rock cools down, becomes the author of novels, leaves in God and then wonders about his place in the heavens. That's not rational, is it? No, everybody knows that's not rational. Every atheist listening to this knows that's not rational. Human beings, the default position for human beings is to believe in God. Alison Gopnik, professor of psychology at UT Berkeley, says, Children start to invoke an ultimate God-like designer to explain the complexity of the world around them, even children brought up as atheists. And Dr. Justin Barrett, senior researcher at the University of Oxford Center for Anthropology and Mind says, And that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose. Thomas Nagel, the famous atheist philosopher in 1997, I want atheism to be true and I am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It's not just that I don't want to believe in God and naturally hope that I'm right in my belief, it's that I hope there is no God. I don't want there to be a God. I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that the cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. There's an honest atheist for you. So, is atheism logical? Is it rational? Absolutely not. It's a denial of science, a denial of modern philosophy.  We know today life was designed. We know human beings have an immaterial component. Every human being who sits in a room that's completely dark with no sound whatsoever for an hour with no input, no sensory input comes to know they have a spirit because it's not their body that's making their sentience occur. Anybody could perform that experiment and would come away believing that they have a soul and they're not just a complexly arranged matter. What we have learned today is that life is designed. Human beings have a non-physical. This is the advancement. Since the days that atheism came into being as a view that people clamored to, those who were in denial of the existence of God irrationally and they came to believe this or hold to it. What we've learned since that day, which was 250 or so years ago when atheism arose as a global thing from secular humanism, a rejection of Christian moral values in the 18th century, 1700s, is that life is unfathomably complex driven by information, complex algorithms and linguistics can only be produced by matter, by minds. Matter has no potential to create forward thinking, information, linguistics or algorithms. The complexity of biological systems is so unbelievably complex. It's irrational to believe that matter in contradiction to the laws of nature is going to organize itself into complexity because every chemist on the earth knows matter moves the other way. It moves towards disorder. That's a science fact. That's a law of science. So atheists are also in denial of the laws of science which demonstrate that matter moves towards disorder, not order. And yet they believe, they want you to believe that matter organized itself into something that is so complex, man can't reproduce it. An operating system in every cell in your body, much more complex than Windows 10 that operates algorithmically with forward thinking which chemistry cannot produce. Algorithms, linguistics and semiotics, it is impossible. Atheism is an 18th century myth. It's been just buried by 19th and 20th century discoveries. It's irrational, illogical, counter-scientific. That concludes my opening statement. You got it. Thank you very much. Nephilim free. We will kick it over to the opening statement from Mark Reid and we're super thankful. We appreciate you so much, Mark, jumping in and want to let you know folks. If it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics and we hope you feel welcome. Whether you be Christian, atheist, Muslim, you name it folks. We're glad you're here with that. Mark, the floor is all yours. Thanks again for being with us. No problem. Thanks for being here. Thanks for having me, James. Hello to my interlocutor, Nephilim. It's good to see you again and thank you all for joining me. My debut at very short notice on Modern Day Debate, it's fantastic to be here. First, I'm going to go through my position. Basically, I take the position of weak atheism. In some classical terms, it's been defined as agnosticism, but modern day we use the term atheism in the weak position, but I don't say God does not exist strongly. I just have no reason to believe that he does exist and I'll be defending that position and the reasonableness of it today. Now, the way that I look at religions and I do have an analogy to sort of explain my position is something I call the shrouded room.  It's a locked barred. We can't see what's past it. There's no way to investigate. And a whole bunch of people say there's different things in the room. Some people say there's a giraffe in the next room. Some people say there's an elephant in the next room. There's aliens in the next room. And I don't know what's in the next room. I have no idea. And to my mind, it's perfectly reasonable to say I don't know what's in the next room. It's more than reasonable if you're uncertain, not just to believe in what you're told by any one individual, but instead just say I don't know and take the weak atheist position, which is I don't know if God exists and I've got no reason to believe that it does. What is in the next room? Probably nothing, but I don't know. I don't know for sure. And when you don't have a reason to believe a particular stance, saying that you don't know is perfectly reasonable. It is a very reasonable stance. Now, you're going to hear a lot of stuff that Nephilim will claim proves to God. None of it actually does. And here's the interesting part about all of these claims that he's making. Other people are using claims to try and prove something else in the next room. Other people are using exactly the same information to try and say, hey, that's not evidence for his claim. It's evidence for mine. So how can that evidence be possibly reliable for me when you've got a whole bunch of people standing around using exactly the same thing to make different arguments for different things? The reasonable thing to do in this case is say, no, I don't believe any of you until there is solid evidence for only one outcome, one thing. Now, if we did have this evidence, then yes, I think that being an atheist would be unreasonable, but you don't have this evidence. We don't have a clear, solid demonstrable evidence of simply an exclusive outcome for one thing. It's all very, very tenuous at best. And apart from that, it's hijacking the scientific studies and scientific methods to say, hey, it proves my outcome. So really, my defense of atheism today is more based upon the weakness of Neff's evidence that he's going to present, because I've seen Neff present evidence before, and it's been very, very tenuous and very weak, and I would like to address it. So is atheism unreasonable? No, not at all. Well, while you've got multiple religions taking a stance that, hey, I see no reason to believe any of them is entirely reasonable, in my opinion. And I'm going to love to get into the open discussion and defend that view. So that's really all I've got to say, and my entire strategy depends on Neff producing poor evidence, and I'll let you make up your own mind about that. Thank you. You've got to thank you very much, Mark, for that opening statement, and folks, I want to let you know we have many more juicy debates coming up. You don't want to miss them, in fact, by popular demand, since you guys are sick like me. You enjoy a good old flat-earth debate. We have one tomorrow night. You don't want to miss it, as well as a lot of other debates, folks. So hit that subscribe button right now, so you don't miss any more juicy debates coming up in the future. And with that, thanks so much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. Well, Mark, you said, I don't know if, you know, God exists or not. That's agnosticism, not atheism. Atheists constantly do this. I think I clarified my position pretty well, Neff. You said, I quoted you, agnosticism, but under modern definitions, it is atheism. That's what we refer to. Well, now you're contradicting yourself, because you said, I don't, you call yourself an atheist, and you said, I don't know if God exists or not. And that's agnosticism, not atheism. I'm sorry, that's not atheism. Atheism is a positive assertion. God doesn't exist. If I could just respond to that. We could talk about that for an hour, and I can prove to you. Let me share my screen. Let me go to a major university. You can share your screen, but to be fair to Mark, we do want to give him a chance to respond before we jump to the next topic. So with current etymology of words, sort of theism, for instance, is the belief in God correct? That's correct. So atheism is negation, which is not belief in God. Is that correct? Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. How is that possible? If atheism is a negation of theism. Okay. Okay. If I could share my screen. So you're just wrong as you can be. This is from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, the world's most renowned encyclopedia of philosophy. They state the definition. Whether or not God exists is has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy or religion. Namely, is there a God? There are only two possible direct answers to this question. Yes, which is theism and no, which is atheism. Answers like, I don't know. No one knows. I don't care. An affirmative answer has never been established. Or the question is meaningless. Are not direct answers to this question. So you stand corrected. You see. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if atheism, if God exists or not, is not atheism. It's agnosticism. You've been owned. No. I'm unfortunately Stanford encyclopedia philosophy has multiple definitions as I'm sure you are aware. It does have a definition that says sometime it is used for a non belief in God. It's used, but that's they don't declare that to be the definition. Don't get me wrong. Though it is relevant, so we've let it go for a bit. But more so to the actual arguments for the sake of argument. Let's just say we find some common ground so we can discuss the other content that was brought up in the opening statements already. Well, I mean, the problem is that the Stanford encyclopedia has got multiple definitions. Nephilim Frey knows this. He just ignores the other definitions because they don't do what he wants with his argument. I made my position perfectly clear. I'm using that as the definition because it is a valid definition in the Stanford encyclopedia as much as Nephilim Frey wants to quote mine. Just to because otherwise it's just going to keep going on and on about the definition. Yeah, no, fair enough. Let's get to the actual argument. I don't. They admit that people use it. No. No. We're not going down the road anymore. We're going to do. Let's discuss. We'll jump into Neph had the opening that started this whole event, you could say. And so we'll let's jump into the content of Neph's opening in particular juicy stuff there. So the list that Nephilim went through these sort of criteria. I'm sorry, was it Neph's Neph going or was it me? Well, you can talk. Okay.   