DEBATE: Atheism or Christianity, Which Is True? | Craig Vs Apollos | Podcast
02:15:53 Share

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures.

When it comes to meeting the world's energy needs, more is better. What we mean is our world needs a wide range of energy sources to meet our increasing needs. Just wind or solar won't get us there, as the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. With our growing population and the increasing use of energy-demanding technologies like AI, reliability is key.

And the reliability of natural gas is unmatched by wind and solar. That doesn't mean we all can't work together, but natural gas is vital to ensuring we meet our energy needs. Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas, and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com.

It's the July 4th sale at Bray & Scarf. Going on now with huge savings throughout the store. Save up to 40% on GE profile and cafe appliances. Or step up to luxury with free installation on select monogram appliances. Special financing is available. Shop local and save this July 4th at Bray & Scarf. Visit any of our convenient locations or go to BrayAndScarf.com where it doesn't cost more to get more.

Alright, welcome one and all to Modern Day Debate. This is Atheism or Christianity? Which is True? We have Chris versus Apollos. And to get us started out, we have Apollos. You have up to 10 minutes on the floor. And thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Ryan. I'm just going to share my screen real quick. When you get that up, then we will start the time. Alright, can you guys see my screen?

- There we go. - It's a PowerPoint presentation. - It is up and running and I'll start the timer now. - Let's go.

all right thank you ryan so for the purposes of this debate i'll only be insisting that christianity is falsified or verified on its core beliefs to which i contend are the following belief in the supreme divinity of a triomni triadic god father son and holy spirit the resurrection of jesus christ and eternal life for those who confess his lordship there are some important second order beliefs as well and while adjudicating these beliefs deserve discussion in the overall framework of christian evidence

Deferring beliefs on the periphery of any field shouldn't discount the entire hypothesis. For example, the debate between string theory and loop quantum gravity doesn't disconfirm our findings in quantum physics. To demonstrate Christianity is less likely than atheism, I contend that these two issues are challenged, namely the evidence for the existence of God and the bodily resurrection of Jesus as signifying the Christian God's existence. And as for what I mean by demonstrate, I use the standard definition of evidence, namely that it makes a hypothesis more likely more than if not present.

Now on to the resurrection of Jesus. Regardless of whether anyone ascertains to believe in the resurrection, any rational enquirer must explain the data surrounding the early Christianity phenomena. If it is the case that Jesus rose from the dead, then we are on good grounds to posit a Christian religion as an explanation. Our tested, tried, and true historical methods must likewise also be applied to Christianity. Let's start off with the source critical of gospel arguments in order to go over all the relevant data.

The New Testament as historical reporters asserts that the Gospels aim to faithfully report historical events, teachings, and actions of Jesus rooted in eyewitness testimony or reliable secondary sources. The Gospel authors were serious historians who intended to convey factual accounts with integrity. If it is seriously the case that the Gospel authors were in a position to know the truthfulness or falsehood of the events that they attest to, then the probability of the reliability of the New Testament in reporting facts accurately is raised.

By contrast, I do not claim that the Gospels were merely Greco-Roman biographies with authors who freely fictionalize events, nor do I advocate for wooden literalism that excludes paraphrasing, summarization, and thematic organization, for the New Testament originally circulated independently without audiences understanding them as divinely inspired dictation.

These data points are important in assessing whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. We cannot rule out these sources as biased propaganda, similar to how we don't rule out eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust, Greco-Roman history, or the American Revolutionary War as needing to be corroborated by some disconnected third party free of bias. All accounts, ancient and modern, have an agenda.

here are some of the internal external clues that may indicate the trustworthiness of the gospels these are not exhaustive but a lot of them have to do with the idea that they had to have been eyewitnesses close to the events portrayed we're talking about local governments that like that left no records on written history save for the inscriptions they anchored towards that date we're talking about real indicators outside of a vague appeal to church history for the traditional authorship of the gospels

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And just to be clear, we're not talking about Jerusalem being in Judea level of generic detail. We're talking about presenting information that only modern researchers have uncovered within the past two decades. And that's especially the case with onomastic congruence.

There were no list of local Jewish names with statistical likelihoods assigned to them in the first century. 85% on a mass that congruence versus Josephus is 6% is a grossly clear indicator that the gospel writers were accessing data that is orders of magnitude unlikely to be made up.

Among the issues that I will contend in disagreement are that there are no analogous miracles to the resurrection that conflict with Christianity, the Gospels are not anonymous, that the virgin birth did occur, that the Gospel eyewitness testimony is reliable, and that miracles are possible. But we'll get into that later in the discussion period. And as for the Spider-Man fallacy, unlike in the modern world where we are free to Google any fact to our convenience,

The ancients had no way of confirming the aforementioned details without having been close to the events at hand. Without arguing for a mechanism that rebuts how unreasonable, costly, and inefficient it would have been for the gospel writers to insert insider knowledge into supposedly historical-inspired novels, the fallacy fails as a false analogy.

Now the minimal facts are not the only facts that demand an explanation. The minimal facts according to Dr. Gary Abermas' dissertation and latest survey are the list of facts conceded by the overwhelming consensus of historical critical scholarship pertaining to early Christianity including unbelieving skeptical academics, atheists, and agnostics. I don't set this as a necessary criteria. I only say for at least these core facts.

Nearly universal scholarly agreement is to be expected under these facts being true. Utilizing this consensus, therefore, is not a hard deductive appeal to authority, but just a tool to assess where people can find these arguments. Take, for example, the empty tomb. Although not a unilateral consensus,

The growing majority of critical scholars believe the empty tomb of Jesus was found by the women of Jesus' ministry. Because this number is now at 80% of historical critical academics, according to Abermast's latest survey, it's on its way to becoming a minimal fact.

Now as far as the best explanation of the data is concerned, people claim to have experienced encounters with Jesus after his death. The witnesses are not uniform groups of religious zealots. They're from diverse backgrounds with different educations and social standings. They didn't just catch momentary glimpses of him, but their experiences were rich and multisensory, hearing Jesus' voice, touching him, engaging in prolonged conversations with him, and sharing meals in his presence.

They included times, places, and even reactions of the witnesses, and they claim to have even heard Jesus himself tell them that he rose from the dead, all this making something like an ordinary bereavement hallucination incredibly more unlikely. As for collusion, interdisciplinary scholar and analytic philosopher Dr. Lydia McGrew has successfully shown that multiple independent devastation under strict epistemic controls need not be literarily independent in order to have the relevant causal and problematic implications.

independence needed for our sorry probabilistic independence needed for our investigation for example the i the reports of eyewitness testimonies to a bank robbery don't necessarily have to be 100 isolated from any sort of interaction in like a police report say for example in order to raise the probability of the overlap of their testimonies being the best explanation philosophers and statisticians highlight that literary dependent

is primarily about textual or narrative relationships, while probabilistic dependence is about conditional and confirmation and statistical correlation. And for more information on how this sorts of like Bayesianism mathematics works,

I implore the audience to visit these recently published probabilistic analysis papers. They show that the type of independence needed perhaps surprisingly relates to the negation of the hypothesis, as opposed to its directly perceived coherence. The question is not whether the Gospels have contradictions, rather it is given their acknowledged differences, are there undesigned and independent coincidences affirmed by the eyewitnesses themselves undefined?

likely under alternative hypotheses like collusion. In short, their dependence is purely literary, but for the purposes of probabilistic calculation, their eyewitness attestations are independent. Likewise, even if Matthew or Luke's narrative structure is literarily dependent on Mark, the distinctive M-L-Q material contributes independently and probabilistically to the historical confirmation, indicating probabilistic independence remains intact.

Furthermore, these individuals would have expected a hostile reception when they started spreading their message of the resurrected Jesus. No formal chance to recant was needed when they had their whole lives to recant their message and end the real possibility of an impending death by persecution. To the Gentiles, the Christian message would have been repugnant, worshipping a man shamefully executed on a cross and believing in a physical resurrection, an idea antithetical to prevailing pagan beliefs of the time.

For the Jews, the idea of a crucified Messiah was scandalous, shattering long-held expectations of a triumphant leader. Jesus' death left his followers in disarray, fleeing persecution and facing shattered ideals. If they were going to make something up, why make up something that they know will get them persecuted and very possibly killed for no earthly reward?

And concerning their one-way ticket to hell, if Jesus was in fact a conspiracy, Paul concludes the following in 1 Corinthians 15, "...and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain, and your faith is in vain. We are found to be misrepresenting God, or some translations render liars, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise, if it is true that the dead are not raised."

Also, by the way, I think that the Shroud of Turin can't be explained through naturalistic means. The radiocarbon dating on this has been busted years ago, but I'm more than happy to get into that later.

So in conclusion, if Craig wants to interact with this argument, he must do at least one of the following things: He can choose to go the Humean route and say miracles don't happen because they're unlikely to be true. He can attack the data itself, and he can attack the explanation of the data by giving a better one. Because until we are given any reason to think something else is more likely, we are on good grounds to think that God rose Jesus from the dead, and that Christianity is true.

So I implore the audience to ask their questions sincerely. And with that, I'd like to close out and yield the rest of my time. Thank you.

You got it. Well, thank you so much, Apollos, for your introductory statement. We're going to kick it over to Craig in just one moment, but I want to remind everybody that, once again, thank you so much for being here. Smash the like button if you haven't already and help boost us up in the algorithm. We're live right now, so we'll let Apollos end the screen share. We'll head on over to the main screen. So, yes, if this is your first time at Modern Day Debate, maybe it's not, but we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, politics, and religion. We do hope you feel welcome here.

We are going to take Q&A at the end, so if you have a question for either of the speakers you see on screen, you've got something itching that you want to ask one of them, get it into a Super Chat, and we'll ask it with priority at the end of the discussion. But without further ado, let's hand it on over to you, Craig. You've got up to 10 minutes, and I'm going to start that. Do you need to screen share? No, no, I won't be screen sharing or anything. I'm still working on getting my setup since I've moved, so I'll just be talking. 10 minutes on the floor. That's okay.

Thank you very much. Hey, hello. Thank you for having me on again, Monday Debates. So let's just get this out of the way. No one in the history of ever has seen a god.

Not yours, not theirs, not any of them. Gods used to live in the mountains, then in the sky, now they've been pushed so far back they're just apparently invisible. Inaudable and totally allergic to evidence, but trust me, he loves you, unless you're gay then apparently he's got beef. Christianity isn't just a belief in a god, it's belief in a very specific story. That a talking snake tricked a woman into eating magic fruit and that broke the universe.

So now we need to symbolically eat a man's flesh and drink his blood to make it better? Yeah, right, that's what my notes say. Sorry, but if I heard that outside of church, I'd probably call a therapist. Here's the harsh truth. No God of any kind has ever done anything. Not a miracle, not a moment, not a shred of measurable, testable, repeatable evidence. All we've ever had is storytelling and feelings. And I hate to break it to you, but if your best proof is I felt God's presence, then congratulations,

So have cult members, schizophrenics, and people tripping on mushrooms. Faith without evidence isn't a virtue. It's what we teach kids who still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa. If your worldview can't survive without blind belief, then maybe it's time to grow up.

Atheism isn't a claim to know everything, it's just a recognition that none of the God claims, and especially not Christianity's, stand up to any kind of scrutiny. The universe works perfectly fine without gods. Reality doesn't need a ghost in the sky pulling levers, so unless you're holding some actual evidence, the logical conclusion is very, very simple: there is no God. And atheism is the only position that takes that truth seriously.

I just want to quickly address a couple of things that my opponent said. All right, so he mentioned about the eyewitness accounts of Jesus for anonymous gospels written decades after the event with contradictions that so blatant they make a flat earth as compass look reliable. Let's break down some key contradictions that absolutely wreck the idea that the Bible is a reliable source full of consistent testimonies.

Contradictions in the resurrection story. Who went to the tomb? Well, Matthew 28:1 says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Where Mark 16:1 says Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Solomon. Whereas Luke 24:10 says Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and others. Whereas John 21 says only Mary Magdalene. So which was it?

One woman or an entire caravan. The roster changes with every gospel like a badly organized D&D campaign. Not very reliable. Was the tomb open or sealed? Matthew 28.2. An earthquake opens the tomb when the women arrive. Mark 16.4 and Luke 24.2 and John 21. It's already open. So either they witnessed a dramatic quake or it was already open. Pick a version, please.

Who was at the tomb? Matthew 28:2-5: one angel sitting outside the tomb. Mark 16:5: one young man inside the tomb. Luke 24:4: two men inside. John 20:12: two angels sitting inside the tomb. Man, angel, one, two, inside, outside. This isn't a divine account, it's pretty much a biblical guess who at this point.

What did the women do after seeing the tomb? Well, Mark 16:8 says they fled and told no one because they were afraid. Matthew 28:8 says they ran to tell the disciples full of joy. Luke 24:9-10 says they immediately told the apostles. John 22 says Mary ran and told Peter and the disciple Jesus loved. Well, you can't both tell me no one and everyone. That's not how narratives or, you know, reality works.

I mean, I could go on with the list of contradictions, but the claim that the Bible is full of eyewitness testimonies that are in any way accurate is completely false. And you can find this out by simply reading the Bible and finding that nearly every page contradicts the one previously. There was no eyewitness testimonies. There was nothing written at the time of that happening that was in the Bible. Everything was written decades to centuries after

to be 100% clear, the Bible contains zero eyewitness accounts of anything because none of those people that apparently witnessed it were the ones that wrote the Bible.

