The Evidence For God | A Debate Between Rev. Bryan Wolfmueller & Tom Jump

The Evidence For God | A Debate Between Rev. Bryan Wolfmueller & Tom Jump
Articles
46



yes but oh hi or not we're not throw back not back we're back then we got other problems now we should be back I have no idea half the time until I get confirmation for the live chat they're like yeah yeah I think YouTube really hates us sometime because I don't think it's on yours and Dave I do think that this is like a conspiracy thing that YouTube is out to get us because you know what I don't know if you guys have listened to some of the things that have been talked about with this whole YouTube thing where they're gonna start deep monetizing channels because of comments left yeah good going YouTube that's freaking brilliant who thought of that gonna stop promoting flattered its videos which is gonna affect your channel a lot I don't know no I don't think so now I I do agree they're gonna stop promoting certain channels and others not gonna recommend them but they they still will exist but we don't promote Flat Earth right so that's not the ones that they're going after right they're not going after the ones that are fighting Flat Earth that would be silly of YouTube of course YouTube does Skyler got banned for having the guy who's a gay on his channel when you got there he got reversed though so but anyways let's kind of jump back where we're at Tom introduce yourself again and just give you a quick spiel then we'll turn over the good rip here all right so I'm T jump I wrote a model of histology in a model of morality and I wrote him into a book and I created a YouTube channel in order to promote these by baiting with professors and philosophers and apologists to demonstrate how effective my arguments against my system ology my model of morality are against yeste position and I'm have debate with inspiring philosophy in a few days on modern database channel and I have another one with Kent Hovind a few weeks that'll be exciting sure no but I thought you had learn philosophy tonight was like was i off on my days no two days from now Wednesday 27 okay so you don't have anything planned tonight then other than this I know just just just this I guess I I really did think for some reason you had a discussion of inspiring philosophy tonight I don't know why I told people that okay because maybe link to it today Jason oh okay cuz I'm okay maybe I wasn't going crazy then I thought it was today but it's not okay okay let's get to the Reverend Reverend Brian Wolfe Merle or Lutheran extraordinaire compatibilist determinist indecisive in terminus I don't know what positions you are any longer I don't know what positions I am either I just say what I just say what I believe in then you guys tell me what it's called which is kind of nice I'm certainly no debater I'm pastor at Hope Lutheran Church in Aurora Colorado I've got a I got a website and a YouTube channel where we it's mostly Bible study I'm so I'm just a pastor kind of simple guy so so you guys have to help me along I think it's always that the person I'm debating has to actually tell me what I think and then tell me why it's wrong so I appreciate clarifying my own errors on the show so hopefully we can do that tonight I'm back for a meeting I got walloped the first time I was here and I thought that bad oh come on Oh a magic word okay good oh good I didn't if the the if the quality of not being bad is that I don't rage quit I think I can manage that so well you were better than kid Holden that's like a challenge to me I phrase well you know you weren't as bad as Kent oh I guess we butch with your first name I have to fix that you're right it's your first name is BRE yn correct yeah why it's that's a Hebrew spelling yeah well I'm gonna blame Kyle for everything anyways cuz Kyle's not here and he's a discount garden gnome so he can't even talk back so okay so you want to give us your evidence what are you gonna start with this is you have a lot of win over the school well oh yeah and if I start yes dart Tom's go for it all right knocking so I have a standardized introduction that I normally do on my channel it goes like this I'm an atheist by which I mean I believe there are no reasons to believe in the God could you tell me what reasons you believe there are for belief in the God and then I'd like to tell you my position on those reasons I just like your thoughts on my position okay so um let me if I could I'd like to introduce some terms just for that I think you're helpful for me so so I'm coming from a distinctly Lutheran perspective here and so I just kind of want to make a couple of distinctions we distinguish between the two types of knowledge of God the natural knowledge of God in the revealed knowledge of God the natural knowledge of God being that which is available through what the old theologians called the book of nature and the revealed knowledge of God is that which is taught in the scriptures so what we'll be talking mostly I think tonight about the natural knowledge of God and under that category we have to another distinction that we make again namely that which is external and that which is internal so that the natural knowledge of God comes to us in two ways one is from the outside so that would include reason and observation and the observation of nature as well as the observation of history and then there's the internal testimony which again the old theologians would talk about as the conscience or in fact and then another category here the innate knowledge of God that humanity is uniquely designed to know that God exists so there's some of the categories and it seems like to me again I'm I'm not a philosopher I'm a theologian so I'm I'm again out of my realm but that the external arguments or let me sorry let me just step back again that when we talk about the natural knowledge of God we're talking about those things which ought to be known and when we're talking about the revealed knowledge of God we're talking about those things which ought to be believed so there's a difference between knowing God and believing in God and that has to do with the natural knowledge and the revealed knowledge so just to have that clear I think when Kyle sent me the email he wanted to talk about reasons to believe in God and I think that if we're talking about belief we're in the realm of revealed knowledge or in the realm of Scripture and I and I think from the conversation before that we want to kind of stick to the natural knowledge I think that there are generally accepted in the Lutheran tradition about six or seven various different arguments for the existence of God for the being of God the the first would be the ontological argument something there was syllogism that something like we understand that to be God is to be the best second we understand that it is better to exist and so therefore by definition God is that which exists you have also the arguments from observation that there is motion and motion is caused by something else that's the first mover hog you argument and then the related argument of the first cause there's the interesting argument for the gradation of being that we're able to recognize one thing as better than another and so Thomas Aquinas picking up on the old Greek philosophers says that if we're able to recognize the gradation of being we're able to assume that there is something that is the best which would by definition be God we we recognize through observation that the operation of things without a wills seems to follow an order and serve human life and the fourth external observation that I think is interesting is simply the argument for the history of the events of the life of Jesus that's a bit of a skew argument this would be the evidential estuve Paulo Jetix that says that the historicity of the resurrection of the man Jesus is as verifiable as a historical effect as any other and moving from the external arguments for the existence of God we have the internal arguments which would be simply I mean they're related arguments but I'd say we have the argument of the conscience which tells us that there is a right and a wrong and therefore that we don't stand above everything else but that there is an objective standard and ultimate standard of of goodness of truth and so forth it testifies even our conscience testifies of our own guiltiness for this and this is related to what the old theologians called the innate knowledge of God namely that humanity is designed to know God and that each one of us knows that to live a life however to live a life out of order is to be ultimately judged so that's the innate knowledge of God which is connected to the knowledge of the conscience so I don't know which of these sounds more interesting to you but that's what I've got at least from the history of the of the Lutheran theologians he said there were seven arguments one two six but I put six but then I put three under the observation under the external so motion cause and gradation of being I'm putting those under the observable external arguments for the existence of okay I just wanted to make sure you weren't missing one so if you had a box if we if we had a box and we didn't know what is inside the box you said there is a rabbit inside of the box and your evidence for the fact that there is a rabbit inside of the box that the box weighs two pounds now that two pounds could be explained by a rabbit but can also be explained by a lizard coffee mug or Legos or a hammer or any of other things so two pounds is an evidence of a rabbit would you would you agree with everything I've said so far really heavy air yes yes I agree okay so if I can show that all those arguments you presented are like the two pounds and can be explained by many other things other than the rabbit or God in this case that would mean they aren't actually evidence of a God right I think I think so no I'm not going to concede that point on this reason is I would I do not think that I do not think that any of these arguments are I think that these arguments are taken in aggregate are taken in aggregate are going to be a suggestion of the of the reality of God but I'm not going to make the did the existence of any one of these arguments or of all of them to be an absolute sort of thing so I'm going to concede right at the beginning that that none of these arguments are absolutely unassailable but but rather form a an aggregate argument for the existence of God but that being said what you should do is take each one of them apart so I think that would be the right approach for you I'm gonna go with a different approach so with you I'm gonna argue that every single one of them in aggregate individually and collectively can indicate mutually exclusive conclusion so I'm saying all the arguments together are like the two pounds that can be explained by the rabbit lizard or the hammered or the coffee so would you agree that I didn't show that all of them nether and indicate multiple conclusions they're not indicative of God yes awesome fantastic so you started with the ontological argument the ontological argument goes something like there is a greatest or maximal possible thing I can grant that but I can just say it's not a bean I there's a greatest possible universe so that can indicate something instead of theism it could indicate pantheism or naturalistic pantheism which is essentially just a necessary eternal all-powerful nature no God so I can use the ontological I heard wait but soap pantheism it's you are so pantheism would be theism would it not no no we're not you can go to Stanford encyclopedia philosophy for pantheism you would search for physicalism which bracket one in bracket space physicalism or naturalistic pantheism and it specifically states this is essentially a viewpoint that holds that the all that there is is the natural forces in the universe impersonal what what do then you can go down to you can go down to another section where it says personhood and it says einstein's view was there was a and he isn't without personhood and many pantheists hold the position that lacking a personal aspect is the defining part of what they're met what makes their position their position so no naturally pantheism this version just physical naturalism not so justice not call it pantheism to not confuse us guys so you have a it that at that point does it not become a definition of I mean I think the ontological point is talking about definition it says look hey if if you define God is that which is the best then you're gonna get a best and that will be God even if we have then God as the subtotal of all of the universe that's true right so the argument would be well the ontological argument will prove the existence of something called God but that doesn't necessarily mean that that God is a person is is that a concern I'm just sayin so so I do I do want to use the term naturalistic pantheism this is very important so naturalistic pantheism is just an eternal a powerful necessary nature so it has some of the properties that you normally attribute to God it just doesn't have the content so I would say there is no greatest possible thing which is the national pantheon it's just not a beam ok the greatest possible that and so that would be so say those so they'll say those attributes that would belong to God eternal necessary eternal are all our demon all the ones that I attribute to what you define those three years ago so now let me just ask you this time if I could are you a naturalistic pantheist no I'm an atheist okay so so so did you so it's just so I'm so just to kind of make sure I'm keeping up here so the ontological argument could conclude that there's not a God but rather the conclusion would be naturalistic pantheism but you would have to I think to assert your point you would have to continue to argue right that naturalistic pantheism also is not true I'm just I'm just I can just disprove all the used arguments as long as I can show they don't indicate a God then that's all I need to show to show the arguments don't work so if I can say that your argument indicates a God and a non God well then your argument doesn't indicate a God just like two pounds doesn't indicate rabbit as opposed to a coffee okay so I'm gonna I'm just so I don't want to get us stuck on that I'm just gonna I'm just going to note that you concluded that the are is this it would you be able to say would you be able to take down the ontological argument further than you've taken it down to to conclude that there are things that are not eternal or necessary what do you mean so it's just to make sure I understood that you said that the ontological argument does not necessarily conclude that there is a God it can for example conclude and natural naturalistic pantheism which says that the universe is eternal necessary and all-powerful and yet not a person and so the ontological argument does not necessarily conclude that there is a God but it does conclude that there is something that is eternal necessary and all-powerful right if we grant the premises of argument it does indicate there is some kind of greatest or maximal thing the problem is is that we can define the greatest or maximal to be anything we want there's no it's just an up definition in our head ok God because I think this will be important for the next one so let's so let's have the next one next argument sure all right so the next argument made was the contingency argument you made three versions they're all just different versions of the contingency argument cause gradation of motion I can grant that there is some necessary thing that grounds all contingent things but that necessary thing could just be Nationals pantheism there's no need for it to be a beam event so I can say there is a first mover for example and that first mover is just the eternal all-powerful necessary universe no reason to get a beam in there at all I like I like the way you argue this is great okay so at some point yesterday you should didn't have a naturalistic pantheist on to debate right how would you how would you all right so the next one he did was the historicity of the Bible historicity of the resurrection of Jesus right right so my position is if I told you I saw a dog you should believe me but if I told you I saw a unicorn you should not believe me the difference between these two claims is that dogs have an implicit empirical basis I mean there's lots of things about dogs that we can scientifically verify as existing just entailed in the word dog even though I haven't mentioned it in the statement isodd whereas none of that exists for a eunuch so you shouldn't believe me if I told you I saw a unicorn but you should believe me if I told you I saw a dog the defining principle between this is that it's only reasonable belief testimony eyewitness testimony historical testimony any kind of personal testimony it's only reasonable belief testimony if it has an implicit empirical basis doesn't have an implicit empirical basis it's unreasonable belief testimony that means it's not reasonable for miracles magic mythical creatures the paranormal the supernatural UFO no amount of Morgoth defies the exhibit wait wait wait so a God what God would be in on that right yes I'll be the supernatural miracles magic the paranormal supernatural UFOs mythical creatures so none of those would be reasonable Eve based on testimony they need to have an empirical basis and so that would mean that all the historicity I can grant Jesus existed but all the miracles are out none of the testimony justifies belief and the miracles actually like the reservoir yeah it's not that any miracles exactly it's just that's naturalistic so we can just say natural scum auntie ISM it just explains it normal guy or something that's