It's preposterous. You know, but the thing is that other people say that that's a, you know, proof of their God, not your God. And I don't think that you haven't demonstrated it in any way. Is that any way that perception and appreciation of beauty? Is that any way of God? If they believe in a God, not necessarily mine. Theism. Yeah, sure. Okay. So great. So you didn't make any point. Well, no, that perception. Appreciate it. You have no way demonstrated that that's relevant. I don't have to prove my God. Theism and atheism is the debate topic. Well, you haven't demonstrated it's got any connection. So that's a mistake. That's a mistake. Well, you haven't demonstrated how is perception and appreciation of beauty come from theism or a God or any kind of supernatural deity that you choose to believe. Because it's irrational to believe that chemistry can possibly produce it. But it's not. It's not. It's not. It's not. It's not. It's not a non physical material. Component must be a play because it's irrational to believe that chemistry can appreciate the, the context of an object and see it in a, in a way that is beautiful. That's irrational chemistry is an electromechanical operations in matter. That's all it is. Well, that's a straw man fallacy. That's exactly what a chemistry is. Is, are you denying chemistry now? No, no, I'm denying that the, you know, the processes of the brain is just. Oh, so you're saying. So there's something more to the human mind than chemistry. Sure. There's neurons, memories. No, no, those are chemical. What's non chemical? Well, the synapses. That's chemical. What's not. The synapses are chemical. It's chemical. Well, it's funny that no neurologist actually agree with you. No, none of them agree with you. That's a mess too. Yeah. No, I'm sure. Well, can you produce a paper where. Dr. Michael Egner perception and appreciation of beauty comes from a God. Sure. Dr. Michael Egner. What, what do you got next? A paper. That would be a. Dr. Michael Egner. Yeah. That's a name. That's a name. That's a name. That's a name. That's a name. That's a name. Appealing to peer review. Concentration is, is somehow evidence of a God. The fact that we can concentrate on something. You've said, hey, that comes from God. What, what possibly. Is evidence of that claim. It's just. How can, how can, how can chemistry. How can chemistry. Improve its own activity. In order to fine tune its. Understanding of something outside of itself. What's outside of your brain. Because the brain is chemical. What's outside your skull is not in physical contact with. Whatever it's appreciating. How in the world can chemistry inside the locked inside your skull. Appreciate something external to it. When chemistry demands that molecules are in immediate contact with each other. In order to interact and have any doing with each other. Concentration. This is the irrationality of atheism. How can we see that chemistry can touch upon and appreciate examining things outside the brain. Give me a break. Explain that. Well chemistry is a very important survival trade. You know, if we didn't able to concentrate, we wouldn't be around. I would. Can I finish. Can I finish. Is that possible. Please. So if we didn't have an ability to concentrate, we would wander off into the wilderness, fall down and die. That's not an explanation. Yeah, let's give them... Yes, it is. It absolutely is. So if evolution is true, which nearly every single scientist says it is, and this isn't a debate about evolution, so I won't dwell too much in the weeds about that one, but if evolution is true, then it is in our, it is a survival mechanism to be able to concentrate on what you are doing. And the human race would die if it couldn't concentrate. Mark, all you've done is point to concentration exists, and therefore evolution is the truth. You haven't explained a thing. No, I just... You've just pointed out that evolution crude is concentration. That's a blanket statement that is hand-waving. You didn't explain anything. I pointed out that concentrate, the chemistry in your brain is concealed within your skull, and it's not in contact with anything outside your skull. Therefore, it's irrational to believe that chemistry in your brain can have a thing to do with anything outside your skull. And you can't explain that. Because your worldview is not rational. It's not rational. We have senses, Mark. Is it rational? To connect us to other things outside of brain and what the senses are for.  How can your brain not be connected to the world around you? I mean, I'm willing to believe that after some of the stuff you've said, but how is that possible? It's possible because a human being can close their eyes and still appreciate things. Mark, you're trying to tell me that the chemistry inside, locked inside your skull, can interact with things that are outside of it. If a mind was nothing more than chemistry, then light coming into your eye is nothing more than light coming into your eye. I never said that. The ability to perceive an image and appreciate what it is can't be explained by chemistry. If you want to believe that, that's nonsense. So, but you can't explain what. No, you can't explain that. Well, I mean, I'm not a neuroscientist, but you know, you might want to read some papers on it and find out why we see something. Now, if you have to give them a chance to respond, we're going to go into three minute intervals. Mark, go ahead, three minutes. We equate it with beauty, and then chemicals are released like dopamine and that make you feel good. It's not some kind of supernatural thing. So, what hasn't been demonstrated here is how these things are actually supernatural or miracle-driven or caused by a God in any way, shape, or form. And what I've pointed out is this entire list is you making grandiose claims that all of these things come from God with zero demonstration that they actually do. I mean, concentration comes from God. Come on, get it, come on. Okay, so, Mark, you haven't explained a thing. You're doing, engaging what atheists always do, hand-waving, saying this exists, therefore, evolution is produced. That's all you've done.  Okay, nothing. And you can't explain it. So, what you're stuck with believing is that light entering into the cells which activates things somehow, but the chemistry is producing an abstract. And that's absurdity. See, what you're not actually doing is explaining anything. This is what atheists constantly do whenever I ask questions about these kinds of things. All they do is say, look, it exists, therefore, it's true that atheism that explains it, that chemistry explains it, but that's not an explanation. Have you provided any scientific chemical explanation as to how light entering and activating the rods and cones in a human eye produce an appreciation of something in an abstract sense? No, you can't do that. No atheist has ever done it. No atheist philosopher has ever done it. It's never happened. It never will. Nobody has done it. You won't be the first.  And it's actually- Neff. Neff, please. Now, the hilarious thing is, there's your excuse me of not being able to explain anything. So, I'd like to put it back onto you, Neff. See how good your explanations are. What is the actual mechanism that is used for God to give us these things? The actual mechanism, not just how God did it or magic or miracles or divine intervention or some sort of vague sort of magical thing that happens. What is the actual systematic process that transfers this thing from God to us go? Excellent. So, you made the same mistake the last time you and I debated. What you're actually asking for is a materialistic physical explanation for the non-physical. And that's a complete failure. It's a category here. It's called a philosophy. It's called a category error. It's a category error.   So, unless chemistry molecules interact with other molecules, they can have nothing to do with them in a materialistic worldview which is your worldview. And therefore your worldview cannot be the truth. Now, that leaves my worldview as the only option. Whether you like that, whether you don't. Okay, so, but if it's true that humans have a non-physical component, then a non-physical component can see in two places at one time. They can see inside their own skull and they can see the tree in the backyard while they're singing at their computer. They can experience both because they're not bound by time, space, energy, and matter. That part of them is not bound by time, space, energy, and matter. So, you see, you have no explanation. I have a potential explanation. And a potential explanation, Trump's the inability to provide an explanation every time. Okay, so why is atheism rational, Mark? So, I'd just like to point out that basically instead of giving us an explanation or an understanding of how the process actually works, Neff just basically went, don't have one, don't need one, shouldn't need one. I'm not gonna give one. So, this is what's called special pleading. I'd just like to point out, like to everybody saw that Neff could not provide any kind of, he just basically dodged the question. So, this is special pleading. It's basically saying, hey, you've got to show all of the mechanisms, all of the things, all of the stuff that shows what you think. But I've got a God who is exempt from that. I've got a God that doesn't have to do that. So, I'm not even gonna try. Now, Neff set it up as a false dichotomy. Well, a dichotomy that is false. He's saying that either it's natural or it's a God. Either it happens naturally over a process of time or it's a God. And this is a false dichotomy. And I can prove this because all you need to prove a dichotomy wrong is one other option. So, things like, is it natural or not natural? It is a dichotomy. It has to be one or the other. But natural and God is not necessarily true. And my third option is aliens could have done it. It's not God and it's not natural. And so, Neff is absolutely using a false dichotomy. And please do listen very clearly to what he said. A potential explanation beats no explanation. Is that true? If you've got a one that you're not sure is right or not and you don't know if it's right, but it is an explanation, why not just believe it? It's because that is not a reasonable way to find out what the truth is. It's more reasonable to say, I don't know. I've got all these potential explanations from this God to that God to aliens to accidents to natural occurrences. And I don't know which is the right explanation. The problem is that theists just don't like not knowing that would rather any explanation or a potential explanation regardless of whether it's true or not. And I would rather, and I think it's entirely reasonable to say there's hundreds, if not thousands of potential explanations that people throw up here. And there might be explanations that we don't know about yet. We've got no idea. It's more than reasonable to say, I don't know because I don't know if any of those are correct. Okay, so Mark, this is your, here's the clarity of how brilliant you're failing. You say aliens could be the explanation or the aliens natural or supernatural? Uh-oh. I don't know. You don't know. You always default to this. I don't know. But see, it's not logical. Well, then if you don't know, you just appeal to your agnosticism again, silly. Well, don't you see that Mark? Come on. Come on, really. You're telling me atheism is not necessary because aliens, well, are the aliens created? Are they supernatural beings? Do they have a spirit? I don't know.  I don't believe in aliens. Wait, my turn. Are aliens, no problem. Or the, because I do it too sometimes, Mark. We all do it.  See what I mean? This is where you failed here, Mark. You're appealing to aliens may have done it. Well, are the aliens material? Well, what caused the aliens? Richard Dawkins made this ridiculous error in his interview with Ben Stein. You've seen it, right? Where he appealed to aliens, aliens, aliens, aliens, aliens may have done it. But all of them potentially being intelligent designers, but all of them made it purely matter. This is a mistake. It's a logical error. And this is why I say atheism is irrational. You're not being rational. If it's right, it can't be, it's not rational to say that a materialistic cause could explain something that seems supernatural, because there was a prior material cause, which it seems to explain something supernatural because there was a prior material cause that seems to explain something supernatural that there was a, because it was caused by a prior material cause. All you're doing is appealing to an infinite chain of material causes, claiming that somewhere in the mysticism of it all, is buried the ability of the matter to produce that which is abstract. And it's absurdity. It's a complete failure. We'll give two minutes to Mark to respond. Yeah, so I don't believe in aliens for the same reason I don't believe in a God. It hasn't been demonstrated to me. And I don't think there's enough evidence to sort of come down on the side that there is. The hypothesis has been around for a long time. It's called Spence Bermuda. And it may have been a designed thing. It may have been something we're not aware of, some kind of interdimensional component that's not physical. I don't know. And that's the most honest answer that I don't know. Because I'm not saying it is aliens. I just have no reason to believe it is. But it just shows that your dichotomy of even natural or God, it's a false dichotomy, completely false. And you haven't addressed that. You haven't said, hey, that's not an option in my dichotomy. All you've said is, oh, that's unreasonable and irrational. And it's just a claim. I