Debate Aftershow "Is Christianity true?"

I'm trying to let my mic charge us a little bit. When was the debate and where can

I find it? Go to the CARM Facebook page and you can see the information there, it's right there.

All right, so we've got the stuff there. We got, I put on the CARM Facebook page where you can go to come into the room if you want.

Good job, Matt and Rock. Thank you, Melissa. You can't hear me. What do you mean you can't hear me? Can you hear me now?

Okay, let's see. Okay, hopefully this won't go out, but if it does,

I'll just switch to the CAM microphone. Okay, can you hear me now? I guess you can, right?

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Can you hear me? Can you hear me?

I'm typing that in right now. Testing, one, two. It looks like it should work.

Okay, audio. Yeah, it should be working. Yeah, you guys can hear me. Good. All right, well, come on in and talk or type something in.

Let me know what you guys thought. What was it about? Was Christianity true? Marlee Schreiber Ritzenthaler.

Marlene. All right. Wow. Okay, looking, let's see.

No stream. Yeah, I put it in the link. I'll put it in here, but I did put it in already on the

CARM Facebook page, but there's the link for StreamYard if you guys wanna come in. Matt from a fan in Australia.

God bless your ministry. Okay, Joe. God bless. I don't know if I'm seeing all the comments.

I'm looking on two different screens. Okay. There we go.

Bill is in. Hey, Bill. Matt, how are you doing?

Doing all right. Nephilim free, not connected because it doesn't have his, it's not connected yet, so it can't come in without a mic.

Yeah. Mass hallucinations just does not work. Guess we'll need to connect Charlie's spine.

Let's see what Charlie says. Hey, big guy. Yeah, I'm in right now.

Give me the entry code, I mean. Oh, okay. The entry code. I'll text it to you.

Yeah, I'm in right now. Okay. All right.

We have stuff going on. Oh, man. Oh, man. I'm in right now.

Okay. See if it comes in or isn't it that comes in. If he tries to get in.

Let's see. We'll see. There it is. Got it. Okay, gotta put a code in here. And let's see.

It will be here. Okay. Where is it?

Charlie's spine. There we go. And the number is, there we go.

Okay. Got it. All right, so everybody, hope you guys enjoyed the discussion.

I thought it was fine. I thought it went well. There we go. We got people added in. There's Dave Kimball. We got

Nephilim Free. So everybody, hope you guys enjoyed the discussion. Feedback, that's okay.

Weakest argument he sounded, but like he didn't even believe himself. Good evening. Good evening.

How are you guys doing? So what'd you think? Feedback, let's go. Well, I think his argument,

I like your question. Would you believe any testimony of a supernatural event from anybody?

And the way he stumbled over that, he was trying, I think, to say, to make it look like he wanted to answer that question in such a way that he would say yes, because then he could argue, well, if it was believable, but this

Jesus one, I can't believe. But then the other half of him was pulling in the other direction.

No, I can't possibly acknowledge that there's anything such as the supernatural. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place when you asked that question, and I liked that.

Yep. Well, the problem is, see, I've learned over the years, it always comes down to presuppositions.

If you presuppose God doesn't exist, or you presuppose materialism, then it's not allowed that Jesus rose from the dead.

You have to argue that he can't. And then it's just refuting those little bits, but it's not addressing the ultimate issue, which is why

I wanted to go into that ultimate relationship, the relationship of him with the ultimate. What is the ultimate standard by which he can judge what is true?

Because if he doesn't have an ultimate standard, it's just subjective, but that doesn't mean it's true. Subjectivism is ultimately self -refuting because it just means you believe what you believe because you believe what you believe.

It's not an issue of truth. It's just subjective preferences and experiences. So how can he then judge that Jesus not rise from the dead since he has no way of saying it can be true or not true?

But to say it's a scientific method doesn't work either because a scientific method is based on philosophy, but he did not want to accept that, but it is based on philosophy.

It's based on the assumption of the validity of the uniformity of nature. It's based on the assumption of the universality of the laws of logic.

It's based on the assumption that people will report what they believe and they have seen, they'll report it accurately and truthfully, even though sometimes they don't.

So there are certain philosophical assumptions that the scientific method makes in order to be able to assume that it's valid.

And you can't use a scientific method to validate the scientific method because it's just category error. So there's problems.

He doesn't want to admit that it's a problem there, but it is. So it's another issue of his inconsistency where he has presuppositions that he can't defend, but yet he makes presuppositions in order to argue against the idea of God, but he can't defend those presuppositions to begin with.

It's a whole problem. And I'm trying to show that he's not being rational. I find one of the most obvious self -repeating demeanors or behaviors of atheists is that they're willing to accept the testimony of Plato in all kinds of historical references, but then when it comes to the

New Testament, of course, that can't possibly be believed. And that sort of hypocrisy demonstrates their atheistic mindset, their paradigm.