is that how we're all going to end up here we can have us church and all come together now just to make the point here is that the the eyewitness the eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus and there's a lot going on here I mean this is a big conversation but the eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus knew that this was not a what it was a implicit empirical what is it how do say what was it empirical base they knew this is not an implicit empirical basis in other words they they knew that's why people they knew that people don't rise from the dead and that's why it was a big deal I mean this this is the miracles too so the the miracles and the scriptures are presented to us as miracles because the people who saw them knew that these things don't happen naturally so so just to make sure that we get the point is that the Bible doesn't the Bible doesn't come and tell us like about the virgin birth of Jesus and like like this happens all the time or does it come and say hey Jesus is resurrected from the dead because people are always resurrected from the dead or the world was created by God because God just always creates worlds in other words the the scriptures and Christian theology knows that these things are supernatural events that are not normal or expected in any sort of way so a soul so that but but I think that there's a circular which one of us is going to be trapped in the circle to say that you should only believe something fits believable or you you should only believe something if you you should only believe something if you can see it this is gonna get right at the fact that that that there is a distinction between between believing and seeing I mean the reason why these things have to come to us and say hey this is really quite amazing is because the things that are being told to us are quite amazing right I would agree it but the way I would phrase it is is that conceptual claims are conceptual evidence empirical claims require empirical evidence so like if I said a triangle has three sides you don't need empirical evidence to believe that you can just believe it because it's true by definition so you can believe the conceptual claim that triangle has three sides by the definition that it has three sides but if I claim there is something existing in the world like a dog or a unicorn that's an empirical claim in order for that to be justifiable you need empirical evidence dogs have implicit empirical so you don't need to provide any explicit where unicorns don't so we're gonna make the belief unicorn exists in the world and you saw one you need to provide explicit empirical basis to justify the same applies to here how would you how would you take up the the the empirical evidence of the empty tomb how do you how would you account for that there are infinitely many ways to account for that well no there's not anyways yeah I could say the entire world five seconds ago six seven to go seven seconds ago eight seconds ago nine seconds ago when there's all just part of our main mind I could say it was created by leprechauns and the leprechauns emptied the two more yes just you don't think you're one of these I'm actually asking what you think about it I'm not saying what well it's also but how could you but what do you think about it so again the reason that you need empirical evidence is because you need some way to differentiate between all of these different imaginary there's infinitely many imaginary ways to explain anything so you need the empirical evidence to filter out the imaginary explanations and show your explanation is actually okay so we have had empirical basis for things like delusions and misconceptions and fabrications all of those have an implicit empirical basis you know they happen all the time rising to people rising from the dead don't happen all the time we have no empirical basis for that there's no reason to believe that isn't just an imaginary if it happened all the time I wouldn't believe in it either now this is so so we have the claim of the eyewitnesses that there was an empty tomb you you're accounting for that is delusion there's again infinitely many ways to account for it why I know I was like you know that I'm African that's how you I don't need to account for anything I don't need to California you need to show that your explanation is better than the infinitely many other imaginary actually I'm just saying there are infinite other imaginary it doesn't have to be a better just truer but you would have to justify it in some way to show it it's better because you can't just assume it's true because we can assume any of them assume the leprechauns okay so well so I might I think it might be good to come back to this actually but but there's three more I think on the table that you wanted to to take down well there is just the morality was the last one I think for example we show the subjective system the body know the operations of things without a will so this might be also come connected to the to the observational things with motion and cause but we have we have the operations of things that do not have will that seem to be arranged in such a way to support the flourishing of human life for example in arguments yeah if I know we can all be expected by I don't think it's the same as the fine-tuning argument I think it's probably pretty close I mean would the fine-tuning argument be that the universe is calibrated in such a way that we're alive yep is that that's the finetuner I think this is slightly different I think you would be something like that we we see actually in the actions of things like the the rotation of the earth or sorry the the moving of the Sun around the Flat Earth is that what I was supposed to say to get ass bandha or the the even the motion of the stars the activity of the the the but both in the universe and in and in creation the the way that food for example is digested or whatever that all of these things seem to act without their own will in service to humanity so I it could be close to the fine-tuning argument so I suppose take it up with that idea yeah for me those are just different versions of the same kind of argument okay from I understand so from my understanding the fine-tuning can be explained just by natural physical forces like all the things happen the way they do because of laws of nature there's no interaction at all there's no reason even believe there is interaction they can all be explained equally by just undiscovered laws that happen this way as opposed to just our minds so both can explain I thank you for that by the way I think it's amazing how hmmm I think it's a it's amazing how two people can see the same thing so differently I mean I know anything that the supernatural can do unknown natural things can also do anything that accept for your sins okay third the right and wrong argument which is the your this is your wheelhouse the conscience argument right so we can have an objective system of morality independent of ISM grounded in naturalistic pantheism is just an undiscovered law of nature we can still have objective morality without a guy wait wait that's so say that slower I got to write this down I love it so we can have an objective morality without a god instead of being grounded in the nature of a ism it could be grounded in the nature of naturalistic pantheism as an undiscovered law of nature and I grab ya naturalistic pantheism as an undiscovered law that reminds me I mean do you know how close you come to st. Paul in Athens you remember this part in the book of Acts where Paul's walking around Athens and and they had a statue up there and it said to the unknown God because there's to be something unknown okay you all right so in conclusion all of the auger mystery all of the argument you presented can equally be explained by naturalistic pantheism as they can be ISM so your all your arguments are kind of like the two pounds of the box the fact the box weighs two pounds isn't indicative of a rabbit also be explained by a coffee so none of that none of the things you've presented are in fact evidence of a god they're just evidence of here stuff we don't know and here's one possible explanation of the stuff we don't know and I can just present a different explanation of the stuff we do now I I think this is fun but at some point we got to get serious about it because so if naturalistic pantheism can explain this then then you ought to be a naturalistic pantheist no not necessarily for example a good he there's this thing in philosophy called the principle of explosion it said from falsehood anything follows so if you have a false argument like I said the square root of a pork chop proves God does not exist that's just a false argument has nothing to do there's no connection between the premise and the conclusion but you could then come back and say the square root of pork chop does prove that God exists or something because that equally does not indicate either of those what works for it works equally as evidence for both conclusion so from a falsehood anything follow so I can if your arguments are false I can use them to indicate pantheism because they're false so I'm not actually granting your arguments I'm just showing that your arguments can indicate multiple versions therefore they don't indicate now it could be that some of them are underdetermined which is less offically they work but they just don't indicate a God or it could be that they're false which case they indicate multiple conclusions and don't yeah but so but okay so look so the if i if I'm saying Tom and you and again this is very very helpful for me if I say here's the argument and you end and you say well that argument the conclusion of that argument could be that there's a god or it could be an external necessary all-powerful natural nature pan not theist so that also could be the conclusion so the argument is not valid in arguing that there's God because the there is another option there and yet you you are telling me that that you're not a natural pantheist that you that's you're an atheist what at some point it this simply becomes an exercise in rhetoric I mean I'm actually genuinely interested I mean so it might be fine I guess what I'm saying is it might be fine for a debate to say well my conclusions also teach a natural pantheism but that does not convince you I've made an argument for God or natural pantheism and yet that that has not convinced you to to be that so what I'm interested then in is how do you get from from say the ontological argument to atheism right so there's more than two options here I'm just presenting naturalistic pantheism is one of the alternatives there could also be deism with the God impersonal God polytheism with many gods or trans theism where there's something above a cop or Amon is amour just many different religions are true or he know theism where you adopt one religion as opposed to a bunch of different options or pan psyche is and where consciousness is fundamental or we're all in the matrix or some kind of delusion in theory there's infinitely many ways to explain this I'm just one that's opposed to a god so the reason okay that's not way tears that's fine look that's fine but but none of those options where atheism were they well here's the thing if I if here's something we don't know we don't know what is in the box it could be a rabbit it could be a coffee mug it could be a hammer the reasonable conclusion is to say we don't know what's in the box so stop saying we stop saying you think you know what's in the box that's the reasonable conclusion so if you say you know that there's a rabbit in the box the way I can prove you wrong is just show all of your evidence works for all of these different other conclusions or any one of what but your what you would want to then say is because there's not a rabbit in the box there's nothing in the box which does not follow no as I said in my introduction I define atheism as the position there is the positive position there is no reason to believe in the god that's how I define it ah interesting okay so I'm sorry that I missed that because I would have thought that atheism means that you don't believe that there is a God but what you're saying is you don't believe that there's a reason for God wouldn't that be like a reason theism I'm gonna go with my definition I'm just gonna stick to it so just please adopt ahead for the purpose of the are just that's my position well that is it okay well that is really fascinating okay so now what do we do well anything that you think you could counter my argument or show it indicates a God as opposed to pantheism or have any evidence that indicates a god that would be rebuttal of some kind well I mean I so I think I began at the beginning by saying and um and I I would say we're if you remember that I talked about the revealed knowledge of God versus the natural knowledge of God I don't think I said this that the conclusion and this is again according to the old theologians the conclusion of the natural knowledge of God is that the God that God is big and good and mad so that the these are the attributes that we can that we attain to there and I don't in some ways I don't think that you actually disagree with me on that there the the old Lutheran theologians say specifically that the personhood of God cannot be known from nature but only the being of God that according to nature there is nothing to believe because God does not speak and belief or faith is a matter of trusting in words or assertions so that the that the natural knowledge of God is an obscure knowledge of God that there is something that is eternal that there is some that there is an order to the world and something that ordered it and there is also a knowledge that we have that we are out of alignment with this with this ordering of the world that is that sense of conscience and in some ways call it what you will I think I heard in all of your and all the things that that those attributes that you would concede and in one way or another that those that there is something that fits those attributes it could be nature itself it could be the the universe there is something that's external and necessary and even all-powerful there is an awareness of right and wrong and of our own transgression of that standard it's just you're saying I think that all those things exist I just don't want to call it God it might am i hearing you right I would grant there has to be something that's necessary it could be eternal it could be all-powerful it could be a multiverse or infinite regress of universes or a cyclic universe be many different things I grant that there has to be a necessary thing it's debatable morality is debatable we can say it doesn't exist it does exist objectively but I'm just granting that for the sake of the yoga so I do grant that there has to be a necessary thing and if you're willing to grant that all of these natural arguments don't indicate personhood and that would mean that none of them indicate a God right as they could work for just like the Box arriving the box oh yeah okay would you grant that so if it doesn't those Arden I think so I I will I will grant that none of the arguments would conclude in the personhood of God right yeah I don't I don't think I'd easy working then I would have I would have assumed it so let me rephrase that so none of those indicate theism and also be explained by pantheism or any of those other all right well I suppose we're just talking about definitions now all those are those arguments can conclude that there is a that there is a X and eternal necessary all-powerful right a force that in fact is explained by what's good and what's right and so that I'm gonna I can't agree with the morality part not gonna Grantham or oh so so but I go to the morality part because you you wrote the book on the ethics thing right or the something on the ethics and and i'm and i'm i actually i want to hear what what do you think about that because I think the morality argument the argument of conscience which st. Paul says for example in Romans chapter two that the that the heathen has a conscience that either accuses or excuses that all of us have a sense of of right and wrong and that that is testimony of of a judge or of a judgment at least so I think that's a that would be a strong argument in my thing so I'm not sure how I conceded it but I do want to hear what your alternative is how we get to an understanding of right and wrong apart from God so I can grant that that exists objectively and it's just an undiscovered law of nature kind of like gravity and interactions right like gravity interaction bodies now my personal viewpoint is that is not the case there's not something I believe that is just a counter-argument that we can't explain morality independently if ago I am interested in what you believe well I just just just want to go back so all the argument you listed none of those indicate theism they can indicate just the eternal all-powerful nature right all of the natural arguments would you grant well I would say that if something is is a necessary it's you're gonna we're gonna get into a just we're gonna get into a logo Maki about nature and God here because I think I would want to say that if something something is for example eternal it an attribute that does not belong to those things that are natural so that so I don't but so so if we could if you could just take out nature I'll go with you for the sake of the conversation that there is something like an for me or in orful why can't there be an undiscovered natural thing with it's because it okay let me say let me think about this question here why can't there be an undiscovered natural thing that is eternal because that is