Debate Teacher Reacts: Epic Debate Over God's Existence

Here's what just happened the atheist asked a question that it wasn't a great question

Okay, and the Christian went out of his way took the long way around to look like the biggest jerk on the stage

Congratulations. Is there any awareness of how that comes across? Do you even hear yourself?

This is this is the worst moment of the entire debate This is the worst moment of any debate that I've ever reacted to Welcome back to a brand new debate teacher reacts

My name is Nate Sala and if this is your first time checking me out, welcome. Welcome. I'm glad you're here

I'm the president of a Christian organization called wise disciple and here at wise disciple We're all about living effectively as Christians in today's culture now

Currently it is Friday. I'm out of town at the moment, but I had a chance to squeeze in this recording

So I jumped on it now Normally we with these kinds of videos we vote on these in the community tab

So keep checking that that community tab because we're definitely going to vote on the next one

Okay, and that's coming up soon but today's video is one of the most viewed apologetics debates of all time and so I couldn't resist and So I think that we should sit down and check this one out.

It's the epic debate over God's existence All right We've got three on three in this one three

Christians Jeff Durbin Saiten Bruggen Kate and Paul Vigiano versus three atheists

Bruce Gleason Sean Taylor and Andrew Breeding now this debate took place back in 2015 in Southern, California at the

Bonson conference. What was the topic Nate? I don't know. I Really don't because I was trying to find it and it just is not there.

It's not stated Okay, it appears it's related to God's existence But that's all

I got. Well as per usual, I cannot adjudicate the full debate All right, so this would be like a nine -hour video.

So I encourage you to go back and watch the full thing I'll leave the link in the description below. What I'm gonna do is

I'm gonna zoom in on cross examination That's where the rock and roll happens. All right, this is where people can shine or suck really quickly

All right, there are four cross exams in this debate. All right, so let's jump right in Let's do you

Bruce? Let's do it Bruce you're a naturalistic materialist, correct?

Okay, but you agree with Krauss and Sagan that we're stardust pretty much

Okay, pretty much pretty much. Well, where do we come from? I don't believe

God poofed us into existence No for as an atheist you're from your perspective Would you agree with Krauss and and Sagan when they say human beings are stardust we evolved naturally from material?

Yes, okay. And so there's it's a godless universe. No governance. No guidance matter in motion

Please try to speak into the microphone. No personal governance. No personal governance in order.

I could agree with that So so Durbin is doing what he should do here

He's actually doing two things in debate. First thing is he's pulling from his flow Okay, so you can see that he's he's looking down at his notes, right?

So if you go back and watch the opening statement by Gleason Gleason's with the kind of longish hair there He's the atheist here.

You can see on the Christian table Jeff Durbin particularly taking notes Okay, that's what we call flow and you rely on flow

For your cross -examination why well because your job as an interlocutor is to attack

What your opponent said in his opening statement, okay? You don't ask any old questions you focus on the opening the questions are very important the words that you use in cross -examination are extremely economic

Okay, and Durbin's doing that All right The other thing is Durbin is setting a garden path for Gleason All right setting the garden path basically means asking a series of seemingly innocuous questions

In this case, he's basically just confirming some of the things about Gleason's view that Gleason said in his opening

In order to ask a doozy of a question later. All right, so good for Durbin This is what you're supposed to do whether you're

Christian atheist, whatever. Let's see what happens given that Naturalistic materialism human beings being stardust.

What's wrong with eating babies? Because we have a mind we've evolved to have thoughts and we care about other people and we can

Bruce what's wrong morally wrong We can put ourselves in other shoes. That's why we don't kill baby.

Okay ready? We have evolved to accept morale over evolutionary time brism I ask you a question you're over evolutionary time two things one

If you think Durbin is being mean by interrupting. He's not this is exactly what it looks like in a more formal cross -examination style

Your job is to ask pointed questions, you know to draw out clash and Whenever you sense your opponent not answering questions, you are allowed to interrupt.

That's how that goes Okay, this is so the conversation stays on track. The second thing is Gleason admitted that he's a materialist

Okay, fine. Now, how does materialism account for objective morality? That's what's underneath Durbin's question about eating babies

He's just asking it in a very shocking manner and by the way The atheist is correct when when atheists say that we are stardust

What they mean is the origins of our existence can be traced back to stardust That doesn't mean that that's all that we are.

Okay, so Durbin needs to be careful here I think he should clarify what he means when he Starts using certain phrases.

I'm you've had two values risen up over evolutionary time You have stardust that likes to hurt people and inflict harm and you have stardust over here that wants to do good and treat others

Well, why are you arbitrarily choosing one value over the other as stardust? Question Jeff.

I'm not that's an invalid question. It's not an answer. There are not two different things going on There's two values risen up Bruce.

There are there are not two values because at that particular time No one was around to have values Bruce today.

Sure. There are two values risen up one second There are two values risen up and so the question is what's wrong with stardust

Bumping into stardust. Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with stardust bumping into stardust to answer that question.

Oh, sure Well, I might actually defer that question, but I don't see stars bumping into stars.