They'll believe that Plato truthfully recorded what Socrates had to say and all kinds of historical references with a skinny, witty little teeny bit of historical information in comparison to what we have in the

New Testament, which is just overwhelming. I mean, just absolutely blunderous amount of information compared to the historical references for so many events and things and that took place in the ancient past.

And the atheist will acknowledge, oh yeah, well, that's probably true because so -and -so wrote Plutarch said such and such or whatever.

But then when it comes to the New Testament, which is just embarrassing ridges of testimony, then that has to be dismissed.

And that kind of, that's just a fail safe. It is, it's a problem.

These inconsistencies, I tried to show that, that he was being inconsistent. I think your last statement,

I put in that verse for John 20, 25, because of his fraudulent claim that the disciples never claimed personally that they saw

Jesus. And the account of all of them saying that, even though it was written by a person, well, that person was one of the disciples and he uses the plural.

So you're pointing out that he wants things a certain way or he's not going to accept them is a typical liberal ploy to say, like you said,

I wouldn't have written it that way. And since it wasn't written a particular way, I'm not gonna believe it.

Yeah, Ron wants an originally autographed snapshot from a Polaroid.

Well, he wouldn't believe that either. I mean, Jesus pointed out that even if people see miracles, they're not going to believe.

So that's his thing of a video or whatever, even that wouldn't convince him.

He just claimed it was a Photoshop. So there's as many excuses as there are molecules in the universe.

But this thing that he quoted about Caesar having a sandwich,

I thought it would have been a good opportunity to say, well, do you believe Caesar crossed the

Rubicon? Because as that one gentleman pointed out, the evidence for the resurrection is greater than it is for Caesar crossing the

Rubicon. Yet he had no problem quoting it and probably believing it. Yeah, well, he used the same principle in Acts chapter nine.

Well, who was Paul talking to then? Exactly, and the thing is, is that what he fails to understand is that there's at least seven authors of the

New Testament. And the thing is, is every one of them either one way or another claims to be an eyewitness or they refer to somebody that would only make sense if that person was still alive.

I mean, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then Jude saying, behold, the

Lord is coming with 10 ,000 of his saints is senseless because he has to be alive to come.

And James says that if you anoint somebody with oil, the prayer of the faithful will help and the

Lord will raise him up. Well, if the Lord didn't rise from the dead, then there's no way he could raise him up.

So the thing is, is that all the writers of the New Testament either state directly or by inference, they refer to somebody who's alive and not dead.

And this is what he fails to see. And his thing about myths, well, Peter addressed that specifically when he said we have not followed cunningly devised myths.

So Peter knew what a myth was. And the thing is, is I mean, what this stuff that this guy was saying,

I mean, he was reading right out of Bart Ehrman's playbook. Yeah, wasn't Paul, when he was on the spot said, hey, you know, and I know this happened and there's about 500 people who are still alive that I can refer you to that you know in this community that saw him ascend into heaven.

I mean, exactly, that's what Matt pointed out that there was a lot of people, there was a lot of activity.

I mean, all this stuff had a self -checking mechanism built into it. He didn't make a mistake though.

He did make a mistake, kind of a technical one when he said David Koresh and the drinking of the poison.

That was actually Jim Jones that they drank the poison. Koresh was the Waco incident where they all got burned up.

Yeah, I saw someone jump in and correct that. The difference though is that their movements died out upon the death of the leader.

Christianity's just began. It went exactly the opposite of what you would expect of a highly charismatic leader passing away because in world history, when they pass away due to, especially due to an execution, a public execution, that's the end of the movement and Christianity's was just getting started.

That's right, yep. Yes, valid points. You know, they'll accept, as I pointed out, historical references for all kinds of things, but of course, they'll immediately dismiss the

New Testament and I think that any person, if there was such a person that was completely down the middle, you know, they're not drawn by a paradigm either way.

They're just completely agnostic on the matter and then was to actually read the

New Testament, I think that it would be powerful and convincing, okay, for them, but what tips the scale either way is one's willingness or unwillingness to believe in God.

That's what shoots them over to the other side because if you could remove paradigms, if it were possible to remove all paradigms from people,

I think that the New Testament is so compelling that anybody without a paradigm, if it were possible, and that's really pretty much impossible, but if it were possible,

I think this is kind of an intellectual or philosophical way of looking at it. If it were possible to completely remove all paradigms from somebody's mind when they read the

New Testament, I think the New Testament would convince almost anybody, but because of their predisposition to disbelieve in the supernatural, it doesn't matter how powerful that testimony and the evidence and the incredible literary beauty, astonishing nature of the

New Testament, it just is not enough to convince somebody whose heart says, yeah, can't be true.

Remember when he said, well, demonstrate is true, whatever exact wording, and I said, well, what would work? He goes,

I don't know. Wait a minute. I've always found that that's a disingenuous question.

