Debate Teacher Reacts: James White vs. David Silverman

Upon what basis could we say it was moral for us to have entered into World War II against the

Axis powers given that the morality that prevailed in their culture could have said that it was good to slaughter

Jews and gypsies and people like that? Why did we have a moral reason for engaging in a war like that?

That's a great question. I think there's an even better way to ask this question, and I think there's a great question to ask somebody like Dr.

Silverman on the issue of moral relativism that really brings to the fore very clearly where the issue lies.

Stick with me, I'm gonna talk about that in just a moment. And we're back!

Got a brand new Debate Teacher Reacts video for you today, and with this voice apparently I need to tell you it's 5 o 'clock on the dial, there's traffic on the 405, so watch out for that.

We got clear skies and a slight chance of rain later this evening. My name is Nate, I'm the president of a

Christian organization called Wise Disciple, and we call ourselves Wise Disciple because Jesus in Matthew 10, 16 calls all of his disciples to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

As a former debate teacher in this series, I look at theology and apologetics debates, and I break them down and judge them as a debate teacher.

Today, we've got James White vs. David Silverman, is the New Testament evil?

What an interesting topic. Now, as I've said in previous videos, when the topic is worded like this, the burden of proof appears to rest with both parties.

That means both Christian and Atheist must make their own case to answer the topic. Now, Silverman challenged

Frank Turek in a previous episode, and a lot of you told me that I need to react to this one, because Silverman brings up the same issues to James White.

So let's go! We're going to focus on cross -examination, where a true clash goes to party hard, and as you can tell,

I'm ready to party with this particular shirt on. Now don't forget, it's best if you watch the full debate. As much as I make a big deal about cross -examination, you know,

I say that's where the magic happens, all that stuff, the reality is, each segment of the debate is very important to determine a winner.

And I'll leave a link in the description so you can see the full debate. But without further ado, let's get into this exchange.

Dr. White, um, let's talk a bit about original sin. Um, Adam and Eve are in the

Garden of Eden. Before they eat... Okay, alright, so here we go. Let's not waste any time, okay?

If you go back to the openers, though, you'll notice that Silverman comes out with a bit of a meandering opener.

Alright, he talked about how the New Testament is about money, power, and fear. He talks about the concepts of hell and election and salvation, and how all of those things are evil.

So he focuses on some of the things the New Testament teaches. But what's interesting is, he spends some time on Adam and Eve in the

Garden of Eden. Which is really interesting to me, because Adam and Eve in the Garden is not a

New Testament story. I mean, it's certainly mentioned in some places in the New Testament, but the Garden that God creates, and the tree that he places in the

Garden, that's fully told in Genesis. So if the debate topic says, is the

New Testament evil, which is what it says, why are we talking about the Old Testament? Who knows?

All I know is, Dr. Turek did not do a great job responding to Silverman's challenge. Let's see how this goes with Dr.

White. We'll call it an apple. They're perfect, yes? Perfect as in God created them to be upright, yes.

Perfect as in knowing good from evil? Not in the sense that they had, not experientially as yet, no.

Okay. So Adam is in the Garden of Eden. And God puts the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the

Garden of Eden. Adam hasn't sinned yet. Adam hasn't eaten the apple yet. God knows at that point in time that you and I are going to have this conversation right now.

Not only knows that he decreed it, that's why he knows it. His knowledge is based upon his decree. Okay. So, Adam eating the apple was part of God's plan.

Yes, sir. Are there babies in hell? Are there babies in hell?

Yeah. These questions, they may seem disconnected from each other, but this is the line of approach that Silverman took with Turek.

What Silverman is doing here is he's setting a garden path for Dr. White. He's trying to ask a series of questions that appear to be innocuous, but they're really setting up for a humdinger of a question later.

I suppose the Garden of Eden is going to connect somehow to babies going to hell in just a moment. Well, they better, because if they don't, if these sort of clarification questions don't lead to some kind of a question down the line that attacks

Dr. White's contentions, you know, or the prior arguments that he's made somehow, then this is going to be a waste of time.

As you may have, I'm not sure if you were quoting me when you were talking or not. I believe that God has the exact same freedom in the salvation of infants that he has in the salvation of adults.

That's not my answer. That's not my question. Well, but I'm explaining it since you asked are there quote unquote babies in hell.

I believe that God has the same freedom in the salvation of infants that he has in adults. Since all of us, no matter what our stage of development, are fallen sons and daughters of Adam, then

God would not be under any compulsion to show mercy to anyone. But I believe that he does based upon the very same freedom that he has in saving any adult person as well.

Translation, there are probably some babies in hell. Alright? How Dr. White maneuvers here is a very clever way of answering the question, okay?

He's removing the emotionally rhetorical force of the question in order to provide the logical answer from the

Christian perspective, from the perspective of, I suppose, Calvinism. And look, atheists do this too, by the way.

I think it was Bart Ehrman who was asked by a Christian, what would you say to a person who's dying in order to comfort them based on your worldview?

Bart Ehrman gave a very clever response back, which was to say, well, I would do what Job's friends originally did, you know?

It's clever because you're appealing to your opponent's own source of authority in the answer.

But what Ehrman really is saying is, I have nothing to say to a person who's dying in order to comfort them, which isn't a great answer when you say it like that, right?

So there are questions that have rhetorical force behind them that atheists can ask

Christians with great effect, and vice versa. And you can see the ways that both sides attempt to mitigate the rhetorical force of these questions in their responses.

If I were a Calvinist, I don't know if I would answer Silverman's question any differently than what

Dr. White has just said here. I do not know, I cannot look someone, and I've been a hospital chaplain, so I've had to do this more than once.

I cannot look at someone and play God and tell them what God is going to do in that situation.

My response always is, the judge of all the earth will do right and leave it to the very same thing that I do with my children or anyone in my family.

So when Adam was about to eat that apple, when God put that tree of knowledge of good and evil in the

Garden of Eden, he knew that he would be in this situation right now. He decreed it.

He insisted on it. He made it happen. He chose to glorify himself in this particular fashion through the atonement of Christ.

He made it happen. When you say made it happen, what do you mean? Are you differentiating between primary movers, secondary means, etc.,

etc.? I'm saying that if I take my keys and I drop them, the keys have no will.

I'm saying that I know that I'm going to drop these keys and they're going to fall.

I knew that was going to happen, but God was more sure than I was that Adam would eat the fruit, that that would cause the fall of man, and that billions and billions of souls created by God, who he loved, would go to hell as a result.

So, the illustration doesn't work because human beings are not a pair of car keys, and Dr.