So, yeah, it's just kind of ridiculous to claim that the Bible is in any way a reliable source of history. Well, let's look at the biblical flood. We know that didn't happen because all of the other cultures around the world would have, you know, pointed out that happening, plus the sediments and everything that we would have seen. You know, it says they got two of every animal on a wooden boat. Yeah, sure. Millions of species, no extinction events happening.

The Bible is a ridiculous story written by sheep herders that thought that there was a dome above them and had no clue about the rest of the world around them. It wasn't written by anyone that knew Jesus or was close to Jesus. It is simply...

a book written by people that heard a story and then told it again. And if you read the Bible and compare it to any stories from previous religions, you'll find they tell the same story over and over and over. The Bible isn't an original story. It was plagiarized from previous religions. So...

Christianity can't be true if it's plagiarized from other things. So there's nothing in Christianity, especially in the Bible specifically, that would say that Christianity is true, right?

So at the end of the day, considering that nearly every culture has invented its own creation myth, from gods proving life into clay, to turtles holding up the earth, to sky beings hurling lightning bolts, and not a single one has any actual evidence behind it, the logical position isn't to pick your favorite story and declare it truth. The rational starting point is this: these are all human-made stories, none of them proven,

none of them, all of them competing and all of them suspiciously similar. So until there's compelling, testable, objective evidence for any of it, the base assumption should be and must be there is no God. You are not born believing in gods. Somebody has to teach you and that should tell you everything you need to know. I yield the rest of my time.

All right, you got it. We're going to get into the open discussion. I'll just adjust the preamp there. Tried to fix you guys up so it looks like you're looking at each other. Don't mind me. So yeah, thanks everybody who's smashed that like button. I see that's going up. We appreciate you. Once again, we're going to take those questions at the end.

We also want to hear from you, so I'm going to pop a poll in the live chat and see what the demographics are of our audience right now and see what you guys think. So without further ado, then, let's get into that open discussion. Let's go over to Apollos and give some of your thoughts on Craig's introduction.

Yeah, for sure. Craig, I have one question for you to start us off. If you, an atheist, could give no sufficient explanation better than Jesus rose from the dead, wouldn't it make Jesus' resurrection the best explanation? Why or why not? Well, there's no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. There's only contradicting stories that tell different accounts of someone apparently not dying. There's absolutely zero evidence of Jesus rising from the dead, so that's not an assumption I would make. It's simply a story.

with nothing behind it. No eyewitness accounts exist of Jesus rising from the dead. Nobody that was apparently at that tomb wrote anything that is in the Bible. So I have absolutely zero reason to believe or even consider the possibility of a magical thing happening in a cave.

Okay. So two things, pretty much contradictions and the gospel authors were anonymous or not the eyewitnesses. So over here, I have the rebuttals to the classical contradictions raised at the empty tune narrative portrayed in the four gospels. I mean, John itself says that there were more than one women because Mary Magdalene says...

they have taken him and we do not know where he laid them, the gardener laid them, implying that there was more than one woman. So yeah, it's just literary spotlighting. Open tomb or closed tomb. Matthew used the aorist participle, which could be, and in some versions is, translated with the English past perfect, for an angel of the Lord had descended. So in other words, the tomb was open before the women got there.

Who was at the tomb? Okay, well, if I could just respond to one of them at a time, rather than you just going through. Is my screen sharing, by the way? Yeah, it sure is. If you want to just give me a heads up when you do the screen share, just so we don't miss it. But yeah, go ahead there, Craig, and respond to one of those arguments that he's laid out there.

Yeah, it's not just literary kind of games. There is literal contradictions. Matthew 21 says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, whereas John 21 literally says only Mary Magdalene. It's not just that it literally does.

No, it says that, no, there's implied that there were several women that went to the tomb because... Rhonda, that's your implication. The words don't actually say that. The words literally say, only Mary Magdalene. And it literally says, it's literally the first person plural. Let's let him finish his sentence there. Yeah, it's the first person plural. But, yeah, as far as like...

As far as who was at the tomb, again, literary spotlighting. The white cloth shows that... Define literary spotlighting, please. Literary spotlighting is the idea that when written from one's perspective, they only tell a certain amount of information instead of some other information that the author would ask for whatever reason that they want.

Yeah, none of that is happening here. No one's redacting anything. We are simply pointing out that there is very different accounts in the Bible. You are just trying to say, oh, well, this little translation might mean this also as well. But when you actually read the text, they completely contradict each other, especially when you talk about what the women did after seeing the tomb. Mark 16, 8 says they fled and told no one because they were afraid.

whereas Luke 24 9 to 10 says they immediately told the apostles that's not just a little mistranslation that is literally different stories about what happened when the apparent magical thing happened and you can say well that's just an implication as much as you want but that's all the

Bible is, is a bunch of people making implications about it the way they want it to appear. The fact is, there is straight up contradictions and you can play literary games and say, well, it might mean this as much as you want. It doesn't change the fact that the Bible straight up contradicts itself from page to page. Well, that's exactly the point. I contest the contradictions. But in any case, what is your explanation behind the early Christianity phenomena?

What do you mean the early Christianity phenomena? So I assume you don't take it that Jesus rose from the dead. So what? I don't believe in Jesus being a magical God. There is a slight chance that he didn't die and then actually got out of a coma a couple of days later or something like that. But let's be clear, magic isn't a thing. So no, nobody rose from the dead.

Okay, so you're trying to say the Swin theory. Can you name me one single? I'm trying to say one, sorry. The Swin theory, the idea that Jesus survived crucifixion. Can you name me one example in Roman history where someone survived the full crucifixion and a career for a good reason?

No, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. Again, you are just making assumptions, but I don't need to argue about, oh, well, this could have happened or this could have happened because you have no evidence that it actually happened. Let's be clear. You do not have any eyewitness accounts of Jesus rising from the dead. None exist.

Okay, so like let's get to that so like It's a yes or no question. Do you have an eyewitness account? Let me ask a yes or no question, please. Do you have an eyewitness account? Someone that was there at the tomb that witnessed it all happening that then wrote it in the Bible? Yeah, like we have the beloved disciples testimony that he went to the empty tomb. We have Mark's gospel, which is And he wrote that in the Bible himself?

So this is the problem. So this is the internal anonymity critique. Yes or no questions. Please, when I ask a yes or no question, I would like a yes or no answer. Did that disciple himself write that thing in the Bible? Yes or no? I mean, the beloved disciple says this is the beloved disciple that writes these things. It was a yes or no question. I would appreciate when I ask a yes or no. So the person you are describing as the beloved disciple actually has his own passage that he wrote in the Bible. Is that right?

I believe that he authored it, yes. He might have used a scribe, but... You believe that he authored it, and what evidence do you have that matches up with biblical scholars that he authored it, and why is he not named as the author in the Bible? Alright, try to give Apollos a little space here, okay, Craig? Yeah, yeah. One second. Oh, no, with all due respect, I don't give Christian Apologetics space, I hammer.

Yeah, no worries. No worries. You can calm down. But as far as I can tell... Please do not tell me to calm down. That's highly patronizing. Let's be clear. You worship an evil deity. All right. Yeah, I'm going to cut you off. I'm just going to answer the question regarding internal anonymity. Internal anonymity was not...

the norm but that does not mean that the gospel is actually circulated anonymously no scholar thinks that these works were anonymous yet their their name like their actual name of the author is not included in the body of the text think of like xenophon and his anabasis josephus's antiquities of the jews versus polybius didorus liby tacitus so the idea that could you point to the passage that this person wrote please the exact words that are in the bible that are related and

Point to him being the author, not someone else. Because no scholar agrees with you. Just be clear. There is no biblical scholar that agrees with you.

There is a tradition of liberal scholars who would say that the gospel writers were anonymous, but no, that's not the case at all. Anonymous wouldn't mean that it was that person, so they don't agree with you, and no biblical scholar says that the person that you claimed wrote that passage actually wrote it. So you are just saying that you think this is the case,

because otherwise you don't have an eyewitness testimony. I'm so, so sorry. I'm so sorry. Calm down, calm down. No, no, seriously, seriously. I mean this genuinely. Hold on. You're both cutting each other off quite a little bit here, but I am going to be fair, Craig. You are not giving a lot of space for Apollos to really flesh out his thoughts here.

So yeah, if you do want to ask yes or no questions, that's fine. But most people do want to clarify why yes, why no. Okay, so let's just try to make some space. Over to you, Waldo. It doesn't mean he has to babble then for 10 minutes about things that don't answer the question. The fact is, there is no... Hold on, let me finish my thought. Let me please just finish my thought. Give me a chance to just finish my thought. Five seconds, Craig, and then, yeah, just give him some space after. Okay.

Alright, I'm just gonna simply ask the question again. Show me the passage that this person wrote with proof that they wrote it. Wait, what are you saying? You said that there's a passage by the person that witnessed the tomb being opened and Jesus Christ... John 21, give me a second. Calm down. Do not tell me to calm down again. I will tell you to calm down. Do not patronize me. Do not tell me to calm down. John 21, 24, get rekt.

So then that passage is written by that guy? Yeah. Or at least authored by it. So have you got proof that he was the author? If I can just, like, please, like, continue on. Well, no, no, sorry. I don't want you to run away from the argument. Do you have proof that he was the author of that passage? I never said there was 100% proof. I said there were indicators that make his authorship likely. Oh, right, so no proof. Indicators is not proof. All right, we're going to give the poll a chance here. Okay, so I already defined what I meant by evidence.

at the beginning that there are indicators that make it likely to be true. So yeah, here are some examples of like some works in antiquity that are internally anonymous, but no serious scholar thinks that these people didn't write these works. The emergence of gospel titles are all universal in the manuscripts, the early manuscripts.

And so there was a practical need to give these titles to these gospels because like with the varying similarities and undesigned coincidences between these gospels, like there would have been a practical need to identify them by their author, by their name. Hostile corroboration, non-Christian sources such as critics of Christianity indirectly affirmed the traditional authorship of the gospels, such as Celsus, the heretical groups like the Gnostics.

lack of alternative attributions from critics or heretics strongly supports the authenticity of the traditional names, resentional evidence. Before you move on to the next slide. This is what I mean. It's just waffling. No, no, no. Like I said, we're going to jump in here. We're going to give a chance to respond. So if you want to go back to the previous slide and let Craig have a little bit of back and forth here on some of those thoughts, and then we'll carry on. But yeah, I don't mind you keeping the screen share up. But yeah, we...

We'll try to keep it going. So it's very simple. He's mentioned only in the Gospel of John, never by name. This figure is supposedly someone close to Jesus and some church traditions later claimed it was John the Apostle. But the text never says that. There's nothing there that ever says that the person that was there wrote to that passage.

It's an anonymous author. The Gospel of John doesn't claim an author. It refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as if the writer is watching from the outside. And it's like saying, and then the most handsome, brilliant guy in the room asked the smartest question. It sounds sus. You know why? Because it is. If your source can't even name itself, why would I trust it?

This is how ridiculous your argument is. Your argument is literally, well, I can interpret this as this guy possibly knew this person that wrote this passage. You do not have an eyewitness account unless you lie and claim you do. Okay, so I guess we can't trust Philo Plutarch personally.

Porphyry, Philostratus, Nepos, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, just because the body of their text is internally anonymous. Yeah, there's no evidence of any of this. Dude, calm down. Let me finish the thought, alright? No, seriously, man. You asked me a question, I responded. If you ask me a question, I will respond. I never asked a question, but okay. You said, so we can't trust these, and I responded. Are you unaware of how questions work? I'm saying it was pithy, he said no, let's carry on. Okay, uh...

So, let's move on to something that I didn't really get to talk about last debate. The idea of miracles. Do you think... There's no evidence any miracle has ever happened, ever. Really? So not even like... No, there's not. There is literally only people going, well, I think that's a miracle because of this and I don't understand how it happened. All right. Well, let's see what... Prayer doesn't work. Right.

Let's see what Apollo has to present here before you pre-saddle, all right? And if you're correct, then, you know, that's great for you, but we gotta give Apollo a chance to make his case, all right? Sorry, I accidentally muted myself. We have modern cases of miracles. Chris Gunderson, idiopathic gastroparesis from two weeks old, required G-tube and J-tube feeding for 16 years, and after...

After Pentecostal healing service, he was pretty much healed. Is there any evidence that's a miracle and not some kind of medical phenomenon? Because, you know, the human body, we don't understand everything about it. You are just making the assumption that is a miracle, that is not magic, these things can happen. Hold on, hold on, words I am saying. Miracles are things that cannot be explained.

you know, by normal physics or medicine. Someone getting better that wasn't expected to is something that can be explained by medical stuff. There's no evidence that's a miracle, you are just making the assumption that is a miracle. Okay, so like, what is your objection? That medicine can explain it, or...? Yeah, well, there's no evidence that that was magic.

that it could be that his body repaired itself and then did the things that it needed to do and whatever, the medicine was working and there's no evidence that God did that. You're just assuming that whatever happened here was a miracle with no evidence to back it up. I'm sorry, but you can go screw with your assumptions because I don't accept them. So, like, I don't even understand what you're saying, man. I'm aware you don't understand what I'm saying. You think that magic is real.

You are making the assumption that the thing that you just said was a miracle. We have no evidence to suggest that it is a miracle. Well, let's let Apollos define a miracle for himself, okay? And then we'll carry on. An act only explainable by God.

Or likely to be explained by God. Well, you would need to prove God first, so you can't explain God. Oh, no, no, no, because, like, people think, like, a posteriori all the time in terms of, like, being one, of, like, coming up with, like, updating their model. So things, think about, like, solar neutrinos are a standard model of, like, a... He's waffling again.