Here, prove it to me. Well, what would constitute sufficient proof? I don't know. That's not my problem, it's your, no, it is your problem because if you don't even know what would work, how am

I supposed to come across this? Yeah, I was disappointed that he was so uninformed and ignorant of a lot of stuff.

Not that ignorance is a vice. I'm still ignorant of a lot of things, but I'm not gonna remain willingly ignorant.

What disappointed me was that because back in 1980, I bought a book, the copyright has expired long ago.

It was written in the 1800s by Haley, the alleged discrepancies of the Bible. And he's bringing up these old chestnuts that have been so thoroughly answered and refuted.

I haven't found in that old text anything. I mean, I haven't heard anything new that wasn't already answered and refuted as far as an objection from skeptics in that book from the 1800s.

It's like he wrote it yesterday. The Christian apologists of the late 19th century did a fantastic job.

Some of the preachers, prominent preachers of that day of refuting atheist and non -believer arguments.

They really, really did. They just smashed heads and they did a fantastic job.

They created a legacy for us to follow. My paper copy of Haley's alleged discrepancies has literally disintegrated in my hands, but it's still in print somewhere.

And like I say, it's an open source on the internet too, if you wanna look at it. And it is wonderful.

Well, you know, it was about that time when atheism really began to blossom. It had its origins in humanism in the 1500s and it grew in the 16, it kind of almost exploded in the 1700s, right?

And then in the 1800s, it was ingrained. It had started to become ingrained in intellectualism, in academia.

And that's when Christians who were prominent preachers, Presbyterians, Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, these guys stood up out of their chairs and said, wait a minute, you're not getting the full story.

We have got lots of stuff we can talk about. And they wrote papers, articles, published books to refute the atheists in the latter half of the 1800s.

That's right. They really smashed the crap out of the atheists. And it was an immediate response to the atheists attempting to push atheism into academia.

Yeah, as the German, yeah, as the German higher criticism came into vogue and became more popular, the

Christians jumped up and did a wonderful job of answering, but you're right.

That was a tough period. You know, with his reliance on science, one avenue of, how do you say it?

A veracity that might penetrate his thick skull would be to ask him if he'd like to sit at the feet of men like Newton, Galileo, Brahe, Copernicus, Matthew Murray.

I mean, the development of modern science was started by men who believed in God, didn't have a problem about it at all.

Matter of fact, the earliest, what they consider computer was invented by Charles Babbage, who was a very, very strong Christian.

And I don't know the exact percentage. I'd have to research it again. But from 1900 to today, somewhere between 65 and 75 % of all the scientists that have won the

Nobel prize have been theists. Really? So he really shouldn't have a problem with science and theism if he understands.

And Matt, you pointed this out by basically putting him in the box. You boxed him into his scientism and there's no way out of it.

He doesn't want to admit it, but there's truly no way out of it. But the answer is out of it. The answer is, as you put it, you have the answer.

And that's one reason these Nobel winning Christian men who are scientists are theists, because they know that's the way out of it.

They know that it explains the true nature of science and what it means. They know that the modern scientific method, not these speculative, ethereal theorists, but true developmental science, which he is one because he's in the artificial intelligence world.

I mean, he puts the rubber down on the road. These kinds of men are ripe for theism if they understand the relationship between true theism, the true, like you said, the true

Trinitarian God and the scientific method. Some wonderful testimonies along that line.

I got in a book long ago that's been updated and revised is Men of Science, Men of God. ICR put it out.

I mean, just to read about some of these guys is just jaw dropping, how faithful they were and how that faithfulness in God's word led them to their discoveries.

Oh, it's just amazing. Well, that was very well said. Sir, I don't know your name, the gentleman in the seafoam t -shirt.

That was, you're spot on. That's exactly right. In fact, we owe modern scientific discovery to Christianity directly.

In fact, we own all modern democratic republics to Christianity.

It was the explosion of Christianity that caused men to give up this idea that men have a power, a almighty power to rule over other men without them having individual sovereign rights as human beings created in God.

And that's what spawned. Manifest destiny, yeah. Yes, and that's what's exactly, and it's what spawned modern democracy.

Before that, societies were brutal, evil, and hateful. And after Christianity, everything began to change.

And the Christian societies of Europe, for example, that took over the world militarily, economically, theologically, philosophically, scientifically was spawned by Christianity.

We have Christianity directly to thank for the existence of modern republic democracy and for your microwave oven, in fact.

And so, you know, when atheists complain about that, if you point that out to them, you know, they'll say no, but then with a little explaining, they have nowhere to go.

You know, Queen Elizabeth of England was asked by two African kings who went to visit her on one occasion.

And they asked her, your majesty, what is it that made

Britain such a great, powerful nation? She handed them a King James Bible and said this.

And I think that says a lot. If the King James version was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for us all.

That's right. That's right. Well, that's not, you know, I'm not condoning, you know, anything about, you know, in truth,

Britain was a relatively brutal nation for a modern

Christian country in its, you know, peak of its day, right? But nonetheless,

I'm not condoning the errors that societies make, just the root of the situation. Right.