White should point that out. I'm sure he will. Silverman, though, does have a legitimate question to ask the

Christian. And, well, this might upset everybody in the audience today, but it wouldn't be the first time.

But I've noticed in the comments section, when this specific issue comes up, that Calvinists like to say, well, hey, you

Arminians and Molinists over there are the ones with the problem answering this kind of question. And then

Molinists like to say the opposite, no, it's just you Calvinists that are the ones with the problem. The fact is,

Christians of all stripes have to answer this question. And their answer must take into consideration that, yes,

God decided to create the world knowing that Adam and Eve would sin. Whether you say that God decreed it from the

Calvinist system, or you say that God instantiated the specific world where Adam and Eve sinned under the

Molinist system, the bottom line is, God knew what he was doing, and he decided, yes, I am going to create this world, and in this world,

Adam and Eve will eat the fruit, I will banish them from the garden, and humanity will be cursed. That's not a

Calvinist or a Molinist concept, that's a biblical concept. The reason I'm bringing this up is,

Dr. Turek had a chance to respond to this issue from what I believe is the Molinist position, or at least he kind of sounds like a

Molinist when he talks. And he struggled, because it seems to me he didn't want to bite the bullet and say what

I literally just said, okay? Dr. White is probably going to bite the bullet, and he's going to enjoy how it tastes, okay?

So, let's see what happens. God's knowledge of the future is not analogous to your knowledge of physical laws, that would be a category error.

However, if the point that you're making is that God knows the future, and that the future flows from his own decree, of course, what did not follow was the conclusion that you included in your question.

Is it not then God's will that billions and billions of souls are in hell? It is God's will to glorify himself in the salvation of a particular people, and to demonstrate his justice in his just punishment of many others.

I don't know, first of all, I don't think there's anybody in hell right now, so I want to correct that.

I believe that's a future state. I've never heard someone talk about this in a debate before, so good for Dr.

White. Hell, as we understand it, is a picture given to us at the end of the book of Revelation, and that particular picture appears to be a future event.

So, interesting aside there from Dr. White. The fact of the matter is, I don't know what the percentage of people is going to be who are going to experience his grace, and the percentage of people is going to be who will not.

So, I don't know how many people there are, but their just punishment was not only known to God, but the result of his will from the beginning, yes, no question about that.

So, you don't think that there's anybody damned? No, I do believe that there are people that are damned.

All I said was, hell is a, if you're familiar with the book of Revelation, it says that death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.

The dead right now are not in a place called hell, they're in a place called Hades. They're not the same thing. Maybe you're confusing those two terms.

But God had all of this in mind when Adam ate the apple.

In fact, it was God's will, it was God's intention. God could have stopped it if he didn't want it to happen, but he chose not to.

Certainly, God could have stopped anything that he did not want to have happen, as he does very regularly in curbing the evil of man, and we never thank him for that.

But I do differentiate very strongly between talking about God's decree and the fact that God's will, as revealed to us, is found in his law.

We don't know what God's secret decree is. God's will says, thou shalt not murder. So, you need to differentiate when you're using the term will, because you're asking a

Christian theologian what he believes about that, and I will have to differentiate on the basis of the scripture at that point. I'm confused.

Okay. God could put everyone in heaven anytime he wanted to.

God could show his grace. God could show himself. God has, and many times during the

Bible... Very complex question. You've already gotten to two different places that I would have to interrupt you and to answer part of the question.

Please do. So far, this is a different David Silverman from the other video.

He's very facile here, much more meek Silverman than we saw going up against Dr. Turek.

Also, where are these questions leading? Will Silverman eventually get to some kind of a point,

I mean, some kind of a question meant to attack Dr. White's contentions? I just think he could be doing a better job of challenging

Dr. White. Maybe he could say something like, Well, Dr. White, is God omniscient and omnipotent?

Yes. Okay. Well, doesn't this mean that God allowed the serpent to enter the garden and invite

Adam and Eve to sin? Yes. Okay. Is it not true, then, that God was implicit in the acts of inviting

Adam and Eve to sin? In a court of law, if we considered sin a crime, wouldn't we charge God with aiding and abetting, which is a criminal act?

Or, you know, something along these lines, right? Dr. White, if these things are true, how can you say that God is good?

It's the same style of questioning, it's just a little tighter, and it gets to the point that Silverman is trying to make, but just a lot faster.

Which, by the way, from the Christian perspective, there's no issue here, because atheists like Silverman, they do the hokey pokey, and they don't fully enter into the worldview that they are critiquing.

This is why they have a problem in the first place, because if they really did sort of enter into the worldview that they are critiquing, they would have to concede the biblical view of humanity, that humanity is free to make their decisions to reject

God, that's what the Bible teaches, that's why they receive punishment, and eternity far outshines the suffering that folks experience in this life, should a person humble himself before his creator.

Well, then eternal life produces in him an eternal weight of glory far beyond comparison to the sufferings of this life.

These are all biblical teachings. So, it's much harder to do this kind of internal critique of Christianity, especially if you want to try and do it properly.

The problem only arises if you smuggle in your own anti -biblical presuppositions, and then you try to argue from that basis.

When you said God could, are you talking about before creation, before he began to do his work, or are you talking about now?

Both. Well, theoretically, prior to the fall of man and to the working out of his will,

God could have just created us all to go to heaven, and that would have been it. He never would have glorified himself in the cross, he never would have demonstrated his love or mercy.

He could have, theoretically. But once the fall took place, then no longer is that a theoretical possibility, because God has already begun to act, make promises, and God's not going to go back upon the promises he's already made to the prophets or whatever else it might be.

So, you have to pick and choose which area you're going to approach there. Let's do that again.

God could not choose right now to send everybody to heaven? No, because he's made revelation.

He has revealed exactly how a person is to go to heaven, and exactly upon what grounds he has given prophecies.

He'd have to be able to lie, and the Scripture says God cannot lie. And so to vitiate his own prophecies, he would have to be able to change his own nature and be able to say,

I was dishonest in what I said before. Moses had one covenant. God gave us a second covenant with Jesus.

That changed the rules. No, it did not. Two minutes. No, it did not change the rules. You're not understanding the relationship of the covenant of grace, which actually begins with Adam, and that each one of those covenants are a representation of that covenant of grace.

There is a fundamental unity that exists through those, even though there is a difference in how those things are worked out.

The book of Hebrews makes it very plain that the argument you just made is not really an accurate argument to the New Testament. So, Silverman is not doing a great job here.

He's trying to sweep together too many things in order to make one point. The problem is he's not clearly asked the question that will reveal the point that he wants to make.

See, in cross -examination, a debater presents to the audience, just like they would in any other segment of the debate, you know, opening statements, rebuttals, and closing.

