Online Apologetics, Study & Debate with (Michael Jones) of Inspiring Philosophy

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and today

I have another special guest with me, Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy. He's got a really great

YouTube channel with videos that cover a wide range of apologetical issues.

And so let's just jump right into this. Mike, why don't you say hi to those who are listening in or who will be listening in eventually once we get things rolling?

Hi. There we go. Thank you. You didn't say to say anything else.

You said say hi. Why don't you say a little bit about yourself, man? So, yeah, my name is Michael Jones.

I run Inspiring Philosophy. And I create a lot of various types of videos in an animation type setting.

So I'm never on camera. It's all graphic driven. Are you camera shy? This is a big deal for you right now.

Well, when I started my channel, I was very camera shy. In fact, I thought about not even using my voice on my videos.

OK. Because I didn't want to be there at all. And over time, I've come more out of my shell. But I started the channel doing the animation videos and I thought, just keep it going.

People like that more. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, very good. Well, I have you on to discuss a specific topic that I think will be useful for people listening.

I just want to get this out of the way. I do tell people this all the time. Every time I have a guest on, I get messages from people telling me about this, that and the other thing about the persons that I have on.

We'll just get this out of the way. Michael and I disagree on some issues, and that's OK. He is a theistic evolutionist.

I'm not. It's not the end of the world. I'm a presuppositionalist. He's not. It's not the end of the world in that regard either.

So I just think that after listening to a lot of what Mike has put out on his

YouTube channel, especially with regards to his debates, you know, apart from the points that we may disagree,

I think he's an excellent debater. I think he makes really great points that people who are into apologetics very much benefit from.

And so that's why I have him on here today to discuss the importance of online apologetics. We'll ask him a little bit about how he got his channel going and talk a little bit about strategies with regards to personal study, prepping for debates and things like that.

And I hope folks who are listening in today will find this useful. OK, if you have not already, please subscribe to the

Revealed Apologetics YouTube channel as well as the podcast. All of the videos here will get converted, the audio files there and be available for folks on iTunes.

So without further ado, my first question for for Michael. Michael, I feel like your uncle.

Michael, how would you like to be addressed? Mike, I know you don't care. You can refer to me as Supreme Overlord Commander of the

Apologetics. Overlord? Supreme Underlord. I'll give you Underlord. I don't care. Mike or Michael is fine.

You can call me I .P .E. too. It doesn't matter. All right. So first question is so you do online apologetics.

I mean, your channel focuses on producing material that helps people grapple with common objections to Christianity.

What got you started on in online apologetics? And why do you think it's such an important area to be involved in?

Well, what kind of got me going in online apologetics was is basically

I saw that there was a big atheist community on YouTube.

And I was debating people on Facebook at the time. I used to do MySpace back in the day.

You know, that tells you how old I am. OK. But I was debating people at the time. I was debating people on Facebook.

And they sent me these videos. But like, here's a video by Dark Matter or Thunderf00t. Haha, you're refuted.

And I'd be like, this is so bad. Why is no one like offering like a better Christian perspective on this?

And so I thought, here's what I'll do. I'll do a couple of videos on topics that I'm interested in at the current time.

My goal was to do 13 or 14 videos. And that way, when I get these debates online, I can just refer people to a video

I already made. So I did those. And then people started commenting on the videos. And I thought, well, they're raising different objections.

Let me do other videos to address that. And then I did a couple more. And then I did a couple more. And it just sort of started snowballing there.

You just never stopped. OK. I'm still going because people are raising different objections and I'm trying to get videos for it.

That's right. How many did you do? Go for it. Oh, yeah. I was just going to say that, you know,

I just realized that maybe I could build this apologetic video library where people could use my videos in that kind of situation.

What I very much appreciate about your videos is that they're detailed.

You're covering issues that can be covered broadly, but you go into details on the issues from your perspective and the particular defense that you give.

It's very detailed, a lot of your information, especially with regards to your debates. You come very prepared, not with simply generalities, but specific facts and references and things like that.

And I think a lot of people can learn from that approach. If you don't mind me asking, how many videos do you have on your channel?

How many in total do you know? A lot. A lot. I think it's around 150 or so.

