Speaker 1: People keep telling me that I need to have faith
in something, that I need to believe in something greater
than myself. So I did what any sensible modern person
would do. I got a pet rock. Yes, this humble,
little chunk of sediment has all the perks of a
God without the need for tithes, offering genocide, or endless
desire to have his ego stroked. Another astounding fact about
pet rocks, Well, they answer prayer exactly the same rate
as God. They fulfill exactly as many Messianic prophecies as Jesus,
but they've married one less child than Muhammad. Now I
understand there are some theists here that are offended that
I'm comparing Jesus or Mohammad to a rock. But the
reality is my rock actually exists and I can prove it. However,
nobody here can prove that your God exists. Nevertheless, we
welcome you to try. The lines are open and the
show starts now. Well, friends, today is October twelfth, twenty
twenty five. I'm your host, Justin. You might know me
as decon Instruction Zone, and I'm joined right now by
my good friend and co host Jim Borrows. Jim, my
friend how are you.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm doing pretty good. How about yourself?
Speaker 1: No, I don't know if I could be better.
Speaker 2: That's always good. We had a little bit of a scare.
We had some rain earlier today and that seemed to
take out my internet and my power. So all of
you who are praying for me not to show up,
you failed, although you might almost have succeeded.
Speaker 1: If only their God could answer prayer been successful.
Speaker 2: It would have been a great time. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I am shocked by the amount of times the
Bible itself entices you to pray, suggesting that God will
answer your prayers, or says things like in Matthew, you
just says don't even worry about your clothes, what you'll wear,
or what you eat, because God will give it to you.
But the reality is there are three million children starving
to death every year, and some of them I have
no clothes, much less any food to eat. Like, where
these are Christian people? Where's how come he can't follow
through on the promise?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly, And you know he'd be free like
the sparrows and the birds. Well, even at that time
where he was living, that wasn't really possible because you know,
it's a little bit of a desert. Food's a little
bit scarce. You got to bring it in, you gotta
grow it, you gotta do all this this stuff to live.
And he says, nope, no, just live like the sparrows.
Wait a minute, So I tried to do that.
Speaker 1: It didn't work out too well. I don't know, let
me know. If your results differ, my results may not
be your results.
Speaker 2: There was a Greek philosopher who lived that way. It
wasn't epicurious. It was shoot. I can't think of who
was off the top of my head, but yeah, he
was generally considered crazy, although some of his thoughts still
survive today. But yeah, good luck with obeying all the
commandments in the Bible. You'll either get arrested or get down.
Speaker 1: That is that is actually a fact. That is certainly
a fact.
Speaker 2: So but yeah, that's that's the fun part.
Speaker 1: Friends. The number to call in should be on the screen,
or at least be on the screen shortly, So we
welcome anyone who wants to talk with their God to
call in. I will be here for proxibly the next
two hours. We'd love to hear from you. If you've
got a good argument or a good evidence that would
lead us to believe that your God is real. Shoot,
maybe you'll see us Sunday morning in church. Maybe with
the right argument, we could be in your mosque next week.
Who knows, We just need a good argument.
Speaker 2: Well, Justin will be Richard, because we'll be on the
atheist too, theist circuit making that kind of money instead of,
you know, volunteering for what we do right here.
Speaker 1: Do you imagine how much money we could make if
we started doing evangelism. I was one of the cold
Hart atheists and then I met.
Speaker 2: We have we have proof. Unlike most of the uh
you know evangelists that are out there now that claim
to have been atheists a one time, we actually have proof.
We have many, many hours of proof between the two
of us. So we would make more money than them
because we'd go, yeah, see look, this is this is
this is me.
Speaker 1: Well, we have one guest already cued up, Jim. We've
got Robert from California, not to be confused with the
famous Robert California, says has questions for atheists and wants
to give his testimony through conversation. Well, what could go
wrong with a good testimony? Robert, Welcome to the athets experience.
Can you hear us?
Speaker 3: I can hear you, guys just flying? How you guys
doing this afternoon?
Speaker 1: Thank complain?
Speaker 2: How are you absolutely wonderful? So why do we care
about your your testimony? Because anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal,
and that's all your testimony is is anecdotal.
Speaker 3: Okay, well I could gently throw it back at you,
but we're not going to get into some I don't
want to go on circles. I can say the same
thing about your evolution. You guys can talk about all your.
Speaker 2: Lot's a lot of bullshit, razor No. So in order
to deny evolution, you have to deny genes exist, because
the definition of evolution is a change in a little
frequency over time in population. So are you when you
deny evolution? Are you denying that genes exist?
Speaker 3: I believe that Jesus created God. I believe that God questions.
Speaker 2: That's not an answer the question. Can you answer the question?
You answer the question your genes exist.
Speaker 3: Genes do exist, and guess what God created the genes and.
Speaker 2: Guess what that proves evolution? Thank you very much. You
can't deny evolution, nor can you say it's just anecdotal.
So what were you saying about your anecdotal stuff there?
You were trying to preach, and we're just not going
to allow it, so you don't have to.
Speaker 3: I'd really like to give my testimony, so let's do that.
But at first, before.
Speaker 2: That, that's preaching. Why should I take your testimony as
anything but anecdotal evidence?
Speaker 3: You guys talk about anecdotal evidence. Your evolution, your evolution
is theory is garbage.
Speaker 2: You just admitted that evolution is true when you admitted
genes exist. So stay off the evolution stuff because you've
already been proven wrong, or you have to deny genes exists.
Speaker 3: Not true?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is, because how's what's the definition of evolution?
Speaker 3: Genes? Genes? Absolutely? And who created the genes? So is God?
And like, uh, talk about evolution?
Speaker 2: Hold on, we're going to know. No, we're going to
talk about evolution, and we're going to talk about Since
you admit that genes exist, then you admit that evolution exists.
Because the definition of evolution is to change in a
lieal frequency over time and a population. So you have
admitted if you admit genes exist, you admit that evolution exists,
and that's not anecdotal evidence. That's backed up by the
best science we have. And so again, why should I
take your anecdote of your testimony as.
Speaker 3: True because the Bible says it.
Speaker 2: Bible says it's true. Your and your your your testimony
says it's true. And around and around week ago, the
wheels of the argument, you know, keep on turning. So
what okay, try again?
Speaker 3: Well here here's okay, here's the point. Here's the point
on this.
Speaker 1: So Robert, we we actually would be interested to talk
about the Bible or your religion and whatnot. I think
these would be fruitful conversations. I don't know if your
story is all that helpful, because like we hear stories
from Muslims and other religions too, right, sure, but if
you've got an argument that is like a logical argument
or an evidence based argument from the Bible, we definitely
be down for that.
Speaker 3: Okay, So here's here. Thank you, Thank you, justin I
appreciate that. So here's where we start. I I've been
a Christian for thirty five years. Okay. What happened to
me is I was born totally blind, so I have
no sight. I was I was born premature. I'm going
to show you guys how God walked with me through
my life. I was born primau. You're always born in
seven months instead of nine months. I died twice. The
doctors brought me back, by the grace of God. And
you didn't die an incubator for two No, by the
grace of God, I didn't die.
Speaker 2: So yeah, no, no, So my girlfriend's an icy U nurse.
And if the doctors can bring you back, you were
not dead well.
Speaker 3: And guess what what if? Who made the doctors bring
me back? Jim, That's what I like to know.
Speaker 2: Science just buy it own. God created that old Evolution
has nothing to do with bringing people back. Good medical
science and good medical technology does.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, I hope you don't cut me off again.
I don't cut you off. I hope you'll respect what
I have to say. So anyway, like I was saying, so,
I was born provemachure. I was born in seven instead
of nine. I died twice, I came back. I grew
up in a New Age religion. My father happened to
be a famous entertainer. I was born in Beverly Hills
with a silver spoon in my mouth, YadA, YadA, YadA.
So you know, he brought me into the New Age religion, okay,
when I was six years old. So yeah, yeah, God,
there's no such thing as God. God is within you. Heaven,
there's no such thing as heaven or Hell. Heaven is
on earth. Satan doesn't exist. So I grew up, you know,
believing this garbage. So in when I turned back in
nineteen eighty seven, I was nineteen, and my friends kept
telling me you need to accept Jesus Christ into your life,
and I kept denying, and I'm like, man, I'm a
new ager, you know all and all that kind of bullshit.
So what ends up happening is I start having these
crazy dreams. When I was twenty back in nineteen eighty eight,
I started dreaming that I.
Speaker 1: Was son Robert. I don't want to interrupt you, because
you sounds like a nice guy, but the problem is,
like your personal experience is never going to be evidence
for us, like this is just a story. That's why
we're looking for something more concrete, like, oh, something verifiable
in science or the Bible, or maybe even a logical argument,
like maybe you gave us a logical argument and the
old conclusion could be that God existed.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, so here's so here's my point. So here's
my point. All right. So, like I told you about
the light before, I was saying, this light would burn
me on the back of the right hand. Okay. It
kept burning me until nineteen ninety June nineteenth of nineteen
ninety I got saved. So now here's where the Bible
quote comes in. This light put me on the back
of my right hand. What does it say in What
does it say in Revelation thirteen versus no? What did
it say?
Speaker 1: Oh, don't don't do that. Oh Robert, you didn't call in.
You didn't call in and get cooked on the mark
of the beast in Revelation thirteen? Did you well?
Speaker 3: Well, now, if the light burned me on the back
of the right hand, what do you guys think that is?
He was trying to let God was trying to let
me know, Satan is burning me on the back of
the right hand to get right now before you burned?
Speaker 1: Certainly don't think so. The mark of the beast is
obviously a reference to Neiro. It has nothing to do
with anything burning your hand. Also, it's quite true that
the mark of the beast is. It's not supposed to
be something physical that's on your hand or your forehead.
It's a reference to the practice that the introduced had
where they would bind the Torah the law to their
hand or to their forehead. It comes up again in
the next section if you keep reading, in the chapter fourteen,
it comes up again, and it's certainly clear that it's
not referring to like a literal mark that people are
going to get on their body. It's about pledging allegiance
to the enemy, to Babylon, to Nero.
Speaker 4: Okay, well, guys.
Speaker 3: We can agree to disagree if you guys, look at
what's going on the world is starting to go digital.
The Bible said that the war was going to start.
You know that we were going to live in a
cash this society. And you guys.
Speaker 1: Didn't say that. Didn't say we're going to live in
a cashless society.
Speaker 3: Hey, we're going to no whether.
Speaker 1: The passage and quote me the passage where it says
we're going to have a cashless society.
Speaker 3: Oh, read it and re re justin read it.
Speaker 1: And I have read revelation. I've read every last word
of the Bible. That's why I'm asking you to quote
it because I know it's not in there.
Speaker 3: It's it's in Revelation. You'll find it right there.
Speaker 1: Give me the verse. But where do you think it
exists in Revelation because it's not in there.
Speaker 3: Uh, you know, to be honest with you, I've read it.