They're presenting to the audience and furthering their own stance on the topic. In cross -examination, they're doing this by asking the right kinds of questions.

Sometimes they're direct questions. Sometimes they're leading questions, all right, to challenge their interlocutor on the things that they said.

The problem is Silverman is stuck on all these clarification questions when he should really get to argumentative -style questions, right?

Where are the questions that directly attack Dr. White's contentions? I'm not seeing any of these right now, and Dr.

White is handling himself very well. Why? Because these are all essentially, you know, clarification questions that any

Christian, if they know their Bible, should have no problem answering. So, I would say, so far, Dr. White has the upper hand.

So, God could have done something once before, which is send everybody to heaven, and just glorified himself by showing himself to everybody.

Now he can't do that. Now he has to glorify himself by sending lots of people to Hades.

God will be consistent with the promises he has already made. Yes, he does not change, and he has made a revelation as to what he's doing, and he's not going to change that.

Okay, we have no further questions. The prosecution rests on this question. It's hard for me not to see a bit of my cousin

Vinny in Silverman, right? You know, I'm done with this guy. I got no more use for this guy. I got no more use for this guy.

This, to me, was an exercise in letting Dr. White further explain his own position. There was hardly any attempt to press

Dr. White on inconsistencies or the validity of his prior comments. It was just a bunch of, so this is what the

Bible teaches? And sometimes Dr. White was like, yeah, that's what it teaches. And sometimes he was like, no, this is what the

Bible actually teaches. But there were no teeth behind any of these questions. So, again, Dr.

White has the upper hand. Mr. Silverman, to win the debate this evening, you need to establish that the

New Testament is evil. Could you explain to us, based upon your naturalistic worldview, how something can be evil?

First of all, to win this debate tonight, I have to prove that it's evil better than you can prove that it's not.

How can I explain something that is evil is that evil is a judgment call based on our current morality.

You and I are humans. We are thinking humans, and evil is a human concept.

What some religions do, and Christianity does this, is that it takes human morality and it defends it by adding a mythology to it, thereby strengthening the human morality,

I should say, giving the credit for that morality, for those judgment calls, to a book so that they're not questioned.

You just said that evil is a judgment call based upon current morality.

Current morality amongst whom? Current morality among living humans. All living humans?

No. Living humans in this area. It changes. Morality is a relative statement.

There's absolutely no question about it. So morality changes based upon where you live.

And when you live. And when you live. Yes. So the obvious question

I think is crossing everyone's mind here then is, upon what basis could we say it was moral for us to have entered into World War II against the

Axis powers, given that the morality that prevailed in their culture could have said that it was good to slaughter

Jews and gypsies and people like that? Why did we have a moral reason for engaging in a war like that?

That's a great question. I think there's an even better way to ask this question, and I think there's a great question to ask somebody like Dr.

Silverman on the issue of moral relativism that really brings to the fore very clearly where the issue lies.

Stick with me. I'm going to talk about that in just a moment. In our judgment, yes, we did. And in Germans' judgment, no, we did not.

That's what makes it work. That's what humanity is all about. So those people gave their lives based upon just a moral judgment made in one particular area that wasn't necessarily true someplace else.

Yes. Absolutely. Because people make their moral judgments based on the information that's available to them at the time.

Just like slavery used to be moral here in the United States, and it used to be supported by the

New and the Old Testament. But now we all know that slavery is an intolerable, immoral thing.

So you're actually asserting that the laws on slavery in the Old Testament had something to do with the

American form of slavery? I am saying that the New Testament and the Old Testament were both used to support slavery among Christians in America.

But you recognize that a written document can be used to support almost anything as long as you don't worry about its context, right?

A written document, in fact the Bible, can be used to support anything at all. Anything at all you can support with the

Bible, yes. By ignoring its context or in its context? By supposing and presupposing its context, and by taking things in context and making it fit the morality that you currently have.

For instance, the Pauline epistles specifically mention that a slave has to obey his master.

That, if taken into the context, can be used to support slavery. But you would agree,

I would hope, that we should interpret any text like that within the original context in which it was written, right?

If we interpret it, we are subjecting it to our own thoughts, and we are taking our own morality and reading it into the

Bible. Your interpretation of the Bible within its context is exactly that.

It's your interpretation, your brain's interpretation of the Bible in the context that you think.

Have you written anything, Mr. Silverman? Have I written anything? Published a book, booklet, anything like that? I've published lots of articles on the

Internet. Okay. After you're dead, will they still have the same meaning they had when you wrote them? That's a pretty broad statement.

Will they still have the same meaning? When you write a sentence, do you intend it to communicate an actual meaning to someone?

Yes. Do you have children? Yes. When you command, do you have teenagers?

Yes. Oh, man. And I've seen your video where you talk about having a teenage girl.

Have you experienced what I've experienced in the past where the teenager only hears half of the sentence, which instead of clean your room, then we'll go to have pizza, all they hear is the we're going to have pizza part?

Have you experienced that? I certainly have. Yeah, it's not a teenager thing. My 10 -year -old and 6 -year -old do the same thing, so that's fantastic.

Now, back to the serious part, when you say something serious to your teenager, do you intend to be interpreted within the context you intend them to interpret your words in?

Yes. Okay, so when the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians, should not our first concern be to know what he intended his original audience to understand?

Or are you denying that we can't know what that was? We can't know what that was. We cannot know. That's what I'm saying. In our current morality, we can't.

You're talking about a 2 ,000 -year -old document. We can't even determine if it was written by whom. Wait a minute.

I'm confused. So you cannot read Cicero and understand anything

Cicero said? I can understand what he says, but I can't. Because he uses words. Didn't Paul use words?

Words? Yes. Okay, and so I'm just wondering.

Are you actually trying to say that Paul's letters, where he actually says that a slave should obey the master, doesn't say that slavery is okay?

Yeah, that's a conclusion. You're asking me a question now. I need to keep asking you questions. Oh, I'm sorry. Shouldn't we interpret what

Paul said about the subject of slavery within the context in which he said it in antiquity, not within the context of American slavery, which existed 1 ,800 years later and was fundamentally different in its form, purposes, and foundation?

In my personal moral opinion, slavery is always wrong, sir, and that's my personal moral judgment, and there's no way around that.

That's not what I asked you. I didn't ask you. I'm sorry. I can't go there. If you're actually going to say to me that the

Paulines are absolute, then we're not going to have too much of a discussion.

Mr. Silverman, my question is actually, and I want to come back to what you just said. So Silverman is being pressed, and he's not answering the question, probably because he knows where this goes.