What's your question? Just stardust you said human beings are essentially stardust. What's Argument I think that you're you're saying we are stardust a lot more than stardust.

Okay, Bruce. You still haven't answered the question What's wrong with eating babies? The speakers do have the option to defer to their part

What's wrong with it is that you you actually support it because you read the Bible This is this is the insanity of belief that you believe something that it's okay to do because God tells you to do it

Do you believe so? Okay right off the bat the Christian has connected with the atheist right on the chin

BAM The atheist is back on his heels and he's stunned He's spinning out and he won't answer the question, which means the

Christian immediately has the upper hand in this exchange But look at the other two.

Okay watch me rewind this look at the other two They're they're regretting inviting

Gleason up with them at this point. Okay, you got I think his name is breeding He's on the far right, you know, just boring holes into the side of Gleason's face probably boring holes

Into Jeff Durbin's head, you know, probably wishing the Gleason would stop talking

Then you got Taylor in the middle there who is I don't be smelling his own finger He's left his own body at this point and he's traveled to a tropical island with like 24 -7 reggae music, okay

Actually, he's probably praying for the first time That's probably what he's doing Both of these guys have to see that Gleason is not doing well here killing

Bruce where in the Bible does God say to eat babies? The reason the reason we does the reason we don't

To kill babies. Yes, and many many verses To to skip a thousand reasons.

There is one very simple reason why we don't eat babies and it's because we will no longer be That would be the end of humanity if we all thought it was a good idea from an atheistic perspective.

What's wrong? There is no atheistic perspective you're assuming value and dignity in these human beings that you're say we ought to protect

Real fast as a Christian I can I can justify that claim of human value and dignity and babies, but you're assuming it

I'm asking you to provide a justification as to why it's wrong to eat babies from an atheistic perspective

This is not a formal debate. Although it's it's kind of close, you know So in informal debates, which are really what most apologetics debates are

The requirements for cross -examination are pretty loose. Okay, you get to make statements you get to defend your own position

Sometimes you can even reiterate some of your talking points, but in a formal cross -examination

You cannot do that. You cannot do what Durbin is doing here The only thing you can do is ask questions

So I would ding the Christians for this as a judge just as I would ding

Gleason for not answering Durbin's question here. So three three things. There is no atheistic perspective being an atheist

Yes, there is no atheistic perspective. There's are you giving me your perspective?

I apologize every single time Consider it and let me answer this is my time to ask questions your time to answer

Give the time to him. Okay, go ahead, please. I Said nothing about values

I put it so simply as we do not eat babies because we would be no longer If we what's wrong with that from an atheistic perspective, that's what

I've asked you a second time now So I'll answer at this time. Okay. Okay good There is no atheistic atheistic perspective the fact that I do not believe one's claim that there is a supernatural

God of any sort Yes does not guide my morals in any way So so your beliefs your worldview does not so Durbin He's not being very precise with his words here

And it's allowing the atheist side to spend some time answering another question

Okay, a question that was not asked essentially which is is there an atheistic perspective and then you hear

Taylor saying? Well, there is no atheistic perspective. Okay fine from Taylor's position He's not wrong

All right A lot of atheists argue that they have no position that they begin with the null

Hypothesis is what Gleason said in his opener That what's really going on is atheism is a lack of belief.

Okay Christians take issue with this I take issue with this as well. And I think that those concerns are legitimate

But I wouldn't probably not spend any time on this on the debate stage.

It's too time -consuming I would simply say from your perspective as a Materialist, how do you account for objective morality?

That's the precise question that should be dealt with when you start saying well from the atheist perspective

You know, what's wrong with eating babies and you're doing that for shock value. Really, right?

You're doing that to maybe connect with some of the Christians that are in the audience there you run the risk of getting your interlocutor to correct you on your language and then also to to answer the question from a

Utilitarian perspective in order to kind of avoid the the moral language so to speak, you know

Oh, well, if we if we eat babies, the species will not survive guide your live my worldview

Yes, the fact that I'm not convinced that any supernatural being exists has nothing to do with it. Okay, we've evolved in a purposeless

Cosmos cosmically purposeless universe and now here we have babies and you're suggesting that we should do good to these babies and not violate

Them and hurt them. Yes in a universe where there is no God no ultimate standard of justice

I'm asking you to provide me an intelligible answer besides just preference because I don't want to or we would die didn't

Provide that provides the preconditions necessary for intelligibility to make that claim mean something

Your claim is that there is no God no ultimate purpose meaning governance. I did not claim. There's no

God So you're saying as an atheist you Durbin started out so well, and now he's making

Mistakes he's making some mistakes here. Be very careful friends those of you who want to get into debate

This is what happens when you lean too far over your skis when you focus too much on your agenda

That you're actually not listening very closely to your interlocutor This is what it can look like.