I don't know which chapter it is in, but I
know if you read Revelation you will find it. Also. Uh, okay,
when I got when I got saved a gentle light,
uh sealed me in the forehead. Now, if you read Revelations.
Speaker 2: Well, what's your evidence for this was the evidence for
your hand burning?
Speaker 3: Because well, yeah, when I when I when I got
burned on the back of the right hand, I heard
I heard a voice tell me you need to come
into the family of God.
Speaker 2: You need to do you have to take a picture
of that. By by anyway, the burn on your hand,
did you have it checked out by a medical doctor?
Speaker 3: Jim? It was in a dream. It was spiritual.
Speaker 2: This is why you know it wasn't your real real
right hand. You were just in a dream. You're just
in a dream. Is that correct? It wasn't your real
right hand, It was just in a dream.
Speaker 3: It was my right hand when it burns, then.
Speaker 2: Did you take your right hand, you in your right hand,
go to a doctor to find out what the burn was.
Speaker 3: There's no need to do that, sir. The Bible already
showed me what the burn was. And I'm going to
say this to you.
Speaker 2: See, so you don't know what caused the burn got it?
Speaker 3: Oh, I know exactly what caused the burn. It was
Satan and God told me you need to come.
Speaker 2: You haven't proved that Satan or God exists yet, so
why should I believe either?
Speaker 3: Because the Bible says so. And if you guys, so.
Speaker 2: God says the Bible is true. The Bible says the
God is true. And the wheels on the argument turned
round and round, the wheels on the argument turned around
in round circular argument. Don't care, not a good argument,
Give me something better.
Speaker 3: Evolution. Evolution is nothing. You guys going to akam.
Speaker 2: We're not talking about evolution. I've already destroyed you on
that because you admit that genes exist and as long
as jeans exist, evolution is true. You can't get around that.
And I know that your high school education hasn't prepared you.
If you remember your high school science education, biology education
hasn't prepared you for that, that particular argument. But that
is the fact. So get off of that. Give me
evidence for God.
Speaker 3: I already did, and I'll tell you what he didn't.
Speaker 2: You've made claims about God. You haven't actually that God
can do something. Before you can say that somebody did something,
you first need to prove that that somebody exists. And
you haven't done that.
Speaker 3: I just did well because you guys a quote.
Speaker 2: Okay, do say it again. Let's try it again, say
it again.
Speaker 3: Let's try this again. Absolutely, it got when I had
when I when I first got saved, like I said,
I was in a new age. Okay, God started showing
me through my friends, through people. Then after that I started, how.
Speaker 2: Do you know it was God? Do you how do
you know it was God?
Speaker 3: Because I heard you? Didn't hear me before? Did gym?
I said, God? When when I got burned, God told
me you need to accept How do you know it
was God? The family of Jesus Christ.
Speaker 2: How do you know it was God?
Speaker 4: Well said it.
Speaker 3: Verse Revelation thirteen, verse sixteen, Sir, open your eyes. That
happened to be?
Speaker 2: That doesn't That doesn't but that that does not refer
to your burned hand, right, you now need to well,
first you need to prove that refers to your burned
hand and not to niro As Justin, who's actually a
biblical scholar and you're not, has said that it's about narrow.
But now you need to prove that that your mark
on your hand is the mark of the beast. Can
you do that?
Speaker 3: Well, well, you know, yeah, it's it would be the future.
If I would have not accepted Jesus Christ into my life,
I would have received the mark of the beast, just
like you guys are going to receive. You guys better
be How do you?
Speaker 2: How do you? But again, you haven't proven any of this.
You're just making claims. So you need to prove that
God and Satan exists and that this mark of the
beast is a real thing. And you haven't done any
of that. You're just making claims. No, you didn't. You
made a claim, Jim, ok No, you made a claim
about God existing in God doing something and God talking
to you. Haven't proved that God talks to you because
you haven't proven God exists. You know what we're going
to do.
Speaker 3: We're going to keep going in circles. If I could
just comment, I'll let you.
Speaker 1: Guys, I think we well, I think we I think
we can have a better productive conversation on a slightly
different topic, right, because like, personal experience is something you
can never prove. It's only meaningful to you, it's not
meaningful to us. But like I suspect that, like the
reason why your personal experience is so meaningful is because
you think the Bible is true already. So let me
ask you a question, like what percentage of the Bible
is true?
Speaker 3: One?
Speaker 1: I'm sure? Can you do? You have a Bible with
you want to read it with me?
Speaker 3: I don't, to be honest with you, my Bible. I
have two different Bibles because Brail is Brail. The cells
are huge.
Speaker 1: So it's well, I can read it for you. I've
got it, so John three point thirteen. Jesus says no
one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended
from heaven, the son of man. Is that a true state?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yes it is.
Speaker 1: So no man ascended into heaven other than Jesus.
Speaker 3: Paul ascended into heaven later after Jesus did, but.
Speaker 1: No before Jesus heaven before.
Speaker 3: You know what that for Jesus, have you, every everybody.
Speaker 1: Kings Because in Second Kings it says that Elijah ascended
into Heaven in a whirlwind. Second King's two eleven says,
Elijah ascended into heaven.
Speaker 3: Okay, but he didn't die. He didn't die. And not
only that, I won't say anything about death for the
Old Okay, for the Old Testament saints they went, they
went into Abraham's bosom, which means that they went into
a different apartment of hell.
Speaker 1: Says heaven. Read that there's no Abraham's bosom in the
Old Testament. So to be clear, Second King's two eleven
says that he went in a whirlwind into heaven. The
Hebrew word for heaven is hashamayim, and it just means
the sky that's the abode of God in the Hebrew Bible.
It's the same place, in fact, where Jesus says no
man has gone in John three point thirteen. But it
uses the Greek counterpart to that.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, you know I say.
Speaker 1: Somebody certainly did go to heaven.
Speaker 3: Well, well, either he went to heaven or he went
he went to the lord depths of heaven. You know,
before Jesus died. After Jesus died on the cross, he
took all the saints to Heaven, to where God is,
And so that's what he died. So yes, it says.
It says it in Luke. It says it in Luke
and John. It says in Luke and John, he took
all the saints to Heaven, all the left head.
Speaker 1: All the dead are in the sky.
Speaker 3: Now he took the keys from Satan and the debt
he took. He took the keys from Satan and all
the demons, and he took the people that were in
Abraham's bosom and ascended into heaven. But here's my point.
Speaker 1: I'm going to say this, because he gave the keys
of the kingdom to the disciples already in Matthew sixteen.
Speaker 3: He sure did, He sure did.
Speaker 1: How many keys are there? He's just giving these keys
out all willy nilly, isn't he?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 3: Oh man, he gave me keys. He gave me keys.
And I can tell you all sorts of experiences that
I've had, and we're not going to that because I did.
Speaker 1: So, Like, why would we believe any of this nonsense
about Jesus. Like Jesus has demonstrated over over again in
the Bible that he doesn't actually know what's in his
own religion. He doesn't even know how to read Hebrew.
The guy goofs it he reads from the Greek text
all the time and doesn't even understand what the Greek
text is talking about. Well, he's a goof man to disagree.
Speaker 3: We can agree.
Speaker 1: Well I could demonstrate it for you. Well, i'll demonstrate it.
I'll just let you. I'll let you see for yourself
what I'm what I'm actually talking about. Matthew does it
a lot too. But like I'm going to take you
to a passage real quick in Isaiah. If you don't mind,
have you read Isaiah sixty one before I have not?
You'll recognize it when I read it to you. Verse
one says, the spirit of the Lord God is upon
me because the Lord has annoyed me. He has sent
me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind
up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives
and release to the prisoners, to proclaim the year of
the Lord's favor and the day of vengeance of our God,
and to comfort all who mourn, and to provide for
those who mourn in Zion, so and so forth. So
on face value, this is a pretty open ended passage.
It's hard to know what he's talking about until you
get the verse four. Then it's actually abundantly clear. Says
they will build up the ancient ruins, They shall raise
up the former devastations. They shall repair the ruined cities,
the devastations of many generations. Strangers will stand and feed
your flocks, and foreigners will till your land and dress
your vines. So the passage in Isaiah sixty one is
a restoration prophecy after the Babylonian exile, which is what
Deutero and Trudeau Isaiah are referring to. This is the
latter part of Isaiah. So it's true to Isaiah, this
is referring to the restoration of the people after they
come back from the exile, Is it not? Oh sure, yes, sure,
I mean this is pretty clear.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: It's just a message to the exiles, for those morning
that are left in Zion, saying, hey, it's okay, you
can be happy now you're coming back from exile. Your
lands are going to be rebuilt, the cities that have
been destroyed, It's okay. They're going to be rebuilt.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The problem with this is if you go to Luke
four down to verse seventeen, it says the scroll of
the prophet Isaiah was given to Jesus. He unrolled the
scroll and found the place where it was written. The
spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has
annointed me to bring good news of the poor. He
has sent me to proclaime release of the captives, recovery
of sight to the blind that's not in the Hebrew text,
and to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim
the year of the Lord's favor. He rolled up the scroll,
gave it back to the intended, and sat down. The
eyes of all the synagogue were fixed on him. Then
he began to say to them, today, the scripture has
been fulfilled in your hearing. But that scripture absolutely was
not fulfilled in their hearing because Israel wasn't restored, their
cities weren't rebuilt, and shortly after this they were devastated
by the Romans.
Speaker 3: Well, let me ask you a question. Justin where is
Israel now? Israel is flourishing, Israel is doing fantastic.
Speaker 1: And no, thanks to Jesus, it's enclosing.
Speaker 2: Well Jenius. There's no king in Israel either, just to
point that out. There's no king in Israel.
Speaker 3: There's no king in Israel. But the Antichrist is coming soon, guys,
And whether you got I'm sure, yeah you.
Speaker 2: Christian has been saying that for the last two thousand years,
and so far he hasn't shown up.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 3: Like Peter said, beware of the scoffers because they will
say our fathers haven't seen Jesus. We haven't seen Jesus,
and Jesus is going to appear appear like a thief
in the night. So I would simply so Peter said that.
Speaker 2: Peter said that. Peter said that Peter see Jesus. So
why would he say I haven't seen Jesus. That makes
no sense.
Speaker 3: He didn't say. He didn't say he hasn't seen Jesus.
That's not what he said. He hasn't seen Jesus. Justin
I'm gonna make I'm gonna make.
Speaker 1: When did when did Jesus say he was coming back?
Because he tells you on a couple occasions when he's
coming back.
Speaker 3: No no, no, no, no, no no no. Nobody knows the
hour or the time when he's coming.
Speaker 1: We didn't say the hour, but he gave you a
cut off. Have you read Matthew sixteen.
Speaker 3: Okay, and and and that's supposed to apply.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, it says the Son of Man is
to come with his angels in the glory of his father.
Then he will repay everybody for their deeds. Truly, I
tell you, there are some standing here who will not
taste death before they see the Son of Man coming
in his kingdom. And all those people standing there with
Jesus are dead. He did not, in fact, come on
the clouds with all the angels to repay everybody for
their deeds.
