the Christian God exists, and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be... You have seen these two tag teams collide several weeks ago on whether or not God exists. And then the topic came up during that debate. Do you guys want a debate whether or not the Christian God exists in particular? And that's why we are here today. But I want to let you know if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we are excited about many debates coming up. So for example, totally serious. This is not a drill, folks. This is the real thing. This Wednesday, Ray Comfort and Matt Dilla Huntie will be here on modern-day debate debating whether or not the Christian Gospel makes sense. It is going to... I'm worried the internet might implode. Okay, guys, it's going to be crazy. So hopefully we will see you here for that. And I have to admit, I have to ask if you can help me, folks. We have had so little time to promote it. And so if anybody... If you want to just... Like I said, I'm just... Frankly, there's nothing you really get out of it. I'm frankly just asking for your help. If you want to share that online, like Facebook, Twitter, that's on our social media as we have had little time to promote it. And so we are excited about it and we are excited about today's debate, which we are getting into right now. Want to let you know as we are going, the speaker's links are in the description. So if you would like to hear any more from these guys, you can. That's why I put the links down there just for you. And also today's going to be a fairly flexible format, namely about 10 to 15 minutes opening statements from each side. So that'll be split up between the two debaters on each side. Then open conversation and finally about 30 seconds, 30 minutes instead of Q&A. So it's going to be a lot of fun if you have a question. Feel free to fire it into the old live chat. And if you tag me at Modern Day Debate, it makes it easier for me to get every single question in that Q&A list. So before we get this officially rolling, just want to say thanks so much, guys. Really appreciate you. John, Smokey, Rib, and Michael, it's a pleasure to have you guys here. Thanks for coming back. Our problem did. Excited to be here. Thanks so much for having us again. Thank you, James. Appreciate it. Have a good time. 100%, I agree. And with that, our gentlemen on the affirmative will be kicking the ball off. So gentlemen, the floor is all yours. John Maddox and Smokey St. I'll be kicking things off. Thanks, James. Thanks everybody for coming to this debate and for the audience. You know, I like to look at these kinds of discussions as Smokey myself being the lawyers and the audience being the jury. And today, you're going to be faced with a very stark dichotomy in both style and substances. Evidence is presented for and against the existence of God and most importantly, the Christian God. My opponents will likely attempt to use differences in interpretation. The plethora of denominations exist and ways in which the entire premise of God has been used for corruption and extenuation of power as supposed reasons why God does not exist. This, however, has zero to do with whether or not there is evidence for his existence. Rather, it is nothing but a smoke screen to enable atheists to avoid the hard questions. Pay close attention to the almost guaranteed attempts to argue over the definition of a single word refusal to consider historic context and to inject modern subjectivity onto objective truth. This is nothing but an endeavor to accomplish the ultimate objective of an atheist, which is to sow seeds of doubt and project their own rejection of absolute truth onto others. To show this, you must consider what atheists of all sort deny as evidence for any God, let alone the Christian one. Toward this end, I will be presenting reasons why God must exist and my partner will be expanding this to showcase why the Christian God is the most logical, plausible and probable conclusion to reach. First, our universe had a beginning. All evidence shows anything which is material requires an external causation in order for the effect to be achieved. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that an external cause was required for the universe to come into being. Nothing about this point requires anything but logical thought and analysis of what is accepted to be true in all cases, except the one that has the most relevance. How do we exist? The irony of this point is that our opponents love to use this conclusion as supposed proof that Christians just believe in magic and fairy tales. I find this humorous given the fact that if there is no independent agent outside of space and time, then they ultimately must believe that we poofed into existence with no cause. Isn't that rather magical? This leads to the fine tuning of the universal constant which all must be in perfect alignment or the universe will implode or explode, not achieve the perfect rate of expansion which enables it and therefore life to exist. While atheists attempt to downplay the significance of these constants being perfect and argue things such as an infinite multiverse can account for this purely through chance. This does nothing but avoid addressing the need for an external cause. Next, we must address the fine tuning of our solar system. While they will argue the universe is so big, there must be other planets like Earth. They completely ignore that without the other planets in our solar system with their specific orbits and specific mass is admitted that Earth would not be able to sustain life. This is before counting for the fact that our sun must be a specific type of star of a specific size and project a specific level and type of radiation or life could not exist. This means just as the word describes our solar system is just that a system without the different parts working in synchronicity, we could not exist. But before addressing our planet itself, we must also remember that our perfectly balanced solar system must also be in a specific location in a specific type of galaxy galaxy or life could not exist. Not only that without this perfect location, we would not be able to observe the rest of the cosmos in the way that we do. And as if this was not enough, the technology which enables us to observe these things must exist at a specific time in the expansion of the universe in order for us to even observe it. To me, these layers of specificity destroy all explanations which deny the existence of God. As if what has already been outlined is not enough, we must now consider the stunning requirements for life itself to come into being. First, let us consider what is recognized as the simplest form of life and how its simpleness by comparison to other forms of life does not mean that it is actually simple. This simple, the simplest known organism, the microplasm genitalium has a genome of 580,000 base pairs. This astonishing number enables it to contain 470 genes that code for 470 proteins with an average length of 347 amino acids per protein. The odds against just one specified protein at that length are one in 10 to the 451st power. If we calculate the entire proteome, then the odds are one in 20 to the 164th power. And this is without accounting for the increased improbability when you consider that nature had to select only left-handed amino acids and bifunctional ones. All of this is before considering all of these genes must have existed at the same time in the same location on a chaotic prebiotic earth in an environment that is admitted to be less advantageous for the required chemical reactions to occur. To put this in context, the total number of seconds to work with for the entire history of the universe is only 10 to the 18th power. The total number of particles in the entire universe is only 10 to the 80th power. And the total number of interactions by those particles in the history of the universe is 10 to the 143rd power. And all of this is before considering the origin of the genetic code and the arbitrary assignment of values to codons to equal amino amino acids and the requirement of DNA and transcription proteins and translation proteins to exist simultaneously or even basic replication to occur. What is ironic about this entire debate is that I am barely scratching the surface regarding the incredible number of variable variables which must operate in unison for life to exist. So as you consider all of these pieces of evidence, ask yourself, is it more reasonable to conclude that an external agent, an intelligent one, was needed for life to exist or to imagine something that is obviously impossible to have occurred by chance somehow did occur by chance. We are all surrounded by things that have similar improbabilities to occur by chance, such as the technology enabling us to have this debate, yet we readily accept that barrier can be easily overcome by an intelligent designer. Now, what would be impossible by any other standard is now 100% possible. Unfortunately, like most atheists, my opponents will suspend rational thought in order to reject being held accountable by their creator and will continue to claim these factors cannot be used as evidence for the existence of God. However, I am not here to convince them, rather to sway those of you who are watching this debate that there is no tremendous leap of faith required to believe in a God. You must only rationally consider the evidence presented and determine which God is true, not if there isn't one to choose from. Is therefore my position that the Christian God is the correct conclusion. And now I yield the remainder of my time to my partner with this portion of the case. Beautiful. All right. Well, thank you so much, Brother Maddox. Really appreciate that opening. Thank you so much, sir. Well, Smokey Saint here. Thank you so much again. Since serious thanks to modern day debate, our opponents and of course the audience for attending. Guys are wonderful people. I appreciate you being here. Well, John and I were happy to come back for a rematch solely for our love of conversation and debate. We also are happy to help insert the foot and mouths of all the atheists in chat who called us cowards to defend a specific God while your your peers seem to dodge and run from our arguments all last debate. They clearly wanted to actually debate the Christian God last time and therefore tried to force our hand even attempting to tell us that we are obligated based upon our scriptures. Well, number one, I never trust a secularist to interpret my Bible. Number two, my Bible doesn't tell me how I am to defend my faith. That is up to my own personal discretion as I take leading from the Holy Spirit. So I don't need to be told how I am supposed to defend my faith exactly how a cynical secularist tells me to. With that said, I appreciate my partner giving a great opening to lead ultimately to one rational conclusion. Naturalism cannot help us here. Intelligent design is the only rational conclusion one can draw from the mountain of fine tuning and design evidence that we see. I already predict the puddle analogy because atheists think this is so sound to try and belittle the perspective of theists. So let me return the favor by painting it from our perspective.  