All right, Taylor did not say that he believes there is no God He suggested that he lacks a belief in God do not attribute words to your interlocutor that were not spoken

All right, this harms you as a debater. The other thing is Taylor Did not explicitly appeal to his preference in the answer to why

Atheists don't eat babies Durbin put it out there as if he did though So again, be very careful to listen to your interlocutor

So that you actually clash with what they're actually saying not with what they're not saying you accept

God's existence No, no, I'm not convinced that one exists. That's not a claim that he does So in a universe where we used to be fish

Why is it wrong to violate a baby and don't give me and this is what I'm not looking for. I'm looking for a justification

I'm looking for a justification a justification that satisfies the preconditions of intelligibility

Not a mere claim not what you think we should do But what you want me to justify intelligibility or do you want me to tell you why

I don't eat babies a justification from an atheistic perspective Okay, I have a question

Just said there is no atheist Let me chime in with a question here If you don't mind, so I think

Durbin started off very well, and now he's just completely run out of gas I will note the atheist has not answered the question about objective morality, but you want to know why?

Because the Christian didn't ask it clearly Honestly, I think right now advantage goes to the atheist side.

I had read that Bruce That you believe that the idea of logic is really coming from the frontal lobe

And that you don't believe that people have souls they have brains Correct. I'm not a dualist a dualist believes in a mind separate than the brain

I believe that our mind is our brain right and you obviously believe in the big big some sort of Big Bang That's our best explanation right now, but I'm open to new explanations if something comes along That's what skeptics do so in light of that.

Let me ask you this question you you gave us some pretty horrible atrocities for us to Consider on this screen

Do you think the people who did those things were wrong in doing those things? It doesn't matter if they think they were wrong or not.

They did them justified by religious leaders at the time I'm asking if you think those things that you showed that were so horrible.

Do you think they were wrong of course? Do you think those people should be held accountable for the wrong things that they do?

Sure, okay So let me ask you this then if we're just matter in motion if we're just molecules matter in motion if we're molecules flying through space

We're not molecules if we're the end result of a Big Bang Because there was nothing there was a Big Bang and now we're sitting at the table

How can people be held accountable for their actions any more than a piece of shrapnel can be held accountable?

For landing where it lands when the explosion goes off I'm wondering how do you take that leap from being?

Naturalistic to holding people accountable and stating that they are absolutely wrong for the things they do

I'll just say one thing so that's a better way of asking the question So the question topic is the same it really hasn't changed the

Christians have just rewarded it right Vigiano stepped in Rewarded the question a little bit. So let's find out what happens thing that we live in a social contract

We live within a social contract The shrapnel does not make decisions.

We do we realize that we are self -aware. The shrapnel is not that's why we don't Look at the shrapnel to abuse it afterwards

We look at the humans that made the decisions and and fired the shot, right? But if the if the mind that's just mechanical if it's just something that is material

Sure, and and we don't need I mean, I mean, do you do you see the the difficulty? No, I don't

People would see the difficulty there, but maybe you don't right I think it's kind of obvious two minutes.

Yes the the reason that We do govern ourselves that we do live in the social contract that we to To just avoid all of the obviousness that we are a social species that we are tribal in nature

We we do come together. We protect each other. We want to live. We have a desire to sustain ourselves

Avoiding avoiding avoiding all of the sharks if you don't mind like to get my question avoiding avoiding all of the obvious along those lines

There are actual rational reasons We can use empirical data to show that it is a bad idea to run around killing each other

Because if we all think that it's okay to just run around killing each other. We no longer exist. That's sufficient

I have one question for Bruce social contract theory and human freedom Okay, that's basically the answer if you're a materialist the problem here is

Western social contract theory only works if you first smuggle in certain values

You know like the value of not doing violence to others unjustifiably, you know, the the the do unto others golden rule and And the value of the preservation of the species, right?

Okay, but here's the question. Why should you begin with those values? what's really wrong with another society who has their own social contract theory that Trades on the subjugation of weaker people in weaker nations

And they're doing so because they have their own different values that are smuggled in see

That's the problem with simply appealing to social contract theory. You don't zoom in on those smuggled in values, which by the way are moral

Okay. Also What's human freedom in a materialist worldview? You know, what does that even mean?

No explanation. We'll just quickly say it That's our answer. It's human freedom and it's social contract theory.

So have the atheists answered the question. Yes Are they great answers? No, I still think at this point though The atheists have the upper hand in this exchange

The Christians should have done a way better job at listening and asking a lot more

Better worded questions to draw clash in the closing statement of your debate. How do we know what is true?

You said I understand now through the process of looking at psychology on a very amateur level that we could be wrong big -time on any

Of our thoughts no matter what our personal experiences might be Do you believe that you could be wrong about any of your thoughts?

Of course? I do but I have a confidence level Okay, that's fine. That's fine. That is not mentioned in your and I have one last question debates

Could you be wrong about everything you said tonight? Say again. Could you be wrong about everything you said tonight? Well, I do not believe

I am wrong. That's not my question Level you see this is what the problem is. So you deal with absolutes, right?

There's a range of confidence that people have are you saying there are no absolutes? There is a range of Confident absolutes.

