Atheism with Matt Slick, Eli Ayala & Tyler Vela

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host of Striving for Eternity, Andrew Rappaport.

We are live, Apologetics Live. Glad to have you with us. This is another Thursday night, which means 8 o 'clock

Eastern Time. We are live on Apologetics Live to answer any questions you may have, any challenges you want to give.

Tonight's topic, if Tyler comes in, that is, will be the topic of atheism.

Actually, we'll talk atheism either way, but Tyler Villa recently did a debate on that topic, and we were going to just have a panel discussion about that.

We do have Eli, who's already in backstage. So we are going to see.

Wondering where Mr. Slick is. I wonder if I could find where Slick is.

Oh, look, there he is. He's fishing. No wonder he's not in here yet.

Whenever Matt feels like getting done, not catching anything. Now, look at that pose he has there. He looks quite lazy, actually, as a fisherman.

I mean, most people actually are fishing and they're looking like they're catching fish. He just looks like he's resting against some rocks there and not catching anything.

I guess that's why fishing is so relaxing for him. He doesn't actually do anything.

Yeah, well, maybe he'll come in here himself and defend. Oh, let me bring

Eli in so I can get myself in trouble with him, too. So we're going to plan to try and do a panel discussion sort of thing on atheism tonight.

That's the plan. And we'll see if I did send it to Tyler because he's the one that was on the debate.

If not, I didn't say I don't have it ready. What I wanted to do actually was the

I wanted to. I recently listened to a gender podcast.

There's a bunch of them. They're really painful to listen to. But I did find some there were some interesting things that they had said that I found very kind of interesting.

This whole podcast, Eli, is about trying to help those of us who are, you know, binary.

You know, we think that that gender is just binary. It's male or female. And we don't understand the fluidity of genders and that we we've got to figure it out.

Just people can I should be able to identify any way they want. And we shouldn't let stereotypes interfere with that.

The reason I thought it's funny is the host was was talking about how he she recently got breast surgery.

Because, you know, and explaining how, you know, feels so much better now that he looks like his gender.

And I'm going, wait a minute. Let me think about this. So gender is what you identify, but yet and shouldn't be stereotype.

And yet you want to look like the opposite gender.

Hmm. Almost makes me think that they know that there's a second gender, one and the other.

And they're trying to look like the host even complained about her her man feet.

And I'm like, man feet are just that there is no man. Right.

By the way, folks, if you're if you are looking at if you're watching on YouTube or on Facebook, Eli there looks like he's in a crib.

If you look at it, it's just that's actually a chair.

It's actually a chair. It's not actually a crib. I'm in my I'm in my kitchen. I'm not in a crib.

I have to show people that I'm just saying. So. So what we want to do tonight is we want to we wanted to talk about atheism.

We wanted to talk about Tyler's, you know, Tyler's appearance on the gospel truth with another debate.

They got a ton of debates. Have you done you've done a couple of debates there, right? Yeah. And I have another one coming up on June 2nd debating the topic.

What is there evidence for the God of the Bible? Well, I we did we were setting another one up for me.

Someone contacted Marlon and said he wanted to debate a topic.

And so Marlon said, would you want to debate this topic? I said, well, since he's the one that wants the debate.

I mean, he should argue the pro. Right. So we I wanted to reverse the question so that he would have to actually defend his stance, because this is the thing that I find with with a lot of these guys that debate.

You look at Matt Slick when he debated Matt Del Hunty. One of the things that, you know,

Matt and I were talking about, I think you were involved in that, too. We had decided that, you know, it should be where Matt Del Hunty actually had to defend a claim because it's easy to attack a claim.

Defending it's harder. And that was the thing, is that when he was going out and having to actually defend a claim, he actually said he in that debate, he said, this is the first time

I'm having to defend a claim. And then by the cross examination, he actually says to Matt, this is hard.

Matt, let us know off the hook and let it just be a discussion. I think he should have pressed it. Here we go.

Humble Clay says Eli can sit wherever he likes. Thank you. Humble Clay. Yes, I can sit wherever I like in my child's crib.

What could be an adult crib? Is that what they call a, you know, man caves, cribs?

I don't know what all the lingo. I don't I do not have the luxury of a man cave, although I used to have an office in my home a couple of years back, which is something like a man cave.

But maybe one day Ethan says, let's let's overthrow Andrew.

But unless Ethan comes in here, he can't do that. So just saying. So, you know, this was the thing.

So I so Marlon sets up this debate. I said, OK, how about you? I mean, this guy's we were in a three way conversation.

And I said, well, you're the one that wants to make the debate.

You're the one that laying the challenge. Why don't you? Take the pause, the pro side of this.

So I reversed the question so that it would be a pro and he'd have to defend it.

And basically, his response was, well, I think Marlon can find someone better for me to debate and left.

Well, first he asked me for he wanted me to email him me speaking on the topic.

And so what was the how did you reverse the debate proposition?

Well, I can't say that for one reason. Why is that? Because I'm actually going to do the debate anyway without him.

Well, who are you going to be debating? Well, I'll debate him and Marlon's going to we got it.

We got a plan. You've seen me debate the the black Hebrew Israelites didn't show up. Right. Right.

Debated the empty chair. I did not. I did not miss that one. Oh, I did see you debating some other guy who didn't.

Yeah. Very enthusiastic about being there. Yeah. What it was was for a year and a half. I'd have these black

Hebrew Israelites now called Hebrew Israelites because they they dropped the black part. But the they would challenge me.

And then when we'd set a time. They would like you couldn't hear from them, here's like, nope.

And so last time we did it, we had three guys, it was going to be three on one. And then they blocked

Tom and I. And so what ended up happening was I told Tom, let's do the debate anyway.

So he's he's like, what are you going to do? I said, we'll do the debate. Introduce me. I'll do the opening.

Then you introduce the people that show. And he's like, who's going to show? I said, let's just do it. So when it came time to introduce the black

Hebrew Israelites, I was debating. I just put up an empty chair. Who won?

Well, I guess the empty chair. Yeah, well, I guess I guess the empty chair lost because I actually won for this reason.

The goal of it was to actually get someone, a black Hebrew Israelite that would be so embarrassed by the fact that no one would show to debate me, that they would show and debate me.

And he did. And the reason I would say I won that second one only for this reason.

One way you could tell that you've won a debate is when you start getting tons of comments from people saying that the guy you debated isn't a good debater.

He's not he doesn't know what he's talking about. You should debate that person. And I had a ton of people that after that were like telling me that they were.

They all said that that guy that debated wasn't good. You know, I need to meet a real black Hebrew Israelite.

And they were that guy. And I invited all of them on this show.

And the only one that showed up was a guy named Ben Israel. And he showed up when I wasn't.

I told him I won't be in this week. So show up next week. So he showed up and wanted to debate Matt. So I think

William Lane Craig, he did a tour in England some years back, and he left an open chair on the stage for Richard Dawkins to come in.

And I mean, Dr. Craig is quite the gentleman. So he's not really known for trolling, but he had the chair there on stage and he debated as though he was debating

Richard Dawkins. So it was pretty funny. That would be I should go look for that.

Excuse me. So the I was actually at Richard Dawkins house. And if I ever told you that you're

Richard Dawkins house. Yeah, we were outside of a whole group of us. We prayed outside of his house for him.

We did. We we did discuss whether we wanted to go.

We were actually thinking of knocking on the door. And inviting him to we were doing some open air.

And we wanted to invite him. But, yeah, we were over at Oxford.

And so we were we had we're doing some ministry over there.

And we the professor whose house we were at said, yep, Richard Dawkins lives right up the street.

And so we're like, is it like a bit does he live in a big house or anything? No, it's actually his house.

His housing was provided by Oxford. I guess when you when you teach at Oxford, they provide all the housing on campus.

So it wasn't a very big house. So but you figure he's making millions and, you know, he doesn't have to worry about housing.

So, hey, sure. Yeah. You know, he could he could put it away. And it's you know, this is the thing

I notice is that people can be very when they live in a comfortable culture and they're not having to struggle.

They have the ability to. Kind of sit back and criticize everything, kind of like all the

Democrats do right now. Right. I got in trouble on Twitter.

Did you see that Nancy Pelosi tear up the speech? That's all over the Internet now.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. That was that was exactly I like that. I like the meme that was created.

You know, it's her tearing it the three times. And that thing says what women do, what women preachers do when they see

First Timothy to. But yeah,

I mean, now that was an interesting thing, because here she's she's saying that he somehow snubbed her in not shaking her hand.

Now she did. There were some people trying to say she didn't actually offer a handshake. No, she did. But he didn't shake, you know, his own vice president's hand either.

If you watch that, I don't think he even saw her put her hand out because he turned his back.

But she's complaining how he's you know, he wasn't doing proper etiquette and things like that. And I went, wait a minute, you didn't introduce him the way you're required.

I mean, there's actually a formal introduction. Correct. Yeah. And when

Barack Obama, when Justice Roberts swore in Barack Obama, he screwed up the oath.

I don't know if you if you remember that. Yeah. And I remember the first when Barack Obama was first elected, he he had said something in the wrong order.

OK. And his first time he's doing it, he is I'm sure he was he was nervous.

Right. Ethan saying there's an echo. I don't know where it would be coming from.

With my voice or your voice? I don't know. Someone was saying with yours earlier. Oh, I did.

I did notice a little. Look who popped in to say howdy. It's Justin Peters Ministries.

Oh, who's who's Justin Peters? I've never heard of that person before. Well, and it is getting so it could be.

It could be. But my my guess is people are saying hello, Justin Peters.

But that can't be Justin. He's not that technology. He's he wouldn't know how to type.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I can't see that. We'll have to see. I may be seeing him

Saturday, so we'll see. But oh, look, should we put

Matt Slick on? Matt Slick calling. So let's see. Hi, Matt.

Welcome to Apologetics Live. Hey, I'm getting ready to get on the freeway.

Spent almost 11 hours. Yeah. Almost 11 hours at the hospital. Yeah. Well, we you're saying that.

But but, you know, we're we're showing we're showing a picture right now of what you really were doing.

You know, what was I really doing? Well, we see I have a picture of you fishing, leaning against the rock here, not catching any fish, mind you.

So that's that's what we're saying, that you're actually doing. But I was going to share where you where you were, because I didn't know if you wanted that known.

But yeah, my daughter had a martial arts injury and had a surgery on her clavicle.

So, yeah, it's really tough on her. So Nathan came and got her in his truck because his truck is smoother than my little car.

And so less nausea issue. So Cameron called me and said, you guys talk a smack about my fishing ability.

That is all Andrew. Eli says that's all me. So, yeah, no, you know, look, if you're not going to come in and defend your fishing abilities next time.