Atheists love to say that we are the water in the hole thinking the hole was fine tuned for it. Well, atheists are the water in a bottle thinking it was naturally manifested, not even addressing the actual stupidity of the argument that you certainly need all of our universal fine tuning constants to even get water, let alone a planet for it to exist on. But now you need to explain sentient water arriving from naturalism. This example is a total philosophical embarrassment whenever scrutized with more than cursory consideration. To me, atheists are like a dice shooter at a craps table. No matter how many times they roll the dice, it always comes up sixes. While the rest of the rational world at some point would draw the conclusion to die or rigged and someone must have loaded them. The atheists just seem to perpetually continue to think that they are just that lucky. Is their agency detection on this matter actually functional? We can't just rely on some gut instinct of what we think design is. If we made contact with robotic life form, would we think it was a product of naturalism or would we think that someone built it? It is something for every naturalist to ponder in terms of how they are pre presupposing the nature of our reality. There is no way for naturalism to explain or justify its perspective as rational and even attempting to indulge it is nothing more than an exercise of actual blind faith that the atheists try to constantly project on us. They have no justifiable reasons to think that complex life could arise from chance circumstance. Yet they continue to do so despite the ever growing mountain of evidence to the contrary. You can't believe in a divine mind that set all the constants to our universe and designed our biology, but you can have confidence in the possibility of probability that rests on the very verge of impossibility as long as it justifies nontheistic conclusions. Now that is what I would call blind faith. You have no idea how naturalism could be responsible for any of this when asked. You can gently respond with I don't know and you ignore the secondary implication from that statement. I don't know, but I have faith someday naturalism will be able to explain it. A deity is just simply out of the question. Now the important point, which God I have a hunch that many atheists cling so desperately to the grotesque irrationality of naturalism because they believe they have sufficiently falsified all the God claims that they have come across.  The Bible as a collective literary work is unparalleled in its complexity and consistency compared to any other work of literature and all of human history. Inside is a revelation that can only fit the description of something slightly slightly greater than simply the work of human hands and human culture. If only by considering how non normative it is in both structure and its history of textual criticism. Additionally, all of the religious texts, all of the religious texts only the Bible has an account of all the religious texts only the Bible has an account of the history of the creation of the world that actually comports with reality and what we have discovered in the natural scientific revelations. Only in scripture do we find an establishment of progressive moral absolutes that have been carried forward in spirit by every successful Western nation where freedom of speech and sanctity of life are attributed as absolutes in the protection of individual rights and personal liberty. I don't just have confidence that the Christian God exists. I believe he is necessary for a very cultural or civil survival as a constant where subjective moral relativism subjective moral relativism will eventually fail. If not usher in a deluge of blood to protect its own sovereignty and control. The slaughter of the faithful has always been guised in the perception that religious people are dangerous to society and in some ways I actually would agree. But I believe it is specifically the atheist religion where cultural poison actually lies and I yield. You bet with that we will kick it over to our skeptical friends who are here with us tonight. This is going to be a lot of fun. So gentlemen want to say thanks so much for being here and the floor is all yours. Rib and Michael. Rib I went last time.  Yeah, sure. So I had said in the last debate that this has been asked quite often of me or that I have given this answer quite often is what would make me believe and the answer to that that I have given in the past is I don't know what God does. I'm going to make a few concessions tonight.  If you can present to me the same amount and the same type and the same rigorous standard of evidence that is there for something such as evolution, I will believe just as as as a thought experiment. If you or somebody else was to come up to me and say, Hey, Rib, I hear that you believe in in evolution. Why? Let's say no problem at all. I will point to you to the head of the union, the head of the human genome project. She was a fundamentalist Christian, by the way, who says that the evidence in the DNA alone is enough to prove common ancestry, but I hear you want a little bit more than that. That's no problem at all. I can point you to several sites to several peer review papers where there is diagrams and graphs showing the the, you know, what species with their was and what species there is now and how exactly we got to that. But I hear you want a little bit more than that. You want something that under the right conditions that you could physically touch yourself. No problem at all. I can point you in the direction of several museums where you could go in and again under the right conditions, you could physically touch the the fossils going from Homo habitat to Homo erectus to what we are Homo sapien. If you can provide to me the same standard of evidence for God as there is for evolution. This will very, very quickly become a 3 v 1 debate and I will convert right here on this stream in less than an hour. However, not just myself having a call and show for the last four years, but also given that this argument that these types of debates have been happening for decades now. I don't necessarily have my hopes up yet. I still remain optimistic. I don't have faith in anything. I don't have faith. Actually, if if you could come up with something, if you could point to something that I believe in based on faith, I'll stop believing it because faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. So everything that I believe everything that I accept every value that I hold is based on evidence. Nothing else. I'm going to yield the rest of the time to Michael. Alrighty. Thanks, Rib. Okay. So in our last discussion, some interesting words and statements were tossed out there. They were tossed by people in the live chat as well as by our lockers. They included things like you're getting your asses kicked. Wow. Atheists showed up to wrong debate. They missed the topic, etc. Admittedly, these were almost exclusively aimed at me. And if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't change a thing. I did what I did on purpose and I'll explain why. Our opponents did what has become in many cases typical. They argue not for their God, but for a God. This is also done with purpose. If the debate discussion is meant to continue past one talk, well, they've laid a foundation. If it goes no further, they can return to the RECO chambers and still declare victory. You see, after all, they'll declare. We demonstrated a God exists. And because they'd be speaking to their fellow acolytes who already totally are totally aware that in fact know that the Bible is true and that it's it's Yahweh or Jehovah. The battle is one. Oh, those poor, silly misguided atheists. I sure hope God grants them grace one day. Now to be clear, a God was not demonstrated in our last discussion. If a God is supernatural, it could not have been. We are evidently unable to test for anything supernatural and blocked from concern from confirming any type of supernatural causation. It will, of course, be argued that a God was totally demonstrated. But the fact is the only thing that was demonstrated was life is rare, complex, and the process is intricate. Every other bit of scientific bloviation that was vomited out by our opponents did nothing to show anything of what I just said. So what we get today? I don't know. The debate today is does the Christian God exist? There's a simple answer this. No, not evidently. People can give personal stories ranging from I needed to find a parking spot. I prayed and lo and behold, there it was to I heard a voice and I just knew. And while these are super convincing to them, there's certainly not evidence for a God. When we speak about the Christian God, we kind of must go to the Bible to do anything else is dishonest. Now, this is really simple. Either the Bible is the inspired word of God or God breed like it says in 2 Timothy 3 or it isn't. I'm going to try to keep count how many times I hear things like you're taking it out of context. You need to understand the languages of the times of the cultures, etc. Some of the Bible's metaphorical or allegorical. It's clear you've never really studied. You're cherry-picking. Well, if you start with God, then this all makes sense. How do you know what can't happen that way or that it didn't happen that way? But my favorite is the Bible isn't say that. Well, trust me. When I quote it, I'll quote chapter and verse. I'm going to stay just a few facts here just to spice things up a little bit. People aren't made from Dustin Ribs like it says in Genesis 2 7 and in 221. Bats aren't birds like it says in Leviticus 11 19. The earth moves unlike what it says in 1st Chronicle 16 30. There was no global flood like it says in Genesis 7 17. You can't blow horns and yell at walls and have them fall over like it says in Joshua 6 5. You can't see the world from a tall mountain like it says in Matthew 4 8. Rabbits don't you cud like it says in Leviticus 11 6. Axe heads cannot float unlike what it says in 2nd Kings 6 6. There's no such thing as giants unlike what it says in Genesis 6 4 and numbers 13 33. There's no such thing as wizards or witches unlike what it says in Leviticus 20 27 excluding the fact that I have a sister who claims to be a Wiccan. I keep asking her to cast bells. She can't do it. The moon is in a light unlike what it says in Genesis 1 16. Walking on water is not a thing unlike what it says in Matthew 14 25. There's never a zombie apocalypse like it says in Matthew 27 52. And you can't walk around in fire not get burned up unlike what it says in Daniel 3 25. Lastly, Romans 1 18 through 20. Because if it was so damn clear being understood for the things that are made we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't need the Christian God to be made up but you guys need it to be real. And it isn't clearly and evidently. That's it. Thank you. All right with that we will be going into the open discussion section. So want to also mention I completely forgot at the start. As I mentioned you can fire your questions into the old live chat and then super chat is also an option in which case you can ask or I should say make a comment instead of just asking a question and it'll push your question or comment during the Q&A to the top of the list with that gentlemen the floor is all yours thanks again for being here. Beautiful. Do you want to go first John or you want me to ask a question?  