There is another word game. He's playing. I'm gonna do I have any time Christopher 30 seconds, please

There is a confidence level that he completely ignores. He's gonna say do you know that anything is true and I'm gonna say well technically no

Confidence it's true because I have confidence that it's true. I have confidence that that shot So you have faith

Bruce Bruce you have faith. It's confidence. Bruce. You have faith. Okay, there's Definitions.

Can I answer I don't have faith if you define Time just so the audience understands both sides boy, that was a mess just a few questions of clarification

Is there any experience or set of experiences that could possibly change your mind about the nature of God Any I say that again

Is there any experience or set of experiences that could possibly change your mind about the nature of God? Sure If if God had revealed himself in his word is different than I believe then

I would be different believe differently but we believe as Christians that God is the very necessary Precondition well going forward.

You've already been revealed those things. Yeah, so going forward from that point

Wouldn't you have to go in the past to make that change you said? Yeah, I'm not understanding your question We could say it again Okay, so this is an experience that would happen to you now or in the future

So a theoretical experience of say if you can explain I'm not I'm confused about you're asking

So is there any theoretical experience that could change your mind? Sure if God revealed differently

Than he already has I would I would believe God in other words if I had beliefs about God Well, there were in fact not true and I had seen in God's Word that this is actually what

God says I'd be corrected by that. What would that revelation look like? Well scripture God has spoken, but scripture is scripture has been scripted already.

Yes God has spoken in require a new scripture well Hebrews chapter 1 actually says an answer to your question if I go to what

God has actually said Hebrews 1 says that God has in The past spoke to the fathers through the prophets in these last days has spoken to us through his son

And so we have the supreme revelation of God in his son and we have that revelation

Recorded for us in scripture. And so what I go to for certainty is what God has revealed

Again starting off with the garden path. All right this time on the atheist side not sure where this is going

Okay, the question itself is a tad confusing. I don't think Durbin is just being difficult here for no reason

I think the question isn't quite worded the best but hey You know what? You're on a stage in front of a bunch of people.

The nerves are going, you know, I mean Let's see where this goes. Well, I'm really glad to hear this because this is a really strong point of common ground for us to say that we both are willing to take in new experiences and adjust our worldview accordingly and so This is a correction there.

That's that's not actually what I said Not just merely a take in experiences and adjust our worldview You have subjective experiences as an atheist that you have to appeal to and you have brain gas happening, right and Biochem biochemical responses is that Mountain Dew tag after dr.

Pepper biochemical responses are firing in your brain And so based on those experiences you live and move in the world

And so when you have experiences, it's based upon personal preference and examination and so, you know your senses

But as a Christian we surround an objective revelation. God has spoken. Okay, so that's the standard

I see would the two of you concur that I think I could maybe help clarify I think there are peripherals of our faith that we could be wrong

But that does therefore not follow that there are things that we cannot be certain about and I would say those

Attributes of God that we can and are certain about are the same ones that you are certain about Okay, that God is love that God is good.

And so I would say no, I cannot be wrong about those My answer I think there's a qualification on your question if you're asking

If my understanding of Scripture is itself canon, I would say no my understanding isn't canon

I'm not assigning canon is it to myself? I earn my understanding of Scripture But I think if what you're asking is can

I be corrected in my understanding of Scripture? The answer would be yes

Okay, so your knowledge that comes from the Bible is provisional because it's subject to interpretation

Right, great Can you clarify real quick? What are your basic assumptions?

What is your most basal assumptions for your worldview? I mean Okay, but didn't like Durbin hit on these in his opening statement that God exists

The the attributes of God that God is the precondition of the laws of logic and of objective morality and so on and so forth

Like why ask this question now? God is he is eternal.

He is holy. He is unchanging I gave you a definition in the opening statement if you're asking once again to clarify the

Christian God is your basal assumption It's that that God exists and his word is true. Okay All right.

So I Would not use the term basal assumption that's more of an atheistic term I would say that God has revealed himself certainly says that we are certain of his existence

When I hear the word basal, I want to sprinkle it on top of pizza Anybody else just me, huh?

Are you saying that your worldview is is anti foundational that you do not have a basal assumption?

No, but I'm the thing assumption is is something that's just arbitrarily done. It's not what the Christian has

We don't just simply assume because it helps us in our life We're saying that we have a certain foundation by which we can know things to be true.

Your position is called Presuppositional is that's right presuppose or assume God right in order to get to your destination.