Speaker 3: Ah. But that's where you're wrong. That's where you're wrong. Okay,
maybe he didn't, maybe he didn't have the angels come
with the amount of angels. But John saw him, and.
Speaker 1: That's what he said.
Speaker 3: The other disciple was all the other disciples were martyred. Okay.
So so so John got a chance, right because in the.
Speaker 1: Bible over right back the disciple, let's not get distracted
on the martyrdom. Just yeah, I mean, that's a good topic.
But he has finished Matthew sixteen. So in Matthew sixteen
it says that he's going to do it. He doesn't
say that someone's going to get a vision of it.
He says, the Son of Man is to come, is
to come. That means he's coming. Doesn't mean you're going
to see a dream of me coming. He says, the
Son of Man is to come with his angels in
the glory. And he says, some of you are standing
hill will not taste death before that happens. And to
be sure, some is not one person, some is some
is always more than one.
Speaker 3: Oh the some is that what you're saying like som
is that what you're saying.
Speaker 1: Or word, some is always more than one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, okay, I get that, all right, I understand that.
Well again, I go right back to revelation and and
and when Jesus does come back, he is coming back
with his angels. We win.
Speaker 2: So you you admit he did not come back before
any of his disciples died, despite him saying he would.
Speaker 3: Well, he came. He came back when he rose from
the dead while his disciples were still alive. And then
and then when he left, you know, the angels said
he will come again. So yes, and Jesus appeared over five.
Speaker 2: Hundreds that's not the sequence he told He told him
that he would come back after after he had died.
So this is after he supposedly resurrected. He told them
that they that they would that he would come back
before any of his disciples died. That's a sequence.
Speaker 3: He came back and he did.
Speaker 2: No, he did not come back a third time. He
has not come back a third time. That's what he's
talking about.
Speaker 3: He's going to come back the third time. He's going
to come back. We just we don't know when. And
I would make a suggestion to.
Speaker 2: Both of you. You you, you really don't listen very well. Jim,
you you don't. You don't listen very well. So again,
just be quiet for a second and listen. After he resurrected,
he told his disciples that before they died, he would
come back. That's the sequence you're missing. This isn't before
he died the first time. This is before he is
after he resurrected. So he did not come back before
any of his disciples died.
Speaker 3: No, he came back. He came back after his resurrection.
And that's where you guys miss it.
Speaker 2: You didn't listen when he came again. You didn't listen.
You did not listen. He died, he came back. He
told the disciples that he will come back again for
a third time before his disciples died.
Speaker 3: Okay, well we're his we're his modern day disciples. We
are his modern day disciples.
Speaker 2: Wow, you're just making excuses. Hey that this that this,
what he said is not true.
Speaker 3: But hey, hey, Jim, you keep on driving your off
race driving jeeps, and I'll see you both at the
Great White Throne judgment when you burn in hell and
for all of you.
Speaker 2: That's all they got is the threat when they're done. Yeah,
you know, the Christian is done with everything when they
start threatening you with hell.
Speaker 1: Hey, Robert, are you afraid of Muslim Hell?
Speaker 3: Is the truth?
Speaker 1: Robert, are you afraid of Muslim hell?
Speaker 3: Muslims are going to hell? Almost?
Speaker 1: That wasn't my question. My questions are you afraid of
the Muslim Hell?
Speaker 3: I'm not afraid of the Muslim hell because there isn't.
Speaker 1: And why hell is there? You go, and we're not
afraid of Christian hell because there is no Christian hell.
So like you, threatening us with hell is most meaningless
statement that could have ever been uttered.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, justin I'm gonna say this you go back
to I remember you made a comment a couple of
weeks ago about comparing the Bible and contradictions, and you
made a point to a gentleman that we're going to
pick up a couple of tea one day and we're
going to say, you know, maybe there are some compared
some contradictions in the Bible. Notta smule I would suggested
both of you. You guys are going to be on
your deskbedge one day.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well didn't we Yeah did we? Didn't we in
fact prove there's a contradiction in the Bible. Actually, so
justin just improove it twice.
Speaker 3: No, you didn't know.
Speaker 1: Let's do Let's do this because Robert really wants to
worly wants to preach. So Robert, here's what we'll do.
I know there's like we've interrupted you a lot, and
you really want to get some things out. So I'm
going to give you we got to move on, but
I'm going to give you the next minute to say
anything you want, completely unterrupted, and I promise I won't
interrupt you.
Speaker 3: Okay, fair enough, fair enough, Okay, let me say this
to all of youss pray for these people, and I'll say.
Speaker 1: You want Oh no, he got dropped. I don't know
what happened there.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, yeah, I know that happens. So that was
I don't know why he expected it to go any differently.
He apparently listens to you, and he apparently has listened
to the show before because you knew who I was,
so and he thought this would go somewhat differently because
of his testimony.
Speaker 1: I have no idea why I thought that was going
to go. Wells A, that's out there. Well listen, friends,
I got some announcements before bring in our next caller.
The Atheist Experience is a product of the Atheist Community
of Austin, a five to one c three nonprofit organization
dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, second humanism,
and the separation of religion and government. Also, if you
are watching now while I'm doing the announcements, is the
perfect time to click the like and subscribe button and
enable the notification so that you never miss a live stream.
Another way to support us is by sending super We
read them on screen between calls. After calls, we read
as many as we can. And also, please do join
our weekly watch parties if you're available at the Free
Thought Library on Sundays for live viewings of Talkithen and
the Atheist Experience every Sunday, doors open at noon. It's
a great place to build community. Also, we want to
send a big, big, big thank you out to the
crew who put the show together every week. We've got
video operators, audio operators, note takers, call screeners, chat moderators,
and they make this show possible. I'm just talking ahead.
Jim and I just kept here and talk. They're the
ones actually doing all the work. So big round of
applause for our friends actually making the show possible. And Jim,
we've got two theis waiting to get in. I don't
know if you have a preference. Walter wants to talk
about C. S. Lewis and Benji wants to talk about
where he thinks the idea of sin came from.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess we could do C. S Lewis's argument.
I mean, he's only got loss, only has three from desire,
from reason, and form reality, none know which are very good.
But wing and see what the caller has to say.
Speaker 1: Indeed, all right, let's grab Walter here. I think he's
loading up one second, Walter, thank you for joining us.
It says that you've got an arguments for the existence
of God from the mere Christianity book. Which one did
you want to run?
Speaker 5: Well? I think it's basic when there is a moral argument.
Speaker 2: Oh no, the argument for morals. Yeah, it's the argument
for morals. So first of all, is God is God?
Is what God does moral? Because it's God? Or does
God do moral things? I mean that's kind of the
first thing you need to clear up.
Speaker 5: Well, I think yeah, it creates an either or there.
We both don't work. But if morality is in fact
inherently in God's nature, then he's not doing it by
it just he doesn't will it to be moral. And
he's also not above a higher he's not coming under
a higher law. It's just part of his nature.
Speaker 2: Okay. So everything in the that God does in the Bible.
Speaker 5: Is moral, absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 2: Trusting.
Speaker 1: You to Okay, Well, before we before we tie this
particular claim, let me ask you a question, Like, if
it was immoral to sexually assault somebody today, was it
immoral to sexually assault them five thousand years ago as well?
Speaker 5: That would be true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, because like if it's immoral to do something.
It's not really time dependent, right, that's great?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So that being said, was there ever a time
period where it was moral to punish somebody with being
sexually assaulted?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 1: No, that that certainly wouldn't be the case. Have you
do you have a Bible with you? Would you read
a Bible passage with me?
Speaker 5: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Yeah, We're going to go to there's so many pick
from Second Samuel. Let's go to chapter twelve. We're gonna
verse eleven. Let me know when you get there.
Speaker 5: Okay, got it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So this is a punishment handed down for what
happened between David and Bathsheba. So Nathan is giving the
prophecy from God about the punishment, and there are two punishments.
One is that the baby born from Bathsheba is going
to get sick and pass away. The other punishment it
says this, I will raise up trouble against you from
within your own household, and I will take your wives
before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and
he shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. For
you did it secretly, but I'll do this thing before
all Israel and broad daylight. And then in chapter sixteen
ten of David's wives get sexually assaulted by Abslom on
the roof of the palace.
Speaker 2: Okay, so that was.
Speaker 1: Moral behavior, right when God had ten innocent women punished
for the crimes of their husband with sexual assault.
Speaker 5: Well, you asked if something that's moral today but with
moral today would have been moral back then, and immoral
today would have been immoral back then. And I agree
with you. But now you're bringing God into the equation
and God, what God does in the situation is different
than what a human being does.
Speaker 1: Did God sexually assault the women or who did it? Oh?
Speaker 5: God? But God permitted a sexual so I'm sure that
the assault or wasn't seeking to do the will of God.
He just did as a thing.
Speaker 3: But God, God.
Speaker 1: Says he's causing it Verse eleven. He says, I will
raise up trouble against you from within your own house,
and I will take your wife before your eyes. So
God is saying he's the one causing it.
Speaker 5: That's only because God, in the sense, is CAUs all
of everything, because he either does it, or permits it,
or allows it or helps it.
Speaker 1: If God causes everything, that means there's no such thing
as sin.
Speaker 5: Now, it means that when God does it, it's not sin,
but when the person who he caused does it, it is.
Speaker 2: So there's a different set of morals for God than
there is for us, not so much for God.
Speaker 5: Does God?
Speaker 1: Does God have different morals than we do? Oh?
Speaker 5: The moral law is something for man, it's something.
Speaker 1: But what I'm asking is, does God have a different
moral law than we do?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Oh, okay, so then it would be immral for God
to have women's sexual assaulted.
Speaker 2: Do well.
Speaker 5: What I'm what I'm saying is when you see a
causal statement God, I'm going to God says I'm going
to do this, it doesn't necessarily mean that God is
going to directly because God's going to command someone to
do it. There's no there's no state he's that he
commands it.
Speaker 1: No, he says he's doing it. He says, I will
raise up trouble against you. He's the one raising up
the trouble. Absolom's the trouble.
Speaker 5: That's only because everything that happens in the universe is
either done by I, got allowed by God, or helped
by God. But it doesn't just happen by it.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, that's an adorable cope. But if that's
the case, then sin doesn't exist. That means God's causing
everyone to sin. So I don't think that's the argument
you want, causing.
Speaker 5: It by allowance. But interestingly, this is going far.
Speaker 1: Oh you don't. You don't cause it by allowance. Causation
is a separate thing from allowance.
Speaker 5: Well, on what basis what's the canon of that logic?
Speaker 1: Causation is not is not allowance.
Speaker 2: So I'm saying if I allow somebody to get in
front of me in a line, I don't cause them
to get in front of me in the line. There's
a difference. I am permitting something allowing somebody permitting something
to do X. Now, if I allow somebody to borrow
my car and they wreck it and cause an injury
while doing that, I am not liable because I allowed them.
I didn't but I allowed them to use my car,
but I did not cause the car accident. That's the difference.