He knows where this leads. The bottom line is, these are simple questions. Is the slavery in biblical antiquity the same kind of slavery we find in the antebellum

South? No, it's not. This is not a Christian atheist question. Christian would answer it differently, an atheist would answer it differently.

No. This is a historical question that everyone can get right. So to avoid this simple question and try to get around it and just say, well,

I'm not going to go there, it's just bad optics. Just answer the question. Because I want to ask you why you can think that slavery is evil at all times, but before that,

I think we have to establish a simple fact of human language here. If someone digs up one of your

Internet articles a thousand years from now, do you believe that the words that you wrote will still carry the meaning you intended?

I hope so. You hope so. Yes, I hope so. Would someone have the ability to accurately understand what you said in that article a thousand years from now?

I hope so. And would you want them to interpret you in the way you intended rather than putting into your mouth words and thoughts you never intended?

What I would want, yes. Okay, so when we then read the Apostle Paul addressing the institution of Roman slavery and not calling for all slaves to rebel, causing revolution in the

Roman Empire, should we not read his words in the context of first century

Rome rather than 19th century Georgia? Two minutes. I would say yes.

Okay, good. All right. Now, I'm glad we got there. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.

So, unfortunately, what didn't happen? Unfortunately, it didn't happen. People interpreted it as they so chose, which is what they do all the time.

And so, if someone interprets the Bible contrary to what the original author intended and that he expressed by his own words, is that an abuse of the

Bible or a proper use of the Bible? That is an abuse. Good. Thank you. All right, and if someone abuses your writings, you're not responsible for their abusing your writings, are you?

No. Okay, good. All right. Now, you had said just now that you believe that slavery— and please repeat if you could.

I didn't have a chance to write it down. I think you said that you believe slavery is always wrong, right?

Yes, I do. So, in the Roman Empire, where everybody in the

Senate, all the people— I mean, it was the economic system of the day.

Why don't they get to determine their morality and you get to say that they were doing something that was wrong?

How are you consistent at that point? I'm going to permit you to answer this and then the time is up. No, that's exactly what I'm saying, that morality changes over time and per location.

That I believe here in my time, in this location, that slavery is always wrong.

However, the morality of the ancient Romans was different, just like the morality of early

Americans was different. It changes. Morality is relative. If I were white in this situation, there's really two questions that come to mind that I would probably try to ask.

The first one is, if morality is relative, what authority do you have to tell someone else that they are morally wrong?

Because essentially, given Silverman's view, we've just got a bunch of groups of people all around the world agreeing in their own circles what is right and wrong.

So what gives one circle the authority to tell another circle that they're wrong?

Is it whim? Is it military force? Is it a combination of a number of things?

And that actually leads to another issue here. If different groups are saying two completely different moral things about a specific action, like abortion, for example, right?

One group says abortion is morally good. Another group says it's morally evil. If these groups differ because morality is relative, it follows that actions in and of themselves are not good or evil.

So I'd probably ask something like this. Silverman, you say morality is relative. Is that correct? Okay, yes. When you say morality is relative, are you saying that actions in and of themselves are not good or evil?

It's just how we speak of these actions. So, for example, you think that action X is morally bad, and someone else thinks that action

X is morally good, and the rightness or wrongness exists, not in the action itself, but in how we speak of it.

Correct? Okay. Based on this, what you're really saying tonight, then, is not that the

New Testament is evil. The New Testament itself cannot be good or evil, under your view. When you say evil, are you not just describing how you speak about it?

Your answer to the question, you know, to the topic question, as a moral relativist is, no, the

New Testament is not evil in and of itself. Your answer is, well, the way I speak of the New Testament is, it's evil.

So, you see how this goes? Now, that's not a slam dunk by any stretch, because anything can happen on the debate stage.

You never know how your interlocutor is going to respond, okay? But I think that particular line of questioning can bear a lot of fruit in these kinds of discussions.

Dr. White, I'd like to talk to you a little bit about predetermination. You state that faith is a gift from God, and Ephesians 2 -6, for by grace you have been saved through faith and not of yourselves.

It is a gift from God as a result, not as a result of works that no one should boast. That's actually Ephesians 2, 8, and 9.

Yes. Where is the free will? If God can save to the uttermost and chooses not to, if faith is a gift, how am

I to be blamed for God not giving me faith? You're not blamed for God not giving you faith.

You're blamed for your sin and your rebellion and your refusal to repent. Giving someone the gift of faith is an act of grace.

It's not the basis upon which you're sent to hell. Your sin is the basis upon which you're sent to hell. Say it again?

Your sin and your guilt before God is the basis upon which you are justly condemned.

Grace goes beyond the categories of justice. Grace and mercy go beyond those categories.

God can save to the uttermost. Jesus can save to the uttermost. That's all completely up to God.

He can choose by His grace to soften my heart, turn it from stone to flesh, and make me a

Christian. Even you, yes, sir. Even me. Even you. But He chooses not to.

And if I die in this state, right here, right now, I'm damned, yes? Yes, sir.

In fact, the biblical teaching is the wrath of God abides, present tense, upon you right now. The wrath of God.

Yes. Yes. How is that fair?

Fair? How is it fair? Okay, finally, a question that kind of, sort of, attacks

Dr. White's stance on the topic. How is that fair? Of course, the issue of fairness is viewed differently by both opponents, but let's see what happens.

You know what? It isn't fair, because if it was only fair, God would bring His wrath to bear upon you right now.

He's extending grace and mercy to you in patience. Ah! Ah! So I need to thank

God that He hasn't sent me to hell yet. Yes, sir. Yes. Ah! Ah!

Silverman, this is so hilarious to watch, because he channels, you know, in one instance,

Joe Pesci and my cousin Vinny, in another instance, he's doing Jeff Goldblum. Ah, yeah, you know.

It's just... Silverman, he's got some funny tics.

That's good. No question about it, but... Yeah, so if you're talking about strict fairness in the sense of bringing about the punishment immediately, then

God has always demonstrated mercy and grace even in extending life and patience to people and not bringing

His judgment to bear immediately. But once again, I'm predestined. Wherever I'm going to go, I'm predestined.

God knows where I'm going to go, whether or not I'm going to hell, whether or not I'm going to accept

Jesus. Is that a question or a statement? It's a question. Okay, could you put it in the form of a question? Does God already know where I'm going to go, when

I'm going to go, and if I'm going to accept Jesus? I notice you changed the question, and I find that interesting, because the original statement was you were predestined to do something, and as I said in my response in the rebuttal period, you do what you desire to do.

I've heard many an atheist, when I debated Dan Barker, he said, I don't want to be in the presence of your

God. When I die, I want to go to hell, so I will be as far away from your God as possible.

And God will grant him his wish, unless he changes his heart, which of course...