Yeah, but that's not something that we do autonomously That's something that God reveals to us. He makes us know Okay, so that's not the that's not the starting point then it sounds like our starting point is

God's revelation his own revelation It is for you to buy. Okay, so it's not the existence of God. It's God's revelation

So it sounds like you're starting with a Bible. Well, we're starting with God's internal Well, I'm saying that even if a person has never seen a man with a

Bible He still has that presupposition of God. Otherwise, you couldn't make sense of the reason you can make sense of the question you're asking us

Okay, so it sounds like John Calvin in his first chapter at the Institute of the Christian religion addresses this issue of knowledge of God and knowledge of self and Both of them basically are simultaneously

You can't have knowledge of self without knowledge of God and you can't have knowledge of God without knowledge of self

So that is the basic makeup of our epistemology. That's just a claim. There's no justification behind that But you could be wrong about everything

Bruce. Don't forget. It's actually it's actually my answer How did how did

God reveal himself to you? That's actually irrelevant because I don't know how God made a cow But I know for certain that God made a cow

God reveals himself many. Well, Jeff Jeff said I'll give you the answer. God has revealed himself Sigh ten

Bruggen Kate sigh you make me want to sigh It's not irrelevant to ask the question when

God's revelation is as the Christians just got done saying the basis

For their worldview the atheist is trying to ask about the starting point for the Christian worldview

By the way, I should say Presuppositionalists are a flavor of Christian not all Christians would answer the foundation question in this particular way

This is a legitimate question to ask from the atheist side Self in conscience. God has revealed himself and revealing his law to his creatures

God has revealed himself in creation the heavens declare the glory of God You're just saying everything that you see an experience.

Yes, God revealing himself to you. No, no, no I didn't say that was actually God has revealed himself according to Romans 1.

He's made himself known to all of us This isn't there's a census to divinity Thomas. There's a sense of the divine and unavoidable and inescapable sense of God There is creation itself testifying to us about God There's also

God himself stepping into creation and walking among us in the person of Jesus Christ So there are there are various ways

God has revealed himself To us and I think one to be to be clear you you read Romans you saw

Life on this planet and you therefore knew that God existed. No, there's there's

I think I Think I laid out a little more than that. There's more. I'm trying to yeah, I think

I question I Think the the term that most people in this room would understand is the term self -evident right

That the existence of God is self -evident This might be helpful to you. This might be helpful Hey, if you want to know how

I'm certain that God exists, uh -huh the same way you are Okay. Well, obviously I'm I'm not well

Well, the thing is when you're in your your quiet moment when you have your head on your pillow You want to know how I'm certain think about how you're certain that God exists

I know that for this debate we have to you know, put our position forward I'm asking you questions so that you can give me your perspective.

Let's do me a favor Don't tell me mine because that would be that would not make any sense I mean, I don't need to be here if but you just want us that he knows your perspective.

Yeah. Yes. Okay good So, you know my mind can I can I know what God says about your mind?

So God told you about my mind, right? Okay Are you certain? Yes. How did he tell you these things through his word?

What did he say to you? He said that you are without excuse for your suppression of the truth. Uh -huh And how do you know that I because you're basically calling me a liar right now

No, what I'm saying is that I'm truth suppressor. It's a couple of suppression of the truth This is important to and then we say from God's from God's Word.

He tells us all of us. So I don't know if Sai is being so snarky

Because this is the general kind of person that he is on a regular basis or If he's doing so to divert the attention away from the atheist original line of questioning so the original line of questioning was centered on Durbin's claim in his opener that We know what we know because God has spoken to us.

Okay, that's what Durbin said So good on the atheist for questioning this because they're asking now.

How does this work? How does God's revelation work and I imagine underneath that is

How do you know God has spoken to you? Those are legitimate questions to ask and sigh.

I Don't know if he's trying to troll the atheists in saying well, I know and so do you

You know, like I don't know if that's like 4d chess He's playing or if he's really this much of a curmudgeon

Not just you guys all of us before Christ and reconciliation with God all of us suppress the truth of God we construct very

Sophisticated worldviews and religions to to remove God from our knowledge It's not just you but it's a sinful suppression of truth.

And and so that's why that's why that suppression takes place We're not saying that you are necessarily constantly aware of it and you're running out of this room here and you're going ha ha we got

Those guys, you know, we're suppressing the truth and righteousness We're saying you're so Because sin corrupts our reasoning faculties

Got it so you you are aware that there are people around the world and throughout history that believe in other gods and multiple gods and very

Very different types of gods. Hold on idolatrous popular and there are people in this world that have no concept of God They're where their language there is no

God in their language They have zero concept of God and they say and and there are people like me which despite what you assert

I do not And have not at any point in my life, I've never been a believer in God I've never been a response.

I've never I haven't asked a question. Well, I've never been I've never been running it I know it is. That's why I cut you off. Yeah, I ask you questions now there are other people just like me that do not believe in God, so of Please avoid just asserting that we're all lying or suppressing the truth

In your world. Okay, can I can I can I respond the question? The question is how do you know?

How was it revealed to you with certainty with absolute certainty that the

Christian God does exist? Because apart from God you couldn't frame the question

That's because he's a necessary precondition for all that. You're assuming Jeff. You said one thing

For a minute asking a question if I can have a few seconds to answer Your evidencing dependence upon him right now because though you claim to be an atheist

You assume things that do not comport with atheism. For instance, you're here arguing about absolute laws of logic and Contradictions you're trying to get to standards of truth that exist outside of yourself.

You're assuming induction this entire time You've been sitting here. You've not thought you're gonna float away to the ceiling at any point.

You're assuming ethical values Saying something doesn't function doesn't mean absolutely at this time.