think I'm entirely rational to say, hey, if I don't know if it's aliens or interdimensional beings or natural causes or God or a wolf spirit from beyond the next star, I'm perfectly reasonable to say, I don't know what the answer is. But I don't believe any of them. I don't believe Bigfoot did it. I don't believe fairies did it. I don't believe magic waves echoed throughout the universe and did it. The reason why is the same reason I don't believe it was your God that did it because there is no evidence for it. And that's more than reasonable. Nephilim, for you, are you there? I have tons of evidence for the Christian God that would be a separate debate, though. I have massive amounts of that. However, you're, well, let's debate that sometime. I think that you probably not want to take that debate. But nonetheless, we can do it. But nonetheless, all you're doing is appealing to philosophical materialism, which doesn't have an explanatory power. And you keep reverting to agnosticism. And this is what we all observe. Every time you talk about, we don't know, you say, I don't know, I don't know this, I don't know that, I don't know. Your default position is you don't really know. What is the explanation? All you're doing is admitting that you don't know how your worldview can explain the human nature. That's what you're doing. And that's your big mistake, because I'm telling you reasons that we can know that the human nature is not explainable by philosophical materialism and determinism. But you're telling me, I don't know. So automatically, I've already won this debate because I'm giving you evidences which can't be explained by your worldview. And you're telling me, we don't, repeatedly, you don't know. And you don't know. It's not atheism, Mark. That's agnosticism. So what you're doing is what all atheists, good little atheists in the modern era, especially since 2010 do, is run the hell as fast as they can away from atheism and towards agnosticism while holding up a poster board saying, I'm an atheist. This is the biggest reason that most loudmouth atheists like Aaron Raw and... All right, we're not going to talk about people when they're not here. That's the rule. We want to kick it over to, it's been about two minutes as well. We'll kick it over to Mark.  Are you an atheist, Mark? Well, all right, hold on. We've got two minutes for Mark.  You know, evidence is, I'm really sorry, it's pathetic. It really is niff.  I mean, that's the level of evidence we're working with here. And you're basically said, oh, you've claimed to read minds like everybody knows. Atheists know that a God exists. So can I just, the audience, please, determine who is rational with somebody willing to say, I don't know whether there's a God or whether there's not. I'm not going to believe it until I know, and that's reasonable. Or someone claiming to be able to read minds and know what they're thinking. I mean, if you wanna point the irrationality stick, I think it'd be firmly pointed in your direction, niff. You know, this idea that information must come from a mind, will plants produce signals and warn each other of danger? That's information and plants don't have minds, niff. So your entire claims are just frivolous at best and misunderstood at worst. Oh, and the information and the DNA of the plant is immaterial and cannot have been produced by matter. Information is immaterial entity. This has been explained to you numerous times. Information is knowledge conveyed from a sender to a receiver employing a language agreed upon by both parties. That's information every computer programmer in the world agrees. But atheists don't agree. They think information is some material thing, which is absurdity. If you graduate from a university with a degree in computer programming, you'll know for a fact that information is not made by matter, but atheists claim that it is. And this is how atheism is unreasonable. So I would ask you, since the subject of this debate is atheism unreasonable, then if atheism is unreasonable, why do you constantly appeal to agnosticism instead of atheism and refuse to make an outright statement that God does not exist? And why do you appeal to, we don't know and I don't know instead of answers which are reasonable? And all I'm hearing from you is I'm not hearing a response. The subject of this debate is atheism unreasonable. I would say, of course, it's absolutely unreasonable. And the evidence from that comes from the philosophy of mind, physics, science, the biological sciences, the geological sciences, the human history and the human experience all testified to the existence of a creator being, an unimaginable intellect that is ordered this world to be what it is and give us thought and mind and heart. But an atheist says, like you comes into a debate with me and says, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, but you're wrong. I'm not hearing any argument that atheism is not unreasonable. If atheism, if theism is reasonable, then it's reasonable that a supernatural cause is ordered cause the existence of the universe. I can give you an argument for that. If theism is reasonable, then it's reasonable that human beings, if made of matter, also contain some non-physical sentient component which are able to appreciate and contemplate and order and create and have creativity and whatnot from minds which are not just chemistry. If theism is correct, all these things I can show you and I've given arguments for several of them. But what we're hearing from you is I don't know and that's your best argument. You're not explained to us why atheism is unreasonable and so far it looks like atheism is absolutely unreasonable. Give me a reason to believe atheism is not unreasonable. So you claim, Neff, and that nice straw man, by the way, of what I think information is. If anybody in the chat is unaware of what a straw man is, it's basically building up a weaker position than your opponent has in order to tackle it and feel good about yourself. The whole idea of saying, you know, is it unreasonable? You haven't given any good reason as to why I should believe it. And like I said about the room with people saying all kinds of things in the other room, it's more than reasonable to say that probably nothing's in the other room. It's the default position that something doesn't exist. It's very, very well known that if somebody says, hey, you know, I've got the cure for cancer and they can't demonstrate that they do, you faulted the default position which is they don't. Simply having a default position of something not existing until it's been demonstrated to exist is absolutely rational and reasonable. Now, I do note that you haven't addressed the whole idea that you claim to be able to read minds. You haven't addressed that at all. I love the way you've just skipped over that without even doing it. And you know, straw man in my position is hardly new things for Neff. I mean, he's straw man all throughout his intro. He sort of said this really simplistic model of how the universe built up and how the earth came about. And you know, just to, it's a straw man. It's a weaker and distorted image of what the reality is. And I mean, I'm sure it makes you feel really good that you can knock down a straw man but it is a logical fallacy. So I would put it to you with your ability to read minds and your irrational arguments. You know, I think the unreasonable one is actually you, Neff. Neff? Hello. I don't know where you get this craziness from that I have the ability to read minds. I've never expressed such an idea. That's preposterous.  But I haven't heard an argument that why atheism is reasonable. I've given you reasons from biology, cosmology, from philosophy, physics, and others fields that theism is true. And what you've appealed to is aliens while claiming to be an, while being an agnostic and claiming to be an atheist as a cover, as a poster board. This is all I've heard. I haven't heard one single argument that tells us why atheism is not unreasonable. Nothing. But is it reasonable to believe that the complexity of this world, which scientific research shows that even children at the earliest ages of life agree that it seems plausible that a superintellect is the explanation for the complexity of this world. Even children, small children, agree this is the default position for humankind. If this belief that superintellect is behind the order and the complexity of life at the earliest stages of human life from one-year-olds, two-year-olds, three, four, five, six, seven-year-old kids. And scientific research, which has been conducted by Stanford University and others, has shown is the default position for small children, young children, then why would that be true if atheism were true? If atheism were true, the default position for a human mind would be not that some superintellect is the cause of the order and complexity and interdependencies of the world around us. So atheism is therefore irrational because it's not the default position for human minds. Now, I haven't heard a single argument from you as to why all I've heard you do is complain about the arguments that I give. You haven't heard you make a single silent argument as to why your worldview of philosophical materialism, moral relativism, naturalism, determinism, evolutionism, and are able to explain any of the things that make the human experience. You haven't explained any of it except to appeal to chemistry can do it, which I've explained cannot do it. I haven't heard anything. All I hear is the atheism is unreasonable because theism has a logical rational explanation for all these things and you have explained nothing. Can you try to explain how naturalism and determinism and philosophical materialism can explain the human experience? Yeah, so I have methods. Just, you know, if you're not paying attention that's your entire lookout mate. So the thing about children is if you take children's predisposition for certain things to be a statement of what is true then you better start looking under your bed for boogie men. You know, we don't take children as being one of the sources for, you know, whether something is true or not. We just don't because children are often wrong. Like I just, I don't understand this idea that because children have a predisposition and this is relying on, you know, Neff's quotes, which, you know, we're all aware of how much he quote mines and gets the wrong idea about certain things. I mean, he's basically saying he's got a paper that proves God, which is just laughably ridiculous. The thing is that I'm not a neurologist and I'm not a biologist and you're looking for in-depth discussions on those two topics. I won't be able to have them with you but you haven't demonstrated why not knowing what the answer is and just saying, hey, all of you, you see us disagree and those disagreements are mutually exclusive. So you can't have a God of Christianity alongside drama, the creator and destroyer. It can't happen. So it's entirely reasonable to say, well, I don't believe either of you and I don't think either exists because something not existing is the default position. And I'll direct you towards, and I was talking with a wonderful person in the chat earlier about Russell's teapot that if somebody claims that there's a teapot out in the universe and neither of you can prove it, the default position is that it does not exist. That is the default position. If there is a claim that there's a wild big foot out in the wilds and neither of you can prove it either way, the default position is that it doesn't exist and that is the rational position because if you did not take that position you would have to believe every single claim that is made to you and I know you don't. I know that you reject the Hinduism and I know you reject other stuff. So why do you do that and expect me to accept your explanation with zero evidence for it? Yeah, well, you're claimed that, I haven't explained the default position. It explains perfectly why atheism is unreasonable because Mark, I just showed you from Oxford University two Oxford University's University of Researchers and my opening statement, how children from the earliest ages automatically believe by their default position that a super intellect is why the world is ordered and has such astonishing complexity. And so you've just failed in a miserable way by denying what I just provided from you from secular sources. These people don't believe, Stanford University is not a Christian university. They preach the heck out of atheism and evolution. That's a very, very secular mainstream Ivy League university and yet their philosophers, the professors of philosophy agree that the naturalistic world doesn't explain to children why the world seems ordered and complex. Children automatically believe that the world is ordered and complex because of super intellect that it can't be seen, has done it because they know intuitively that nature doesn't, even by the earliest age, by the age of two, three, four, five, children are intelligent enough to know that matter doesn't organize itself into complexity. It tends to move away because that's why the ball bounces away from them and stops bouncing and comes to a stop. You see, the child knows the ball bounces, bounce, bounce, bounce, stop, right? It doesn't bounce higher and higher. It tends to stop bouncing and the child knows that. And so they know that matter doesn't move towards organization, it moves the other way. This is what infants even know. Two children, two years old, three, five, six, eight years old, they know that intuitively. We all know it because it's what we experience as human beings.  