It's just waffles. He's making... This is his argument. ...consistently measured fewer neutrinos than predicted by... It's not an argument. This is a waffle. So, like...

uh uh being um observed conflicted with our current solar model and so they have to they had to update their solar model to be uh in line with the evidence and that's basically what we're doing with miracles right so here's the challenge here's the thing buddy here's the thing buddy let me ask you no no no let him finish his thought just he has one little tag on and then it's your turn

All right, you get a nice little wrap up on your sentences there, Craig. So we're going to give them a wrap up. Apollos, if you want to put a bow on what you're saying. So basically, the whole idea behind this is that scientists all the time come up with models that aren't proven first, and then they find the evidence for it. No, they find the evidence, see if this model matches up with the evidence, and then a posteriori conclude that that model was correct.

the same thing with the standard model of the solar, the standard solar model. And that's basically how Bayesianism works. - Yeah, none of that has anything to do with miracles. We, that's not science. - Yeah, it does, 'cause it means that I don't have to prove God exists. - No, no, I just let you waffle for five minutes, be quiet.

Yeah. So none of that has anything to do with miracles. When science discovers something we don't understand, we then develop models to try and explain it and then make predictions with that model to see if we can falsify that model. That's not saying that magic did it. There is no explanation for miracles. There is no experiment to test for miracles. There is no model to put forward to say, well, we can predict that a miracle will happen.

It's very, very simple. Unless you can show me a miracle happening, give me a video of it, a record of it, show me a miracle being conducted and prove to me that that is the direct result of God doing something. Otherwise, you have no evidence that miracles exist other than your pathetic childlike faith that God did it. So how do you explain this right of Turin?

uh this shouted churen uh well you're going to say that the um uh the the carbon dating is debunked but that's really because you do not understand carbon dating we can get into the physics of that on another debate if you like but okay so what's your explanation i'm in the middle of talking i'm in the middle of talking

Right. There is many ways to explain the shout of Turin. And for those specifics, as I'm not an expert in it, I would direct you to the channel Voice of Reason. Sorry, not Voice of Reason. My French channel, I can't even bloody remember the name of it.

Very good friend of mine that I do Friday Star Trek D&D with, his channel has actually covered all the Shrouded Jura and stuff. But the fact is carbon dating on it show that it is not what you guys claim to be. I'm not going to argue with you about the physics of carbon dating because I know you don't understand physics. At the very least, Craig, let's let Apollos make the argument. We have a Christian audience that also wants to hear the arguments. And like I say, it's expected that you're not going to agree with either the framing or the argument itself. That's expected.

Yeah, I do just want to point out how he keeps changing the subject. The Shroud of Turin isn't a miracle. It's just something... What is it? It's something that you claim shows that Jesus existed. That is not a miracle being performed. All right. Apollos, what do you claim the Shroud of Turin to be? Let's let Apollos have some floor time here, okay? The radiation from Christ's resurrection. What kind of radiation?

I don't know. Just like, uh... Sorry, sorry, you don't know. I'm sorry, you can't claim that there was a radiation unless you can determine which radiation it was. Radiation is a very specific thing. What radiation was given during Jesus' resurrection and what powered that, please? One that would have produced, like, a negative, like, uh...

Anyway, this is a relevant to the topic. No, it's not. No, it's not irrelevant. I'm going to push you on this. You've just made a very specific claim that there was radiation produced when Jesus resurrected. What radiation and what residuals did it leave behind that we could detect? Because we are very good at detecting radiation. A superficial image.

So no, no, radiation doesn't make... that's not what radiation is. Superficial image isn't radiation. You just claimed that there was radiation, there would be residual from that. What kind of radiation was it? And unless you can tell me what kind of radiation it was, you can't use this as evidence. Wait, what are you even saying? Like... You said that his radiation came coming from his resurrection. Give me the full story. Tell me what kind of radiation and how it interacted with that shroud.

Specifically, give me the mechanics behind it, otherwise you have no argument other than "Oh, it was radiation." You know who else has a story about radiation and magic happening? That's how the Hulk got his powers. You are giving me the same kind of evidence that there is for the Hulk. Radiation did this thing, we don't know how, but it did it. - The Hulk held the Shroud of Turin?

Well, Hulk clearly got his powers from radiation, and your magic radiation, that you don't know the kind of radiation or how it interacted with any of the materials, somehow left an afterprint on the shroud that is apparently the face of Jesus. What kind of radiation was it specifically, and how can we test for that? UV or particle radiation. What kind? I don't know.

Well, then you don't get to use this as evidence. Unless you can give me the full story. Because you don't understand what you're talking about with physics and radiation. But you don't understand what you're talking about. You never gave me an explanation. I have a degree in physics, so I understand physics. And I have a degree in nuclear engineering, so I understand how radiation interacts with things. I'm trying to...

for the shroud of current. I'm just gonna move on. You're not giving an explanation either. You are just saying it's a radiation. Whereas you haven't said what kind of radiation. I'm telling you that radiation doesn't work like that. Radiation, which kind of radiation? Specifically. I don't know. UV or particle radiation. Well, then you don't get to use it as evidence unless you've got the full story. But that doesn't make any sense. Well, absolutely makes sense because you can't tell me how that radiation did the thing that you claim.

Just like we don't know how the guy with radiation turned Hulk into what he is. I can't tell you how you grew up and became a person, so therefore you don't exist. I can tell you how I grew up and became a person. I can tell you how you grew up and became a person. There's no problem with that. But that is not a thing to do with the fact that you are claiming there is a radiation that did a thing that radiation doesn't do.

And you can't even tell me what kind of radiation it is. What does it not do? What does it not do? I'm genuinely curious. It doesn't leave a perfect imprint from somebody's face. Radiation doesn't do that. If there was enough radiation, it would. What kind of radiation?

really high energy UV or particle radiation. Anyway, let's move on. And how would really high energy or UV radiation emitting from the face of Jesus interact with that cloth to leave that specifically? What are the mechanics behind that, please?

I don't know. Yeah, I think we've already established that this is a law we've met. Therefore, we are going to dismiss this evidence because claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. All right, so we've already... Okay, let's talk about... We've moved through this one. Let's talk about eyewitness testimony. Have you actually studied eyewitness testimony? You don't have any eyewitness testimony. Hold on. Have you actually studied the mechanics of eyewitness testimony? The mechanics of eyewitness testimony? Yeah, how it can be reliable. That is something you see happening. Yeah. Yes. Now, nobody...

Absolutely nobody that saw Jesus or lived with Jesus or interacted with Jesus wrote a passage in the Bible. There is no eyewitness testimonies. None exist. Like, dude, come on, man. This is so bad. Dude, come on, man. You've resorted to dude, come on, man. Brilliant. Let's let him have a chance. I'm just going to place you on a soft mute there, Craig. Just let's give him a chance to run through it. Like I said, if it's really bad, like...

Our audience is not so silly that they need you to outline every last little thing for them. Some people are going to be able to look at this and be able to make their own determination. Yeah, so I just encourage everyone to actually study the science behind eyewitness testimony as they relate to the Gospels. It's not a question of whether or not eyewitness testimony can be reliable, but under what circumstances generate that reliability.

The gist is usually recalled as opposed to minor or more granular details, so the gospels agree in the major points. Modern memory studies often fail to reproduce scenarios where personal event memories are passively freely recalled.

And then false memories tend to reconstruct details from accurate memories as opposed to radically alter what occurred. Low frequency events are more memorable than everyday details, miracles. So like why the teachings of Jesus were easy to remember,

There are various characteristics embedded within Jesus' teachings that allow for the passing down of that tradition for years on. And IP did an excellent video on this showing that, Inspiring Philosophy did an excellent video on this showing that eyewitness testimony can be highly reliable for years on end. So I just encourage everyone to look at personal event memories. That's the type of memory that is displayed in the Gospels.

Not flashbulb, not other types of memories. This is kind of hard to see. Let me zoom in a little bit. So being asked to note take as indicative of things like the Q Source and the synoptic problem, short sayings, parables, so on and so forth. And so like, here's another- Okay, right. You've waffled, you've gone through two, three slides now. Let's go back before you continue to waffle. You're having some kind of aneurysm here. It's weird.

Right, back, because you went through a bunch of slides. All right, modern studies of eyewitness. This is fucking ridiculous. You're fucking ridiculous. I know I'm fucking ridiculous. That's why people love me, but at least I'm not a moron. Bucket of chuckles. All right, let's... You know, it's how I didn't call you fucking ridiculous. You had to resort to that. Try to focus here. Typical. There's no love. Like, there's no hate. Can you mute him? Can you mute him? Hold on. It is fair to give him a chance to respond, but...

What do you mean mute me? You just left for 10 minutes. Just quiet. Just hurry up. Get to your point. I want to ask politely, Craig, if you can. You don't tell me what to do. Calm down. Hold on, Craig. Both of you. Hold on. I'm going to unmute you, Craig, but please try to engage with the subject. I know you're trying to...

ruffle some feathers here, but it's not being well received. So if you could just engage with the argument for the sake of the audience. You do notice he interrupted me though and started that. Just so everyone's aware. The good Christian boy is the one. All right, you're not engaging still. Let's go. I'm going to. I'm getting my notes up. So give me a sec. Right. So his slide here says, the gist is usually recalled as opposed to minor granular details. Translation for that. Eyewitnesses only remember vague summaries, not specifics.

So in a court, how are we trusting vague memories to prove a man walked on water and came back from the dead? Ridiculous. Studies fail to reproduce scenarios with personal event memories. So translation for that is people's memories of big personal events are not reliably reproducible. He is literally saying that we can't reproduce how people remember their own weddings.

but we're supposed to trust anonymous memories about ancient zombie Jesus. Wonderful. He says flashbulb and episodic memories tend to be reconstructive. Translation for that is that means people unconsciously edit and rebuild their memories over time, especially dramatic ones. So he's describing how cults are born, not how history is verified. And finally, it says their false memories reconstruct details from accurate memories.

which is exactly how we get resurrection legends, miracle stories and contradictions between gospels. His slide doesn't prove the Bible's true. It explains how people can sincerely believe and misremember absolute nonsense.

I only paid attention to the first slide and then ignored the rest of the waffle. So, you know, because that's all he's doing is waffling. I've asked several times to present to me an eyewitness that wrote something in the Bible that doesn't exist. He's just implied that someone did and that wasn't true. So he has no eyewitnesses, just to be clear. All right.

Okay, so first of all, I'm really interested in this weird criterion that the eyewitness has to write their own testimony in the Bible and say that it's them. Oh yeah, that's how it works. You're on mute. Sorry, Greg. We want to try to keep this running a little smoother. Yeah, so I'm interested in why is that the criteria? Why can't we have reliable second-hand eyewitness testimony?

All right. You can unmute him. I was going to say, if you're going to ask questions. Yeah, there you go. All right. Yeah.

Yeah, so that, and I'm going to be like a lawyer here, is literally called hearsay. It would be dismissed in court. Well, I know someone who said this. Well, we don't care. That's hearsay. No, we don't trust somebody that heard something from somebody else to then tell that story correctly. As children at school, we sat in a circle and tested that with games of Chinese whisper. And it was always very different from one child to the next.

From one person to the next, stories are not recounted exactly the same. Unless somebody that actually was there wrote his own experiences and they're in the Bible, you do not have an eyewitness, you only have hearsay.

Okay, let's address this like stupid hearsay objection. I keep on hearing it in these types of discussions, but hearsay versus secondhand testimony. Courts make a distinction between secondhand testimony and hearsay. Although the two concepts are closely related, the distinction primarily lies in how they are used and defined within legal proceedings.

So hearsay, strictly speaking, is just like an out-of-court statement. Secondhand testimony can be things like expert witness testimony and things like that. Right, okay, go back, hold on. I don't want you switching slides because you're good at waffling. The separation underscores that courts are concerned primarily with reliability and fairness rather than epistemology distinctions. Well, you've just debunked yourself and ruined your own argument because

I don't even think you understand that. I was in the middle of words, be quiet. You've just debunked yourself and disproven your own argument because we have already discussed how unreliable anything in the Bible is as it contradicts itself from page to page.

So you have literally described how this is hearsay, not just secondhand testimony. Thank you once again for disproving yourself. But as you're a Christian apologetic, you will twist it and see it the way that your evil mind would like to. All right. Let's keep, let Apollos keep pushing through there. Like I said, we do have a Christian argument, audience, sorry, who wants to hear these arguments. So I'll let you lay out the next slide. But I do think this is a fair format. If you present like a single slide to let Craig do a response after a single slide has been presented. All right.

We'll try to move through. I'm trying to find the... Here it is. On Rule 804, Declare End Unavailable. When a declarant is unavailable, such as being deceased, a.k.a. the disciples, certain exceptions permit their statements to be admitted as testimony. Former testimony, dying declarations, declarations against interest...

You know, like the idea that... - Okay, let me just quickly respond to that. Could you please point to me any court case that has allowed a hearsay exception when someone died decades earlier? Because that's what we're saying in the case here. So unless you've got a case of hearsay exception, which applies to someone saying something happened

Decades later and that being applied to the situation you do not have a case here. All right, dude This is literally in the federal statues for evidence. Yeah, it's in the federal statues But again, unless you can present me with a case where it is decades later That does not apply

Let's let him present the rest of the slide here as policies. I mean, everyone can see it. Do we really have to listen to him read it? It's on the screen. Well, there's also his interpretation, but yeah, that's fine. I mean, I don't know how fast you can read it. Yeah, okay. So let's move on to miracles. So let's just say hypothetical. All right, cool. Let's move on to miracles. Show me a video of a miracle happening, please.