I don't remember exactly. Now I'm doing three videos a month. All right. Very good.

So what, in your opinion or in your experience, has been the most challenging aspect of having a

YouTube channel, producing the material? I mean, I know there's a lot of background information that has to go into making videos, editing, and things like that.

How did you approach that back -end aspect of getting your YouTube channel started? Well, I mean, my goal was never to get the channel big or get going.

My goal was just to do a couple videos on the research that I just sort of took off. I mean, I would spend some time researching the topic.

I take notes. I make a bunch of highlights in my books. Once I do that, sometimes I'll do an outline.

Sometimes I'll just make a script. I'll read the script, and I'll put video over that. Then I go back, and sometimes

I'll do re -edits, re -video changes, re -writes. It's a different process,

I feel like, for every video because all the research will be different in what it's focused on. What's your favorite video?

What have you done that you're kind of really proud of? That's a good question. Maybe my recent videos

I did on monotheism. Maybe either my video The Case for Ancient Monotheism or Israel's Revolutionary Monotheism, or maybe my video

The Emerging Universe. The reason why I like those ones is because they're unique. You're not going to find those types of videos on any other channel.

The research, I think, is pretty solid. So I was really proud about getting those ones out. I feel like they're—especially the recent monotheism ones.

I was quite proud of those. Right, right. Now, you're very well known for your video content, but I think you're also very well known for your debates.

I know you've done a bunch of debates. I've listened to a lot of them, and what I appreciate about them is you don't cover simply just kind of the generic debate topics.

I think you did a debate about Christmas, the pagan origins of Christmas, and you don't really hear a lot of debates on that specific topic going around.

So I very much appreciate the uniqueness of the topics that you take on. What is your process like when you're preparing, not just for debates in general, but specifically these areas that are more focused?

Instead of just, does God exist? I mean, obviously, you're going to have to know your own arguments, the objections that are out there.

But what is your process of prep when you're debating some specific topic, like the pagan origins of Christmas or the pagan origins of Easter or something like that?

Well, despite the way it seems, I don't memorize everything. Sometimes I like to say that my computer is my third half of my brain.

Just a little pun there. So I have notes in front of me. I have detailed notes about possible objections they could bring up.

When I do the pagan origins of Christmas, I have all the sources with the quotes listed there, so I can easily just cite them.

I'm not going to pretend that I memorized everything. That would be impossible. The more I do it, the more I do commit it to memory, which

I kind of like. So what I do in debate prep is I go through and I make meticulous notes.

I prepare it all on my computer so it's right there and available for me to look at. I will also study the person

I'm going to debate, figure out what makes them tick, figure out where I think they're deficient in terms of arguments or presentation, and I will use that.

So I don't feel like they're good at answering back and forth questions. I'll try to give them back and forth questions. If I don't feel like they can retain the information that well,

I will try to give them a lot of information that they will have to deal with. Now, some people might think that might be rude or whatnot, but I'm not attacking them personally.

I'm just trying to show their arguments are insufficient and point out the weaknesses in their arguments. So I'm not trying to attack them personally.

I'm not trying to make them look bad. I'm just trying to make their arguments look bad. So you have to understand how they present their arguments, where their arguments are coming from, and what they use to support it.

So that's what I try to go after in these debates. So I always say debate is knowing your information and knowing your opponent.

Know who you're going to debate, know what's going to make them tick, and then try to figure out where their weaknesses are in terms of the arguments they present.

Sure. What I appreciate what you just said is you don't memorize your stuff, obviously, right? But when you're looking at the camera, it just looks like you're just debating back and forth.

It's like, man, this guy's got his stuff. You're right. We very much rely on technology and just the note -taking process.

Why don't you go into that a little bit? I mean, when you make outlines, what sort of outlines do you make? Are they bullet points?

Are they just kind of like subheadings and like subpoints underneath that? I mean, how does that process look like for you?

Some of it is bullet points. Some of it is not. It's really what I feel like I could look at the best and recall it quickly.

If I feel like a paragraph is what I need there, I'll do it. Every mind is very artistic.

So sometimes I'll try to create patterns there that I can work with. Sometimes I'll try to bold certain things that I feel like I really need to stand out.