that defies implicit empirical evidence I mean so all of the is I mean everything that we know of nature is degrading it just it's so it seems like that's a one of the attributes of things that are natural so let me cut one count of that first thing energy can never be created or destroyed so that is incorrect there are the usable energy is degrading the energy is not degrading energy is eternal by the laws of physics secondly the law second law of thermodynamics and entropy only applies closed systems we don't know the universe is a closed system so that doesn't apply to all the physics only applies to certain conditions of the known physics and there are many theories of things that are eternal in physics like multi-universe Nima Riccardi Hammad says that there can be a space and time itself can emerge from a more fundamental natural thing we just haven't discovered yet there are multiple dimensions of physics theories like it talked bars to time physics Stephen Hawking imaginary imaginary time which is an extra dimension of time there's all kinds of things in physics that the eternal independence of the second law of thermodynamics oh we only know that the energy the usable energy decreases we don't know we don't believe that energy can be destroyed ever we think it cannot be so that would not be an accurate description of the natural I know all about that tons about it I imagine every time by the way is what I feel like when I'm on this show now how does the undiscovered so here when are we able to admit the undiscovered things into the argument in other words when we're talking about the history of the resurrection could it be that that God being in our flesh dying on the cross for us and then being resurrected is simply an undiscovered law yes okay okay so now so now but to your point I mean I know you want me to concede all these things I think I've conceded them all because I want to hear what you think about the ethics thing I want to hear I mean fine it could be that morale the absolute morality is an undiscovered thing but that's not what you think so what do you actually think about that all right so so I just just want to clarify this so you grant that none of those arguments indicate he is amazed in the personal guy they could indicate yes yes all right the Thea's my man's personal God yes all right so my personal view on morality is that morality is an emergent property for example the Sun exists the Sun objectively exists Sun is not definitive part of the universe it's an emergent property of hydrogen just big clump of hydrogen that's massed together due to gravity but it still objectively exists even though it's an emergent property mine's I believe are also emergent properties like the Sun they're just big of matter that interact in a certain morality is an emergent property of those my so it can still be objective and emergent out of being some fundamental part of the nature but there's lots of different Minds yes I think I still be one like pinnacle of the best of all possible worlds that is my how do they were of my war with E is the definition of the best of all possible worlds which is kind of like a platonic abstract we can define the perfect triangle even though we can never draw a perfect right we can still define what the angle is and we can use that advocates idea of no now okay so so for example Dean thank you to get as close as possible as we can in this world and so we're using the idea of the best of all possible worlds closer to that extreme Oh so that would include then if I'm just tracking with you that would include that each one of our moralities would be insufficient compared to the capital in morality because the sum of all the greatest then each part would be in one way insufficient is that is that would that be the case so that my own morality or sense of it or whatever would would stand in contradiction to the thing which is objection objection or absolute morality correct my definition of the absolute morality is any involuntary imposition of will is immoral wait wait am I say that again that sounds like Kant it wasn't different Kant's categorical comparative is not quite the same but I don't technical so so my view is that any involuntary imposition of will is immoral and this is due to the fact that it moves us farther away from the best of all possible world and if we give people the most freedom they can that moves us closer to the best of all possible well what if someone what if someone uses their freedom to do something stupid that's immoral or if they do to like they hurt somebody that's the more your freaky stupid as much as you want because that moves us away from the best of all possible worlds well how do you know what's the best of all possible worlds the definition by my standard well I use same evidence that is used so I would say that due to our moral intuitions and moral progress we can use these and like put them on on a plot line and then draw the line out and say well that's the best of all possible worlds at the end of the plow but who do you use for the points like you would exclude probably like racists and Nazis right you don't let them be part of the plot they are definitely part of everyone's a part of them I use moral intuition and moral progress all cases everywhere in the world so and I my my big definition would essentially be the best of all possible worlds is one where everybody gets their own universe you can do whatever you want with it and you you can't ever force anyone else to do something they don't consider in other words your your your God no because I can't force anybody else to do something that don't consider okay your God by yourself right I'm like someone in a video that's like that's like that no that's amazing like the best of all possible worlds is like playing fortnight by myself it's still fun if you're playing by you no no you can you can go to other people can invite you to their worlds you can join their worlds or you can join communal worlds just I like it maybe any of you okay there's a multiplayer setting just like in any video game you go to a world exactly like this one if you want to so but how do you know that it's getting better and not getting worse like how do you know that the moral progress is in fact progress what do you judge it could be we could be morally flatlining or we could be morally declining is it just by definition because it's changing it's getting better how do you know it how do you answer that I don't think that they're I think they're that God says what's good and bad right so I would just say that the best of all possible worlds says was good what so uh they say so high so walk me through that give me the dumb guy explanation so you have arbitrarily stated that God is the standard of goodness just completely ad-hoc and I'm just kidding nope I'm gonna go with the God the best of all possible worlds instead that's what my definition objective is different than yours yes I'm just wondering what it has reference to like because the because regret if morality is progressing it's it's okay so we know morality is changing right I mean just I don't know picking it what's your favorite example of changing morality and pick up like a meat and thing to get after the Bible like we don't have slaves anymore or something or would that be a slavery women's rights gay rights any of those things okay so picks so let's take the slavery argument and so it's better to not have slaves than it is to have slaves what but this is my like why like if we if you went to for example Tijuana where they have all these I mean this they're trafficking and all these sex slaves and they would that that would plot into your morality and why would you how could you say that that is worse than the places where they don't have slavery because any involuntary imposition of will is by definition slavery and by definition immoral or anything that involuntarily imposes on someone's will is immoral my definition that's just what the definition is how do you get to detectors right so what if I said world what if I well I I'm gonna have to so it seems like the argument that I would really have needed to made make for you is it there that there's no such thing as the best of all possible worlds it's an abstract it doesn't actually exist there's no perfect triangle apparently doesn't exist I mean this is so I mean how many in do you say here's the here's how I get my objection objective morality as I compare progressive morality to the best of all possible worlds but by the way the best of all possible worlds doesn't actually exist it's it's an abstract like the perfect triangle doesn't exist not draw a perfect triangle it's not possible because if we zoom in with an electron microscope the electrons are going in a big bubble shape you can't get a perfectly straight line we can use the abstract idea of a perfect triangle which doesn't exist to draw something as close as possible even our pragmatic limitations so we can use the abstract idea of the best of all possible worlds exist to get as close to possible given our pragmatic limitations okay got it I would I was on I think when I was on this thing last time getting shocked by another atheist he was the argument was he he was just a pure determinist if I remember and Steve you can correct me and he just came to say that there is no morality I mean you can't have an objective morality at all and I thought that and and he was arguing that way and I thought his argument was conclusive i I mean I agreed with his argument if you started with the idea that there is no God that there is no prime mover even that you did and that everything is natural that all we all we know is the closed system of the universe you cannot get to morality how it but if you were how would you have argued against that I would just say that's an argument it's fact that you can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't exist it just means we don't know it yet so it could always be out there I just haven't discovered it you can never say I think handle when it came you can only say that we don't know how it could be okay got it very good well hey I appreciate Tom I mean I appreciate your putting that out there for me I mean because this it is a thing that it's a Curia it's a curiosity to me that whenever whenever I'm talking to atheists they're always always talking about morality I mean it seems like to be the question constantly is how can how can you be good without God and at some point I just wonder oh yeah you know what's what's going on there it seems like a it seems like an obsession for the converse so well it's actually the majority of philosophers believe in more moral realists even though the majority of philosophers are in fact atheist they are also moral realists so most people believe in moral realism even though they don't believe in the God it's a very strange belief that yes have that you can only have an objective morality with a God that isn't really shared in the field well it is I mean you you admitted that it's a different view of objective writes the top down Kim from some magic eye in the sky objective isn't really meaningful philosophy good thing I'm not a philosopher I wouldn't have much to say did we I I don't know how we're doing on time here um we were putting our mark well what does that mean we have what's up to you guys how long do you want to go I know Tom doesn't any plans tonight I don't want to keep you too long usually we got about 90 minutes minimum I'm sure that people want to ask some questions we have a lot of people going nuts the live chat I have my own questions I asked we have the super chance to go with so I know my is great in loving this discussion this is fantastic you brought up you said there was the internal evidence of God oh it's something some like in Nate knowledge that he gives us about himself ye I appreciate how you say himself yes right would you like to we haven't gone through that yet would you like to present that yeah it's um it is that that humanity I don't so I'll admit that I don't that I think this is my favorite argument but it's the one that I understand the least but it is that humanity shows evidence of being designed not only to know God but also to worship God and so Cicero said you know the old pagan Cicero he said that there's never been a culture so so foolish as to not have a form of worship so that this the the the almost universal fact of the religious nature both of man and of culture I think factors in there somewhere has a hint that there is that the fact that we do worship stands as evidence that there is something that ought to be worshipped is the fact that we see optical illusions evidence that the optical illusions actually exist in the world the fact that we see optical illusions evidence that there are optical illusions yeah I mean like it if we see an optical illusion is that evidence that the absolution is actually moving or is it just a figment of our imagination oh I see oh yeah your eyes lied to you all the time yes so why would the case that we believe in God be any different than just one of the infinitely many optical illusions I'm saying that so the the argument would not be that people see God but rather the that the majority of humanity from all history by every account demonstrates that humanity worships God so it's it which points to an evidence that we are designed or created or somehow have the instinct to to worship people are worshipping people there's very few as frustrating as it must be there's just very few atheists and I always think that there should be more there's like hardly any of you guys around I mean I may be they're all hanging around here but this just it's it's gotta be you know Christians talk about how the church is shrinking and there's no Christians but I mean it's got to be very frustrating to be an atheist cuz there's you're looking around and everybody believes in something you know even people who say there is it didn't help it when were persecuted and killed a lot but so so your argument is is that most people believe in the God therefore this is indicative but there is something there that we should be looking for and I'm saying that is an argument to mad populum a bandwagon fun fact that lots of people do this is not indicate that it is indicative of some existing thing I can show every living human being who has eyesight picture of an optical illusion they will all see it moving that isn't evidence that there is actually something there that is in fact moving I can show every human being a physical object and they'll think it's a solid object but in fact 90% of it is empty space between the electrons and the nucleus if you hold a metal object in a plastic object every human being has since experience will feel that the metal object is colder when in fact they're both room-temperature our intuitions are not indicative of something existing in the world they're just stuff in our heads so you would have to show that this this feeling the same tuition we have is in fact indicative of something in the world and not just one of those things in our heads do you have a reason to believe that isn't one of those things in their heads we know there are lots and lots of examples of how does that can you did with that argument not applied directly to your discussion of moral progress or moral intuition not be true that all of us have a sense of right and wrong and yet we are simply deluded about that correct we could so so so then how can you assert an objective morality based on our moral intuition it's an abstract it's like saying there's an abstract triangle out there it's not something that exists physically in the world so I'm not arguing the same kind of urinal I'm not I'm arguing now not against your objective sorry not I'm arguing now not against your objective morality I misspoke I'm arguing about your understanding of moral progress how can we how can we say anything trustworthy or true about a moral progress that would be measured against the moral objectivity if the if the common experience of of all of humanity could just as easily be delusion I'm saying that if it's an emergent property of the mind that makes it objected so the fact that we all have illusions and delusions is objective objective fact what if I just call it a morality group what if I just called worship and emergent property of the conscience have you totally fine I'm totally agree with that but it's only a problem if you say that there is something that exists in the world that we are in fact worshipping as opposed to just being something okay so so going back to my question was do you have any reason to believe that our the intuition and the fact that most people believe in the God is in fact indicative of an existing God rather than just something you have any reason to believe that evidence I mean I suppose only seeing like the existence of a plug in the wall would indicate a like will indicate electricity so it's a reciprocity that that seems odd if there is no explanation for it but but I don't know well I'll can but I'll concede my point if if you I think you conceded your point just fine so I mean I think that I think we're okay on that I mean I think we might be that I'll say that my argument is it might point in the direction of it might it might give a strong indication that there's something to be looked for when every when all of culture are looking for God it might be an indication that we should look the same direction but just because everyone's look in the same direction doesn't mean that they're seeing something but it I'll say that we should ought to look that way and we ought not to dismiss it and I think that's what you would say about this some progress we should we should always