I'm on I'm on right now. I'm on right now. That's right. You know,

I can catch fish, right, Cameron? Watch it, because he called me. So, all right.

Well, when you get when you get back, we'll, you know, just go to PaulJackslive .com and join us. And now

I got to go get a prescription for my daughter. So I won't make it. And for the record, for the record, folks,

Matt was not sparring with his daughter. It wasn't him. Actually, what happened was a newbie in jujitsu.

I did an arm bar on her and threw her without letting go and broke her clavicle.

Yeah. This is this is why in our gym you're not allowed to do like leg locks or arm bars as a white belt.

That's right. Yeah. And Hannah said she was working with her and she told her not to do that.

Yes, she did. Yeah. So, yeah. And they said that the sensei heard the bone snap.

Oh, someone says with that picture that you were rock fishing.

Yeah, that's that was believable. Yeah, that's right. Rock fishing. And all right.

Well, you guys are blabbing. OK, Eli's Eli's were laying sound to me. So I'll repeat it.

Yeah, I don't want to talk about Molinism sometime too with the guy who said was there, but that's another thing. All right, man.

God bless. OK. Bye. Bye. I Andrew, you do you do martial arts?

I do. What kind? Well, I used to do karate.

Now I well, I haven't done in a actually now it's probably like two years since I've done a jujitsu.

OK, now, so according to this, this this

Justin Peters Ministries says, yep, it's I check the driver's license.

Well, I don't see a driver's license to you. I mean, how can we check that? I mean,

I think I think he's checking his own driver's license. It's me. OK, OK. So, oh, who is

Matt Slick did a debate? This was classic. This was I don't know if you saw this. I forget who he was debating.

The guy was telling Matt, the guy was telling Matt what he believes. Matt's like, I don't believe that.

And the guy goes, are you sure? Matt just looks up in the air and just asks himself. He goes, hey,

Matt, do you believe this? No, I don't. Oh, OK, thanks. And he goes, no,

I just asked myself. I don't believe I was cracking up so hard.

I didn't get to listen to what the guy's response was. That was just classic. Yeah, Matt, Matt's got some funny writers and some.

I remember back in the day when he used to say, put your hand up in front of your face. He used to get people that all the time now.

Yeah, but we actually have people that slap themselves. That was the best part. Yeah. So so there is.

So Ethan is asking. Yes. Talk about Molinism. So you and I like that topic.

So we could talk about that. There was someone that watches your show all the time and wanted to discuss partial preterism as well.

So I don't know if that's if that's way off the topic. No, there's really no topic.

If you go on, maybe you can suggest it and talk a little bit about it. You know, that's up to you.

Let me let me bring John to see if he has any questions. Hey, no questions, actually.

I just wanted to join in and see what's going on. But where's Matt and Tyler? Well, OK, Eli, you really shouldn't use your middle finger to play with your camera.

I just I just noticed that. So there's there's where Matt really is. If you look in the picture there,

Matt's really leaning against a rock, pretending to fish. It looks like a retirement photo from apologetics.

And he's just like fishing. That's it. That's it. Matt. Matt has retired from CARM. He's he's the final post of CARM dot org modeling for wallet photos.

So, yeah, no, Tyler. I don't know where Tyler Villa is. But you got to really check out that debate, though.

He killed it. Oh, my God. OK, so let's let's start with it. We'll start with that with the debate, because that's really what we did want to start with.

So although let's see. Saints Edified says,

Andrew, ask Eli if infant baptism is biblical. No, I'm I'm probably

I'm more Baptist in my position, so I don't I don't hold to baptism. Yeah. Yeah. No. OK, moving on.

OK, so I'll put John in the back until you if you have a question, come on in. Thanks. So. All right.

Let's let's deal with the debate here. I didn't watch the full debate. I watched Tyler's opening.

I watched. I don't remember the guy's name now. Eric. Eric Murphy.

I watched Eric's opening. Here was the thing. The debate. The topic was atheism.

What is atheism? Tyler did an excellent job of explaining the fact that there's different definitions for atheism that you have to understand when you're talking to someone, what their definition is.

And he went through all the different definitions as they've changed over time. He he explained,

I thought, very well why they're changing the definition. That from no theism to the to know

God that does not exist to really what is agnosticism, to not know if God exists, that was really agnosticism.

But they change that and then to avoid having to give an answer to have a claim to defend.

They say, well, the the definition is I lack a belief. And so he went through all those different things.

And the thing that was interesting to me was as he did that, he's he's giving the definitions, he's giving the arguments, and then the guy he's debating comes in and just goes, basically ignores everything he had said in his opening, didn't deal with it, just basically was poisoning the well.

I mean, just right off the bat. He he he started out with saying that, like,

Tyler didn't notice or the people don't know what they're talking about with it. It's like Tyler just gave definitions.

He actually allowed Eric to maintain the traditional definition of atheism affirms that there is no

God and that positive claim. That's a positive claim. It's a positive claim. You need to defend it.

There's a burden of proof when you make that claim. And so in modern times, atheists have changed the definition subtly so as to not have a burden of proof.

So it's kind of like a linguistic strategy so as to reframe the discussion and put yourself in a more safer position of having to just hear what the theist says.

And you can just sit back and, you know, reject it. He allows for the atheists to define atheism any way they want.

And so if you define atheism as a lack of belief in God, he said, fine, sure. But once you start arguing and making claims, then then you're shifting.

He did a very good job showing that the definition of atheism as being a lack of belief is not a neutral.

It's not a neutral claim where many of these atheists try to make it appear as though they're being kind of this neutral person that just needs to see the evidence.

And when you define atheism as a lack of belief, ironically, I felt like after listening to that debate, writing an article entitled

Why I Think Atheism is True, kind of. Because when you define when you define atheism as a lack of belief in God, what you're doing is just describing your psychological state.

And so it'd be true by definition if you lack belief in God. And so if we were to say, for example, theism is that, you know,

I, I believe that God exists, then that's true by definition, if that's the definition of theism.

And so you ironically have atheism and theism being true at the same time, because in a trivial way, you've just defined it as a psychological state.

And I think that's not how atheists have traditionally defined their their own position, even though you have different variations in there.

I think the atheists of the past have had a little bit more guts than the than many of the modern atheists.

They were willing to put forth arguments. And I think a lot of people today like to play the skeptic game. Yeah, they well, my thinking, my feeling is that the the atheism of today is is an attempt to avoid debate, but it is an arrogant way of doing it.

It's just we're right because we there's enough of us that agree with us. Or that was my debate with on when

I did the debate on gospel truth. I had a guy that I mean, that was his argument was, you know, he just says atheism is or secular humanism is superior to Christianity because it's better.

But by what standard? Right. And they don't want to get into having to defend their positions.

This is the problem that I see with it. Instead of trying to defend their positions, they want a definition that avoids any kind of positive.

They'll say, I can't I can't argue a negative. That's not true. I mean, you can argue a negative.

There's no there's no gold in China. I find a piece of gold. I've just proven it right.

The debate that we're talking that that the guy that that wanted to debate me, it was very easy.

All I did was I took it from this is the case to changing it to this is not the case.

I think the real reason he didn't want to do it is because I would, you know,

I sent him video of me. And I think he realized, oh, he can easily prove because I only need one example to prove the negative.

And therefore, the positive is true if it's a true dichotomy. Right. If it's an and or.

So the the thing is, is that's what they want to do. They want to avoid having to really defend their argument.

Why? Because they can't. I'll tell you why I think they can't. I think they can't because Christians and apologists have gotten better in their argumentation.

And when these new atheists came out, there were things that just people were like, I don't know how to answer that.

But as presuppositional apologetics has has kind of spread, I think that this new atheism realized they had no answers and they couldn't defend their case.

And so they start redefining things. And I always find it interesting. I mean, now more dictionaries are doing it, but every one of them quoted,

I think it was the the Oxford Dictionary, which was the only one that would define atheism as a lack of belief.

Like every other dictionary I have, I have in front of me right now, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which defines atheism in the way that it's traditionally defined.

If you don't mind, I could just let me just read it so people can see. This is it says atheism is typically defined in terms of theism.

Theism in turn is best understood as a proposition, something that is either true or false. It is often defined as the belief that God exists.

That's theism. But here belief means something believed. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing.

So it's not this whole lack of belief idea. This is why it makes sense to say that that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism.

If, however, atheism is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a

God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists.

The ah in atheism must be understood as negation instead of absence, as not instead of without.

Therefore, in philosophy, at least atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist or more broadly, the proposition that there are no

God. That is the traditional definition to make that assertion. And now people are using the more of the psychological descriptor.

I lack belief. Now, it's interesting because there they would say that atheism is not a religion.

But yet it falls in the camp of. Deity. Now, they would say it's not a religion because it's not organized as such.

But if it's not a religion, then it would have to fall into one other camp philosophy.

Therefore, the philosophical definition is the one that should be used. Right. And so, you know, and that's that's the thing that you end up seeing is they don't want to.

They don't want to actually have to defend a case because what you're seeing nowadays, it's more about trying to push a political agenda with with the with atheism.

Now, the scary thing is the arrogance that I see. Well, I mean,

I mean, we we see arrogance on both sides. I think we need to really check themselves, especially our presuppositional guys, because the presuppositional argumentation often comes across very aggressive because it's kind of a worldview.

Go for the jugular kind of methodology. And I think a lot of online apologists can have an overconfidence and arrogance in the way they go about it.

So we need to be very careful on both sides, especially from the Christian perspective. We're trying to defend the faith, the gentleness and respect.

And of course, the other side, hopefully they're trying to do the same thing. And that's not always the case. So, yeah, you're right.

I mean, anyone can have that. But this is what's what scares me, is that when you see people who don't have a valid, logically valid arguments, but they're arrogant.

Yeah, that's it's ignorance and arrogance mixed together. Yeah. And it's an ignorant arrogance.

And it's and that's scary. It's dangerous. So that usually comes,

Andrew, in the form of the atheists claiming that that we shouldn't believe anything on evidence.

And it's just so simple. If you give me evidence, I'll believe. And they're completely ignorant of the fact that evidence has various presuppositions that we come to the table with various presuppositions and standards of what constitutes as evidence.

And a lot of the atheists who claim they want evidence think us Christians, especially presuppositionalists, are avoiding the issues by asking, what do you mean by evidence?

So there's almost this naive perspective from any of these atheists that evidence is just this thing that you could just show it and it doesn't matter what we assume evidence is just evidence.

And that's not true at all. I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask. What do you mean by evidence?

And this is exactly what Tyler does. I mean, Tyler kills it. The atheist says, you know, a talking snake would be evidence for God.