You know, I just try to let what I feel like I can memorize flow. I don't try to stick to certain roles or whatnot because your mind is changing and you've got to flow with the artistic way your mind is going to read things.

So patterns are good. Rhymes are good. Things are organized in certain structures that are helping them remember certain things.

But, you know, it's different every time. Very good. Now, I think preparation is so important.

And there's another element there that I think that preparation can help remedy. Maybe you could speak to this. When we're doing apologetics, it's very easy for people to get very nervous, especially people who might be interested in getting into apologetics, but they kind of have a lot of anxiety going into it.

When you first got into apologetics, did you have kind of that anxious, kind of like, oh, my goodness,

I'm going to be putting myself out there. People are going to be saying this, that, or the other thing. That's one. And number two, how has your study, your in -depth study of the topics you cover, given you confidence when you're engaging in apologetics?

Yeah, so when I first started, I was very nervous. I remember being extremely nervous when I first started apologetics, and that's why

I didn't want to be on camera. Okay. So what I tell people is the more you get your feet wet, the more you'll be able to dive in.

So start out by debating people on text format things, like on message boards and whatnot, because that's a good way.

You don't have to answer right away. You can just sit back. Sometimes you can think about the argument and come up with a good reply. And sometimes that's actually convinced me of certain things, and it changed my views on things.

So start out with that and study the information, engage in those kind of debates, because that's going to help you prepare for more live in -person debates.

So that was how I started to build more confidence, is doing a lot of that. As people notice, earlier in my channel, I engaged in a lot more replying to comments on my channel than I do now.

My channel has gotten bigger. I can't do it as much. I want to focus more research, but I did that a lot early on because it really helped strengthen my debate skills,

I feel like. Now, when you are prepping, when you're producing videos and things like that, do you find yourself a perfectionist?

Does that kind of mentality, if you have that mentality, really affect the speed with which you put things out?

Do you find yourself editing things all the time or making sure your manuscript, for example, is just right? Is that something you struggle with, or is it you just get your thoughts out and you kind of do what you got to do?

No, I very much am like that. I have three people spellcheck my videos. Okay. And even sometimes spelling errors get by, but I always know because the people that have no lives have to call it out.

It's not like it's going to change everything. I misspelled there at one point. I mean, it happens. But, yeah, I have people spellcheck videos.

I go back and I'll redo things. As I said, I did a video back in March called

The Case for Ancient Monotheism where I recorded the whole video. It was 55 minutes long. Then I decided

I didn't like the way my voice sounded in it, so I re -recorded it all in February, which took a while because it was 55 minutes, because I just decided

I didn't like the way I sounded in it. I thought my voice cracked too much. So, yeah, I can be kind of a perfectionist when it comes to videos.

Okay, very good. The voice cracking. I did notice that sometimes. It's just the way you're speaking a lot too, so it's easy to kind of your voice gets hoarse and all that kind of stuff.

Yeah, my voice, I'm still going through puberty apparently. Okay. Just real quick for those who are listening in, you can send in your questions.

Michael is happy to take questions towards the back end. We'll put some of the questions on the screen there for him to take, and I'm pretty sure you're comfortable with any old questions someone wants to ask.

You can address it at your own leisure. Also, I'm super excited. Not that long ago, we reached over 1 ,000 subscribers, so we're still pretty small, but we're growing, and we have the

Super Chat capability. So if you have a Super Chat, greatly appreciated. If you are finding the information on this channel useful, your support would be greatly appreciated.

Okay, my next question for you here is, I think this is an important aspect of doing Christian apologetics.

I think so much we can focus on that intellectual aspect, and I'm not saying this to separate the intellect from what

I'm about to say, but how do you balance your study of the academic material with your own spiritual formation?

I think that's a very important thing to keep in mind because a lot of people who watch apologetics tend to be very cranium -driven, and sometimes they do this to the exclusion of their spiritual development.

How do you balance that in your own personal life? Well, for one thing, I don't think that's necessarily bad.

I don't think you're implying that, but if someone is getting that idea, I want to point out that I don't think that's bad. Some people are just more analytical in how they approach and think, and that's not bad.