look for everything do all kinds of experiments but until we actually have a positive reason to indicate it exists and there's no reason to indicate it exists and as far as I can tell there's no reason to indicate that a God exists we have reason to believe that belief in God exists we've no reason to believe that the God exists or really to come back to the definition that you wanted there's there's no reason to believe that a reason for God exists before you get to the existence of God you don't that's the reasons so okay yes you need an easy leaving the gun yeah I think there's a couple of different things to unpack here I don't think Tom is arguing that people don't have reasons why they believe in God I mean clearly they have reasons he he can argue they're not good reasons but I don't think Tom you're saying that people don't have the reasons to why they believe it they have to have something that could has convinced them that God exists those would be their reasons right so those reasons do exist right I'm saying that those reasons don't actually indicate a God they have reasons they've made up the most reasons indicate God right and that's the argument to be had I mean do these do these arguments actually indicate that their God is there some you basically evaluating the fact of the matter is God exist you're evaluating this you're taking a judgment on it right and you're thinking that the Reverend here arguments not very convincing obviously because if they were convincing you would be a theist there's a couple of different things that I almost got the guy to be a naturalistic pantheist he's getting closer yeah we're gonna ask about that so let me let me kind of ask few questions because just just to clarify I am NOT I don't care whether or not God exists or not my point my point is just melodical I'm saying that none of the reasons he presented indicate on any level of degree of certainty with exactly 0% indication of a God there's nothing that indicates of God oh yeah no I definitely grew at that I wouldn't I would go even further saying that no those arguments are really not convinced and even get me halfway okay I know 0% 0/0 way through a way to anything exactly zero you guys you're just piling on you know and here I'm a defender of defending I wouldn't say zero because these are positive arguments that people can't evaluate and if they think that they're convincing if they think there are strong arguments then it's going to move that needle toward bleep right anyway listen let's use for sake of the argument that anything over 50% you're gonna believe you're convinced okay cuz we're gonna make it into a dichotomy there so when people hear these rational arguments right and they hear reasoned argumentation they're not evidential right there not being presented here's the experiment we're gonna test for God because science cannot do that one of things that really bugs me is when a theist says hey list of Isaac experiment and test of God exists well now let's sigh says has distanced themselves from that claim for a reason right that's why it holds the methodological naturalism it's not the right tool for the job well it's that we're you know what's maximalism what was that it methodological naturalism okay just a logical minute resume is the guiding principle of science that there is no supernatural causations two natural events so if it wants to find an explanation to a phenomenon it's not gonna posit thing like leprechauns it's not gonna say hey list you know what listen listen if it's going to be leprechauns and let's test for that it just it eliminates all that off the bat and then it actually says that's gonna not examine that's not exactly what Hannah finds out knows civil predictions if you can make testable predictions with supernatural things and supernatural things can be demonstrated to exist if they don't exist no I definitely show that it's I disagree I can only falsify them you can somebody says look and I can't falsify it's impossible that's not true if I have a Sweeting yet well let me find you if we being statue of Jesus right there's water coming out of the bottom I could test for that to see if there's a natural cause which was sewer lines one time the claim that was a supernatural causation was falsified the difference is science can never ever validate that it actually is a supernatural causation that's methodological nurse you're super your sewer lines made Jesus cry yeah there's a it wasn't in Mexico that they said water coming off the toes of Jesus and they were drinking it think it was you know like some kind of miracle holy water and they found out I was actually ruptured sewer lying not making this up this is a true story that sounds a lot like the weeping trees of that weeping trees stories I forget where these trees are at but apparently there's these worms that live in the tree and the worms have some kind of excretion and so basically the worms are peeing on them and that's the tears of you're talking about the blood work you're talking about the red the tears of God is what they call it and okay because there's a tree laughs actually it actually does nut right right they're not worms I know what you're talking about David it's actually a tree louse and there's a guy back when what's his name trait what's a tre somebody remind me betray video or make sure sure okay so this lets know if you can't well can't also find supernatural causes you can say you may have a natural explanation a natural explanation could have been caused by supernatural you can never falsify anything with it only falsify something within the framework talking within the framework but if we're positing something to be the case right is to have the proposition water from Jesus's feet is coming from God I'd have a natural explanation I would consider that to be a falsified proposition and they can just come back and say well know that natural explanation was in fact that would be you'd only be able to that's your explanation only applies how you just really vote yes that's right you can always use ad hoc reasoning to always escape all safai ability you can't ever really diversify any so I think you can always great you can falsify mp2 me working on one of the one of the conditions for example popper would say that if we wanted to falsify a scientific theory we need to demonstrate to the scientific theories and correct in some means right so if I have a sudden I had some kind of observation that gravity stopped working right things were flying off the the earth and anything that we predicted wouldn't actually happen Rockets would not go into space I throw a basketball instead of one of the hoop it just goes into orbit around Mars things like that would would tend to falsify the theory of gravity right and that's that's why sounds well that's why science is very powerful because popper included that scientific falsification criteria now you don't have to have it some people some scientists don't but there's verification ISM and the opposite that is a falsification ISM now I don't accept verification as I'm only for the fact I think it's self refuting but it is a kind of a standard thing in science for a methodological approach that super that that propositions including supernatural causations can't be falsified because what you're saying tom is yes you're right I agree with you that they could say okay this but all they're doing is coming up with a completely different proposition that you can test it doesn't mean that the initial proposition was not false applied does that make sense right you can falsify a precise model has to be precise I would think that most of all is precise I so move it I want something other stuff the people were talking about real quick I do disagree about you what you said about the second law of thermodynamics the universe is considered to be an isolated system it's not closed by the way is there's open observable you nice these are I well I'm gonna talk about the universe of the whole the entire universe is an isolated system as we treat it as such the second laughter NL says that nothing in physics ever dos are you okay why disagrees try to remedy universe with your man yeah live we have Lawrence Krauss on tomorrow so asking this question but the second law of thermodynamics states that the entire net summation of entropy in the universe must always increase and I do agree with you that the entropy is the unusable amount of energy in a system right basically as I mean you get into microstates and and other things and entropy equals what is it k KL n Omega so Boltzmann constant times of the states natural logarithm of Omega or W but basically it's just the unusable energy system that is because we treat the universe as the only isolated system there is that's that's why it works in a way that it does because we're comparing it to what we know to be nice well we believe to be an isolated system where there is or not we treat it as an isolated system that what that means is there's no energy mass or information that goes across the boundaries of the system so in an open system there's a free experience and a clean and physics never refer to the universe as everything doesn't happen all science is it never it never refers to everything that's why there's things like the multiverse there's many universes it's not the universe okay well yes but I I'm telling you I mean are you I'm I'm pretty well certain on this the universe is treated as the as an isolated system with respect to the known universe only the known universe is a rolling that yeah no nothing in science can ever say that science is tentative a provisional never absolute nothing in science okay then III think of reality is one one one thing reality includes all possible worlds as well this is when we say the word reality in in in philosophy that is everything that is everything that could possibly exist as well now let guess we're talking about possible worlds this would be the when Lebanon leaving its would argue the the actualized version of the best of all possible worlds this is what God created now there are other possible worlds right anything that is logically possible must exist in at least one possible world a modal realist would actually say those are real worlds but immortal anti-realists would say that they're not correct yes okay so this particular world the question which should have been I think and and and Tom maybe you can address this because it is in your alley if this is the new universe a world that God created that he actualized and of all possible worlds he could have what was the reason why this was the particular actualization what reason did God have because that that's the question that related to be asked because we can't answer it it doesn't explain anything you can always make up an explanation it's not hard he has granted yeah that's ad-hoc but I agree with it but I'm posing it to the rep because when you want to be know it's possible to you because you're making an objective argument you're saying the most likely explanation for what we're observing is a god now I will grant that a metaphysical possibility is possible quiet granted oh that's I mean you can even say that sure you can call it God although there are other possibilities it could be a contingent being that exists or just be an infinite regress who knows but the answer the question of why it is better to have an objective argument that is a god of that you're positing you have to be able to kind of explain why he created this actualized world over all others um that I I would suggest that that knowledge does not come from nature but from Revelation and the answer is Steve it's because and Tom you too and I suppose for our listeners it's because Jesus wanted to die for your sins I mean but but it you can't get there through nature you just like it said that actually yeah I'm glad you said it the reason why I've said I thought so we were talking I was looking at some of the live channel I was graying you were argument from the book of nature and we're kind of wondering where you're getting some of your your positions from as far as you know what you're positing and I was saying that I think the only way you could get them was from what you would be considered revelation you cannot get them a posture Rory so that's not from the book of nature that'd be from the book of revelations or the Bible for the for all practical scripture okay so that would be revelation so you have to then go well what is about the revelation that I'm trusting to be the case that God had a reason why he created this world but I don't have any access to that I missed and logically blocked from ever knowing I think what if God exists why he created this world and that doesn't explain anything then it's gonna make an abductive argument this is the best explanation you need to give an explanation not just the bare possibility of what could be I can get you can give I mean I think Tom would say you can give plenty of explanations I mean there's just be lots of ways to explain it I would explain it so I would say that number one the expectation that the purpose of creation would be or the purpose of existence would be discernible through nature is I'm not sure that that is an assumption that you would grant to argue from but I would go on to say that just I mean my own understanding would be that the fall the fall of humanity affected not only our our moral capacity but also our rational capacity so that so that every epistemology is gonna is gonna eventually end up banging its head against the wall because there's a we actually lacked the capacity for pure reason so that the the reason we can't get to the reason for creation even if it was gettable to through nature I wouldn't I don't think I would believe that you of necessity could get there and I would in fact say that you couldn't but again that's that's arguing from from revelation not from nature that's not a philosophic I get you're a knight but I think that again that's that's something that is an entirely different argument to begin with if you're gonna find some revelation yeah okay so Tom I'm going back to another things we're talking about the whole naturalistic pantheism now I don't see a distinguishment between naturalistic pantheism and naturalism I do me it's godless Spinoza's God we've got to the Philosopher's it's just I I call it a sex up version of atheism I don't see a difference do you have a a distinction when you say okay I have a naturalistic view then I have a naturalistic pantheistic view what is the deciding difference between them where you can make them in two distinct different categories one's methodological one's kind of physical naturalistic pantheism is a positive claim that the new universe or the nature is all there is whereas I'm a methodological atheist I just say there's no evidence for say that the world this is altering it always could be a guy so my atheism is simply that we don't know anything about the fundamental nature of reality and so I can't say it's the pantheism just like the piers can't say it's either of those are supported I'm still not seeing a distinction though because for I'm not even going to the realm match of ATS I'm going to talk about naturalism right so naturalism is the approach that all they exist is natural right there is no such metaphysical ISM I would be a methodological nationalist okay okay so so you're right I mean this is another physical or ontological naturalism but the methodological Netzarim is a method it is part of the scientific method it's a constraint that the scientific method has right if you don't have to be an atheist if you're if you're methodological nature with naturalist you can be a theist you cannot be a physical naturalist and be if atheist correct yes okay so unless you we're on this physical I think Tom you it you're a methodological atheist I mean that's the point you're not a metaphysically you're a you're a methodological atheist yep I think I said that while you were standing up yeah no no he did say that he did say that but I'm still understanding the distinction between the methyl via just naturalism and naturalistic pantheism I I don't see any defining difference even where you're stating it because if you 80s it was not mythological I mean it's not an approach that science takes a science of the start and going I'm gonna assume atheism is the case and then go from there it doesn't even address anything with atheism so atheism in naturalism are distinct things in that regard now there are some evidence we had that the word atheism was used to talk about naturally just but just jump it all all roses or flowers not all flowers or roses naturalistic pantheism would be a kind of naturalism it's not specifically all kinds of Nationals it was just one particular kind so it's kintyre definitely compatible okay what yes it would be ontological metaphysical naturalism of the same thing so naturalistic pantheism would be a form of natural of ontological or metaphysical naturalism it's one particular form of okay so methyl I do agree methodological not too logical naturals I'm exactly the same so what's the distinction between pantheism now naturalistic pantheism it's one particular form of naturalism right but what's the decide what makes it distinct from the other ones no I'm asking okay you can have natural savantism you could have the multiverse theory you could have the cyclic University or you could have all kinds of different things particular ones where this theory as opposed to this theory I guess what I'm saying I'm saying okay let me try explain this way I have I have something I want to put into a category I can even put in an ontological naturalism or I can put it into naturalistic pantheism example the notion