Can you give me your scholarly definition of biblical inspiration? Oh I my scholarly definition is just from the Bible. The Bible says all scriptures God breathe insuitable for instruction and teaching and all things. Beautiful. So can you tell me what inspiration means? Well, you want me to give my definition? Well, I want you to give what well, you seem to know what inspiration means because you're telling me what it means. So I'm asking you to give me your definition that you're I'm just quoting the Bible. Well, you're not because either the Bible is the word of God or not inspiration. You have to define inspiration you're using and telling me that that's what it means. And that God wrote all of it. Is that what you mean? God wrote all of it. No, they got in inspired either through talking to people or through I don't know putting so people things in their head. People wrote it. Okay, listen, listen, that's a clever ploy. Either the Bible. Do you think the Bible is inerrant? Yes. So the Bible says of the Bible says the Bible was inspired by God. It either was or wasn't. If you're prepared to say Looney tunes people run it. No, which is I'm just more of the truth. That's cool. And we can we'll just we'll just go with you. Don't know what inspiration does and we'll just we'll just skip that. I did want to ask you Michael not Michael. I'm sorry rib rib. You say you believe nothing on faith. Can you can you unpack that a little bit for me? Do you believe you believe nothing unless you absolutely empirically know it? Okay, so it will probably help if I give my definition of faith and faith is faith is that which do you adhere to when you don't have a good reason for why you believe something? Is that how we have a good reason then you well, well, that's my definition. So, okay, so, you know, you know, it doesn't matter if it's the Bible's definition off of pistis the Greek word. You don't care about that. It's not necessarily that I don't care about us. I'm I'll I'll just kind of say it again. Well, we chose that's the definition that I use for faith. Well, I would I would recommend maybe checking with a scholar to see if that definition is is even feasible because I'm going to tell you right now. It isn't and if you know even just a little bit of history about the choice of the word faith, it comes from feed a the Latin route which means confidence. Of course, it's the same route we get confidence. I mean, we chose that word because we're trying to find something that related and corollary to the word in Greek pistis which means belief based upon confidence. Okay, so now what I would propose to you to consider sir yet believe you fill the gap in between belief and knowledge on faith. You care to respond? Name one. Do you believe anyone loves you? Yes. Okay. Do you have proof of that? Do you know it based on based on based on the available evidence? Yes. Okay. Well, you just have confidence that you don't know it being shot based on evidence could be wrong, right? That's not confidence. Sir, it's based on evidence. Okay, it's based on evidence, but you could be wrong, right? Based on the available evidence actually know points to the fact that this person loves me. So you're saying there's not a single there's not a single piece of evidence that's that that would stay otherwise. So, so you're saying they would never provide you evidence that they don't love you like they could cheat on you or something like that that wouldn't register. They could do that. Yes, but so far they haven't. So based on the available evidence, but if they get off of the available evidence, right? Correct. I guess. Yeah, she had it. Okay, John, do you have a question you want to crack in here? Oh, well, I mean, the you know, in your opening rib, you were talking about being able to shift your position if showed you evidence right and you rather one of the things that you use that supposedly proved your position your belief and evolution was phylogeny. But I'm assuming that you're unaware of the fact that phylogeny is collapsing now the additional variables such as the phylogeny of micro RNAs are coming to the equation and showing polar opposites to what had been proven beyond all doubt by the evolutionary community to be true in terms of the supposed heredity factors. And that is before even accounting for the direct reality that and apparently you don't are unaware of this that the entire premise of phylogeny is completely dependent on a assumption that the we all come from a common ancestor. And unfortunately there's many papers on this have been published in the last four five years about the incongruity of the phylogenies that had been so heavily relied upon by folks who are arguing that evolution is true therefore there is no need for an intelligent agent to be in the picture. So I'm just confused as to a why you're holding that to be such strong defense of your position or more importantly just to ask you that I'm outlining here that are directly assaulting what you seem to think is you know fundamental proof of your position. This that whole point may have been picked up wrong. That was you stated is direct evidence. You made it rather clear that I would have to just prove this just hang on if you're going to ask me if you're going to ask me a question shortly you should let me finish I'm just making sure you don't dodge that was that was funny that was used as like a visual or like a thought experiment in order to to to demonstrate what would convince me so I could have picked anything it didn't have to just be evolution it could have been anything right so point is I I I I I I outlined three different types of evidence that is there for evolution if you can demonstrate and give me as much evidence as is there for evolution for God as I said in my opening I will convert on the stream okay but that's that's kind of the point of all this is when you if one you're relying on something that is not even as as a foundational component of what would have to be overcome in order for you to convert quote unquote the but that element is not even considered to be a valid proof in academia and that is starting to grow rapidly because of these as further discoveries come along which showcase weight this is exponentially more complex and more structure than we thought and the requirements in order for this to occur are that much more improbable they're facing tremendous issues with that before you even account for the fact that in genetics we're seeing two different pathways on between micro RNAs and genes so the point I'm making is that if that one of the pieces that is the most fundamental is collapsing but if you look at it from the opposite perspective that hey we've got similar functions just like in any other kind of technology that are being leveraged with minor modifications which happens every single day and every piece of technology that we you're actually seeing direct evidence for structured nested hierarchies and for design not bottom-up evolution so the point I'm making is that the evidence is growing by the day for in favor of the designer not the opposite so I'm not understanding why you are so confident that I don't have any evidence even though I'm literally explaining why presenting as a major piece is collapsing okay so even if I was to to accept everything that you have just said the collapse or the failure of of evolution does not indicate that a designer is it doesn't okay so taking away proof of evolution doesn't give it to prove of a designer if if evolution was completely disproven if there was you know headline news everywhere in the morning that evolution is completely it's just it's dead we were completely 100% wrong it's still doesn't prove that a God exists and it's still how do we prove how does life exist I mean that's literally an argument from ignorance fallacy there is okay so the point I made in the in our first example that I can and I made again today which is the fact that per the admission of origin of life researchers the improbability and the complexity requirement the simultaneous complexity requirements for a biogenesis to occur are so astronomical that they are beyond in any other context they would be completely considered beyond zero right they'd be completely zero because there is literally not enough time in the window of opportunity but per the evolutionary timeline supposedly life came into existence through undirected process and then you have to account for the arbitrary assignment of values in the genetic code and the structural geographic layout of DNA in order for gene regulation to occur which enables life to exist and all of these pieces the point I'm making is in no other context would they be remotely concluded that these elements could exist without intelligent agent being required for their existence case in point humans are currently creating our own DNA computers technology storage and biological systems using the exact processes that exist in biology because they literally follow the exact same structure as computer science nanotechnology and machines so the point I'm making is that not only if evolution as one component is not being able to explain this and on the flip side you are completely 100% reliant on something that is so improbable to occur that in any other context would be considered zero why do you consider it to be more rational of a conclusion that it God is absolutely know it not exist rather than it is more likely that God does exist in that context and so it's not my position that God is absolutely not exist that's not that's my position yeah that's not my stance I'd also like to know um and perhaps it is my my fault and if it is and I want then I wholly take blame why are we talking about evolution and not the Christian God yeah I'm still waiting for that like yeah that's fine in fact actually I'm still waiting on the evidence because sure I mean like that's what I mean you brought it up in your opening statement if you wanted to stay away from it why the heck did you yes but it was used to prove a point it was used to demonstrate and I was proving that your point was a completely no you poked holes in you poked holes in this is an analogy that I used where to make I might want to use this as an opportunity as your fate I don't think we've heard Michael in Smokey for a while so we might pardon my interruption fellows I promise we'll come back back to you Michael do you want to go or do you want me to go yeah sure so a couple of things I guess I'll go in reverse order so John you said well you said one of things that was interesting you said with the advent with the or the advancement of technology in this specific time we have you know all these things you know working in our advantage it's it's really really interesting that you know it's like you know before cameras were around you know nobody had pictures of you know the Loch Ness monster and you know things like that it was you know and and now that we do have cameras and all these other technologically advancements you know we can't seem to find it or big foot or aliens or God in in a time when we we would now have the capacity everybody has you know do a tiktok video on in three seconds and this and this discussion would be over so I think it's interesting that you know given our technological advancements God's deciding to hide now and then Smokey you said something super interesting not actually in your opening but when I asked you why she said the the Bible's right and it's I mean it's just totally not and it's doctrine yeah it is yeah it's just totally not okay I mean because like of all the things that I said like not one of those examples in Scripture