He says, all right, let's go with that. If you saw a talking snake and he goes, well, I'd have to ask myself, am I hallucinating? Am I on drugs?

And then eventually, you know, I wouldn't believe it. It's like, wait a minute. So evidence for God's existence would be a talking snake.

But then if a talking snake were to appear to you and talk to you, then you would reason yourself out of it. It was clearly the case of he wanted evidence, but he had a standard of evidence that he himself did not hold to, which

I thought Tyler did a wonderful job exposing that. At one point, I think

Eric suggested that the conversation was a waste of time because of, you know, they were going back and forth.

And in his opinion, it wasn't really going anywhere. And I was thinking to myself, this conversation is just so useful because it exposes this almost complete ignorance of one's own presuppositions and one's own standards.

They just take it for granted the way I think of things. This is the way that it is. And it's silly to question it. Yeah. NY Chris M is asking, is this live?

The answer is yes. And if you want to join, go to Apologize Live dot com and you can join if you have questions for us.

Now, someone is asking, see who was it was John Wayne was asking. They must be talking about Eric Hernandez.

No, we are not. Eric Murphy. Yeah. But we we may start talking about Eric Hernandez if we switch topics.

So. All right. So question for Eli from Humble Clay. What are three great books for apologetics?

OK, the first one is the generic Christian answer, but I'm totally serious. The Bible, I think.

And I know I know that's kind of the generic thing to say. But if if you're not familiar with your faith, you're not going to be able to adequately defend it.

So you want to know scripture inside and out. I really for people who are starting off because I hold to the presuppositional method of apologetics,

I would strongly suggest Always Ready by Greg Bonson. You can check out Scott Oliphant's book,

Covenantal Apologetics, which is on presuppositional apologetics as well. So there are different entry level books that you can that you can kind of begin looking into if you want to study the methodology of apologetics.

Also, Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology. There are a lot of systematic theologies out there, but that's a simple one. And it covers all the basic doctrines.

And if you know your theology well and how the different aspects of theology interconnected intertwine, you will become a very sharp apologist because you'll know the relationships between one belief and another belief and how it fits together and how it relates to your broader worldview.

So, I mean, there are many more, but yeah, let me give you two. I'll give you two better ones for entry level, I think.

One is Jason Lyle's book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, because he lays it out very, very easy to follow.

The second one is called The Rights Fight. And I'm actually just seeing that there's

John Malone. I'm making him read that. I told him I read it in one sitting, so he tried. He did get halfway through.

But The Rights Fight is an excellent book. I was over at J.

Lucas's church, got to meet him. He gave me a copy of his book. Literally, I started it on my flight home, and I couldn't put it down.

I came home and just I kept reading. I finished most of it on the plane.

But also, I can't hear Andrew, just Eli.

Well, that sounds like a problem that Tyler has. That's good. I can make fun of Tyler all

I want. Tyler's sort of in here. It sounded like he was in his car. Yeah, he's probably in his car.

Andrew, while you're working on that, if people are interested on my YouTube channel, Revealed Apologetics, I actually do a screen share where I scroll through my

Kindle library. It's just a bunch of apologetics and theology books if people want to get ideas as to what are some books that might be interesting to them.

Yeah. So I don't know if Tyler's here and can't hear me. That won't be so good. But he went out, so he's probably going to try to come back in.

All right. So if Tyler's going to come in, then we won't switch topics to talking about Eric Hernandez.

I mean, for folks who don't know Eric Hernandez believes in –

I was going to say – now I'm going to say it wrong because I have it – Molinism?

Molinism. Instead of – I'm going to end up talking – modalism.

I have difficulty with those two words. But all right.

So here's – I don't know if this is – we've got Danny coming in, so let's see if Danny has any questions tonight.

Danny looks like he's in the dark. Yeah, that's spooky. And he's gone. Okay. So, you know, this is the thing that we used to have with – here's

Tyler. Oh, Tyler, you're sideways, and you are driving. I am driving.

Am I sideways? Yeah. He looks the right way to me. Oh, really? Yeah, he looks –

Brad does weird things here in California. Yeah, yeah. Everything's upside down over there. Yeah.

Although the weather's probably nice. What's the temperature over there right now? 60 degrees.

Oh, I hate you. I don't know. What do we have here? I don't even know what the temperature is right now.

Yeah, it's – oh, yeah, he looks fine on – that's interesting, yeah. He looks fine on YouTube. So, all right.

He just looks sideways to me. 60 and sunny in sideways

California. I've often thought that, you know, Tyler's – some of Tyler's theology is sideways.

So, you know, it's fitting. We could go back to talking infant baptism.

We could. So, Tyler, we were talking about the debate you had. I'll give a quick synopsis of what

I had said earlier, but then we want to talk to you about that debate. I thought you did an excellent job in the opening, and as I told you,

I only watched the openings. You did a good job explaining all of the different views of atheism, how it's changed over time, why you think it changed to what it is.

And he did his opening as if he didn't hear anything you said, almost blew you off.

And it's just like, oh, well, you know, people don't really know what they're talking about. You know, like just poison the well and ad hominem right out of the gate.

And I was like, oh, OK, this isn't going to be – this is not even going to be a debate. Yeah, it's – you know, he's a nice guy, but it stayed that way pretty much the rest of the time, where he didn't really handle or address anything that I had actually argued or said.

My friend Mark Lambert, actually, he had probably the funniest synopsis of the entire debate, which is that Eric, instead of trying to refute my views, decided to give real -life examples to prove my point.

Oh, yes. Yes, yes. You have to watch the rest of it. I was telling

Andrew before, Tyler, that some people suggested that, well, this conversation was a waste of time.

I was listening to it, and I was thinking to myself, this conversation is not a waste of time. It was so useful.

He literally fell into everything you would hope that an opponent would fall into.

Pretty much. He exemplified every point you were trying to make. And at one point, it almost seemed like he didn't have a response, so he almost kind of tried to turn the conversation into you were kind of being condescending and kind of bullying him.

And I'm just like, dude, come on, stay on topic. You did an excellent, excellent, excellent job.

Well, thank you. Yeah, I think at that point, that was the end of the open discussion before I went to Q &A.

And, you know, throughout the entire discussion, he kept trying to demonstrate my point, that the entire rhetorical move is to try to shift away from having a burden of proof, which he just kept doing over and over again, trying to shift it to me defending

Christianity or theism or something. And I kept having to remind him, look at the top.

That's not the topic of the debate. You know, repeatedly over and over. And at the end of that section,

I was just asking him what he was trying to say. Well, if you listen, you'd understand my position.

I'd say, look, your worldview is philosophical naturalism with, you know, a pretty strong dose of materialism.

Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, then what's your worldview? And he basically turned it back into, well, you're being condescending.

And, you know, it just turned into kind of an emotional collapse at that point. All right.

We do have a question that's coming in for Eli. Eli, do you remember when we were, the first time we met, it was at the

South Jersey Apologetics Conference. I was speaking, Matt was speaking. You met John Malone there.

I don't know if you remember he came to dinner with us. So John's asking you back from that debate.

He says, hey, Eli, who do you think won the debate on charismatic gifts back in South Jersey Apologetics Conference?

Oh, man. Matt or Andrew. To be perfectly honest, I don't remember the details.

I do tend to resonate with Matt's position. And that doesn't mean

I think it's true out of Matt. I mean, I grew up in a Pentecostal church. So I very much am sympathetic towards that understanding.

When I say sympathetic, I don't mean I hold to it. I mean that I understand where they're coming from. For me,

I don't know where I stand on the issue of charismatic gifts. That's not the question, though.

I'm getting there. And even John's now saying, what a cop out. Well, come on.

That was such a long time ago. Well, what I'm saying is I don't have my own position on that. And so when

I was listening to you guys, I don't remember the specific argumentation you guys are using. But I was almost kind of like agnostic towards the end.

It didn't sway me one way or the other. I just tended to resonate with what Matt was saying, but really didn't come to the conclusion.

So I don't know. There was a guy there that actually agrees with Matt's position but admitted that I won the debate at this point.

Matt's whole argument was 1 Corinthians 1 .7, where he says that the church will not lack any charismatic gift.

And I said, yeah, it's not lacking it because there's no need. A lack requires a need. He's like, why does a lack require a need?

And I just read the dictionary definition for lack. And that's when he goes, you won the debate at that point because that was funny.

How many years ago was that? That was probably like two or three years ago now. I feel like every time I'm on here, it eventually will go back to charismatic gifts.

All of the discussions blur. No, it doesn't. It doesn't always go back. I was gone for, what, two weeks, and you and Matt were talking.

In my absence, you guys are doing charismatic gifts. But there's

John trying to get us off topic as usual. So, OK, back to atheism. Look, the sun is just setting there in California.

Yeah, you've got good lighting in your car, man. He wears a light jacket, you know.

A little windbreaker. Yeah, that's horrible. But I'll be out.

Hey, Tyler, I'll be out to see you in a few weeks. So, you know. Yeah, yeah, you're coming out, right? Yep, I'll be out there.

So we'll have to do our annual dinner. All right, so what's going on over by Tyler?

Conference or something? Yeah, Shepard's Conference. All right, we've got a question coming in for Tyler from Atomic Apologetics.

Question for Tyler, ketchup or barbecue sauce? Barbecue sauce because ketchup is what people taste like.

People taste so good, man. I mean, I like barbecue. That's a tie for me. I don't know. Saints Edified said this,

Eric the Atheist, quote, you believe in magic because you think God created everything, unquote.

So I guess that was a quote from the debate. Do you remember the context of that? Yeah, I mean, he was largely just trying to, again, he has no frame of reference for when he's making a claim versus when he's not.

He kept sliding back and forth between the autobiographical sense of atheism and the philosophical sense, and he kept, you know,

I'm not making claims, but you believe in magic. And I'm like, you're making claims that are couched within the presuppositions of your worldview.

You just don't realize it. But he was trying to say that I believe in magic because I believe

God created everything. And I said, I don't believe in magic. That's your own pejorative definition and use of the term magic, which is ironic because he wanted to continue to fall back and say, well, you know, you guys can't define terms for us.

And I was like, okay, I mean, I'm not trying to define. You can say atheism means a slice of roast beef if you want to.

I don't care if you use it that way. I'm just going to point out when you're going to be inconsistent with your own rhetoric.

But the irony is when he continued to go back through and say, okay, well this is what magic has to mean, and so therefore you have to believe it.

This is what faith means, and therefore you have to believe it. I mean, it was just the inconsistencies were just glaring.

Yeah. And someone's asking where was the debate. So folks who came in late, that debate could be seen on the

Gospel Truth YouTube channel. And Marlon is in here now in YouTube. So we were talking about you earlier if you weren't listening,

Marlon. Oh, well. But let me run this by you guys and see what your thoughts are, because this is an argument that I'm thinking of trying out next time

I get an atheist that tells me I believe in magic. I want to ask him what kind of magic, like how are you defining magic?

Are you defining magic as something that has, that's a it looks like something is happening when really it's an illusion.

You know, it's a slight a hand where it looks like you're pulling a rabbit out of a hat, but the rabbit was actually in the hat.

You just couldn't see it. Or are you using magic as something that wasn't, that just pops into existence because they're going to mean it more as the latter,

I think, which is exactly. I think they just, I think they just collapse into they, because they're anti -supernaturalist, they just collapse magic to mean any supernatural explanation, right?

If it's a supernatural explanation that doesn't use natural causation, that doesn't use exclusively natural causation, then it's magic.

Okay. But here's the thing, if they're going to say that because that's going to be the popping into existence.

So how did matter begin? Because that is magic there, their definition that, that there was something and that something was nothing and that nothing became everything.

Yeah. Well dealing with like, like, like Eric, I mean, he's going to, he's going to run full steam back into saying, well, you know,

I don't have to say what brought the universe into existence. I, you know, I can, it, it's more intellectually honest to say,

I don't know. Then, then to say an answer. And I, you know, if you genuinely are agnostic about the question, then sure.

But if you're, if you're, you know, if you're, if you're a naturalist, if you're a materialist, you're not agnostic.

You have beliefs about, about what, what it came into existence. You're an anti -supernaturalist for a reason.

So therefore you think it happened naturally, but then, then so all nature came about naturally because nature actually,

I mean, it just, it becomes incoherent. here's the thing, right? You take Richard Dawkins and his, his book,

I think it was divine watchmaker. He says in the beginning that though the universe looks like it, it's designed, it has the appearance of design.

He then says, but it isn't, well, that's illusion, right? So he's arguing for illusion.

It looks like it's designed, but it really isn't. That's magic. Or you want to go with Stephen Hawking's, that there was in the beginning was nothing.

And that nothing was something, and that something exploded into everything. That's the magic that they're, that they try to say was supernatural.

Either way, they're the ones that have the magic. We don't have magic. We have a creator who created that's not magic.

That's something we see creators create things. He created out of nothing, but he's a different kind of creator.

Now, if they're going to say, well, that is by that definition, you have magic. They have the same thing, and they're never going to go down that road, right?

They're not going to sit there and argue. Cause this was done. We said before you came in there, the whole thing you did with the definitions shows that what you have with the atheism today is they don't want to defend their arguments.

They're looking to debate with what we came up with a new term, at least new for us.

Eli and I came up with the term ignorant arrogance. Cause that's really what it is.

They're, they're complete ignorant. They don't want to, they don't want to educate themselves on it, but they act arrogantly and they think their arrogance gives them the answer.

Um, Matt. Yeah. I mean, I, I would try to stay on the site, the apologizing of it, but I mean, it is being an appeal towards, um,

I kind of, I would say maybe like a dogmatic ignorance. Um, uh, we, we saw this in, in my debate, with Tom jump and every debate that he ever does, where he, he said, he thinks that basically, well, if I can appeal to any type of alternative or how ridiculous, um, then that somehow is a, is a viable petition as an explanation to the existence of God.

Therefore you can't exist because I can just pause it. Any type of alternative.

I can, I can deposit, you know, I can pause it. Slip of swipes. Yeah. And, and, and, uh, again, there's this, this rapid shotgun approach of, uh, suggesting, um, other explanations, like in your discussion with Tom jump, the whole flying spaghetti monster.

And he, and he could, you know, list all of these things as though they're genuine options.

But when you actually analyze it, the concepts are not even coherent or they'll have to look something like what we would understand as God anyway.

But you just want to pejoratively call it the, you know, the flying spaghetti monster or the, the unicorn or, or whatever the case may be.

which proves that they have a science of the gaps, right? I mean, they claim you have a God of the gaps, but they, they can't explain this.

They see, they have the, they have the, in their argument they're making, they have the same problem. They just want to ignore their side of the problem.

Um, let me, let me throw this out. John asks this, how do you tell the difference between design and the appearance of design?

What do you guys say? Well, this is a question that I, that I bring up, you know,

I, I brought up in, in the debate, um, because when I was asking him for, for, for what evidence he would actually accept to falsify his view that, and, and come to believe that God exists.

Uh, he, he couldn't, he couldn't do it. He couldn't come up with anything that would falsify his view. There's no, there's nothing.

There's, there's no possible evidence that, that would have him believe in God. Um, was, was the outcome of that, of that section.

Even when I said, okay, well, um, uh, you know, what if, what if the stars of the sky rearranged and, and said

Yahweh made this? He initially tried to say, well, yeah, that'd be evidence. But then when we tried to explore it, he said, well, you know,

I'd have to make sure, you know, my mind isn't just a pattern forming machine, and we'd have to, just because it's statistically improbable, and, and all this kind of stuff.

And so the, the question becomes, I mean, if you're gonna do that, then at what level does evidence ever serve for design?

Because I could, I could always say, okay, well, you know, someone claims that they, that they wrote a book.

Oh, I mean, great. But how do I, how do I know that, I mean, it, it could be,

I, you know, how do I know that I'm not being deceived by age, by aliens? How do I know I'm not hallucinating? How do I know that it, you know, that it didn't randomly appear in my,

I could do this for, for literally any explanation, any claim of explanation. It just, it makes no explanations explicable.

You know, when I'm on the street, it's a little different than in a, in a formal debate. And so you have to be a little bit more creative because you have a crowd there as well, right?

I've done this, I've done this a couple of times, and it's always funny. I'll, I'll get someone and I'll say, okay, what, what, what evidence would you accept that God exists?

You, you tell me what evidence would it take? I had a guy once, he goes, he puts his hand out and goes, if God puts a hamburger in my hand right now,

I believe I said, what if God puts the, the money for a hamburger in your hand right now?

Will you bow your knee and believe in Jesus? He goes, yes. So I pulled $5 out. I walked over to, I slapped it in his hand.

I said, there you go. Bow your knee. And he's like, you did that. I'm the vessel that God used.

I got, and I got up on the, I got up on my box and went, folks, a Jewish Christian giving away money.

That's not a miracle. But I said to him,

I let you define the miracle, but any, it doesn't matter what the miracle is.

You'll rationalize it. The parting of the red sea, you'll go, it's the Reed sea. It was just, it wasn't perfectly dry.

They're going to, because they have a confirmation bias. And for folks that don't know what that is, let me, hold on.

Let me define confirmation bias real quick. Confirmation bias is when people start with the conclusion, they only accept information that, that agrees with the conclusion.

Anything that disagrees with the conclusion, they throw out. There's a way illustrate this. That's a real fun way, but I'll get to it after Eli.

Well, I think what people bring up also is like, if there's an event, that's a miracle, it's like, well, well, can we test it?

Can it be repeatable? And they start making these qualifications, which just diminishes the miracle from being a miracle.

If it happens regularly and you can test it to predict it, what prevents you from positing some other naturalistic explanation for it?

And so I think Tyler, Tyler might've brought that out. I'm not sure if it was in your discussion with Eric or someone else, but he, but you brought it out.

It was the talking snake portion. That's right. That's right. So, so like miracles by definition are not, you know, they're not things you just commonly see, you know, all over the place.

And if you do see them, then you, you know, it's not miraculous. It's just a normal thing. And then you come up with another naturalistic explanation to explain it away.

So again, I think Tyler did an excellent job exposing the insufficient,

I would say self contradictory standard of what constitutes evidence. And, and Marlon agrees that he,

I have his quote up here, you know, Tyler can't read this. So I'll read it to him. It says, Tyler did a great job at exposing

Eric's biases. Thus, Greg Bonson is correct. There are no neutrality.

And it's a good thing that Tyler's not reading, because if he did, he would have seen this one earlier that we put up from John Malone that says, pay attention to the road.

I don't want you to run over Ray comfort and his cool dog. Unless he's walking across dead.

Stop traffic on, on, on one Oh one. I doubt that's going to happen. Yeah. Traffic in LA is, is a different animal.

And, and Marlon's folks are saying for you to come on in if you want, but you know, here, here's what I do to, to expose confirmation bias.

And I don't know if you guys have seen me do this before, but I've done this on the street. I did this at the reason rally was the first time that I did this.

I had a guy that came up and he, I was trying to explain to him because no matter what arguments people were giving, he's just making excuses.

He's just writing it off. I ended up saying to him, I said, look, let me expose what you're doing.

I said, what I want you to do is give me evidence. I said, your name is Steve. You were born in Italy in 1915, prove that I'm wrong.

And no matter what he gave me, he's like, he goes, look at, he goes, look at my driver's license.

I was like, Steve, I had a fake one of those when I was, you know, 17. And of course I have to keep calling him

Steve. I think I forget his name now, but you know, so he's like, well, look at my birth certificate.

This was back a few years ago. I was like, you can have a fake one of those. Even, even Barack Obama has a fake one of those, which

I was glad he actually left at that. I, I could have used my grandmother who had a fake birth certificate to get into the country.

But you know, he's like, well ask my parents. I'm like, Steve, they've been lying to you all your life.

They're not going to tell you the truth now. And so he eventually like threw up his hands and he's like, there's no argument

I can make that you can't make an excuse around it. I said, exactly. That's exactly what you're doing.

You're not looking at, at what I'm saying to you and giving it an honest evaluation. You have confirmation bias.

You start with that conclusion. And then you, you look at that. So we had, we do have an atheist though, that's in here, or at least it's watching what you can join.

If you want easy rider, just go to apologize, live .com and you could, there's a link to participate on stream yard.

So he says, though, as an atheist, I already know what will convince me.

I want what Paul had on his Damascus road, conversion, special revelation combined with a form of theos.

So you have special revelation. It's called the Bible. Yeah. That is special revelation.

You don't need any more. any, anything he says, if it was good enough for Paul, why not good enough for me?

He's speaking to Ethan, Ethan, but the issue is, um, Paul didn't need that.

Paul already knew God existed just like you do easy rider. I mean, the only difference between Paul and him is

Paul wasn't suppressing it. Well, the question for easy rider would be,

I mean, if, if any natural explanation is intrinsically more plausible than a supernatural one, um, why, why would, why would that convince him that God, why would, why would that experience convince him to believe in God?

Like, why, why wouldn't he go get his head checked? Why wouldn't he think that he had a hallucination? Why wouldn't he think that, that he, you know, had been temporarily drugged and undercame, you know, uh, suggestive recommendations.

Why, why wouldn't he say, why wouldn't, again, why wouldn't he think aliens tricked him? I mean, why, what, what about that piece of evidence would lead him to then say, therefore there is a transcendent

God and creator of the universe who exists and I must worship it. See, that's the reason why it's not, it's not about evidence per se.

I mean, evidence does play a role, but it really is an issue of a change of heart. And that's something that God's going to have to do.

And we hope that God does something like that when we're discussing the gospel with that person or giving evidence, but it's never just merely you need evidence.

It's, it's something, uh, it's, it's, it has to do a lot with the heart. Um, and I know people who,

Hey, I need evidence. I need evidence. I had a friend, I used to be in a band a long time ago and no, I didn't have, I need, I need evidence of that.

I actually am a singer. I, I, I don't,

I don't believe in anything. And, um, my guitar player, uh, we were Christian, strong Christians and, uh, years passed.

And eventually I found that he became an atheist. Um, and I met up with him and we, we took a nice long walk and he's like, man,

I just don't see any evidence. I don't see any evidence. And we kept talking, talking. And eventually when we finished our long, long walk, he looks at me and says, you know what?

Even if you did give me evidence, I wouldn't believe in a God. And I was like, well, you could have saved us the walk.

If you admitted that towards the beginning. And I, I mean, I knew it wasn't just an issue of evidence. It's, it's, it's a hard issue.

It, there's much more than just show me and then I'll believe. Yeah. And, and this is a question I'm going to ask you.

So easy, right? I asked something that I want to, I'm going to ask you, it'd be better if he comes in here. Cause it's a lot easier. There's the delay that makes it hard, but, uh, he, he ends up saying this, if God cannot make the, if God cannot make the experience revelatory to the point that it would be undeniable, then it's not revelation.

Is it, um, it, it, it, it is undeniable. You already know God exists. You, you suppress that.

But here's, here's the question for you. Easy rider. This is the question that when we, the first reason rally, when we went out that we were asking all of the professing atheists, if I gave you that evidence to your satisfaction, would you worship

God? Cause the thing that amazed us person after person, after person that we asked it to hundreds of people, every one of them at the reason rally.

No. So then it doesn't matter about the evidence. It's not about evidence. Cause the evidence isn't going to commit.

Cause most of these guys already, we asked, you know, ask that question of R and raw, you know?

Okay. Would you, if we, if we, if we satisfied to your satisfaction that God exists, would you worship?

No. Okay. You know, and then this isn't an evidence issue. It's a spiritual issue.

Right. And I, and I think that, that it's interesting that he says, well, you know, if God couldn't make it so that it was undeniable,

I mean, you could suppress it. Paul's experience was deniable. He could have said I was hallucinating.

Yeah. Um, you know, he, he could, he could have, if, if they had concept aliens, he could have said it wasn't

God. It was, it was ancient aliens. You know, he could have been the guy in the history channel. I mean, he,

I think he's your writer is the one that said, you know, experienced like Paul. Well, Paul could have, if he was suppressing the truth, he could have, you know, denied that.

So notice that easy writer is already changing the, the, the, he's already shooting the goalposts.

Okay. Let's, um, Tyler, let's take a look at someone that did, did have the same evidence, even more so than Paul, Judas.

Yep. Judas saw all the miracles. He saw, he saw all the claims. He saw Jesus do all that, but it wasn't an evidence issue.

So did the Pharisees. So did the Pharisees. Good example. Okay. A question that came in for you here,

Tyler, from saints edified. Don't read it on the screen. You keep, keep your eyes on, on the traffic in front of you.

That's like dead. I know you're probably only doing like five miles an hour. Cause that's LA, but pretty much.

Yeah. Tyler in, in the, you're like, you're like this big. I can't read it. Even if I want it, it says

Tyler in the debate, you said that you would believe in evolution or something to that effect.

If the evidence was sufficient, do you remember that? Can you explain? I said was,

I, I don't really, I don't really know. I'm agnostic. I haven't studied it. It's, you know, it's asking me about evolution is like asking you about the chemical composition on the third planet, you know, orbiting

Alpha and Tauri. I, I don't know. I, I don't know. I understand that it's the majority view.

I understand that there are, there are, you know, people who argue for it and against it that have degrees, you know, that have relevant degrees in it.

Zero idea. I have a hunch that from what I know of the philosophical considerations of something like the neo -Darwinian synthesis, but that's almost certainly false because then you're getting into issues of, of, you know, information theory and creativity and you're just getting into, you're getting into the realm that I do know things about, which

I just find that improbable. But as, as far as, as some of the other issues,

I just have no idea. And, and I just, I mean, for those that know my, my view on, on Genesis and such, and even if you disagree, you know that I just,

I don't think that it's a helpful or relevant topic really that much. So.

Yeah. Well, easy rider said this and I, yeah, I'd still challenge easy rider to come on in and, you know, have a discussion here, but I probably, he probably won't.

But easy rider says, apologetics doesn't convince me you're right. And you can quote the scripture until the cows turn blue.

I have no reason to believe that the scriptures are true. I think he was trying to get something to rhyme, you know, saying till the cows come home, you know, but, but notice, but notice what he says.

I mean, going back to, going back to, I mean, the, the initial reaction that I have to, to his original, well, if God did this for me, to Eli's point, it already shows a bad disposition of the heart that you don't want to believe, because it says it, it doesn't say, you know,

I live in God, and that description, it says, God, you need to come to me on my,

I'll believe when you bow down to me, God, and you do what I want, right? It already shows that you're dispositionally opposed to believing in God as God.

But beyond that, I mean, notice what the answer is. The, the answer is, well, uh, he's, like Paul.

And so when we say, well, you brought that up, so let's use that data. Paul could have falsified.

He goes, well, I don't believe the Bible anyways. I mean, okay, but this is like, this is like when

I asked Eric, what evidence would count for evidence for you? And he starts, oh, well, a talking snake and a party in the red seat.

And I say, okay, okay, okay. Let's, let's start with the talking snake. If I brought in a snake and sat down in front of you and started talking, would that be evidence for the existence of God?

Well, you know, I'd want to see under what conditions that happened over vocal cords.

I'm like, well, but if all that happened, if it happened under repeatable conditions, then it's not a miracle.

It just, right. I think, like, I think it's, that's a great point.

That's a great point. If we could stick with, um, easy riders, um, standard, he says, if that happened to him, he would, he would believe it's easy to say that over a text.

Um, but when that's examined, I mean, we'd have to, I mean, we're, we're not going to get you just by responding to a text, but if we were in conversation, we'd have to press that and see if that's actually the case.

Because from our experience and from the experience with Tyler's interaction with, um, uh, with Eric and in my debate with Eric, um, that's the same issue.

You can say, all I need is evidence and here's what it would be. And then when you actually examine that, it's actually not the case that that was the thing that would convince you.

So, um, yeah, we can't convince you here, uh, talking on a three face, you know, three, three windows screen.

But if we were having a conversation, we'd want to explore that a little bit to see if that's actually the case. And I think people in the chat are exposing the fact that they're asking him, have you read the

Bible? He hasn't, I don't, unless I missed it. I don't think he answered that. Uh, but some people are saying that he hasn't read it.

So maybe he did answer and I didn't see it, but my guess is he probably hasn't read the Bible. Like most that say that the

Bible is full of contradictions. Haven't, they haven't researched it. That is the right there.

When you see people that do that, that shows you the amount of convincing they really need, right?

They know the Bible can't be trusted, but they haven't actually researched anything of it. Right? Well, we don't, we don't know that that's the case with, no, we don't, but with easy rider, we don't know.

Um, unless, unless he said it, or, you know, so the question for easy rider, did you, have you a read the

Bible? Uh, have you studied the Bible? If you've read it, if you've read it and studied it to what level have you studied, have you done textual criticism, things like that?

Because what I find with most professing atheist is they say that the Bible can't be trusted, but they haven't studied it at all.

They haven't, they haven't even read it for many of them. And so what you find is this is the level of convincing that they, they, they have, when it comes to the

Bible, they have a conclusion without any research. But then they say, but you have to give them convincing evidence.

Well, you didn't, you don't need convincing evidence. You believe the Bible can't be trusted. Not, not based on convincing evidence because you haven't studied that.

So therefore it's on either what someone else says or just what you want to be true.

Yeah. Or, or they read it purely to, to proof text it and try to pick it apart.

Cause they have a motivated bias to try to find things. This is why you get things like, well, the

Bible is false because it says bats are birds and it says pie is exactly three.

I mean, you just get, you get silly nonsense like that because to be honest, I mean,

I, you know, I'm trying to be as nice and charitable as I can, but they just, they just don't know how to read the literature well.

And, and they, and they come with this kind of anti -intellectual benefit. If I, if I give it the most, the most cursory,

I asked to possibly give to it. Then I, then I've read it and, and therefore it's stupid and false.

Yeah. We ought to be, we want to be careful too. There are very educated people who have studied the scriptures and are very acquainted with how the

Bible came to be and still reject it. Um, but we would still argue that their rejection is not justified because oftentimes there are some philosophical underpinnings that prevent them from coming to, um, uh, you know, the positive conclusion that Bible's true.

Sometimes their standard of evidence of what right back to that conversation again, what constitutes evidence that would demonstrate that the

Bible is true. What do you mean by demonstration? Are you saying that the evidence that we provide must, must prove that the

Bible is true with a hundred percent certainty? Or are you trying to ask us to prove that the Bible is most probably true?

I mean, you're a different way that people can, their presuppositions will affect how they interpret the evidence provided.

And we'd have to examine those. It's not an issue of just merely laying out evidence, you know, uh, that the person's asking for.

And taking a point that humble clay says, he says this, there's a lot of quote Christians on quote that haven't studied or read the

Bible. That's true. And that brings up something I want to say with that because a lot of these professing atheists say, well,

I read the Bible or you take like a Matt to Hunty. I read the Bible when I was Christian, right?

So there's, there's people who grew up in a Christian home and may have read the

Bible once in a while, maybe even read it cover to cover. Okay. Let's give, you know, Oh, here we go.

Here I see an answer here. Easy rider saying I've spent the better part of 40 years studying the scripture and still love studying it from a purely historical perspective today.

And so, you know, now that would be, you know, the, the, what level of study there's, there's those who can, who can read,

I can, I can sit and read the book of Mormon. I could read doctrine and covenants and Pearl of Great Price.

Those are the three works that you'd have three of the four. You also have the Bible in Mormonism.

I can read the Quran. I could just read them, but I could tell you as someone who's written a systematic theology on those religions, there's a big difference between just reading the

Quran and reading it for the purpose of understanding what they believe.

Now I could read it to nitpick and it would be much easier because I don't have,

I wouldn't have to try to make good arguments. And that's what most atheists do. They read it to nitpick.

And that's what Tyler was saying. But if you're, if you're studying it to see what the proper position is, and this is the issue

I have with Matt Delahunty, he says he used to be a Christian. Well, then he didn't really study the scriptures because if he had studied the scriptures, then he would have known that the position that the

Bible teaches is that if you walk away from the faith, like he claims he did, then he was never a

Christian, but he still claims he was a Christian. Well, in my, in my debate with Eric, we talked about the

Trinity when we talked about internal worldview critiques. And then I invited him to internally critique my worldview.

And he brought up the Trinity and he says, well, you believe this about the Trinity. And he flat out wrecked it.

It was kind of like God is three beings and three persons. He had this weird convoluted definition of the

Trinity. That wasn't the case. And I was amazed if you grew up as a Christian, how could you not properly understand a basic concept, not the ins and outs in the philosophical issues that you can get into, but just the basic definition of the

Trinity. So saying that you were once a Christian doesn't really say that much, unless you're able to demonstrate, you know, this is what

Christians believe and represented accurately. So let's see.

Question I came in is why doesn't, why does nobody respond to the confirmation bias question?

So I'm not sure which by which question. So if he could put that, maybe

I skipped that. So just put that in there. If anyone wants to come and join, and that's, that's the best way to do it.

You can ask any questions or give challenges. I would, it'd be good for easy rider to come on in and, you know, just go to apologetics, live .com,

click the link to, to participate. John Malone here says,

I tried to pick the Bible apart. Then I became a Christian. That happens too.

That does. Atomic apologetics says, I think

I keep waiting for police lights to light up behind Tyler. I'm hands free.

I'm not holding the phone. I'm, I'm compliant. You better. You're on the, you're on YouTube.

Matt Yester. He's a, I think I was trying to click on a different Matt. Yester one.

But anyway, he's saying easily answered. Neutrality is a myth regarding the ultimate issue.

Matt Yester, you have not been in here in a very, very long time. You should get on here. That saddens me.

By the way, Matt Yester is one of my favorite presuppositional is when I have questions, unapologetic,

I call that man and we are, I know for three hours. I wish he'd come on. That'd be awesome.

Matt is really smart, really good. And I don't know why he doesn't come in here more often.

I think maybe because he's bald. He doesn't want to discord. Yeah, he's on, he's rocking it on discord.

He's always discord. I don't, I don't have time for discord. Um, and, and I guess this is to, uh,

John is saying you can even join by phone. So, so there you go. Um, all right.

So, so let's, let's deal with the, you know, on the area of, of atheism, you know, the atheists think that they have really good arguments for atheism.

So, you know, my challenge is what is the best arguments you guys have heard for atheism?

Because I don't typically hear arguments for atheism. I hear arguments against Christianity, and that's not actually an argument for atheism.

Uh, well, me personally, the big thing I keep, Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, Tyler. Oh, I was just going to say,

I mean, I think that's, I think that's largely right. And that was part of the point that was making is that, um, when, when they say things like, you know, atheism is evidence -based and atheism is true.

And atheism is reasonable. Uh, I mean, they're, they're, they're using atheism in the philosophical sense, which, which can no longer mean

I merely lack a belief, right? Because that's merely lacking a belief. It's not a diagram of the scripture.

It's like saying, I have brown hair. I'm five foot 10. It's, it's not, it's not a, it's a statement of fact about my person, not a metaphysical claim about the way that causes actually is to say, atheism is reasonable or atheism is evidence -based.

Well, if, if you just need atheism, it's lack of belief. Then all you're saying is it's evidence -based that I have brown hair.

Okay. Cool. That's neat. Um, but that, that doesn't really help anything.

That's right. And then they shift. So the philosophical definition really is the, there is no

God position. Am I correct? Right. And then their, their colloquial definition is

I lack belief. So they'll say, when you ask them, I lack belief, but then when they interact with you, they'll shift from that, that popularized definition to the more philosophical definition and then jump back into the more, you know,

I lack belief, the kind of the psychological description, which we were talking about before you came on Tyler, uh, which if atheism really just boils down to a lack of belief, then it's true.

By definition, you're just defining a, you're just describing your psychological state. and that's,

I mean, this is what he's, the writer is saying. He says, what makes you think we need an argument? I'm unconvinced for the claims of the, as a makes.

That's what I was going to say before, uh, is that the most, the most, uh, common thing that I hear from the atheist is that the strongest reasons to be an atheist is that, uh, they're unconvinced of theistic arguments.

But see, that's not proof of atheism though. I, I know because even if theistic arguments fail, that doesn't demonstrate that God does not exist.

Correct. So, so if, if, so let's, let's take a different, some of the, if, if you're arguing,

I was going to use football teams, but I don't know any. Okay. Uh, if you're going to, you're going to argue that, uh,

Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all times. We, you don't do that by saying how bad

Nadal is, right? Cause that doesn't prove that Federer is great.

It just proves Nadal is not, this is what they're doing. They try to say, well, there's no, there's no good arguments for theism.

Okay. Then that doesn't prove atheism. See that the only thing that if that's the case, that would prove that there's not a good argument for theism.

That doesn't prove atheism. Now, if they're going to say it's one or the other, that it's gotta be one or the other.

Okay. Then they're saying that they do have a positive claim that God does not exist.

Not that they lack a belief, but now that now he easy rider is stuck in a, in a positive claim.

Therefore he does need an argument and does need proof. Well, but it is easy rider saying, right, right.

That's what I'm saying. Is he even saying that atheism is true? Maybe he doesn't say that. Maybe he says, I identify as an atheist because I haven't found convincing arguments.

So, but that would be agnosticism, which again, now notice if he isn't, but this is the point.

If you knock theism down, right, that doesn't prove atheism is true because you can have agnosticism.

You see, it's unless you can, unless there are only two options.

So it's, unless it's a dichotomy that you have either a or B and there's no possibility of any other options, then what he has went in, his argument is a logical fallacy called the fallacy of the excluded middle because he's, he's laying it out as if there's only two options.

There's either theism, false dichotomy, false dichotomy. Well, it's also, yeah, it's,

I didn't ever knew that there was a fallacy of the excluded middle. I thought that was a lot. It's actually, it's false dichotomy. Same, same.

Okay. You'll hear it both ways. So, but the idea of it is that there's a third option. The in his, in his analogy that he laid out, there's only two options.

And yet what we see is there's a third, you have atheism, agnosticism, and theism. You, if you disprove theism, you haven't proven atheism.

And that's the thing. If you have to have a true dichotomy to, to use that kind of rationale.

So he's saying, he's saying, let me fill that out to a little bit. The, the example, the example

I give is of Galileo. Um, people, people think that Galileo, like, proved heliocentrism.

Uh, he didn't. Galileo's, uh, conclusion ended up being true. His arguments were terrible.

Um, I mean, like, like we know this, we know the attempts that, that Galileo made to prove heliocentrism.

Were false. They were really, really bad. And they were known at his, during his lifetime, to be really, really bad.

And so, imagine that someone during his lifetime said, okay, well we can, we can prove that Galileo's arguments are false.

So, so therefore, uh, heliocentrism is false.

Well that, that doesn't follow, right? Just because the arguments for something are false, doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily false.

Right. Or if they said, well, because his arguments are false, therefore, heliocentrism is true.

Well that, that doesn't follow either. Right? You, you can't actually make those claims. So when the atheist says something like, well, um, you know, theism is, theism is false, or theism is stupid, or theism is irrational, they're not merely lacking a belief.

They are presupposing the truth of their own belief. Right. Um, uh, the, it, it is true.

And this is why I put Eric, and I was like, look, I'm sorry if you don't like how this feels, but, that's a claim to neutrality.

Right? You, you might, in the autobiographical sense, lack a belief that God exists.

Like, if all of your beliefs are a marble in a box, there's no marble in your box that corresponds to the proposition

God exists. Great. You lack that marble. But that's not the end of the story.

You're, you're not neutral. Right? The problem with defining atheism that way, is you're either an agnostic and you're not an atheist, or you're, you're feigning a humility that you don't actually have.

You're not actually neutral, because you actually possess a belief that God doesn't exist, that we live in a

God -less cosmos. Yeah. And so you're just being, you're, you're just being disingenuous. Right.

Well, here's some news, here's some news. He's here. Matt Yester, there he is.

Yeah. And so Matt, I'll let you, he looks so different.

His ears grew so big. Yeah. I'll let Matt, Matt, you can unmute yourself and then, oh, there you go.

Wow. I think this is the first time I've actually seen Matt actually show himself on camera live.

I don't think I've ever seen you put your camera on though. All right. So Matt, I'll let you respond to this one.

Easy Rider says this, either a God exists or it doesn't.

That is a true dichotomy. I put my bank on either proposition as there is no proof either way.

Withholding belief is perfectly reasonable position to hold. How does he know there's no proof?

Yeah. So Matt, what do you think? Is it a reasonable position to hold to atheism?

Because there's no way to prove either side. They have any proper standard.

His, his, I can't hear him. I don't know if you guys can hear him. I hear him. I can't hear him.

Let's see. Me. Try now. Am I muted? Okay. Test, test.

Nope. I see his mouth moving. I hear him. I wonder folks. I can hear him. Okay. Yeah. Oh, man,

I feel excluded. I'm the only one who can't hear. All right. Well, well, the question is, are people on YouTube hearing them?

So folks on YouTube, just let us know if you heard Matt. Yes, sir. He's Matt's also sideways for me.

I don't know why. So that makes me have to turn my head to read the books over his shoulder. That's really a bummer.

Now you're upside down on my, on mine. I don't know. You're upside down on mine.

Now let's see. Let's see what that actually does in YouTube. So, I mean, I would argue my position with that would be that he's, he's really not.

He's really not having a reasonable position because he's trying to say that he doesn't have to give an answer in it.

You know, he can just, oh, that's kind of neat. I just watched on YouTube that when you turned your camera,

YouTube fixed it, even though you're upside down on mine. So I guess now, yeah, that's neat.

It just, which way do I have to turn it? I don't know. On my screen, you're completely upside down right now, but whichever way you want.

I'm sure on YouTube, that's all that matters. Yeah. Now you're wide angle on YouTube. So, so,

I mean, here's the thing I would argue. If you're trying to say that it's a, that there's no way to prove that God exists or doesn't exist.

But you think it's a reasonable argument to say that, you know, he doesn't exist.

Why? Based on what? And, and then in that, why would someone think they don't need to, to actually make an argument to me?

It seems more like easy rider is like many professing atheists. He just doesn't want to have to defend his position.

Well, he's got a profit for a standard approved. What would that be? I still can't hear him.

He asked what would be the standard of proof? Yeah. Well, but notice what he said.

He said there is no proof. And so how can you say proof to me? God exists when you're already convinced that there can be no proof.

That seems, that seems problematic there. I'd have to ask him to expand on that a bit. That's why he should come in here and defend himself.

So, I mean, this, this is a, yeah, but, but he would argue he's not making a positive claim.

Well, he's saying there is no proof, but he's making obviously a philosophical position about what proof is, or that there's a lack of it.

Well, what would that be? What standard does he hold to, to prove other things?

So he, he says totally lack, lacking proof in other things. He's just saying I lack proof for a particular thing.

God. So he says, I've never stated that God does not exist.

I just don't believe the claim that he does. Again, what would you call that person?

Uh, a fool, according to the Bible. Well, I would also,

I, I mean, you're in a bad area.

Let's say, you know, the question, Oh, no, you're sounding better now. Is it better? Yeah. So think of, think of an analogous case, right?

So if someone says, well, there, there's no evidence for evolution. And so therefore

I lack a belief in evolution, right? It's easy. Right. Or going to be like, okay, well you have no proof then that's okay.

You know, I, you know, especially if I went around saying, Oh, well, you know, evolutionists are irrational and stupid and they have, you know, they, they, they believe, they believe nonsense.

Is it going to say, Oh, well, yeah, that, that jives, or is it going to say, well, one, um, there is all kinds of evidence.

You're making a false claim about the state of evidence. You need to defend your claim. And two, you just said two contradictory things.

You've just, you've just said you lack a belief, but then you also went on a positive statement of negative belief, saying that the position is false, right?

They're just, they're all over the map. They want their cake and, and, and to eat it too. And it just doesn't work that way.

Yep. That's exactly it. I mean, they, they, they want to be able to, to not have to defend their claims, but you should have to defend yours.

In fact, you should have to defend theirs. And there, and there's really not, there's really not much we can do with someone who's texting in.

I mean, we'd have to press to see if he's really, uh, would make good on what he says he's saying.

And what he thinks is actually the case in regards to once again, I mean, there's really not much you can,

I mean, if you say, I'm not convinced of arguments for God's existence and you text it in and be like, okay, like, like I can't really do anything.

There's no, there's nothing to interact with. Uh, you know, uh, we have to press his worldview, um, and show him,

I know you said it in passing, um, Andrew, that, that, that all men know God exists.

Um, but we'd have to press that to actually demonstrate that not merely to make the claim. I think a lot of people think, when we say that all men know

God exists, that we're just merely making a claim, but actually, um, within the context of worldview opposition, you have two worlds against each other.

We want to press those issues to show this is why we're making that claim. And this is how that can be demonstrated.

So there needs to be a little more interaction than just, you know, a text here or there, you know, and that's okay.

If he doesn't want to come in, that that's fine. I mean, he doesn't have to, it's if he just wants to listen and share his thoughts there.

But, um, I mean, it's very easy to throw rocks from far away. Yeah. You know, well, this goes back to what we said about, about Tyler's debate.

Right. And what we see with most of these debates with, with professing atheists is the fact that they just, they have their ignorant arrogance and they think that's sufficient.

They don't want to have to actually defend anything. They just want to throw rocks. Um, card card whiz says this, here's some questions for us.

Uh, he says, he, she should be correct. I don't know who cartwhiz is. Why does the atheist utilize reason when only matter exists in an atheist worldview?

Or am I mistaken? Who wants to answer that?

It depends. You'd have to really talk to the, to the specific atheist. I mean, I know some atheists that don't automatically commit themselves to a sort of metaphysical naturalism, uh, in the sense that all that exists is purely matter.

I mean, you could be agnostic in the sense, uh, you could be agnostic in regards to the nature of reality.

Perhaps there are some immaterial elements to, to reality and they can just refrain from, you know, making a belief in that regard.

So it depends who you're talking to. At least that's in my experience, I'd have to be careful not to assume the whole baggage, um, of the person, you know, claiming to be the atheist.

Matt, you, if you push though, if you push, most atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

If you push the buttons, uh, you know, and you kind of remove the, the layers of the onion, you know, then eventually you'll get to the point where it's like, well, yeah, you know,

I kind of believe, you know, it's matter of emotions, this type of deal, but it really does depend who you're talking with.

Matt, what do you say? Yeah, I would agree. Yeah. I wouldn't press against the wall. They'd have to lay out their view of reality and knowledge from that.

So that's trying to do, you just can't talk about one field without bringing in the other because metaphysics and epistemology are symbiotic in that, in that way.

Um, one depends upon the other, uh, for any intelligibility you want to claim regarding each one of those categories.

So, uh, how you're grounding, how you get knowledge from that view of reality. And cause you're making knowledge claims about that reality.

So there's a reciprocal and symbiotic in that fashion. Now he says this, lay out their metaphysics.

They'd have to let their view of reality. Easy writer says this, and this, this is good because this shows us why it's important to get to definitions.

He says, I'm not throwing rocks, nor am I denigrating anyone for their beliefs.

I'm not convinced for the claims. That's all. But yet he made claims that the

Bible isn't true, right? That's a claim. That is something that he, he, you know,

Andrew, what I meant, what I, cause I made the statement, what I meant by throwing rocks. I don't mean that he's trying to be insulting.

I mean, correct. It's easy to throw out the statement. There's no proof for God or I'm not convinced.

It's easy to make that statement. If the person's not willing to step out and actually, well, let's examine that.

That's what I meant. And that's why I wanted to bring it up because what, what he did there is he changes it to say, well, see,

I'm not, I'm not, you know, denigrating anyone's beliefs as if that's the meaning of throwing rocks.

Right? So it's a, it's a, it's a change, which is exactly what I thought Tyler did brilliantly in the debate with Eric is to give all the definitions.

So that really, okay. Choose a definition and we'll stick with it. Right. But then that's the whole thing.

He doesn't want to do that. And I think that's what, that was beautiful. The way that Tyler did that was to lay that out because it all, it comes down to definitions and they don't want, they don't want anything.

They just, they just want to keep throwing darts, throwing rocks, whatever you want to say to say, you're wrong.

You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. But I don't have to defend why you're wrong. Unless you have the atheist who holds to atheism and just doesn't want to argue about it.

That's fair. I mean, they're atheists who like, I don't want to argue about it. This is just what I believe, but that's not the atheist we're interacting with.

When we're interacting with YouTube atheists or people who are actually engaging, you know, you are actually making claims.

And so let's interact a little bit. You know what I mean? Yeah. And this goes back to the thing

I said, I mean, I'm not, I'm not trying to be condescending or rude, but when he says, you know, I, I merely am unconvinced by the claim.

No, you're not. I just, I just don't believe you. If you're self -identifying as an atheist and you're coming in this group and you're saying the things that you say,

I have a hard time believing that you don't have the positive belief that we either live, probably live in a godless cosmos.

That, that is that reality is godless. I just, I'm sorry.

I just, I just, maybe, maybe I'm skeptical. I'm unconvinced by your claim.

I lack, I lack a belief in your objectivity. I just, you know, you know,

I give this example. I, I could say,

Oh, well, I'm just unconvinced by the arguments of Santa Claus. Let's just disingenuous because I positively disbelieve that any being such as Santa Claus exists.

I, I think we live in a Santa less cosmos. You're describing people's worldviews right now, bro.

Come on, man. You're lucky. It's February. December's past because they would have been too close.

We'll get, we'll get, we'll get the leprechaun soon. Eli's kids are so upset with you right now.

No, we, no, my kids don't believe in Santa Claus. They know where their presents come from, bro. I make sure they know, you know, it's so easy.

Ryder did that easy. Ryder saying, I never said that I, that I don't trust the Bible. Unfortunately, I couldn't go back.

I was going to put his, the, you know, his quote back up there, but it's not, uh, I can't go back that far, but he, so here's the thing.

He's now saying he never said it yet. He said that there's, there's no evidence that you can quote the

Bible until the cows are blue. I don't believe it's true. That was what he had said.

He then defended it, that he studied it for 40 years. And now he's saying,

I never said that. And there's the issue of, we, we were never suggesting that quoting the

Bible is the way we prove the Bible. Right. I mean, we quoted until the cows turned blue.

I mean, well, that's not what we're trying to do. I don't think any of us try to prove the Bible by just quoting it. Um, we have arguments, we have things that we understand as evidence, and then those things need to be hashed out in more detail.

Okay. So, all right. So he's, he's saying here, he's here for a conversation.

If he, um, if he was here for a conversation, he'd actually come in. All right. So Jess asks this question.

She's, she's saying, Andrew, can you guys, can you discuss partial preterism? Uh, almost over.

So we, we, okay. So since the show's almost over, um, uh, any of you guys want to take a shot at partial preterism?

Uh, well, I'm a partial preterist. I don't know. However, I think we all are. All right.

Cool. Yeah. I got introduced to partial preterism through, uh, Gary DeMar's book, last day's madness, the obsession of the modern church.

And that was actually my entrance into apologetics because it was actually through Gary DeMar that I learned about this guy named

Greg. So, well, real quick. So Eli, your, your end times, you would be,

I'm a partial preterist, probably, uh, in line with, uh, Gary DeMar. And would you be on mill?

Would you be, uh, see now I, I lean, I lean towards post mill, but I'm open.

Yeah, that's good. That's good. I have a reason for doing it. Um, I sure hope that you're stuck in traffic there,

Tyler, that your arms are folded, but you'd be partial part.

Yeah. Your part. So it only two hours for him to get home and it's only a five minute, it's only a five mile ride.

Um, so your end times, you would be what? Uh, I'm, I'm, you're on mill.

I would be pre mill. So we kind of have pre mill on mill post mill, and yet we can all hold to, you know, a partial preterist view.

So the, the, a partial preterist view would, would see that, that there was some, some of the fulfillments of those prophecies, but not all full, a full preterist view would be more problematic because it would say that every prophecy that we see in scripture has been completed.

Yeah. And I think they almost all would say at the in 70 AD at the, you know, at the destruction of the temple, uh, that we wouldn't, we would disagree with.

I think all of us would disagree because we would all hold to a second coming. We just would have different views of whether there's a millennial kingdom, whether it's not when the rapture would occur.

If there is one things like that, but, but notice, and this is why I think the question was kind of good.

We have three different end times views. All of us. I don't know where Matt, where you're at with your end times, you, you may not be here because he's got, he turned his camera off.

I think, I think he's on mill. If I remember. Yeah, I couldn't remember. So, but you see it there.

They, everyone thinks that it's one camp or the other. And yet partial preterism is something I think everyone's going to hold to unless they, unless they're going to say that there's no, none of the, the, uh, prophecies have been fulfilled yet.

And I don't know anyone. I think in a sense, everyone who holds to a second coming still in the future is a partial preterist, but I don't think that's what she is meaning.

When she asked the question, partial preterism can refer to a specific view. And then if you want to push the phrase a little bit deeper than, yeah, we can make the qualification that, you know, all of us who believe in a, in a second coming in the future are partial preterist.

But I think, but I think a dispensationalist, a dispensational premillennial person, um, although technically, yeah, partial preterist, but that's not how they would identify themselves within the, within the discussion and the debates.

You know what I mean? But by the definition, by the, by the, by the definition, but I think someone who's trying to look for differentiation between the different views,

I think it would, it can be a little confusing to say, well, most Orthodox Christians who believe in a future of second coming are partial preterist.

When the, the partial preterist position that I think people usually associate with that phrase, that there are some distinctives that set it apart from say a premillennial dispensational perspective or something like that.

And this is where it's going to get hard. So she says, so the son of perdition has been revealed. Well, well, this is going to be the issue of, if you take a look, if you take a look at scripture, uh, uh, the major texts that are discussed within these, uh, eschatological discussions, you have, uh,

Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13, and then you have first Thessalonians and, and revelation, things like that.

A partial preterist who takes that many of these events, uh, you know, in, in these chapters, any section scripture took place, uh, during the time leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem.

Um, even though we hold to that understanding, that doesn't mean we are necessarily able to identify in what ways each of those prophecies were fulfilled, because it does get a little confusing.

I think what a partial preterist does is try to, um, keep very closely to understanding the context and the time contexts that give us an indication as to when something might have been fulfilled, how it's fulfilled necessarily, you're going to differ depending on which, um, which partial preterist you ask.

Was a son of perdition, Judas, or was it some future, you know, antichrist coming?

Yeah. I'd have to, I'd have to look at the specific, uh, the specific verse, which, which verse is she referring to? That I'm not sure.

Yeah. Yeah. That's why you should come in here, Jess. I could, I could, I could help you.

Uh, you, you could hold to something like a recapitulatory view, like a, like Hendrickson done or an on bill view.

Um, and you could argue that a bunch of these, uh, a bunch of these positions, uh, a bunch of these, um, these types, uh, have, have multiple, uh, you know, archetypal fulfills throughout, throughout history.

Um, so that way, that, that's why John can say many, many antichrists have come, uh, and yet he'll talk about the coming of the antichrist, because you could, you could have archetypal filaments.

So you could have the first antichrist being someone, you know, possibly Caesar Nero, um, who, who

John would be referred to as, as the antichrist. You could also, um, have kind of a, a recapitulation or reiteration of that type throughout history as the persecutor of the church, the one who's out trying to seek and destroy the bride of Christ.

But there still might be a final, um, uh, uh, version of it that comes about.

So it's, it's not necessarily a, it already came or it's going to come that, you know, it doesn't have to be that.

I, and I agree with you there, but we do want to be careful with the double fulfillment concept running amok.

I mean, we can't take that and just run with it. There are limits. We don't want to just assume, well, I'm going to hold to this specific position because it's still possibly true that there can be another fulfillment.

So I agree with you there, there has been double fulfillment in scripture. And, but I think taking that interpretive principle, we need to be very cautious.

Um, and, and again, it's not easy. Are you saying that my neighbor is not a fulfillment of the son of perdition?

Is that what you're trying to say? Your neighbor? You never met him. You don't know.

All right. So, so, Oh, John, John left. John Wilkinson was in here.

I was going to play something. I wanted him here for it, but, but so we got two, two things to wrap up.

I figure you guys can enjoy this. Uh, this was one time I'm going to play two clips for, for those that atheists, this is listen to the logic that, that this is the logic of atheists.

When you try to get them to actually pin them down on things, even if it's simple things, they have a hard time.

This was a discussion Matt had, uh, on the show with an atheist. So let's listen to this.

You said statements either true or false. I gave you a statement and you said it doesn't apply to that.

It's not only to that statements would be either true or false. So is it true that I'm talking to you?

Is it true? That is true statement. I'm talking to you. Is that true? Yes. Okay. Is it true that babies exist?

Um, well, I mean, babies exist. Babies exist.

Babies exist. Is that true? Or is it not the case? That is true. Um, I mean, if you want to go down and be, you know, if you want to be very strict about it,

I would be skeptical about, okay, we're done talking. No, that caused this response from John Wilkinson.

Ready? This was good. There's no sense in having a conversation with someone who, who just can't even recognize the statement that babies exist.

Well, you're blah, blah. Give me a break. We're never going to get anywhere. He's not, uh, he's not having a normal conversation.

We're just going to move on to something else. It's ridiculous. He's not interested in a conversation. No, no, he's just interested in arguing.

That's all. I just know. I just trapped him. I already decided as soon as I said, you know, how's he going to answer this one?

Babies exist. If he gives me a hard time, I was moving on, you know? All right.

John, you had some, you want something? I was going to say, he doesn't want to have a conversation. You asked him a very simple question.

Do babies exist? And he has to dodge that? Well, I mean, if you want to be, if you want to be very strict, it's a simple question.

It's simple. It's simple. It's a simple freaking question.

Come on. John's a little fire.

I'm just going to move it. I want to get a t -shirt. I want to get a t -shirt.

I want to get a t -shirt. Well, I kid you not, man.

You guys will do anything you can to deny God. You will do anything. You will do anything to deny

God. You guys are geeks. I don't deny God. So, tell us what you really think,

He's sad, there. I'm telling you, man. I just, bro. I have to wear Matt's, uh, mole tricker.

All right. So, there's, there's no babies. Any, any, any chance of, any chance to play that John clip?

It's like, it's like any, it's like any chance to play the, the, the fake Greg Bonson fried chicken clip.

There's no babies. It doesn't matter how bad of a mood I am ever in.

Just playing that clip always gets me laughing. My favorite part is there's no babies.

No babies. All right. So we'll wrap, we'll wrap up with this. Came in from Cameron.

We were talking about magic. earlier. So he sent in a definition for magic case for us to use.

So here it is. Definition of someone who believes in magic.

Quote, a person or persons who believes Jeffrey Epstein killed himself, unquote.

All right.

Well, thanks for coming in. So maybe next week, Tyler, you'd probably enjoy this too. Maybe next week we'll put, we'll pick up the, uh, the topic of, uh, you know, uh,

I'm going to say more Molinism. I was going to say it wrong again. Uh, so maybe we pick up Molinism next week.

Um, and that's one that Tyler you've dealt with on your podcast on, on the freed thinker freed thinker.

That's a D at the end for folks, the freed thinker podcast. Um, you did, you dealt,

I think three episodes at least you did three in a row. I think dealing with Molinism, they were pretty good.

Um, you know, Eli, you and I had an exchange here on apologetics live with Eric Hernandez that I thought that went well.

Um, and so I know you've dealt with it. You're, you're now, I don't know if you've dealt with it on your podcast.

I know you've done dealt with it on, on your, your channel, but on a reveal the apologetics, right?

Yeah. I interviewed Dr. James White where he critiqued Molinism and then I had Tyler on and he did an amazing job.

Uh, no, not, not Tyler. I, um, who was it? No, I had someone else. I think we're gonna,

I'm going to have, yes, Tim Stratton went on and then, um, I'm trying to set up a discussion or slash informal kind of debate sort of thing with, with, uh,

Tim Stratton and Tyler. Okay. Um, and so, um, we'll try to make that happen, but, um, yeah,

I've had a lot of discussions on Molinism and, uh, yeah, very interesting. Tyler's my, Tyler's one of my faves in regards to the way he criticizes and critiques.

I think he does an excellent job. So here's, here's going to be my claim and may this, maybe this will be the, uh, we'll put this out and if we get some, some

Molinists to come in, I'll put this as the, as the title for, for next week. Uh, I got to check and make sure

I'm still going to be here next week. Um, the, the, we'll put in Molinism is determinism.

I, I think that would be a fun, uh, a fun discussion cause I think it actually is.

I think that it proves determinism more than it, you know, they're, they're trying to get away from that and that's what

I think it actually proves. So, but, uh, I do thank you guys for coming in, I guess, uh, in light of, uh, recent news, uh,

I had gotten this. And so for those watching, we'll have to, you know, it's a

Trump fan case. I need to fan myself.

I got a Trump. Oh wait, no, I got it backwards. That's why you can't read it. It's a Trump fan 2020.

So there you go. All right. So, uh, close out. Uh, we have, uh, just to give an, a quick announcement of things.

Uh, if anyone wants to join us, there's still, there's still a few spots left in our Israel trip.

Uh, it is filling up. I think, I think I was told there may only be six, eight, maybe 10 slots left.

I'm not even sure. I, I, I know it's single digits. I'm pretty sure it's single digits. Um, so if you want to join us, we'll be going to Israel March, 2021.

Uh, just go to 2021 Israel trip .com. If you want to check out all the details, we're going to be going, it'll be striving fraternity along with Justin Peters.

And, uh, he was here earlier. Some folks were asking and, um, some folks were asking where Matt slick is.

So we'll just put Matt there. There's, there's where, here's where Matt was the whole time we were recording here.

And, uh, he was out fishing. Uh, that's, that's the claim we're going to stick to. Um, actually he wasn't, uh, for folks who were here, he, he had called he's, uh, his daughter's in the hospital.

She had gotten injured. And so he was taking care of her. So that's where he actually was, but we're gonna, we're going to claim he was not actually fishing because that picture didn't look like he was actually catching any fish.

He was just kind of against a rock. It's more, more, I don't know what you say,

Eli was more like a, uh, you know, it was posing for a wallet photo.

Yeah. Wallet family. There you go. Matt's going to have to watch this later.

Give us grief. All right. Well, we appreciate everyone that's, that's been watching and check out. Uh, we mentioned the free to thinker podcast with Tyler Villa.

Uh, Eli has a new podcast called revealed apologetics. So check that one out.

Uh, you could check out my podcast, Andrew reports, rap report. Uh, I also have a daily two minute one.

Uh, we've been dealing with some interesting things on that, dealing with some logic, how to apply logic to, uh, arguments for gender issues.

Um, that's been getting some good feedback. Uh, so those are just two minutes long. Um, and then we got a new podcast where we're, that we started doing theology throw down all the podcasters at Christian podcast community get together and we are discussing, uh, different theology, theological topics.

So check out the theology throw down, make sure you go to striving for eternity. If you want to help support us, keep this, this show on the air, keep us being able to afford to do this, please go to striving for eternity dot

O R G slash donate. That's how you could help us out and donate to us. So until next week, just remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.