Debate: Does God exist? Slick vs Adelstein

Debate Format, Introductions, and Technical Setup

If you can see inside here, you'll see I think from your perspective the upper left-hand corner, you'll see it says live. Do you see that? Yep. Okay, and there's zero people watching right now. If you put your mouse over that little eye There's zero people watching because we just started it.

But it'll be recorded and people will come in. All right. Yep, now we've got two people on we're watching okay, and so uh. What we can do is just self time and you know go over a little little over is fine.

You know half a minute or whatever doesn't bother me any all right. Yeah, okay, not a big deal so. We've got 20 people watching right now. Okay, you see how it works. I guess you already know. Okay. All right so what we're gonna do have 10 minute open each 10 minute response each 10 minute cross exam and 10 minute close now the cross exam.

Will that be that'll be just consisting of like for example, I'll ask you questions for 10 minutes. You have to respond then you ask me to questions for 10 minutes, right? Yeah. Okay, and then Q &A from the listeners.

All right, and The Q &A will have to be filtered down through here on the chat. You see the chat on the right-hand side. I do okay. And what I'm going to do is just see if a friend of mine wants to come in and maybe help out.

And if he does great, we should be taking it. We had a little tech problems folks. That's why we're a little bit behind and. So there that's it. Let's see, do you want to help run a debate? All right and If he does great if he doesn't then not a not a big deal.

And I'll put this URL in here and if he jumps in the last minute, we'll just take a 30-second pause. He knows how to do this. He helps me in the radio show all the time. All right. Okay, so. Sure than that one earlier, all right.

So I'll introduce myself really fast and you introduce yourself. My name is Matt slick. I'm the founder president of the Christian apologetics research ministry, and I'm a hardcore Christian. I defend the Christian faith and here we are on debating Gentleman and he will introduce himself and hopefully it will be interesting.

So your turn you're up.

All right. So my youtube channel is called deity defeater. I am a hardcore not Christian I I generally enjoy discussing and debating things. Interesting topics particularly religion. I've had several debates on my channel.

I didn't have as an Impressive resume. It's mr. Slick does but should be a good debate. And I talk a lot about why I'm not convinced that there is a God and in fact I'm convinced that there is not a God so we'll hash that out.

It should be interesting.

All right, it'll be interesting in a cross-exam and maybe we just have a open discussion too as well. That's fine. All right, so Chuck my friend said he will probably come in so if he does don't worry about it during one of the breaks.

Well, I'll just introduce him a little bit and stuff. He's no big deal. Let's see, so we've got 87 people watching so I'm still getting over a head cold. And so occasionally I will cough and clear my throat.

I'll try and mute myself in order to do that. You should have muting controls also at the bottom of the screen and also you might see me. Talking while you are talking you may see me. But I'm gonna do is mute myself and I have my notes my computer at 327 inch 4k monitors and a speech recognition program.

So when you're talking I'm repeating what you're saying and make adding notes in so I can come back and respond to what you're saying and Things like that. That's what I do. So if that doesn't bother you.

No one else is not bothering anybody else. They just know what I'm doing.

All right, you ready? Yeah, all good. Whenever you want to start your 10-minute opening statement. Okay, my 10 minutes. Let's see timer 10 minutes.

And let's see, we're just us, okay. Okay, here goes. First of all, thanks everybody for watching and for Matt he's another Matt for Participating in this debate. He challenged me and and Here we are now.

We're both named Matt. Matt means gift of God. So we'll see which one of us is. We know that God exists because without him We could not justify rationality our existence or any moral absolute truths.

In order to have a debate we must be rational and To be rational we must properly apply the principles of logic. The principles of logic in our debate are based on the laws of logic the law of identity Law of non-contradiction the law of excluded middle.

These laws of logic are utilized by our minds by both the debaters and the listeners. Now rational thought. Deduction conclusions are all the processes of the mind. We do not find rational principles these laws of logic under rocks behind trees or embedded in dirt.

We can't weigh them or take pictures of them or put them in jars. This is because the laws of logic are not properties of the physical universe. Therefore they are independent of the physical world. They are not altered when people reference them nor When people reference them like today or tomorrow or wherever they are when they reference them in Africa or here in America.

Therefore they are transcendent in their nature. That is they are independent of space and time. Also, these laws of logic are not dependent upon our brain chemistry. I've yet to see or hear any atheists produce a sound argument that Demonstrates how one chemical state in the physical brain at least with other chemical state in the physical brain produces proper logical inference.