that I said are possible in any way shape or form that's a lot of science stuff I know unless you're going to presuppose that God exists and and that's just begging the question so so now what would I think what ribbon I would both love is for you guys to date your God exists I mean it doesn't but give it a shot well you've you've kind of put a lot of arguments maybe you don't want me to address them but but I'd like to are you are you Star Trek fan not a preferred Star Wars okay fair are you at least familiar enough with Star Trek to know about the Prime Directive oh yeah sure okay so like the idea of course you know you you careful you don't want to give any information or extra knowledge to a to a life form in case you could irreparably change its course and path of development correct sure yeah okay so I'm just curious how much science so that they could be accurate to our modern scientific standards that that begs the question that God had that they're one that there was a God and that he had anything to do with that and one of you may be also and it's also you may be the argument sir yes but what I'm saying is is that is it your statement how much did God have to have to teach them begs the question that the God exists in the first place so you sure you are you are so does your example so does your example that you are trying to on you are appealing to an undemonstrated standard and you are using an undemonstrated strength standard to make an example at me sir and I am undemonstrated standard did I use by using God and saying God wrote it yet he doesn't know what these things mean so I am answering that and now you're trying to run from it I would appreciate if you would just address it how much science did God if God exists need to teach these people in order to get them to be accurate enough to satiate your needs how much how much progression how much scientific progression how much extra vernacular in order for them to understand these complex principles did he have to teach them and progress them further to satiate you that that the non science text needs to come across as a science text Oh he wouldn't have to at all he could do what he did when when when the when the when the fables were written and just come out of the sky and appears a burning bush he wouldn't have to do any of those things he could have done to use words that no one at that time would have recognized in order to satiate you apparently no he would all you have to do is come down now like ribs said earlier Oh okay like ribs said earlier I I don't know what it would take everyone or just what this God does to everyone or just you to anybody well no no like I need an answer to everyone or just you well if he wants if he wants to convince me then I guess he'd have to do it to me and how would you convince someone else after he appears to you that's a really good question I don't know you but well you would because the problem isn't the anecdotes and this is the same this is what I said earlier is that the anecdotes don't mean anything right that's why it would have to be something greater than that it would have to be in a way to everybody God has the capacity you're your imaginary friend has the capacity to absolutely 100 can 100% convince every single solitary person on this planet right now in a way that now that not one of them could deny it and he either chooses not to or well the no it's actually because he's not there but it's very very simple he has the capacity so if he doesn't want to do it fuck him and you know and the other is well of course he doesn't want to do it because he's not there it's just made up it would be great if you could demonstrate this thing that you're so convinced of actually I appreciate you wrapping up sir go ahead fire away okay I'm really kind of under trying to understand here how you're trying to relate this and saying that God just is somehow obligated to show up as if he doesn't really have the option to choose how he wants to manifest you know people in his kingdom based on his choices he has to do it the way you want he has to show up to everyone so let me pose to you is there a metaphysical righteousness issue with your desire for God to show up to everyone based upon the Bible I don't know what you mean by that question I mean Romans too specifically is that helping so if he wants if he wants me to believe and again going back to a rib set if he wants me to believe then then he's got to do something like he has the capacity to eliminate my skepticism you want him to to exercise his power what I'm actually drawing attention to sir is that what you're asking actually asking God to do is exercise his power to violate his righteousness because it's very clear that a righteous God that again begs the question well fine but alright well you're challenging me begging the question inside my worldview so why don't you just let me answer how about that okay great so so God God has has a standard of which to uphold that has everything to do with his constraints of power as well and that's his righteousness God cannot use his power to do something unrighteous would you at least agree with that as a theme from scripture so he's not omnipotent then he is omnipotent but you're asking power to do something power can't do so you're being illogical so he's not omnipotent he is omnipotent but again you're trying to claim power should be able to do something illogical in order for it to be all powerful it doesn't make sense is like using your voice that powerful because I mean I'm doing it right now I don't feel very powerful everybody anthropomorph everything everyone anthropomorphize is God in some way in fact the Bible says were created in him as his image which means he's just an ape okay but okay you said you said we don't come from dirt do you believe life came from dirt I please don't go to the whole like Kent Hovind you said struck a pile you said it does does life come from dirt because you mocked us you mocked us for believing that humans could come from dirt do you believe life came from dirt is dirt alive I know then no I don't believe that clearly okay what do you believe that came from them I don't know beautiful beautiful I appreciate you for trying to drag us and is there something you're dragging us into a realm of tons of I don't knows including I don't know about morality and it's the one who claims to know prove it I yield I don't claim to know I claim to have a high confidence of which you guys claim to have a high confidence is something contrary that makes no sense so this is where we're going with this debate I'll yield I'll yield I give let me interject on this so Michael you're talking about you know why doesn't God show us how everything is right but before that you were talking about technology and advancements and all these things and how when technology developed how are we not being able to see God well the irony of that statement is that and I've alluded to this and directly stated this and multiple occasions is that the evidence that we are now able to observe through the technology that you're talking about enables us to see clearly that a God is required for our existence so you are the one that is denying that there is any evidence for God by saying oh I don't know how this could have happened when the logical induction deduction every type of conclusion that can be derived from the ridiculous plethora of elements that in no other context could exist without the intelligent agent the designer being required somehow do not serve as direct evidence for the designer so if you're going to sit there and just be like hey well even though it looks like evidence is not and I don't know how it could have happened any other way but it wasn't that way then you're obviously absurd your entire worldview is dependent upon wearing blinders and obviously you're not going to be able to see any evidence for a God and you're going to by default discount anybody who says they've had personal experiences or any of the other components that can be any possible component that can be outlined in favor of the Bible the Christian God any God period is going to be completely dismissed by you so how do you account for the fact that you're willing to accept things that in any other context would be considered evidence for an intelligence agent by not having in that requirement so you said a couple interesting things there the first thing you said was is that there's so much evidence that's and you said actually you said the same thing to rib is that there's so much evidence now that's pointing to this designer and what's really funny is is that what why isn't there then a scientific consensus that there is a God that's really cure that's really curious and and the other thing is that you said that oh you're not going to account for personal experiences well I don't think your personal experiences count for much the same as you don't think of Muslims or or Hindus do until there's something about the complexity and all that other stuff could be used by a Muslim Apologist to defend the existence of Allah and every single thing you said from a scientific perspective could be used by a Hindu Apologist to defend the existence of Ganesh Brahman and Vishnu okay so what the hell so special about your way so if it could all be evidence for a God why do you just in any other context you're saying oh well they could use this as evidence as well but you're going to just miss the evidence completely of them it can't be evidence for any one of them specifically well okay that's quite possible I wouldn't say the stupidest things I've ever heard anybody ever say okay let me let's think about this for a second Michael if I came and handed you a painting okay the painting exists right pain exists right and so so your analogy all doesn't mean anything no hang on hang on your analogy already doesn't mean anything because the painting exists are you going to shut up and let me finish this a point because you're being a complete idiot right now sure the self if I had you a painting did a painter have to exist yes or no yeah I think a painter had to exist okay cool now do there's five people who say they know who the painter was but none of them can show a picture of the guy painting the the painting does that mean that there wasn't a painter no okay then so in same context just because a Muslim apologist a Hindu apologist or whoever apologist could potentially use something such as genetic code as evidence for a creator how does that enable you to dismiss the fact that it's evidence at all for anybody just because you at this point haven't even considered which one might be the correct one because it's not evidence for a God so it's evidence for a painter if there's something that where we require a designer and a painter in order to exist but it doesn't apply because we know the paintings are designed they are not show me a fucking universe factory we know that things are designed by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs are you going to let me finish now oh go ahead bro we recognize design by contrasting it with with that which naturally occurs so trees flowers all these things naturally occur we have no evidence whatsoever of any paintings coming into existence out of nothing and like needing no designer and we have a mountain of evidence of every single painting being painted by somebody okay this is exactly what I said in the in the last debate it's