I said this before, I'll say it again. You have choices to make as an opponent in cross -examination, okay?

On the one hand, you can ask more direct questions that provide clarification. If something that your opponent said in their opener you think requires some kind of clarification, then go ahead and ask those questions.

There's nothing wrong with asking clarification questions, because likely what's going to happen is, as you think about advancing your position on this topic, you're going to circle back around, if you get enough clarification, you'll circle back around in your rebuttals, and you'll bring that out, you'll flesh it out, all that stuff.

The problem is, if you spend too much time with clarification questions, you're not drawing out the kind of clash that you would if you also asked a different kind of question, which is more of a leading question to attack your opponent's own arguments and contentions.

And that's what is missing, I think, from Silverman's questions here, and it's kind of frustrating to watch, like, why don't you get to those questions,

Silverman? You know what I mean? To ask clarification questions and let Dr. White explain his view, and then you go, ah, you know, like that, it's not really going to help you in the long run.

This is my prayer both for him and for you, but again, if you don't have the desire to be in the presence of God, why would you say it's unfair if he doesn't bring you into his presence?

My question was, am I predestined? I do believe, but see,

I need to differentiate some. That's why I asked you to put it in the form of a question. Okay, am I predestined? Because predestination has two forms.

You have the positive act of God, whereby he extends his grace to save his elect.

In regards to the others, that's not an extension of grace, even an extension of power. It is simple justice, because they are already fallen in Adam.

And so they are not, there's something called equal ultimacy that we deny. They are not the same act except just the positive and negative side.

To save someone, God must extend incredible grace. To judge someone,

God really doesn't have to do anything at all other than just simply bring his justice to bear. But God can't.

So again, some of you watching are going to get offended here, but the bottom line is, this is not merely the

Calvinist question to wrestle with. In the Molinist view, God is still sovereign. His control over the events that take place in the world that he creates because he instantiates the particular world in which all of these events take place, that sovereign control of God is just as secure as the sovereign control of God in the

Calvinist scheme. So this is why Dr. Turek was posed with this particular challenge.

This is why Dr. White is posed with this challenge. Now obviously the answers differ, but I think it's very easy for the

Molinist, who's watching this... By the way, there's a really great book that argues for the Molinist view.

It's probably the best book I've ever read on this. It's called Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keithley. Really explains

Molinism well, unpacks it well. So don't hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying Calvinism is true.

Well, and I'm not saying Molinism is true either. I'm just saying it's very easy for some Molinists to say, oh, the answer is

Molinism because people have libertarian freedom in the world that God instantiates, and so therefore, problem solved. Wait a sec.

If God instantiates the world where I freely choose to shoot and kill 50 people at a mall, instead of instantiating the world where I freely choose to save 50 people from a mass shooting, what was the significant difference between those two worlds?

It wasn't my free choice, right? That's what the atheist is trying to get at here, ladies and gentlemen, and the answer is not as simple as just saying, well, libertarian freedom, because ultimately,

God still retains sovereign control over the world he creates in the Molinist system, and therefore,

Molinists need to answer this question too. I will say this, though. Molinists have a more emotionally satisfying answer to this kind of question than do

Calvinists. Extend that incredible grace anytime he wants to without effort. It's not an effort.

Without effort, no. It's actually the very power that raised the Son of God from the grave. It is a massive effort.

It is the greatest power. God is all -powerful, though. All -powerful means anything can be done without effort.

No, I don't believe that's what all -powerful means. I disagree with the foundation of your question. Oh, what does all -powerful mean?

Well, having all -power does not mean that there is an equal extension of power to do anything.

To raise a rebel sinner to spiritual life is a fundamentally different thing than making a tree grow.

Those are different kinds of things, and according to the New Testament, there is great power involved in the resurrection of a sinner to spiritual life.

It is a miracle that is, I think, even greater than the resurrection of the dead recorded in John 11 or elsewhere in the

Gospels. Are you suggesting that God could actually get tired? No, sir, I'm not. I'm simply recognizing that the

Scriptures themselves use that language to talk about the power that raised

Jesus from the grave as the same power that animates believers. Perhaps I'm not being clear. If God is all -powerful, that means he has an unlimited amount of power, and therefore it doesn't matter how much power it takes to do something, he can do it with relatively no effort.

The New Testament does not agree with your assessment of omnipotence. Okay. So, two observations.

First, Dr. White is one of the best spokespersons from the Calvinist side that I've ever seen.

I'm not sure anybody else could give better answers from the Calvinist position than Dr.

White at this point. Okay? Second, Silverman probably didn't do a whole lot of research on his opponent.

I think it's just obvious watching this. He didn't do a whole lot of research on his opponent.

Maybe he didn't even do research on the topic. With the particular kinds of questions that Silverman is asking, which again, are very facile, way too far over into the category of clarifying instead of argumentative style questioning,

I think this reveals that he didn't really research his opponent as much as he should have. You know, in the beginning, Dr. White did say that originally this was supposed to be a debate between himself and Christopher Hitchens, so maybe

Silverman just didn't have a whole lot of time to prepare here. Still, let's talk about free will.

If we're talking about something that is predetermined, pre -known, why are we going through this whole life exercise in the first place?

Well, whose free will are you talking about? Are you talking about God's or ours? Yours? Mine. My personal free will.

Okay. Do I have it? From a Christian perspective, what you possess is creaturely will. According to the

New Testament, Jesus himself said, he who commits sin is a slave of sin. So your will has been enslaved to your nature, which is that of a fallen creature.

But I'm predestined. God knows what's going to happen. I can't change God's will. I can't go against God's will.

I'm physically incapable of doing anything against God's plan. And as I said beforehand, you don't want to.

I'm not sure why you keep raising a theoretical that isn't relevant to the situation. But, sir, it is.

If you have the desire, that is the result of God's grace in your heart. But the point is that you do not have that desire.

You do not desire to turn from him. And he's under no obligation to give to a rebel sinner that which the rebel sinner despises and hates.

So I am physically incapable of going against God's plan. Well, I wouldn't use the term physically because we're talking...

I'm incapable. Well, I make the differentiation because I believe you to be a naturalistic materialist and therefore I need to answer in an appropriate fashion.

Go for it. And the scriptures specifically say in Romans chapter 8 that those who are according to flesh cannot submit themselves to the law of God.

They cannot do what is pleasing before God. That is the biblical teaching. Until I am doomed. Two minutes. Unless God, by his spirit, grants to you spiritual life and raises you to spiritual life, that's exactly correct.

You will continue to do exactly what your nature causes you to want to do, and that is to act in rebellion.