I Wonder if Christians look at this debate and they think to themselves

Wow, the Christians are doing a great job when you are asked a specific question about how your view works and then you restate your claim that God is the precondition for intelligibility

That you couldn't actually ask this question to me without God and then you spend time

Focused on how your opponent is making a ton of epistemological errors. You have not answered the question

You have answered a different question. Okay, you have answered the question What is your claim about God?

You know, what are your claims? What is your observation about the materialist epistemology? Well God is the precondition for intelligibility and rationality and the laws of logic and morality and all that God is the precondition to the question that you're asking right now

Okay, but how did you come to that conclusion Christian? This is where you talk about contingency.

This is where you talk about necessity. This is where you talk about the transcendental argument This is where you talk about the moral argument you spell it out

Clearly and simply you lay the argument out so that everybody can see it premise one premise two therefore conclusion

What are these arguments? How do they work but to fall back and restate your claims is to fail at an opportunity to answer the question

For these Christians to go on and on about justification and warrants and you know, yeah, that's what you need to do

Don't make the claim. They're not providing their own warrant when they have an opportunity So on this one, you know, it didn't start off great this particular cross -exam

The atheist didn't start off. Well, it was messy But you know what? I'd still give an advantage to the atheists in large part because they asked an important question and the

Christians did not answer the Question five minutes for cross -examination two quick questions for sigh.

First of all, you said it's absurd to be proof to be absolutely to present absolute

Absolutely, correct. I Sorry, I didn't even understand that question. You said that it is absurd to present absolutes.

Absolutely No, it's it's absurd to deny them. That's what you said. You said is I wrote it down It is absurd to present absolutes absolutely

Well, I believe that what you said, I believe that if I did I misspoke what I'm that's interesting Let's see if I can go back.

Let me rewind this and see if I can find it. Hold on one second He doesn't want to go down that road because it is absurd to reject absolutes.

Absolutely There it is. It is absurd to reject absolutes. Absolutely Two quick questions for sigh.

First of all, you said it's absurd to be proof to be absolutely To present absolute

Absolutely, correct. I Sorry, I didn't even understand that question. You said that it is absurd to present absolutes.

Absolutely No, it's it's absurd to deny them. Yeah, that's right. That's what I said That's what you said.

You said is I wrote it down. It is absurd to present absolutes. Absolutely Well, I believe that what you said,

I believe that if I did I misspoke what I meant to say was it's absurd to deny Absolutes absolutely, I could have misspoken.

I don't think I did but we'll see do you think I believe in God? No, I don't think you believe in God.

I know you do Okay Believe and know we're two different things. But Bruggen Kate is a charmer

Okay, the the charisma is just oozing off Bruggen Kate. That's correct.

I'm gonna ask you a question short story I got in an accident on the i5. I rolled over my truck five times in the middle of nowhere 2 a .m.

I was rolling over the the the roof was collapsing on my head. I knew that I could die.

I Knew this could be it five times Do you think

I would think about God during that time? Don't know don't care You don't know and you don't care.

No Don't know don't care

Wow What a statement? Uh, you don't care that this really happened to this man

You don't care to hear what was going on in his mind right before he thought he was gonna die. I mean

Is this a great question to ask an opponent and cross -examination? No, but it's it's

Gleason's time to ask the question if he wants to explore this and he's being open and sharing something

Why would you say I don't care? Where is Christ in that little comment of yours

See, it's it's it's people like that. They give they give Folks a sour taste in their mouth for Christians.

He doesn't care Wow That is very frustrating that's very frustrating to hear that why don't you irrelevant to the topic of this debate

I'm asking you this is this is Q &A. This is kind of informal Q &A Okay, if I did that I wouldn't be answering any of your questions because they don't know

I'm telling you my honest answer I don't know whether you did in an accident five years ago. I'd care about your soul tonight

Oh, you said you don't care. No, you do care. I don't care about five years ago when you had your accent

I care about you tonight Tonight, I'm talking to a flesh -and -blood person creating the image of God.

I care about you. All right Well for the record, I did not think of any God at that particular time Okay That the people who were making my truck constructing my truck in Detroit somewhere knew it good

I'm gonna is it there for true while you ask the question? I Don't know who let brougan Kate into this debate

I don't know who let him walk up on stage, but they have to be cringing right now Because here's what just happened the atheist asked a question that it wasn't a great question

Okay, and the Christian went out of his way Took the long way around to look like the biggest jerk on the stage

Congratulations Congratulations, that's really hard to do in so little of a time. And then he says

I Don't care about you, but I care about you. You know, like I don't care about you almost dying.

I care about you tonight Does anyone really believe that? After you hear

I don't care and then you turn around and say oh, but you know what? I do care about you I don't care about you then

I care about you tonight. Is there any awareness of how that comes across? Do you even hear yourself?

This is this is the worst moment of the entire debate This is the worst moment of any debate that I've ever reacted to it was right here.