So here's, apart from the sheer lunacy of an argument from a bouncing ball, it's just, okay, that's, yeah, just check your reasonables at the door, people. Basically what you said was Stanford Preachers Atheism and Secularism. But here's the problem, Neffen. You've kind of shot yourself in the foot here. Your claiming Stanford University is a reasonable source because you're taking your sources from it. Isn't that interesting? So although Stanford Preachers Atheism and Secularism, you're claiming that they're reasonable by citing their sources. Funny, that isn't it? That you'll use these people, even though they're completely unreasonable in your argument, I think you know they're reasonable. I think they are atheist and secularist. I think they are, and I think they're perfectly reasonable. Or else you're in the position of claiming that Stanford is unreasonable, which is hilarious because you do want to quote them in all of these things. And from your Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we saw you quote mine, one of the definitions of atheism and leave the other one out. So you have demonstrated yourself untrustworthy to show quotes from people because they are so often misleading, quote mind, cherry-picked and absolutely verging on dishonest. So the statement by the Stanford University philosopher that I provided about atheism explains why atheist explanations of atheism as agnosticism or a failure, there are no definitions in the Stanford University of Philosophy Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The atheism is anything other than a denial of the existence of God or a statement outright that God does not exist. You state that in ignorance. They may state that some people will say that this is what atheism is, but they do not themselves state this is what atheism is. That's your mistake. And that's another unreasonable false explanation of the atheists that where you twist facts to try to make things seem like they fit your worldview. And that's another example of the unreasonability of atheism where you take secular high-level sources and misrepresent what they say in order to make them seem like they fit their worldview. But the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't comport with what you say. It just doesn't. They state outright the definition of atheism is a positive assertion that God does not exist or there is no known such thing as God. But agnosticism is a statement that God is either unknown or unknowable and that is not the same as a positive assertion that God does not exist. Nowhere in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy at Stanford you find a statement that atheism equals agnosticism, Mark. They're not the same thing. That's not, you're not gonna find it. It doesn't exist in there Encyclopedia, I'm sorry. They're not the same thing and they will not state that they're the same thing. If you think they do, good luck trying to find that source because you won't find it. They don't state the agnosticism equals atheism. They're not the same thing. And you're running from your atheism when you tempt this game. Atheists constantly do this. I've had to correct hundreds of them for the last 15 years and it's absolutely a miserable example of the failure of atheists where they attempt to deny their own worldview in order to defend it. It's pitiful. So what I'm wanting from you is an explanation as to why atheism is reasonable, not unreasonable. I've given you a number of reasons why atheism is unreasonable. You haven't even attempted to explain how atheism can explain naturalism, materialism, self-causation and determinism can explain the various features of our world around us including the human mind. You haven't even dared to try to. You're losing this debate, Mark. So, you nephew always say that. So I don't think anybody believes you, mate. So first off, I mean, we're back in the weeds with this whole atheism thing with you claiming that atheism is what you say it is and what one of the definitions in the Stanford Exoclipator is. Definitions are descriptive. They're not prescriptive. They're definitions of how people use them. They describe use issues, that kind of thing. So, you know, this whole getting stuck in the weeds, you've been corrected time and time and time again and you're just, well, let's say it, unreasonable, nephew. Are you saying atheism and narcissism are the same thing? Let's give them a chance to respond. That's a straw man. I never said that. Are they the same thing? We do want to give them a chance to respond. I will respond. Just cool your jets, mate. Wow, desperate much. So, Gnosticism, it relates to knowledge because Gnostic is Greek for knowledge. Now, Thomas Huxley was the original person that coined the term agnosticism and he did a great disservice because he basically defined it as weak atheism. But Gnosticism should be an absence of knowledge. Agnosticism should be an absence of knowledge in a God. Whereas theism, the opposite negation of that, atheism, should be an absence of belief. Just like when you have moral and you have the word amoral, the negation is an absence of morals, not a belief that is no morals or a belief in bad morals. That's not how the a negation is used in any other circumstance. So, realizing this Stanford Exaclopedia added that definition because we know etymology, these words should not be as they've been used classically and that's the reality of the situation. Now, like Nef's done his usual song and dance and find something that's really outdated, cherry picket, quote, mine it, stick to it through thick and thin, even though it's wrong and we're all aware that this is what he does. If it did any benefit to him whatsoever. I noticed that you didn't even address Stanford, basically practicing atheism and secularism but you claiming that your reasonable quotes are coming from an unreasonable source. So there's that. I have told you why and why it's reasonable not to believe in your God and therefore to default to atheism that God does not exist. You just haven't been paying attention and there's nothing I can do about that. I mean, it is a usual thing for Nef that when he doesn't want to accept something, he just doesn't pay attention and then wildly claim it's never been explained to him. I mean, people have explained evolution to Nef many times over and he says it's never been explained to him. So, if you're not listening, Nef there's nothing I can do, mate. Well, let me screen share again just to demonstrate the absurdity of your failure. If I may, there we go.  This definition, whether or not God exists has been has the added attribute virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, is there a God? There are only two possible direct answers to this question. Yes, which is theism or no, which is atheism.  An affirmative answer has not been established which is synonymous with what you've been spewing or the question is meaningless which is not quite synonymous with what you've been spewing are not direct answers to this question.  This is from the encyclopedia of philosophy at Stanford University. So, I'm sorry, agnosticism and atheism cannot be merged. They're not the same thing. This is what the game, the atheists, modern atheists love to play.  You can't be both.  This is how your worldview is unreasonable because you can't even admit who you are or what you are or what your worldview is. You're so afraid to defend it with any real science or philosophy that you have to appeal to something that's not even what you believe or what you claim to believe in order to try to defend it. This is how you fail measurably every atheist in the world that plays this game and they almost all of them do today because of the power of Christian apologetics over the last 15 or 18, 22 years has destroyed atheists so badly that now they've got them running so bad that they pretend to be agnostic while claiming to be atheist. They're standing around saying, I'm an agnostic. I'm an agnostic. Atheism and agnosticism are the same thing. Holding up a poster that says, I'm an atheist while describing what they believe is agnosticism. This is how miserable atheism has become in the last 25 years because of the power of Christian apologetics. So, Mark, with that, I think I'm done. Well, let's get a little bit of truth on the situation. I'm gonna love to share my screen right now which I'll have to ask you to stop sharing there. I'm trying. Let's get a bit of truth here. Let me see. Let's go to the actual Stanford exactlopedia. I know you don't want me to do this, Neff, but here we go. Do you see my screen? Now we do. Okay, so this says definitions of atheism. That's definitions. Plural, Neff. Is that plural? I believe that's plural, mate. Now, if you come down here, the parting there, even more radically from the norm, the Fluss-Possilers claim atheism shouldn't be defined as a proposition of all, even in this proposition. It's useful to recognize the term atheism is polysemiest. It has more than one related meaning even within philosophy. So, Neff, you're lying.  And this is what you do. You quote mine the very top. You miss out. I noticed you didn't do the heading. You didn't include definitions plural because you wanted everybody to believe there's only one definition and one definition alone, which is the one you are wrenching your linchpin on. But there are multiple definitions. And this says there's multiple definitions.  