the fucking universe of watches island of watches so apparently everything's designed to you dude you jacked up the fucking watchmaker analogy so much it was hilarious dude but and you you can try the public analogy too it was it was it was hilarious how bad you were at that but it's cute you think that in the context of naturally occurring what you seem incapable of comprehending is that and I've made this point multiple times now apparently she's going over your head is that the arbitrary assignment of values in a code there is no other possible context in which that does not require an intelligent agent name one is there any code we're comparing it to is there any code say we need to compare it to something and it's and it's and it's super complex and we have no evidence of anything like that existing naturally anywhere else yet you say naturalism here sure fine then it's Ganesh and I stand on just as firm footing as you do so all so all are all I stand on just as firm so so so okay that's fine get Ganesh is just as good of a God claim as the as the Christian God a way predates Christianity so it's so it's just as much evidence for it yeah so it's just as much objectively there's just as much objectively verifiable evidence for it meaning none so so you're a Buddhist now or or a Hindu no of course not so then why are you making so then this is begging the question so this is begging the question I'm just trying to play a game instead of a God why don't you want to have an actual debate why why you why you want to why you want to just run and play these games we're sitting here waiting for you I want to show us evidence of your God yeah but no we're giving you evidence and you guys you're not evidence okay you're not you're giving me arguments define evidence tell me what you guys view evidence ads well because it's like if go ahead if I told you if I told you that I have a glass on my table right now the evidence for that statement would be being presenting the glass here look at even your empiricism there you go there's a glass I'm talking about evidence not empiricism those are two different things if I make a claim there's a glass not evidence stop stop if I make a claim there is a glass on my table the way to demonstrate that claim is by presenting the glass you have made the claim that a God exists demonstrate us okay so you you will only accept empiricism as your standard of evidence I only accept evidence yes I don't accept arguments arguments would go again arguments go coupled with evidence but arguments on their own absent evidence are it's word solid you might as well say blue hair tomato please I'm not dodging I'm answering your question okay for to make it a deduction or an induction do you have to have do physical in order to deduce that something happened do you have to have witnessed it happen extraordinary claims require extraordinary events it depends on no no answer the question it depends on the claim it depends on the claim two cars ran into each other does it is it a reasonable conclusion that even if you didn't see it happen there were two people driving the two cars and they ran into each other sure okay but you there were no drivers in the car and you never saw a driver and nobody ever saw the two cars run into each other sure it's still reasonable because well unless they're two Teslas who were driving themselves okay so in the context what we're talking about fine tune universe the complexity of biology the components that in any other context would require a designer sure and they could not be restricted by the limitations that are the whole reason why a designer is required in the first place first or so you assert okay well they're asserted and this is accepted by everybody except for staunch hardcore except for the except for the overwhelming consensus of scientists yeah multiple fields of study including biology chemistry geology okay bro you need to go read some papers from original life researchers where they literally concede I can look at that stuff all day on on answers in Genesis if I want I'm not talking my answers in Genesis I'm talking I'm talking about from nature.com dude and you're full of crap because I can go get quotes at the frigging yin yang of the papers they're in my publicly available folder my Google drive that showcase exactly where staunch atheists are admitting this sure hardcore cool this is then go take down then go take down evolution why the hell are you telling us okay evolution is collapsing by itself man and I'm I'm taking part in the in the party but the fact that you guys are so ignorant of some of this stuff is hilarious because you're in such a brainwashed I'm wearing my blinders I'm going to refuse any in all premise of comparison at all to even think about whether or not an intelligent agent will be required therefore God because they can't be limited to the restrictions that are happening in so sorry which God are we talking about again well this context we're talking about the Christian God so so can you demonstrate that one like like like rib has asked you a bunch of times too can you are you saying we should have the sovereignty to demonstrate God like it's you have a whole book to use it's the only thing you have can't you do it with that I well sir I've I've blown apart every one of your ridiculous arguments and since most of them were science based I don't know where you want me to go with it so sorry you want you want God to teach everyone a bunch of science so that they can placate you and feel that you don't have to dismiss it it's insane it's ridiculous is the moon a light yeah sure it shines what's your issue I don't know how to answer that because the moon shines what the people look up and they see it shining and they use their language to describe the shine God can shine looking for a specific scientific conditions you're looking for a scientific exposition in a non-scientific book this is insanity why are you know what would you go to Shakespeare and be like oh look Shakespeare didn't get this right he must have been an idiot you know what these people had their knowledge based upon what and God communicated them when terms that they could recognize and understand not something the future cynics would want to pick apart and destroy so the Bible was only intended for that time I said you're going to try and argue over single words and their definition from a historic perspective I'm pretty sure I said that in my opening statement congratulations on proving me to be prophetic cool so what I'm doing is I'm using parts of because Smokey said that the Bible is our bats birds Oh my gosh dude really how many times you want me to explain this at what how much either dude if he said okay I'll tell you what if he said bats would anyone there have known what the hell he was talking about or did all those people at that time use the same word for all flying creatures and therefore would have made no sense to make a differentiation between differentiation between bats because they had no word for it well then why then Leviticus 11 does it say more than just flying it doesn't say just flying creatures don't jump please I you brought up the point I would like you to finish it sure so in Leviticus 11 unreal 19 it says bats are it says the Hoopie and the bat but before that it lists all kinds of other birds so it doesn't say flying creatures it says it lists all kinds of birds and the bat which so not only did the people I don't think that's so not only what's the reference I don't I don't know if that's true so not only did the people writing it down not know but apparently the book inspired by this imaginary friend didn't know either the same as it didn't know that you couldn't like when when apparently with satan and moses went up or sorry sorry satan and jesus went up to the top of a big mountain and satan showed him the whole earth which is impossible either so this is your book yeah this is your book your Christian God quoting my books sir there there are the birds you you you as there are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean the eagle the vulture the black vulture the red kite any kind of black kite any kind of Raven the horned down screech owl the goal any kind of hawk little owl Corment great owl the white owl the desert owl the osprey the stork the kind of heron and hoopy and the bat so why did they say flying creature in there right at the beginning and then it listed all kinds of birds these are the birds you are to regard as unclean they associated in their culture all flying creatures as birds because guess what they didn't have complex phylogeny like we did today sir there was no different word for that to relate or any type of taxonomic system in order for them to relate to say this is differentiate what you're doing is trying to force the Bible to have to be a science book and then you're falsifying it's just the most ridiculous strawman I ever saw well it's a forcing it to try and be a science book it makes claims about science and science proves them off let me address no it doesn't you say that because you've heard low-thinking idiots that you debate say that my dude I can open up Genesis one one and go down and there are scientific and accuracy after scientific and accuracy after scientific and accuracy go ahead I'll destroy you hang on I do this debate is about you guys proving that the Christian God exists something that you have not done yet it is not on me to falsify your religion that's not on me well it is on you because that's what you've done it's so hilarious that you guys are talking about dodging and being fucking evasive and that's the entirety of this entire debate we've addressed everything you guys have said in your opening except for demonstrating your fucking God let's return to the topic at hand so so smoke smoke at hand one second got maybe about five to ten more minutes before Q&A so so Michael um here you talked about uh lose or Satan taking Christ upon them out to see the world and such you said that's impossible um so from your purely naturalistic perspective true but isn't the entire character of bound by the physical restrictions of a human and given the fact that Jesus is committing miracles he also is not bound by the restrictions that a human such as us would have um so I'm not really understanding how the whole premise of being able to observe things uh simultaneously is that difficult to reach a conclusion on especially given the fact that people in the ridiculous number of documented near death experiences talk about this exact concept of being able to perceive multiple locations simultaneously and that time the restriction of time is being removed from the equation so and that's a whole component of Christianity of itself is that uh not being bound by time and then you think about from a scientific perspective the only reason that we are not able to control things like uh in terms on the quantum level is because we are currently bound to the mortal coil if that's removed from the equation and we're and we're solely energy then those barriers disappear so I'm not really following you on how that A is evidence against the Christian God and B wouldn't actually be evidence for it especially now based on things that we're discovering are absolutely possible um if you don't have the physical uh body restrictions um yeah go ahead I'll wait until they respond um okay so if you're if you're gonna start with like I said in my