And so if you say God is allowing things then
when he could have prevented them, that's a whole different thing.
So I allow somebody to rob a bank, I am
now culpable for that.
Speaker 5: So and that's and that's kind of the point The
problem is you and I are not presuming that there
were a God. You and I are not God. And
so there are many things that happen that they don't
happen because we allow them they happen. We don't really
have any control the other.
Speaker 1: But but God has ultimate control.
Speaker 5: Is if I drown you in the water, I'm committing murder.
Speaker 2: But if I see you, you caused it to happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one is caused, one one you know, one is
you causing it, and one is you not doing anything
about it. That's why the causing it is the problem.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: But if I let you go?
Speaker 1: In Second Samuel twelve, does God say I'm allowing it?
Or does he say I'm causing it?
Speaker 5: Well, let's get the actual verse? Which one was the year?
Speaker 1: I tell you it's Canadian mckeem, which means behold, I
am causing to be raised up? What I'm I'm causing
the trouble to be raised up?
Speaker 5: What firse are you looking at?
Speaker 1: I don't containment twelve eleven, Verse eleven. Gods stick credit
for it. He's happy about it, he's proud of it.
Speaker 5: I think what's happening there? And again, this is a
far cry from my original question. But I think what's
happening there is that whereas all kinds of things happen
in the world that you and I don't cause we
don't even allow them, we don't even know about them.
If there is God, and if he's able to do it,
if he allows something when he could have stopped it,
he caused it.
Speaker 1: Listen, Walter saying the same bad argument over again doesn't
make it better. So the word machim in Hebrew is
in the causative stem. It means the person who is
doing it is causing it. That's what that means. That's
why it's translated as God causing it to happen, because
in the original text is literally in the first person
causative form.
Speaker 5: And so that heap that heap that Hebrew phrasing. When
it involves human beings, there's a significant difference between causing
and allowing.
Speaker 1: But when we're talking about that said causing everything, and
then there's no such thing as sin. If God causes
everything to happen, then he caused every sin that was
ever committed, caused.
Speaker 5: It by allowing it.
Speaker 1: Yees, No, I didn't say I said.
Speaker 5: Cause I know you didn't say it, but I did.
Speaker 1: I know you're trying to equivocate two words that aren't
the same. I'm talking about causing something to happen, not
allowing it. Do you agree that if you saw somebody's sin,
you didn't cause that sin.
Speaker 5: I'm just by seeing it? Yes, I agree?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Okay, So just by watching something happen, just by
or even not stopping it, allowing it to play out,
doesn't mean that you were the cause of that sin.
The person who did the sin is necessarily the cause.
Just like when God says I am raising up trouble
against you, God is taking credit for it. Now you're
just telling me you hate what God says. You hate
the Bible. Why do you hate the Bible?
Speaker 5: Now? You're where's in my mouth? And you're putting cannons
of logic in my mouth that don't exist either. The
fact that you're dealing with the unique, you're dealing with
in terms of like in mathematical when you have it,
when you have a set, if God exists, he's the
only one in the set.
Speaker 1: Well, you're making it worse that better.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because that has absolutely nothing to do with what
justice we're talking to you about. Because You're trying to
make allow and cause into synonyms, and they aren't synonyms.
And that's the problem. Justin is telling you what the
the Hebrew words are and where do they come from,
and what they actually mean, and that you can't make
allow and cause synonyms. You just can't do it. Otherwise
you're changing words to fit your particular belief and that's
just that's bad logic.
Speaker 5: I was I was or daina minister in eighty five.
I studied both Hebrew and Greek, and I'm very familiar
with the language. But I'm also saying.
Speaker 2: That God, well you should know that God is.
Speaker 5: The only one in the set, and so you and
I there's a huge difference in my causing and my allowing.
But in God's case, and he even allowing is causing.
The very fact that he created the world means that everything.
Speaker 1: I don't know how Walter, how many times are you
going to say the same bad talking point. It's like
you're like you're stuck on a loop. It's like you're
you're like you like you can't get out of the
hamster wheel. You're stuck, buddy, going round and round and
seeing the same thing. It didn't work the first ten
times that it's not going to work. The eleventh time, when God,
God says I'm causing it to happen, the only mature
thing to do is to admit that God is causing
it to happen, because that's what he said.
Speaker 5: All God is saying by that is he's saying that
this event that you might see is a random event
coming in the future. I have control over it, and
I'm going to allow that to happen for my honor
and glory.
Speaker 1: But did he say that? Did he say I'm allowing it?
Speaker 5: Didn't use that word, but he's speaking.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we'll try this again and say yes or no.
Did he say I'm allowing it?
Speaker 2: He didn't use those words yes or no.
Speaker 1: Did he say I'm allowing it?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 1: Okay, what did he say? What were his actual words?
Speaker 5: I'm causing it?
Speaker 1: There you go. That means he is causing it. Anything
other than that is lying on the book. God said
I'm causing it. And you know how we know that
God is causing it because it's a punishment, the punishment
for somebody's actions. Meaning, had David not done it, this
wouldn't have happened. To his wives. The same reason why
the child wouldn't have died is a punishment that God chose.
He decided this is the punishment, right.
Speaker 5: But God didn't go and sexually assault anyone. God allowed
someone else.
Speaker 2: To cast He caused it.
Speaker 5: So we're just we're just going to differ on the
meaning of the word there. But it's not due to
long Hebrew.
Speaker 1: Anymore or different different on the meaning of what word
he says he causes it.
Speaker 5: Bye by you saying it over and over again, you're
in a hamster wheel too. So maybe we should get
to my original question, which.
Speaker 1: Because because I'm hoping eventually you'll be honest, did God
cause this event to happen?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 6: Or no?
Speaker 5: Lewis doesn't that was it?
Speaker 1: Was it God's decision on whether or not this event
would happen.
Speaker 5: You know, Lewis says he's going to prove God without
the Bible, and you insist on going.
Speaker 1: This's crazy that you can't actually pay attention. Would this
event have happened if God didn't cause it?
Speaker 5: You can't answer my question. I'm very sorry to hear that.
Speaker 1: I wish you don't even heard your question, Walter, because
we're waiting for you to stop running away from second Samuel.
So would the raping of the ten wives had happened
if God didn't cause.
Speaker 5: It's nothing in the world world that happens that. If God
doesn't cause it, because God is the first cause.
Speaker 1: Then again, if that is your point, you're strictly a determinist,
and there's no such thing as sin. It was predetermined.
You keep neutering your own religion. Why do you keep
doing this? This is a horrible talking point.
Speaker 5: Because when God causes a sin, that doesn't mean God's sins.
Speaker 1: I didn't say God sinned. That never left my mouth.
I said, did God cause this event to happen?
Speaker 5: Okay? And I agree he did, But but you were trying.
Speaker 1: To Okay, fantastic. So God caused this event to happen,
which means God caused the punishment for David sin to
be the raping of twelve women or I'm sorry, a
ten women. God caused something that you said was objectively immoral, right, I.
Speaker 5: Said, it would be immoral for a person to.
Speaker 1: Do it, But go You didn't say that. You know,
God caused a person to do it, which means it's immral.
Speaker 5: You asked me if morals are the same today and.
Speaker 1: Sorry, I said, yeh is Absolom a human being?
Speaker 5: Yes he was.
Speaker 1: Did God cause Abslom to do what he did? No wrong?
Speaker 7: Again?
Speaker 1: The answer is yes, He did cause Abslom to do it.
He says he's he's doing it.
Speaker 5: Well, you can say it's wrong, but you're just saying it,
and you are wrong.
Speaker 1: You already admitted it. You said that this event wouldn't
have happened unless God cause it to happen. That means
you know that it wouldn't have happened other than God's doing.
And if Abslom was the instrument of the doing, that
means God caused Absolom to do something horrific.
Speaker 5: But if God caused Abslin to do something horrific, it's
not the same as God doing something horrific himself.
Speaker 1: I didn't say it was, and trust me it is
because when God causes something to happen, you can't like
I don't know if you're a Calvinist, but you're sounding
quasi calvinists. Can you thwart God's will?
Speaker 5: You can't his final will that you can certainly, Oh
so you can't.
Speaker 1: If you can't thwart God's will, can you make God
wrong about what he knows in the future. Okay, so
if you can't make God wrong about what he knows
about the future, that means abslin didn't have a choice.
He had to rape those women have a choice, he didn't.
God can't be wrong about what he knows. And God
pricked it before it would happen, which means Absolom had
no choice. It was determined.
Speaker 5: If God is able to know the future, some would
say that means there can't be any free will, just
like if science can determine the future, some would say
there can't be any free will.
Speaker 1: No, I don't agree with that.
Speaker 5: Your point that I happen to think it's possible for
God to know something will happen, and yet it's still
someone's free choice to do it.
Speaker 1: Oh, I disagree. I can know all things and not
fall into like a predestination situation. God can't know all
things without predestination because God is the one who kicked
everything off from the beginning of creation. He is the
one who tweaked all the recipe parameters. He got to
change any recipe parameber he wanted to. He could have
made like one wiggle of the nose and made it
so that I would be a televangelists. He could have
done that. That's something he could have done before he
created anything, and he chose not to. He saw the
future and said, yes, this is the future I want.
That means everything in the God worldview is predetermined.
Speaker 5: Okay, let me ask you a question. Do you believe
in free will?
Speaker 1: No? In fact, you don't either.
Speaker 5: Well I didn't ask what I did, I asked it
you do.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm a little bit agnostic on whether or not
we have freedom of choice, but I know for a
fact we don't have free will. Like, libertarian free will
is not a thing.
Speaker 5: I do you distinguish free wills for free choice?
Speaker 1: Well, libertarian free will just means you are acting without
any outside influences, meaning there's nothing that would influence my decision.
But the reality is neither of us actually have that. Now,
you might say we have freedom of choice, but I
don't know if we really have freedom of choice. I'm
the jury's out in my world about determinism. I'm still
trying to figure out if determinism is the best viewpoint
for my position. But the reality is, in your worldview,
everything is predetermined. Ephesians chapter two says so.
Speaker 5: Well, a Calvinist interpretation of Ephesian two. And I did
start out as a calvin but not any.
Speaker 1: I mean the Ephesian's one. I apologize.
Speaker 2: Do you know what the problem? Do you know what
the problem with God determining everything else? From a moral
point of view? Are you familiar with the depraved indifference
or depraved heart murder laws?
Speaker 5: Yeah? I am.
Speaker 2: Ah, Well, your God, if your God created a world
in which he knew people would die and commit murder
and do all of the things that we agree are immoral,
isn't he then not moral? Because you know, because we
look at depraved heart and indifference is being wrong.
Speaker 5: No, because again, God is the only one in a set.
If there is a God, he's the only one.
Speaker 2: That has nothing to do with it, right, God, God
knows everything. God has the ability to change everything. And
God is supposed to be benevolent according to you. Therefore,
when God started the universe, he started the universe to
kill his own son.
