Discussing Morality with Michael The Canadian Atheist

This is Apologetics Live, to answer your questions, your host, from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

Live, and this is not Andrew Rappaport again. This is Pastor Justin Pierce. And a minute from now, we'll have Michael, the raging Canadian atheist. And we'll have John, the atomic apologetics fella, John the cluck commander, and Wilkinson, he'll be in here.

We may have Anthony Andrew on a little later. Anthony's, I mean, Andrew's feeling under the weather, but so he may or may not be on. So we are Striving for Eternity Apologetics Live. Wanna welcome everybody to the show tonight, and I hope that we just have a really good discussion.

We're gonna be talking about morality and just kind of everything that goes with it. And we're gonna look at it from, I guess every perspective we can look at it and talk about it from. If anybody has any questions, thoughts, comments, please feel free to put it in our comment section.

We'll try to read any questions you have, or you can go to the apologeticslive .com link, and you can join us there. You can come in, ask questions, be a part of the discussion. As always, any discussions welcome, just try to be respectful, try to have a good time and enjoy yourselves, and let's have a good conversation with everything going on in the world.

We wanna be a place where we can have a great apologetic discussions from any avenue and aspect we can. So we would ask everyone to please like and share and watch our videos. And if you have any questions, thoughts, comments, you wanna have Andrew and Anthony and the guys come out and have them come out and do any kind of apologetics training or discussion with your church, come on, give us an email, send us a link, an email, and we will be glad to have some of them come out and talk to all of your friends and your people.

As always, please look at the Christian Podcast Community. I believe there's 38 or 40 podcasts on there, a high quality, very good podcast, and we'd love to have you on there looking around and learning and growing.

It's a christianpodcastcommunity .org, and we would love to have you, as I said, being with us. So without too much ado, hopefully everybody has weighed in and had all their opinions and everybody's all set with the voting fiasco and the scandals and all the fun stuff going on with the voting.

And so we can all rest assured that everything's went good and fair and everybody's happy, right?

John, what do you think about that? Everything's looking good. Well, I was gonna say, before I jumped onto the show here tonight, I tripped over a box full of a thousand ballots for Biden. So, yeah.

Yeah, I've got a couple over in the side. We're gonna have Michael jump in. Michael, how are you doing, brother? Well, I'm doing great. Thanks so much for having me back.

I think this makes the fourth time, and I've never been invited back anywhere four times. So that's exciting. But I think the one thing I have to correct you on, I think there is actually another guy that is the raging atheist, and I'm way better looking than he is.

So that's saying something. But yeah, I rage sometimes, but I don't think I've ever, I don't think I've raged here at all. I think we've been pretty good in our talk so far.

No, I don't think, no, it was just being facetious. It was Oh, okay. Yeah, no, absolutely not. Raging is, I haven't heard any ranting or raging going on yet. So, and that's much to your credit, because we've done everything possible to try to see if we can get you to start ranting.

I'm just kidding. And the thing is, you got to think about it, for everybody's watching, there's a reason why I've asked Michael to come on, and Andrew and Anthony has asked Michael to come on, and we've tried to converse back and forth.

Andrew was on your show three weeks ago, is that right? Or two weeks? Two weeks ago, I believe, yep. Two weeks ago. And I listened to that and it went really well. And there's a reason that we've asked you to come on and that we want to talk, and this is Apologetics Live.

So we're coming from an apologetic standpoint. We want to discuss the things of God and talk about just apologetic understanding and how to defend the faith, how to have reasonable discussions with people that are reasonable people.

I mean, we all know The Bible tells you you have to do, right? Yeah, and I mean, there's a point in time when a person is unreasonable, you can't go farther. But we've had very good conversations. It's like you pointed out in your show there, you and I had a great conversation.

Unfortunately, we didn't record it.

That was pretty stupid. Yeah, that was, in hindsight, always being 2020, that was unfortunate that we didn't do that. Yeah, we should have recorded that because that was like the,.

Probably the best conversation you and I will ever have with anybody ever. Man, we didn't record it. Yep, yep. It's too bad all the conversations with all the politicians don't get recorded.

And then aired. Yeah, yeah, that's a whole other. We have been watching up here as well because it's important. And it's been interesting to say the least that when I was chatting with Andrew just towards the end of it, I said he'll be coming back on on the 5th to hopefully celebrate a democratic presidential win.

And while we can't say that tonight, I think we will be saying that. And if for no other reason than to enter, reenter an era of actual safety for the world, I think it's important because your current commander in chief has demonstrated his mental instability in my professional medical opinion.