Not to step on your parade there. I mean, you're doing a great job.

Anybody, has anybody seen the movie, Oliver Cromwell? If you haven't,

I recommend you watch it. Are you talking about the one that had? Richard Harris.

Richard Harris, yes. It's a stupendous movie. It's not a Christian movie in that sense, but it has a lot of Protestant Christian overtones that had carried over into England, having the type of monarchy as you're suggesting they turned into.

And it was his basis on basically Protestantism that he took over and became the, what do you call it?

The Lord Guider or whatever of England until they could establish a King and separate the monarchy, a genuine kingship monarchy from the role of a prime minister.

So they themselves went through a political religious separation and that led directly to our founding fathers taking that same idea and even advancing it further.

But Oliver Cromwell is a great movie. If you get a chance to watch it, it's on YouTube. You can see it anytime you want, but it's deep and it's got a lot of backstory behind it.

It's really worth spending a couple hours watching it. Yeah, I watched that recently, in fact, and it was good.

It was a well -made film. I think sometime in the early 1950s or late 40s. We went from, the world went from a time when kings and emperors claimed to be gods themselves to an era where kings claimed to be ruled by and subject to God.

That was the change that Christianity brought. That was the snap right there.

This is what Matt pointed out to Dr. Garrett that in the Roman empire at the time of Christ, legally, that's what wound up getting him crucified because the

Jews said, basically he's being a King and we have no

King but Caesar and it was an automatic death sentence. I mean, that was the actual, that's what was put upon the placard at the top of the cross, right?

By the way, a little bit of trivia, guys might already know this, but as you know, the words,

Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, written in the three languages, the first letter of the

Hebrew words, the four Hebrew words spell the Tetragrammaton.

You know, Y -H -W -H. Yod -Heh -Vah -Heh, right. Yeah. That's why the

Jews said, change it that he said he was the son of God. Right. So it would change those, yeah.

Here's something interesting. Most people who are Christians don't even know this. The first three lines of the

Old Testament define rather they delineate the father,

Holy Spirit, and son in that order. In the beginning, God, that we could say colloquially, loosely, that's the father, created the heavens and the earth and the earth was void and without form and darkness was on the face of the deep.

And the second line is, and the spirit of God, that's Holy Spirit, moved upon the face of the water.

And the third line of the scriptures is, and God said, let there be light. And Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

He's the light. And so we have father, son, and Holy Spirit in that order in the first three lines of Genesis.

It's truly an amazing thing. That's awesome. That's very nice. I like that. Which is why -

And then the fourth line says, and the darkness, the darkness, what is the fourth line?

The darkness - Was upon the face of the deep. No, the light separated the darkness from the light.

And Jesus Christ said, I come into the world as a sword to separate. He splits it.

You know, you're either with him or against him, right? And so even the fourth line, it fits the whole scheme.

The fourth line really gives you the very cut line to the whole gospel.

You know, you're either gonna believe or you're not going to believe. So father, son, father,

Holy Spirit, son, and then Christ is the separator. But faith in him, a willingness to believe or a unwillingness to believe is what's gonna split this world in two.

And I find that astonishing. Hey, you know, Nephilim free, is that you?

Yes, sir. Did you know that Matt has actually met and shook hands with a Nephilim?

Huh, well, I'm Nephilim free as someone might be sugar free, so.

Tell him, tell him, Matt. I was visiting my wife before we got married.

She's working at Disneyland Hotel and that really big guy who played

Jaws in one of the James Bond movie, Richard Keyes. That's right. Keel.

Key, Mr. Keel, that's right. So I'm sitting at a table and there he is like 10 feet from me and sitting with his daughter,

I guess. And like, wow. And I mean, the guy was humongous. And so, you know, he made eye contact.

I just nodded and smiled. Went back to my dinner. I'm not gonna bother him, you know? And that was it. I was reading a book called

Kingdom of the Cults. I was reading from Walter Martin. I was reading it, just reading.

So, you know, he gets up to go and he walks over to me and goes, hey,

I noticed a book you're reading. And I looked up, he had a little cross lapel thing going on. And I went, oh yeah.

And so I was looking up like this and then I stood up and the angle of my head didn't change.

And then I shook hands with a baseball glove. And we just talked a little bit.

And then he said, it was nice meeting you. And I said, okay, nice meeting you too. God bless. Because he's a Christian, you know?

So yeah. That's awesome. Yeah. You know, gentlemen, all this comes down to what the

Bible says, a fool in his heart said there's no God. Right.

That's true. That's what it comes down to. It's, well, I tried to preach to him a little bit, just a little bit, you know.

Not getting preachy. Was that the Anaheim Marriott? Yeah, that was at Anaheim Marriott where Nick -

Oh, okay. I thought you said Disneyland. You know, you - No, no. Well, yeah, it was on, the

Anaheim Marriott was on Disneyland. It wasn't in Disneyland. It was, yeah, it was right there.