And your particular form of rebellion is a form of atheism. But to be perfectly honest with you, I don't see any difference in the motivation, what motivates you to be an atheist, as what motivates people involved in false religion to do the greatest feats of religiosity.

It's still rebellion against God. And we have no choice in that matter.

No, you make the choice every day. No, we don't. Because we cannot go against the will of God. Is that a question?

Or are you arguing the point? It's a discussion. Okay, I understand. But we're supposed to be doing this in the form of questions.

And so the... So... The question... The question... See, you assumed something that I would have immediately challenged had you asked it in the form of a question.

When you say you have no choice, I say you have all the choice in the world, but you don't have the desire.

If you understood... If you understood the nature of the will, especially as I think Jonathan Edwards very rightly brought it out in his massive treatise on the subject, you would know that the will operates on the desires presented to it by our nature.

Your nature as a fallen person does not present to your will the desire to do what is right before God.

Therefore, as Jesus said, you are enslaved to your sin. I'm done.

Well, your time was up anyway, so... I got no more use for this guy.

I'm finished with this guy. You see the frustration from Silverman. It's because this is what happens when you ask questions that are purely meant to clarify, but you do not spend time asking questions to advance your own position.

And what happens is you let your opponent, through this little exercise of clarification, advance their own position.

And that's what happened here. The other thing is, there's an axiom to follow in cross -examination.

So if you want to get into debate, you're thinking about cross -exam, there's an axiom to follow. An axiom is a proverb, you know, a general wisdom saying.

But the axiom is this. Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. Why? Because if your opponent does not answer the question properly and you know that, then you can slaughter them.

It seems like Silverman was asking a lot of questions and was just largely unaware of what

Dr. White was going to say in response. So therefore, he never sufficiently pressed Dr. White with his responses.

I would say Dr. White still holds advantage. If Silverman was throwing punches, none of them ever really connected.

Here we go. Mr. Silverman, I got completely lost at one point in your rebuttal.

You, at one point, quoted Ephesians 2 and said that's the only place where works was brought in.

And then you said that was contradictory to Mark that says it was by faith alone. Yep. That was my mistake.

Okay. Could you explain? No. I obviously misread the passage. Okay. So your actual assertion was that Ephesians is the one that says it's by grace and that's contradictory to something else?

No. My original assertion was that Ephesians said it was by works. But actually, the works is really in Matthew where it says you get to heaven by doing things according to the commandments.

And in Mark, it says you get to heaven by submitting yourself to God and by accepting

Jesus. Okay. So you're alleging that Matthew actually teaches as a whole that you get to heaven by your good works?

Yeah. Where would you find that? What are the greatest commandments? The greatest commandments is love thy

God. This is textbook what to do with assertions given in openers and rebuttals.

Just say, can you read the card, please? Right? So in other words, you make a claim about the scripture, now show me how you got there.

And this is purely a test of credibility. I think this came up with the Christians versus the

Mormons on their handling of certain passages of scripture. It's a test of credibility. If Silverman cannot back up his claim about Matthew, then this undermines his argument because it appears that he does not understand what he's challenging.

So if you're going to make a claim about what the Bible really teaches, you better be able to back it up in order to show that you truly understand what it's saying or else your credibility is affected.

And be good to thy neighbor. So it's your interpretation. And you can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't see anything in Matthew that says belief is required.

I see. Okay. So it is, when you read Matthew, you're understanding the judgment and the existence of God's law as being the means by which we somehow earn

God's favor and enter into his presence. Restate your question, please. So you really think that Matthew is saying that we earn our salvation by loving

God perfectly? You think Matthew actually has the idea that anyone actually does that? I am not in a position to interpret.

Okay. All right. Okay, but yeah, that's what it appears to me. Okay. Oops. I'm saying Oops. If you're not in a position to interpret, then why bring it up to advance your own position?

What I'm saying is that there's nothing in Matthew as there is in Mark, as there is in John that says belief gets you into heaven and belief is required to get into heaven.

Matthew doesn't say that. Okay. So if I were to present text to you, that would probably take us out of our subject here because you're not saying this is evil.

So I want to stay in the subject range we're in. No, I'm not saying that Matthew is evil. There's not that much in Matthew that's evil.

There's not that much in Matthew that is evil. Except for the hell stuff, right? Is it evil? No, it's mainly John and beyond.

Is it evil for Jesus to say take up your cross and follow me?

Deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me? If what Jesus was teaching was false and there is no

God and Jesus was saying leave your father and mother and follow me,

I thought you said that which would destroy a family was evil. Yes. So if Jesus calls someone to follow him and that results in the destruction of the family, how is that not an evil thing?

Oh, I guess you're right. Okay. So... I'll yield that point because the destruction of families is evil and yeah, that's in Matthew.

Okay. Every time, and this isn't the first time that Silverman has sort of shifted and Dr.

White has gotten him to basically say the opposite of what his original statement was, these start to add up, all right, and it all is a ding against Silverman's credibility and these are little pokes, these are little jabs, and they do add up for judges.

Now, based upon a naturalistic worldview, why should families not be destroyed?

Why should they not, I'm sorry, I think the term you used was either disrupted or maybe destroyed. I forget which one it was.

I'm saying that the human race is a social animal. We're here as a social animal and anything that gets in the way of our ability to live our lives as we see fit, in peace, in harmony, anything, by your own admission, that destroys families.

I mean, you've said online that faith destroys families more than it unites them.

Are you doing what I'm doing right now? I'm waiting for how Silverman can get from an is to an ought, right?

The human being is a social creature. There's your is. Now, how do you get from an is to, therefore, human beings should be, ought to be, social?

They ought to maintain social familial relationships. It is a moral good to do so.

How do you get there? Let's see what happens. I believe you said that, although I don't have the exact thing.

Yeah. I believe you said that true faith - Let me see if I'm a lawyer here. Where did I say that? I'm sorry,

I don't have that quote with me. Yeah, I didn't think so. Oh, it's on there, though.

I'm pretty sure you said it. I'm sorry. But my point is that families, like I said, morality is a judgment call.

Evil is a judgment call. But given your worldview, sir, I have listened to as many of your programs as I could find that were relevant to this subject, and you seem to very strongly hold to a secular, naturalistic, materialistic worldview.

We got here by Neo -Darwinian micromutational evolutionary process, yes? Yes. All right.

Now, could you explain how your worldview gives rise to your conclusion?

Let me back up. Hold that thought for a moment. Let me ask this. What's a family? That's a judgment call in and of itself.

That's a judgment call. So is one man and ten women a family?

That's a judgment call in and of itself. Is one woman and her chihuahua a family?

No. Why not? Because I would say no. You know what? But if you ask that woman, she might say yes, that chihuahua's part of her family.