All right, we're gonna let Apollo's present. Obviously he's got something that he wants to get into. - Well, yeah, honestly, I'm just gonna, I'm honestly just gonna present. - Can I ask for a bit of fairness here? Apollo has been trying to lead this conversation. So I would like to lead this part of the conversation regarding miracles. So rather than just going off of his slides and me answering silly little questions for him, I would like to actually be the one to run this part of the conversation.

and put the burden of proof on him. And it's a very simple thing that I would like to request. And that is...

Evidence, i.e. a video or an actual record of a miracle happening with proof that it is divine intervention that is causing that miracle. I don't want him to go through his slides. I just want to focus on that one thing, the evidence of it happening. To be fair, as we established going into it, just also be fair.

You know, when we have these discussions, you know, he's making the positive assertion. You're not making the case for positive atheism, but he is making a positive case for Christianity. So I don't think there's anything unfair about it. You know, he's presenting his his arguments the way he sees them. And if you don't find them compelling, that's fine.

Well, yeah, but what I'm saying is I would like to be the one to actually ask for the evidence this time. I think you have to. He has ran the conversation. Let's be fair. He has completely ran the conversation. So before he gets to run this part of the conversation... Craig, I asked a couple of questions. It is up to Apollos to represent the Christian case of why those miracles are defined as well. To be able to ask questions and demand evidence from my side and...

All I'm asking for is a bit of fairness. And if we're going to move on to miracles, then I would like to be the one that would be the one that run the conversation rather than it being Apollo this time. That's completely fair. If you want to make a positive case of like miracles are impossible, then that's what I'm going to be doing is asking for evidence of miracles happening.

So the ball would still be in all those courts. So don't complain that the ball's in his court if you need him to provide the positive evidence. Well, yeah, but I'm laying out the evidence that I'm going to say. You're doing too much meta. Okay, let's lay out the evidence. I'm not doing any meta. I'm just asking for a bit of fairness. I'll just ask me the question, what's the evidence? I haven't finished what I'm saying. Okay, then finish what you're saying. Hurry up and finish. Can you be quiet and give me a second? All right, just lay it out without more discussion about the discussion. Let's...

Just over to you, Craig. I'm not trying to do that. I'm simply asking for some fairness and be able to ask my question. Give us your parameters for the miracle, all right?

Right. So evidence that I want and it's very simple parameters. I don't want it going outside of this. I want evidence that a miracle has happened, i.e. a video of it happening with proof that that is directly related to God doing it, that it is divine intervention. I don't want assumptions. I don't want definitions. I just want proof that God made a thing happen.

Do you have that evidence available? Well, I don't care what you want because this discussion is about what is true and what is true is indicative of what is evidentially supported. Right, okay, so to be clear, you don't have that evidence?

Not the kind of evidence you're asking for. You don't even have that kind of evidence for all sorts of things. We're done with miracles. Wonderful. You don't have evidence of miracles. Miracles don't happen. Because I don't have a video of it. We gave you a chance to ask the question. So I want to put it back in Apollo's court. We'll keep going in circles on this. This has already been answered a few times in the discussion. So like I said, we do have a Christian audience here as well that do want to hear the arguments from Apollo's and expected that, like I say, you're going to find them. Yeah. So this idea that...

This idea that evidence has to be repeatable in my immediate perception in order to be admitted as evidence, this just violates standard philosophy of evidence textbooks. It is simply, E is evidence that H, if and only P, given the hypothesis and the evidence, is greater than just the hypothesis alone. Put simply, a data point is evidence if it raises the probability of a hypothesis being true.

And so, like, I would point to the various polymoral experiences by the apostles in the eyewitness testimonies of the Gospels in order to indicate that a miracle did happen. So, here's my question, right? What is your explanation behind the early Christianity phenomena? You can unmute him. Yeah, number one, the early Christianity phenomena, what is that? Define it. The eyewitness reports of the apostles that they saw Jesus rose from the dead.

There's no eyewitness. We've gone through that. You don't have any eyewitness accounts. We've gone through that. There is no eyewitness accounts. I already contested that. I don't care if you contested it. You don't have any eyewitness accounts. What's your... How do you...

Because you have no one that saw it happen. You only have people that told people that then possibly told someone else that then wrote it in a book decades later. That would be thrown out in court and you would be laughed at. You have no eyewitness accounts. I do not accept you saying you have eyewitness accounts. You have none. We have gone through that. Do not say you have eyewitness accounts because you are lying if you do.

hearsay. So this idea that it has to be court case level evidence...

I put you on the mute there, just to let him have a chance here to... Yeah, from a philosophical perspective, however, hearsay can still be reliable under logical standards, even if it does not meet legal trial standards. The general inadmissibility of hearsay evidence in legal contexts often hinges on the principle that better evidence is typically available. The principle of innocent until proven guilty plays a key role by raising the epistemic standards required for establishing guilt.

emphasizing that evidence must be highly reliable and subject to scrutiny such as cross-examination. So it is more about like democracy and giving people a fair chance to testify for themselves as opposed to like what actually happened. That's why we have things like hearsay in check. But we can always make like publicist assumptions. I'm sorry, but you're just waffling and you're trying to... This is what Christian apologetics do. I'm going to twist things until I get the answer that I do. No, nobody would accept...

that there is eyewitness accounts. Nobody that was there at the time of Jesus wrote anything that is in the Bible. Decades later, from a story from somebody else does not count as reliable eyewitness testimony of any kind. You want it to be because you need it to be. But no logical sane person would accept anything written in a book

decades later by a different person as eyewitness testimony. I'm sorry, but that's a lie if you say it is. I don't care what you're reading, trying to twist it to the way that you want that actually shows how desperate you are for it to be true. There is no eyewitness testimony. Stop lying to yourself. I know it's hard because you believe in magic, but just stop it.

And you want to talk to me about being patronizing. Okay. You deserve being patronized too, because let's face it. Okay. Then you, you desire, you deserve being patronized too. Lovely Christian love there. Cool. Lovely atheist love there.

Oh, I don't claim to love everyone. I think that people like you are cunts that will apologize for what you worship if what is was real. All right, just mute him, please. Purely evil. No, no, no, don't just mute me. I'm sorry. Not just mute you, but like, you're not... No. Once again, this is where we're going to go. I'm sorry. How about just mute him? It's just so off the ball now. Like, you know, you're just kind of...

Just kind of... It's because he can't cope with it. He can't cope with the fact that he has no arguments, he has no eyewitness testimonies, and he has to keep twisting the words to say that he has. I'm sorry, but no sane person with an IQ higher than their shoe size... No person with an IQ higher than their shoe size would say an eyewitness testimony is something that was written decades later by a different person. That is fucking stupid. Alright, Greg, you're on mute. I'm sorry. You're just...

I think sometimes I wonder if Craig is just trying to see how far he can push before I like before he snap. Anyways, go ahead there, Paulos. Yeah. So like the testimony of Papias, I believe he was a disciple of John writing around 95 to 110 provides some of the earliest evidence of gospel authorship. Mark being the memoirs of Peter, Matthew being attributed to Matthew and so on and so forth.

forgery concerns in early Christianity. And none of this proves eyewitness testimony, but there are indicators that are highly likely under the supposition that they were written by eyewitnesses as opposed to anyone else. He still hasn't explained things like onomastic congruence. He still has not given me an explanation for the polymortal experiences besides deny the eyewitness testimony. And he never gave me evidence for why it's not eyewitness testimony. And

Okay, right. You did more than one slide. We talked about this, but I know maybe there's an ADHD thing. I'm not sure. But again, you have no eyewitness testimony, and I have explained that. Please stop going in circles. And I'm just going to put a button on this. Decades later, written by somebody else. That is not... What makes you think it's decades later? Because it was. What do you mean it was? The stories were written decades later. How many decades later? How many decades later? Do you even know...

Right? But again, let me be clear. Let me be clear. Written decades later by somebody else is not eyewitnesses. And I don't want to go in circles with that. I deny that you have eyewitness because you do not. So stop saying you have eyewitnesses because I will keep interrupting you and saying, no, you do not.

Okay, cool. And I'll just keep going through my slides and say that I have eyewitnesses. No, you don't. You're a liar if you say that you do. All right, cool. It is, like I say, it is very much established that we understand that you're not going to believe the accounts of eyewitnesses. Like I said, that's just... We can't just keep repeating the same thing. We understand that that's what you think. Apollos is going to get a chance to keep representing Christianity...

But he just keeps saying the same thing, though. He just keeps saying there's eyewitnesses, and that's his case. Eyewitnesses, eyewitnesses, eyewitnesses. He has no eyewitnesses. He's moving through different and unique slides, and we're going to just keep going through them, Craig. Come on. Help me out of your butt. All right. Over to you, Apollos.

So onomastic congruence is the idea that the alignment of names used in the Gospel enacts with the known naming patterns of the first century Palestine. This includes both the frequency and type of names, Simon, Mary, Judas, as well as their distribution and usage within a specific historical and geographical context. Why does this matter? Well, the names of the Gospels reflect patterns unique to first century Palestine.

Aligning with the cultural and social landscapes of Jesus's time and place this ties the gospel accounts to the specific geography where the events occurred Temporal anchoring so like yeah, I mean Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 of the Common Era so like There would have been no chance till I get the onomastics right after the fact So like yeah, how do you explain the 85% onomastic congruence?

Under the supposition that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. How do I explain what? Automatic congruence. What is that? I just explained it to you. Yeah, you waffled a bunch, so just explain it. Yeah, I'll explain it again. Briefly, just do it in ten words or less. The alignment of names used in the Gospels and Acts with the known naming patterns of first century Palestine. And what about that?

So the Gospels get an 85% reliability of getting the names right. So a B- then? Okay. So you trust a B-, an 85% statistical anomaly? It's greater than 50%, man. It's greater than 50%.

- Wonderful, I'm glad you can count, but 85% based on some- - I'm glad you can put a number- - Am I not allowed to respond to, I just literally, you waffled for about 25 minutes there. - Just give me an explanation. - So how about you shut your mouth and let me actually respond before you interrupt. - Respond, respond. - I'm trying to, but you don't let me because you're a triggered little child.

Okay, just respond. All right, Craig, let's carry on. Do me a favor, mute him while I respond. To be fair, acknowledging that somebody can account is pretty condescending. So, I mean, we can't cry. We can't cry at this point. Go ahead, Craig, when you're ready. Yeah, can he be muted, though, so he can't interrupt me, please? If he interrupts, he can be muted. He's presented his slides, so he knows where we're at with our format here. Yeah, his chat GPT generated slides are lovely. Yeah, again, a name.

Yeah, the Bible was written at the time when these names existed. So it's likely the 85% of the names mentioned would be possibly accurate. But again, that's a B minus. It's not great. If I got 85 out of 100, I'd be really pissed off. That doesn't mean anything. It is you grasping at straws for wanting things to be true. And none of this is evidence of a miracle of any kind.

You know, I asked that for simple evidence of a miracle, and instead you showed me a statistical anomaly about names in Palestine. This is how desperate you are. Alright, that's how we know where Craig's getting to the end of his thought there, so I'll hand it back over to you, Paulos, to respond. So, like, yeah, this idea that, like, I can use naive enumerative induction to basically... Hold up, let me try and get to the right slide.

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures. What do you know about oil and natural gas? You likely associate them with running your car or heating your home. But these two natural resources fuel so much more than that. More than 6,000 consumer products that we rely on every day are made using oil and gas.

Before you even step out the door in the morning, you've already used more products made possible because of oil and gas than you realize. From the toothpaste you brush your teeth with, the soap you washed your face with, and the sheets you slept on. Not to mention your makeup, contact lenses, clothes, and shoes. Oil and gas are vital parts of all these products and so many more.

Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com.

We're celebrating 20 years of business and U.S. Bank have been there every step of the way from our minivans and now our 10,000 square foot location. I'm Michelle Marino. I'm Denise Cotter. We're co-owners of Houndstooth House. Houndstooth House is located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

We were told early on, surround yourself by people that you work well with. And U.S. Bank was a great partner. U.S. Bank is small enough to care and big enough to make a difference. Hi, I'm Richard Karn, and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new Pocket Hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here, and it's a total game changer.

Old-fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's pocket pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus, your super light and ultra-durable pocket hose Copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that?

I'll tell you what, an exciting radio exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free Pocket Pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size Copperhead hose. Just text WATER to 64000. That's WATER to 64000 for your two free gifts with purchase. W-A-T-E-R to 64000. By texting 64000, you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Hose. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required. Terms apply. Available at pockethose.com slash terms. Yeah, no worries.

Yeah, take your time. It's a chance for everybody to take a breath. Yeah, so this idea that I can't attest to something because it's not repeatable or observable is quite ridiculous. I mean, you believe in—

Okay, well, no, no, no, they wouldn't because like they believe in abiogenesis and that's not like repeatable. That has been repeated. And it's not something that has been like tested. Of course, you can say things like, oh, yeah, there are different lines of evidence that point to it that are observable, but that's exactly what I'm doing. So you can unmute him. I usually click it, but he's sometimes distracted. It's all right. Go ahead, Craig.

Sorry, why was I muted there? We were having a conversation. Well, I was going to say, I thought we were doing one slide past the ball. But yeah, let's try to keep it smooth. Well, I'd like to have a back and forth conversation, but he lets me get like two words in before interrupting. You're the one interrupting everyone. You guys, if you debate analysis. Yeah, it's crazy. Answer. Anyway, so yeah, what's your point here? What are you saying?