If my opponent has something to offer I'd love to hear that one. The very possibility of a rational debate necessarily includes the Presupposition that the laws of logic are trustworthy applicable to all and binding in our search for truth otherwise our argumentation would be useless and Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.

I Propose that my opponent uses the laws of logic in our debates and when he does so he's borrowing from my Christian worldview. The reason he would be borrowing from my worldview is because the transcendent nature of these abstract laws can be grounded in the transcendent nature Of God the Christian God but not an atheism in an atheistic system of thought where the transcendent God is not allowed to be part of the Explanations for things in our world including the laws of logic the rationalizations from within that atheistic worldview repeatedly fail to account for the immaterial transcendent abstract laws of logic.

In Contrast the Christian worldview can account for the transcendent laws. If my opponent says he does not need to ground the laws of logic from within his worldview Then I can retain his dodge and use it at my leisure.

Should he ask me a question to which I might want to not respond and just say I don't have to give you an answer. Would that be acceptable? Well, of course not. On the other hand if my opponent tries to ground the laws of logic from within his atheistic worldview Then he would be arguing in support of transcendent abstractions from a non-transcendent worldview.

This would be self-refuting and invalid. However, if he tells me that he has within his atheistic worldview a transcendent foundation, then I would like to hear it. I'd like to know how he would justify a universal transcendent precondition for the universal transcendent abstractions Known as the laws of logic within his atheism.

I do not believe he can do that. Therefore for him to participate in this debate and use logic necessitates that he borrow from my worldview and by just merely Arguing he's already defeating himself in his own atheistic position.

But the Christian worldview can account for the transcendent abstractions. None of those laws of logic by affirming the transcendent and universal Christian God in this Christian theism is victorious now.

As far as our existence go that the universe is not infinitely old. There's the issues of entropy expanding universe problems of traversing an infinite amount of time. I can go over these another time.

The dominant view of science is that the universe is around 18 billion years old. Therefore the universe came into existence. That which came into existence was caused to come into existence. The cause of the universe was personal or it was not personal.

Only those two options. If the cause of the universe is said to not be personal then that non personal cause would have to be naturalistic materialistic. The cause was either eternal or it was not eternal.

Now if it was eternal that brings us to an infinite regression issue and worthy of another discussion. But if the impersonal cause of the universe existed eternally Then it would have had to have possessed and necessary and sufficient conditions to bring the universe into existence as part of its eternal nature however in an impersonal state of being without choice that Consists of strictly natural laws and conditions and necessary and sufficient conditions would have automatically resulted in the formation of the universe.

If the cause was eternal then it would have possessed and necessary and sufficient conditions eternally, but this would necessitate That the universe would have automatically come into existence an infinitely long time ago.

But the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore it is not possible that an impersonal cause brought the universe into existence. The only other explanation is a personal cause brought the universe into existence.

The Christian God would possess a necessary and sufficient conditions. Let's do this. Hold on one sec. We'll do this right here. The church will go would possess a necessary and sufficient conditions to bring the universe into existence and because he's personal he chose when to create the universe this accounts for.

The fact that we're not the universe is not infinitely old. And of course it accounts for our own existence. The third area that's problematic for the atheist perspective is the area of morality. According to the third law of classical logic the law of excluded middle statements are either true or false.

The statement I am involved in this debate is true, or it's not the case. It is true. The statement I am presently walking on the moon is either true or it's not the case that it's true and so forth. So I asked my opponent if the following statement is true or false.

Statement is this. Hold on the pause. Sorry. Okay. There we go. So is this statement true or false? It is always morally wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure.

If my opponent agrees that the statement is true. It's always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure. This is a moral issue. If he says the statement is true, then he's affirming a universal transcendent and moral absolute.

But how would he justify such a thing in an atheistic worldview that lacks abstract transcendent truths? If my opponent says that the statements not true. Then I would ask him to provide an instance where torturing babies to death merely for one's personal pleasure is Valid after all that would be the logical requirement of his position.

If he says that the statements neither true nor false that he's working against a law of excluded middle and he's adopting Irrationality which would then cast doubts on his ability of his argument regarding his denial of God.

Now just to be clear. I'm not saying atheists cannot be moral. The issue I'm raising is that they cannot justify what is objectively universally right and wrong from their atheistic perspective at most.

They can only proposed theories popular opinions pragmatism and other vacuous options to account for morality. But in the Christian worldview we can answer the question whether it is always morally wrong.

For anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure. The answer is simple. Of course, it's always wrong. God has said it's wrong to murder. He's revealed it. He's revealed it out of his own character and in nature.

So my opponent is an atheist who denies God's existence or at the very least denies that he has any explanatory ability and power in his own worldview. So in order for him to demonstrate that God does not exist. He has the basically a very difficult position to prove a negative.

It's very very difficult for him. He would have to provide answers to the challenges that I've given. If he raises a logical argument I Assert that he's borrowing from my worldview and refuting himself.

If he jumps to morality and makes statements about what is right and what is wrong. Then he must defend from his atheistic worldview where universal moral absolutes come from but this would presuppose universal abstractions.

Something as atheistic worldview would have an extremely difficult time defending even if you could try it to do it at all. This leaves us to conclude that the impossibility of the atheistic worldview as being as being valid.

It's just not valid when we have two options to account for something God or not God and the not God position can be shown to be invalid then the evidence supports God's existence. Finally I'd like to say that from the Christian perspective the laws of logic are the reflections of God's universal mind.

I can give account for them in the Christian worldview. I can give account for our own existence that God is our creator. I would say that any argument supporting any moral right and wrong necessitates the Christian Trinitarian God and that to argue that something is or is.

Not right or wrong presupposes his holy existence because from the atheistic perspective it's an indefensible position to hold that there are universal truths that apply in moral areas and He cannot say therefore what is right into what is wrong.

Atheism therefore fails the truth of the Christian God prevails.

All right. So my 10-minute opening statement and in this opening statement, I will not be refuting what Matt has just said. I'll be giving my opening statements the rebuttal and I'll be refuting what he said.

All right, I mean good good. All right. The first argument against God is the problem of maximization. Premise one a God would attempt to maximally achieve its goals. Premise two an omnipotent God has infinite ability to achieve its goals.

Premise three a God with infinite ability to achieve its goals would infinitely achieve its goals. Therefore if there were a God whatever its goals are would be produced in infinite quantities. Or if there's some logical problem with an actual Infinite amount of things some unfathomably vast amounts of God's goals would be produced.

Premise for God's goals are not produced in nearly Infinite quantities therefore God does not exist. For example. If God merely wanted beings to have a connection with him He could make infinite beings all of whom have sufficient evidence to have a close connection with him.

There is some experience that could bring anyone to have a close connection to God and even if there isn't God could certainly make Beings that are all able to be close to God or by miracle provide people with a godly experience.

Therefore the absence of nearly infinite quantities of God's goals dis proves an omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. The second argument is the problem of hell. Why condemn people to hell where they experience infinite suffering because they are unpersuaded by Christianity.

If God punishes non-believers for all of eternity for their non-belief. Then if you asked the victims of the Holocaust who had caused them to suffer more God or Hitler. They would have to say God. The fact that he's willing to infinitely torture atheists and Muslims proves that he's not a perfect God.

The most benevolent non-christian who you know is not deserving of eternal damnation given that by a mat slicks own account. Atheists can obviously be mortal. The third argument is the argument from obvious improvement slash the problem of evil.

Premise one good beings improve the world to whatever extent possible. Premise two if God exists he has infinite ability to improve the world and thus that he would make the world perfect. Premise three the world is not perfect.

There are bad things in the world in order to answer this argument. There are six obvious improvements that I claim a perfect God would make that must be addressed. One. Why would God make diseases such as malaria depression and flesh-eating parasites that devour the eyes of infants?

To why wouldn't he cause every experience of joy to feel 10 trillion times better and every experience of suffering to be 10 trillion times less painful. Any Justification for suffering is not sufficient to explain why this degree of suffering exists relative to the well-being that could exist.

If Matt posits that the reason for suffering is for us to enter heaven God could let everyone into heaven without the suffering if it's for spiritual growth. Then the theist would have to accept that no amount of well-being is worth a marginal decline in spiritual growth.

Given that God can turn up the well-being dials as much as he wants and turn down the suffering dials as much as he wants. Matt would have to defend that no amount of well-being justifies whatever explanation there is for God for going these obvious improvements.

Three what to resolve human evil? Why wouldn't God make people feel the suffering that they inflict upon others that would result in them having the free will to partake in evil? But never desiring to commit acts of evil for when they harm another they suffer.

For why wouldn't God make the peaks of suffering be less painful? Imagine the worst possible experience imagine being burned alive or being eaten alive. Could God not find a way to make that less painful without violating free will?