And I'm calling you out. Okay, Mark, you've muddied the waters in a pitiful way. Just show us the page on this in the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy which says agnosticism and atheism are the same. And you'll have a point. Until then, you've completely failed, as I pointed out already. If they have different names, they have different meanings and isn't that the truth? Oh boy, isn't that the truth? I never said that I had the same thing. Agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing, Mark. They're not the same thing. I never said they were. The sources you point to don't state they're the same thing. Stanford University of Philosophy Encyclopedia doesn't state they're the same thing for crying out loud. I never said they were. Well, then you failed. You just admitted you were. No, I didn't. They don't state. Enough. This is a straw man. Because I said that I gave my definition of agnosticism. Did you say they state the same thing? I did not state that in any way. Do they mean the same thing? I said that, no, they don't. I said my definition of agnosticism was related to knowledge while theism was related to belief. They cannot possibly be the same thing because they are related to two different things. And so when you say they can't be the same thing, you said they were the same thing. That is patently false and a complete straw man of my position. Well, excellent. You just admitted that atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing. So are you an atheist or an agnostic? I'm an atheist. Okay. So you have a positive assertion that God doesn't exist because that's not agnosticism. I think it's more. If that's true. We do have to give him a chance to respond if you ask the question. If you ask the question, I'd like to answer it. Can I finish my assertion? Well, I mean, you ask the question. Yeah, we do want to give him a chance to answer the question if you asked it. So I think that it sort of goes along with the premise. No, he answered that. Well, I can't say with certainty that God does not exist. I can't say that I know that God does not exist. No, it's an atheist because I don't believe God exists. Well, I don't want him to have a chance to respond to answer your question. Not for you to answer your own question. Let's just give him like 10, 20 seconds to clarify and I promise we'll come back to you enough. Yeah. So because I do not believe a God exists, I'm an atheist. I'm not, I'm also an agnostic because I don't claim that I have knowledge that God does not exist. Okay, so you just contradicted yourself. No, I didn't. Thank you so much. You just proved my point. Atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing and that's an absurdity. So this is the state that we reveal the modern state of people who call themselves atheists on the internet love to appeal to agnosticism as though this gives them a way out as though my worldview is supportable even though I have to defend it and you can't, you haven't. And I haven't heard anything that makes atheism reasonable. I've given you examples of things that make atheism reasonable. Theism is reasonable because the universe requires a first cause that the materialism and naturalism can't and determinism can't explain the origin of tying energy space matter. It's impossible. In fact, I can give you a philosophical explanation of that absolutely impossible. The universe can't be its own explanation. All things have a cause external to them. The universe can't be an exception. Nature is not nature's explanation. Something outside of nature is the cause of it. That's the basis of the scientific method. So an atheist's claim that God did not cause a cause that is immaterial, non-physical, eternal has caused the temporal, physical and material world is a denial of the philosophy of science. Your worldview is unreasonable. To believe that natural chemistry, molecules order themselves into complex things like biological life, which is dumb, foundingly complex. The more we discover about biological life, the more complex arrangements and interdependencies of matter we find in biological life. It's the levels of complexity never stop to be discovered. That level of increase in complexity can't be explained by philosophical materialism and determinism, which is your atheist worldview. It can only be explained by order, which is caused by a mind. The entropy, any contradicts second law of thermodynamics. We'll give a chance, we'll give Mark a chance to respond and then we're going to go into the Q and A. We do have a quite a few questions that we do have to get through so we don't have time for Q and A. Yeah, I want a bunch of unsupported claims there. So he said the first cause, I never said there wasn't the first cause, but he's got to show that that's actually a God, which he's not doing and has never done. Can you be an atheist without a first cause? Nef, please, just calm down, mate. Yeah, so if we don't know the first cause or I don't know the first cause, there's no reason to believe that it's your first cause, the ones you postulate rather than the ones that anybody else postulates or ones that we may not have discovered what the reason is. There's a million things that we could discover in the future that could be first causes and not fall under your false dichotomy. Your misunderstanding of the scientific method is just breathtaking. Nature is not nature's explanation, is the basis of the scientific method. Yeah, you don't understand the scientific method, Nef. You think nature is not nature's explanation, is the basis of the scientific method then seriously, I don't know what to do for you. So the complexity is not a sign of design. Complexity can be bottom up, which means that it draws complexity from simple things gaining more and more complexity or from top down, like we see in say computer architecture where the complexity is actually designed. And overwhelmingly, biologists think that natural stuff like DNA is bottom up. It gets caused from the bottom up. And at the end of the day, complexity anyway is not a measure of design. In fact, simplicity usually is a measure of design because you want things to be as simple as possible.  So all of these amazing evidences, they're just claims. They're just looking around, seeing ordinary things in the world and saying, hey, I want to believe that it's my explanation. Well, it is entirely reasonable to reject that based upon nothing but these claims that Nephilim keeps coming out. We're gonna jump into Q and A. Do want to mention folks, our guests are linked in the description and we highly encourage you to check out their links as we really do appreciate our guests. And have you been listening this long? I mean, hey, you must have liked hearing one of our guests or maybe both of our guests, I don't know. But you probably enjoyed hearing at least one person. We'd highly encourage you to check out their link in the description. And also, if you've been listening this long folks, we have a podcast. Did you not know this? We are thrilled that the podcast has been growing and so super encouraged by that folks. We are really excited about that. Do check out our podcast on any podcast app. With that, we're gonna jump into these questions. Thanks so much. Robert Harlow says, Neph, how do people use, how do people use a word, quote is, or I'm sorry, okay, they said, how do people use a word, how people use a word is what a word means. Dictionaries can only describe usage. They are not rule books. We are obliged to obey. Neph, what are your thoughts? Well, if that were so true, then anything is, then the meaning of the word is, can't be concreted. It can't be ever solidified. And that has no definitive meaning. You got it. Anne, thanks very much for your question. This one coming in from Bubblegum Gunn says, Mr. K, or no, they say, Mark, want evidence? Use a Ouija board in a haunted place. What? Thanks, sir. Okay. Sure, I mean, I've used a Ouija board when I was very, very young in an abandoned hospital, I think it was, there's no proof came up, nothing happened. The Ouija board, do you know the Ouija board wasn't originally for contact and spirits. It was actually for, it was brought out by, I think it was Hasbro from memory, and it was actually supposed to delve into your subconscious. It was not in any way connected with spirits at all. Look at that. Juicy, you serious? Yeah. That's fascinating. It was a family board game to sort of, a psychologically access your subconscious. It was never brought out to be a spirit thing. That's so interesting. That is super fascinating. And next question from Nugget Man says, usually I simply ask atheists, what was before the supposed quote unquote big bang and quote what put it there? And I mostly have a silence in response. Yeah, it's because we don't know. So I'm sure Leo could tell you all about this if it was here, but sort of the origin point or what we think of the origin point was there's sort of plank time we can go up to but we can't go back to that origin because sort of the maths and the physics just break down. So we don't know what was there. And that's maybe why you're getting silence. It's because people are saying, well, don't know, but there's no reason to think it's a God. So I'm not going to believe it's a God. So I can't tell you because I don't know but I'm sorry if that silence for you. You got it. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Bubblegum Gun says, Mark, when you say aliens you admit to creationism. No, it could have been a alien accident like the Scientologists believe that aliens nuked things spirits and stuff. This is the problem here that there's so many possibilities that you sort of go okay, well, it had to be intentional had to be designed by aliens. I could say, well, what if the aliens dropped a vial of a blue dream algae that merged? There can be other explanations, millions of them, billions of them. I don't believe that because there's no evidence to believe that, but that's still the false dichotomy is there, it still doesn't make the other, the God claim true, just sort of saying, hey, it didn't develop naturally. Gotcha, and thanks very much for your question. Bubblegum Gun says, wrong, Mark, plants have been proven to have a brain. I think he's trolling tonight. I don't know. Yeah, I think so too. I don't know, I think Bubblegum should prove he has a brain, so I'm sorry, I'm sorry, mate, it's a very much a joke, I'm sorry. I took it as lighthearted, no worries, I think he'll like it. Next up, Joshua Alex says, Nef, name one thing that can't be explained without a God, and then we'll give the S Mark as well as say, Mark, please explain how that might be explained without a God. I would say everything, just every single thing, because matter can't be its own cause. Time, energy, space, matter can't be their own cause. Information, linguistics, algorithms, thought, the perception of time, intentionality can't be explained by material processes. Intending to do a thing, intentionality can't be explained with chemistry. It has to be explained by something that's non-chemical. And therefore, if human beings have a non-physical entity which is able to produce intentionality, because matter doesn't intend to do a thing.  It may, but it doesn't intend to. So intentionality is evidence that I think traces back all the way past the human experience to the cause of the human experience. Gotcha. And also, do I understand right? Is this how it works? When we, because folks, just a quick second. We created memberships as a part of our 50,000 subscriber celebration. We are pumped that we do have memberships. And I'm wondering, I'm seeing a member's name pinned, namely Saw and Son, is pinned to the top of the chat. And it says, welcome to Extra Juicy. I know that Extra Juicy is one of the names of our memberships. When it pins it, does that, do I understand right? That that means that as a person just became a member, Saw and Son, is this true? I wanna say thank you so much for becoming a member. And I am new to this. I'm learning, I'm a boomer, you guys, bear with me. But I try to be, you know, hip and cool-pilled, as everybody says today. But anyway, thanks so much for your question, this one coming in from. Andrews, thanks so much as they, James, have you been told today that you're the coolest? Well, why thank you, Andrew, I appreciate that. I always try to be cool-pilled. They say, cause you're the coolest. Thank you, Andrews, seriously. I'm really encouraged. And conservative non-believer says, thank you for creating a stage for these conversations. One person's genius is another person's crazy. Thanks so much for your kind words. We really do appreciate that, friend. That means a lot. And then the craw daddy, zero two nine says, Nephew, you are not understanding the difference between knowledge and belief does not prove your point. Read a book and stop making things up, Neph. Well, well, so if I make things up, you know, that sounds to me like somebody who's desperate not to believe what they hear. That's what it sounds to me like. Gotcha. And thank you very much for this question. Oh, sorry, gotta load this up, but I do have one right here handy. Total Kaka, thanks for your question says, for Neville and Varee, to what extent is he a literalist when it comes to the Bible? Do you take everything as literal, Neph, in John 10 verse nine, if I remember, when Jesus says he's a door, what does that mean, for example? Why should I think that the Bible seems to say that Jesus is physically a door? The question seems to be so utterly. Well, I don't know why she even respond. No, no, I added that last part in to give like an example of like, do you take it that literally? I wasn't, that wasn't part of their question. I was just trying to like give an example. Jesus is a door in a philosophical sense. He was the door of the Ark of Noah. He was the door of this and that and the other. He's the door we must pass through to pass from death unto life. So this is, it's pretty basic understanding. I think anybody who reads the Bible and doesn't get that, I don't know how they could have passed high school, honestly. Can I just pass that for a second? He was the door of, like, do you mean the Ark as in Noah's Ark? He's the doorway from death unto life. Is that, is that a difficult concept for you? Well, I mean, when you said the door of the Ark, I got an image of a guy who's a door of an Ark. It's just a weird, weird idea. Did you graduate from high school? Yeah, I think so, Neff. You should be able to understand this. All right, okay, the Ark as in Noah's Ark. Was the door, when the door shut of the Ark, was it true, is it true that those outside the door did not receive life, but death? I don't think it happened at all. He was more of a rant. And those inside the Ark received life. Isn't that true? According to the text, right? Okay, I just, I just don't understand how well. Yeah, I don't know, honey, I don't get it. All right, we're here, I just jumped into the next one.  