Why is your criterion for evidence that it has to be observable or testable? I'm sorry, not testable, not testable. I mean like observable and repeatable.

Oh, because that's how the world is determined and how we figure out things about the world to be true. If they can't be tested and they can't be repeated, then there's no reason to believe they ever, ever happened in the first place. That's how science works. Science works by being able to test something and repeat that test. If you can't repeat it, if you can't repeat it, then you don't know that it happened. Nobody says that abiogenesis is the definite thing that happened. So,

So you're misrepresenting how science works because no one says abiogenesis is 100% the answer to how life started. It's not something we would have a test for or that we say is repeatable because we don't say that is definitely the answer. You do know that science doesn't have all the answers, right? We'll just go back to our main screen since we haven't been there for the majority of the debate. Let's just try to have a little back and forth for a bit about this. I know, guys. He asked me for the test for abiogenesis. Brilliant.

showing he doesn't understand anything about science or evidence in the slightest. Alright, with all the performative stuff, let's hand it over to you there, Apollos. Um, yeah, so, like, so are you saying that, like, abiogenesis is ruled out by science? No, I'm saying we don't have the answers.

I'm sorry, is your hearing not working? I made what I said very, very clear that nobody said that it has to be repeatable and it has to be observable. If we are claiming that that is what it is and we have the evidence to suggest that that is the case... Are you saying there's no evidence for abiogenesis? No, I'm saying that we don't have all of the answers.

And nobody claims that that is definitively the answer. I never said that it was definitively the answer, I'm just asking, is there evidence for abiogenesis?

Is there evidence for any biogenesis? There is certain things that point towards it, but it is not something we would say is a definitive thing that we can test or anything. Very much like dark matter, we see evidence for certain things. There you go. Am I not allowed to respond properly? No, respond. I'm trying to, but... Craig, you're the one that asked for the back and forth. You've got to be able to back it up. Come back in. I've got to be able to get the chance to actually respond. He said, there's your answer. He backed away. But he...

But he didn't let me give my answer. That's the thing. He said, there's your answer when I hadn't finished talking. Obviously, he felt satisfied at that point. It was a guy. He felt satisfied. I hadn't finished what I was saying. I'll put you on. Let's carry it on. Come on. Now that he's done that, he doesn't get to hear the rest of the answer. If he's going to act like a child, so will I.

Oh man, this is, you guys are, like I said, just a bucket of fun. Okay, no, I'll do it. I'll make the point that I'm making. Science doesn't say that this is definitely this or this is definitely that. Abiogenesis isn't something that we say this is 100%. We think this is what's happened and we've got all this evidence to suggest and things that we can test and recreate. We don't know.

The genesis of how life started Just like we don't know how the universe started And we never make a claim To know how the universe started We can make observations I'll let you know when I'm done

We can make observations about things and we can make predictions based on those observations. But things like the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe, we don't know and it's not within what science would say to know because we can't see before that happened. So it's not something we could ever test or reproduce. So I'll ask the question again. Is there evidence for abiogenesis? I answered that question very, very clearly.

In fact, I used the words. No, you just said that. No, I actually specifically said the words about the evidence. If you didn't hear them, maybe that's your problem. Okay, cool. No, I said that. I said, is there evidence for A by Genesis? Didn't get a yes, didn't get a no. And I answered that question very specifically. What is it? Yes or no? Well, I've already answered it. Asked and answered. Yes or no? Answer it again. Asked and answered. Answer it again. I don't want to.

Cool. All right. So for those of you who are wondering what's happening, if he says no... Hold on, hold on. You both had a lot of chances. I'm going to let Apollos try to push this into some new territory. Yeah, so if he says no, for those of you who don't get the Dalian dilemma yet, if he says no, he is admitting that there is no evidence for something...

the something like abiogenesis which would imply that a mind was behind it which would imply something like god was behind it if he says yes then he's implying that uh something like uh some something that there can be things that is that are admitted as evidence that are not necessarily repeatable um or observable well let's see how what craig thinks of that analysis uh over you craig

Yeah, just a bunch of assumptions there. If it's not this, then it has to be this. Lovely assumption. I'm sorry. Yeah, you did. You said if we don't have evidence for it, therefore it has to be designed by a mind. That's what you said, right? No, I said it wouldn't highly likely imply it. Why? That's an assumption. Why would it imply it? You think it would imply it. That is an assumption. But it's just an assumption.

What do you mean it's an assumption? It's literally an assumption. I assume that it implies that. That's your implication. That's your assumption. It doesn't make that implication. You are the one making that implication.

So I'm gonna... My goodness. So, like, I'm not sure... Do you disagree that you're the one making that implication? Hold on, before you... I didn't even get a response to, like, my whole, like, dilemma thing. Let's go ahead, though. All you said is that... All you said was that... Oh, yeah, your dilemma was a straw man, and I explained why it's a straw man. All right, let's let Apollos... Let's let Apollos outline it for the Christians in the audience, right? So, like, or we can just switch it to, like, there's design in the universe. I love the assumption, once again.

Or there's no design in the universe. There's no need for a designer. Physics works absolutely fine without a god.

I'm exhausted guys. If you say it needs a god, then you're going to actually need to prove that assumption, that a god is required to set the physics of the universe in motion. Did the people who observed the solar neutrinos have to approve their new model of physics with regards to the sun in order to line it up with the current evidence? That's nothing to do with god. Yeah, it does. Because it shows that even science uses posterior evidence. No, but they would then test that. They did test it. Yeah, but you can't test for god.

That's the difference. You can't ever... No, I can't put God into a beaker, but I can show signs and indications. No, you can't. You can make assumptions there is. He also got to this idea that... This is a relatively new argument I've developed, so hopefully I can present it just fine. Wait, I asked a question that you didn't answer. Do you have anything other than just your implications and your assumptions that a creator is required? No.

What do you mean, my assumptions? I mean, my assumptions are also the assumptions of many other Christian apologists and scientists and historians. Yeah, but not everyone. So you are the one that I'm talking to, so it is your assumption and your implication. What do you mean by assumption? And again, I do want to point out that Christians are the minority in the planet, so it is the assumption of the minority. That's so hideous.

No, Christians are the minority. In fact, here's the thing. You're pretty much as atheist as I am. Of all of the gods in the world, you believe in just one more than me. There's thousands of gods and we believe in about the same amount. Right. You just believe in one more god than me. You're pretty much as atheist as I am. Let's be clear. That doesn't make any sense.

So I'm just going to go on and address this earlier argument he made that – can I share my screen real quick? Sure. New argument. That sounds fun. We'll give you the space to – Oh, cool. So my argument just – never mind. Right. Cool. Well, like I said – No, it actually doesn't make any sense. But anyway.

To you, because you think magic is real. Well, like I said, we'll leave that up to the audience to decide whether they feel that that's been interacted with properly. I mean, I would really like him to explain why he has the assumption that physics requires a creator.

I never said that, but anyway, um... Well you did, you said the universe was created, right? Can you mute him please? No, don't keep saying "mute me" when I'm trying to have a conversation. I'm trying to, I'm trying to. I will be honest, yeah. I was just about to put you on a mute, but any time I'm about to put somebody on mute, and then somebody asks me to put them on mute, I'm like, "aww."

I don't want to do it just because you asked me now. But anyway, I do have to put you on mute. I'm so sorry, Craig. We can't just keep hammering away at the same thing. Like I said, you've already said you don't find it compelling. You've said here's why I don't find it compelling. Here's why he disagrees. We've got something new we can move into that maybe won't be spiraling on this one issue there. So let's carry on. Yeah, so –

This is the idea that, so this heavily relies on the science of recursive perspective social inferences. And that's basically the idea that the more orders of thinking, first order thinking, like reverse psychology, second order thinking, third order thinking, like I think him, I want him to think that God exists.

the Christian God exists, but in fact, I'm really the Zeus God. It's actually ad hoc. So like, because it requires maintaining a mental model of another person's beliefs, intentions, and reasoning strategies.

And so, like, you can see this in, like, social neuroscience, developmental psychology, and strategic interaction studies that recursive perspective social inferences, which lying is a type of recursive perspective social inference, is more ad hoc than

than just truth telling. So if it is the case that Christ was risen from the dead, then we are in good grounds to believe that a Christian God raised him from the dead as opposed to other gods. So like, yeah, here's some like,

Other pointers that lying is best modeled as a type of recursive perspective social inference? Yeah, dude, you are literally just waffling. None of this is evidence of Christianity being true. It's just you're going, well, I think a bunch of these things are true, therefore. Give me evidence that anything in the Bible actually happened...

and that Jesus was the son of God and that God is real. No more of this just trying to show a bunch of slides with words that you think are clever and make a point. They don't. If Christianity is true... What do you not understand about it? If Christianity is true... It's not I don't understand it. It's just irrelevant to the conversation. You're trying to avoid the topic of is Christianity true?

If Christianity is true, there would be some evidence of it. Show me evidence of a miracle. Show me evidence of God. Show me evidence that a creator exists. Stop waffling and actually engage in the conversation.

You're the one who keeps interrupting people, but... No, when you waffle, I have to interrupt. None of this matters. None of this would disprove or prove Christianity. I already showed that in standard scientific studies. You don't understand science. There can be very well models that they propose that are...

not in their current understanding and they updated with current observations. You can do all the addressing in just one second. Let him speak for just please. Go ahead, Paulus. Yeah, so yeah, so if God, basically I was just trying to describe like if there is an agent that raised Christ from the dead, then it's likely the Christian God raised him from the dead as opposed to like Thor, Zeus, or like aliens because of lying in reverse psychology being a type of recursive perspective social inference.

recursive perspective social inferences are ad hoc because they are ad hoc in trying to map up map map out someone's intentions as opposed to be as opposed to like straightforward truth telling the same way i would look at uh an empty plate and a dog walking away from it i would conclude that he ate the plate i'm sorry that he ate the food as opposed to uh trying to get you into thinking that he ate the food when he really didn't all right maybe we can try to hold it on that maybe that might good lord you walk

a bunch of nonsense, man. At least change the tone of your voice, please. Right. Scientific models are based on evidence. When physicists propose a new model of neutrino behavior, they base it on existing observations, make testable predictions, and run experiments to verify or testify it. In science, we say, we don't know, but we're working on it. In religion, they say, God did it. Then they stop asking questions. You're trying to compare finding a new model of neutrinos to somehow

That explaining how God did it is just so far away from understanding how science works that it's incredible. You are literally giving a straw man of the scientific method and how science works and arguing against it. You do understand that, right? So what's not analogous about those two comparisons? I just explained it. No, you just said that it was not analogous. God is not a hypothesis, is it? Why?

It's an explanation, it's not a hypothesis. What's the difference between an explanation and a hypothesis, and why would we favour one over the other?

Well, a hypothesis is something that you would base on observations. It's the second part of the scientific method. Part one, make an observation and, you know, based on observation and known physics and the universe around us, then form a hypothesis that is a testable thing. Hypothesis have to be testable. Right. You can't have a hypothesis that doesn't form a prediction that is testable.

And God did it is not something that we can then make a prediction from and test. Therefore, God did it is outside the purviews of saying it's a hypothesis. It is literally the opposite of how science works. It's so far away from being a hypothesis and being testable and being something that is predictable that the fact that you think it is really makes me worry about your mental health.

So we got a hypothesis has observations attached to it? Is that correct or not? Words, dude, listen. Hypothesis has to have something that is then you can make predictions from and then test those predictions. God did it. It's not something you can make a testable prediction from. No, but I can test for like eyewitness testimonies being behind the gospels. No, no, no, that's not how that works.

Eyewitness testimony is not evidence, is not testable, is not predictable. If we're going to talk about hypothesis, which is a scientific term, then a hypothesis has to form a prediction, which is then testable with experimentation. Otherwise, it's not a hypothesis. The fact that you think that God is a hypothesis is basically the end of this debate. It shows that you don't understand anything about how science works and how to disprove science.

and how to disprove things in science. I was never trying to disprove science. Oh, how to disprove things in science. Sorry, I misspoke there. It shows you know nothing about how to disprove things in science or in a conversation like this. You are trying to compare God...

to science and saying "God did it" can be a hypothesis when it is the exact opposite of what a hypothesis is. So you said that there would be some testable observations that are predictable, repeatable, and stuff like that. So why wouldn't the historical method- Maybe if you listen to the words in order. Step one of the scientific method is you see something, right? You make an observation and you ask a question about- I see data points in the Bible. Okay, continue.

And you ask a question about that. And then from that, you would form a hypothesis. Now a hypothesis is a very specific thing. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on known phenomenon in the world that is able to form a prediction that is testable. Let's be very 100% clear. God did it. Hold on. Let me finish my point. I'm bringing it home. Okay.

There is no prediction and test that can be formed from the phrase, God did it. Not eyewitness testimony, not an empty tomb. That's not a prediction, no. Prediction is about things that are going to happen in the future. So if God rose Jesus from the dead, we would predict an empty tomb. We would predict historical cooperation of that empty tomb. You're talking about things in the past. We need to be able to make predictions in the future. If your hypothesis is God did it...

We don't then talk about things that happened in the past. We then need to make a prediction about something that is going to happen in the future. You can't make a prediction about the past. You can't make a prediction about the past. That's called remembering, not making predictions. So what do you think of geology? A prediction is something that happens in the future. So please tell me what prediction you can make that is something that is going to happen in the future that we can test from the hypothesis God did it.