Speaker 5: No, I don't believe God has the ability to do anything.
I don't believe God can make two plus two equal five.
Speaker 2: That's not what I mean. He knew everything is logically possible.
He's omnipotent. He can do anything that is logically possible.
So no, he can't square circle, and he can't make
a married bachelor, and he can't do any of those
other nonsense things. But what he can do is create
a universe where he doesn't have to kill his own son.
And yet he didn't and had to kill his own son. Therefore,
he created the universe to kill his own son.
Speaker 5: If he wanted, if he wanted, to create a universe
where free will existed as the results and fruit of
free will.
Speaker 2: So he's not omnipotent because he's limited by free will.
Speaker 5: He limits himself by free will.
Speaker 2: He's not omnipotent because and you're you're saying, the only
way he can change anything is through free will. Except
that we know that mental states are a thing, so
we can tell up to almost three seconds before somebody
is going to make a decision what they're going to
make by looking at their mind. Therefore, everybody's mind is
a noble state. So means that God knows the state
of all of our minds. He knows what will have
us make certain choices and what won't. He knows what
will allow some people to be serial killers, and some
people not, and he made a world where that's not possible,
and he made a world where his son died. Therefore,
he killed his own son.
Speaker 5: So you're you're taking a different position than you than
your partner on the issue of free will. You're saying
that the jury, he's kind of saying the jury is
not in yet, whether or not it exists, You're.
Speaker 1: Quite mean, that's what I'm saying. That's that's my opinion.
I don't know if determinism is a view. My my
view on determinism isn't. I'm not speaking for Jim when
I want to do that.
Speaker 2: And to be clear, if you have someone who is
a serial killer generally has some sort of defect in
the brain, so free will doesn't even end to it.
In fact, you could make it. Some psychologists may, and
I don't know this for sure, may make the claim
that it is not free will that allows that they
don't have free will to not be a serial killer.
But either way, it's a problem with the brain. It's physical.
God knew that would happen. God is at least responsible
for every serial killer. God knows every possible brainstake. He
knows what choices we're going to make and why, and
created a universe knowing all of this, where he had
to kill his own son.
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, I don't believe he killed his
own son. He allowed his son to be killed by people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, depraved indifference.
Speaker 1: It was prophesied, it had to happen, Jesus said so,
he said he had to get betrayed and handled over
to fulfill the prophecy.
Speaker 5: That's where God and us are different. Where you and
I could be charged with depraved and difference in a
court of law. God could be charged with depraved and
difference for anything that ever happens anywhere, because he knows everything.
Speaker 2: You can go, yeah, yes, that.
Speaker 1: Maniac.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, you're right. God is not moral. There's your
moral argument. It's dead, dead on arrival because God is
not moral. But you would know why else it's dead
on arrival. We can get into some science if you want.
Speaker 5: No, that's all right, that's the right. I'm just I'm
kind of cure as to why you guys don't want
to don't want to address Lewis's argument, Perhaps neither want
to read I do.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, go ahead and give it, give me the
give me the argument from top to bottom of address it.
Speaker 5: Well, he starts that with the fact that we seem
to all have a sense of right and wrong, and
then he tries to go through various theories as to
what causes that, and he ends up saying that there
is no real theory other than believe in God.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so Lewis lived in the early nineteen hundreds. He
didn't know what we know today about biology. And what
we know today about biology is that behavior that we
call moral exists all throughout nature. Right, So scientists have
taken rats and they've taught rats that if you do this,
you get a reward. Then they taught the rat that
if you do this, you get a reward, and you'll
harm this rat you don't know. One hundred percent of
the time, rats won't harm that other rat, even if
they don't know them, something humans don't do. So in
this one respect, rats are more moral than humans, right
because they do they do the right thing every time.
So that's a problem. Chimpanzees and dogs understand that they
if they can do the same thing and don't get
rewarded the same the same they will get jealous. They
understand that that is not fair. So we see moral
behavior there we see moral behavior in everywhere, right, and
so we even see more the beginnings I won't say
the begin very beginnings of moral behavior in bacteria, where
a strain of bacteria, two strains of bacteria will cooperate,
one will decide to cheat, and if the other one
detects it, they will stop cooperating with them. It's really
really basic, and I hesitate to even call it morals
because it's kind of just the basics. But we see
this throughout nature. And a reason we see it throughout
nature is because cooperation is a survival strategy, and if
organisms are going to cooperate, they have to have a
certain set of rules. They have to be able to
trust each other. That's where morals come from. So he
was completely wrong, and what he knew that is not
what we know today about behavior across the spectrum. That's
the problem.
Speaker 5: First of all, I think you're answer morphizing animals.
Speaker 2: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Like I said, you go,
I could actually provide you the research if you give
me a couple of minutes. But the rats research, there's
a research on chimpanzee. Not chimpanzees, it's another monkey and
the understanding of fairness. You can do if you have
two dogs, get them do the same thing, give one
a better reward than the other. See what happens. They've
studied meerkats marcats, who will, in many cases, uh make
a loud noise to warn somebody of predators. Some people
think that that actually will attract predators and makes them
more liable. But since they're the first ones to see it,
they may have gone in. But we see behavior that
we would call moral everywhere, and that's not anthropomorphizing animals
by any stretch of the imagination. Has just behavior that
we see. I mean, what else? What else would you
call it? When a rat refuses to be rewarded for punishing,
for punishing, not punishing, but for causing harm to another rap?
Is that moral behavior? What would you call that behavior?
Speaker 5: I would just call it behavior. I don't know what
to call it because I can't get inside a rat
and know how a rat thinks.
Speaker 2: Who cares? I mean, humans do the same thing, doesn't
matter what they think.
Speaker 5: Well, let me just forsake of argument, say that your
argument is correct. Lewis does address that you're saying, He
didn't address it. They didn't know that He definitely addresses
the cooperation theory, the theory that the so called moral
law is not divine, but it's just that we've learned
as a society that it makes more sense to behave
in certain ways. He addresses that argument. But the problem
is then you end up with something like if that's
all just a very complex form of the survival of
the fittest, then what about somebody who willingly gives up
their life to save someone else? That makes no sense
in the survival of the fittest context.
Speaker 2: Actually, so you're I think you're using survival of the
fitist incorrectly. It's fittest does not mean someone can go
and do CrossFit or anything about physical fitness. It does
mean about adaptability to their environment. So it's a fitting
into the environment. So but yes, actually we will see
you know, dogs have sacrificed themselves for humans before they've
sacrificed themselves. Sheep dogs, you know, throw themselves in front
of wolves. So to say that we don't see that
and that's not moral behavior, that doesn't make any sense
to me. So, I mean we see that behavior in animals,
so again doesn't address it.
Speaker 5: I don't know what an animal thinks, but I know
that with a human being, if I was absolutely convinced
that this life is all there is, that there's nothing afterwards,
and that giving my life is giving up the only
thing I have, I don't see how I have any
justification to give my life to say, somebody else.
Speaker 1: Well, so they do that empathy atheists don't, right, And the.
Speaker 2: Other problem that you have not only is there an
empathy issue there, but when if you go and talk
to people who have risked their lives, with the exception
of first responders who trained for it and plan on
doing that, people who do it spontaneously, the first thing
out of their mouth is I didn't even think about
the RESK. I just went and did it. So in
those cases they're also not thinking. So again, the state
of mind doesn't make any difference. You're assuming that humans
reason all the time, and that's an assumption you really
shouldn't make because we're patterned recognition machines. We are not
logical engines by any stretchgy imagination.
Speaker 5: When I said survival of fitis I wasn't talking about
physical fitness. I was talking about the fact that the
whole concept of evolution is that the type of behavior
that dies out, that doesn't evolve its way through dies out.
And the part that doesn't die out is the part
that has survival value. But there is no survival value
to giving your life.
Speaker 1: Well, so I guess, yeah, yeah, there is because we
survive them as species, not as an individual, right.
Speaker 2: And we see that dogs will sacrifice their lives and
risk their lives to save humans and cheap and other dogs.
We see this in other We see this in behavior
in other animals. So to say this is exclusive to humans,
that's not the case. There is no behavior we humans
do that we don't also see in other animals to
one degree or another.
Speaker 5: Well that would be that would be a whole other
point that would take a while to follow through. But basically,
I think that whatever animals do or don't think, we
think we're capable of thinking.
Speaker 2: And we don't do it all the time. Yeah, we
don't think all the time, right, because we're pattern recognition engines, right,
So there's a part of our brain that does just that.
But when we actually try and think, what if I say,
back up, if I say two plus two equals and
you say four, you didn't do the math. Your brain
recognized the pattern and came up with the answer. Now,
if I say, what is five billion times three billion, well,
that's easier. You're still going to say fifteen billion because
you recognize that pattern. What's the square root of fifty
five and thirty two? Now you're going to actually have
to think about it. Thinking is a high energy thing,
which is why we don't always do it. And we
also know that humans will sacrifice themselves without thinking, because
we know this from people who have rescued others who
have come back and survived it and said, I didn't
even think about the danger. I just did it. So again,
the thought process has nothing to do with this, right.
Speaker 5: But I'm now talking about a situation where there is
a thought process where you're not doing something.
Speaker 8: In coolily Okay, the survival of the fittist can involve
being willing to give up oneself for survival of the species.
I say that makes no sense in an atheistic concept,
because sure does it.
Speaker 2: It's basic evolution. What are you talking about? It's basic evolution, dude?
Speaker 1: Yeah, are you telling me that the atheist? To be sure, Walter,
I would die for my child in a second. There's
nothing I wouldn't do for my child, Even if that
meant give in my life for my child, that directly
allows my child to continue living. When the parent has
that biological factor built in that allows them to self
sacrifice for their own children, it's wired into us because
it helps us survive.
Speaker 5: So you think that if you would sacrifice for your child,
it's just because it's wired into you.
Speaker 1: I think that's part of it. Yeah, I think a
lot of our behaviors are developed through evolution.
Speaker 5: But you don't think it's a moral thing. So let's say,
if you sacrifice yourself for your child and some other
father to forget it, I'll let the child go and
I'll look out for number one. You don't think your
behavior is more moral than that person's, well.
Speaker 1: I would subjectively disagree with them. I would say, I
don't agree with that opinion, but I don't believe in
objective morals, which is actually the end point of the
conversation you want to get to. You want to use CS.
Lewis's argument for objective morals, but I know for a
fact that you can't demonstrate that objective morals exist.
Speaker 5: Then, so when you say that you would in a
second give your life for your child, that's not objectively right.
That just happens to be your choice.
Speaker 1: That's my decision.
Speaker 2: It's a behavior we call moral, right, there's no such
thing as morals. There's behavior we call moral, and there's
behavior we call immoral. But it's just behavior. Because as
soon as you take that behavior, that willingness for a
parent to sacrifice as child, and we apply it to
any other animal that does the same thing, you're going
to say that doesn't count. And the only difference is
humans doing it versus animals doing it, And so that's
the exception you're making.
Speaker 5: I think the difference is that animals are doing it
by instinct and human beings are making a choice.