All right, this one. He's picking on me, it's all about me. Gosh, man. We'll jump into the next, he's got passion. We, there's nothing. He does. So we'll jump into the next one. Farron Salas, thanks for your question. He says, Neff conflates actual design with an appearance of design. Please explain so we know that you understand the difference. Well, there is no difference. That's the thing. Atheists use these jargon terms, you know, to pretend that there's a great difference between the appearance of design and design. And so it's just the atheist running from the evidence. That's all. Juicy. Yeah, that's all right. No, you can jump in if you want. Oh, I just, it's just like the appearance of design. You know, if we, we see something that's, that's, you know, I think Matt Delahunty used to use the example of a beaver dam or something like that. And or whether it's just a whole bunch of sticks, you can think something's designed and that's the appearance. And I'm not sure how that's atheist jargon. Something can look design without being designed. Is there an unreasonable that something that looks designed is not designed? Is that reasonable or unreasonable? Is it reasonable that something that looks designed is not designed yet? Yeah, it is. Oh, okay, great. Thank you so much for telling me that. Yeah, it's reasonable to think that that's great looks designed. And that's why atheism is unreasonable. Thank you so much, Mark. We'll jump to the next one. This one coming in from conservative nonbeliever says for both guests, all agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic. What is your response for both of you? Everybody who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ is an atheist. Well, that's me then. Cause I don't believe in Jesus Christ. But you say you're an agnostic. Just say you're an agnostic. You describe yourself that way. I know I describe myself as an atheist.  It says I'm an atheist. You just said everybody that does not believe in Jesus Christ. You've done it 10 times tonight. You've done it 10 times. We all heard you just say anybody that does not believe in Jesus Christ. We've heard you do it 10 times tonight. 10 times at least. I mean, I'm an agnostic, but hold up the banner. It says I'm an atheist. Look, we're going to jump to the next one. I think you may have lost it a bit there, Neff. Sorry, mate. Yeah, I'm spot on. A sparrow falls says, Neff, is your theism Gnostic or agnostic? AKA, is your God-belief purely a belief or based in knowledge of that God's existence? My religious views are neither agnostic or agnostic. They are not based on my knowledge. They're based on facts. And those facts are revealed to me by the one who came to me, not whom I sought. The one who came and presented himself and made his presence known to me. It wasn't, I didn't come to believe in the God of the Bible upon Jesus Christ because I looked for him or that because he was, I had a particular view. It was because he made himself present and known to me and his presence was irrefutable. And I could not argue with the truth of the power of his presence. I got a quick question for you, Neff. If he didn't reveal himself to you, would it be reasonable to think that he didn't exist? No. Why not? Because everything about the universe, and as I've explained in the existence of life, it bespeaks of an intellectual super intellect. So he would automatically, the creation exists because he made it, therefore it bespeaks of him automatically. So you claim, yeah. Yes, of course it's the truth. We'll jump into it. But what you described is more like Gnosticism. It's absolutely a fact. It's reasonable. Your views are not reasonable. You haven't given us any reasonable view that materialism, determinism, naturalism and evolutionism can explain the non-physical immaterial abstract constructs. We must move to the next one. Silver Harlow, thanks for your question, says, Neff, you insist Gnosticism and atheism are different things, but also say, quote, do you believe in God, unquote. Is the exact same question as do you know if God exists? No, that's a completely false question. Belief and no, it's a straw man argument. To know, the asker is asking, can I know God exists in a way that I can detect him in a physical, materialist way? So it's a failed question because the question is positing a method that can't be determined by thesis. So, but it can be determined by philosophy and the philosophy of science. Next. So, yeah, I'll just, I'll just quickly say, like they are different things. Knowledge and belief are different things. Belief, sorry, knowledge is a subset of belief. So everybody that believes, believes the people that claim knowledge also believe but they also claim knowledge. So actually I have to sort of disagree and say they are different things. I would like to add as last, that believing upon Jesus Christ doesn't mean believing he exists. Hebrews 11.1 defines Christian faith. It means believing in your heart. In other words, that Christ is who he says he is and it's done what he says he has done. Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not he exists. It's about who he claims to be and what he claims to have done for us. No, I got that. Yeah. I understood that. But you said that anybody that doesn't is an atheist. Well, I just wanted to point out that because atheists misrepresent Christian faith all the time in debates and Christian faith is about whether or not God exists. It's about who Christ says he was and what he says he has done. Have I misrepresented your belief in this debate? No, sir. I'm just pointing that out. I'm just pointing that out. That's all. We'll jump into the next one. Thank you very much for your question. Silver Harlow strikes again. He says saying, quote, if dictionaries aren't written in stone rules about what words mean, then words have no meaning, unquote, is false, is false. Words mean what people use them to mean in aggregate. Words are defined by consensus, Neff. Words are defined, but consensus tends to change the meaning of a name, a word in accordance with cultural preference. And that doesn't necessarily comport with what the word actually means. So I've proven quite clearly about the definition of agnosticism and atheism. What anybody who questions this and argues against this is attempting to do is to say that atheism and agnosticism are essentially the same, which is stupid, because obviously they're not because they're different words. Next up, Aspero Falls. Thanks for your super chat. Says, Neff, emergent properties from complex systems exist. The total system of chemicals and electric signals combined together in the brain to create thoughts and intentionality. It's not that difficult. It'd be very difficult for that person to explain that claim. In fact, so difficult, they'd be completely at a loss, just as Mark was in this debate. Well, I was like, just a quick little jab on Mark. You gotta sneak in there. But, well, go away back. Do I understand what you're saying, Neff? Are you saying? I was like, why aren't you sitting there calmly? And you have to throw another jab at him. So, what was that? But, do I understand, Neff? I think neurologists would probably disagree with you, Neff. No, they won't. So, Neff, do I understand that your response was, do I understand that your response was saying, like, you're saying the mechanisms, the ways in which these things emerge, you're saying, like, if there's an explanation for how it occurs, I think that's what you're saying. That's the problem. Atheists believe they emerge. There's no mechanism, no plausibility for the emergence of these things, from a philosophical, materialist worldview. It's implausible. It's irrational and unreasonable. So, you don't have an image of this. Nobody has ever argued, given a rational explanation, no scientist ever. Has given a rational explanation for it. And my opponent couldn't. So, you're saying that emergent properties don't exist? No, I'm saying your idea, your claiming emergent properties doesn't explain, it's not a rational explanation, for the existence of the mind from chemistry. But, we know emergent properties happen all the time. It happens in the stock market, where there's fluctuations in randomness, but sort of properties. You're not explaining how chemistry can produce non-physical and immaterial abstracts. Well, then, when chemistry can explain the existence of non-physical, immaterial abstracts, then you have a case. Does that make sense? That's the argument from Ignorance, what you called it. Let me know. We can't explain something, it must be logical. Let me know. Well, you're admitting you don't know. We must move, we must move. Ting Zing, thank you very much. You don't know. Ting Zing says, I hope this channel keeps growing. Thank you very much, Ting Zing. Seriously, we do appreciate that. And folks, I don't know if you know, I turn on the subscribers-only chat, because we know a lot of times, people at the very start, when I say, hit that subscribe button for upcoming juicy debates, like this flat-earth debate tomorrow night. Oftentimes, people don't hear it.  And so, wanna remind you, we will take the subscribers-only chat off, but we, or at least, one thing I wanna mention is, you don't wanna twist your arm. What I'm saying there is, when I say we're gonna take it off, is that we don't want you to feel, like, pressured into subscribing. It's more that we just wanna be sure that you heard the reminder to subscribe. And so, I'm gonna take that off in just a moment. But, BubblegumGum, thanks for your question, says, false. Mark, the Ouija existed since 1891. Hasbro only started in 1920. Ooh, spooky. Yeah, and still doesn't address what I said the original. Yeah, I thought it was Hasbro. Well, but the thing still stands, that it wasn't originally supposed to be a spirit contact. Is it a contacting device? Oh, that's super interesting. That's so fascinating. I mean, I could be wrong, but look it up. That's what my recollection of it was, but, you know. I am fascinated. And thank you very much for the crowd, Eddie. Zero, two, nine. It says, Neff, how do you tell the difference between a Jackson Pollock painting and a canvas that had paint fall on it while no one was around? Good piece of question, please.  