I reject this characterization of science because there are things like geology, there are things like geologists... I'm sorry, but you don't get to reject that characterization of science. I am a man of science, I don't get to reject it. Whether he's right or not, let's let him explain why he... There are things like geology that try to retroject physical laws back into the past to describe what a prebiotic birth would look like. They don't use that to make predictions, I'm sorry, you're incorrect.

No, they used laws that would make predictions and retroject it back into the past. That's how it works. No.

Yes. No, no, they don't know they don't do that again predictions are about things that can happen in the future even in geology They have make predictions about things in the future. So are you saying science can't say anything about the past? The scientific method that we learn in high school is very clear, right? And if you're going to use the word hypothesis Then you have to actually use it correctly. Hypothesis means you make a prediction which is something that happens in the future Not the past

And then you have to be able to test that prediction. So let me get this straight. Because the resurrection is in the past, therefore it's not a hypothesis. Correct, because that's not something you can make a prediction about or test, is it? Oh, brother. It's a story. So we can't say anything about the past. We can't say anything about the past. No, you can't say anything about the past when you're trying to test something in science. No. Unless it's something that can be repeated in a predictable pattern that you can test...

But I don't know of any other time that people have been put in a cave and resurrected that we can predict is going to happen and then make a test about it. I don't want us to sound patronizing, but if we're talking about the scientific method, do you know the five steps of the scientific method that you learn in high school? I don't know off the top of my head, no. Yeah, well, that's kind of the problem, is it? You're trying to talk about, oh, this is how we do science, but you don't understand science.

You don't understand science. You don't understand that geology is a thing. My two degrees would very much disagree with you. My degree in physics, first with honors, and my degree in nuclear engineering, energy systems, and efficient technology, also first with honors.

Right? So that I do understand science. Also, my seven years in the Royal Navy as a nuclear engineer show that I understand science. Also, my four years as a project developer for WindTrag Energy Systems, developing the infrastructure in Scotland for wind energy shows that I understand science. So, you know, he said that just because, you know, we haven't seen it before, you know, like, because...

It has to be in the future or something stupid like that. Yes, because you can't predict something in the past. That's not how prediction works. All right, let's let him present the slide. It's called Abduction Buddy.

No, prediction. We're not doing abduction. We're doing predict. Which part of the scientific method is that in? Why do I have to... Why does it have to be specifically the scientific method? Why can't I use historical method? Because you brought up the word hypothesis, which is a scientific term. No, you're the one who brought up the word hypothesis. You did. You're the one that brought up the word hypothesis. You said that God is the hypothesis. No, I said... Yes, you did. You very specifically said that. Dude, calm down. Calm down. Calm down.

Don't lie to my face. You very specifically said that God was the hypothesis. Yeah, but what I meant by that was God was the explanation, not like the scientific type of hypothesis. But you didn't say that. You said hypothesis. Okay, now I'm clarifying. Right, so the entire argument that we've just had about hypothesis and science, now that I've proven you wrong, you're changing what you've said.

So science can't say anything about the past, that's incredibly ridiculous? I'm not saying that, but there's methods of doing that. But what you are doing is misinterpreting science and the way that we do predictions. You can't make a prediction about something in the past that happened. I can make a prediction about something in the past that happened by using laws and signs of evidence that are consistent with our everyday experience and retrojected it back into the past.

Yeah, but then you have to be able to make a prediction and test that prediction. Yeah, dude, this is- dude, if you see a puddle outside- When have you been able to test the prediction of Jesus rose from the dead? I already showed you the tests of the eyewitness testimony and ran it through some- No, no, no, so that's one time. One time isn't then repeating and predicting and testing. We'll run it by other historians. Big deal. No, no, but still just one time it's happened. That doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, you can't test something that has only happened one time. You can test the same thing multiple times. What are you saying? Only if it's happening multiple times. To test if it happens, it has to happen again. We have to make a prediction and then it happens and then we test that prediction.

Ryan, I just want to go into the Super Chat. This dude has nothing substantive to the conversation, so. We can definitely get moved into the Super Chat. What did he just say? Sorry, sorry. What did he just say? Well, we have not, you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation. Oh, yeah. So you're running away from the conversation because I backed you into a corner several times. No, no, no. Genuinely, it's over one hour, dude. I,

In one hour, I have beaten you into the ground and shown how stupid you are. So much so that you are running away from the conversation. Cool, buddy. You don't even understand how science works. You don't understand that geology is an actual... Says the guy that thinks God is a fucking hypothesis. Alright.

You knew that was going to get under. I said it was an explanation. You said hypothesis, you lying shit. Hold on, hold on. Okay, now I'm changing my supposition. Now God is an explanation. No, you can't. A reasonable explanation. You said you don't get to change your mind because I destroyed you. That's dishonest. Yeah, I do. Yeah, I do. What are you talking about? Just wave that white flag and run away, boy. To be fair, if somebody decides to change their opinion because- Oh my God.

realize something in a debate. That's actually more of an honesty thing. I know, I was going to say, now I'm calling you out because you know changing your mind about something is a sign of honesty, not a sign of... Oh, no, he's not saying he made a mistake. He's just changing what he said. Oh, dang, we have more people who said Christianity is true in the poll, so... Well, that's because it's a Christian audience, yes. I'm aware of that.

Just like when I went to debate con and debated live in front of a Christian audience. Yes. That's what would happen. All right, let's move on to the Christian audience. All right. Before we go into chats, I do. Right. He thinks I want to have enough energy. I genuinely like want to have enough energy to respond to questions by the audience. And this guy's just zapping all of it. Well, just before we go into that, I'm glad I sat here. If you don't mind, you've had this slide up for quite some time. If you want,

just right quick uh if you guys can take a few minutes maybe talk about it no you took the slide off okay we can always do that i was curious i was like i don't know maybe maybe we have something there all right let's uh let us do move into the q a it's been an hour and a half and uh

Yeah, these guys have been... They've been at it, fellas. Yeah, you guys aren't shy, that's for sure. You know, let's see what the audience has to say here. I'm going to start out with a super chat that was missed from last time. I'll remind the audience to smash the like button if they're having fun, if they're hanging out, if they're hanging in. We appreciate you. All right, so...

I see you're talking. Maybe you're not talking to me there, Craig. You're probably talking to your audience. That's cool. So membership chat, even Lord says, I have developed a question, Ryan. Craig, what is the point of being bad faith and being insulting to your opponent? Oh, you're in trouble now, Craig. Y'all is going to have to wait because my mouse just died. Ha! I can't even take you off mute. Isn't that fun? All right, you guys just chill out for two seconds. I'll be right back and I'm going to clip this out in the post.

All right, Joy, it is times to me. All right, ask to unmute as you're showing off your arm. Yes, yes, hello. I have developed a question for Craig. Craig, what is the point of being bad faith and insulting to your opponent? It shows the bigotry of an arrogant person.

Well, I wouldn't know about being bad faith because I never am. In fact, I'm the very opposite of bad faith. I like to hammer home points that are brought up instead of running away and trying to distort the other person's perspective and opinion. I am the exact opposite of bad faith and I fight against bad faith. However, the insults are just fun and I'm pretty sure that person doesn't know what a bigot is.

All right. We're going to get into the Super Chat, Super Chats thing. So I've got you covered there, even Lord on the Mist one there. So I'll let James know so you don't try to fool any funny business. Oh, good for you. All right. Thanks, everybody, for your Super Chats. Dude, this cookie is insane, by the way. I see your stream over there. I'm a Canadian, so, I mean, you know, whatever. Do what you want. You know how I am. So Plant Based says, when was the earliest account of Jesus' resurrection? Over to you, Apollos.

Yeah, so that many scholars regard the first Corinthians 15 Creed being the earliest eyewitness account that is passed down to Paul. Many scholars believe that it is within it was codified within even can be as early as prior to Paul's conversion because it was passed down to him. And it lists down the many different witnesses to Christ's resurrection, including the appearance of the 500.

So, that was the earliest account. Let's carry on, I guess. No thoughts over there on the other side? Well, if you want me to respond, I will. I'll just say there was no eyewitness accounts, we've gone through that. Alright, fair enough. FBI, a most wanted grape dangler, says, "Squidward is too irate. Calm down, handsome." Hey, you know what, right?

As a teenager when I watched SpongeBob, I was like, "Yeah, man, Squidward, he's really grumpy and stuff." But as I've grown up, I totally get fucking Squidward. All right? I understand. Are you saying that you inherently knew that this comment was directed towards you? I think that says a lot. Yeah, I've been called Squidward a few times, but Squidward doesn't have guns like this. Oh, yeah.

Yeah, we've all seen handsome Squidward, yeah. JSSTiger says, in Genesis 2.17, God wants Eve... I'm sorry, here are the other Squidward, Craig. Anyway. All right, JSSTiger says, in Genesis 2.17, God wants Eve to remain brainwashed by warning her not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Thoughts? Yeah, so I do believe in a historical Adam and Eve, although I'm not a young Earth creationist.

Um, as far as like, uh, her allowing to be eaten, uh, to eat from the tree of, uh, knowledge of good and evil, um, sensory knowledge of good and evil, um...

I would appeal to the free will defense as to why there's evil, specifically evil that we choose in the world. There are various other theodicies for undesired suffering like Christian virtue ethics, the afterlife, the defeat condition as advanced by several philosophers when it comes to the problem of animal suffering. But yeah, in a nutshell, like God wanted us to make that free choice. So yeah, here we are. All right. Sorry.

So you said you believe in the biblical Adam and Eve. What is that, specifically? I just think that there is a first human couple, that's all. But genetics says no. Otherwise we'd all have ancestors. No, no, genetics says that there is a variation of... I'm not saying that they're the only progenitors of the entire human race, but what I am saying is that there is a first human couple. Wait, so there was humans before that, but just not couples?

No, no, there were humans after Adam and Eve that were not necessarily within their direct lineage, but that contributed to the... How? If Adam and Eve were the first human couple, how would there be any outside of their lineage? So, like, you know, Genesis talks about how Cain and Abel took wives, or at least, sorry, the one of them that did survive. So those wives came from somewhere, so...

Right, so God created a bunch of different humans as well as Adam and Eve. Yeah. So how do you know that Adam and Eve were the first couple? What if there was a couple before them in one of the other bunches? Are you just making the assumption of that? Yeah, so I'd point to... Man, I'm forgetting the title of the book, but... I'm forgetting if it's like John Walton or some random Old Testament scholar that talks about Genesis 1 through 11. And...

Yeah, sorry, what is the question again? From Steve. That's your name, right, Steve? No, I'm Ryan. It's all good. Ryan, never mind. I'd make a fine Steve, I'm sure.

I think a Dwight suits you for some reason. Get out of here. All right. Sorry, Dwight. You can't fire back right now. I'm changing your name to Dwight on our chat, by the way. Yeah, yeah. You do that. You have all the fun you want. You can change my name to Three Twisted Arsehairs for all I care. All right. JSS Tiger says, what are your thoughts on Exodus 32? Moses summons to the Levites to kill the idolaters, their wives, their children, et cetera, resulting in 3,000 deaths.

Wait, he summoned the Levites? Like the genes? No. The Levites. The Levites. I know. Over to Apollos. So what are your thoughts on Exodus 32? Moses summons the Levites to kill the idolaters, their wives, children, etc. Resulting in 3,000 deaths approximately in this passage. Yeah, I'm just going to share my screen real quick for this. Regarding Old Testament ethics, basically the idea is that...

So the imperfect mosaic law, like the law that was given to Moses, was not a plural mosaic.

a morally perfect law that was meant to be forever. It was a culturally stipulated descriptive wisdom literature. So like, um, there has been a great series by inspiring philosophy and, um, John Walton's book, the world of the lost Torah law as covenant and wisdom in ancient context, uh, describes the Torah as a Susarian treaty. Um,

Which means that originally it wasn't like a law like given by God, but more of like didactic wisdom literature to talk about the way that a king would handle like a nation and things like that. And yeah, so like, you know, Jesus talks about how like that law was given because Israel's hearts were hardened. And yeah, like it was never supposed to be like a law forever for all time.

So that would be your thoughts on the Exodus 32 there. Did you have anything to respond with there, Craig, to keep the conversation going or do you want to carry on? I just read the first issue of Sonic across DC. That was pretty good.

All right, you would. All right, let's hear it. Batman Inc. says Bernadette Morial, sorry if I butchered that, is the 70th confirmed miracle healing from Cauda Equina? Irreversible and her case was deemed medically unexplained by 300 doctors. 72 confirmed healings. Healing's Lords, Francis alone. All cases are public.

And none of them have any proof that God did it. Medical anomalies happen. And when you actually look into several of these cases, and there's a lot more behind them than just, oh, they were healed after a miracle or something. Yeah, there is any time that someone says, well, they were healed and medical medicine couldn't explain it. Okay, we might not be able to explain it, but that doesn't mean that God did it. That is just an assumption.