They had the big buildings there. Is that, yeah, that's the Marriott. That's where she worked. You know,

Matt, you said you preached to him a little bit without being preachy. And I think your technique, the way that you did it without it being offensive, but you followed what

I thought was the great maximum. And it just now dawned on me when you mentioned that, that, you know, you tried to give him the gospel.

And for those that won't take the gospel, you give them the law. And when you basically told him, you know, your inference was, you know, you've given the gospel.

You're not believing this. The only thing left for you is the law, which is judgment. But you did it in a very, very tactful way.

It was very nice. Yeah, well, that's what it is. You know, you never know. I remember once someone said to me years ago, he said,

Matt, you know, you changed my life. And I said, really? He says, yeah, something you said changed my life.

Really? He goes, no, you don't understand. Profoundly changed my life. Okay, what was it?

And I forgot what it was that he said I said, but I remember when he said it, I went, that's it?

I thought it'd be something really great, but it wasn't. And, you know, the point is that, you know, made the

Lord use it. We just made the Lord use it. That's it. Yeah, that's it.

It was nice to hear that he is not completely rejecting everything.

He's just got a bad liberal base for understanding.

And I'm hopeful, I mean, he's not, he's not what I would call a true atheist.

He sees what others have pointed out are some difficulties, but their logic is flawed.

And most of them have been answered, like Charlie pointed out. Right. The answers are there if he's willing to look at them honestly.

Well, I debated him myself about the flood of Noah not too long ago on Standing for Truth's channel.

And of course, you know, I just smashed him with science. And of course, the result was basically him saying names to everything that I said.

You know, that can't be true, that's not true. And even the things that are scientifically observable, testable, repeatable, it seems to me, he's just absolutely determined and it's hard.

He's not gonna believe in God. I mean, think about it. He's an atheist who holds

Bible study classes, and yet he's not convinced, he says. He's reading the

Bible and studying it. And that the testimony, the New Testament, the beauty, the linguistic incredibleness, the inter -interdependencies of passages through the books of the

New Testament and with the Old Testament. Now this is striking him as having a supernatural causation.

And he's just going on about his business. To me, that demonstrates somebody whose heart is absolutely hardened against believing the truth.

I wish I could say I had more faith that the guy will come around and become a Christian.

Of course, the Holy Spirit can do what he wills, you know, and let's pray that's true. But he's definitely a hardened one, that's for sure.

Well, you know, we had our previous debate and I brought up the issue of materialism as a self -refuting position.

And he admitted that, I brought it up and said that same thing. And I threw in a comment about he hadn't refuted that.

And it's important that we understand that his whole worldview is ultimately self -refuting.

He doesn't have anything to stand on. I mean, look at the most obvious thing.

Atheists claim that human beings are soulless bags of matter. We're just complexly arranged matter.

Isn't that the most absurd idea? To believe that complexly arranged matter becomes sentient, cognitive, you know, creative, considers its own place in the cosmos and believes in God.

I mean, really, the idea of the human beings believe in God, but they're claiming that soulless matter organized itself into something astonishingly complex.

And that complexity caused beings to believe in God. And here's the amazing thing about that.

If chemistry caused some organisms to become believers in God, while others didn't, and everything about a human being is nothing but chemistry, and there's no soul, we're just soulless bags of matter because you're a philosophical materialist, right?

So the atheist actually has no argument because they can't say that my belief is any less valid than theirs because chemistry has made them an atheist while it's made me a

Christian, see what I mean? And so it's self -refuting. Yes, it is.

Atheism is utterly self -refuting, no matter how you slice it. Yeah, when that came up is when

I posted this link here that I'm posting in here now for us. It's not hard to reason through this and see why materialistic thinking is, it fails, it's self -refuting.

And Matt did a good, a small article on that right there. Well, he did a good job of pointing out that as Garrett said, he has come to the conclusion and Matt said, oh, well, then if your position's true, it is nothing but a subjective conclusion.

That's right. He had nowhere to go with that. He just like, what did he do? He called upon science again, which just put him right back into his circle.

Unfortunately, I thought he got so defensive in his attitude, he didn't show it so much, but to me it showed because I don't think

Matt could have gotten him to agree that liquid water is wet. He would have suggested that there is a line of reasoning that could explain it as otherwise.

Even if he doesn't know what it is, there is a way to refute that. Yeah, that's how silly that kind of defensiveness brings him out and is exposed.

He didn't need to have that chip on his shoulder and I thought he was less than competent.

Do you think a fish knows that water is wet? Interesting.

Nope. I'm enjoying listening to you guys.

I am a little tired from the intensity, but I'm just listening, I'm enjoying it. You've had a good, good full day.

Yeah. Yes, yes, in fact, people don't know this, but Dave here with the

Arizona shirt calls me up and we're talking. Actually, we had a long, it's been a long day for me.