opening if you're gonna start with you know if God is real he can do this cool like if if that's what you if like if you accept that then if you accept that then nothing in the Bible is impossible like if if you're prepared if you're prepared to make that leap then everything in your storybook is real I'm not prepared to make that leap because it's delayed late reaction retro causality and quantum mechanics possible I don't know you should maybe ask a physicist that okay well there's papers on this whole topic of the fact that okay cool consciousness can alter the physical not not just on the quantum level but all the way up into the macro world so if consciousness can directly uh make these modifications that we're talking about in terms of uh things that wouldn't would seem like magic but it can be completely done if from by an intelligent agent and is no longer being limited to oh it's just on the quantum no actually done it up to the size of teaspoons now and physical matter literally delayed choice altering the quantum state of matter so if that is possible for us to do and it's not magic then why is it unreasonable that the intelligent agent who is external to this and is the one that caused it would not be able to execute this sort of thing like this is this is not a leap of faith this is not some kind of magic man any crap this is literal like hey well this is what we're discovering and that would actually make a a lot of sense if you're the intelligent agent that created the universe if we know this is totally possible for us in the in the micro level it sure as hell would be possible from the external perspective is not that big of a week that's that's a hell of a big if and like I said if you're prepared to make that if you're like you're saying if this if there's an external God sure if there's an external God falling over if if there's a God then all of those things are totally possible you know but but you're prepared to make that and I want to let rib talk after this because I've been talking a lot but if you're prepared to make that kind of leap cool but you still haven't demonstrated that that leap is in any way reasonable and and would be awesome again as as rib disaster and this is what supposed to be talking about is evidence not for a God for your God and I don't know I don't know how you're not like what you just go back to your source book because outside of that you've got nothing that's what your God is encapsulated we're destroying your attacks against the scripture as part of proving it that's part of it showing that you guys have a very very shallow perspective of what the book actually says and also the culture was written for that matter but but I'd like to ask a question to rib I'd like to go back to rib real quick sir I'm curious you know since you said that your standard of evidence is pretty much empiricism do you think we could trust you to show up to actually be a juror in a rape case yeah yes what does that even mean well because you're not going to be able to prove rape from empiricism in a rape case so I'm trying to understand how you're trying to associate yes you can oh so evidence doesn't have to be empirical so it doesn't have to be empirical it can be deductive right all claims are not are I'd like to answer the question please all claims are created differently different standard of evidence so everything that I personally believe in yes I need evidence but not every claim does wait not every claim needs evidence so there's claims you would believe without evidence oh my god dude go back to what you said 30 seconds ago given the example of a rape trial yes you could trust my opinion in that case how do I know that based upon what you said so far because it sounds like you could only trust empiricism and I wouldn't trust you to be in a rape okay I don't know if you're I don't know if you're just waiting to talk or if you're hard of hearing but I've just said that all claims are not created equally that they all need a different and separate standard of evidence and yet you cannot name the standard of evidence that would allow you to believe in a god isn't that interesting what did I open with I thought I thought we did yeah what say no evidence no evidence no evidence and then when I challenge you guys about what evidence is you show you have no clue and and what ends up happening is that we play this game where you guys move the goalposts over and over and say no evidence no evidence and frankly I'm a little tired of it it's just ingenuous and it's frankly rude to our time so I'm not sure actually I opened this by giving you the exact standard of evidence that would that would prove that your God is to me in one way how oh that evolution that's not my fault the point is well I'm packet why don't we do this we oh my God let's allow let's allow rib a chance to respond and we'll give them the last word before we go into Q and a because we do have a good number of questions to get to and I think Maddox even has a debate on another channel Erica sort of smoky he's got another one right here no it's it's actually no it got moved I got moved in that postponed I'm going to come watch John you said that I was moving the goalposts when I firmly planted and like with with concrete those goalposts at the start of this debate is frankly laughable but I have a question for both of you guys this is a real little quick one do you believe that the universe came into existence out of nothing one word answer no okay Maddox you know okay what did God create the universe or sorry where did the material that God created the universe come from you haven't been given the how of that just like you guys haven't been given the how of that so I'm not sure why you're asking what ribs getting to is that is that you guys are actually the ones who believe the universe came from nothing and you that this no you guys this mystical magical thing said abracadabra and made everything that's more because that's so irrational compared to it came from nothing and no divine source come from nothing didn't come from nothing Oh what did come from then Oh help us because we'd all like to know you could also educate some of the astrophysicist out there help us well you have guys like Sean Carroll who who's now who has now come out and said that he doesn't even believe the universe had a beginning he thinks the universe is eternal but we must be right then right he must let him what I was going to say answer in direct contradiction that guys like Lawrence Crouse who said the universe you know he's he's talking about a different kind of nothing because you can take up you can take an area of space where you don't say any stars and stuff like that and there's all kinds of stuff in their gravity and that's nothing that's not all kinds of stuff no nobody no cosmologist that I've that I've read or spoken to or or or listen to would say the universe came from nothing sir I've seen Lawrence Crouse is ten times of nothing and it's just ten different types of something so I you know what I don't even really want to get into that yeah that's because he even he himself said the universe doesn't come from like he say he admits that that that the that the subtitle of his book was said tongue and cheek and what is the ultimate conundrum that they're all facing and all of this stuff whether it's something nothing sort of nothing quantum foam quantum waves where all the things that are ultimately coming back to which is the rapidly they're coming back to they don't know where you insert your well actually there was a chance for us for us to go to Q&A hang on James let me finish my point here what they're actually coming back around to if you actually wait and actually research some of the stuff rather than buying into the talking points they're speed by your fellow you will find out that there's actually papers being written by quantum physicists on the fact that they can know even though it's starting to blur into the metaphysical they can no longer avoid the consciousness requirements at the ultimate route of our existence of matters time space and everything so they are writing papers that talking about how as much as they want to avoid it they cannot any longer avoid the metaphysical component period they're also starting to realize that the whole premise of it being here and there is not actually true it's it's in neither place until the observation occurs we're going to kick it over to our skeptical friends tonight to wrap us up before we go to Q&A so thanks for that from our theist friends we're go ahead you you close us out yeah I am okay wow where to where to start so this entire debate was all about presenting evidence to validate or to attest to the truth of the Christian God I would like specific timestamps and specific wording of a single piece of evidence that was provided all we got were arguments and were you know if this then this and all will evolution is basically false now so you know okay that's all we got we didn't get any evidence none so unsurprisingly as I said in my I'm opening and if I was to borrow from John for just a moment I would be somewhat of a prophet I'm still unconvinced so got you Michael I leave it over to you or sorry to the next person sorry I thought that we're going in teams or whatever I was thinking like a last word not a statement but we could do statements as well no no it's all right we can do that what we'll do is maybe everybody with the same amount of time which is like give you a minute you know what rib close it off very well I'm not sure I could add any add anything to that it was yeah what he said is right on the money it's all yield anything else right that's actually pretty amazing that he's still like 30 seconds because I don't like it that the the thesis both started and ended so I am like what you can give okay it's fine you can give them one more word if you want to James I don't I don't really care gosh yeah I just you know I think it's a little funny about that the claim of no evidence no evidence when we just completely and utterly annihilated and embarrassed your definition of what you think evidence is so so again we're just not going to accept that we've given you tons of fine tuning and you opened by saying that if we could provide just adequate enough evidence to for we provide evidence we also falsified evolution in the same debate so you're just being irrational sorry we'll go over to John for a quick word and then we'll go back to our guests from the skeptic side well as I said in my opening statement I had zero expectation to be able to convince to people who wear blinders on what constitutes evidence what is potentially even a remote possibility of something that requires a designer which therefore could equal but as I said don't expect them to actually believe but this is much more for the audience go do the research for yourself go look down the proverbial rabbit holes and you will find that the things that we've talked about tonight are actually gigantic questions that are being asked by scientists around the world and it is only in the online atheist new atheist community where they live in the fantasy land that none of these questions are actually being are even arising sweet and the most important thing question we could ever ask which is how do we exist I think James I just would like if it's okay with you I would just like just five seconds you bet James put a post like mark on this on this debate