That's just the way some people are. So I embrace that side of myself. I don't think it's bad. I feel like that's the way God made me, and I'm not going to pretend

I'm some charismatic Pentecostal that needs to get super emotional all the time. I'm just not.

To be fair, I have had a very emotional week, so this is a little different for me. Some personal issues came up.

No, I don't see you smile a lot in your videos. You do look very stoic many times.

Yeah. I mean, it's just not me. That's more Mike Winger. I'm just more straightforward.

Let's do it. So my spiritual life is very personal and private.

I don't really talk about it because it's sensitive to me. It's not going to really convince anyone.

It might if I knew someone personally and they wanted to hear about it, I'd bring it up, but I tend to just feel like that's between God and myself.

You do see some of it in my videos occasionally. You'll probably see some of it in a video I have planned for December.

I'm going to do a video called the – probably it will be titled The Lost Message of the Bible, and so I will go over some interesting things

I'm looking at in the Old Testament that correlate in the New Testament with regards to Christ and whatnot. So there are some of those things that come out.

With regards to my spiritual life, it's hard to say. I'm not really much a planner in terms of that. It's more private prayer life, quiet time, that kind of stuff, talking with people that I'm close to, things like that.

I don't know if there's any formula I have for that. Sure, sure. Yeah, same for me.

I don't have like a prayer schedule or something like that, or I'm going to study my Bible at this specific time.

But, I mean, Bible study is a big part of it. Now, with regards to your own personal Bible study, what is that process like?

I think people would be interested in not just – there's that kind of studying where we're preparing for something, and then there's that kind of study that's just part of our spiritual formation.

We love the Lord. We want to get to know him more, and so we're digging into the Scriptures. How is your Bible study – what does your

Bible study look like? When you're approaching the Bible, are you going to start somewhere? How do you decide all that stuff?

I go through books of the Bible. I'll go through John, Romans. I've gone through Romans probably 15 or 16 times at this point.

So that, I've gone through – I like going through some of the Old Testament prophets like Amos and Hosea.

I feel like they're underappreciated. Malachi is also a very interesting book.

So it's going through specific books. I don't like flipping through my Bible and going, I'm going to read this verse today because God is guiding me through pages.

I think it's more of a study process kind of thing. Okay, very good. Okay, now

I know that when we study, there's a difference. Well, sometimes I suppose. There's a difference between studying for research purposes and studying for debate prep.

Is there a big difference with how you approach those topics? I mean, do you approach with a different frame of mind when prepping for a debate as opposed to say,

I'm going to tackle this particular topic? It depends. I mean, it depends on the debate.

It depends on the topic. I don't think there's one formula for either of those. Like if I'm going to debate something theological,

I'd probably have to do more of like an intricate Bible study. If I'm going to debate something like if Jesus was buried in the tomb, that's going to be more strict.

What do these verses say? What do the outside sources say? I'm not really sure I can put either into formulas, honestly.

I feel like if you're going to get into debates, you have to have some sort of intuition about it.

You have to trust your instincts that sometimes you have to learn to develop them, and you cannot just pretend everything is going to be clear cut because humans are complex.

There's going to be chaos in any way you approach that. All right, very good.

Now I want to move on to this issue of arguments. I mean with regards to apologetic methodology,

I mean people who watch my show, they know I'm a presuppositionalist. You are obviously not. What camp would you put yourself in?

And when you answer that question, I want to go into some of your favorite arguments that you use when you're engaging unbelievers both on the online format and when you're face -to -face with people.

So what methodology do you resonate most with? I mean classical, evidential.

What does it look like for you? Yeah, I'm a classical. And so the difference between a classical and an evidential is an evidential will say that you can use the resurrection argument with an atheist.

I can see some merit in that, but I prefer to – so I'm not hardcore classical.

I could lean evidential. But I tend to say if you're not going to accept the evidence for a specific creator, or if you're not going to accept the argument for a general creator, you're not going to accept the arguments for a specific creator.

So a classical apologist would like to convince someone that a god exists before they argue Christianity is true.

For me, that tends to be the most comfortable approach. That's where I've seen the most success in converting people, bringing them to Christ.