Okay. Mom? Mom, are you watching this? Is a woman and her chihuahua a family,

Mom? My mother has hands raised in the air right now. Yes and amen. Hallelujah. Chihuahua's her family.

Yes, yep. Love you, Mom. What if this woman had been abused by others and this was the only living creature that she had ever found that did not abuse her?

That's a family, wouldn't it be, from what you just said? I think it would be, yeah. Okay. So how do we even define destruction or disruption of the family given that you can't tell us what a family is?

I can tell you what a family is, but it's my interpretation of what a family is. My interpretation of a family is people who live together in harmony.

Hopefully in harmony. You're married? Somebody in harmony. You're married and have kids, right? I'm married and I have a child. We're a family.

My father -in -law also lives with us. He's part of the family. My dog lives with us. He's part of the family. Would your wife think that it was appropriate for you to define your family as you and two women?

No. Yeah. I've asked.

Yeah. So I think you see the point that I'm making.

When you say that there are – basically it sounds to me like you're saying there is no objective moral definition of any of these things.

That's correct. Okay. So all of the moral actions that we undertake are merely the consensus result of a local group of people and nothing more than that.

There is no objective morality, sir. Okay. And I will tell you that over and over again. So when you stand at the gates of Auschwitz, all you can say is, for me, this was bad.

Yep. Thank you. So White stopped short of asking the question that I suggested should be asked, but he did a fantastic job of challenging his opponent to give a basis for the stance that he takes, and Silverman floundered.

Silverman has not one time in this debate given a basis of authority to take a stance in this debate at all.

The way that he speaks, it leaves things unclear as to how he can even pronounce that the

New Testament is evil in and of itself, which I think should be challenged more directly by White. But for you, when you go to the gates of Auschwitz –

Oh, so we're going on. Okay. There's more. As is his right, because this is what we agreed to.

More CX. Okay, let's do it. But for you, when you stand at the gates of Auschwitz, you say, this is all part of God's plan.

Not only do I say that, but I likewise say that plan includes the moral law which will judge every single person who is involved with that, and I can look at the world and say, this is what happens when

God withdraws his hand from the hearts of man, and we see the actual depths of the depravity that fills that heart.

Or, you can look at it and see, this is what happens when God extends his hand and helps the

Germans kill six million Jews. No, sir. That's a judgment call, is it not?

No, sir. Why is that not a judgment call? Now we see the fundamental difference between you and I. I have an objective revelation that makes the theoretical position you took absolutely impossible.

That is not possible to come up with that perspective in my worldview, given God's revelation in his word.

How's that? How is that? Yeah, how is that? Because you just said, well, this is what happens when

God helps the Germans do something. The point is that I had just pointed out that God is restraining the evil of man, and once in a while, he lets up a finger so we can see what really fills their hearts.

He doesn't have to help them do something. In fact, if he hadn't been restraining them, they would have done worse than they did.

Good speculation. No, sir, not speculation. But, in reality... Excuse me, is that a question?

Are you asking me if I'm speculating? I am asking you a question right now. In reality, would it not be the

German Christians from 1940s who would say that this was just...

Would it not be up to everybody to decide what God wants?

No, sir. And then impugn that onto what is happening? Completely outside of the

Christian worldview, the German church to this day recognizes that they knew what was morally right given the normative function of the word of God.

They recognize that to this very day. They would have to go against the objective revelation of God's scripture to do the things that they did.

It is not a matter of German Christians having the right to pick and choose what they are going to believe.

We believe God has spoken. That's why we have objective moral standards. Are you aware that the

SS uniform had Gott mit uns, God is with us, on? I believe that we just established in my cross -examination that the abuse of a written text is not the responsibility of the written text.

So when it's moral to your satisfaction, it's the use of a

Bible, but when it's immoral to your satisfaction, it's the abuse.

So this kind of silverman should have shown up in the first cross -examination period, right?

This silverman is more lively and willing to advance his own position by asking the right leading questions.

That's what I was talking about earlier when I was saying he's not asking argumentative -style questions. Now he is.

You see the difference? It has to do with my satisfaction. No, it is exactly what you do. Can I finish the question? Go for it. Yes.

It has nothing to do with my satisfaction. It has to do with exegesis, sir. As we established in my cross -examination, words have meanings, and the

New Testament has meanings. You've been operating on the idea that the New Testament has meaning all night. And that meaning completely contradicts the actions of the people wearing

Gott mit uns on their shoulder. Therefore, their abuse of a written text is an abuse, not a use.

It's not a matter of my judgment. It's a matter of the facts. You're saying that nobody has done anything evil according to the

Bible. What? Nobody has done... That people who have done things in the name of God have never done anything evil.

If they've done it evil, then they've been abusing the Bible. If they've done it good, then they've been using the

Bible. What I'm saying is that if you have an objective revelation of what

God's will is, and you go against that will, for example, the

Inquisition, where you have a clear revelation being violated, then you have an abuse of a text.

This would be different than a naturalistic materialist in China or Russia, where there is nothing in the atheist worldview to say that what they're doing is wrong.

So one would be acting against their principles. One would be acting in accordance with their principles. So you're suggesting that with the

Nazis and with the Spanish Inquisition, those people who did those things, they did not think they were doing things in accordance with God, or they did think that they were doing things in accordance with God.

Depends on the individual, but you can have people that are incredibly deceived and ignorant of the word of God who think they're doing things for God.

I mean, there are lots of people that are strapping bombs on themselves today that think they're doing it for God. So it's a judgment call.

But God's revelation is not what they're actually following. In your opinion. I believe in any consistent opinion given the revelation of God over time.

One last thing, Dr. White, because we are going in circles, and the reason that we're going in circles is because you're not allowing the actual premise of the argument.

Let me ask you the question because that's what I'm supposed to be doing. Yes, yes, yes.

Mr. Lawyer, Mr. Attorney. Is it possible in your mind, by definition, for the

New Testament to be proven evil? No, sir. Simply because you have not established any rational grounds for even establishing what something is evil outside of God having created it and providing those norms.

I do not accept your personal authority as binding upon me any more than I would say my personal authority is binding upon you.

Let me restate the question because that's not the question I asked. Is it possible in your mind for me to have won this debate given the premise?

My mind is... Sir, the question assumes a presupposition that is completely against my worldview.

My mind is not the issue. The issue is, can you present a meaningful argument to demonstrate that the

New Testament is evil? That would require you to provide me with a meaningful foundation for defining the word evil.

There would have been a way to do that that you didn't go there. And if you want me to tell you what it would be,

I could tell you. Oh, I do. This is how Silverman's debate ends.