because shit evolution was falsified tonight and I sit gobsmacked over that fact that's thoroughly unbelievable you're welcome all the characters we have here go out of rib if you want to say anything you can yeah though I'm I'm kind of I don't I don't have anything else to add or to bring up you got it and do want to say in addition to saying thanks so much to our guests our speakers tonight it's honestly a pleasure to have you guys we love you guys it's really this is an enjoyable debate and so yes first I'll just say that and remind everybody their links are in the description change you're the best appreciate you're encouraged are the best James it's really nice of you appreciate it and also I realized I have never thanked I mean maybe I hope I've done it at least once but want to say moderators thank you so much we know I don't thank you enough I feel like it's like once every year something so I'm sorry I want to say thank you so much you guys do a great job the only rule we the only strict rule we have with you know it's like don't mess around with anything close to that we don't give out warnings we're just like clip yet you're gone and then if somebody's harassing somebody will give them a warning so if they're like oh man you know they're making fun of Nephilim free in the chat you know it's like I you know if it's too harsh you might say you know let's not go too hard I mean I know it's enough but I mean I'm kidding enough I hope you're doing well buddy so we will jump into the Q&A and wrap up as quick as possible I think Maddox is going to be in about a half hour he and Erica are debating on standing for truth channel so that should be fun Erica is as I say YouTube's favorite daughter she is terrific so let's jump into it Lee Spainer thanks so much for your super chat said new channel for me and I am stoked well now you're speaking my language I couldn't agree more Lee thanks for that glad to be here and Steven steen nasty guy thanks for your super chat says James's eyes look deep into my soul okay thanks Stephen next up Kevin Guilfau good to see you buddy says John Maddox his opening statement boils down to strawmaning atheists poisoning the well and the sentient puddle analogy where he argues on behalf of the line or of the puddle weak sauce they must have sent that before my opening well it's for John fair well you know it's funny they should go watch my video some of my videos on the atheist fancy land projection complex and one and then how you know some different ways to trigger an atheist and what's ironic is one of those factors is that they say everything is a strawman when most the time they don't even know what the definition is and arguments for why it is valid position to take they usually just can just like my opponents tonight have such a blindfold on they can't see the obvious what I want to do next is I we're going to rush through these I want to let everybody know because we only have about 27 minutes or so and not even that really before John's going to have to bolt because I don't want to delay their events over there tonight please do me favor I'm so sorry I can't take any more questions we're going to try to try to try to fly responses from the guests but please do me favor I guarantee if any other questions or even super chats come in give a fair warning that we won't be able to read them at this point we I've got all the ones that have come in so far will read come to my after party ask all the questions you want next up thanks for your super chat from standing for truth John Maddox twin brother says atheists how do you explain the evidence based on observed mutation rates that take us back to DNA is that what mt yet yeah that's what you saying and why chromosome Adam thousands of years ago I can read it again is a mouthful and I interrupted I can paraphrase it for you better if you want James yes he's asking one the mitochondrial evidence basically genetic evidence of Adam and Eve shows that we all all current humans came from one man one woman now about 6,500 years ago how do you explain that it's it's absolute bullshit and yeah if like just like submit honestly if you're ready to take down Darwin don't tell us because more fame and fortune is waiting for you then you'll ever be able to comprehend if you can take down evolution okay see you do realize that point is to be published to my secular sciences trying to it'll take too long for the Q and a but thank you I'll be ignorant we have to keep moving Co leery 1798 thanks for your super chat said the sure sign of confidence from the theus attacking arguments and poison poisoning the well before these arguments have even been made we we we provided evidence we provide evidence of fine-tuning and a divine mind and then we connected it to scripture which stands you know unchallenged based upon the nonsense that they put forth gotcha and thanks Oh by the way two thanks new subs Axel Iraq thanks for your subscribing glad to have you welcome to the community and debate challenge from Leo Philias asks either John or Smokey if they want to debate whether not the universe had a beginning that would be I'd you know I'd probably rather John take something like that I don't know if I'm quite interested in something that that intensive on the science side Okay. Next up thanks for your sound just teasing Dick Dork Kent Hobbit thanks for your super chat says God is not a necessity stop presupposing it prove it John you want to take it to me also wasn't paying attention that question that's okay uh you know it name me something that you can prove and then we'll we'll go from there next up James Crow thanks for your super chat said to the atheists I consider myself agnostic I do have issues believing the eye and ears were a product of evolution since they all involve light and sound waves please give me your explanation who is that for the that's for them to the atheists okay there's been there's a interesting paper forget who put out now on actually on the evolution of the eye and how it's been traced back to at least 20 separate iterations like how first it was a few just a light sensitive cells and how it I'm going to fuck it up but basically how it start off just a few lights sensitive cells and change to like to a pocket to eventually a pinhole to eventually and to what we have now so it's yeah it's it's not easy you know it's not easy but from from a design perspective one of the things that I think is very interesting is how our eyes are at the front of our head but the occipital cortex that controls the eyes at the back of our head and how when our eyes they're they're they're upside down so I think from a design perspective that's pretty weird I don't I don't know enough about the the years to come in intelligently but Gotcha and thanks so much for your super chat coming in from the Chad says question for smoky when we talk about love we can bring the person in question to you I think they mean question them and you can ask if they love someone correct well that's not the analogy I was using so it's irrelevant but sure Gotcha and speed of sound of gravity thanks for your super chat said for L P P logical plausible probable John Maddox do you have links for all those M I RNA papers I do and speed of sound of gravity I'm it am it am it am it am me how you seem incapable of using Google to find them even though because you know that for other reasons I'm refusing to send you send you a link and just going to require you to go do your own investigation but yes it it was published in nature I'll give you a hint the first paper on that was published in nature and they even have diagrams of the position that I'm taking on this and they actually talk about how confusing it was at the dramatic disparities between their normal phylogeny and am I RNA phylogeny go do some Google anybody very sassy tonight and thanks for your Patreon question from spark 3 4 4 says for the Christians physicists have their own nomenclature as do lawyers mathematicians and philosophers as a physicist or a physicist nothing is not the same as a philosopher's nothing okay I don't want to really say to that like okay thanks for your other Patreon question where did I just put this forgive me Brian we do have also by the way rage I just can't help but enjoy these raging atheists says for smoky why are you scared of raging atheists I'm not scared of you dude I'm the one that sent you something in your chat asking to have a talk and you didn't even respond so I don't know what you're talking about trust me don't worry bro I'm coming for you I'm working on a video to expose you beautifully so just just be patient well all right then let me find your question so sorry bro there it is said in their comment said Maddox can't handle the agnostic position how do you like them apples John I'm not even sure what they mean that's just dumb yeah like an in fairness to John I don't think any of us either rip or I or even close to agnostics so yeah I'm not sure what the relevance is of that question I could be wrong my only guess is that he's maybe saying I think he's maybe trying to take the position of you are fine with let's see I don't want to I might butcher it on accident so well we can let Brian clarify he's here in the chat still and thanks for your super chat from dearest friend Coleery 1798 said Maddox you're going to get around to proving the existence of a Christian God anytime soon well since my opponents tonight further opening statements were providing just gigantic openings and obviously the reality that they hadn't paid attention in the first debate you kind of didn't get all the way there even though we did start to address it towards the end gosh and spark 344 thanks for your patreon question said for the Christians if gravity were shown to be wrong is the answer then automatically that angels are pulling things is quote we don't know unquote a better response yeah well since there's absolutely no revelation or justification to believe that angels are involved in it and there's mountains of evidence so that's a scientific fact that's part of our natural constant in our universe that's a ridiculous question I don't know what to do with that next up Dwayne Burke thanks for your super chat said atheists you say there is no evidence of the supernatural experiment operation flame grill the CIA gateway process and CIA paranormal spatial barrier testing do I have to wear a tinfoil hat whenever you search for it Dwayne Burke look he got smoky I was like okay Dwayne Burke is a he's a debater he's been on your before he does happen to believe in the Illuminati that could be a juicy debate and NZ Pure thanks for your super chat said semantics where's the evidence for this God I think they weren't using semantics as a name they were saying like semantics where's the evidence they might suffer from underactive agency detection there's actually a few studies showing that atheists do tend to be more biased and more prone to a decrease in agency detection so you might be suffering from a mental illness you might want to check that out next up the chat thanks for your I appreciate your guys's patience and resisting the temptation for a rebuttle we'll move through these questions I appreciate the self-control let's see question the theist would you ever change your mind or admit you could be wrong when it comes to your belief in God if no do you think that it is intellectually honest yes and I I've already said this in fact even