Five why wouldn't God make a world with less wild animal suffering where wild animals generally live good lives? According to Oscar Horta in 2015 There is far more suffering than well-being in the universe given the vast number of wild animals and the vast suffering that they experience.

Most animals are our Strategists, which means that they have thousands or millions of babies 99 .999 of whom died before reaching sexual maturity. The life of most animals that have ever existed consists of being born and either starving to death or being eaten alive on their very First day of life, even if the deductive argument is refuted.

There is an incredibly strong inductive argument against God given that the level of suffering in the world seems to be far greater than the level of well-being in the World as Horta has pointed out when the humans only make up a minute percentage of sentient beings and non-human sentient beings live terrible lives.

Even if God has some explanation for evil. Could he not create a world with more overall pleasure than pain and worst of all all of this has been going on for millions Of years before humans were ever on the scene.

Could God not think of a way to bring humans into existence without inflicting unimaginable suffering on unfathomable numbers of animals for unfathomable numbers of years. Six for those who are pro-life.

They must explain why 80 of fetuses that are conceived never come to fruition if life begins. Conception that means that God allows the death of 80 of people before they are ever born. Meaning that God is the most aborticidal deity in history.

Theists will often in response to this argument claim that there's a morally sufficient reason for evil as Matt has before. However, there cannot be a morally sufficient reason for evil and for forgoing these obvious improvements for four reasons.

One if there is some morally sufficient reason for flesh-eating parasites making them good in the long run. Then it would be bad to eradicate flesh-eating parasites. Therefore for them to proclaim that flesh-eating parasites have some mortally sufficient reason such that the world is better because of flesh-eating parasites.

They'd be in the unfortunate position of defending that efforts to eradicate flesh-eating parasites are immortal because they're eliminating something that is ultimately good. To the idea of a morally sufficient reason for badness is nonsensical in the context of an omnipotent being.

The nature of a morally sufficient reason is something is that something bad is necessary for something good over. Omnipotent being can simply decree the good end without needing the bad means. If it were possible to magically heal children with a wave of A magic wand it would be immortal to give them a surgery.

And the reason for malaria. For example is because it gives humans knowledge. God who could simply implant us with enough that knowledge. If it's because solving problems makes us progress God could give us problems that make us progress equally that don't involve babies dying.

Therefore these evils can't be justified on the basis of instrumental value because an omnipotent being never needs bad things for their instrumental value. With a wave of their omnipotent wand they can achieve their end without needing babies to die horrifically.

Three this cannot explain the problem of hell in hell. We are eternally separated from everyone else and from god. So why must we be tormented? Why can't we be granted happiness in hell? We are eternally separated from everyone else.

So eternal damnation can't have instrumental value if we must be eternally separated from god. Can't he at least give us some entertainment for all of eternity? Can't we at least have some books to read or some games to play as we languish in hell?

And then four it results in moral paralysis because if a perfect being would not prevent an earthquake that causes children to Suffocate under buildings and doesn't stop flesh-eating parasites eat infants eyes.

We should be very skeptical of every moral claim that we try to make. The fourth argument is the argument from concealment. Why would god remain hidden and not reveal himself? Why would god demand being worshipped without revealing his existence?

If there were a god you'd expect revelation to be available to all who for all who seek it. There's no reason for god to privilege one group over another when it comes to revelation. And yet there are clearly people who want to receive revelation, but who are never given divine revelation.

Fifth is the argument from mortal uncertainty. Why would we be morally uncertain if there were a god nick beck said found in 2013 that our mortal intuitions are very often mistaken yet. If there were a god you'd expect us to know right and wrong.

Why would the mortal law that's written in our hearts have so many errors in it? Six is the argument from alternative explanations. There are many other explanations for all arguments that could be brought up by theists such as an eternal all-powerful naturalistic Force all arguments for theism are arguments from ignorance saying we don't know x therefore a god.

However a naturalistic force the world being a computer program it being created by a series of pixies. It being created by an apathetic deistic god or some unexplained law of nature. Serves as an equally good solution and is historically far more likely to be the correct explanation.

An eternal uncaused all-powerful natural force. Can cause objective morality provide for presuppositions and cause the universe to exist. If any arguments against god hold any weight then alternatives become far more likely than the christian god.

Seventh is the argument from instruction. The bible is not the product of a divine being it has many atrocities and ambiguities. The best possible designer would not design a contradictory book open to conflicting interpretations such that religious people all disagree about what he actually wants.

Here's some verses that are pretty atrocious. Leviticus 24 16 says anyone who blasphemes the name of the lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Number 31 17 through 18 says now therefore kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who has known man intimately.