Speaker 2: Well, again, you made that point before, and I've already
beaten that point to death right. Not everybody thinks and
mental states don't matter. What matters is to behavior.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's clearly a combination of like evolutionary instincts and
maybe a little bit of thought processing. But for most people,
I wouldn't I wouldn't think about it, Like if my
child was in danger, I wouldn't be thinking, oh, should
I do this thing for my child? No, I'm just
going to go do it. It's just wired into me.
Not everybody has that, by the way, but I know
that I do. But let me ask you a better question,
because I feel like we're going round and round on
this particular point and I don't think it's going to
lead us anywhere. Walter, do you have an argument that
would end in morals being objective?
Speaker 5: I would Yeah, I could say yes to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'd love to hear the argument.
Speaker 5: Well, I think he presents the argument. Again. I just
think he does it. I can do it fairly well,
but I think he does it a lot better. He
presents the argument that we all, you know, have a
sense of of some kind of a moral law because
we hold each other accountable, and we don't then say,
oh to hell with your moral law. You know, we
say that wasn't fair, you cheated, that wasn't right, Why
did you take my seat? Why did you step on
my foot?
Speaker 1: And we with objective morals?
Speaker 5: Yeah, in in other words, it's objective. And he even
points out in the book that if I step on
if I step on your toe accidentally, you're going to
make allowance for that. But if I it's very different
than if I step on your toe deliberately.
Speaker 1: And so we know what about that requires objective morals?
That's what I'm asking.
Speaker 5: What about the what?
Speaker 1: What about any of that requires objective morals to exist?
Speaker 5: Oh, because we all have a sense that that's right
and that's wrong, and it's not. It's not just purely subjective.
Speaker 1: We don't, you know objective, it's entirely subjective.
Speaker 2: Have you ever watched dogs at play? And I have
ever noticed that when a dog accidentally does something to
cause harm to another dog that they apology, That there's
behavior that is apologetic.
Speaker 5: Well, I see behavior that answer morphively looks apologetic.
Speaker 2: No, it is, it is apologetic. Go talk to a
dog behavior, so they'll tell you it's apologetic. They're apologizing
or making sure the other dog knows it's an accident.
Horses do the same thing.
Speaker 5: But you're just observing behavior. But you can't you're not
a dog. But you don't know how they realize.
Speaker 2: That's that's entirely my point. The behavior is what we
call moral. There are no there's nothing as moral, there's
only behavior. Right, you're making this, you're cutting out the
special case for humans that humans are doing something and
but animals do it too, So you're not You can't
carve out there's moral, these objective morals that humans do
without also addressing the same behavior and other animals.
Speaker 5: Well, I guess I'll just ask you one question. Maybe
you don't have the same answer, but to both of
you believe that morals are completely subjective.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yes, until someone can demonstrate that they that they're objective.
That's just this default position. The default position is that
they're subjective until proven otherwise.
Speaker 5: So here's the thing. When you just said a few
minutes ago that you know you would, you know in
a second, you'd give your life for your child. I
wanted to say, well, I commend that, I really approve
of that. But if someone else said, well I don't
think that at all, I'd easily give up my child,
I'd say, well I don't approve of that. Now. Is
that purely a value judgment?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's my opinion. That's why morals are subjective because
we can't agree on what is properly moral as a species.
For example, almost all of human history, mankind and their
gods were okay with slavery. And now we're not your god.
The god in your book said to do slavery, said
that women would be permanent slaves, that you can make
slaves of the Heathen nations around you, but we agree
now that that's not something we should be doing. So
that tells me that morals are in fact subjective, because
people back then didn't see the problem, but we see
it now.
Speaker 5: Right, Except God never commands slavery. He regulates it.
Speaker 1: No, he commands it. Want me to show you where
I will never understand why pastors gont appear in lie
on their own book. When a man sells his daughter
as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. This is preceded by a passage. This
is preceded by a passage about male Hebrew slaves.
Speaker 2: Is it not?
Speaker 5: Didn't it start by saying, when a man sells his daughter?
Is that what you said?
Speaker 1: When a man sells his daughter as a slave, and
then the clause she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. So God could have said, when a
man sells his daughter as a slave, she goes free,
the same as the male slaves do. He didn't say that.
He says, when a man sells his daughter, she doesn't
go free.
Speaker 5: But what I'm saying is regardless of the male female,
that's the whole other subject. But God doesn't say you
shall have slaves, he says, while you're.
Speaker 1: Happy, I didn't say he commanded you that you had
to have slaves. That's entirely not what my claim was.
The God in your book does in fact instruct you
to make slaves, though, and the way that you do
it is by telling him, when you sell your daughter
as a slave, make her a permanent slave. That's God
instructing to make slaves. Same thing with the chapter verse four.
In the same chapter, he says, if a master gives
him a wife, referring to the Hebrew, if a master
gives him a wife and she bears some sons or daughters,
the wife and her children shall be her master's, and
he shall go it alone. But if the slave declares,
I love my master, so on and so forth. So
in verse four he literally saying, if a hebrew man
comes in and you give him a wife while he's enslaved,
and then he leaves, he doesn't get to take those
kids with them or the woman. There's still property. There's
still property forever of the owner. He couldn't he could
have said anything else. He could have said no, no, no, no,
treat them the same way you would a Hebrew male.
Let him go free. But he didn't say that. He
said to do the opposite of that.
Speaker 5: But all My only point was that God is not
at any at any point commanding slavery. He's regulating and
the institution.
Speaker 1: No, he commanded it.
Speaker 2: Why would God allow something that's evil? Why would God
allow something that's evil.
Speaker 5: He didn't allow something that's evil. He wouldn't have created
free will, and he wouldn't have created us.
Speaker 2: No, we have laws. So you're saying that the laws
we have against slavery violate free will?
Speaker 1: No, oh shit, we're violating free will right now. I didn't.
Speaker 2: He just said no. So why couldn't God have just said,
dona slaves as a law instead of making laws about
how to regulate slavery. And yes, it's chattle slavery if
you're going to go there, don't.
Speaker 5: I guess you know. God could have had a law
about us to everything. But instead he regulated the human
condition at all.
Speaker 1: Wrong, He didn't regulate it. What did he regulate? Name
one thing he said that you can't do that they
would have been doing otherwise in regards to slavery.
Speaker 5: That's the verse. And you didn't give me the verse,
so I didn't I didn't find it.
Speaker 2: But twenty one four.
Speaker 1: You're a pastor, you should know. If you don't know
who this is, you're not. You shouldn't have been in
the pulpit.
Speaker 5: You just so diverse. There a few pastors on earth
that can take any verse and tell you exactly where
it came from without you giving me a reference.
Speaker 1: I tell you should be a pretty damn sure at
least what chapter it came from your pastor. Slavery comes up,
you're going to get asked, well, you know you can.
Speaker 5: You can go that route if you want. But the
fact is, when you start a sentence with when a
man sells his daughter, God is not commanding anything. He's saying,
there's this thing that's already happening.
Speaker 2: I'm right, And you've already said that slavery doesn't violate
free will, and God could have created a log against slavery,
and here he's giving a law on what to do
with Slavs.
Speaker 1: So just to be clear, in the context we're speaking
of a slave is somebody who doesn't go free and
an indentured servant gets to go free. Right, that's correct? Yeah, Okay,
so when he says when a man sells his daughter
as a slave, her default position, if she's a Hebrew,
is already as an indentured servant. So the next thing
he says is she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. That they command to take her from
indentured servant to a slave. God's command is to not
let her be an indentured servant, make her a slave.
Speaker 5: I'd have to look at that more closely, especially because
I don't I still have.
Speaker 1: The reference, which is I just told you Exced twenty
one seven. And then he goes on in the same
chapter and says, you can beat your slaves so severely
that if they accidentally die a couple of days later,
you're not going to get punished for it.
Speaker 2: And some versions of that translation say for they are
your property, and other translations say for they are your money.
I like see, because they are your money one rather
than the property one.
Speaker 1: But that is literal is cussif in Hebrew, which just
means silver or money.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, So okay, so the correct translation is they
are your money. Excellent, because that's my favorite interpretation because
it makes it really, really clear that that slaves are
chattel slavery.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he commands the Israelites in Levitica's twenty five not
to make slaves of their own Hebrew male brethren. Why
couldn't he have made the same claim for non Hebrews.
Speaker 5: But let me ask you a question. So you're asking
why God is doing it?
Speaker 1: Crazy that you think you're going to ask You're going
to answer a question with a question. Listen, you can
ask whatever you question you want to after you answer mine.
In Levitica's twenty nine thirty nine through thirty nine through
forty three, he explicitly tells the Israelites not to make
slaves permanently of your own Hebrew brethren and to let
let them go free at the year of Jubilee, only
the only the men, and only the Hebrews. And then
he goes on and says, you can make permanent slaves
of the foreigners. So he's already laying down rules saying,
don't enslave these people. Then he says, but you can't
enslave these people. What was preventing them from just saying, hey, listen,
treat everybody the same way you would treat a Hebrew male.
Don't enslave them. Perpetually let them serve for seven years
and then then go free.
Speaker 5: He was making a distinction between the way he treated
the Hebrews and the way he treated others because they
were his chosen people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, they were his slaves. He says in Livica
twenty five. You won't make your own Hebrew brethren your slaves,
because they are my slaves who I brought out of Egypt.
So God's jealous someone's taking his slaves. This is the
property to dispute. That's all it is. He doesn't care
if the Israelites own other people as slaves.
Speaker 5: Here's an interesting thing. You're saying that morals are relative,
that morals are subjective, but that you're making moral judgments
about God and saying God things.
Speaker 1: That we're there, we go, We finally got there. I
knew you'd figure it out, Walter, Thank you. So this
is called an internal critique, right. We start with the
fact that you think slavery is wrong and you think
morals are objective. I started this conversation by saying that
morals are subjective. I'm sorry you think they're objective. I
think they're subjective. And the proof that they're subjective is
that people back then thought that slavery was chill, and
people today don't think that slavery is chill. I'm on
the side that doesn't think that slavery is chill, which
proves morals are subjective, not objective. But if they are objective,
you've got a problem. Because your God said to do slavery,
and you think slavery is wrong, that you left.
Speaker 5: Out another possibility.
Speaker 1: I'm all yours.
Speaker 5: Okay. You know the thing is, I'm watching this on
YouTube and a there's a delay, so I've got the
sound down, but I'm watching you, but you're you're you're
not speaking in terms of the words. The other reason
to look at it is that slavery. I'm against slavery,
but I'm not against it for moral reasons. I'm against
it for technologtical reasons.
Speaker 1: So you don't think that slavery was morally wrong.
Speaker 5: I don't think it was ever morally wrong, But I
I think that I think. You know what I think
was that was the ultimate cause of the downfall of slavery,
invention of the printing press.
Speaker 1: To the printing press. Part of me I thought it
was the motherfuckers out here trying to end it. That's
what I thought. It was all along als we needed
with the printing press. That's crazy, very simple.