All right, so in the PhD you have on that subject. Is reality onyx. I hear that, I hear that. So when he gets the third and fourth Nobel Prize nomination from other countries for the Middle East peace that has come about, is that, does that have any factor or any play?

And I'm not trying to throw a little political thing in there, but I guess let's talk about it a little bit. Does that have any factor or any play in the ideas of orange man bad or him being a bad person type thing?

A broken clock is right twice a day.

Apparently it's been right quite a few times when it comes to the Middle East thing. I mean, that's been something that we've been trying to do for, I mean, I don't know if you've been following the politics here in America, but this is something that has been promised, bringing the Jerusalem, recognizing it as the capital and bringing our embassy there.

I mean, everybody said, oh, it's gonna cause world war, whatever, three or whatever. And it was like, well, it didn't. And it actually caused a lot of normalization of stability within, and the people that have brought the Nobel prize nominations for him have said that that was one of the deciding factors that actually brought a lot of stability in the area.

And good or bad, I mean, that's truth, truth. That's part of it. So, so.

Yeah, I think we would start to venture into a more serious disagreement. And you said you didn't want me to rage. So. Well, I don't mind if you rage.

You know, I mean, that's fine. I mean, you know, I just, I mean, I just want you to know, as far as honesty goes, you know. Well, if you wanna talk about honesty,.

And like I said to you before you hit the record button, I don't know how any one who calls themselves a Christian, especially, especially the current vice, conspicuous by his absence through all of this BS has been Mike Pence.

Yeah. Because even he realizes what's going on and he's trying to distance himself as much as possible. Because this president is lying up a storm. And I thought it was interesting a few weeks back when I was on with Matt and he said, you know how, you know, he can't lie, right?

So, you know, there's this immediate conflict that has to come up. You know, you have to look at the things that he's saying and you identify the lies that he's saying. And so I, in my personal opinion, if you're calling yourself a Christian, I'm not sure how you reconcile your support for someone who is so, I am more Christian than Donald Trump.

Okay, well, I mean, I'll accept that as an answer because he's not a Christian. I mean, and so, I mean, you know, if that's the answer, I will accept that because it's.

Morality, Lying, and the Christian Standard

Let's talk about something like way less controversial, like morality.

Hey, well, that's part of it though. You know, you think about it, you know, when we talk about that. Let me pull in, I'm not sure who Danny is. He may be in and out real quick. John, well, he's gone.

Okay. So we had a fellow that jumped in for a moment, Danny, and then jumped right back off. So apparently he didn't want to actually be on.

He wanted to just say hi. You said something interesting a few minutes ago, and this is something that I'd welcome, is if you do have listeners, I don't have the YouTube thing going in the background because I would just find it, I know I'd find it distracting.

Yeah, absolutely. But if you do have listeners who have questions, I'd love to speak to them. And like I said before, if you do have listeners who want to come on the, I think anyone who listened to my discussion with Andrew, or I guess our discussion, because Dean was here too, would be able to understand that, I mean, I can have a discussion with anybody.

So if you've got listeners that want to come on, I'd love to hear their story.

And I'd love to have a talk with them. Absolutely. You know, one thing Donnie, Donnie Jacks, he's posted a question here, and maybe we'll start with the moral question. Let's start with this one question, why is lying wrong from Donnie, and I'll just let you give your perspective on it.

And then let's define, you know, what is morality? Sure. You know, is it absolute? Where do you get your absolutes from? Things like that. Sure. Start off, I mean, we're 10 minutes in, so we got plenty of time.

Sure. Okay, so why is lying wrong? Because it has the potential to do harm. Okay, so it has the potential to do harm. So it's always wrong. No, it's not. No, it's not always wrong.

And it's interesting because, and we talked about this kind of briefly before, Matt touched on it a little bit, and there's been, you know, there's lots of other little questions that get popped up. It is clear that there are times when lying is the most moral thing you could possibly do.

And everybody's heard about, you know, the Nazis in the attic thing, right? Everybody's heard that. And there were a couple of interesting kind of quips given to that. Like, oh, well, you know, if you just say, well, you know, are you hiding Nazis?

Well, no, I'm not hiding them here under my shirt, and you're not lying. Then that's, you're drastically coloring outside the lines. You know, Nazis show up at your door with MP40s in hand and say, you know, are you harboring Jews here in your house?

The only thing to say is no. Anything else is morally reprehensible. And from a God who would apparently be judging this, let's assume for a second that everything that you believe is true. And let's say for a second that I'm in that situation, right, and the only thing riding between me in an eternity of eternal torment versus an eternity of eternal bliss is whether or not I protect those people or whether I tell the truth and allow those people to be killed.

I would spend an eternity in eternal torment knowing with 100 certainty that I am more moral than the God that sent me there.

Okay, well, what I'm gonna say is, and let's see, hold on just a minute. Let's see, Danny has to jump on here. And hey, Danny, how are you doing? Danny? Yep, he's out, okay. Something wrong with his instrument there was radio.

I saw the picture. Yeah, I saw the picture too, it was there for a second. So without going for the, and I have to tell you, to me, that's kind of a straw man. It's kind of like I'm building something up that I wanna fight and take down.

And the reason I say that is instead of you telling me your positive moral position, you went straight towards the negative of I've got to attack God to make myself better than him. And where I wanna ask that, and the reason I wanna ask that is, you claimed lying as something that was wrong and claimed that you put conditionality upon it, said there were things that were wrong about lying, and yet instead of defending it within your own worldview, you went to mine.

You went to Christian worldview to try to make yourself better than the standard that the Christian would define.

Sure, so what I did there was I stepped inside your worldview to do an internal critique.

But you didn't bother to use yours. And what I'm saying is, I think the reason it's being asked this way from Donnie, I think the reason he's asking it is from your worldview, why is lying wrong, not from, well, I'm better than your God.

So leaving God out of it, can you give a reason why lying is wrong or why lying can be justified in whatever situation and is not wrong?

Okay, so pull your God out of the previous example that I used. Okay. Okay, and I did say before, because it has the potential to do harm, okay? So, and this is where one of the big differences come in, because I talk to believers of different faith traditions all the time.

And they'll say, absolute standard, absolute standard, absolute standard, which is interesting because they don't demonstrate that standard, but whatever. It's not as, the reality is morality is sticky.

It's dirty. It's not just this because one thing and that's it. Because you can look at that situation and I can give you that situation where lying is the most moral thing you can possibly do versus another time when lying is wrong.

So, did you do this thing? Well, no, I didn't do that thing. Well, again, that could possibly do harm versus another situation where lying actually prevents harm. So the hard part is that what many believers will try to do is they'll just say, if you just follow this standard, if you just stick inside this box, you're always good and you're always right when that is so clearly not the case.

Because it, and I know that it's tricky sometimes when I talk to believers and I say, and you say, well, you have to build up this thing where you try to tear down this God that you don't think exists.

But the problem is that when you talk to the believers, they'll somehow try to justify doing what under normal circumstances, no one would ever do. And they try to justify that within the God box. Before we get into the weeds too much, one thing you said a minute ago is let's define morality.

Yeah, what is morality in the atheist worldview? Well, I can't give it to the atheist worldview,.

I'll give it to you in mine. I don't speak for anybody but myself. Well, that's good that you define that.

Because I was gonna say, there's a lot of different standards according to, I guess everybody's got their own standard, right?

I'm not sure that ever, I think there are large portions of the different people who don't share the God belief will adhere to, I'd like to say, we'll come to, because the only thing that to be an atheist, atheism is an answer to a single question, right?

God, no God. Yeah, Christopher Hitchens said this interestingly, he said, I'm an atheist, you can't tell anything else about me. You can't tell me, you can't tell what my political positions are, you can't tell what my favorite food is, nothing like that.

It's a single issue topic. So I read this out before and I have it written down because it's something that I'd like to read out very concisely because it keeps me from missing any piece of it. So my foundation for morality is wellbeing.

I define wellbeing as the reduction of suffering to the best of our ability and at the same time promoting flourishing to the best of our ability. And we'll talk about those because that does require some explanation.

It also involves avoiding the involuntary imposition of your will onto others who cannot or do not consent. The application of these things involve using the veil of ignorance as well as consequential ethics.

So that's in the broadest sense that that is how I define morality. And when I'm looking at any particular thing, that is the lens by which I use. I use to point my morality. Okay.

And so you're gonna define your morality as that which propagates wellbeing. So morality

That's one piece of it, right? It's interesting that it's not, it is not singular. It is all of these things working in cohesion. So you can't just pluck out wellbeing and say, well, you base it on wellbeing.

I base it on wellbeing and other things. And this is what I said before, is it's not just a symbol. Well, I remember in my conversation with Saiten Rukenke, he said very plainly, truth is whatever God says.

Right? Okay. Well, it's not that simple. It's not that simple for everyone who doesn't believe what you believe. Okay. Because when someone believes that they can just say, this is the standard I apply and that's it.

And what's interesting is that, and I don't wanna monopolize, I wanna make sure that you're given as much as you're getting. It's just not that simple. So how about, so I've defined my morality. Can you define yours?

Okay. Well, before we get there though, Andrew Rappaport, he's our fearless leader. He posted on here that you did not do an internal critique because you described a different God than the God of the Bible.

You see, when we talk about the God of the Bible, we're talking about the absolute omniscient and totally sufficient God who has given us truth. His word is truth. Okay. We don't go looking for truth and then try to find God.

God is truth and he's the standard of it. And so when he tells us what is moral and right, he gives us what all the standards are for morality and rightness. So we started out talking about, like say, for example, lying.

The question popped up and we said lying, and you've given something of an argument for you, well, actually a foundation, I guess you could say, not even an argument yet, but something of a foundation for your standard, your standard for what you would say atheism, atheism is

No, mine. Mine. That's what I said, yours. Of what your standard for atheism is and what your standard for morality is. And yet again, when you went for your standard for morality, you turned right back around and said, and no God, because God, it was because of God.

Without the God hypothesis, without speaking of God in your anti-theism, because we've talked about this before, it's the anti-theism point of view. I mean, I'm an apologist, I'm a pastor, but I'm also an apologist for Christ.

Your apologetic is against, or not Christ, not God. Oh, and sometimes directly against.

You're not being unfair if you say sometimes directly against. You wouldn't be unfair saying that.

And so my point is, my standard starts with God. It doesn't go to God. I don't look for the outside to go find God. God is the starting point. But, and that's the axiom. That's the axiom. And so what I have to say is, and there'll be people that disagree with this, but I really see, and actually I heard you talking about it on the last podcast you did.

You're talking about axioms versus presuppositions. And as you were talking about those, you had mentioned, this is your, you have two foundational axioms, you said. And that would be the well-being and that would be doing the most good or something along that line.

And if I'm, didn't say it exactly right, I think I'm trying to get close.

If you want to correct it, that's fine. Right, okay. So, well, so the two axioms that I start with is, reality is real. Yeah. And my senses are accurate.

Okay. So how do you define reality within your senses? And I'm asking this question because what I'm saying is, is with me, not just with me, but with the Christian worldview, we have to start with God.

We don't start from to God, from something to God. We start with God as the final standard. He is the axiom. Okay. He is the axiom. And so here's my argument. Every single one of us alive has an axiom and a presupposition.

Okay. We have an axiom, which is our foundational standard. For me, I am, I mean, I didn't go looking for God, God found me. And the Bible tells me that I know that God exists and that I am without excuse.

That's the scripture. You actually quoted that on the last podcast, you know, in Romans. In Romans one. Yeah, in Romans one. So the Bible tells us that we all know. And so from a Christian standpoint, I'm gonna say that our foundational axiom for all mankind, according to the scripture, is that we all have sufficient knowledge of the starting place of God.

And then our presupposition is what defines what we believe about God based upon our knowledge and understanding as we grow and learn. And that is what we bring our worldview, either a biblical or a naturalistic worldview.

So for me as a Christian, I say as God has revealed himself to me through the special revelation of the Holy Spirit, through the power of God, through the Holy Spirit, and through the very word of God, as he has revealed it to me and taught me, along with the help that he's given me through other solid teachers, I can come to understand what morality is from God's perspective and what truth is from God's perspective.

And I try to live my life in such a way that I want to glorify God by living that out. And so for me, I'm looking for the moral issue from God's lens, from the biblical lens, from the word of God. And so if I'm not mistaken, you're telling me that your worldview lens comes from, I don't want to say it for you, but maybe I'm looking at it this way.

Does it come from Say it so that it'll help me have an understanding of what you understand of my worldview.

Okay, from what I understand of your worldview, as you're telling me, and you've talked about it many times now, from what I understand your worldview, you're looking from a naturalistic, non-spiritual worldview.

Am I right or wrong?

Yeah, and it's interesting. So what you said, you said a lot there, okay? So we start out for I'm trying to respond to yours. Yeah, no, it was totally fine, totally good. So we start out diametrically opposed, right?

Okay. And I don't think either one of us has any delusions that either one of us is gonna jump the fence tonight, right? I think you should, but go ahead. So, and I would if you could show me stuff, but sorry, a little poke there.