But all the girls who have not known man intimately spare for yourselves. In job 2 3 the lord said to satan. Have you considered my servant job? There is no one like him on earth a blameless and upright man who fears god and turns away from evil.

He still persists in his integrity. Although you incited me against him to destroy him for no reason. There's not a morally sufficient reason for this evil as god admits when he says it's for no reason.

Isaiah hosea 13 4 9 and 16 says you shall acknowledge no god. But me you are destroyed israel. The people of samaria must bear their guilt because they have rebelled against their god. They will fall by the sword their little ones will be dashed to the ground and their pregnant women ripped open.

Isaiah 13 9 16 says see the day of the lord is coming a cruel day with wrath and fierce anger. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes.

Their houses will be looted and their lives violated. The world would have been much better if the bible had said never own slaves never have sex without two-party consent. And had provided a comprehensive explanation of deep scientific truths.

Imagine the millions of lives that could have been saved by the bible explaining the germ theory of disease. Eighth is that it's irrational to believe in god absent some very compelling reason to believe in god.

My opponent has the burden of proof. They need to provide compelling evidence for god and if they can't then you should be skeptical about his existence given that they have the burden of proof.

Um, and that's my opening state. Matt you're muted.

The Christian Case for Logic, Existence, and Objective Morality

Okay. So you said a lot very quickly. What i'm going to try and do Is spend 10 minutes answering? Your stuff. And hopefully you can do what you want. You'll try to spend some time answering mine. All right.

Let me get the 10 minutes. You ready? And Just. Just to let you know what I try to do is represent you accurately. So if I don't represent you accurately my apologies you're talking very very quickly trying to get as much information as possible.

So, all right. That's what it is. I'm trying to understand the argument for Maximization omnipotent god is infinitely able to achieve his goals such a god would have goals. Goals are not produced to quality.

Uh, therefore he can't exist. I didn't really understand that you're gonna have to send me this Syllogism or this logical argument and I will uh, i'll find holes in it because. Uh, there were some things that you said very rapidly went.

No, that's not correct. It's not accurate doesn't necessarily follow but uh. On the issue of goals and the problem here is that inherent what are goals? You'd have to know the mind of god to know what his goals are and since you don't know the mind of god.

To insert that he would have to have certain requirements for goals is becomes unfounded your whole argument fails. Said something about uh hell. Why would god condemn people to hell for not being persuaded by christianity?

Because they rejected the only provision that god gave them to be safe in the righteous judgment and their rebellion against him. That's why it's a biblical question. You want to ask a biblical question?

I'll give you a biblical answer. You don't have to like the answer, but you can't refute the answer just raising up objections. And implying that it's morally wrong has no bearing on whether or not it is or is not wrong as your later arguments.

Produce as you quote leviticus and other verses and things like this. Your implication is hey, these things are morally wrong. Really who says so? You're going to have to develop a method. And a system by which there is a moral right and wrong for you to be able to say.

This is something we need to complain about otherwise. All it is is just your opinion and no offense meant but your opinion doesn't make something right or wrong. You've got to offer something more solid than something basically like hey, he's mean.

I don't like it. It doesn't work in an argument now um. Infinite torture of god. Well, you don't have to like that God has a right to do with his creation as he desires and if you resist him as you are and working against him as you are and Spit in the face of god in the infinitely valuable Sacrifice of himself in human flesh at the hands of people who denied him and you side with them.

Then you're going to get the reward that they deserve. As the bible says the wages of sin is death. So you said if god exists he can make a perfect world. We'll define what perfect is who are you to say what is and is not perfect?

You say he'll make a perfect world, but it's not perfect. So therefore it doesn't exist. Really? Give me you tell me what standard is you have a perfection by which you can hold god to? This is a problem.

You've got you beg the question you assume that your position has merit. You assume that you can say well, I know what the right world is. I know what the perfect world is. I know what morality is. You've got nothing to offer us in that regard absolutely nothing other than your opinion and again No disrespect meant but your opinion has no bearing on whether or not something is true and the world is not perfect.

I'll tell you why it's not perfect. I'll tell you why things aren't as nice as they should be. Adam and eve were in the garden. And things were great. They were harmonious. Everything was nice. And then when adam and eve started acting like atheists, that's when it went bad when they started deciding for themselves.

What is true for themselves what is morally right? And they decided for themselves that they would say that what god's words don't really mean what they say. And I will judge the truth of god's word. They started behaving like an atheist.