the last debate I provided falsification criteria and I'm and I have falsification criteria unlike atheists so you know you guys are the ones standing on on certain ground got you and thanks so much for traveling for you is in the house and he has sent a super chat one of the old-school debaters says religion is bs do you have faith that humans lived 245 thousand years ago have you physically examined a sufficient volume of physical evidence or do you say that you have faith in what secular scientists say No that would be what the evidence would suggest but I would ask him if he was there when out of the tune gotcha and enough the ones requiring empiricism see all right hold on we got to move on to the next one Dickter Kent Hobbit thanks for your super chat said God is sub-scene of existence therefore is not God one more time James they said God is sub-scene I don't I've never seen that word before of existence therefore is not God define sub-scene you know if unseen equals non-existent that's just a that's just a a claim based upon a naturalistic worldview that they would have to prove before I'd accept it they said sub-scene so like sub subway sandwich and then seen like the scene in a movie they said which basically means a scene making up a part of a larger scene Yeah I don't know what else to do with that James I'm sorry no problemo I think they're trying to say that that God is just a portion of a larger picture what is the relevance and we're saying that God is separate from the universe and therefore is not a sub-scene portion of it Yeah if that's what he's getting at God is outside the big picture so if that's what he's trying to get I'm pretty sure we made that pretty obvious throughout the debate I guess that weren't the intention I interpreted as he was making fun of John's appearance I didn't I didn't get okay sorry show Vertica thanks for your super chat appreciate it they said Q&A please list or conflicts you see within evolution or another worldview it was posed they just never addressed it we said that the Bible had a bunch of wonderful progressive moral standards that were unparalleled and non-contemporary to the time which allowed the Jews to survive up until modern days it has it's it has complexity and structure and consistency unmatched by any other text textual piece of literature and all of human history there's a lot to be there if you're equating the Bible as some sub-standard book or other books you're doing so in ignorance next thanks for your super chat from they will see Roy Lindsay thanks for your question said why is it bad to be an empiricist because because you can only come to certain conclusions and and that will that will not allow you to actually find truth if you are only based upon empiricism for instance like the example of showing up in a rape case you're not going to be able to act as a juror and allow your your decisions to be swayed by empiricism you're going to have to use philosophical deduction and that's what we're attempting to draw the atheists to actually do while they sit there and say no evidence no evidence when we're giving the evidence for the deduction this is why it's such an insane statement on their hands got you and thanks for your you've a very a your cadence is very forceful it's a very I don't know if I've ever heard it's like there's always different cadences you know anyway thanks I'm still I'm still picking up my stride I'm still learning no no no no it's not bad I mean it's it's interesting everybody's got a different one a gosh darn delight thanks for your super chat says a painting is not a biological system a car isn't a biological system either former Christian turned atheist here I know and as I stated those comparisons don't even come close to what is required for the for the biological systems to work so unless you are willing to argue that these more simplistic things such as a car could create itself without the intelligent agent then it is extenuated even to be even more illogical position if you're saying that something that is exponentially more complicated did so I mean I'm not sure how this is so difficult to comprehend gotcha and thanks for your super chat from Kevin Guilfow say says why would a try monie God to defend or prove that he exists is God incapable of doing it himself weak sauce God has his grace and righteousness to protect if he showed up to everyone you'd have to judge everyone because that's what a righteous God would have to do so be thankfully doesn't next D6 thanks for your super chat said yes for the theus yes side can you tell me which argument did you use for Christian God that cannot be used for a la I just probably needed it again for the last question and it was in my opening I don't think I need to say it again it's wasting time very sassy we're gonna we got a little time let's see John let me know whenever you need to go and we'll definitely let you go but I'm gonna try to fly through a few more questions because I'm good for view moments you've got it and let's see here we got that we're doing pretty good here thanks for your super chat from a gosh darn delight says quote they didn't have words for that namely phylogeny and they're referring to I think what smoky said they said so you admit the Bible was written by men who didn't know what they were talking about I I admit it was written by men who had you know an archaic understanding of science far more so than we do today and in order for God to communicate with them he had to use terms that they could understand and recognize without having to teach them a whole science textbook and a whole vernacular on top of it it's ridiculous it's just ridiculous argumentation gotcha and from Chinese symbol that I don't know Wolf says what's the citation for the research paper where people are altering reality with their mind I would love to read this paper and learn how to do it I didn't say they were altering reality with their mind I said they were changing the or affecting the wave collapse function of matter not just on the quantum level but on the macro level there's multiple papers on this there's a pre-in-depth article on scientific American from I think it was November 2018 and in there there's links to like 10 different papers going into there directly to the experiments that led to the component of what I'm talking about now gotcha and want to say thanks so much for your super chat from Sutra Frano Sarabia in the house so dare tell you guys the story that when I first met Samuel Nassan I was traveling in the like the first thing yes easy like who's Cigafredo Sarabia because you've watched the channel so Cigafredo said if a boy A is larger than boy C and boy C is equal to boy B what evidence does and atheists use to believe this and not deny without let me let me put that differently so you get this is like just there the point isn't you don't have to solve the logic puzzle they're just giving you one of those deductive like logic puzzles that you'd see on like the SAT they say if a boy A is larger than boy C and C is equal to boy B what evidence does an atheists use to believe this without the boys being physically present to observe I think they're trying to challenge what they are perceiving as and maybe whether or not it's correct or not they I think they perceive you as like a hardcore empiricist rib and so I think they're saying that I think they've interpreted you as saying that you only think you can know something if you can like empirically observe it and so I think they're saying like if you can't see these theoretical boys in this logic puzzle like how can you make any conclusions on deductive logic puzzles like this if you can like is it is it basically like how do I know like that boy A is larger than is that the kind of right is it because yeah exactly is like you know most you know you make a deduction just based on you're like well like theoretically I'll do an easier one like if A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C it necessarily follows that A is also bigger than C because it's bigger than B right and we knew B is bigger so like they're saying like if you can't see these boys these theoretical boys named A, B and C then how do you know the answer to the logic puzzle you could give me their height and centimeters you could have chalk of different colors marks against the door there's there's there's several ways of proving they're yeah I don't know Gotcha and Merlin seven two zero zero one thanks for your super chat said can these two theus just be honest for once in their vapid existences put a little spit on it and it really and admit not only a lack of any demonstrable evidence of their boogeyman but a complete absence of interest in demonstrating it these tools I had at the last part but go ahead I think you should rewind to the very beginning and re-listen to my and Smokey's opening statements because we directly called out dumbass questions and positions like the one that was just presented to us again as being the problem with the atheist worldview and why they are incapable it seems to deduce and recognize the obvious conclusion that God exists Gotcha and that's it for our questions for the day we got to wrap up because we do have to let our dearest friend well maybe I think we ask one one more from says Patreon question for religion is BS was Ireland losing to Japan in the Rugby World Cup a punishment for your atheism from a South African I guess so dude I don't know gosh you are you convinced them there is a God thanks so much folks for being here it's always fun and I have to say it's fun because of these speakers we really appreciate them being here they're little life blood of the channel so we it's really all it's always a blast to have them they're linked to the description and also folks I had mentioned the very start of this debate this Wednesday Ray Comfort Matt Dilla Huntie toe to toe one on one it's going to be here it's going to be epic and I said that we were late to promote it if you can do me a favor folks on your way out if you want to I put the link in the description if you want to help us promote it share it on social media that you can even go to the the watch page and click share and share it through that way that helps us a lot just in terms of getting the word out as it was kind of short notice but we were like hey we got to accept this because we're not going to let the opportunity pass and so we we've got those guys for Wednesday so you know that's the plan we yeah so thanks so much everybody it's honestly a pleasure and one last thanks and good bye to our guests thanks so much all four of you gentlemen it's a blessing to have you thank you so with that folks hope you have a great night and as I mentioned good old John Maddox debating Erica YouTube's favorite daughter over on Sandy Friderou's channel so I can throw that in the description as well right under that Matt Dillahunty Ray Comfort Debate Link so anybody is any appreciate the promo there James much sure if anybody's doing a an after show for this debate too I am yeah I'll be doing it in a couple hours on my channel people want to come in and shot and that offer is open to you guys as well our skeptic friends if you guys have an after show you want to do I'll put that in the description happy to do it and as well as any other debates you got coming up so thanks so much folks hope you have a great night keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable take care