that God don't exist that's automatically going to go into metaphysical naturalism right so what's all all roses or flowers all roses or flowers no matter what category Rose I get that I get you're just making a arbitrary distinction I get to set is just like Oh a theist lack of belief but not all who lack ibly for atheists I understand the distinction the converse doesn't necessary have to hold true to if you if you say P implies Q it doesn't mean Q implies P right so if I was to say to somebody hey grab this is natural natural pantheism as opposed to ontological a naturalism this is a subclass of that what makes it a subclass is what I'm asking ya if what he says hey written and the dumbing see you get your interest in you could be a naturalist and just reject naturalistic pantheism and say i just don't believe in that kind of naturalism i don't know what that means to reject it i don't like but that's that's what i'm confused if I'm rejecting naturalism pantheon's and what am i rejecting you could reject any part of it you want you could just redefine and say natural I don't know what like I said objective morality is super law of nature objective morality could be a super law of nature you can just reject that and saying morality doesn't exist so I don't exist that kind of national Spence but I kind of nationalism it doesn't make a difference you could say you could say both are the same thing if you want it doesn't make a difference has zero value to the conversation I still confusing it makes it makes no difference you can say that the same thing it makes no difference it doesn't matter doesn't matter to any of the points in the conversation at all go for say they're the same thing wherever you're saying I think that I mean it seemed like the reason why the pantheism came in there is to account for the existence of something that has the attributes of eternality necessity and and omnipotence which I don't think you get to that if you just have a naturalism apart from pantheism would that would that be the case yeah so I'm just calling those things natural I'm labeling them natural but most naturalist would not do that they would reject all of those different things and say these are not natural these are supernatural properties mm-hmm maybe I mean look at it like Spinoza God he just wants to call everything that exists a god you know it's not what we can typically consider to be a supernatural thing right I mean they're not positing when Michio Kaku says mathematics and physics is God it's not positing it in a supernatural way he's saying that there's a elegance there there's a beauty that's found in the elegance of mathematics and I'm not let me put it this way let me try to put it this way if I said there is a God and this God is a natural thing it's like a natural being there's a super powerful natural being out there but I'm still a naturalist I mean as most natural should probably reject that like they say God can't be natural it doesn't make any sense so that's essentially the kind of thing I'm saying with naturalistic pantheism there is these properties that are normally attributed to a God and I'm calling them natural I'm saying they could just be undiscovered natural things most naturist would probably reject that so they would probably not agree with what I'm defining as naturalistic pantheism they're just going to say there's going to be the medical nationals I'm following that but my counter would be Lissa I have a pencil two pencils right and they're identical in every single way but one of them is a god the other ones not what is it what is it there has to be them some distinguishing feature that makes one I'm gonna call God and the other one not other than just semantics right I'm saying they're not identical I'm granting that these properties attribute to a God exists these things exist you mean like a powerful powerful eternal necessary this is a property that's not natural I'm just defining them as I'm defining the natural and saying they contain all of my word right I get what you're saying you're right I don't think anybody would say that's natural and then I think right Yeah right okay so I'm specific saying there is this thing that has the properties of God that exists as a part of naturalistic pantheism so so what would God what God if God is all-powerful and God can change the laws of the universe and he's prescriptive that's not supernatural to you well what do you mean I'm not following so again I'm just saying I'm taking some of the properties that theists attribute to a god and saying these can be explained by undiscovered natural properties I'm still coming out the conscious there's no conscious personhood any of that stuff I forget the consciousness I mean I don't have to her about intentionality but if I have a being that can whatever reason whether it's intentional states or not or just you know it's pure act or whatever it is he can change the fundamental laws of the universe so that laws of physics no longer apply or have changed or changed constants would you call that a supernatural being in your in your paradigm here no no okay I know you well enough to answer there can be a universe in the computer program and I can have the powers to manipulate all the stuff in the computer program that doesn't make me supernatural well it is beyond the natural though I mean if somebody's manipulating our universe in reality I'm okay with with calling that some kind of supernatural could it is beyond the natural it you know it's just beyond our universe right but that's but what do you then I think it means loses all meaning to say what's natural there at that point you know that's right the definition of natural supernatural ours are totally ambiguous they're not really meaningful in philosophy no I and I grab that and I usually have people themselves gotta tell me what they mean by those two terms and I do agree with you on that they are very very vague I think it's very difficult to say okay you you obviously have a natural set and you have a non natural set but what distinguish what's gonna go in the non natural set yeah it makes it very hard to answer that question I I don't know what I would further non-natural said except that there's certain things that if I was hard pressed to say prescriptively changing the law of the universe I'm going to put in that supernatural set or non natural set if you want to use those synonymously personally but I agree with you that's right yeah I'm taking advantage of that in saying that we don't really have a our concrete definition that separates the natural from the supernatural so anything the theist says is this supernatural thing well I can just say nope that can be explained by some natural thing because you don't have that concrete definition instead of trying to get theists to give a concrete definition which is essentially impossible I can just say I can just adopt those things and explain them naturally so I think that you know I get that but I think what you fail on that is that Rev and I'm gonna speak forever quick and he can tell me if he asserts it to be the case or not or just go along with it cuz Steve said it it's cool but I think whoever's really making the argument that here lookit here's all these reasons why I believe there's a god here's all these abductive you make an objective argument right he's saying that I believe it is the case that God is the most likely explanation because of these things and that's not a semantic argument that's induction that is a probabilistic argument you the most inference that he has based about his experience his prior knowledge right that's why we all have different conclusions right what I think is an abductive argument that's good he may not right example I usually the example if I'm upstairs and you know my daughter when she was young if I was sudden I hear crying and I smell smoke right a good abductor argument would be that there might be a fire downstairs right because based upon prior observations I know smoke does that and my daughter's crying right so I'm thinking you know I need to get down there in a hurry this is a state you know something that father would do right but come to find out she just needs her diaper changed this was years ago by the way she's way positive past those tears but she need a diaper change and you know and and my wife or girlfriend at the time was burning you know something in the oven right but but at the time the abductive argument would be this is the most likely or reasonable explanation for what I am experiencing and I think Reb's making that type of argument right is that would you be there something along the lines Reb sure yes and that was kind of the point of my introduction if you have a box that weighs two pounds they can be explained by our rabbit or a coffee mug you would need some way that indicates the rabbit more than the coffee mug for it to come as evidence now if I can show every single reason you present indicates both equally before discovering what's in the box then you don't then that's not analogous to your example because the it doesn't abductive ly indicate the one conclusion over the other they are exactly identical no difference at all between the two that's the effectively that indicates the one over the other yeah I'm not sure I completely agree with that but anyway yeah people I had told them I would be really jumping in at the 90 minute mark to keep these things lively so this was a discussion between them however I told them at 90 minutes or so I will be engaging because I have a lot to add to these things I think and keeps this fun so we were to do super chats now because we have 290 minute marks so you want to wait to after the super chats to do your wrap-up or you want me to do read them so you can ask the questions that are contained within them it's super chat people who pay to send chat things yeah I am go figure right now I do too I actually like all spin it's a very exclusive so the people who are watching who are not part of super chat look how I'm gonna help you out here they should go and get the super chat so they can chat on the thing no super chat is just a couple like for 2 bucks you can send two bucks our way and ask a question or I just be really cool you know we this is what we live on well actually I'm not even this I live on my other channel I haven't got paid for this yet ok so I ELISA rate some of these a super chats then um RJ we miss you Kyle thankful for Steve though thank you Brian Stevens $2 objective standard how was slavery ever moral I think that's probably do you rev that's the Tom I don't think yet savoury was ever moral I think he's saying that slavery is innately immoral and you don't need an objective standard to say that that is an objective standard that it is innately immoral how is that different than an objective standard an objective but the problem is so the problem so slavery is always immoral but here's the thing is that if if in the ancient world we were practicing slavery and we're and we are sorting out our morality by the by the movement of the thing we don't have any way of calling it immoral you know I mean I except for the abstraction of the of the imposing will and the best of all possible which apparently they didn't think back then so I I hope that's not against me you wouldn't use objective morality for that use normative ethical theories right what would make something right or wrong there's a normativity but you normally would do in a given situation all right I'm gonna appeal like Tom appeals to possible world ethics okay nothing around bad I have go to virtue ethics nothing wrong with that whether settings objective or subjective does not make a difference at all that's met ethics as to what somebody's gonna do in a given situation of what they think is right or wrong you could be a subjective more or less and think that something is absolutely not not you know something we should do nothing wrong with that you think it violates the virtue ethics or is a violates deontology or violates utilitarianism or contractual ism or half a dozen other things they're all normative ethical theories though right so what he's saying is that slavery is wrong even without a God that's what he's saying you don't need a god to make slavery you know it's real only yeah yeah but what I'm saying yeah oh let me think so why would you need a god for that I don't understand I mean slavery is lazy moral regardless if there's a god or not that's my position yeah yeah I of course right but but my question would be how would you know it and how would you be able to assert it I mean how do we know aside from the Nets that's a different question but what and and that's why and that's why the question came to Tom because he's talking about the emergent property of Moran and let's just say this is it's just imagine that we live in a world where everyone has slaves and there would be no way of saying because that what has emerged apparently is the morality of having slaves there would be no way of of saying that that is wrong if the evidence of what you're using for morality is the emergent property of the thing that's my argument yeah I think that's horrible though we are a sentient being we have moral agency we are agents of moral consideration we have reasons why we think what something should happen but let's go back like Simon said fornicate and Sunday and site a have some really good arguments I think he actually people to underestimate him but there is some de feeders for his arguments but when he asked these why questions and it's not because you know we are societal creatures and that we owe things to each other that that's great and everything but his question is why do we have morals and the problem is is there is no really an accounting for that beyond what we want to have for a normal Ithaca normative ethical theory right he's paused but the way that theists would pause at this this is what site n does he says ok what makes something right or wrong what makes it you know the case well you can populate you have a normative ethical theory ok what makes that right or wrong and he'll keep on doing this this over and over again until he posits well the only way you can know something is right or wrong is if you have a metaphysical necessity that knows what's right or wrong and that is what he grounds it upon but that's not that's not something that you have to do that's something that he just thinks is a good argument I don't write because there's no metaphors I mean I see for him to do that but that's what he says the only way you can have moral grounding is to do that and I disagree but well I would agree with them but I don't think it's the point the point of what what I'm suggesting is that we are moral and sentient beings and there are people who were moral and Cynthia beings who had slaves and did not think that it was wrong well they were wrong but they did not think that they were wrong they thought that they were right so what I'm saying is how it is just to say that I know of course I know that yeah what Wade said if you can think one plus one equals three but it's an objective factor one plus one equals two no I ok fine but but morality what I'm suggesting was that morality was an emergent property right so I think what he's asking is how do we know which one is right and which one is wrong we have to have some kind of criteria to judge one or the other which one is the one plus one equals two and which one's kalam plus one equals five right right and that's when we go back to the that we go back to the axioms we go back but for any objective framework we would have to have some kind of subjectivity of what we decide to be the case and I said to Tom before if Tom and I wants to play chess we're gonna sit down and we're gonna play by the rules which are objective if chomp says no you know I don't like this particular rule I want the work to go diagonal then we're no longer playing chess so you can make an objective moral framework which subjectivity that's not not been an issue what the theist usually does and this is where I get over cipher he thinks that the only way you can posit a grounding is to have this metaphysical being that tells him that is the case but he can never explain how that deity explains to him that is the case that's something he lacks he just says in a way that cannot be wrong that makes no sense Tommy you could say he brought it on your toe Rob happens well but that's only for the Jews so I don't know I think my point I mean just so to be clear here I mean what the argument I'm doing what tom was doing in other words I'm not necessarily asserting what I think is true about this thing I'm just trying to point out the conclusions of his argument and that is that if if morals is an emergent property of the aggregate of the moral understanding of all people then the possibility is wide open that all people think that I don't know that's just to push back to a hundred years ago that slavery is good and that there's no way if just be could just one guy somebody could say that doesn't make it the case John Tom could sit there and say see one for three it's objectively wrong because of money let me phrase it this way Reverend Reverend the son is emergent but we can still say there are objective ly true facts about the emergent properties of the song correct yeah so we can we're treating morality in the same way that there are still objectively true facts about morality even though it's emergent just like the Sun is emergent or that hydrogen oxygen forming water has merged or that oceans are emergent where the brick walls right oh yeah but the Sun is not deciding if it wants to have slaves or not I mean the Sun is just on fire but people are deciding if they want