Congratulations. I tend brougan Kate so there's a lot on this on this issue of the requirements for the for the conditions of Intelligibility but There's a few few biblical quotes

I'd like to run by you Romans 12 verse 2 do not conform to the patterns of this world But be transformed by the renewing of your mind 2nd

Corinthians 10 5 take every thought captive to obey Christ Proverbs 3 verse 5 trust in the

Lord with all your heart and do not rely on your own understanding Or sorry, do not lean on your own understanding Aren't these statements a bit self -defeating?

We're supposed to utilize our understanding to read these passages That tell us not to utilize our understanding

You what's the question? No, no, I have an answer for you and then Jeff can answer my answer

Pizza sleeps fast under the West therefore the much You're missing the point

Excuse me You're missing the point. What was wrong with my answer? It it misses the point as what is wrong with it.

So these are Versus oh gosh, I'm really struggling to see anything good happening on the

Christian side right now. I Don't know why anyone

Anyone would think that the way that Brueghan Kate is acting is appropriate in a debate

Let alone appropriate to just talking to human beings You know what in his opener Jeff Durbin said that even atheists are made in the image of God and therefore have value they have

Dignity they have worth Is that how Brueghan Kate is treating these atheists right now?

Well, I can answer I'm okay I you know The thing is what I did there as I answered very illogically and he didn't accept it

Why not because he appeals to an absolute standard. That's what I was doing. But go ahead Jeff This is oh god, this is very frustrating

This is very frustrating to watch as My goodness if let me just see if I can clarify cuz

I think you you're Maybe it's just you haven't studied exegesis or Bible exposition, but when

I tell my son and I give my son advice and he argues with me I don't

I want him to use his understanding to understand what I'm saying So when

I say to my son lean not on your own understanding, but trust me. I'm not telling him to not think

I'm telling him to take the counsel of somebody who knows better than he Paul's a lot nicer than I am

I've noticed Yeah, that's what I meant that's my answers I just translated into modern logic

I'm a little confused at this point. There's welcome to the club But Evolve pond scum can expect confusion.

Yes, so I Mean Jeff again started off Tonight was saying saying something doesn't justify it.

Yes, right Making a claim doesn't just just it doesn't justify it. You have to provide a meaningful

Warrant, that's right And there there's been a lot of discussion about the infinite regress, you know, how do you know?

How do you know how do you know you got to get down to a foundation? Everyone has presuppositions Assumptions, whichever way you want to call it at the bottom of their epistemology their worldview how they

How they think and come to knowledge I Haven't seen the justification though.

I've heard insults and assertions that that we Are just suppressing

God we know it, you know Everyone knows it which would work well for your position except for I really don't and I'm really not

Okay, I'm very open to it. You don't mind that we trust God's Word over yours Unbelievable the middle of my sentences continue to interrupt the beginning of yours

Instead of instead of comments for time gentlemen, I believe it's

Sean Taylor at this time you have 15 minutes for No, actually, you know, it's been brought up a couple times all the other religions and of course, this is not in a debate between various religions, it's a debate between Atheists and and and Christians the triune

God, but having said that There seems to be this opinion among atheists that they just believe in one less

God than what we believe in and It sounds clever

But let me ask you a question. Do you um, do you think that it's possible? for a math question a difficult math question

To have many wrong answers when people try to calculate is that possible many wrong answer? Yes.

Yes. Yes Would it be reasonable then to say that basically when you're talking about math there's one right answer

Yes, most of the time right just basic math. We're not talking about common core Well, I got four semesters of calculus so by the way

Bruce you look way better without your beard Like that's evil. I love the beard. You should have kept

Beards, you got a contradiction right there. I'm gonna argue that Going back to my math question does it follow then reasonably since there are many wrong answers one right answer that that There is possibly no right answer to a math question

Well, that's a great question. Sorry. Well, that's a great question so My first point

I would like to make is that The debate tonight is also about the attributes of God which if in question open up all possible gods so they are all on the table right now in the view of Soft atheism to answer your the next part of your question

It's a it's a bad analogy because mathematics represent an internal Truth within itself because you assume certain axioms and then you work through certain truths from that It doesn't it doesn't necessarily tell us things about the world

Right, but wouldn't wouldn't you agree that Either there is a God or there is no

God or that there are many false gods I mean, isn't that what we're talking about? There's there's either no

God one God or many gods, right? So it doesn't it doesn't follow then that Because there are many gods that it makes more sense that there be no

God It does follow that because they all are in contradiction with each other Quick question just just to kind of work through these

I'll do my best to go Quickly and just answer quickly. Thank you You said that we use

Pascal's wager when When did I say it or when did you know when did

I when did we use that argument? We actually hate that argument. I think it's terrible. Oh It was my impression that you used it when appealing to okay, so we didn't in fact save saving other people

From hell and that is an encouraged that is an encouraging way to influence Wager though, that's not in fact not

Pascal's wager. Okay, you made the claim. It may just be logic just exists

Correct. Oh, yes. So if we were to say from the Christian perspective God just exists

Would you accept that as an atheist? I wouldn't accept it. No. Yes But to say okay you you asked it a next question.