Speaker 6: I's got a world where where there's a happen because
some people read, some people can't, you're going to have
a slave class. But when you have to, everybody has
the ability to read, and to you, that's a leveling process.
I think that the printing press was an inherent leveling process,
and it just took a while to catch up and
give us the abolitionary Yeah.
Speaker 1: England before Yeah, because everyone could read. Yeah, that's what happened.
Speaker 2: When you're making a moral argument now, right, because you're
still saying that slavery was wrong, and you're just saying
that we had slavery because education was different back then
than it is now, and so now now it's so
moral to you enslave educated people.
Speaker 5: I'm not saying it was ever wrong.
Speaker 2: You're saying it's wrong now. That's what that's my point is,
you are, in fact saying a trunk.
Speaker 5: I'm saying it's pragmatically and expedient. That's why I'm all
in favor of abolition. I'm glad we had it magic for.
Speaker 2: Right, So if so, we should go and find people
on the planet who are uneducated and enslaved them. That
you're saying that is okay Now, I.
Speaker 5: Think it's much better to teach them to read instead
and let them use the printy.
Speaker 1: Well, why would it be wrong in your world view?
Would it be wrong if we own slaves.
Speaker 5: I don't think it's morally wrong. I just I just
think it's I don't think it's necessary, and I'm in
favor of having legislation against.
Speaker 1: It because everything that God commands is because everything that
God commands is permissible, right.
Speaker 5: Everything that God commands is permissibly yet right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So like if God said, like, you can go
and execute these infants, it would be good to a
big God.
Speaker 5: I don't believe he would, But yeah, I didn't.
Speaker 1: I didn't ask you if you would. First of all,
we know he would. First Samuel fifteen three says so dudeemy.
Chapter twelve says so as well.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Chapter twenty I'm sorry says so as well, So we
know he would. Okay, So if God did tell you,
then he said, Walter, I needed to go and burn
down this orphanage over here. It would be good to
obey God.
Speaker 5: He wouldn't, but yes, it would be good if he did.
Speaker 1: Okay, And if God said, Walter, I need you before
you burn down the orphanage, to take the children out
of the orphanage, put them through a meat grinder, and
make yourself some nice burger patties for dinner, that would
be the right thing to do.
Speaker 5: No, he wouldn't say that, because that would.
Speaker 1: I didn't say say he would. I said if he did,
would it be the right thing to do.
Speaker 5: You're trying to make me a theological voluntarist and I'm not.
Speaker 1: No, No, I'm not. I'm saying, if God in fact
command you to do something, would it be good to obey?
Because in your world view, there's no limit. If God
told you to do anything, it's always good to obey,
isn't it.
Speaker 5: If God told me to do something, he'd do it.
He tell me to do it because it's in accordance
with his nature, which is good, So it.
Speaker 1: Would be good to obey him and make baby burger patties.
Speaker 5: Right, he wouldn't do that. That opposes everything.
Speaker 1: And ask if he would. I never asked if he would.
I said if he did.
Speaker 5: I think that's a question like plus two equal five.
I think it's.
Speaker 1: Walter, it's not because God tells the Israelite he's going
to cause them to cannibalize their own children. He says
it on three different occasions, and he makes it happen.
Is recorded lamentations, then, Jeremiah, So God will absolutely make
you make baby burger patties. I'm asking you if God,
if God commands you to make the baby burger patties,
would it be good to do it?
Speaker 5: That's the allowance thing. Again, he never commands them to cannibalize.
Speaker 1: Try try, Walter, focus. I know you're terrified of answering
the question, but try to stand track. If God told
you to make baby burger patties, would it be right
to do it?
Speaker 5: You wouldn't do it. I can't answer the question.
Speaker 1: I again, I didn't ask you if he would. It's
a hypothetical. All of a sudden, you're real sheepish about hypotheticals.
If God told you to make the baby burger patties, logically,
is it entailed that we would be good to obey.
Speaker 5: You don't want me to answer a question with a question.
Speaker 1: But if you can answer yes or no, it's a
yes or no. I need a yes or no out
of you. Let me actually, let me, let me try.
Let me try it with Jim. Jim. If God told
you to make baby burger patties, do you think it
would be good to do?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? No way under anything. Yeah, would be good to
do that.
Speaker 1: That was easy because he got subjective morals. He doesn't
have divine command theory. You've got divine command theory. So
we'll try this again. If God told you to make
baby burger patties, would it be right to obey him?
Speaker 5: It's a non question, so I can't answer it.
Speaker 1: It is a it's a real question. You can't answer it.
We need to take your tail out from between your
legs and grow a backbone. Be a man now and
answer the question if God told you to make baby
burger patties. If God told you to make baby burger patties,
would it be right to obey him?
Speaker 5: You usually stoop to insulting when your logic gets weak.
Speaker 1: He can't, he can't help himself. He's terrified. He's terrified
of a hypothetical.
Speaker 2: And I don't understand why he's terrified. It's not like
you're laying a trap for him.
Speaker 1: I'm certainly not laying a trap for him. I'm just
showing him the logical conclusion of divine command theory. That's it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is the logical conclusion that you're and you're assuming.
So you're making a couple of of assumptions here, because
unless you're going to say that when God flooded the
planet that babies didn't die. God killed babies, right, that's correct. Okay,
So killing babies is okay for God to do, why
is it not good for humans to do? If everything
God does is.
Speaker 5: Good, God is the only one in the set, and
if you or I kill somebody, we've completely lost contact
with that person.
Speaker 2: You have one set of morals for God and one
set of morals for humans, that's what you're saying. Therefore,
there is no objective morals because objective morals would exist
outside of any type of brain that includes gods. So
there are no objective morals. So you've destroyed your own
moral argument.
Speaker 5: I don't think so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So where's the objective morals? If there's one set
of morals for God one set of morals for humans,
where's the objectivity in that?
Speaker 5: If God is the one who creates the moral law,
it's a little different then.
Speaker 2: Nope, it's God's opinion at that point.
Speaker 5: See, when you're dealing with God and life and death,
it's very different because you and I.
Speaker 2: When you're dealing with the word objective, it means it
applies outside of a mind, including God's.
Speaker 5: Is it would it be wrong for me to move
someone from one side of a door to the other.
Speaker 2: I have absolutely no idea because I don't know what
the circumstances are, because trying to figure out what morals
are are often complicated because there are gray areas. It
is not always wrong to kill somebody, for instance, even
though you may get charged with murder, for.
Speaker 5: God to move someone from life to death as much
as moving them from one room into another. So he's
in a different situation. So it's not that moral is subjective.
Is that he's in a different situation than we are.
Speaker 2: Oh so God can kill people because but when people
kill people, we're not moving them from one door to
the other.
Speaker 1: Apparently Walter's pro abortion. Now, thanks for letting us know.
Speaker 5: We're moving them completely outside of our realm. That's why
we're commanded not to do it.
Speaker 2: But we're just moving them from what we're doing, the
same thing. God's doing. When God kills, he moves them
from one side to the other. When we kill, we
move them from one side to the other. It's the
same behavior.
Speaker 5: When he does there's still there's still he's able to
watch over them on both sides of the door.
Speaker 2: We're not, so he's not able to watch over people
on both sides of the door of weak gls on body.
Speaker 5: That's not what I said. I agree.
Speaker 2: I mean this is this is a problem with your
objective morals is you end up with morals for God
morals for humans, and so morals can't exist outside of
a human mind or outside of a mind period. Whether
it's God's or humans or or dogs, makes no difference.
In order for something to be objective, it has to
exist outside of a mind, and you don't have morals
that do it because you're and that's that's exactly what
you're doing. When you say God has morals that we don't.
When God can do things that we can't, you're saying
that that there are no objective morals, that everything is
subjective to God.
Speaker 8: You made your own definition of objective morals to no, No,
I'm using the correct definition for objective connection.
Speaker 2: Give out. I don't know. I still show him is
on on college studio.
Speaker 1: And says he's there, I mean himself. He might have
maybe Lord finally got embarrassed with the conversation and took him.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well that's the problem with the moral argument, right
is you can't Well, it looks like he just dropped.
Speaker 1: Not sure why I took care of it. So we've
got time for one more caller. I'm going to read
some superchat real coick. Also remember on any baby paste
edible example, Jeremiah nineteen nine is clear God says I
will make them eat the flesh of their sons and
their daughters. God is more than happy to cause people
to cannibalize their children. So yeah, saying God wouldn't tell
me to do it just means you haven't read your book.
It's okay, We're used to it. Christians don't read this thing.
But let's grab some super chats and we'll get our
last guest, Benji into the show. We've got a super
chat from Crispin slit for two pounds, says me. Yeah, well, hey,
welcome Crispin, thank you for the meout chat. And Duke
then in a ten euro chat, says I'm allowing this
tax to duckle do to appear on my bank statement.
And you got it. Friend, make sure to do your
taxes and don't forget about this donation. Thank you for
that though, and ecta fool with a two dollars supertest says,
I hoped a pastor might have higher quality lies. Nope,
as the next pastor myself. They don't have any better
coping mechanism than the people in the pew. That's where
they're learning it from in the pew, is from their
pastor who has no idea what's happening. And another one
from our friend Duke Shaska says apes we are apes,
not monkeys, and we sacrifice ourselves because our strategy is
survival of the herd, not the individual. Couldn't agree more, friend,
and Phil, oh, thank you for the five dollars supertest says,
how does one regulate something and not approve of it? Think, Walter,
think that's exactly you know. I should have brought this up.
I've done it before. But like if if my son
is hitting somebody with a toy and I say, okay,
you can only hit her ten times, not one hundred times,
Well I'm the asshole. I should have said, don't hit
that child at all. Like regulating something that you could
easily end isn't better.
Speaker 2: Right, And we regulated behavior all the time because behavior
in certain cases is okay. So it's okay to hit
somebody if you're a UFC fighter. It's not okay to
hit somebody because they took your toy as a child.
Right now, if they stole your car, that's still not
okay to hit somebody, right, So we regulate the behavior
because we approve of the behavior in certain narrow circumstances.
Speaker 1: Right, And Verna Smith, thank you for the two dollars,
super chest says, may all living things be free? Fuck slavery. Hey,
I'm with you, vern I'm with you. Verna fill oh
with another five dollars. Super Chest says, so Walter is
an excuses excuse it just with a chronic severe case
of Godzheimer's. Get help, Walter, please get it sued. Might
it may or me not be the case. We don't
do any medical advice here, friends, and doctor David Wassembla
thank you for the five pound chat says Glad I
caught part of this, albeit late due to work. Great job,
Justin and Jim Profits of Doug, I'll have to catch
up tomorrow as it's eleven fifty pm here. Well, we
hope that you get lots of rest and we really
appreciate you being here and support in the channel. And
also our friend Jimmy Junior is in the house with
a ten dollars super great to see is says in
fourteen forty. The printing press was invented. In fifteen seventeen,
the Lutheran Church splintered from the Catholic Church. People being
able to read was the beginning of the downfall of
the Catholic Church. That is a fact actually, and last
one from Dustin Hopkins for fourtine and nine, says Doug Blass.