to have slaves or not so there's a difference there you know fire of the Sun okay what he was trying to say we can say there are objective truths about morality that we can say by looking at morality just like they're objective truths about the Sun that we can see by looking at the Sun so we look at the morality and the similarities and differences between moral progress and moral intuitions in order to come to a conclusion that there are objectively true facts about morality just like we come into conclusion they're objectively true facts about the Sun now our framework for this is the normative relations like the systems of different moralities that we've come up with all seems to aggregate in one direction now I define that direction as the never forcing anybody to do something they don't consent to that seems to be the correct direction but what if the case was that we had a say for example our Sun which was a burning hot fireball in the sky and then there was another star that had slaves and they would know this is quite different I mean you don't if people do not all the stars are acting generally the same but they're not they're not acting in the same way that human beings act in regards to morality well there are different kinds of stars there's lots of different kinds of stars and we can identify them by their differences and we can say certain stars are better at certain things in other stars like our star is pretty good at supporting life whereas sefie variable star would not be very good for supporting life so we can make comparisons between those properties and what the outcome of those properties is I don't know I don't know a son would own slaves so I'm a hard time trying to be now maybe the planets are upset about it they just can't get loose they're bound to the Sun alright alright let's move on so um the ex Hindu atheist well-being of fellow beings can guide our morality as a promotes fairness and coming generations yeah I think we can ground things at harms and benefits I know Harris does if we want to have objective morality grounded in that that's great I think Vic and Stein grounds it an empathy of compassion if I remember correctly so we can look into that but yeah you just the grounding problem is what what it is to ground objective morality I really can't stand when an atheist says oh there's no such thing as objective morality and they have this like the crappiest reasons for they don't I don't think you understand it at all because even Tom would agree I think Tom if you have a framework and people agree or not the I guess the axioms are the rules or whatever it is you can have an objective moral framework right right but when they mean objective through using it the same way that feeis use it because that's the most common form of come across common language kind of like your debate with atheism there's a common usage that we come across and that's what the way they normally mean it and so they when they talk about objective they mean some kind of existing thing in the universe independent of people like undiscovered laws I'm kind of grounded in some kind of a mind so she's like information of the ambiguity of word yeah now you're spot on that yeah when a theist says that Oh objective morality is woven in the time in space universe whatever I'm like okay what the hell he does say that's just nonsensical to me anyways okay so modern-day debate thank you buddy Steve Michalek and Kyle style this is awesome thank you you guys have not checked out maan today debate go check out his channel he's really having some awesome discussions I know tom has in a couple days I think it's Wednesday gonna be having a discussion with IP inspiring philosophy I'm not gonna miss that and I will be on modern day debates channel on March 10th and I'll be having a debate with the Duke is the man and we're gonna be talking about is agnosticism about position and yes I'm gonna bring the a game like you've never said before trust me he doesn't know what he's in for um brilliant $5.00 I love this mantelpiece fire with a comfy chair and glass of cognac great break from the dumpster fire whoo that smells really cool I think I'll do that Tom you got cognac are you drinking what are you drinking I usually don't drink but my favorite drinks would be a sake oh okay what do you what do you prefer I used to be a beer guy but I like one now so it's all red wine you know cuz it's a health drink all right so sangria maybe no no that's too sweet and it's reward for my life and my nightlife my wife likes Malbec so that's my drink of choice because it makes us both happy nice nice that's what should be the ex Hindu atheist again two dollars can be an undiscovered law demonstrate it well I think there's probably a lot of laws we haven't discovered yet I'm almost certain there's probably a lot we haven't discovered yet laws are just observations that we figure that it seems to be the case what math that we will be discussing later on this week Shannon Q and Ozzie actually we're gonna be talking about uniform nature and Humes law of induction because I think that a lot of people kind of don't have a firm understanding of those things but yeah these are these are uh these are laws that we think hold true hopefully that they do because it's not gonna be flying in outer space which would be bad I'm so busy to clarify yes sure mind if I touch on a little bit so laws are descriptions of things that we observe occurring in nature the ways nature works they're descriptive not prescriptive yes yes absolutely Pope Benedict Rock $2 thank you the X Hindu atheist again five from someone who studied probability theory nothing is a hundred cents certainly um I'm gonna touch on that for Tom gemstone on that I I think the four hands is absolutely certain I think it's wrong am I exist Artie percent certainty I'm not certain I exist as well but I was gonna go that far I was gonna say look at within a framework you can have a sign of percent certainty like I had a conversation with a quantum physicist one time and Tom you might like this I said okay so you don't believe anything's for certain he's like no I'm like so if given some kind of atom I think it's like cesium 133 or something I have two two photons that are a hundred eighty degrees away from each other going out to space you know as well as I did if you measure the spin up of one the other has to be spin yeah they have to be exactly opposite every single time that's quantum mechanics right now if I said you hate Tom I've just measured the state of the particle here and it's spin up what's the probability of the other one being spin down and half I wouldn't go with nope well I wouldn't do it that would be in the matrix we could be in the matrix that could be spin up we just deleted add five seconds ago now you conflating epistemic certainty with certainty within the system those are vastly different things when we're percent certain I don't have any idea what you guys are talking about I would go with a little different example there's some collar on and ya know so there's I can be a hundred percent certain that there is some difference between my imagination in my experience I don't know what the difference is but I can get our difference in certain there is some difference there you're losing the domain of discourse here within the framework of science you can be a hundred percent certain you've lost scope you have scope issues here you're taking out of the scope of science and you're moving into an epistemological epistemic realm which is which is we're not we're talking about you can have 100% certainty within that framework cuz if not every single we think we do when it comes to quantum mechanics is going to be bizarre if we start saying oh it's not 100% but it's close enough for government work okay it doesn't work that way the math doesn't work that way right but anyways alright moving on um cookie needs $25 baking a cookie buddy yeah cookies been like he's been really supporting this channel thank you buddy this has been a wonderfully delightful conversation of them both yes he put that in big letters by the way so wherever you're included on that yay um that's more than more Tom you've had excellent arguments and I agree did really well and Brian is sincere and adorable big letters on that too he's married dude I can't even judge man so what's nice to see the guests actually listen to one another great shows guys yeah and let me emphasize on that I don't really care so much what people believe is if they can have a dialogue both of you have a very good way of presenting a dialogue both you have what's called active listening which I love there's nothing worse to me when can I have two active listen on most dish stuff because I have to pay attention because at the end I'm gonna talk about some of the stuff right there's nothing worth worse when a guest is talking and making good arguments and the other person is not paying a freaking attention and he comes back with something completely irrelevant I hate that and you guys don't do that so yeah that was awesome but anyways once you guys wrap this up Tom would you mind if I revved it kind of thing in sure absolutely haha so to wrap it up essentially my argument was that all of the evidence he presented you indicated God could also be explained by naturalistic pantheism just eternal all-powerful necessary nature so none of those things actually indicated God just like box weighing two pounds doesn't indicate a rabbit because it could also be explained by a coffee mug as far as I can tell he didn't present any evidence to refute that though I'm sure he may have some examples you can think of later and I'd love to hear them but as far as I know nothing in human knowledge can really justify a conclusion of an absolute beam or an absolute anything for the same reasons that science can't conclude that the natural world is all there is even if we had equal evidence for God as we do for the natural world we couldn't conclude that there is a God is the only thing there is or there isn't another God or a more powerful God or a more good God or any of those things there could always be more in our human limited knowledge we have to approach the reality from the bottom up and start to discover things one layer at a time and we can never say anything about that final layer what the what is what's the end of the tunnel because nothing of human knowledge can really justify those kinds of claims awesome all right revenues like you play nice to have you with us game over yeah you lost there's no God no I'm kidding I'm kidding I have no idea hey I'm the quintessential agnostic so whatever I all support anybody who makes a good argument go ahead Reb maybe it's just a couple of things one atomic so I appreciate the conversation thank you and and your generosity to I can't help but be reminded with with the discussion of objective morality being connected to naturalistic pantheism and a possibly undiscovered law of of what Paul preached when he went to Athens he's by himself it's a really interesting thing it's in Acts chapter 17 and he's walking around the city think I mentioned it earlier and there's all these statues of all these gods and there's one that the Athenians had said to the unknown God and Paul says to the Epicureans and the Stoics into the philosophers he said that which you confess you do not know I say that's Jesus and he talks about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead I I think that maybe we didn't spend we spent a little bit of time on it but I think maybe that's the main point is that the assertion of of Christianity the chief assertion of theism might be that there is a rabbit in the box but the chief assertion of Christianity is that there is an empty tomb an empty box so so that is really and and I suppose this is not in the realm of our conversation but something that we hinted at I'll concede that the natural knowledge of God is a slight is is always open to to confusion and to distortion it is in the the revealed scriptures that that Christian doctrine says that we have faith and certainty faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and so so I hope I was able to concede everything I could concede from the natural knowledge of God and and say that it is it's the promises of God that are revealed in a different way in the preaching of the Lord's prophets and and the Apostles and and that's a chief thing I mean we talked about it just a tiny bit but but the question of why God did this I think is it's really not only true but but good and wonderful is that is it God himself in a sort of unbelievable way became a man to suffer in our place the consequences of our own failures so that he could make a way for us to have eternal life so that so that my certainty the reason why I believe in God is not it's not because I sat down and reasoned through these things but is precisely because the the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God to to give faith so I know that stands is sort of a offended assertion but but that's the the real driving force for from my own understanding of things as well so again I appreciate the time and I appreciate the conversation I hope we can I hope we can do this again yeah matter of fact people are saying that definitely want you guys back Thomas you know oh you know you're you're gonna be one of the one the better in lockers out there for the atheist side and wherever I think you're a great example of Christianity a matter of fact I got to be honest if people like you inside guard and a few other Thea's that we know if people were more like that I don't think to be so much controversy so much animosity so much vitriol between people that disbelieve and people that believe because I personally I'm not going after theists because they hold a belief that God exists I couldn't care less same way I don't care for the atheistic there are no gods that's not really much my concern I want to know how it impacts society and you know I think that you'd be like it in a lie in in a fight to say okay look at these are horrific things we should not do immoral things like this like slavery you we have we have theist out there there stays slavery it's not immoral like really so you know I think that again when you have people that are good representations of what they believe whether it be for atheism or theism I think those are the best guess to have so I think you guys both are employers when it comes to that and if you guys were the best paradigmatic examples of what people would consider to be member of faith and somebody's not a member of faith I'm okay with that so high praise trust me on both you guys I'm gonna say one more to Patrat chat that came in after the fact sorry fine ours into just me or just the Rev we Rebs revealed knowledge sound sufficiently suspiciously like a useful ISM for faith good question I would say yes but presupposition listen to me somewhat it sounds like both it is faith and presuppositional ISM all right hopefully I wasn't hiding that fact no no and I don't think it's a promise to admit that and I think it's fine you know I think I think one of these days you probably come a what's called a rational theorist which is a position for feed ISM but that's considered to be justifiable because normally feed ism is a non just victori position they admit that it's not rational but they hold it anyways but there is a format there called rational Butte ISM I don't know if I buy it but whatever but anyways guys thanks for watching this that's me my voice is going hopefully Kyle went back tomorrow because he better because we have dr. Lawrence Krauss with us and I'm gonna be putting the link to me once again for the Facebook discussion I'm having with Richard carrier we are typing like mad to each other we took a break but we have a lot on there hopefully wouldn't like maybe be able to unpack it and put it on a forum later on cuz I think there's a lot of good content in there and then if you want to weigh in on it don't do it on that but way in and on my facebook page it's open to the public and you know you can tell me if you thought of my organs for good or think they're crap it doesn't matter Jesse five dollars would you Steve or Tom say that if when when we if it's me would you Steve or Tom say that if when we discovered god it would be adopted as part of nature that is a great question I personally lean into the question the answer of no because I I do think that the concept of God is so foreign from what weak be considering to be natural as as shocks to shock to the mind that I'm going to call that supernatural even as if it's in the realm of a reality because it might be in the realm of reality but it's a supernatural part of reality if that was the case well how am I considered that to be different he might say that anything that's part of reality is consider to be natural by definition that's why I hate those high definition things but Tom what do you think well I would just say it if you can make testable predictions those tests the predictions can be confirmed you get to define whatever that is and how however way you want so if we can confirm the existence of God with some testable predictions you've made and you define that as supernatural that I'm going to grant it supernatural okay fair enough I guess I did I just think it's odd just to say that science couldn't demonstrate something supernatural but you know what I'm gonna leave with that guy's fix watch once again and Dave you got anything you want to add before you want to take us out and they keep reducing this I know there was issues at the beginning but you work through them and thank you for that no I don't have anything to add a little then good night folks there you go good night you