And all hell broke loose. Sin entered the world so you can blame the atheistic principles Of rebellion against god for why there are germs in the world because of the fall of the world. Sin entered the world and germs and diseases are part and parcel to the effect of sin in the world.

You ask biblical questions. Now. Here's a Something you're going to pay attention to. You ask biblical questions. I give you a biblical answer if you were to then say i'm going to argue from an atheist perspective.

Then don't ask me biblical questions. Don't use the category of atheism to judge christianity. This is a worldview Examination here i'm showing you from my opening statement that your worldview is incapable of accounting for rationality argumentation.

For our existence and for any objective morals by which you can raise against god to begin with. If you're going to raise objections against god and I give you the answers biblically. Then you have to deal with it from an internal perspective.

For you to jump outside and say no i'm going to ignore that and judge it from mine is to put your category upon mine. I'm using your own Internal critique your own position and i'm showing you why it doesn't work.

You say uh something about why would you make the peak of suffering to be less. I didn't understand that statement. Sorry, i'm just gonna go through my notes really quickly. Wild animal suffering. Yeah, there is a lot of suffering in the world.

Because sin is in the world because sin. Oh, thanks charlie with the uh, The timer at the bottom there on screen sin is in the world and because sin is in the world because Of its effect this is why we have suffering.

This is why we have atheists. This is why we have people who want to control other people who rape and pillage and murder. If they were to follow the christian god, this would not happen. But if they rebel against the christian god and act like atheists and say no, I will judge truth.

I will judge what is right and wrong. Any effective sin in the world becomes paramount becomes pervasive. And that's what we have and then you have the nerve to stand there and raise your fist up against god and say you shouldn't.

Let that be really who are you to say? What should it should not be? You can't just give us your opinion. You can't just do that pro-life stuff. 80 of fetuses never reach birth. Yeah, I know. I had a son who died at birth.

I had uh, my wife's uh, One of her other pregnancies entered in a miscarriage. I'm very familiar with that. It's the effect of sin in the world as well something you need to study biblically. You want to know the biblical perspective go to karm read up the articles.

But see god has the right to do with his creation as he desires. He has the right to ordain you to eternal hell if he so desires. You don't have to like it. But you can read romans 9 9 through 23. Or you can repent and you can bring yourself into that place in that relationship with god and escape the righteous judgment upon you which? is coming.

You have no basis of morality. You have no basis of rationality. You have no basis to justify why you're even here. Your atheism can't provide any of those things by which you can then base any of your complaints and your arguments.

And that's the problem that you've got. You assume that your arguments are rational. But you can't account for the rationality only in the christian world. You can you do that you assume that your moral perspective is the right one to argue from but you don't have any moral Perspective by which you can then say that I ought to hear and you ought to hear and the listeners ought to obey.

Or ought to make sense. Well, that is right. We ought to do this. You can't justify that from your atheistic perspective. The only thing you're doing is pontificating about your opinions. You've got nothing of substance.

Whatsoever concealment. Why would god conceal himself? Because people deny him because people work against him. Because people rebel against him. Because they get on youtube. They get on on stream yard.

They argue with people and deny god's existence and they accuse him of unrighteousness and god says he hides himself from the pride pride fall. He hides himself from those people who are just like you.

And i've met many i'm 63 almost 64. I've been arguing and debating for 40 years and i've met a lot of atheists who accuse god and they say well. Where's god show himself? You want the christian god then humble yourself.

But you stand in opposition to him on his tree. On his foundation of truth and then argue against him on his foundation of morality and argue against him. You've got nothing except foolishness and empty argumentation.

Moral uncertainty. What moral uncertainty? You're the one who has moral uncertainty. You can't tell me what is right and wrong. You can't tell anybody what is right and what is wrong. You have no basis of moral certainty.

I do. I can rest it in the true nature of god himself, but you don't have anything like that. You can't do it. All you can do is say I don't like it. Here's i'm going to try and make it sound intellectual.

This is why I don't like god because morally people suffer that can't be. Why would god do that? Well, let's have a bible study and i'll explain why god would do that. Because when people who remain in his image rebel against him.

He lets them have their free choices and the rebellion and the consequences of that rebellion. Which you yourself are experiencing in the hardness of heart the judgment upon you already read romans chapter 1 verses 18 through uh 31.

He said something about let's see. Hopefully when I read it my mind will come back. Alternative x alternative explanations creation by pixies or some other known principles. Equally valid explanation for god's creative work.