It's a really long day, always something to do. And Dave goes, so are you ready for the debate tonight? And I actually said, what debate are we talking about?

And so I had, what, an hour, hour and a half to prep. So I had to prep a little bit and plus take a break, plus get something to eat and worry about the pest control guy who was supposed to be here and never showed up.

Oh. Well, I learned something from Nephilim Free. What is that? That Dave's shirt is seafoam green.

Yeah. It looks seafoam blue to me. I don't know, it's a personal thing.

No, I like that description because we don't have our names up there on the blocks. Hey, Nephilim Free, I got a question for you.

You'd mentioned that you had debated Dr. Garrett regarding the Noahican Flood.

In your opinion, did he present any good, either rejoinder or question that you found somewhat difficult to deal with?

And all the debates that I've had with people about the Noahic Flood, I could cite maybe, in casual debates, there've been hundreds.

In formal debates, a few. Of all those discourses, I could say maybe three or four times

I got stumped by something that someone said, but then I did my homework,

I studied, and I found out the response to it. That was over a period of,

I've been doing this since 2007. So over a period of years, anybody who grows in their apologetics and their knowledge and things is going to get stumped every once in a blue moon by a new argument they hadn't heard.

And they're gonna study and then find out what's really going on with that. But typically, it doesn't happen to me.

Science is what it is, the evidence is what it is. And they're just,

I don't wanna start a big thing, but the physical, I just put it like this, the physical evidence that the

Noahic Flood is a geological fact is beyond overwhelming.

In fact, there is more scientific evidence for the Noahic Flood than there is for anything else in science, more physical evidence.

That's right. It's absolutely overwhelming. Yep. What would you consider among the more resilient or difficult questions to handle as they pose them?

Well, the games that they play with the order of fossils in the geologic column, as it's called, is probably one of the biggest.

Because they use this to indoctrinate millions of people to believe that the order of creatures, life types found in the rock record of the earth going upward from the

Cambrian upward, proves that one type of creature began another and began another and life got more and more complex.

And then eventually you get mammals and then eventually hominids and human beings. And people follow that.

They just believe it because people say it. And scientists say it. But the truth is that's not actually true.

That's based upon picking and choosing fossils from particular strata of geological formations in various places of the earth to form the geologic column.

Then they claim the geologic column is true everywhere. And that is not true. So that's one of them.

If I could think of another, I would say, the claim that a strata takes millions of years or hundreds of tens of thousands of years to form a strata, at least several thousand years to form a strata or layer in the soil.

If you dig down in the earth, anywhere you go, you'll find layers and layers and layers and layers. It goes really deep.

And these were laid down by the Noahic flood. But in hydrology experiments prove how strata form.

So they form in groups horizontally, rapidly. There's a lot more

I could say about it, but people believe automatically for some reason. You know what it really stands down to?

Let me say it like this. It really stands down to this. People believe unanimously because they've been told to, that the earth was once a lifeless ball of magma floating in space, glowing hot and cooled down over billions of years.

And that's why they believe everything happens at this outrageously long, slow period.

And they believe uniformitarianism. They believe that the billions of years exist and the hundreds of millions of years for evolution to happen exist because they believe the earth was once a ball of magma floating in space because astronomers, cosmologists, cosmogonists all say it's true.

And so if the earth was ever a ball of magma that cools down over a period of seven billion years or something to become livable, then obviously the period of time after that in life, things just go on real slow and all that in the

Bible saying the earth is 6 ,000 plus years old. It can't be true. See? So they swallow this idea, but the truth is the earth was never a ball of magma.

It was created by God as we see it today. Almost as we see it today. I mean, the

Noahic flood separated the continents and whatnot. But so they believe that the earth was never a ball of magma floating in space that cooled down over millions of years and got a crust on it and the crust organized matter and it became alive.

That happened, that story never happened. And science refutes it, but people believe it because thousands of scientists say the earth was once a ball of magma floating in space that cooled down over an unfathomable amount of time that does not fit in the human mind.

Try imagining how long a million years is. You can't. It doesn't fit with humanity because we can't even consider such a ridiculous amount of time.

And also - Yeah, go ahead. And also, how do they deal with the facts that there is no such thing as documentation recording anything prior to 4 ,000

BC? Or how do they deal with the facts that if we have been here for 250 ,000 human beings as apes from total human with total brain, how do they deal with the facts that it took them 240 ,000 years to find how to build a boat, how to build those?

Yeah, that's a great point. That brings it up a lot. And also, how do they deal that if we look at how the population happened, all civilization trace back to after the

Babel or around that time of years. And if we have been there as a total population for around 250 ,000 years, why the heck can we not find big city underwater under certain type of stuff?

What do we find? It's little village, little agriculture, little farms. And that's totally fine with the

Yak model after Babel, big genetic meltdown. And they would have popularized around all the globe and create their own little city.

And actually, if you look at Dr. Robert Carter, they have a, because it's usually brought up by ATS.