We agree. We're you going to say, Jim sorry about that.
Speaker 2: Oh, I was just say with anything as historical is
a downfall of the Catholic Church, it's always more than
one thing. But yeah, you could definitely point to the
printing press as being where people could read the Bible
for themselves. And I think that's also where we go
from having a single Catholic, unified church as unified as
something as large as the Catholic Church at the time
could be anyway to ten thousand different. I mean, we've
seen that happen just on the show today, right with
people with wildly different and weird interpretations of the Bible.
Stuff is just not there, so you know, it's it's problematic.
Speaker 1: Well, let's get our last caller in here. I'm having
so much fun, Jim, it's hard to believe it's already
seven o'clock. I wish we could stay on for like
another three hours, but.
Speaker 2: We can go. We go school.
Speaker 1: We're out of.
Speaker 2: Hey, I am not Jimbo. Did not ever call me
that again, or I'll just cut you off immediately.
Speaker 9: I've done.
Speaker 2: It was in that name, sorrype, My name is Jim.
That's why it says Jim on there.
Speaker 9: Oh sorry, Well I was going to say that, Yeah,
the printing press, which I was thinking Benjamin Franklin because
I know that he was a newspaper guy when he
was a kid, and I was thinking that he invented
it because he printed papers, which I mean even at
the time when papers were printed, you know, like newspapers
and stuff. I was in there thinking that because I know,
you know, they had slaves even when there was paper, right,
like like papers, you know, newspapers and stuff and articles.
Speaker 4: So I knew that, like, yeah, that that didn't make
any sense. Yeah, because he was we had, you know,
slavely disappeared because of the printing press. And I'm sitting
there and going, no, that don't make.
Speaker 1: Sense, Benji. It says that you want to talk about
the idea of sin and where it came from before
we get a feel for the call. Can you tell
us what your position is? Are you a believer in
some kind of a god, and if so, which kind?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so I'm a gnostic mostly. I mean I've been
Catholic and Baptists and everything throughout the decades. I've been
around a while, but I also believe in limbo. But
I'm still pretty much a gnostic at this point.
Speaker 1: Did we talk before you? Did you talk with Forrest.
Speaker 2: And I ones?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I talked to a lot of y'all. Gym okay, yeah,
that's up to him. A few times. I talked to you,
I talked to doctor Ben. I talked to the other one,
other doctor guy, I can't remember his name. And then
I talked to guy he's a he's one guy to
talk to, and then the other one I can't remember.
Speaker 1: So what's the question?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Yeah, so I was I was thinking, because I
was going to argue for sin that then I've told
the stream callers like like ause, y'all would argue against sin, right,
and then even if I argued for sin, it wouldn't
wantly make much sense because like, well, well, my idea
idea of sin is stupid anyway.
Speaker 1: But to be sure, like if if we're an atheist,
we don't believe sin exists, because sin is like the
disobedience against like a deity, and so like obviously you'd
have to prove a dity before you prove sin.
Speaker 4: Well, I was going with JA was going to argue
against the idea of sin, and I was going to
argue for the idea of sin. But either way, because y'all,
I mean, Jim's been on both sides. I don't know
if you've always been an atheist or not, but I
know Jims was a Catholic at one point, was.
Speaker 1: A Christian for about twenty years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, would y'all want to argue against sin
or just say that you don't believe it at all?
Speaker 2: The argument against sin is that we don't believe that
God exists, and sin is an offense against a God.
So that's our entire argument. So if you want to
argue for sin, you should probably start with what you're
defining a god, then trying to prove that God exists,
and then show us what offends that God.
Speaker 4: Well, a lot of sets there.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Well, the god that I was arguing for was going
to be the if he blew it god of the Yeah,
so the God of the Bible basically. And then which
I mean even in a lot of people don't know this,
but even in the Bible, those multiple gods. But anyway, Yeah,
the thing I was going to try to do, sorry,
what I.
Speaker 2: Was agreeing with you that the Bible actually is uh
as multiple guys aren't.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, a lot of people don't know that. But yeah,
and then uh, I.
Speaker 1: Mean I I just let's try to frame the conversation
a little bit, Benny, because we're short on time. Benjamin,
do you have a conversation or an argument or something
that would end with the conclusion that God is real?
Because before we can move to any sin discussion, we
need to first prove that God is real.
Speaker 4: Well, object to morality obviously wouldn't work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we shouldn't do that one again.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean it doesn't only matter what's argument I do,
because most of them all have already heard or Polly olive.
Speaker 2: All of them. Yeah, there aren't that many, and everybody
uses them and they're all bad. Do you love me?
Speaker 5: Just pick one?
Speaker 2: No? I mean we're getting close to the end, and uh,
you know if you're if you're going to argue it
just for the sake of argument, then that's not doing
anybody any good at all. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, Benji, I've talked to you. I've talked
to you before, and I don't think the conversation was able
to go anywhere because you just wanted to play Devil's
advocate and will that could be fun. I'd love to
shoot the breeze with somebody on that doing that particular thing.
That's not really the point of this show.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: The point of this show is to debate positions that
you actually hold, and so I think for that reason,
maybe we have to terminate.
Speaker 4: The talk about what I think subsin. But I mean
I actually just not try to prove cent and just
talk about what my opinion is osin if.
Speaker 1: That would work, we need the argument for God first,
that that's the reduction of your position, which was in
order before before your opinion on sin matters, you have
to determine that God exists.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean that's kind of that's the idea I
had to call in about.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, well, listen, I'm sorry it didn't work out for you, Benji,
but we really appreciate that you're nice and you're kind,
and you're funny, and you're good to talk to. Like that,
those are really good qualities to have, even if you're
not on the atheistic worldview. So just know that, like,
we appreciate that you're coming up here with such good candor.
But next time you come, we want to hear your
very best argument for why God exists.
Speaker 2: Okay, well I'll.
Speaker 4: Try, but I'm pretty sure it'll fail.
Speaker 1: Okay, It's okay, It'll be funny either way, all right,
chirs friend, Well, next Sunday, I'm not on. I'm not sure,
but somebody also would be on. I'm positive that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, i'll have something really good on. Yeah. We're
usually on about once a month, sometimes twice a month.
It kind of depends on how the scheduling falls.
Speaker 1: Scheduling falls, so yeah, well let me let me run
our last super chat and that I want to hear
Jimmy's input. I think if I know anything about Jamie's input,
if I know anything about Jamie, He's got some things
to say. I'm still thinking of that super chat from
Jimmy Junior, God's Sinner, thank you for the fin diary,
Supergensis on behalf of the Big Nick. Take his book,
read it, but don't interpret it unless you're Christian. From Carakel. Yeah,
I mean it's hard not to interpret a book while
you're reading it, but yeah, for sure, Like if if
you're a Christian and you're reading that book, we understand
that you have to do the putzels, like you have
to look at these passages and do the dance of
words don't mean words. But if you're an atheist, you
can read this book and you just have fun with it.
You can read it and like, oh, this motherfucker over
here thinks you should eat your children, Like it's just
a good time, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think atheists are the only people who
can actually claim that we do not interpret the book
because we're more than willing to accept that there are
two stories in Genesis that are completely incapable with each other,
and so we can read those literally. We can read
the story of the flood and realize that there are
two stories embedded in the same story, because we can
see where we have two story beginnings, and it makes
no sense in any other interpretation. And so we can
read this stuff literally. And Christians can't because they have
to come up with a single narrative, and there isn't
There's what sixty six different narratives, and some books have
two or three narratives inside of them, so you know,
it just doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I agree. One of the few things I
agree with in the Bible is eat and drink, be
merry because tomorrow we may die. Those are those are
pretty decent words. But let's bring up Jamie. Jamie, I'd
love to hear your thoughts on some of these calls.
Speaker 10: Oh there, am O got Yes, I can't tell when
I'm on and when I'm musing because it's so far away,
real quick. Roberts Paul Spiel was extremely aggrificing. But I'm
found I've found in the I'm in the dilemma that
I have to keep pose law in mind but also
take people on their word and his his his arguments
were so base level nonsense and trying to equivocate if
evolution and stuff. But the thing is that I said
straight at the start. Two things he said that obviously
specifically to me, made me interested was he was blind
from birth, and he said he was his Bible was
in Braille, right, And anytime anyone claims that that that
that that they're as part of their story they're blind,
my first thought is to say, oh, what condition do
you have, because not to be not to not to
cast a spurgeons on someone who's not to defend themselves.
I don't think he could tell me because I'm not
certain he has one, because I could tell you exactly
what's wrong with my eyes, and I think most people
who have a visual impairment can also do the same.
But anyway, then there was Walter, and Walter was a
quite example of command theory, and I wasn't so I
don't think you can see me while I'm in studio,
because you kind of when I'm streaming from home. But
I was going absolutely fucking spare. I was like because
because he's like, oh no, when he says it causes it,
it's he just allows it.
Speaker 2: And then oh it was slavery.
Speaker 10: He just allows it so and it's it's it's the
flipping picking, the cherry picking, or picking winds and the winds.
Anytime anything good happens that God says he causes, he
caused it. Anytime anything bad happens, he just allowed it.
Outside of that, it's divine command theory. And as soon
as he said that he would, he would allow, like
he would kill babies. But I trust God won't won't
tell me to do that. I'm like, I'm almost I'm like, oh, Walter.
Speaker 2: Abraham killing his son. There are Bible scholars who think
the ending of that was added, Yeah, that he actually
did kill his son, because if he take that out
and continue to read, it actually makes more sense.
Speaker 10: And then there's jetths do you know it's like and it's, oh,
he allowed him to immolate his daughter as a burnt
offering and that kind of thing, and yeah, nahl, did
anyone go up to heaven? I actually read Two Kings too.
I actually read it well drunk on camera recently. The
way Yeah, punching roots, half wild ship anyway, it's kind
of Moses light. But the whole thing is that the
divine command theory plus a lovely, lovely side order of
special pleading, like everything God does is good, but there's
only one morality that is objective. But God doesn't have
to God isn't moral, He doesn't apply to morals, but
he doesn't have morals, but he is moral, and he
made the morals. And I'm like, ugh, it's it's just avoidance.
It's just I've not seen dodging like that since the
last no Hit playthrough of Devil May Cry three that
I watched on on the YouTube's So thank you for
having me up, guys. You did a fantastic bang up
job as usual.
Speaker 2: Take us out.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Jamie, and thank you everybody for
being here today. Thank you Jim for joining me on
the screen. I think we always have a blast when
we're together. Always a pleasure. And we'll see you next week,
same time, same place. Make sure y'all show up and
support who's ever hosted next week, friends, take us out,
glad we start up, Stop.
Speaker 11: Sam watch Talking and Live Sundays at one pm Central.
Visit tiny dot c c slash y T T H
and call into the show at five one two four two.
Connect to the show online at tiny dot c c.
Speaker 10: Haled