So that's the approach that I go. And when people say, well, you debate this atheist on the resurrection, most of the time

I'm going to say no because I feel like we're just speaking totally different languages, and we need to get on the same page before we can even have that conversation.

Sure, sure. So you would identify yourself as a classical apologist, and classical apologetics includes a whole host of certain arguments that are usually associated with that method.

You have the traditional proofs, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, moral arguments, things like that. What do you find is your favorite argument, and what argument do you feel most comfortable presenting and defending?

Probably an argument I've helped develop called the digital physics argument because it's just arguing for a general creator.

And when I bring this up to atheists, they get a little – I've noticed that the ones at least I've presented to get a little squirmish because it takes the contingency argument or a cosmological argument and takes it one step further.

Matt Dillahunty is always like, yeah, we know the universe had a beginning, but we don't know what caused it. Well, with the digital physics argument,

I can argue that what caused the universe is mind -like, or it is a mind. And if it's mind -like, it most likely is a mind.

So I've found a lot of success with that, and I feel like it takes the traditional theist arguments one step further.

Sure, sure. Now, again, just to get back to methodology, again, I don't share your methodology, but I watched your debate with Matt Dillahunty.

I thought you did excellent. My favorite part of the entire debate was I think when Matt said that, I'm not convinced, and you just said,

I don't care. That was my favorite part. Who cares? You're not the judge. You're not the arbiter of truth.

I don't have to convince you. I just have to make your arguments look bad. There we go.

And I think you did a very good job in doing that. Now, when you said

I don't care, obviously you don't care. I mean, you're right. He's not the arbiter of truth.

However, I do think, and I believe when I was watching, and I thought you were using a tactic so as to avoid common pitfalls that people fall into when debating

Matt Dillahunty, the kind of skeptic he is. Why don't you unpack that? I mean, how did you approach that debate with regards to anticipating his kind of skeptical sit back and just reject everything you bring at him?

What was your frame of thinking going into that debate? Well, my frame of thinking of going into the debate is to point out he is also a human, he has emotions, and he has baggage, as he even admitted at the end of the debate.

He doesn't want to call it God because it creates baggage for people. Gee, Matt, you just admitted far more than you realize there.

So you got to go in with that approach that he is not the arbiter of truth. It's not my job to convince him.

It's my job to show this is the best explanation of the evidence. Unless he presents a better explanation, then his arguments are insufficient and he doesn't win the debate, so to speak.

I don't like using that term, but there I go. But the basic approach is to show that I'm not there to convince him.

I'm going to show what is the most probable. If he doesn't like it, well, he doesn't have to agree with me.

He can believe whatever he wants, but he's got to offer a better explanation. If he can't do that, the evidence is clearly on my side, and God most likely does exist.

What else can I say there? I'm not going to try to convince him because I understand that he says a lot,

I'm not convinced, and then declares victory sometimes. And that's just nonsense. You can't do that. I mean, imagine if young -earth creations were debating with atheists, and they presented all this evidence for evolution, and then the young -earth creationist says, well,

I'm just not convinced. The atheists are going to have a field day with that, and so I'm going to use that same tactic they would do on a young -earth creationist.

What do you think? I mean, I don't know if you'd want to do this, but if we can jump into his mind, what do you think his tactic is when debating theists?

I mean, I'm sure a lot of the ways that he rejects theist arguments are following a particular strategy to come across a certain way.

What do you think his tactic is? And my second piggyback question, why is it important to anticipate the strategy of the opponent?

So I can explain it, and then I'll give kind of an analogy that will help put it in.

His debate tactic, his mindset is summed up in one thing he always says. I don't think you can be too skeptical.

He has said that in his debates in the past. Oh, I disagree. I think you can be too skeptical because you can be skeptical of your own skepticism.

Therefore, you don't need to defeat your own skepticism. Therefore, you can be too skeptical. So it's a silly thing he says.

But that basically sums up his debate tactics. He just doubts everything as long as he doesn't have to take the conclusion that his opponent has.

So he'll just throw doubts. He'll throw out random possibilities. He'll throw out little things that make you think it's not solidified.