We got to go fast here my friend You said logic may not be absolute So true

It's possible. Yes, so it's not possible. No, it's possible. So it is not possible

Possibility is not rendered by absolutism. So possibility is rendered by absolutism

Possibility is not rendered by it is No, it because just because you have contradictions

Does does not mean that you have to abide. So you don't actually believe your claim. I Do believe my claim.

I've actually and I gave I gave you you mention I've gave you plenty of evidence why that claim you mentioned

Quickly the laws of logic may are just conventional Yes, okay.

So if society determines different laws of logic where you can contradict yourself, that would be appropriate for you

I'm sorry to say again if a society determines by convention that you it's perfectly okay and acceptable to Contradict yourself.

Would you accept that? if Logic is a convention. That's entirely possible.

Yeah, so it's possible for society to say Illogical things and contradictions and that's acceptable by convention

It's it would be relative to the community defining what the logical convention is a logic

And so this is going really well All right for the Christian like honestly, where was this line of questioning three cross exams ago?

You know, I mean, I mean like this is what all cross exams should have looked like from both sides

Okay, boom. Here's my question. Boom. Here's my next question, by the way That last question there is designed to Be a reductio ad absurdum, right

Durbin wanted his interlocutor to say something that sounded absurd to the ear

That is a consequence of the view that he just espoused and he got him to do it. Okay. Congratulations This is going pretty well and change over time

Logic can change. Yes over time. Thank you so you mentioned that these couple guys came along recently and came up with the

Transcendental or presuppositional school of thought can I ask you if you know when the book of Proverbs was written?

2 ,000 years ago. Okay. I do one question because we're almost out of time. You don't mind Jeff Oh just one question

No, what evidence would it take to convince you of the God who says you already have enough evidence?

God Bruce two minutes If we woke up tomorrow and there were two moons and the moon was revolving like tidally locked

Moon that we have now and it started revolving and on the other side. It said God in Hebrew, I think you misunderstood the question, but I imagine what would convince me that a

God exist No, which evidence would convince you of the God who says you already have enough evidence? What evidence could convince you of that God logically impossible?

I'm sorry. That's the point of the question enough evidence That's fine Unless we have time what evidence could convince you of the

God who said yeah, do it again have enough evidence Ask it again. What evidence would convince you of the dragon that already told you that he who decides to let

Bruggen Kate? Speak at this point. I don't understand. The question is convoluted that's

It's a this is a question designed to rally the base All right Christians are supposed to smile at that question from the audience and kind of nod

You know and can some kind of hit inside joke that they all understand that nobody else understands and that's it

Like what a waste of time. Is that your world? You're just you're you're smuggling in this assertion that God has already given us evidence, right?

With and I I have not I have not had a revelation from God Can you can I so this has come up a lot just continue at least for another 10 seconds

It's come up a lot. This will make sure I respectfully say to you because it seems unfair just to say yes, you do

No, I don't. Yes, you do. No, I don't The point is is that is that you're evidencing dependence upon your creator because though you profess

That he does not exist. You are appealing to uniformity laws of logic

And we're saying it's a violation of your own professed view of the world. So you are evidencing dependence upon him.

Yes. Yes But you didn't justify that saying something doesn't justify you're doing it right now.

No, no, you're you're assuming uniformity You're assuming laws of logic ethical absolutes.

This does not prove God Allow to choke you to win the debates. Yes, you would you would be winning morally

Morally allowed is how you win debates Real real quick. Yes or no you win debates by force

Okay, how how often and how far do you want to keep shifting the goalposts here? You can just answer the question be great

So that violates your own position at this time Sean I this is I've seen enough

I've seen Enough. This was very disappointing Okay from both sides of the debate really and I'm surprised because I've seen

Jeff Durbin debate in other venues I did another video with him and I think it was James White and Jeff Durbin slayed in that video like he made little to no mistakes if I remember this right as debater

It was almost perfect what he did in that particular video here Boy, I don't know

Maybe he was influenced by who was sitting next to him or I don't know But it was a huge mess first cross started out pretty solid from the

Christian side the atheist side was not answering the question but then that kind of shifted midway through and the atheist started really pressing in on language and definitions and They actually revealed some sloppy mistakes from the

Christian side and then from there The atheist really had the advantage throughout Until that last part the last cross exam or Durbin got in some excellent questions.

Boom. Boom. Boom rapid fire one right after another But unfortunately, it was not enough in my opinion to overcome the fact that the atheists won this debate

That last little parting comment there that Sean Taylor made was correct The the

Christians did not justify their position a Sean Taylor by the way was the strongest atheist at the table alright in my opinion

Jeff Durbin was the strongest Christian debater on the Christian side a Part of me kind of wishes that these two would have just been the only ones up there and they would have just gone at It the entire time that probably would have been a way better debate all the way around.

Well, those are my thoughts What did you think? Do you think the Christians or the atheists one? Let me know in the comments below I hope that this exercise as frustrating as it was for me

Was valuable to you and that it gets you thinking about how to better communicate in these kinds of discussions

That's all the time that I have for this one. Thanks very much for watching I'm going to take a break right now