Would have not a god or the god grow for us or taught us to grow naturally as much grains, fruits, and veggies as we need? I say, yes, god would do at least that much for us. And by doing that, prevented us from killing animals and using, chemicals, pesticides…
And, of course, it would be nice if the kind of god existed, who would also heal, educate us.
As we know, Christian, Judaic, and Islamic gods do not teach–they only threaten, promise, demonize, and command. No wise parent would ever do that to own kid.
Theology or godology? How is possible to study god w.o. use of one's senses? Or how can you walk w.o. using your legs?????

Why Muslim scholars have found more than 5000 errors and contradictions in the Bible while others have found no falsehood. So what is the Word of God: the Koran or the Bible?
Some falsehoods of the Bible:
For the Bible the planet earth is flat (Isaie 40v22 + Ezec 7v3) .the earth is flat is at the ends: (Mark 13v27 + Jer 16v19) .The earth rests on columns (Job 9v6). For the bible; the sun revolves around the earth (Joshua 10v12) .For the Bible, the moon emits its own light (Genesis 1v17) .For the Bible, plants exist before the sun (Genesis 11v13 + Genesis 1v17) .For the Bible, the rabbit ruminates (Leviticus 11v6) .For the Bible: the bat is a bird (Leviticus 11v13–19 + Deut 14v11–18) .For the Bible God planted the plants with their seeds (God does not know that each plant has males and females …. etc
For the contradictions: Who killed Goliath? David (1Samuel 17v23 — 50) /
 Elhanan (2Samuel 21v19)
I and the Father, we are one (John 10v30) // The Father is greater than me (John 14:28).
Do not go to the Gentiles (Matthew 10: 5) // Go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19)
Jesus said to Peter, "You are blessed … I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16: 17-19) // Jesus said to Peter," Go back, Satan, you are a hindrance to me. stumble (Matthew 16v23)
Jesus: "He that sent me is with me, he will not leave alone" (John 8:29) // Jesus cried, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27v46)
God:"I do not keep my anger always". (Jeremiah 3v12) //God:"For you have kindled the fire of my anger, and it will burn forever". (Jeremiah17v4)
God created the man then the animal (Genesis 2v7 + 2v19) // God created the animal then the man (Genesis 1v24–27) …. + … more than 5000 falsehoods. I challenge anyone to find one and only scientific error or a contradiction or a fault of locution for the( arabophones) in the Koran !! Good meditation !!
http://www.quran.com