And the response to that is going, yeah, it's not perfect, but I'm still offering the best explanation. You've not offered that.

Matt Dillahunty and skeptics in general like him. I can think like others. I'll just stick with him right now.

So skeptics like him in general are different than how Christians will argue. We look at skepticism like a hammer, like they look at skepticism like a hammer, if I'm going to use this as an analogy.

But we look at our hammer skepticism as like we're chiseling a statue. We're going to make it better.

We're going to refine the edges, chip off some of the bad things. I'm skeptical of that. That'll help make my worldview better. To them, their hammer is a self -skepticism.

They go around beating everyone else's statues, but never chiseling their own because they don't have a statue. They just want to tear down everyone else's statues.

So we present our worldview, this chiseled nice statue, and they just want to beat it down with their hammer. And our reply is to – the reply should be is like, well, you're not presenting a better statue here, so mine clearly wins.

If you were entering a statue contest and you don't bring a statue, I win by default even if it has holes in it or has cracks on it.

And so you've got to point that out. So think of the way the skepticism looks at skepticism versus how the

Christian looks at skepticism. We look at it as a tool to refine our worldview. They don't want to present a worldview.

Matt doesn't like presenting worldviews. He just wants to be skeptical of any worldview that his opponent is bringing. So they're going to look at their skepticism like it's a hammer.

As long as they can beat down your worldview enough, they assume theirs is default for some weird reason, and therefore they win. You've got to point out their worldview is just not as good, and they're not even presenting one to challenge yours.

Sure. Now would you say that – again, psychologizing, do you think that the reason why many of these atheist sorts, like online folks like Dillahunty, they do not posit a positive perspective, or they do, but they don't want to outwardly do it because it gives them a burden of proof?

Are you trying to avoid the burden of proof? Right. That's exactly what they're trying to do. They want to avoid the burden of proof.

And to some degree, they are right. We do have a burden. We have to show evidence or at least present arguments that God exists.

We just can't say, well, I think God exists, therefore I'm right. We've got to present a case.

The problem is they don't present a case. They just look at our case and go, well, I'm not convinced. There was a problem with that, and there's not enough evidence to convince me.

Who cares? If I have a boat, and I say, this boat is going to get us across the river, and the skeptic comes and says, well,

I don't think that boat's going to float. There's a tiny hole in the side there that might water get in. And I'm like, yeah, the boat's not perfect, but it will get us there before it sinks.

We're not going to spend hours on the river. You don't even have a boat. I'm saying let's go across the river, and you're just doubting my boat.

That does not show me that the boat is untrustworthy. If they came, they had, look, I've got a steam -powered boat, a steam -powered engine over here.

We can get across much faster. That would be a different story, but they never do that. They never present a challenging worldview. This is why when you debate the resurrection with Matt Dilhunty in specific, he doesn't present an alternative case.

He doesn't want to go there. He just wants to say that your case is insufficient. Right, and he said some remarkable things that I think the average person would probably reject.

I think it was in a debate with Michael Icona where I said something about if his head, he severed off his head, and his head kind of came back on.

He's like, would you believe me? He's like, no, I wouldn't. It's like, oh, okay. I mean, that's pretty extraordinary.

I mean, like why are you even here debating? You obviously have set up a structure where no one could penetrate, and you'll never be convinced of anything.

And then you'll go off to the side saying we want to follow the evidence or we want to believe as many true things as we possibly can.

I think that's critical. Right, and that's why you can't fall into his trap of setting that he sets up that you have to convince him.

Sure. Or you have to sort of, he sets this arbitrary line of like what is enough evidence, but never really defines you, defines what that means.

But, you know, it's there and you've got to meet it somehow, but he's not going to really tell you the specifics of how to meet there. He says on his experience sometimes, he's like,

I don't know what will convince me, but I'll know it when I see it. But what does that even mean?

Like you're setting up these weird standards that cannot just be met. So I'm not going to try to convince you in the debate. I'm just going to show your worldview is insufficient.

Right, and these standards can't be met. And I think he sets up a standard in such a way where it always gives him wiggle room to reject what you present because you don't know what you're aiming for.