He was an artist known for abstract paintings that would just paint everywhere and sort of, you know, very, very chaotic and random paintings kind of. You're right about that. Okay, I'm seeing it. It is randomness in all sorts of what looks like splatters, but going back to the question, Neff, they're saying how do you tell the difference between a Jackson Pollock painting, which looks a lot like splatters, and a canvas that had paint fall on it while no one was around? I don't know. Maybe they should, you know, maybe they could educate us and tell us how that relates to the subject at hand. Well, I think it's that sometimes, I think they're using it as sort of a comparison, but sometimes things that look random are not random, and sometimes things that look not random are. I would say that humans can create randomness, for sure, but randomness certainly can explain the complexity of human biology. Well, sure, random things can completely create. Yeah, I've asked you questions about how randomness could do it, and it's an old debate, and you're unable to answer how randomness could explain the order and complexity of biology. Let's give Mark a chance. Yes, I did. I said natural complexity. So randomness can produce order. We know this from chaos theory, kind of, like if you have fractals, for instance, you start with one random pattern, and the pattern repeats. It actually becomes a very ordered and structured thing. We know this to be a fact, like, that just because something's random doesn't mean it can't create ordered systems. We see this in weather patterns as well. It's completely random, yet there is an order to them. Very fascinating topic, chaos theory. So are you claiming that randomness is able to create complexity? I'll give you the last word, Neth, then we gotta go to the next one. Well, I would say that's an absurdity. This is, again, the reasonableness, a rationality of atheism, where they believe that randomness is able to create astonishing complexity, and that's not what we observed. It contradicts the basis of the scientific method. Bubblegumgun, thanks for your questions, as Mark, how many flasks getting dropped by aliens did it take to create humans? Also, yes, plants are conscious. Look it up. We are all killers. Vegans blown the f out. Vegans are gonna be mad. No, basically the claim was that it was a mind and plants don't have a mind. Conscious and having a mind are two totally different things. And I don't think most biologists would say that they're conscious. And it's certainly argued, but whether they have a mind, not so sure about that one, chief. Now, what was the other part of that question? How many flasks would take to aliens? Well, I don't believe that aliens started the thing, so it's a completely irrelevant question. I don't believe that it was aliens dropping a flask, or aliens doing it purposely, or aliens accidentally using magic to do it, but I don't believe it was a magical god either. And I don't believe it was Krishna. I don't believe it was Yahweh. And I don't believe any of it. That's what not knowing means. I feel that you're having trouble grasping that premise. Juicy, the next one from Endo XT says, NAF the fact that Mark cannot explain something, and the fact that you can't imagine another explanation does not mean that God did it, and does not mean the God explanation as any merit. That is fallacious. It has nothing to do with whether or not I can imagine some other explanation. I have proper explanations, and they're supported by numerous things, science, the philosophy of science, metaphysics, and an incredible number of fulfilled biblical prophecies. It's not like I have to wonder and question your worry that my worldview is correct. I have an abundance of evidence that is so profound that it makes my worldview so completely true, so obviously true that anyone who denies it is simply one who denies things because their heart is unsettled with the matter. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question, Joshua Alec. NAF, I am an agnostic theist, even though I think Jesus is God, and am I an atheist because I acknowledge that it is possible that I'm wrong? You've contradicted yourself, and so your question is moot. Can you explain how they contradicted that? That one I'm not getting. They said they're a theist who doesn't believe in God. I think they said I'm an agnostic theist. Right, right there, that's a contradiction, agnostic theist. So I can explain what they're talking about. Can't be an agnostic theist, that's impossible. Well, you can't, it's never gonna have Mark explain more of his absurdity. But hold on, all right, NAF, all right. They're all the same, they're all the same. They're all the same, they're all the same. You're in battle mode tonight, that's for sure.  I think someone's gonna defend me. But if they, what do they mean agnostic in the sense of like the old like ornery versus ornery, agnostic? It doesn't matter, it's like saying dirty equals rock. You're not even, wait. I mean, is this one way to interpret it though? I'm saying it differently than the way that you might have interpreted it the first time is could agnostic mean instead of like, you remember the old ordinary agnostic versus the ornery agnostic? Like the ordinary agnostic, meaning the definition you're referring to NAF who would say like, oh, I don't know if there's a God. I'm on the fence. But then the ornery agnostic being the one that is like, well, they used to say I don't know and you don't know either. But the more important point was they were saying that you can't know. Like, you know, you might say like, you believe but you'd say, but we really can't know for sure if the belief is true or false. Like what if it means that they're kind of going on the epistemic route saying, I'm an agnostic in the sense that I would say, I don't think we can actually know one way or another, even though we can believe. Do you get what I mean? NAF, are you? Hold on a minute. NAF, is this some sort of tasteless joke? Are you there? NAF, are you okay? Yeah, NAF. NAF? Let me check this out. I'm sorry, I had to step away. NAF, you're scaring me, man. I'm sorry, man. I'm like, wait, what's up? Wait, what's up? So that means you stepped away during my entire... I'm sorry, I had to. We'll just go to the next one. But Sparrow Falls, because we do have more questions we want to get through and it's already getting, it's already 9-11 here. So it's gotta be late. Mark, you're not... Oh, that's right. Do I remember right? Is it Australia or New Zealand? Yeah, yeah. So it's only 10 past 11 a.m. here. Okay, good. That's right. Australia, you guys are way ahead of Europe. So you're okay. Was there a question for me or something? We're not going back now. Well, I think they were just saying, couldn't you be an agnostic in the sense that? And I might be wrong about this, but I think they were saying, couldn't they be a theist who would be agnostic, only agnostic meaning that they would say, we don't think we can know for sure. Not necessarily meaning that they're on the fence. Well, I'll say it again.  No, stop!  Come on, Neff. You're being brutal, man. Of course I'm brutal. I'm always brutal. No! I'm telling the truth. Gosh, Neff, seriously, you don't have to...  A lot of people are listening, but... Do agnosticism and atheism mean have the same definition? No. All right. So why would you call somebody who claims that they're agnostic and atheist at the same time, something more than something that's... I mean... Okay, okay, okay. So what do you say?  Okay, so what he's saying is that, okay, so you're a theist and theism relates to belief. So when you believe... Are we gonna move to another question? Neff, calm down! When you believe there's a God, but you don't know it for sure, then you are a theist and an agnostic. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the guy whose question it was. And when you say you have to know that Jesus is in your heart to be a theist, he's saying, hey, I believe in Jesus, but that makes me a theist. And it contradicts what you've said. And he's got a good point, or she's got a good point, I apologize. He contradicts anything, obviously.  Which is what you've done about seven times tonight in this debate.  I've given two definitions of atheism and agnosticism. It's just done like goofy. It's goofy, it's so goofy. Neff, you have to give them a response. It's goofy, beyond definition. Oh boy, when I say that you have to give them a response, that doesn't mean continue saying it's goofy. Okay, over to the next one. This one. Okay, okay, okay. We have, Silver Hollow strikes again, says of course consensus changes. Mm-hmm, says of course consensus changes the meanings of words over time. That's why we don't speak old English anymore, nephilim-free. They say atheism has changed meanings, get over it.  All right. I'm sorry. Next up. I never claimed fast. I gave two definitions.   Yeah, I gave one definition for the atheism and one definition for agnosticism. If you're not mis-listening, neph, I can't help that. How can they be the same thing if they've got different definitions? How is that even possible? Neph, hello? Neph, I've asked you to unmute. I think he's muted. He might've stepped away again. Well, I technically muted him because I just wanted to just be able to hear your response. I mean, I sense this definition thing has been a running theme. Yeah, I apologize. No, I muted neph to be sure we could hear your response. Sparrow falls. Thanks so much for your question, says neph. Just because it takes more than 150 characters in a super chat to explain emergent properties of the mind doesn't mean I'm not able to explain it. He's muted. N-O-X-D says, I'm an agnostic theist, atheist, deist, get over it. You muted neph, remember? Did you mute neph? I did, but not permanently. Let's see, didn't, what's that fellow's name? I could've sworn Darth Dawkins taught neph how to unmute himself, but apparently not. Neph, I've asked you to unmute. I clicked the button that says, asked to unmute. Can you, is this some sort of tasteless joke, neph? This might be neph's protest, this way of saying if you're gonna mute me, I'm not going to unmute myself. I don't know, but as Spiro Vols says, equivocation fallacy, neph, neph, I know you want to respond to that one. Neph, they're saying you're using a fallacy. Maybe, maybe he's having technical problems or something. Neph? Okay, wait a minute, something going on? Well, the last, the most recent question or comment. Hello? Yes, can you hear me? Yeah, I hear you, do you hear me? Yes. Okay, I don't know what happened there. I, well, I muted you.  Only once for like eight, so as Spiro Vols says equivocation fallacy, neph. Neph, were you equivocating? No, I tell the truth, I don't equivocate. You got it. And then neph, bubblegum, or notice, bubblegum gun for you, Mark says, the consensus is that agnostic does not mean atheist. I would probably disagree with that. The consensus in philosophy may do, but that's just one definition and different philosophers use different definitions. You just admitted that they do agree, but then they, but he doesn't agree with that. Amazing. Well, no, I don't, yeah. You did, you just said that they might agree that there's one definition of atheism. Well, they don't, because there's other people. So thank you so much for that. Well, there's other people. You demonstrated tonight that you don't agree with the definition of atheism. There's other philosophy. Which is what atheism has been doing for the last 15 years. But I think that my definition has a better. Right, you have your own definition. Next up. Yeah, Neph, could I finish? That would be great. Cheers, thanks, mate. So as far as etymology goes, my definition is way stronger and the new definition is way stronger. Yeah, my definition. Simply because. Sorry, go ahead, Mark. Simply because it brings in line with other things like amoral and asymmetrical and things like that. So if you do want to have a completely arbitrary and can mean whatever, but if we want etymology to be consistent, we should be using the alternative definition. Next up. Thank you very much for this question. This one is for Neph. The crowd at a 029 says, Neph, why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between knowledge and belief? So I can pick this definition because this one comports what I wanted to. And maybe it doesn't then because then I can claim I'm an agnostic. But as long as I'm an atheist, then agnosticism is true. But as long as atheism is true, I can claim to be an agnostic and then I'm all good. Oh, that voice is so seductive, Neph. I guess I'm not suddenly started on the channel. Trying to say it's my special. We do have to tell you folks, we are thrilled. We have a debate every single day for the next five days, including today. So there are four more debates coming up in the next four days. Tomorrow, Flat Earth debate that you're seeing on the bottom right here with Tom Jump and New Debater, New Flat Earther named Davey, as well as on Sunday, Destiny returns, taking on Lisa Elizabeth on whether or not the police are systematically racist. That's going to be a juicy one.  