Not with a bang, but with a whimper. Dr. White is laying a framework for the audience to understand how the debate should be adjudicated in his particular answer here.

And he's exactly right. See, yes, there is a way for Silverman to best White here. Here, he has not done even a decent job against White.

He's done very poorly. And now Dr. White is going to make the arguments that he should have for him. Oh, I totally do.

You have three and a half minutes to tell. Oh, no. The direction that you could have gone, it's a little bit late now, the direction you could have gone would be to recognize the teaching of the

New Testament itself, that it is the continuation of God's Old Testament revelation, and demonstrate that the

New Testament revelation is a fundamental violation of the same themes that are found in the Old Testament revelation. That wouldn't have been valid because you would have said that the

New Testament trumps the Old Testament. Well, that sounds like an argument, not a question, but I'll go ahead and answer that.

No, I never would have said that. And if you were familiar with my theology and my beliefs, you would know that I couldn't say that.

Now, maybe you've talked to people who think the New Testament quote -unquote trumps the Old Testament, but I happen to have a can that has 66 books in it, not 27.

And the Scripture says, and when Paul said to Timothy, all Scripture is God -breathed, the primary

Scripture he had in reference to that point was the Tanakh, the Torah, the Nevi 'im, and the Ketuvim. And so, no sir,

I do not have a secondary inspiration level for the Old Testament, so I could not have gone there. So, yeah, it's done.

Oh, yeah. At this point, I think even Silverman knows it's over for him. When you do this with your hand, at the end, you know you're done.

Now, Mr. Silverman, in listening to your opening statement, it seemed to me that there was also some, you referred to sending children to hell as a ghoulish doctrine.

Yes. Then you said something about infants in the New Covenant. I did not understand, because you then went on to talk about the age of accountability.

Do you think I believe in something like that? The quote that I gave you was true.

The quote that I attributed to you is true. Age of accountability does not come from you. It comes from John MacArthur.

Okay. But, when I was talking about infants and the New Covenant, was

I not talking there in the context of the dispute that I have with my beloved Presbyterian brothers on the issue of infant baptism?

Yes. Do you think I think that infant baptism saves children? No. Or that my

Presbyterian brothers think the same thing? I believe that you believe that there are babies and children in hell, and you won't admit it because you know that it stinks.

Okay. That's an interesting response. Zing! That's a witty retort.

I'll give it to Silverman. He's got a good little zinger in there. I'm not sure this takes very much away from where Dr.

White's going to go, though. So, let me ask you if you've ever heard this particular argument from an atheist.

And, in fact, I think I heard either you or your co -author, your co -anchor, interviewer, what's his name on your television program?

Dennis? Yes, Dennis. One of the two of you used this. I've listened as closely as I could over the past number of weeks.

You're passing by a house, and you see that it's on fire. And you see through a window a baby in a crib.

And you have the ability to get to that baby to save it from the house fire.

Yes. But you do not. Is such a person morally good, in your opinion, when they will not extend that effort to save that baby?

What I was talking about was going in and saving the baby at no risk and at no cost with no effort.

And, yes, if I were to be in that situation and I were to let that baby burn, even though I could save it with no effort, no cost, and no risk to myself or anyone else, then, yes,

I would be a wholly immoral person. And you made application to God on that level, didn't you? Yes, I did. Okay.

Do you think that it would have been morally good for God to cause

Adolf Hitler to have a heart attack at age 18 so as to save millions and millions of people if he could do so?

Uh -oh. I think I see where this is going. Uh -oh.

Let's see what happens. Do you think it would have been morally good not to cause the fall of man in the first place?

Could you answer the question I just asked, however, in regards to Hitler? Could... Would it have been a morally appropriate thing for God to have killed

Hitler before he could have built the Third Reich and murdered all of those people? Perhaps. Perhaps.

Would it have been appropriate... It would have been better for him to change Hitler so that he didn't do that.

Okay. What if the baby in the burning house was Hitler? You know?

What about it? If the baby in the burning house was Hitler, he hadn't done anything yet, and you're asking me if I'm a human.

Yeah. The question is, you said that God would be immoral if he did not save the baby.

But you've also acknowledged that God knows exhaustively the future, at least in the Christian perspective.

Yeah. So, if the baby was a future Hitler, then God would not be wrong for allowing the baby to die because he's stopping what that future

Hitler would do. Correct? Or he could have stopped the future Hitler from doing the bad things and let the baby live.

But isn't the point that you can't second -guess an eternal being and judge him the way that you are?

Oh, no, I certainly can't. You can. Oh, I certainly can't. Even though you don't know what the future is, you're...

How much of all of knowledge, of human knowledge, do you possess personally?

You're asking me... I'm asking you a question, yes. How much knowledge I have... How much...

What percentage of all of human knowledge do you possess? A very small percentage. This is what happens when you make yourself the arbiter of what is good and what is evil.

This came up with the... I think it was the Inspiring Philosophy versus Aron Ra debate, which is

Aron Ra basically said, you know, I have 20 years of experience dealing with Christians, and blah, blah, blah.

And so he made himself the arbiter of knowledge when it comes to the topic of the debate.

And so then Inspiring Philosophy pressed him, this is exactly what Dr. James White is doing.

If this person, Silverman, is going to sit here and say, you know what? For an omniscient, omnipotent being,

I know better. Then your bona fides are going to be questioned at this point. And so on the basis of a small fraction of even human knowledge...

And would you admit, sir, that mankind knows a very small fraction of what there is to know?

Yes. Okay. So based upon an infinitesimally small fraction of knowledge, you are willing to say you can judge the eternal

God as to what He does? Yes, I can. Okay. Thank you very much. I love how in this last cross -examination period both

Silverman and White know that this is over. So they just forego the rest of the 10 minutes.

They're just like, I'm done. Yeah, this whole exercise in cross -examination was essentially a non -starter for Silverman.

He spent most of the cross -periods meandering around and asking Dr. White to just clarify his own position, which is a huge waste of opportunity for Silverman and provided Dr.

White opportunities to advance his own position. The bottom line is, White came in and did what he should have.

He questioned Silverman's foundations. He questioned Silverman's consistency with regard to his own position. He questioned

Silverman's credibility in terms of his understanding of Christianity and the Bible. That's what you're supposed to do.

White clearly won this exchange. All right, now it's your turn to tell me who do you think won the debate?

Make sure to watch the whole debate and let me know in the comments below. And also give me some more suggestions about what to react to in the future.

Very soon, I will start working on exclusive content for members only. And once I have enough pieces of content for the channel,

I'm going to open up the membership feature. So stay tuned for all of that. I'm going to take a break and return soon with more videos.