I think it’s really good you weren’t afraid to correct someone like Steve great job tjump… these constant debates and conversations really good to keep your arguments robust it’s good that you do that too because I feel like some people are afraid of opposition or being refuted so they avoid possible critique..

Highlight:

"Anything that the supernatural causes can be explained by unknown natural causes."

"Except die for your sins."

I think TJump is guilty of naturalism of the gaps….
That is blind Faith.

Take it as you like.
TELL ME WHY I AM WRONG, SON

Rev. Wolfmueller is a nice man, but he is all over the map and has no business debating any of these topics. Tom is great as usual, especially in confronting the stupid coming at him from all sides.

Is it just me, or are there many times throughout the video when it seems like everything suddenly speeds up for a moment? All of a sudden, the dialog sounds like it's twice as fast.. damn near like a chipmunk sound.. then returns to normal. Does anyone else notice that?

Atheists have no answer for the fine tuning argument. The problem is the unlimited number of constants in our solar system which makes the probability of all of them happening in totality impossible under a random by chance Atheistic belief.

It's interesting how many of your interlocutors seem to have such a hard time grasping what you're doing with the naturalistic pantheism argument.

"Here, let me show you how your arguments are at least equally supportive of a whole range of positions which are inconsistent with your Conclusion A, for example Conclusion B".

"Oh, you support Conclusion B?"

"No, I am using the fact that Conclusion A is no more supported by your arguments than other conclusions like Conclusion B to demonstrate that you do not have a reasonable basis to arrive at any conclusion in particular."

"…If you don't support Conclusion B why are we talking about it?"

(Facepalming internally while remaining outwardly patient) "If we have a box that weighs two pounds…"

What a mess. There's not a burden of proof on both sides. It's not that hard for one side (the athiest) to win when only the assumptions of his opponent are subjected to critique. I mean, even if you're a TJump fan, surely you can see that only one person in this debate (1) Willingly carried a burden of proof and (2) was clear about their personal convictions, and consistently let those convictions be the subject of debate. Thus TJump only had to argue with one person. While the theist had to defend himself against "an infinite number" of possible alternative explanations. Pretty bloody convenient to count as a "win" a debate wherein you never had to prove that you are right, only that the other guy might be wrong because we can conceive of another way his arguments could be used by someone else to support something else.

+TJump, IIRC, in the debate it was mentioned that you wrote few books.. Am just wondering where I can get those,would be great if you spell out the tittles.

How would the atheist explain this? There are over 600 documented prophecies of the Old Testament that we’re fullfilled in the New Testament of the scriptures? These scriptures are carbon dated as accurate documents written during and after Jesus’ earthly living. Why would these prophecies be fulfilled if there were no God? Furthermore, why would 11 out of the 12 disciples of Jesus stick with their trust in Jesus as the one true Savior and all 11 of them willingly die brutal deaths (such as hangings, being crucified, being torn apart etc)? Wouldn’t a human-being escape their own brutal deaths if what they witnessed about Jesus wasn’t accurate and true? I don’t want to go back and forth about this but it’s pretty clear that Jesus was the chosen savior and that his followers willingness to die only verifies this. Trust me, I’ve had my own doubts over the years but these facts are impossible to ignore.

The Rev. Wolfmueller comported himself well. He listened attentively to Tom, did his best to follow the arguments and all with goodwill and good humor. He conceded when it was necessary and did not attempt to obfuscate. Kudos to him as he is the exception in the half-dozen or so debates/conversations I have recently watched of Tom with other interlocutors. Tom, you are impressive. Your approach/arguments are novel and devastating. I'm enjoying watching the various responses to them. It has been enlightening.

At first I was going to joke about whether this is empirical evidence of a respectful theist, but wow, he got insufferably condescending, fast.

Wolfmueller quotes Cicero as saying "there is no nation so foolish not to have a form of worship". This is a quote-mine. It is uttered by one of the characters in Cicero's dialogue De Natura Deorum, but later on, a different character actually refutes this assertion by saying "For in the first place how do you know that nations do hold that belief? I think myself that there are many races so barbarously savage as to be without any conception of such beings [i.e. the gods]." (De Natura Deorum 1.23) Cicero himself subscribed to ancient Skepticism of the New Academy and doubted that anything can be learned about the nature of the gods, but supported their worship for social and political reasons. If he lived today, he would really like talking about lobsters.

Is there a commandment that I don't know about instructing Christians to willfully misunderstand the position of atheists? Also, is there another commandment instructing them to do anything and everything before attempting to actually give evidence for the god they believe exists?

Ah, I always enjoy these. I think you were a bit over his head often though. I think the problem with the rabbit in the box or the unicorn is that it's not analogous with a god. Just a rabbit of the gaps isn't enough. A god is an all encompassing discomfort eliminator for whatever you need. It's goodness, but created the badness and blames you for it. lol Like if the rabbit was given a purpose because it's magical and super powerful so it could protect children from pervy priests who'd traumatize them and sell them into sex slavery, then it would be more powerful than a god that does nothing. It's also post hoc/top down; I need to feel this, so therefore.. incoherent being.. god, instead of rabbit.. being.. does stuff. That's difficult to analogize though.

The things like morals, logic, laws grounded in superstitious thinking is another one to crack, but comes down to comfort from perceived order. It all does really. Those subjects don't make sense without the presupposition that explains where they came from, but not how to understand them. Then he goes on to ask "why is slavery wrong?" and then justifies it. Just having morals doesn't mean you have good morals. Same goes with logic.

I feel like I've noticed a couple times now where after you've talked to your opponents for a bit they end up just saying like "OK so now what do we do?" 31:09
Like they don't know how to come back from it.
Now what? Now you admit your reasons to believe in a God are not at all reliable and you start an atheist YouTube channel.

This Reverend is so obnoxious and slimy I don't know how anybody could debate him without having to take a shower after words. I mean the whole debate was just he was just so shocked that you have a different position on things than he does like he was arguing with somebody from another planet or something. you made some good points though T jump good luck today at modern-day debate.

"I’m TJump and I’m an atheist by which I mean I believe there are no reasons to believe in the existence of a God."
I'm an atheist who believes there can be good reasons to believe in God. I think your position is irrational

If a 'god' exists and created everything, then the 'god' is the ONLY natural thing in existence and all else is synthetic to that 'god'.

You and Steve should have a go through your arguments and chat about it maybe to serve as a presentation of a sort for your position.

46 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *