Atheism with Matt Slick, Eli Ayala & Tyler Vela

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

Opening Banter and Show Setup

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 binary. We think that gender is just binary.

It's male or female. And we don't understand the fluidity of of genders and that we we've got to figure it out. And 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 it. That's actually a chair. It's actually a chair. It's not actually a crib.

It just I'm in my I'm in my kitchen. I'm not in a crib.

I have to show people. I'm just saying.

Debating Atheism and the Burden of Proof

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 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?

Oh, 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. 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. Right. 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.

Empty Chairs, Dawkins, and Cultural Critique

So I think 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 and I mean, Dr. Craig is is quite the gentleman.

So he's not really known for trolling, but he had the the chair there on stage and he debated as though he was debating Richard Dawkins. But it's 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 are 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 big 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? It'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 two.

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's 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. The first of 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, look, 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 would not. 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.

Matt Slick, the Hospital, and the Fishing Photo

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, we was I really doing what 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 to 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.

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. Right now.

So, you know, I can catch fish, right, Cameron? He called me.

So. All right. Well, when you get when you get back, we'll, you know, just go to politics live dot com and join us.

And well, 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 armbar 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 armbars 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 phone.

The. 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. Okay.

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. Okay. Bye. Bye.

I Andrew, I 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. Okay. 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 and it's me.

Okay. Okay. So, oh, who was the Matt Slick did a debate. This was classic. 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, okay. Thanks. And he goes, Nope.

I just asked myself. I don't believe that. I was cracking up so hard. I didn't even get to listen to what the guy's response was.

That was just classic. Yeah, Matt. Matt's got some funny one-liners. 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 with that all the time.

Now.

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

Atheism, Definitions, and the Burden of Proof

No, there's really no topic.

The person said, if you go on, maybe you can suggest it and talk a little bit about it. You know, that's up to you, of course.

Let me bring John in just 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 has retired from Karm. He's the final post of Karm .org.

Yeah, 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 I'm more Baptist in my position, so I don't I don't hold to the 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. Let her just let me think. So all right, let's let's deal with the debate. Here's. 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's 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. All right. That from no theism to the to know God that does not exist to really what is agnosticism.

But 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.

I mean, this is he he actually allowed Eric to maintain the tradition. Not well, this isn't 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 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 what standard? Right. 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.

Sure. 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 they would say that atheism is not a religion. But yet it falls in the camp of 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 atheist 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 for many of these atheists that evidence is just this thing that you can 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 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.

Evidence, Presuppositions, and the Limits of Neutrality

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.

Also, Andrew. 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 this is—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 can't—we're not—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, you know, 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.