Atheism Deflated

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and it is midnight.

So, yes, this is a live stream. It's midnight. I have no idea who is going to be watching.

It's okay if nobody's watching for now, but hopefully folks who listen in later will enjoy the conversation that I'm gonna have with my special guest today and share the content.

I know that I've been getting a lot of positive feedback for the content. I really appreciate that. And if you could do me a solid, subscribe to the channel, subscribe to the podcast and share.

If you guys really think that there's value in supporting online apologetics at not just my channel, but others, maybe folks who

I've had on the show in the past, you know, support them. I think we need a lot more of this content out there.

So, well, I just would like to begin by saying thank you to Charlie Keenan.

Now, no one's gonna know who that is, but Charlie Keenan is a student of mine.

He signed up for my PresupU online apologetics course. And he was so kind to send me this

Greg Bonson coffee mug. And it is now my favorite mug to drink out of.

I could even drink my coffee presuppositionally. I don't even know what that means, but it's super awesome.

And on the back here, it says the preconditions of intelligibility. So I can bring this bad boy to a coffee house and maybe some unbeliever will say, what's that mean?

And then they can be lured into my presuppositional traps. So thank you so much,

Charlie Keenan. This is super cool, man. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Well, I am, and I say this at the beginning of every episode, I'm super excited about all of my guests, but I'm especially excited about my guest tonight.

He is from the YouTube channel, Deflate. If you have not heard of Deflate, you can take two seconds to open up another window, maybe you're on your laptop or something and subscribe to Deflate, the

YouTube channel. And you will find excellent content there. My guest, he's a really down to earth guy.

He's a funny guy, he's smart, his content is excellent and he provides excellent resources in responding to atheism in general and YouTube atheism in particular.

So please go over there, support him, subscribe to his channel, and I guarantee that you will definitely find his stuff useful.

So without further ado, I'd like to invite Lucas on the screen with me and maybe he can share a little bit more about himself.

How's it going, Lucas? I'm good. Good evening or good night, Eli. It's morning, 7 a .m.

over here. That's right. So it's 7 a .m. where you are. Folks are probably wondering what the heck am

I doing having a midnight live stream here on the East Coast of North Carolina. Lucas is on the other side of the world.

Where are you from, Lucas? That's right. Well, I am from Switzerland, but I've lived in Lebanon, that is in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon for the past 10 years.

So that's where we're located. And what led you there from where you grew up in Switzerland, you said?

That's right. And how did you get to Lebanon? Well, basically my wife and I felt called to do ministry abroad.

We always felt a pull towards the Middle East. And then it was, well, it was a long process of figuring out where exactly we should be going.

But we felt specifically a pull towards Beirut, not just to Lebanon actually, but to Beirut specifically.

And that's because Beirut, I mean, now it's changed a bit, but Beirut has always been kind of the hub for young Middle Easterners to connect to the

Western world and to Western values and to just everything that's happening. I mean, there's a thriving

LGBTQ scene here. There's quite a thriving arts and music scene.

And so that's where, it's the place where young Arabs can express themselves more freely than in other place in the

Middle East. And that's what pulled us to come here and do ministry among people who have a very secular mindset actually.

Sure, excellent. Wow. So your focus is evangelism, apologetics, and more specifically atheism.

At least that's your YouTube channel. I'm sure you do other things and have other focuses face -to -face with people, right?

Yeah. Why don't you explain for us the differentiation between how you share your faith apart from being in front of a camera, and then we can kind of move into the content of your

YouTube channel, which I think folks will be interested in hearing about. Yeah, so actually the two connected seamlessly.

I mean, we've built a community off the ground here in Beirut where like the focus is, or the focal point is a weekly

Bible study that happens on Thursday night in a cafe. We started off in Starbucks. And what we basically do is just, we go chapter by chapter through books in the

Bible. And then we read one chapter and it's open for discussion and conversation. And we usually have around 15 to 20 people show up and most of them skeptics or atheists.

And then also what happened is I got connected to a leader of an atheist club and we started to bring our groups together in my living room actually for apologetic discussions or for just philosophical discussions.

You know, why is the universe here? Is morality objective and all that sort of stuff. And like this got, like this picked up really well.

I mean, we would sometimes have 30 or even more people kind of cramming into our living room on Saturday night.

And so actually back in the days, people would keep telling me, hey, Lucas, why don't you start a

YouTube channel where you put the arguments out that you actually make when we gather as a community?

And so at some point, again, one and a half years ago, I thought, okay, let's do it. That's how, again, it just connect offline and online ministry connected quite naturally for me.

So how did you set? So what's the magic behind your setup? Your videos are excellent.

They're very well -made. You know, a lot of, I was just, we were just talking just briefly before we went live.

It takes a lot of work to do this. What did your setup look like? You got all fancy equipment or you kind of just, okay.

Yeah, well, actually I am in a privileged position because I also work with a studio here in Beirut and we produce just,

I mean, that's what I do during the day. We produce like Christian media for other ministries.

For example, we lead the first online campaign of the

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which is focused on Iraqi youth. We produce that for, like we produce the content from A to Z.

And so, I mean, I've got a guy who films and then I have a guy who edits.

I mean, I edit myself too, but like I've got help from professionals. So that's why my stuff looks, yeah, tends to look neat,

I think. All right, okay. I thought you were just in a closet somewhere just doing it all by yourself.

There's magic happening behind the screen. That's awesome. Yeah, very good. All right, well,

I'm looking at your channel now. I've watched a bunch of your videos, but I'm encouraging people that they need to go visit your

YouTube channel, Deflate. And it looks here that you address things that are happening in kind of like,

I wouldn't say pop culture, but just in culture, things that are on TikTok and social media. How does someone approach responding to snapshot attacks on Christianity?

So like, for example, you go on TikTok, the videos aren't very long, but there are people who attack

Christianity in a couple of seconds and it goes viral. How would you encourage Christians to engage in apologetics in such a snapshot, very quick context there?

Because it seems difficult, right? If God is good, why is there evil in the world?

I mean, it's so hard for a Christian to make like a 10 second video in response to such a deep question. How do you approach that?

Yeah, that's very hard. I mean, I've been challenged to, since YouTube put out the shorts platform,

I challenged myself to try how that works or if I can make videos that would be appealing.

And I mean, it is very challenging to put out a message within no more than 59 seconds.

I guess - Not even a minute. They don't even give you that one more second. Exactly. So I think, but at the same time,

I actually like the challenge because even during my studies, you always feel when you write the paper or when you present something or when you give a sermon or anything, you will always feel that you don't have enough time.

You will always, if you do your research well, if you dig into stuff, you will always have far more material available because you have to.

If you really want to look into something seriously, you will have to gather a lot of material. And then when it comes to actually getting this across, you will always feel like, man,

I cannot even tell 10 % of what people should know about this.

But this, what I love about this is it forces you to really dig deep and find the core of what the problem or the issue is all about.

And so that's, I guess that very much applies to doing this short response stuff is you have to dig deep and find, well, what is the core issue?

And what is just fluff? What is the kernel of what's going on here?

And then how do I communicate that effectively? So I like the challenge. I know it's very difficult.

And I know sometimes it does feel like squaring a circle because again, take the problem of evil. Well, people have been writing and discussing it for thousands of years.

Like who are you to offer a solution or some sort of hypothesis within a minute? But still, it's a good challenge to take.

So it seems to me that there is some background knowledge that needs to be had, not just in the content, but just background knowledge in how to think and identify kind of the crystallization of the issue that needs to be addressed.

What is your background in terms of your own, perhaps seminary background, if you have seminary background, or maybe just your background in terms of your own study?

How can people approach this issue of training their minds to identify those nuggets, that central point, especially in, as we said, that snapshot social media context?

Yeah, well, I would encourage people to whenever they face something they've never thought of, something that is new to them, an issue, be it philosophical or theological, take it as an opportunity to put down on your reading list or on your

YouTube watch list or whatever, so that you can actually deal with the issue if you don't have time right at the moment, you're seeing it later on.

I mean, there's good YouTube videos out there which recommend books that get you started into apologetics or with regards to certain issues.

There is good courses. So I did a master's in Christian apologetics at Biola, but they have a good certificate program, which is like a 16 hours program that you can accomplish at your own leisure or how it, whatever fits your schedule.

Yeah, those online programs are excellent. I did my master's at Liberty.

Now, apart from the contrary that Liberty, controversy that Liberty has been in, despite that,

I got my master's before all that happened, but there are some really good online resources if people are looking for kind of like a more organized way of studying.

If anything, and I'm sure you could attest to this, that doing seminary or taking some kind of organized course teaches you discipline, which is something very important when you're doing what we do, you need to learn how to focus.

So I think that's a very helpful thing to pursue. Now, yeah, do you want to follow up on that?

Well, I mean, that's all good. I also just think one very practical advice is to limit your time on social media.

There's just so much time being wasted by scrolling through feeds. And it's, I mean, it's just, you should tell yourself, well, you know how much is reasonable and then stick to that.

That's a good kind of practical. It's addicting, isn't it? Yeah, it is. Like I feel like seeing what stupid thing's going on, you just scroll through, look, you know, a cat video.

Like that's, that's right. All right, well, okay, so that's good.

So a formal education is helpful and even just personal study. I mean, you don't need to go to seminary to do apologetics, but you definitely need to have some kind of disciplined time set aside.

So that will help people identify core issues so that they could address it in a meaningful fashion.

That's good. Now, so atheism seems to be the focus of your

YouTube channel. And I see a lot of videos with, I forgot this gentleman's name.

You - Cosmic Skeptic. There we go. Cosmic, there's Cosmic Skeptic. And then there's the other guy with the beard.

Rationality rules. There we go, rationality. I don't know why their names escape me. Okay, so you tend to kind of focus on these

YouTube atheists. Atheism is really, seems to be a focus of yours. Both of us are

Christian. We both think atheism is false. Why don't you kind of lay out, and I'm sure you don't have like a transcript in front of you with outlines and stuff like that.

But why don't you lay out for us some of the best reasons you think atheism is false and maybe we can engage in some of those.

And assuming that some people, again, people who watch my channel, they know I'm a presuppositionalist.

But as a presuppositionalist, I believe everything can be used as evidence for God. So that's fair game for those who come from a more classical approach or an evidential approach.

There's still important information that we as presuppositionalists can use. And there's great value,

I think, cross -pollination between the methods in ways that I think we can benefit from. So how would you, from your perspective, assuming you're not a presupposition,

I mean, I don't know what your apologetic methodology is, but what are some things you can kind of provide my listeners with in terms of why atheism is false, something they can use in conversation, perhaps?

Yeah, well, yes, you're right. I'm not a presuppositionalist. I mean, I appreciate the inspiration and the kind of, well, just the take that presuppositionalism brings to apologetics.

But let me just offer one argument why I believe atheism doesn't make sense and Christianity makes more sense.

And something that may actually resonate with the presuppositionalist as opposed to if I just were to offer an evidentialist argument.

When you take the problem of evil, I believe, I mean, the problem of evil is arguably the toughest objection against Christianity.

And I believe what Christianity offers is so powerful and so much more powerful for the following reason.

When people, I mean, the problem of evil is a philosophical issue to a certain extent, for sure.

But it is also a very personal and existential issue. I mean, people, most of the time, ask the problem of evil question or why is there evil?

Because they themselves have gone through suffering or their loved ones have done so. Now, when it comes to the need a person has in the face of evil, it isn't actually information.

They don't actually need information why evil has befallen them. They don't need explanations of why the thing that has happened has happened.

Let me give you an example. My sister lost two babies during her pregnancy.

And one of the, in one case, I mean, they have kids now, but yeah, in one of the cases, her, it was such a tricky situation.

This is like a special medical situation that what actually happened is that she had to give birth in the seventh month or so to the baby.

And in the process of giving birth, she knew that the baby was gonna die. But this was, it was such that this is how this had to happen for some reason.

Now, this was very traumatic. It was very difficult. Now, for my sister in this situation, it didn't really matter so much for her to know the medical ins and outs of what is happening biochemically or whatever with her body and the body of her baby.

What she really, even though I guess that provided some context, but what she really needed was people to sit with her and cry with her and feel with her and tell her, in the best case, people who can say, well,

I actually know how this feels. This is so painful. I've gone through something very similar.

I lost the baby. Or at least people who could say, well, I try to understand you.

I really wanna feel with your pain. And so here comes the, here's how this relates to the problem of evil.

Christianity tells us that this is, and so this is what Hebrews 4 tells us, is this is exactly what

God, the ultimate being, the creator of all things, what God does in Christ on the cross.

He identifies with us in our suffering. He, in Christ, God can tell us, hey,

I know how it feels to go through the pain that you're going through because I've been tempted in all things as you were.

I've gone through all the same stuff. And ultimately I've gone through death, death on the cross.

And that's why I'm right there with you in your suffering. And that's why I think it is, when it comes to the problem of evil, again, people don't need good answers.

They actually need someone to tell them I'm right there with you. And that's what God does in Christ.

And I think that's a beautiful way in which Christianity plugs in and relates to our suffering and to the experience of man.

There's just so much pain. Yeah, I think that's an excellent point because I think a good apologist needs to make the differentiation between giving a logical answer and not caring about the logical answer and being able to just be there for a person.

I think we tend to be very, always have that first thought and always be ready to give a reason. And sometimes the answers that we need to give are not answers.

There's just to deal with the person. So I think that's definitely something we all could learn from, especially presuppositionalism in particular.

We tend to, I mean, I'm a presuppositionalist, but we tend to always try to answer every question because Christianity can account for that.

It can account for it. Sometimes someone doesn't need the accounting. Sometimes people need a shoulder to cry on or an ear to listen.

So excellent, excellent. So what other reasons do you think atheism is false?

So you say that the Christianity provides a better explanation and accounting for why there's evil and suffering in the world.

What other sorts of things do you appeal to to perhaps try to convince someone that atheism is not an adequate outlook on the world?

Well, I guess, just connecting to what I said about the problem of evil,

I mean, a very convincing argument for me is the moral argument. I believe we all have, like no one can live as a moral relativist.

I mean, people profess to be moral relativist or subjectivist, but no one lives like that. It's just not possible.

And in fact, I mean, Cameron Bertuzzi and I are gonna respond to Drew from Genetically Modified Skeptic, where he, again, a couple of things he says about morality.

And I just feel like, come on. I mean, are you, maybe if your life has been all, you know, pink clouds and happy clappy, yeah, you could, you know, that would give you some reason to think that morality is subjective.

You know, you've never faced real problems. I come from part of the world where just, you know, people are being bombed out of their houses.

You know, kids are kind of caught in crossfire and women are systematically raped.

Like, are you seriously gonna tell me that you will face these people if you had to and tell them, well, what happened to them isn't really bad?

You know, that's just dumb. I mean, sorry, that's just dumb. And if, you know, someone once said, if you don't, if you can't say that certain things like the

Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide, or again, this trafficking and all this stuff isn't bad, well, you don't need a philosophical argument.

You need a psychologist, you know, or a psychiatrist, because, you know, so I think, and the interesting thing is at the same time, you know, our culture is so obsessed with social justice and with racial justice.

Well, why would you be if these things are just a matter of taste, you know?

So, and again, I believe that it's gonna be really hard to make a case for these things being objective if you don't have

God as part of your world you picture. It's just, you know. Sure, yeah, absolutely.

Now, it's an interesting approach that you're taking there is you're kind of appealing to people's existential experience.

Now, while that's not a, in and of itself, a logically airtight argument against atheism, it still holds very, it's a very powerful approach because it really hits people in a place where they very much resonate with those experiences.

I mean, we can use logical argumentation and it's just too abstract to make that connection, even though our logic is good and we proved the conclusion, there's a role to play for both those sorts of arguments.

But how would you speak to the more intellectually minded atheist that says, yeah,

I kind of see those are emotionally difficult. Well, I mean, when you really boil down to it, emotional appeals are not going to get us to truth.

I want to see the logic of theism. I want to see the logic of why you think atheism doesn't work.

And of course, people might even argue with that atheism doesn't work. It's just a lack of belief. Yeah. Atheism is not a worldview, these sorts of things.

How would you give a more logical, not so much appealing to existential experience, but a more logical reason as to why you think theism is true, atheism is false?

Yeah, very good question. I think two or one thing that one key issue that connects to two arguments actually has become very important for me recently, especially just due to a bunch of discussions we've been having here on the ground.

It's, you know, someone once said, I think it might've been Thomas Nagel, the atheist philosopher from New York University.

He said that the difference between, I'm not sure if it's him, but I think it's him. He said the difference between atheism and theism is that atheism posits that matter precedes mind, whereas theism posits that mind precedes matter.

Okay, so God as the ultimate mind, he's the starter or the creator of all things. Following from the mind comes matter, which the mind created, the divine mind created.

Whereas on atheism, you will say, or naturalistic atheism anyway, you would say that matter, you know, somehow the universe came into being, so matter came first.

And at some point you got mind that is conscious beings like ourselves. Now, I think there are, again, if you take just this view, or if you look at the issue from this angle, you can make two arguments.

And one is that I think God is a better explanation for consciousness or for their being conscious beings like ourselves and for the experience of subjectivity.

It's if you have mind first, then a mind can give rise to other minds. You know, it's the cause is enough to bring about a certain effect, or the effect doesn't exceed what the cause entails, which,

I mean, the causal relationships, you know, a cause cannot be followed by an effect that is greater than the cause itself.

So I think that that's one thing. It's just to explain the reality of mind, you're far better off if you start your worldview picture or your worldview narrative ultimately with the mind.

You know, the atheist is gonna have a problem to account for minds if matter has been there first.

That's one thing. And then following from that is, well, you know, the reason why we can do science is again, because there is a divine mind that has ordered everything, and which allows our minds to connect to, again, the order that is out there and discover it and describe it.

I think God is a far better explanation for why we can do science than, you know, atheism.

It's a complete, if on atheism, the fact that the world is so delicately ordered.

And I'm not even just talking about the fine tuning argument here, but again, about the fact that you can do science, about the fact that there are laws, because even

Albert Einstein said, why is the world ordered? We are a priori, one should actually expect a chaos out there.

One shouldn't expect for, you know, if all there is is chance and matter in motion, one shouldn't expect that matter happens to organize itself so delicately and nicely that the relationship of matter between itself can be described by laws.

And so I think that's why God, if there is again, if mind precedes matter, well, it makes complete sense, or it is to be expected that matter is gonna behave in ways that can be described by laws and just regularities and all that stuff.

So you would argue along the lines that, for example, consciousness is best explained by theism and that the fact that science is a thing and that we could assume regularity and uniformity, that's best explained via theism as opposed to an atheistic outlook.

Yes, I believe so. I mean, the thing is, you know, when it comes to consciousness, I mean, till today, consciousness is one of the biggest mysteries for philosophers and scientists alike to understand and to describe.

It's, you know, how, again, how come, especially if you're a naturalist or an atheist, how come that matter could give rise to something that is so qualitatively different?

You know, no accumulation of matter has consciousness. I mean, just again, if you put a bunch of rocks together or I don't know, a bunch of pieces of wood or whatever, consciousness is not gonna arise.

Sure. And so how come that there are these beings who have, again, the capacity to reason, to, you know, to create art, to do language and to think back and to think into the future?

Sure. Yeah. So, okay, so that's kind of a standard answer that a lot of theists would use who use the argument for the existence of an immaterial soul.

And of course, they'll extrapolate back. Now, what would you say to someone who says something along the lines, well, wait a minute, when we affect the brain, you're right, it messes up the way we think.

So if there's this kind of this ghost in a machine, so to speak, there's this soul that's different than the brain.

Why is it the case that it seems like we can control the mind by manipulating the brain or when the brain is injured, you know, you have people forget and these sorts of, it seems like the brain is all there is.

So how would you kind of respond to someone who comes at it from that angle? Yep, very good question.

I've done an interview with JP Moreland on this issue on my channel because he's written an excellent book,

The Soul, Why It Matters and Why It Exists or something, a very, very good book. Okay.

Well, I think the first thing to be aware of is that causation and correlation are not the same thing.

It is certainly true that by touching, you know, and like an electrode or whatever, with an electrode, a region in your brain, you know, you could generate a person having some sort of experience or a memory or a thought.

Sure. But that doesn't yet mean that, you know, that thought is in the brain.

I mean, in the same way that if I take two wires and put them against each other, or I mean,

I make them touch and I have some spark coming up. I mean, that doesn't mean that the spark is the wires.

Obviously, you know, the two things correlate. On the other hand also,

I mean, if everything, if we are just our brain, if a person is their brain, well, you know, there are people who have only 50 % of their, like, or who lose 50 % of their brain mass.

Now, that would mean if, again, if people are just their brains or if our personality is in our brains or whatever, that well, once a person loses part of their brain, well, they're just half a person, you know?

So yeah, that's how I would go about. I mean, it's a tricky one. Obviously, I'm not denying that our mental experiences are related to the physical brain, but that does not yet mean that those mental experiences are in the brain, you know?

You will never be able to find the memories that you have somewhere in your brain.

It's just, you can't find it. It's not there. So you would say that while, so if we affect the brain, that can affect our, quote, our mental activity.

So there's a relationship between them, but that doesn't mean that they're equivalent. So for example, thinking.

Thinking doesn't occur in the brain, but when thinking is occurring, there's corresponding physical activity in the brain.

So there's a very close relationship between the physical brain and the immaterial mind. That's how God created us, okay?

Exactly, and the key thing, I mean, the key thing that's going on here is something that's related to the laws of identity or Leibniz's laws of identity.

I mean, if two things are the same, if A and B are simply two ways of talking about the same thing, then everything that is true of A must also be true of B.

Was Benjamin Franklin the first president of the United States? Is that right? Or no, George Washington. George Washington.

George Washington, sorry. That's okay, all right. If George Washington - I teach US history, I would have corrected you right away.

If George Washington is the first president of the United States, then everything that is true of George Washington is also true of the first president of the

United States because George Washington and the first president of the US are just two ways of talking about one and the same thing.

And so if I'm gonna say that my mind or my soul or the eye is my brain, so that these two are just two ways of talking about the same thing, then everything that is true of the brain must also be true of the mind, okay?

But that is not the case. I mean, the brain has all properties that physical objects have.

You know, you can measure location, electrical charge, and spatial extension, but you can't do that with thoughts.

You can't measure the spatial extension or electrical charge of any of your memories or thoughts.

Hence, it doesn't make sense. Again, coming from the law of identity, it doesn't make sense to say that the brain is the mind or the soul is just another way of talking about what's happening in the brain.

Now, and all you need is one difference between the brain and what we're calling the mind, and that demonstrates that they're not identical.

Exactly. What is it called? The principle of... Indiscernibles.

Discernible is something, I don't know. I don't know if there's a technical term. I don't know why. I don't know if you're familiar with Eric Hernandez.

He's another Christianologist who's really good in this area, and he always used this terminology.

The soul is definitely not my main strong point. I'm more into transcendental arguments, but for some reason, something about the indiscernibility of identicals or something like that.

That's it, yeah. That's right. All right, that's right. And so Moreland lays that out, and you could also, if you're interested in the soul,

Eric Hernandez has some great stuff as well. So excellent, very good. So now we can talk about these technical things like if you use the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals, you're gonna make people run away from you.

So they're gonna be like, oh, this is really weird and scary. I don't wanna talk about it. What do your conversations look like when you're speaking with an unbeliever just like face -to -face?

I mean, we don't often use this sort of language like the teleological argument, the fine -tuning, the kalam, or for us pre -suppers, transcendental argument.

These will scare the average person away, and they're like, I don't wanna talk to you. How do you engage atheists in like a face -to -face conversation?

What does that look like? Yeah, I think especially when you talk to a person for the first time, you're just gonna have to weed out some of the just basic skepticism towards I think scripture and how people think, well, why should

I trust this book? And then one of the things that helps for me is the, well, and here also, there is people have, well,

I guess it's everywhere the case. People have just this general skepticism towards religion, and religious people are weird, and they're not really intelligent, and that sort of stuff.

So I actually think that, well, in a first -off conversation with a skeptic, my aim is often just to show, well, first to really connect to the person on a personal level, to really listen, and to hopefully be able to build friendship and trust.

And my second aim is also just to show people that I as a believer, I think through stuff.

I'm not stupid. I don't just blindly believe what the book tells me. And so it's in general,

I would just ask a lot of questions. I mean, again, if people say, well, the

Bible is just too much bigotry and misogyny and whatnot. So I mean,

I would just ask, well, have you ever read it? And then people would say, well, no, actually not. And so, yeah, yeah.

And then right away, I just use that to tell people, well, we have this group, we read the

Bible together, and it's actually a lot of atheists and skeptics comment that already shocks people. Oh, wow, how does that work?

How could people who are like me, they would say to themselves, who don't believe, well, why would they ever read the

Bible? And so I think that already creates some sort of attraction in a sense as well, that there must be something there that they have that makes atheists believe or atheists read the

Bible. Yeah, I think, to be honest, I do believe that many, many non -believers, and I mean, it is true here in the

Middle East, many people have had bad experiences with religious people and with religion. And so I think my first responsibility in these conversations is really to show that I wanna be your friend, and I think

I can be a nice person and we can have reasonable conversations. Sure.

And that's where I would go first off, yeah. Wherever a person takes it, some people come at it, again, with skepticism towards the

Bible, some people take more the science versus faith Sure, sure. approach, the

God of the gaps and whatnot. And again, just with questions I would ask, well, are you really sure that what you're talking about holds up?

And most people, they just throw out those soundbites and slogans they've heard on the internet, and that's it.

All right, thank you for that. Now, I wanna jump in a little bit into maybe some light role -playing so people can see what that looks like.

But before I do that, I'd like to just remind folks, if you go and check Lucas's channel, it is called

Deflate, excellent channel, and I highly recommend that you share it. It's entertaining.

So if anything, you're gonna enjoy it, but it's very filled with good content and well thought out responses to many popular atheists.

Also, if you have any questions, I know it's on my end, it is 1239 in the morning, and only because of the coffee am

I able to be here alive by God's grace. But if you have any questions, ask your questions and we'll take some of them and Lucas will be happy to address your questions as well.

So let's take one question before we go into some role -playing here.

And don't worry, I know this is off the cuff, so I won't be too hard on you. Let me just pick up what

Alexander said. People are not so much as rationalizing creatures. Man, I -

Is it this one here? Yes, exactly. Okay. I'm doing a review of a conversation, actually a two -part review.

The first part has already come out. A review of the conversation between Jordan Peterson and Lawrence Krauss, where they,

I mean, it's a conversation that had around four or five months ago, I believe. And where they talk about, they started off by talking about the beginning of the universe because Lawrence Krauss is a physicist and stuff.

But then I was, man, I was so, I mean, positively surprised and it was beautiful.

Lawrence Krauss himself said something like that. He said, you know, that's what he said.

Reason is a slave of passion. He basically said, well, I acknowledge that we, and even we as scientists, and he includes himself, you know,

Lawrence Krauss, who's like a hardcore atheist kind of dude. Sure. He says, we're more led by our passions than by our reason, but then by rationality.

That's Lawrence Krauss saying that. And then he went on to say that he recently participated in a debate in Oxford.

Okay. Where they talked about religion and science. And he, you know, he said that we're doing science because we're all religious.

He said, we're religious and that we have this religious instinct, which is why we want to inquire into the natural world.

And so he spoke on that debate. He spoke on the pro -religion side. You know, he took the stance that, well, people have really this radar for religion or this sense of religiosity.

And so I think this is very much on point. It's, you know, we try to rationalize.

We certainly have a capacity for rationalizing, but our default thing seems to be that we're led more by, again, more by passions than by reason.

That's right. And I would argue in accordance with Romans chapter one, I think all men have a knowledge of God.

Yes. So I know someone in the comments mentioned that. Yes. And I would agree for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth, right?

There's a certain level of truth that needs to already be had in order to suppress it. So you definitely have that aspect to consider here.

Baptized by Jesus says, where does regeneration of the heart fit in this? And the context there, I remember when the question popped up is when we were talking about the immateriality of the soul and where thinking occurs.

So I'm not exactly sure how that relates to that, but why don't you share your thoughts?

Where does regeneration of the heart fit in the apologetic encounter and the role of our words and the work of the spirit and things like that?

How would you understand those issues? Yeah. Well, I believe, let me see where maybe if I could make an example.

I mean, the way I see it is that, I mean, with a lot of people that we kind of share our journey with, it's not always the case that a person comes to a point where they say, well, yes,

Christianity makes sense. I believe, I make a decision, I pray the sinner's prayer and off I go.

For many people, I see they're really, they're journeying. To me,

I will ask myself, I think the important question to ask is a person journeying towards Christ or away from Christ?

Which direction are they taking? And so I feel like, I mean, I'm walking with people who haven't yet made a clear decision to follow

Christ, but they're really heading into his direction. And I mean, recently a friend of mine said, well, and he's from a

Muslim background, he's a psychiatrist, like a very clever dude. He said, well, Lukas, to me,

Christianity makes a lot of sense, but I'm not yet sure if I can really buy into it. And he said this twice.

I said, you know, I fake it till I make it. He said, I'm trying to live

Christianity as good as I can. And as far as I know what Christianity is, until I actually take it on fully, you know,

I can act until he's as if he's saying, well, I'm doing this thing as a second nature thing until it becomes my nature.

Sure, sure. And so I believe, you know, so God is at work in this man's heart and in this man's mind.

And, but it's, I find it very hard to pin down, well, you know, where exactly, like has the heart been regenerated already?

You know, probably, probably not, but there's something there, the Holy Spirit is at work in this man's life.

And that's a key point. You're not saying necessarily, I mean, the Bible says no one seeks

God, but then you look and you see there are people who are seek, seems like they're seeking God and struggling. And I would, as a

Calvinist, I'm a Calvinist in my own personal theology. I would say basically what you said, if someone is at, you know, they're on their journey, it might very well be the fact that the

Spirit is working. And we don't know necessarily what point of that working of the

Spirit, where that person is, right? Where God is gonna bring that person in. And I know there's some different theology, but when he brings about that regeneration, but that's the work of the

Spirit. Jesus says the wind blows where it will, right? We don't always kind of, we're not always privy to that information, but definitely

I think both of us would affirm that the necessity of the work of the Spirit in the apologetic encounter.

All right, so, okay. So I'm an unbeliever that you met at a coffee shop and I say, hey, listen,

Lucas, man, you know, I've read the Bible. I don't know, man, there's some freaky stuff in the

Bible, dude. Like, I don't know if I can swallow some of the things that I read in the Bible. You know, ax heads floating, people coming back from the dead.

I mean, it sounds kind of like a made up story, like a mythology.

So how would you engage someone like that in a casual conversation? Yeah, first of all, again,

I would be honest and say that, well, yes, you know, there are some very challenging and fancy and crazy stories.

I mean, it's not like, I think every believer should be honest to themselves that, you know, not everything goes down equally easily when you read through the biblical text.

So that's one thing. And then again, I think the right way to start is to actually challenge people to read this stuff for themselves, because we're actually taking as an opportunity to read this together.

And again, that's what we basically do every Thursday night here in Starbucks or in a cafe in Beirut is, again, at the moment we're in Galatians.

It's just opening one chapter at the time, reading it together, and then people throw out their questions and their comments.

So, yeah, I think it's very hard to have, you know, one big conversation about challenging passages in the

Bible, because the challenges are different in nature. You know, some of it is, well, could

Jesus really walk on water? Did that really happen? Did he really multiply the bread and the fish? So there's this miracle stuff.

And then you obviously have challenging passages where God comes across, again, as kind of weird or as wrathful as angry and that sort of stuff.

And this is a completely different issue. So that's why I think, you know, whenever people throw out these objections and they are justified, again, we shouldn't, you know, belittle it or not take it seriously.

That would be dumb. And that would be honest. Sure. But I think it's best to take it as an opportunity to say, well, if you're really interested, let's read this stuff together and we'll talk it through, because I'd rather give you an informed answer.

And I think if you're really interested in this topic, well, you should wanna have an informed answer, which means that you really wanna dig into the text itself rather than just from a distance, kind of look at it and try to figure out what's going on.

Yeah, I think that's really a wise response. For those who might be listening and tend to expect kind of a more in -depth analysis or response, if you don't get frustrated with what

Luke has said, the average unbeliever that you're gonna speak with is not the same as the atheist you're engaging with on YouTube.

The average person is gonna be asking these questions from a position of like, hey man, these are some problems, man.

And you're just gonna, you know, walking through those issues with that person might be the better approach than just, you know, automatically going into debate mode and, you know, bringing this huge case in the coffee shop.

You know, the person's like, I don't wanna talk to you anymore, this is too much. You have to be able to, as Greg Koukl says, to put the pebble in the shoe, right?

Mm -hmm, that's right. But Pine Creek, who is our local atheist, he's not really local,

I think he's in Canada somewhere. How's it going, Doug? So he asked the question, how does reading the

Bible together make the miracle stories seem any more true or reasonable? Guy, why don't you take it?

Yeah, that's a good question. I'm not saying that, you know, this in itself makes like an issue more reasonable or solves a problem, but what

I'm saying is as an approach, again, because you were asking me, Eli, in terms of if a person came to me and, you know, threw out these questions, it's, you know, in between, you know, like somewhere on the streets, like if you're having those casual conversations and you don't actually have the data at hand, it's just really hard.

You're not gonna be able to actually go through stuff in an informed way. And that's what I'm saying. It's not a matter of reading it together as if the communal experience solves the mystery or whatever, but it's a matter of, well, sitting down and actually dealing with the data because or dealing with the text and, you know, dealing with context.

And so that's what I'm saying. If a person is really interested in actual data and, you know, context and text and everything that's going on, well, you can't just deal with issues by, you know, talking about something that someone has just heard about without actually having looked into it themselves.

Now, I'm not saying that all skeptics who throw out their skepticism towards the Bible have not actually read the

Bible, but in my experience, it is nine out of 10 people who have some sort of, you know, skeptical bias towards the

Bible, which is fair enough, haven't actually read it. And so I think that's where, well, you can't really deal with an issue or be skeptical about an issue just from hearsay.

You actually have to expose yourself to the real thing. Yeah, no, what you're not saying is that when you read the

Bible with the unbeliever and read a little bit of the context of the miracles that they just magically believe in the miracles.

The issue is not, I mean, you say, how can Jesus walk on water? Well, let's read the story together. And then you, and there's the story, and there's like, okay, how did

Jesus walk on water? It doesn't make the question go away, but it's important to make sure we understand, you know, that we're understanding what's happening in the specific text, because when people ask the question, it's usually independent of knowledge of what's actually going on here.

It also provides us an opportunity to ask questions, to bring out some important worldview differences.

I mean, if someone's having problems with miracles, a lot of that has to do with one's outlook on the world.

And so having good conversations and bringing out a kind of presuppositional issues might be useful alongside reading some of those passages.

Why do you find this unbelievable? You know, bring that out in conversation, see where the person is and proceed from there.

But again, it's gonna be different depending on who you're speaking with, so. Yeah, yes, it is a worldview issue.

I mean, in the end, of course, I mean, no one is claiming that miracles happen in a naturalistic fashion.

I mean, if the natural reality is all there is, well, there are no miracles.

But again, the question at hand is exactly, well, is, you know, naturalism, what, like an accurate account for reality?

And you know, it's, of course, if naturalism is true, miracles don't happen. But if God exists, and as we talked about before in the conversation,

I mean, there are good reasons to believe that he does. Well, then the question of miracles is back on the table.

Oh, well, listen, Lucas, my problem with the Bible is bro, all right? I know you come in here with your cool looking scarf.

You got the little salt and pepper thing on it. You got the glasses, you're a smart guy, bro.

All right, but the problem is that when I read the Bible, it seems to me very anti -scientific.

I mean, obviously evolution is a fact. I don't need God for the explanation of where life came from.

You know, those are two different issues. I know you have a biogenesis and the development once life is there.

I'm just kind of sloppily bringing this about. How would you approach the unbeliever who thinks really the

Bible is in conflict with science and case in point, evolution, which seems to be a fact, macro evolution, seems to be a fact and is in conflict with your book, bro.

How would you reply to that? I hope I'm, am

I making a fair unbeliever? I hope there's some unbelievers who might be listening, like, oh, we don't sound like that.

This is for just, yeah. To be honest, yes, of course. I mean, I've had,

I mean, these are conversations that happened quite regularly and naturally. You know, it's funny.

I mean, just since you threw this out here, recently I made, because I do on my

YouTube shorts, one of the things I'm trying out is to have those role plays. So I play a skeptic and I play a

Christian, or I play myself in actually going through arguments. I thought to myself, well, instead of talking people through arguments and tell them, well, this is how

I would respond, I just actually, you know, play out how an argument may actually be expressed in a real conversation.

And so recently what I did, I went through the argument from, so this is a bit off the top.

Well, no, it's actually related. It's something I hear over and over again when it comes to morality is people saying, well, our sense of morality results from evolution.

It's just, you know, generated by evolution. And that's why it cannot be objective. You know, it's just, we have a moral sense given to us by evolution because it helps us to survive as a species and blah, blah, blah.

And so there was nothing objective about it. So I went through this argument and I basically said that, well, you know, well, in a nutshell, it commits the genetic fallacy because just because we have our moral sense through evolution, which

I'm happy to grant, by the way, for the sake of argument, well, that doesn't mean that morality is therefore not objective.

I mean, by the same logic, you would have to say that the natural world isn't governed by objective facts because if our moral sense came about through evolution, surely our apprehension of the natural world which is expressed through science is something that came about through evolution.

So by the same logic, that means the natural world isn't objective either. Now, I had a bunch of,

I had quite a few people responding in my comment section. Oh man, no, I've never heard anyone make this argument.

No skeptic would ever say that. Now I didn't respond to that. I mean, I've had thousands of conversations like that in our living room, in our gatherings and whatnot.

And now what's funny is, I didn't respond anyway. What's funny is that genetically modified skeptic, when he put out his last video, he makes this exact argument.

He makes the exact argument that I talked about. So, yeah, I mean - People bring, I mean, there are all sorts of people like atheists don't say this, you know.

Atheists don't say who created God. Well, yeah, they do. I've had conversations with them.

Yes, they exist. Of course, yeah. If you don't use those arguments, like that's great because it's a bad argument.

That's right, that's right. So yeah, as far as, you know, the Bible and science is concerned,

I mean, again, this has, to me, it boils down to the same issue.

It's that people haven't, well, they may have read the Bible, they may have read Genesis to be fair,

Genesis one and two, but then the question is, well, how do you deal with the text? I mean, is it, again, there is, you know, good reasons to not believe that Genesis one and two is supposed to be a chronological literalistic description of what happened as the universe was created.

But again, and like, I understand if you come to the Bible the first time, well, you may not know this, you know, it's,

I mean, the Bible is a complex book. It's not, you know, there are issues going on, which will like behind the scenes, which will help you to understand the text if you're aware of those issues.

So yeah, I mean, to be fair, there are people who make the argument that, you know, evolution contradicts the creation account in Genesis one and two.

I, you know, that's okay. I fair enough that if you read Genesis one and two, you may think that, well, I, maybe, you know, this is just an account of what happened day after day in six days.

And that's why, well, it cannot be that this is kind of, can be harmonized with evolution.

So I think, again, it's a matter of, well, walking people through what's happening in the text and walking through, again, hermeneutical issues and just theological issues.

I mean, the issues of how you read literature. I think one of the problems that in my experience that people have, and not just skeptics, even people who may be, you know, open to the faith or people who are believers anyway, they believe because this is, you know, holy scripture, because Christians believe this to be inspired.

Well, they also believe that every word needs to be read in a literalistic fashion, but that's not the case.

So, yeah. Yeah, I think I find a lot of people don't understand what it even means to interpret the Bible literally.

When you interpret the Bible literally, for folks who are listening, what that basically means is you interpret the

Bible in accordance with its literature. And if you know anything about the 66 books of the Bible, there are a wide variety of literary styles and literary tools that are being applied to certain texts that really affect how you interpret it.

What you just said about reading the text and understanding what it says,

I've had unbelievers fault us for that. Oh, are you gonna claim that it's the context?

You know, and they think that we're using that as kind of an escape to not have to, you know, confront their objection.

But in reality, when someone says, oh, the context, right? Yeah, that's right. It's context. Most attacks against the

Bible, many of them are just based on not considering the context of a passage. Yeah, so I think that's important.

Yeah, and I believe that people do that naturally, you know, considering context. Whenever we read any piece of literature,

I mean, we know, everyone knows that the way they're supposed to understand a poem is very different from the way they're supposed to understand a scientific report or a recipe or a newspaper's article.

So we have, people do bring that sensor or that radar for context to any literature they read.

But it seems, and again, I don't blame the skeptic for this actually, because a great many believers do the same thing, is that they come to the

Bible and believe and think that, oh, if, you know, here we have a supposedly inspired book or here

I have my inspired book if I'm a believer. And now I have to take every word at its face value.

So in this sense, you know, this is kind of a myth that needs to be dispelled by just educating people that, and one of the things

I do when I, you know, when I read the Bible with skeptics for the first time is I just tell them, well, you don't actually have to believe that this is inspired, you know, and I know that you don't believe that in the first place, but especially when it comes to reading the gospel accounts, well, just take it as history, you know, just take it as, you know, historical accounts like any other historical account we may have from other people in ancient times.

And let's just go at it with this way. There is no, you don't need to feel like, well, you're under the spell of this, you know, inspired divinely guided book, you know, that's as a first step for people to help deal with the

Bible for the first time. Well, Lucas, my problem is that if people are naturally religious and they want it to be true, it just creates a situation where someone feels comforted in the midst of this veil of tears, you know, how would you respond to something like that?

So the only reason why you believe in the Bible is that it gives you comfort, man. How would you respond to that?

I've actually, I've made a video about that. I think it is a very interesting argument.

There are a couple of ways to respond to this. First of all, I mean, I could admit and, you know, acknowledge that yes, the

Bible or faith in God does give me comfort, but so what? I mean, am

I, you know, should I be all this tough guy or is, I mean, who doesn't have feel like, you know, life can be rough and who doesn't feel like he doesn't have any weaknesses?

I mean, the fact that something is comforting doesn't say anything about its truth, you know?

I mean, and also it raises the question, and again, this then goes down to a more personal level.

Well, have you never felt like you need, you know, you need comfort? Like, is your life all happy, clappy, and you're always the strong guy and whatnot?

And it seems to me, I mean, if the Bible is true, I mean, one of the things that the Bible says is that we are broken and we need fixing.

And so if, you know, I don't have a problem acknowledging that, and this seems to plug in right with my experience of realities that, yes, sometimes

I do feel like, man, this can be rough. And then the other thing is that, you know, it's, if,

I think John Lennox said that if Christians are people, or if believers are people who are afraid of the dark, as this argument would suggest, you know, you just need comfort, well, then maybe atheists are people who are afraid of the light, you know?

And actually, one of the people who regularly comes to our gatherings here, she would make that argument regularly.

And it's funny that she, I mean, she very much fights with depression and kind of anxiety and stuff.

And so I tell her, look, I mean, do you, don't you have, like, don't you want to be in relationships where there is real trust and harmony?

Don't you have a longing for beauty and all of that sort of stuff?

Like sometimes, you know, the kind of stuff that arts and good music can give you. Don't you, you know, want to feel like safe in, again, in your friendships and stuff?

And I told her, well, these things, they can actually be had, they can be attained. They are actually real.

So if anything, if you have a longing for something, for something that is beautiful or something that is comforting, well, it may actually be a pointer to the fact that this thing can be had and that this thing can be attained.

So why should I discard, you know, my longing for comfort or for peace or peace of mind or peace of heart?

Why should I take this as an argument that the Bible or belief in God, which supposedly offers that, is not true?

You know, that's just doesn't follow. If anything, I should actually take it as at least a serious incentive to look into whether these things are true.

Because again, we long for good food and good food, you know, or for good, for nice, beautiful, sensual experiences.

And these things can be had in this world. All right, thank you for that.

Once again, guys, check out the Lucas's YouTube channel, Deflate. It's got some excellent content there.

You will definitely be entertained and educated and you will enjoy, I guarantee, your money back.

No, I'm just kidding, it's free. Real quick, we have Pine Creek is asking for my thoughts here.

William Lane Craig says the first chapters of Genesis is mytho -history. He said the stories in those chapters are fanciful and magical.

Thoughts? Well, I don't know if he uses exactly those descriptions for his position, but I am familiar with his mytho -history perspective.

Me personally, I disagree with that perspective, but I don't think that he's not a

Christian. Christians hold a wide variety of views with respect to how to interpret, you know, those first 11 chapters of Genesis.

And, you know, that's an in -house discussion within Christians, within the

Christian perspective, and I don't have a problem with the different views. Now, I do think that depending on particular views that you hold, that might lead to other theological issues that are very important, but again, that's an in -house discussion.

I don't define anyone in or out of the faith based upon how they interpret scripture, unless in doing so, they are denying what

I would take to be essential Christian doctrine. I have no problem defining someone outside the faith for violating principles of scripture that define people outside of the faith when they violate those aspects there.

All right, let's see if there's a question here for you. Here's a question for you, Lucas. How important is it to have a good understanding of the doctrine of scripture?

Many times, atheists are using a kind of intuitive understanding of what scripture is. So intuitively, man, scripture seems to be weird because of this, based on my intuitions.

How does that relate to the importance of a Christian having a proper understanding of the doctrine of scripture to perhaps give a response to someone who's kind of basing it more on their intuitions?

Yeah, well, I think, well, this is a very good question. I mean, I think it is important for Christians who have a proper understanding of the doctrine of scripture of inspiration and infallibility and all of that stuff, but again, when you have,

I believe, when you have a conversation with someone who doesn't believe in Christianity and hence doesn't believe in the doctrines of scripture that Christians believe in, well, you have to give them the space to just read scripture as a piece of literature.

And I mean, again, so in the weekly Bible study that we lead, most people come with that sort of perspective to the

Bible. I mean, and many people would say, well, I think the Bible is at least an interesting piece of scripture.

And many would say specifically, well, the stories of Jesus and about Jesus, they're definitely very inspiring.

They're not just interesting, but they're something to be wrestled with. Even again, they would say, well, I don't believe that Jesus is

God and that the Bible is true, but this is interesting stuff that I want to expose myself to.

So I think for, again, for a Christian, it is important to be aware of, you know, what scripture teaches about scripture.

But when it comes to, you know, going through scripture with an atheist, you cannot assume that they will hold to the doctrines about scripture that you hold to.

But that does to me, I mean, in my experience, that does not take away from the impact that the word can have on a person.

I mean, I've, I mean, we just, in our community, there's just a person from the

LGBTQ scene who joined us. And well, she, and again, she isn't a believer, but she's so, you know, she was so just inspired and moved by the text we've been reading.

And me, we've been reading Galatians, man. I mean, that's a tough, tough epistle to kind of to study, right?

But it has caused her to, you know, she has now a Bible for herself. She reads it for herself, which again, and without her having any understanding of what, of inspiration, infallibility, and all of these things.

Very good. Yeah, doctrine of scripture is super important. If you're looking to get into that more deeply,

I think Dr. John Frame has an excellent book called The Doctrine of the Word of God. It's a monstrosity, it's super thick, but you can break the difference.

There's different sections there that you can tackle. It's a very important, important topic for sure. Baptized by Jesus asked the question, are all believers born again with the

Holy Spirit? Acts 19 .3, Paul asks, did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?

Did you want to tackle that? Or I'll share my thoughts when you're finished. Yeah, well, again,

I mean, unless the Holy Spirit does, you know, completes, or well, does the work of salvation in you, well,

I mean, you can't be born again. It's a bit of an oxymoron to think that you can be born again without the work of the

Holy Spirit. That's how I would put it. Yeah, yeah, you're born of the

Spirit, right? Once you believe, you're born of the Spirit, the Spirit, and you exercise faith, right?

The Spirit indwells believers, right? I think Paul was asking this because I think he's not really sure about the spiritual status of the people he's speaking with.

And so he's really kind of asking this question and about to present the gospel to them.

So I don't think this is an issue of certain people being saved without the Spirit, and then therefore, they're gonna receive the

Spirit after the fact, okay? So, all right, thank you for that question here.

People are still awake, huh? Yeah, I know, I'm surprised, man. Let's see this here.

Can't go through all of them. See if I can go through a couple more and then we'll wrap things up.

You're doing an excellent job, Lucas. Thank you so much. Well, thanks for doing this. It's awesome. It's good fun.

Okay, so question here. Pine Creek asks, real apologetics. My question really is, can

William Lane Craig be right about this and Christianity still be true? He'd say yes, but what about you guys?

Are you familiar with Dr. Craig's position with respect to Genesis 1 -11? I mean, I've heard, I've seen the summaries and stuff.

I haven't read his book. You mean about the historical Adam, right? Yeah, yeah, no, I haven't read the book.

I mean, I've read, I've seen some of the conversations happening around it, but I'm not familiar with the details of the work.

Well, I won't summarize the entire book, but just to address Doug Pine Creek here, while I disagree with Dr.

Craig's position, I do not believe he denies a historical Adam. And I think a historical

Adam theologically is a very important theological truth to affirm since you have in Adam the entrance of sin.

And I do believe I have a stronger view of the importance of original sin as a theological truth than perhaps

Dr. Craig has. I don't know where he stands on that. He seems to be okay with the fact that even if it's not true, it's not that problematic.

I happen to think it is problematic. So as long as you affirm a historical

Adam and the implications of that historical Adam, then I think everything is fine and dandy minus some of the other interpretive issues that I think one might have a problem with.

So I don't think his view, if you adopt his view with respect to the historical Adam and mytho -history concept,

I still think Christianity could be true given that, unless his view entails kind of a denial of an essential doctrine, which to my knowledge, while I strongly disagree with his interpretation,

I don't think it denies any essential features. I just happen to think it is a wrong interpretation.

And again, that's an in -house discussion. Yeah. Well, I believe that too.

I think with regards to that question, it's not that this issue is decisive as to whether Christianity is true or not.

And I've been thinking about this and maybe I'm just too one -dimensional to get this, but this historical

Adam thing to me, and again, Doug, he put this in the comment section as well, that if evolution is true and there was no historical, or then the

Genesis, and there was no historical Adam, then the biblical account is wrong.

I think that that's how you put it, Doug. I'm not sure. But here's what I think. Even if evolution is true, and even if you take

Genesis to be myth or history and stuff, well, at some point, in the course of history, in the course of the history of the world, you're gonna have an individual, you're gonna have an organism somewhere, if you want, that will be described or could be pinned down as a human being, where you may, again, on the assumption that evolution is true, well, at some point, you will have the real historical transition from one species into the,

I mean, into the next, given that we talk about species, you know? So that's why

I don't, I know that obviously on evolution, this is all very transitional and in incremental steps.

You come from, you know, humanoid or ape -like creatures to Homo sapiens, but at some point, you will get to Homo sapiens, okay?

You will, that's, you know, you will get to the species Homo sapiens. That means at some point, well, there is a historical first human being that walked the face of the earth.

And so I don't quite get, actually, why this historical atom issue is such a big deal, because at some point, there must have been a first human being.

Yeah, I think theistic evolution, while I don't agree with it, and I have strong reasons for disagreeing with it, there are versions, flavors, if you will, of theistic evolution that affirms a historical atom.

So if you hold the theistic evolution, I think you're wrong, but if you affirm an atom,

I think you can still hold to some of those other important doctrines, original sin and these sorts of things that I think are still, while incorrect, they don't bring you so down the hill that it's completely irredeemable, if that makes sense.

Sure, sure. Yeah. You know, what I'm asking is, why does someone pitch evolution against a historical atom view of the

Genesis account? You know, that's what I don't, that's what doesn't quite make sense to me. You know what I'm saying? It's that.

Yeah. It's because. You do have some theistic evolutionists who will deny a historical atom.

So you do have that. You do have, you have theistic evolutionists who affirm a historical atom and you have theistic evolutionists that would deny an actual person, a historical person.

So it depends on where in the spectrum you are. Yeah. If that makes sense.

I know, but it's still, or maybe the issue isn't much, it's just how can you deny a historical first human being?

I guess that's what, that's my question. Yeah. So they would say, they would say that you have a kind of evolutionary development, right?

Yeah. So you don't have two, first two humans, you have a population of, quote, humans, but not image of God.

So God would elect, choose out of this sample size and imbue them with the imago

Dei. And in that sense, they're not the first humans, they're part of a broader population, but they're the first to be given imago

Dei. And in that sense, they are the Adam and Eve, these sorts of things. So you have to imbue there.

Yeah. It just depends on where on the spectrum one lies. Me personally, I don't affirm any form of theistic evolution on that level.

And so I wouldn't hold to any of those, but I think certain versions of them are not as bad as other versions because you could affirm a flavor of theistic evolution and still maintain some other important theological elements that are related to that.

That's what I would say. I got you. Okay, got you. But definitely a terribly interesting topic.

I love those discussions, but it is a big topic, so. All right, let's see if we could...

Let me see. I don't see any more. Oh, simple question. Oh, I like this one.

What is your favorite question to ask a random atheist? Yeah, I love

Doug just responded by saying, well, he's a random atheist. Well, to be honest, when people introduce themselves to me as atheist, and they wanna have a conversation around atheism and theism or whatnot, that the first question

I would ask is, well, why or how did you become an atheist? It's just, again, how did you come to where you're at?

Was it a conscious process of reasoning through issues or did you just feel like, well,

I figured I didn't believe in God without having given it too much thought or did you have bad experiences and whatnot?

I think just hearing where people coming from is kind of key. Instead of,

I wouldn't just bang an atheist in the head with some tricky question.

I would just wanna know, well, where are they coming from and what led them to believe what they believe. Establishing relationship is preferable than just randomly doing a drive -by hard question to your local atheist.

You know what I mean? So I think that's really important, that relational aspect. I know it sounds terrible.

Are there any last words? But you're not dying anytime soon. Or I pass out.

Are there any last words you'd like to share before I ask my last question that we'll leave the audience with?

Anything you'd like to share before we start wrapping things up? No, not really. I mean, this has been awesome. Thanks.

I mean, thanks to everyone who engaged in the comment section. Thanks, Doug from Pine Creek, for there's some good stuff that you mentioned.

I guess the only thing I was gonna say, you know, no, I'll just leave it there. You know what, Eli, take it up from here.

Thanks to everyone. And thanks to you, especially, for making this happen. It is my pleasure. And it's an honor to have you on. And I'm happy that I'm finally meeting you face to, well, screen to screen.

That's right. Okay, so I love the fact that there's apologetics online.

But suppose there's someone who's listening, you know, I work at a high school, Christian high school. Maybe there's some young people who like computers.

They like technology. They are looking for a way to kind of start, you know, their own channel. Is there anything you can, you know, by way of kind of just encouragement and just some tips as to how to create their, you know, create an apologetics ministry, a

YouTube channel? How do they know what to focus on? What should they talk about? You know, how would you kind of guide someone who's inspired by what we're doing and want to get into the mix and do apologetics online?

Yeah, well, I mean, the first thing I would tell people is that you really need to have the mindset of a learner.

I mean, before I started out, which was 18 months ago, and I still do, I watch all sorts of tutorials on how to, you know, create good videos, what, you know, resonates and how you create your intro and how you have a good thumbnail and whatnot is, because this is really,

I mean, this is a real science. You know, this is really just the real thing, how you do this

YouTube thing. So there is, one thing is your content, you're passionate about creating, you know, be it theology or philosophy or apologetics or cooking, or I don't know what.

You know, you need to have passion for the content you put out there. And I guess everyone who thinks about having a

YouTube channel or having an online ministry has that passion. I guess they bring that to the table. That's why they're asking themselves the question.

But then you have to also get yourself into, well, how do

I technically do that? You know, again, there is the whole, just how does YouTube work kind of thing?

How does, you know, human psychology work of those who scroll through the feed and all of that stuff.

So it did, I mean, it's quite, it's been like quite a learning curve for me to figure out all the ins and outs.

And I mean, I haven't figured it out completely yet, obviously. But you're doing a great job.

Yeah, thanks. Trying my best. So just, you know, expose yourself to people who've done that before and who teach about how to do this.

And that just, you know, give it a shot. It's not gonna be perfect right off the bat. And that's fine.

You just, you work by trial and error kind of procedure. Excellent.

Well, I just put, I just pasted a link to your channel in the chat there. So folks can check it out and subscribe.

As I said, you guys are gonna enjoy his content. It's excellent. And he's a fun guy and I'm looking forward.

I have my notifications on. When you have a video coming up and I have a 40 to 50 minute drive to work, you know,

I'm listening to Lucas, bro. Yeah, I feel like I know you. You've been in my, your voice has been in my car. So, you know,

I appreciate what you're doing. Thanks, man. Thanks, Eli. Yeah, I appreciate your stuff as well.

As I said, I, you're like, I kind of save time to listen to people like you.

It's because I'm not, well, I'm very much a single tasking, kind of single tasking kind of guy.

I can't do many things at the same time. So whenever. Yeah, multitasking, multitasking. Yeah, whenever there is like stuff that I really wanna get into on my feet or whatever

I save it for when I can actually focus and your kind of content belongs into that category.

Well, I appreciate that very much. That's an honor. Well, thank you so much, Lucas. And thank you so much, everyone else.

Please subscribe to Deflate, Lucas's channel on YouTube. And if you haven't subscribed to Revealed Apologetics, what is wrong with you, man?

That's right. Hit the notification bell, you know, give a thumbs up, share the video. What is really helpful is,

I don't know if you put your videos on podcasts. Do you have a podcast at all?

No, I'm kind of, again, I'm just, I can do one thing at a time. So I'm very much focused on doing two at a time.

Because I'm using StreamYard here and StreamYard gives me the ability to just download the audio straight from the video.

And I could just put it into my podcast fee. So it's super easy. Well, a caveman can do it.

So it's super easy. But what is helpful for folks, if you listen through the podcast, if you can go on iTunes and write a positive review, that's super helpful.

I greatly appreciate the support. And folks can check out my website as well, revealedapologetics .com.

Sign up for an apologetics course if you're looking for more structured education with presuppositional apologetics.

But if you're just digging some YouTube content, Deflate is an excellent, excellent resource that I greatly encourage you guys to go check out.

Lucas, thank you so much for being my guest. It is a pleasure. I'd love to have you back on in the future. Thanks Eli, yes, definitely.

Midnight, I'm actually, it's 1 .23 in the morning. I'm okay, I'm okay. Okay, well, I'm glad you haven't passed out yet.

Not yet, not yet. Well, thank you so much everyone for listening in. I appreciate the support, appreciate the questions.