I know, you like to do that poke. Yeah, it's fun. My wife's ticklish, and so I got a kick out of poking her too. But okay, so you said that you start, and these were your words, you start with God. Yeah.

So here's what I hear when you say that. Okay. I started with my conclusion. Okay, well, I understand you're saying that. Right, right. I started with my conclusion, and then I followed it up with reading a book that says that the conclusion is true.

And then I talked to other people that believe the same things that I do, and lo and behold, look at this truth that I have. And so, and I can't do that. I see it as, and this will come across way harsher than I mean it to, but it comes across to me as being dishonest when you start with your conclusion.

Okay. Because you and I, in some ways, we're not that far apart.

Oh, no, we're absolutely right on together. So, and here's why I'm gonna say it. You started with the same conclusion. No, I didn't though. I'm gonna tell you, you did. I didn't start with it. What conclusion did I start with?

You started with God. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. You actually said, at the very first time you came on, you actually said that you started out in a Christian, a nominal Christian home, that you were under Christians, you went to church.

You didn't start with an anti-theist or an atheist point of view. You started out with a biblical worldview, even if it was not fully fleshed out or fully gleaned out or anything else. You started with a worldview, with a biblical worldview, a worldview of God.

And then you went from there to atheism. Right, okay.

So, and the reason, okay. And the reason why that's not accurate is because I started out as a child who was told certain things, right? Now, from an evolutionary perspective, it's wise for us to believe and trust in the things that our caregivers tell us, right?

Don't go near the edge, you'll fall. Don't touch the stove, it's hot. Don't run, don't play in traffic, these types of things. Our caregivers tell us these things and we trust our caregivers, right? So, again, don't touch the stove.

Don't go too close to the edge. Don't play in traffic. There's a God. And so, you believe the caregivers and I did too. I believed my parents because they had done all of these other things and taught me all these other things that were so clearly right.

They couldn't possibly have been telling me something that wasn't true. So, I didn't believe it as much as I accepted what they were telling me. And now, once I started investigating for myself, that's when I realized, because I didn't actually have a belief.

And again, it sounds harsh and I don't mean it to, but I had an indoctrination, right? I was told these things were true. When I started investigating them, then I realized, and again, people say, oh, you don't, whatever.

But I realized that they actually weren't true. And But think about it. You just belittled,.

And I don't mean that in the pejorative. I understand. I'm speaking of it. You know, Christians, you guys start with God and then you go read a Bible and then you go talk to other people and you get evidence and you get all these people to come together and oh, lo and behold, you're a Christian.

And yet you did the same thing and you went the other way. You went and you found Dawkins and you found Hawkins and you found everybody else you could, even the people that will sit there and sit with you and affirm your atheism because it's confirmation bias.

You want to be around people who are glad to cuss out God and argue God and vile, filth, foul, and foreign. And they sit there and say, oh, look at me. I'm noble and I can do this too because there is no God and it's just words and it doesn't matter and this, that, and the other.

And oh, I can shake my fist at the one that I don't believe in now. You did the exact same thing you're accusing the Christians of. And, but the difference is, the difference here is, is what is the moral outcome?

Now, I mean, you're talking about a moral argument here. We've started out with this moral argument. We've talked about it, you know, back and forth for weeks, maybe months, you know, and, you know, Matt Slick and you guys had a really great conversation.

I'm gonna tell you, I learned so much, you know, I'm just listening to you guys. And I was just, it was incredible to listen to it. But what I saw here is you were basing your assertion. Danny Kirshner said this with all due respect, this guy's isn't making headway in the way of evidence.

You're merely making assertions based on your own experiences. And to be honest, that's all you have. You have your experiences and you've backed it up with experiences of other people.

You know, you see what I'm saying? Okay, so again, before we dive too more into the weeds. No, go ahead. What I'd like for you to do now is to put your definition for morality out there.

Okay, that which God says is moral and right. Those things which God has defined.

Okay, how do you get around the euthyphro dilemma then? I've never met him. Okay, are you aware of what the euthyphro dilemma is? I've heard of it, but it's been so long.

And here's where I'm gonna go with this before we go any further. You are now throwing out that this guy has this speculation.

Oh no, no, it's not a speculation. Let me lay it out for you. Okay, go ahead. So is something true because God says it's true?

Or You did that last with Matt Slate.

Right, so is it true because God says it's true? Or is it true because, sorry, I'm saying it incorrectly. Does God say it because it is true? Or is it true because he says it's true? You can't have it both ways.