So it doesn't matter if medicine wasn't currently able to explain what happened, you know, but to then say that the only logical assumption after that is, well, we don't know how medicine did it. So therefore, God did it is a little bit childish.

all right yeah and i'll just briefly respond to that um uh as far as like god being the specific agent behind something uh unexplainable uh i would recommend my video on um

the logical entailment of the resurrection that goes behind a little bit. I didn't explain it as well in this debate, but it goes behind like the recursive perspective, social inference process and how that's like more ad hoc than like simply truth telling and how especially if it is the case in those miracles that whoever the super chatter was sent, if it was the case that those miracles included like a high context, namely a prophetic

prayer saying that you will be healed in Jesus name or something like that then I would be inclined to think that is genuinely a miracle so hopefully that helps all right we got lots more questions coming in we're gonna roll through them I do want to just point out we have a couple questions that can't are coming in a little later

that I would say don't really fall in the vein of questions that we would ask on Modern Day Debate, so... Hey, if there's any that are insulting to me, I demand that you read them. Comments on personal appearances towards Craig will be taken, but towards any other speakers, yeah, I'm not going to read those out. So I'm going to... In fact, I demand insults. I'm going to ask this super chatter to... I'll still read a question, but if you could give me something that works...

In our live chat, I will read the question, but I'm not going to read these commentaries on anybody's... Yeah, we're not going to do that. No super chats on people's appearances, please and thank you. Andrea Eld says, the Book of Mormon also has eyewitnesses. Then why is Apollos Christian and not Mormon?

Yeah, I'll share my screen for this real quick again. Something similar was brought up in my last debate against Planet Peterson.

um the idea that mormonism has similar evidence to christianity um but uh mormonism is false because well uh they didn't even claim to see the plates uh like as because of like physical sight and like eight of the witnesses reportedly only handling and seeing the golden plates without mentioning a visitation from the angel moroni um so what that translates to is they only uh handled a bunch of rocks that are covered under like some sheet of cloth

Many of them were excommunicated from the church. I'll just go through these slides really briefly. Martin Harris reportedly admitted seeing the plates in a visionary or spiritual sense rather than physically. They stated that they saw the plates by the power of God in the presence of an angel. The golden plates were reportedly taken back by the angel Moroni, leaving no physical evidence of their existence. So, like, oh yeah, and by the way, the original witnesses to the...

to mormonism warrant um weren't martyred for their faith as opposed to like peter paul james the brother of jesus and james the son of zebedee um and various other unnamed christian apostles um so the evidence just quite frankly isn't comparable um and you know there are other considerations regarding the reliability of their character so yeah there's that all right

Oh, Craig put himself on mute, so I'm just going to ask him to come off mute if he wants to comment on any of that. And if not, we can carry on. I mean, I was getting up a list of eyewitness accounts of Thor that fall under the criteria that our friend here has given. And in fact, from what I can see, this list actually has much more eyewitness accounts of Thor than there ever is of Jesus or anything. So, hmm.

Weird. All right. Still looking in the live chat. They're about a basal problem. If you want to ask a question, like I said, the questions that you put forward, they're not appropriate to answer.

These people are here of their own time, and we appreciate them. So we're not going to read those questions. Is it insulting me? I don't mind. No, I insulted you earlier. I know, but that's not how we... That's how you want to be treated. That's not how everybody else wants to be treated, all right? Look, I get off on it, okay? Insult me, guys. Yeah, yeah, he loves it, all right? Just, yeah, you give it all the credit. You should see what I do after reading them. I saw a super chat trying to insinuate that I was...

Hispanic when I'm actually not I'm Asian. So there's that yeah, there's no need for like those kind of comments on appearance guys I mean you can call him a four-eyed twat because I am as well. That's cool But you know race appearance race comments and stuff that there's no need for any of that shit. Yeah. No, we're all on board there Let's just carry on they know who they are and they can ask like I say a question in the chat I'm not gonna say you can't ask a question just

Do your best to be the best version of yourself, like your first date version of yourself. All right, let's do that. Even Lord, oh wait, one before that. Awakening Mind says, the Bible and the globe are both lies, Craig. You think the Bible is false, yet you think the globe is true. Both are meant to keep you away from truth.

Yeah, this is the dude by the guy that's just given that comment thinks that the sun teleports from one side of the earth and appears at the other side of the earth and also docks their parents when their parents kind of said that the earth wasn't flat and stuff. So anything they say has no value of any kind. And fuck you.

Any thoughts on the other side? You want to just carry on? I don't know that person, so... I'm not a flat earther, so there's that. Yeah, no, I was going to say, so you don't think... Yeah, okay, that's fair enough. I was going to say, so you don't think... Please, do me a favor, tell the flat earthers that the Bible doesn't say the Earth is flat. Yeah, the Bible doesn't say the Earth is flat.

Well, you just opened the door to a whole lot of... Anyway, there's going to be some people that are going to say, yeah, I'm going to debate this guy. All right. Even Lorde says, Craig is just saying, nuh-uh, like a flat earther. Well, no, I'm not just saying nuh-uh. I'm asking for evidence. Yes, you are. No, I'm just... There was nuh-uh. The only way that I can actually say nuh-uh is if evidence of some kind is presented for me to nuh-uh at, but...

Unsubstantiated hearsay is not something that should be taken into account as evidence. I'm not going to address evidence that I don't consider to be actual evidence. And as a man of science, I'm very aware of what evidence is and the criteria behind it. Nothing my opponent here presented today could be classed as evidence for his case of Christianity being true. He had assumptions and implications that he thinks are true.

With no evidence behind them. Thinking and feelings are not evidence. Alright, let's go around. Uh, yeah, um, just real quick. Sure. Yeah, I guess you can have a chance to respond. I'm sorry. I don't know why I was just trying to carry on. Go ahead. Yeah, like, uh, as far as, like, me presenting evidence, like, I gave a standard definition of evidence that is used by standard philosophers of science. I, uh,

accorded that with many various tests of historicity for the gospel as being eyewitness testimony. My opponent never addressed them besides just hand them away, hand waved them away and didn't give an alternative explanation. And yeah, here we are because of that. I don't need to give an alternative explanation to an assumption.

All right. Let's carry on. I asked that question. Yeah, let's carry on. Let's carry on. We got a few more questions that might give you guys a bit more pause for thought. So JSS Tiger says, my thoughts, Jesus was a casual magician who needed a cult following, kind of like Joseph Smith.

Do you want to make any commentary on that? Like, do you think that Jesus was potentially some other sort of enigmatic figure of this time? There's a lot of historical records outside of the Bible that say Jesus existed. I'm not disputing the fact that Jesus as a human being lived. I think he did. And I think probably he was a good dude that wanted to try and help the world and, you

You know, maybe he was a magician as well and wanted the following, but we know how quickly cults can appear because, let's face it, humans are fucking idiots. Right, well let's see if Apollos has any thoughts there, so... Yeah, only that I don't see the mechanism behind recreating a resurrection under magic tricks, so yeah, there's that.

Let's ask the next one. Evenlord says, Ryan, you need a raise after moderating this debate. You're going above and beyond in a tense environment. Yeah, you know what else is intense?

camping. Anyway. Yeah, no, I am tired, though. Even Apollo's asked when he first came in if I was sick. I'm tired, I'm dad. Sorry. Oh, yeah, exactly. Dads are always tired, but yeah, I had four hours of singing rock and roll music, and I had gas. That's right. Is it Father's Day over there as well tomorrow? It is. There's nothing more tense than that, though, Craig. Singing rock and roll for four hours with gas. Anyways, my poor partner. What's your family doing for you for Father's Day? Anything planned?

I think I'm going to probably be surprised. I don't know. I'll probably get breakfast. I think my kids have brought me a bag of sweets. So, you know, great. I want a diet. Thanks. I'll probably end up going over to the dog park for a bit. And if it's nice out and hang out with the pup and throw the ball, maybe. I don't know. We'll see. I might stop over at the music store. Yeah. But yeah, happy Father's Day to all the dads out there. What fun. All right. Jesus Tiger. Let's carry on. Actually, I should ask. Are you a father as well, Apollos, or no? No.

I'm not. No, no worries. You know, it's less. Yeah. Okay. I'll tell you. I had one and I was like, you know what? This is fine. This will be all right. Maybe, maybe two would just be double the work, but two is actually like 10 times the work. I had two and I was four. I definitely couldn't have another. You thought you were?

Wait, no, sorry. I don't eat my kids. Just what? What is he on about? All right, let's carry on. Batman Inc. says Matthew and John are both eyewitnesses and wrote their accounts. And Luke also collects eyewitness testimonies. Luke even writes as such. Craig, please tone it down. This is our Reddit atheist level behavior here.

I love how anyone that has an argument against Christianity goes, oh, yes, that's Reddit level. If I say the words magic sky daddy, it triggers them so hard. That's Reddit level. If I point out that God is evil, that's Reddit level. I'm sorry, but saying that's Reddit level doesn't dismiss the arguments that I've made. And actually, those weren't even the real names of those people. Those names were added by the church later on.

and there's no evidence that they actually wrote those passages themselves. So yeah, carry on. All right, all right. Did you have any thoughts there, Apollos? Do you want to carry on? I already presented the indicators that the Gospels were written by the apostles attributed to them. So yeah, my opponent just hand-waved it away and just said otherwise, so no evidence on his part. So even Lord said... Well, I just didn't accept the evidence. So he said the holoc thing...

So 1940s Germany atrocity fascist government. We all know the story isn't being tested and repeated So did it really happen Craig? You have positive proof for atheism. Sorry. What was the question? So they're asking about the truth, you know within like a time capsule so he's asking about fascist 19 nice one Germany

"isn't being tested and repeated, so did it really happen?" So he's talking about being able to test something in a time capsule, is what I would gather. Being able to test something in a time capsule? Well, you would test it... Like, how could you test that that actually happened, that event, historically? You can't test that something happened historically, you have to just believe eyewitness accounts.

there's no evidence that things happen. Oh, this is great. Holocaust denier right here. I think Apollo is- Oh no, I'm absolutely 100% not a Holocaust denier. 100% not. But there's no evidence that- Thanks for saying it, Apollo. I did so much work to not say... Anyway, go ahead. He was trying to work around it. Anyway, go ahead there. No, absolutely not. That was a great super chat, by the way. I thought the question was-

Right, read the question again because I may have missed the point. So they're asking, yeah, so what was I saying? So about the Holocaust isn't actually being tested and repeated, so did it really happen? Cat's out of the bag now. Start there. Right, I missed the word Holocaust in the super chat, so I didn't understand. Well, they're asking about a historical event, so isn't being tested and repeated, so did it really happen?

Well, we can again, we just look at the evidence. It's a lot closer to what we are now. We actually have pictures and videos and things that can show that the Holocaust happened, you know, literal recordings of it and documentation by by the Nazis that that happened. There's no evidence like that.

of the times of Jesus, you know, and the things that he did and, you know, video evidence and stuff like that. So they're not really comparable. And, you know, just to be clear, Apollo, to call me a Holocaust denier is a bit fucking disgusting. I just wasn't listening to the question properly.

Clearly not a fucking Holocaust denier, thank you. Alright, okay. Well, I'll only briefly respond to apparently the Civil War and the Revolutionary War are also, like, not comparable wars that happened in history. Well, no, they've got extreme documentation around them as well. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no. Well, I'm saying that they didn't have video evidence, so that fails...

Okay, of the Revolutionary War? Maybe not the Revolutionary War, but there's paintings of certain things that happened, and there is extremely accurate and detailed documentation.

There you go. There's no detailed, accurate documentation of specific dates and times and missions and people and that from the time of Jesus. The Revolutionary War, yeah, we can actually find journals of officers' commands and orders from higher up. So it's very different comparing the two. Wait one second. Sorry, were you just talking over me as I was talking? Right, I understand. Well, first of all, no, no.

So you were just talking over me. Well, let's try to have that back and forth if we can. You asked me a question, dude, and I was responding. I never ask you a question. This is Super Chat. What are you talking about? You asked me a question about it, and then we were having a conversation. You guys are great. Listen,

Are you unaware how conversations work? I did want to give Apollos a chance to put his thoughts in there because obviously something that you said, and it happens normally in conversation. Somebody says somebody and it triggers a thought and there's room for clarification. It's just normal. So let's just carry on. Apollos, your thoughts there.

Yeah, so apparently things that can't be videotaped immediately, so whenever the sun is not being videotaped, I guess it just doesn't exist. No, that's a nice straw man position. And I understand that's not... Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, no, I'm going to respond because you just made a straw man of what I'm saying. We can actually make predictions of where the sun is going to be and test that in the future. A bunch of friends of mine did that when they went to the past as well. You did the quick injection, so let's...

pass it back to Apollos. Yeah, so you can back project it into the past as well. That's not a prediction. Yes, it is. Back projecting into the past is not a prediction of something that's going to happen in the future. That's why geology exists. That's why models of evolutionary biology exist.

Anyway, like, yeah, let's just move on. I already explained myself. All right. I think there's a difference between the past and the future. I just want to be sure everybody can hear you. But I will say, Craig, your audio has definitely fixed itself. You're not getting cut off anymore. So people can actually hear the back and forth as long as we can have the back and forth, you know, with too much...

What would you say? Objection. So the question carries on. Craig, do you have positive proof for atheism being truthful? Then they said, sorry, Ryan. That's OK. Even Lord. So no, I've made I've made this very clear many, many times. I can't disprove that there's a God.

I can't disprove that Ryan is God. I can't disprove that in 50 years, Ryan invents a time machine, goes back and starts the universe and puts physics in order. There's no way I can disprove that. There's no way of disproving some higher intelligence creating the universe. No, absolutely not. But there's no evidence that that is the case either.

All we can do is look at the universe and go back in time to as far as the look in the universe allows us to. To say we know what happened before or we know what created it is just arrogance because nobody knows and no one has the ability to know.