There's no standard that's established. Would you say then, and maybe this is an intentional thing, a lot of atheists who argue along those lines very much remind me of the

Greek sophists, you know, these people who are just very, you know, they're good on the rhetoric.

They're good at doubting everything, but they never try to defend a specific perspective.

Do you think that this is something intentional, or do you think this is something that it's just the way people are wired sometimes, is how they approach these debates, and they don't understand that they have a burden of proof also in this discussion?

I think sometimes it can be intentional. For the most part of the time, I don't think it's intentional.

I'm trying to be fair and charitable. I just think it's something they do. Like recently I've been talking about the double standard that's always applied to the

Bible. They would not apply to other ancient works. Some people have been saying, well, you're accusing them of being evil and disingenuous.

No, I don't think they're doing it on purpose. I just think they've done it for so long and they've read so many works, they just assume this is how you do the

New Testament or biblical studies in general, but you don't do it to other ancient works. And I'm trying to show that you're doing this without thinking, and that's just not fair.

Let's treat the Bible like any other ancient work and see where the evidence leads us.

And so I don't think they're doing it on purpose. I just feel like sometimes they've just been trained to think and act that way.

Right. Now, I think I saw this in the debate with, and we'll move from Dillahunty here because there's so much more to talk about.

But I did see the debate with Matt Dillahunty and David Wood. And it made me laugh when

Dr. Wood referred to himself as a philosopher and Dillahunty kind of like made a face.

Like, you know, like he had to stop and be like, well, I have a PhD. You know,

I've gone through, you know, I know the issues and things like that. I see that a lot of the tactics that many atheists use are they use a lot of ridicule, whether it's through verbal or just body language.

How do you navigate within discussion those tactics of ridicule, whether it's unspoken ridicule, body language, or if it's verbal ridicule, how do you approach that so as to not lose your bearing, not get off track, but stay focused on the issues?

How do you approach that? Well, one thing is I just don't acknowledge it half the time. Okay. Unless I feel like it's getting out of hand and I have to.

What I will do is just I'll let the audience see what the kind of person they are, and I'll just remind people

I'm focusing on the data. I'm focusing on the evidence. Let's go there. If they want to, you know, like my debate with Arn Raw, I feel like he just kind of went off the handle, lost a lot of credibility.

He became a meme after in some ways. Yeah. Fine. Let the audience see what he's doing. I don't care. I know the reasonable people will see this and they'll go from there.

If his hardcore fans want to make fun of how my voice cracks or attack the fact that I may have been talking too fast, it's going to say more about them than it will about the evidence or more about me.

Yeah. All right. Very good. Let's take a couple of questions here, and then we'll move on to some other questions here.

Just to let you guys know, there are some questions for you here, Michael. But if you guys have more questions, keep them coming.

And, again, just want to remind you, if you have not already, subscribe to the Revealed Apologetics YouTube channel.

And, of course, I always appreciate any sort of support. If you're a Christian watching this, definitely appreciate your prayers.

And, of course, financial support. You can do that through Super Chats and PayPal accounts, things like that.

Like Michael and other YouTubers, I'm very, very much passionate of getting apologetics out there and contributing in my own way.

And I'm sure everyone who does these things are contributing in their own way. But if you appreciate the content, not just myself, but Michael as well, support.

Just as you would support a ministry. Apologetics is a ministry. And, interestingly enough, it is something that is neglected often in many churches.

So if Michael's channel encourages you, go support that channel. If this channel encourages you, we would appreciate support and prayers as well.

So I just wanted to throw that out there. So let's take a couple of questions here. Well, that was your question here.

Does pineapple go on pizza? No, I could answer that one. That's really... I agree. All right.

Let's see here. Someone is asking you the question. Would you debate Dr. Syngenis on the early flood?

Or I think they're saying here... I think he's a geocentrist. Okay. And I try to avoid people like that for like these...

I don't really want to be associated with the fringe crazy ideas. Like when I debated Ken Hovind, I actually had a lot of donors get mad at me for, you know, giving him a platform.

I've been told by a lot of people not to give certain Jesus mysticist platforms because of personal things they may have done, and they don't want to see him, you know, be given a platform.