We're like, I'm actually, I'm like, oh my gosh, I have to make the thumbnail. Dr. Liz Jackson, graduate of Doctorate in Philosophy from Notre Dame. She is a good friend of mine, very sharp. She's going to be taking on Dr. Graham Oppie, one of the most respected atheists in the atheist philosophy world today. Really, I'm like, we're thrilled to host both of our guests. Seriously, it is going to be a big one. That's on Pascal's wager on Monday. You guys, that's gonna be, I'm just super excited about that. Also then, on Monday, I don't know, Tuesday, we have Kaz and Kay debating assisted suicide. So it's going to be a lot of juicy, or I don't wanna say juicy, it's going to be a lot of debates with a lot of variety of political as well as religious or ethical, philosophical types of topics. You don't wanna miss those folks, but wanna say, we are so appreciative of both Nef as well as Mark. Wanna say thank you so much to our guests. We do appreciate you both, Nef, and especially Mark, we appreciate not only for speaking, but also for jumping in at the very last minute. Thanks so much for saving this debate. It's been a true pleasure to have both of you guys. My pleasure. It's been fantastic. Thank you very much for having me on. And it's been fantastic to be on here and lots of love to Nef I've met before. And hopefully we can get that evidence for God debate happening because I'm rare into going on that one. That would be juicy. I enjoy it as always. I enjoy exposing Nef for being an intellectual. And it's been a lot of fun. Juicy. And also last minute, super chat coming in from Will. Thanks so much says, wait a minute, that's not Leo. Hmm, it's true. It's not Leo. I wanna say despite my probably, it probably looked like I was maybe a little bit cranky at the start of the debate because, but I wanna say we have no hard feelings. I do appreciate Leo. And so please don't give him a hard time, folks, as I've already done that and I feel bad that I have.  Your lights are creating these halos in your glasses. They're really kind of annoying. I'm sorry. What you need to do is use a softer light source higher, higher above where they are now. I promise I will. We're not about a foot or a foot higher and use something softer instead of these ring lights. I'm working on it. Like an umbrella, photographic umbrellas. Use two photographic umbrellas with powerful lights in them instead of these ring lights because they create these weird looking rings in your eyes and it looks like your eyeballs looking at us. It's in your glasses, but I don't think it's. Right, it's the inflection. You can avoid that by what I say. Use a soft light source. Deal. About a foot or two higher. You know what I'm saying? Okay, I got it. I promise. I also saw he put it in the chat. So I do appreciate that. But what to say, we do appreciate our guests. So thank you very much guys. And with that, we have many juicy debates coming up. I'll be back with a post-credits scene in just a moment but wanna say folks, stick around for that. And thanks so much everybody. We will be right back in just a moment. I'm excited. I'm gonna let me just like fix my little box here. It's all warped. Who knows why, but I'm thrilled to have you. And wanna say thank you so much folks for being with us tonight. That's a little bit better. All right, wanna say thank you guys. It's been a true pleasure. I wanna say hello to those of you in the old chat. Darth Revan, good to see you. General Balzac, good to see you as well as Master Optics. Thanks so much for dropping in. And Floyd Visser, we're glad you're here. And Andrew Cumming, thanks for dropping in. And Haxed, good to see you again. And Dessel Drace, glad you're here. Reticulated Spline, thanks for dropping in. As well as Bill C. We're glad you were here in Pancake of Destiny. Good to see you. And, amazing. That's right, the Cry Daddy 029. I forgot, are you an anti-natalist really? Cry Daddy, let me know if you are. Cause we've been wanting to host that topic. So for real, like let me know. And feel free to email me at moderndatabate at gmail.com. That's how I usually set up debates is over email. I can't contact you when I don't know your email. So, if you email me though, mine, I always just announce it here on stream. Moderndatabate at gmail.com. David Mick G, thanks for coming by. As well as Henry Hansen and Organic Jerk and Top Dog Shattuck, as well as Farron Salas, Patriot University PhD. Glad you're here in screwy Scuttagara. Thank you for coming by. And then, Hannah Anderson, good to see you. And then, let's see, emblem of vigilance. Thanks for dropping in. And then Thomas McArthur. As well as Truth Begets Heresy, thanks for dropping in. And question the answers. We are excited folks. Bob, good to see you. Sideshow Nav, thanks for all the hard work you do.  Oh, I do, believe me. I might be behind, but I tried to catch up today. No joke, I think I'm caught up. So, for real, shoot me an email and it might take me like a week at most, but I will respond. As well as, good to see you, Joe Corcoran. Thanks for coming by. And Lily Aja, thanks for coming by again. Amanda, good to see you. Not Evolution, thanks for dropping in. Says, thanks James, thank you. I appreciate your kind words. As well as, Mr. P says, James, make sure you're remembered to vigilantly screen both your light sources and future interlocutors with nephes in town. That's right. Like, let's see. Reservoir, of course, says, great stuff, James. Do you get echoes of the emperor from Star Wars when Neff was cackling near the end? That's funny. And Chris O, says, I enjoyed that. Thanks, Mark Reed and Monterey Debate. And thanks, Matthew Simard, for dropping in. Good to see you. But yes, do have to tell you, my dear friends, we're excited about the future. We've got a lot of debates. Like, I know it was like the last week was weird. We didn't stream for a week. That's crazy, isn't it? Cause we usually stream like, oh gosh.  Like it's, it's close. And then last was it, so what happened was last Saturday we were supposed to have a debate. That one fell through the cracks. It didn't happen. Then on Wednesday we were supposed to have another debate, Destiny versus Lisa Elizabeth, which is this Sunday. You don't want to miss it. That one fell through the cracks on us. So that by itself, wow, that was amazing. I have missed you guys. I love you guys. I'm glad to be back. And we are, like I said, we're coming back full throttle. We are having a debate every single day for the next four days as well. You guys, we've got a lot of juicy stuff going on. And so I'm excited about that. Let me tell you, it's going to be epic. I just thought of Fire Marshall. It was at Fire Marshall, Dan. Let me tell you something. But David Ponciano, thanks for coming by. And Hannah Anderson, good to see you. As well as, let's see. Sheamus Crawford, we're glad you're here. Manic Panda's good to see you again. Let's farm, glad to see you. It's past my bedtime. Good night all, good night. Yeah, me too. I'm getting pretty tired. I gotta go home soon. Drew from the Dot, thanks for dropping in. And let's see. Let me catch up a chat. The Crowdeddy is your row tonight. It says, can you link email and description so I can copy? Let's see. What I'm going to do is I'm going to put the Crowdeddy and then modern day debate at gmail.com. That's my email. I just put it in chat for you.  I know, I gotta fix it. I'm working on making a light myself.  It probably will, but it's going to work in terms of lighting me up. It's going to be a tremendous light. It'll be the most beautiful light you've ever seen with a big, beautiful button. And I have the biggest button. Nobody has a bigger button than me. You know it, I know it. Everybody knows it. It's gonna be a great button that I press to turn on the light. Now, wanna say also I do appreciate you coming by. Joshua Stoke to have you here with us, Alec. Joshua Alec in particular says thanks for a fun debate. Can I suggest a debate? Namely, is a literal reading of the Bible coherent. I'd be willing to be the guy who says no, juicy. I'm possibly open to it. It kind of like moves into that theology realm which don't get me wrong. Theology debates I think are cool and like the gospel truth. I love like a lot of the channels that host those debates and the people that host them. But I just, it's not our forte anymore. And so that's where I'm like, I don't know. Because oftentimes, what's the word I'm looking for? Everybody wants to have a dog in the fight. And so a lot of our, sometimes, sometimes the atheists in the audience are like, hey, like I wanna have a dog in the fight. And they oftentimes don't feel represented in those debates. But Hannah, let's see, Hannah enters in good to see you and then thanks for your kind words. Manic Pan? Hmm, hmm. Oh, it's getting late. Manic Pan says I have been jonesing for some modern day debate the last couple of days. The withdrawal is rough. I know, it was crazy, a whole week, it was crazy. But we're stoked to be back. Full throttle. And then emblem of vigilance as you need one of those 30s gangster hats. Oh, that's true. That would be especially cool-pilled as you guys like to say. Hello, fellow teenagers. I am reading emblem of vigilance who says, oh, I got that. I don't understand the 30s gangster hats. You mean because I'm wearing like the blazer? Is that it? Amy Newman, good to see you. And Hannah Anderson says you need a green screen with something in your background. Step up and make it great. Yeah, I'm open to that. The trick is if I use a green screen, it slows the stream down. I might do it. I've got it, let me just see what I can like find. Because it would, I agree, it would be cool. Let me see what I can find. But! Astro Optics says light that light button with a blue color. Oh, that's a good idea. Yeah, that is a good idea. And then the Crot Daddy Zero Two Nights says that works. I'll get with you. And then Saisho Nav says the bigger the better. Meaning the button, of course. Oh my gosh. But anyway, we are excited. And Amanda says it's huge. And the best button, I've got a bigger button. Amanda says James out here sounding like someone we all know. That's funny. Do you remember when there was that ridiculous sound bite when he was arguing with Kim Jong-un and it was like, I have a bigger button. All that stuff. But anyway, I have the biggest button. But we are excited, you guys, for all the upcoming stuff. For real, it's going to be hopping. It's going to be popping. It's going to be very cool-pilled. As you guys, young people like to say, these next four days is going to be really cool. So thank you guys. We do love you. I'm working on getting a red cap and then the red sweatshirt and then like a skateboard or a backpack. I can't remember what the meme. Do you remember the Steve Busce meme where he used to say, hello fellow teenagers. I'm working on getting that ensemble so that I can begin that meme. We'll make our own. And then let's see. Hannah Anderson says, have you decided on the new logo? Yes, we have. No joking. It's almost there. There's one last week. And I'm super thankful for Tepazel for helping make those tweaks. Basically, it's a convergence of what people most voted for. And then we're making a couple of like little minor, minor tweaks. So the reason I haven't put it out yet is because I want to do all of it at once. Namely, I want to have it so that all of our branding changes overnight. So everybody wakes up and they're like, wow, all of the modern day debate logos are updated at once. And so I am like waiting to do that. It's going to be soon because I'm working on the new banner as well. And so it's going to be cool though. So thanks for asking. And I'm pardon the delay. Also want to let you guys know, yeah. Just trust me when I say this, I'm working on getting new and cool people, cool pill to people. And I'm confident you're going to be like pumped if the things that I am currently working on turn out. And so I think some of them will. So let me see here. I am going to go. I want to say thank you for everything. Fair and sound. This is James's overdose on cool pills. That's right. This is a cool pill overdose. Too many cool pills. Result of course is I, James would make a nasty guy. Let's see King 101. Good to see you. And Hannah Anderson says, please hit that like button before you leave. That's right. Please do support the stream by hitting that like button. We do appreciate it folks. Colorado biker, we are glad to see you. Thanks for coming by. Glad you're here. And it's true. Hit that like button folks on the way out. You won't regret it. We are very excited. All sorts of fun stuff coming up here in the future. And if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button folks. We are doing big things here and we're excited about that. So join us as we are pumped for the future. Thanks everybody. As we are striving to fulfill the vision, we are pursuing the goal. We are determined and we have laser vision. We are focused on the goal of providing a neutral playing field for everybody to make their case on a level playing field. So thanks everybody. We appreciate you. We hope you have a great rest of your night. And we will see you next time. Keep it out. The reasonable from the unreasonable. Amazing. Amazing.