"Oh man, O'Reil over here is gonna tickle that dust at the Big Bang." I just wanna point out that he talked about the past, so he confused the past with the future as well, so. I absolutely did not, because I didn't say you can make a prediction in the past. But you said, no yeah you did, you said we can go back in time. Anyway, let's move on. No, I didn't say we could go back in time. We can, or something to that effect, we can real roll the clip. Anyway, let's go. Sorry, r/woosh, my friend.

All right, carrying on. Even Lord Craig, you are an entertaining debater, and I would love to see a debate between you and Daniel. Would it be something you would be willing to do? I don't know. Who is that? What would you say, guys? A Muslim apologist?

You know, he's been on the channel a lot. He was on yesterday with James. I am studying some of the... I want to. I've been studying the scientific claims of the Quran. And I'm certainly up for a debate around what the Quran states as facts. Like sperm being made in the rib cage and shit like that. I didn't know if that was a debate you'd be interested in. That's why I was kind of like, I don't know.

I'd have to be very specific about what I would debate in it because I'm not an expert on Islam in any way shape or form But I have done quite a bit of studying on the the scientific claims that the Quran and the Bible and other religious texts make All right, you got it Let's carry on. Yeah, I tried to Get basil to tag me in the live chat. So they asked another question. Okay, I think they took care of it on their own Thank you so much there basil and appreciate your understanding Roken

says, Craig, wouldn't you at least agree there's some eyewitness testimony as most historians accept Jesus' crucifixion as recorded in the Gospels? Now, I think he just did say a few minutes ago that he's not a... What are they called? A mythicist? I mean, there is outside of the Bible from what my research shows, other accounts of Jesus' crucifixion or at least crucifixion of...

Someone that could be described as Jesus with the way that they're describing the actions that they did and the way that they were going against the Jewish ruling parties and stuff. So I I hold the position that I do think the crucifixion of of Jesus happened.

based on my research of what historical records are available. Does that mean that he was the son of God and died for our sins and was resurrected? No. Crucifixions were a very typical punishment. You could be crucified from anything from adultery,

to stealing, to taking too much water, to murder. Crucifixion happened to a lot of people back then. So I do think that if Jesus existed, he was likely crucified. And a lot of that is in the future, so... Agreed. I'm not saying that it is. I'm just looking at historical records and making... I'm not saying that you said it was...

I think you missed the entire point of what I'm saying there. Every time you say that's not in the future, you sound stupid. I'm pointing out the logical inconsistency in your position. Yeah, there's no logical inconsistency, and the fact that you think there is shows that you are not a very intelligent person. I can talk about historical records and make a deduction myself from those, and that be outside the purview of the scientific method in predicting something in the future. They are different things that can exist outside of each other.

Yeah, which is exactly what I was trying to explain to you earlier. No, because you were saying hypothesis, which is a scientific term. Oh, but I changed my use of terminology not to refer to that. Yeah, once I destroyed you. Even your slide said hypothesis. So we know that's what you meant. No, we don't. But anyway...

You wrote those words, but we don't know what you meant. Of course not. Trump-level thinking. Alrighty, alrighty, you. Tina L. says, not tiny, sorry. Tina L. says, for Craig, prove Plato existed using the scientific method. Well, science doesn't prove anything, so you wouldn't do that. And I never, you know, I don't say that he definitely existed. I just look at historical records and say it's likely he did.

Just like it's likely that Jesus existed. And if Jesus existed, it's likely he was crucified. I was going to say, isn't Homer now considered like a group of people now?

There is different reports about who Homer is. You know, again, all we have for these things are muddy historical records. So you can look at them and you can make an assumption and you can say, well, I think that that is the case. But that doesn't mean that I'm saying that that is 100 percent a fact. Do I think Jesus existed? Yes, I do think he did.

Do I think he was crucified? Yes. Do I have proof of that 100%? No. I just look at what little historical records there are and come to an assumption. I might not be right. All right. Let's ask the next question. Cindy Bonbury, this one's for you, Apollos. What do we know of the 500 witnesses to Christ and witnesses in quotation marks?

so sorry i muted myself yeah we know that it ended up in the first corinthians 15 creed so we also know that it happened before paul's conversion we also know that paul adds the addendum some are still alive but some have also fallen asleep most of whom are alive but some have fallen asleep which implies that the audience of this uh uh creed that was delivered onto the first corinthians

1 Corinthians 15 Church could check that out if they were to travel back to Jerusalem. So, yeah. All right. Let's ask the next question, and we'll just keep carrying on.

Basel problem says I'm DD you like to debate big questions like whether women should have rights Can you debate whether overweight people should also have rights? I I don't know if there's anybody who wants to have that debate, but I'm sure you know if there's somebody out there That's making that claim and of course overweight people should have rights. I was a big fatty before However, I don't think there's anything wrong with fat shaming because it fucking worked on me. It's not being fat. I

I'm just saying that, yeah, to have that debate is one thing. To make commentary about a speaker on screen is just, that's different. And I don't think any of us here are fat. I mean, looking at my friend here, I actually think he looks like he probably lifts. Am I right?

Yeah, I just lifted, worked on my back like two days ago, so. Yeah, I can see from your shoulders there that you're clearly someone that goes to the gym. I don't think any of us are fat in any way, shape, or form, so I don't know why that would be directed at us. I could use a little. Anyway, I just want to be able to sit on the toilet without my legs going dead, all right? How's your pull-up game? Because that's what I'm struggling with. Your pull-out game? What the hell? Pull-up. Pull-ups. All right, go ahead. Me? Yeah. How's your pull-up game?

I, it's been a while since I've done pull-ups, but, uh, I did like these whenever you, um, uh, you take the bars and then you lift yourself up and try to lift your weight and then go back down and up. All right. Um, but yeah, I can do a couple of those. One thing I'm really struggling with is getting my pull-ups. Gotcha. Yeah.

Hey, eventually you'll be in full Pampers cruisers there, buddy. All right. You'll, you'll, you'll graduate. It's all good. You just have to, anyway, we go for a while. Good luck with the pull-ups. All right. Basal problems. There's a policy. You seem to be a big, I'm not sure what this means. So you guys got to forget. Yeah. I saw that super chat. What's this about? Help me out.

Yeah, so Bayes' theorem often talks about certain facts in relation to certain probabilities. Just one second. I didn't get to read the question yet. Is there something wrong with this question? I feel like they might be trying to bait me here because I shut them down. Or is this a fine thing to say? Because sometimes I've said things on screen. I'm just not understanding their question. Apollos, you seem to be a big fan of Bayes. Please relate P. H. Conductor.

given E to P E given H. That's the one you're talking about, right? Yeah. I don't know. Some people make me say some pretty wild things on screen, but yeah, that's, that's all fine. Then get, let's answer that one though. Yeah, for sure. I am a pretty big fan of Bayesian statistics and the Bayesian theorem. Um,

The probability of the hypothesis given the evidence is the posterior hypothesis that you consider after you consider the evidence. The evidence given the hypothesis is basically the probability of that evidence being there given the hypothesis being true. So it's just measuring the probability of two different things. Gotcha. I wouldn't understand anything about that. I'm a delinquent musician. But over to you, Craig. Do you have any thoughts?

Yeah, I like to call it beige maths because it's very dry and statistics are great for trying to work out probabilities, but doesn't always represent reality in the same way that physics does. Yeah, I hate doing statistics. All right, fair enough. So I think we are just about the end of our Super Chats. We might be at the end of Super Chats.

Wait, there was no insults for me. There weren't any insults. Hey guys, this is your last chance. Come on. If you want to insult Craig, you better get it in now. Look at the size of my nose, guys. Come on, you've got to get something from that, at least. Oh man. Yeah, that's appalling. I was back swimming in the sea the other day and people started shouting, shark! Oh no. I've got to do it myself. Come on. Oh yeah. No. All right. Look at Ryan's hair. You can insult that.

Yeah, I mean, I haven't cut it in a while, but, you know, it's just how she goes. All right. My forehead's growing. Look, see? That's a fly head. Yeah, it's getting bigger every year. Sniper's dream. You've been told to hold that thought all of your life. Oh, yeah. No, I'm going to... Anyway, we could go on about this old billboard over here for a while. 200 terabytes of memory right there.

Absolutely. Hey, you know what? If you're going to talk about my billboard, you go ahead and show them what you got going on over there, Captain whatever you call that. What do you mean? I've just not done my hair today. Yeah, yeah, I see that. All right, so which is true, atheism or Christianity? 37% in our poll said atheism is true. Now, obviously, there might be some problems with the framing of the question, but

Honestly, most people do understand. I'm sure that it's more like, are you an atheist or are you a theist who believes in Christianity? So yeah, even though maybe there's some miswording there, I think most of our audience got it.

but thanks for that. 38% said atheism, 18% said neither, neither. I think both are silly. And they have the popcorn bucket there. Uh, so just enjoying the show. And then 45% said Christianity is true. Uh, leading the poll. Let's go. So that was, uh, I'll take that W. Yeah.

Well done, bunch of Christians voting. Good job. Well, to be fair, it is a representation of who's in the audience today. So, you know, these is a good way to keep keep an eye on how the demographics are shifting on the channel for sure. You know, it's always fun to hear from our audience and especially when they're being friendly. I only win the flatter of debates, apparently, according to the polls.

That's true. All right. All right. Let's go to those closing statements. I'm going to give you one minute starting with you, Craig. One minute. I don't think we had closing statements. You don't want one? You don't want to say? Yeah, I'm just going to say shit. Yeah, sure. We can just have closing statements for like one minute or something. No worries. All right. One minute, Craig. And don't just say shit. You don't repeat. You literally just sit there and go shit, shit, shit, shit. All right. Then I'll cut you off. All right. Go ahead, Craig.

Thank you guys for watching and thank you for hosting Ryan and James. I'm Craig FTFE You can find me over on FTFE channel on Monday. I'll be dating that debating doctor naughty dr Steven Alonzo the flatter of University that should be fun sounds like you guys are this debate freaky afterwards dating In regards to this debate There's no evidence that there's a God and I can't disprove that

that a god exists um so can i say christianity is true no can i say atheism is true no but christianity itself if you look at the claims of the bible they can definitely be falsified so is there a god i don't know but is the stories in the bible true logic would say not um

Over to you, Apollo. Sorry. We got a super chat that came in from TheRabbit who said, I will debate big people who shouldn't have rights. Okay. Well, I'm glad that you got that in there, TheRabbit. Does that mean that I gained rights when I lost weight? I think according to TheRabbit, that might be true. I don't know. TheRabbit's going to have to maybe make some clarifications. But if you want, you can always reach out, moderndaydebate at gmail.com. Let us know that you want to have that debate.

Like I said, we're definitely not opposed to having debates about subjects. Just, you know. I mean, I disagree with things like when fat people think they should get two seats on a plane and stuff like that. In fact, I think they should probably pay for two seats on a plane because they use more fuel. That's not taking away their rights, is it? Let's see here. You had your one minute, so let's give it over to Apollos. Thanks, Apollos, for your patience. One minute on the floor. Thanks for being here.

Yeah, for sure. Uh, I'm Apollos Christian Apologetics. Um, that's the name I go by online. You can find me over on my channel. Please do like and subscribe my content. Try to put out the most up-to-date apologetics research pertaining to the truthfulness of Christianity. Uh, thank you, uh, Ryan. That's right, Ryan, for hosting this debate. I know, uh, Craig was really feisty here, and, uh, to be honest, like, I'm just gonna call it for what it is. You engage in bad faith and you're a lock-eating. Uh,

And were very slimy in your rhetoric, didn't really want to engage in the points that I presented. And yeah, so yeah, I gave evidence for Christianity and he responded by saying that's not evidence by using an arbitrary definition of evidence that it has to be in the future. And yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I'm glad the way this... I do think that it wasn't that very fruitful of a discussion, but I am glad the way that it turned out in the end, considering the polls. But yeah, thank you all guys for watching, and at your boy Apollo signing out. Peace. Awesome. Well, thank you so much for you both being here, Craig and Apollos. Oh, and I forgot to mention, I will be...

uh, very soon on another channel, uh, talking to someone, um, for an after show. The link to that is going to be, um, uh,

my youtube channel so you guys are more than welcome to watch that as well so excellent and speaking of which Max who has been a very loyal mod to modern day debate has his own little after show that he's been doing we appreciate you there mxxd for all the support that you give us so I'm gonna pin the message there if you guys want to go hang out the after show on yerba mate and

talks. So thank you so much for all your help in the live chat. And yeah, if you guys are watching in our show right now, I would encourage you to head on over there and you'll get a little after show as well. Yeah, thanks to both of our speakers. Thanks, Max, in the live chat, all of our mods. We appreciate you and we will definitely catch you next time on Modern Day Debate. Make sure you hit that like button, subscribe to the channel. Yeah, we appreciate it all. Till next time.

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures. What do you know about oil and natural gas? You likely associate them with running your car or heating your home. But these two natural resources fuel so much more than that. More than 6,000 consumer products that we rely on every day are made using oil and gas.

Before you even step out the door in the morning, you've already used more products made possible because of oil and gas than you realize. From the toothpaste you brush your teeth with, the soap you washed your face with, and the sheets you slept on. Not to mention your makeup, contact lenses, clothes, and shoes. Oil and gas are vital parts of all these products and so many more.

Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com.

Hi, I'm Richard Karn, and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new Pocket Hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here, and it's a total game changer. Old-fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's Pocket Pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage.

Plus, your super light and ultra durable pocket hose copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting radio exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose. Just text WATER to 64000. That's WATER to 64000 for your two free gifts with purchase. W-A-T-E-R to 64000.

By texting 64,000, you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Host. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required. Terms apply. Available at pockethost.com slash terms.