Well, you believe the Earth is 6 ,000 years. So how did we get 7 billion people in 4 ,500 years?

If you look at the model that is currently presented by a young recreationist biologist, it's actually not a problem for us.

It's actually a problem for them because we have estimated that, yes, if you look at the genealogy in the

Bible, people used to live to 100 year old after the flood and they went down, down, down.

So if someone gets until like 70 year old and he can still make children at that time, or if you count about it, let's say he makes 30 children.

Well, 30 children per year is if you multiply it, you can get 7 billion people easily.

And you know, it's just like one over and over. It's just that those children, they get taught evolution and they don't get taught that there's another story that God created the heaven and the earth.

They just get one side of it and they don't get the other side. And that's what was sad about me. I didn't even know that young recreationist was a thing until I've read the

Bible and became a Christian. I only thought about evolution. And when I was like, well, there's a younger creationist.

And I was like, well, first of all, that makes more sense. And that's like way more feeling better in your heart, knowing that there's a

God who cares for you. And that's just amazing. But those poor children, not everyone has that chance or not everyone has that opportunity of knowing about those types of stuff.

And praise the Lord for opening my eyes to what happened. After that,

Ariel, if someone wanna say something. Yeah, population growth models are great. Here's a good introductory link to an article on that topic from our friends at Creation Ministries International.

They are, I don't know why it's not posting. Oh, there it goes. But yeah, it's a fascinating topic and the objections and skepticism about it is easily answered.

Yeah, because I think that model takes around two human per generation, per couple.

So if you start by two, add up two in a year, add up two, two, two. And with just two people per year, per couple, you can get around 7 billion on Earth time.

But imagine they get like two and a half, like I'm just putting this way, because it takes around nine months for children, eight to nine months.

So imagine you add up, you can get another children like eight other years.

So you still have four months of that years. So it's like two and a half children per year.

I want one and a half children per year. So it added up pretty quick when you get up to like 1000 people.

Point you made that I think is, that really stands out to me. And I make this point when

I debate people a lot, is this idea that if humans evolved from some hominid that came out of Africa, and the estimate of time, it really varies.

240 ,000 to two point now, it's up to possibly two and a half million years ago that this allegedly happened.

If that were true. But they say that when that happened, the organisms that came out of Africa were fully human.

They had normal, full, fully human intelligence, just like modern humans. They were essentially modern humans.

They had a typical IQ of 110, 105, 115, like that.

So if that's true, so your point is a really good one. If what sense does it make to believe that human beings with normal human intelligence existed as a loin cloth wearing, a pole tossing, a rock scraping beings for 240 ,000 years and were not smart enough to invent the wheel or a trowel.

Exactly. It doesn't make sense. That's just their imagination,

Nat. And you know, we find out a lot of time, well, everything's possible if you just imagine it.

And you know, Jason Lysol, which is a astronomer, and he was asked, what is the best evidence for the earth being young?

Well, it's just reading the Bible. I mean, it's literally a genealogy of what happened during your story time and it records it in there.

And it can just only be verified over and over again. But you know, those people, once again, they'll say, present me the evidence.

Well, if you read the Bible in John five, Jesus present them evidence of who he claims to be.

He did miracle, he raised up from people, he raised them over, people were sick, he healed them.

And then after in John six, they say, well, who are you, Lord? And he says, you don't believe what

I did. They don't believe what Christ did. It's not because there's no evidence, it's because they're hard.

They don't have that flesh stone. What does the Bible says, you know, the cross is foolishness to them that believe it not.

No, it's foolish to them. So it's not about the evidence. It's not about Christianity. It's about what's in their heart.

You know, those people, they are dead in their sin. They like their sin rather than God. And they cannot focus on heaven.

I don't think it's so much they like sin. It's they don't like the idea of acknowledging to God that they're guilty.

That's right. Matt, Matt, Matt, yeah it is. What do you think that Ron's biggest mistake was?

Does anything stand out in your mind? Entering the debate. Actually, you know,

I joke about that, but anyone who debates is presupposing the universality of the laws of logic and evidence.

And he's presupposing certain things. And by doing so in his worldview, he cannot justify them.

So he doesn't realize he's barring from my worldview. So entering into a debate automatically means he loses a debate.

One of the things I wanna do one day is actually develop an argument for an opening statement when it's appropriate for that kind of a debate topic to say that just by the fact of you arguing means that you've lost the debate because you're arguing against the presuppositional necessity of the

Christian Trinitarian God. Now I found it interesting. He didn't understand the issue of the one and the many.

And that, okay, he didn't know. So I wasn't gonna pursue it very much, but I was trying to get him to understand the issues of the transcendentals.

And how concepts are not just simply derived out of your own personal opinions, because that's what his worldview is.

It's a set of personal opinions and stuff. So when he entered a debate, he didn't have a good foundation of rationality, not a good foundation of truth.