Well, God is truth. Okay, so whatever he says, regardless of what it is, is truth.

Well, he's an errant. So I don't, see, here's my issue. You're building upon a presupposition that God can't be, and you're looking for any theoretical or philosophical evidence that says that God can't be.

In other words, you're euthyphro Actually, all I did was ask you a question. Okay, but don't act like the euthyphro dilemma doesn't presuppose that God is wrong in some area and therefore God can't be.

No, it's truly just a question. It's not truly just a question, because if it was, it'd be just like, what color is your favorite orange juice or whatever. Okay, so let's assume for a second,.

Let's assume that everything you believe is true. Okay. Everything you believe is true. So is it true because God says it? Or does God say it because it's true? It's truly just a question. Okay, and I gave you the answer.

But I gave you the answer. God is truth. Everything he does comes from his attribute. He is truth itself. He cannot lie according to the scripture. So he is truth.

He's the standard. Okay, so I don't wanna put words in your mouth. Okay. So it sounds like you said that because he said it, it is true.

It's both. He is truth and all that he says is true.

I don't think anyone can say anything more arbitrary than that.

Well, that's fine, but that's your presupposition. You've already started with God, and now you're looking for a reason for there not to be a God. And so truth, in its absolute sense, has offended you.

Truth has offended you. No, not at all. No, no, it absolutely has. You just said, I don't think anything could be more arbitrary than that, indicating that Something being arbitrary, I don't find arbitrary offensive.

Okay, but you found it objectionable. Well, because you're holding it up.

As an objective standard. Okay. And I'm saying it's not objective. It's wholly arbitrary. Whatever he says. Okay, but think about this. So if he said X, then X is true.

Okay, now wait a minute. Now, hold on a minute. What's your standard for truth? Truth is what the facts are. That's so circular, you couldn't even possibly get any more with it.

And I'm sorry if it comes across that way, but truth is what we can show to be true.

But you can't demonstrate anything to be true without truth itself. You have to start with truth. In other words, there has to be truth as the definable standard. Otherwise you would be standing there trying to say, I'm trying to find truth, but I don't know what it looks like.

I'm trying to find truth, but I don't know what it looks like.

I can't define it. What we have to do is, we have to start with, so, okay, what is true? Well, it depends on what you're claiming is true. Okay. So we can, so because anyone can claim anything is true.

So it's whether or not you can actually show and demonstrate that this thing is true. It's like the story of the celestial teapot, right? There's a celestial teapot circulating around Saturn, but it's too small to see with the naked eye, right?

You can't prove that it's not there because you can't see it. But is it reasonable to think that that thing is real? If you can't, if I can't demonstrate that that thing is real, you don't have any good reason to think that it is.

So it depends on what we're claiming is true.

So like an Oort cloud is okay to claim. It's true to justify a way out. Sorry, I missed what you said, a something cloud? An Oort cloud. Oort? Oort. O-R-C? O-R-T. Oort, I don't even know what that is.

Oh, Oort cloud is the atheist, agnostic, evolutionist, scientific attempt to answer the problem of asteroids. Asteroids? Yes, sir. Comets and asteroids and meteors. Have you ever looked into this? Maybe Jason Lyle has a good discussion about this on Oort clouds.

He actually talks about the fact that it's provable fact that asteroids and comets and whatnot, they cannot last for more than 100 ,000 years because they burn up too quickly. It's been video demonstrated that there have been many comets and whatnot that have come through solar systems and they go up towards the sun and they just melt away.

They fall away because they get hotter as they get closer towards the celestial bodies, let's say. And as they get closer, okay. So these asteroids are still out there. Well, if they can't last for more than 100 ,000 years max, based on the biggest numbers of sizes that we've seen, here you have all these asteroids and comets.

So that disproves the old earth theory, that disproves the billions of years theory and millions of years and all that. And so there has to be a rescuing device that comes out that says, oh, we have to figure out a way that we can have all these comets and stuff up in the sky, but we don't have any way we can see it.

So we come up with a man by the name of Ort, O-R-T. He comes up with this supposition. He comes up with this idea that trillions and trillions of light years away, so far away that you will never ever see it, there is a cloud around the universe of asteroids and comets that are just sitting there and they bump into each other every once in a while.

And when they bump into each other, they just happen to, some of them happen to flow in our trajectory. And that's why we have asteroids still here today. The problem with it is, is that is a rescuing device.