He made the mistake of thinking that science can give you the answers that you need, not recognizing it's a philosophy.

He made a lot of mistakes as far as I'm concerned, but the biggest one was entering the debate.

He doesn't realize that by doing so, he's ultimately conceding. And you know, everyone has to presuppose stuff in life, but it's what your presupposition relies on, like what secures that presupposition.

Which worldview can account for the presuppositions of the circularity? Like I remember like a great

Christian apologetic named Van Til put it this way. Everyone has presupp, when I walk, when

I enter in a house and I walk on the floor, I presuppose that when I'm going to walk on the wood and the floor, it's not going to break down.

So they, even atheists has presupposition, but the real question is what secures that presupp?

Is it, you know, what is the fundamental and ultimate that secures all grounds of truth?

No, they can say, well, I believe, well, if they say they don't have any ultimate, so if you don't have any ultimate, could that claim that you just made or your presupposition, every fact that they would say could be falsified because by, you know, let's say

I say that I drink water. Well, could alien be deceiving you in a non -Christian worldview? Well, they could.

You don't know if they exist, but they could still be out there deceiving you or during human evolution, your eye could have wrongly evolved and deceive the whole population.

So I think that's where you need to appeal to the Christian God who secures those facts because we know that alien don't exist in the

Christian realm because God said that Eve is the mother of all things. So those

Atheists cannot account for their facts. You know, they'll say, well, I don't believe in God because I don't think I need God for anything.

Well, if you say that, so what is fundamental and ultimate and secures your facts?

Well, they don't have an answer for that. Even some Atheists. You could remember he was squirming for quite a while trying to respond to some of the things early on in the debate.

He did not know which direction to go. He kind of rambled a little bit. He paused a lot, yeah.

He paused a lot. You could see his little brain was just working its butt off trying to come up with something.

Well, so I'm gonna hop out of here. I've enjoyed talking to you guys. God bless you all. You guys have a blessed evening.

I'm gonna pop into another live stream. Good job refuting an Atheist, Matt.

Guys, have a blessed evening. God bless. God bless, man. God bless. Thanks for your participation.

I think my thoughts toward Ron are a little charitable because I think of the list that Paul went through how many categories

I fit in that list at one time. And looking back, I can say like Paul did.

And as such were some of you. So Ron's in there now, but God cracked me.

He can crack Ron. And I'm comforted in a carnal sense. And I shouldn't confess this, but I will to know that I'm not the last knucklehead that was turned out.

They're still turning them out. And that was proof tonight. Yeah, and as God says,

I will have mercy upon whom I desire to. Exactly. Yeah, exactly.

And like you said, like I pointed out, the natural men receive another thing, which is of the spirit of God and it's foolish unto them.

So the cross is foolish to them that perish, but it's kind of a victory for us. Christ conquers sin.

And he died for the sin of those whom he saved and to whom he saved, he also justified.

So those people, the reason why there's this, Colossians said they're dead in their sin. So that's the reason why.

Those people are dead in their sin. And all they see is, I remember there's a

Bible passage in the book of Psalm where it says that the wicked through his own sin has not anything that relate to God.

Like, he doesn't care about any things of God. I should find that Bible passage because I think it's a really good

Bible passage, which explains why those people cannot believe. And, oh, here you go, I got it.

It says that the wicked through the pride of his own countenance will not seek after God. God is not even at all in his thoughts.

So those people, they don't think about God. You know, they'll say, well, I have to fornicate. I have to drink alcohol.

I have to do those things. But when it comes to God, well, I'm gonna pass on that. No, I don't like that. You know, that's how they are.

Well, as long as we keep giving them the word of God, we're doing our part. And remember, the word of God doesn't come back without accomplishing a purpose, but here's a sobering thought.

That purpose may be to lock in their conviction on that last day where they're judged and say, you should have known better because you heard from so -and -so and you heard my word from so -and -so.

You rejected it and you're gone, buddy. The other way, the other accomplishment could be welcome, child of mine.

So it does accomplish a purpose, both to save and to establish someone's guilt on that last day.

So we gotta just keep giving it to them and God will use it in the way that he finds to be merciful and just in the end.

Amen. I gotta go. God bless you, man. Yeah, I'm gonna get going too.

I'm pretty beat. It's been a long day, so. Well, pray you get a good night's rest, Matt.

Yeah, I need it. I'm gonna go watch stupid stuff on TV. See if you can find -

Oh, that's always good. Yeah. You can find all over Cromwell. Oh, yeah, maybe.

But you gonna stay in, Charlie? You can just close the room when you're ready or? No, I'm gonna go too. Well, thanks for having me on.

You remind me of Willy Wonka when he said, a little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men.

There you go. I like that. That's true. That's a very good, memorable line from Willy Wonka.

I like it. Well, I hope everyone's grown the knowledge of God and everything up and God bless you guys.

I'm gonna be heading out here, but it was a pleasure to have you guys and speak to you. God bless you all.