So I have to be very careful with who I debate because of politics, unfortunately. And I'm not so sure about that.

I'm toning down debates right now, as I've told people, because I'm about to start my master's degree, and I need to focus on that.

Debate, I put a lot of work into. I don't take that stuff lightly. So I don't one at a time.

So probably not. I would debate someone on the local flood, but I prefer to debate someone who's a little bit...

I would not... It doesn't hold to... You know, I'm not going to debate a 9 -11 truther, even if it's not a 9 -11 truther, because I don't want to...

So I'm not going to debate Alex Jones, you know, because it's... Why would I want my face with him? That kind of association puts a bad image in people's minds.

And unfortunately, we have to be conscious of that in this realm. You and I both know that. Yeah. What I appreciate, what you just said, that you take debate prep very seriously.

That is one thing that consistently shows forth in every debate that I've watched. And I've watched a few of your debates.

You always seem overly prepared. What do you think? Overly prepared.

That not only do you have the information to respond to the critic, but you also have a little bit of sprinkles to put on. Like, Ann, don't forget this.

And you could read that paper, and someone will quote something. Yeah, I read that. I mean, that's... Preparation is so key in debate, and not even in debate, when you are doing apologetics in general.

I mean, the Bible tells us in 1 Peter 3, verse 15, we are to always be ready. And so our lives should be one of constant training and refining our thinking because we want to be able to be effective witnesses for the gospel when the context arises.

So I very much appreciate that about you. Writer John Bucks, given $5, thank you so much.

He says, I love you guys. Well, love you too. Appreciate it, man. Let's see here.

Oh, yeah. Eli looks different without... I always wear glasses, Michael. All right? This is new.

I'm wearing contacts right now. Otherwise, I wouldn't see you. Let's see here. Let me see down here.

Got to go down a little bit. There was a question down here.

I want to see. Hey, what do you think? Okay, here we go. Here's a question for you. What do you think about the videos on YouTube that say they've debunked the historical evidence for the resurrection that you made?

Have you seen any of these videos? Yeah, I've seen them a lot. And a lot of it is, again, they play a special standard to the

Bible. They would not apply to other ancient works. You know, the Christian scholars, the conservative scholars are calling for us to treat the

Bible like we would treat other ancient works. And you don't see that a lot. So I don't feel like they do that.

I feel like that's one thing. I feel like they're not fair in how they look at the evidence there. In fact, I have an idea. I want to maybe do this in a future video.

Not this year, but maybe next year at some point. I want to take one of Bart Ehrman's opening statements. He does in his debate on the resurrection.

And, you know, he goes through all those contradictions and whatnot. And says, like, did Matthew say this? But Mark said this.

Was Jesus crucified on Thursday? I want to take his things and just change his words to where I go talk about Hannibal crossing the

Alps and do the accounts of Polybius and Libby. Did Hannibal come to the Rhone and Sara River or the

Rhone and Issachar River? Did the Al -Libro tribe, did they betray him or not?

You know, did Hannibal give this big lengthy speech or did he not? Were his troops dismayed or worried about crossing the

Alps? Or were they happy to go? I mean, you can find a lot of contradictions in ancient works. And so I want to do something like that to show the special pleading that's actually happening here.

But I need to develop it and lay it out more instead of this fumbled mess I just sort of presented. But you get the kind of idea

I'm looking at. But no, I don't think the evidence has been debunked because I feel like there's a lot of special standards going on.

And the naturalistic explanations that some skeptics offer turn out to be more ad hoc than the resurrection explanation.

What they'll say is things is that, well, miracles are the least probable, so any naturalistic explanation is better.

And I'm like, well, you're assuming a naturalistic worldview. That's not fair to the evidence. I mean, we should follow the evidence where it leads, not assume a worldview and then try to make the evidence fit it.

And something is the least ad hoc when it posits the least amount of assumptions.

A lot of these naturalistic explanations, they multiply assumptions beyond necessity. Like Paul had to have some sort of anxiety and get caught up in this weird emotion, and he'd have these hallucinations, and Peter had hallucinations.

And they have to bend the rules in how they interpret how Jesus was buried, as I've been going over recently.

And so it just gets incredibly ad hoc. So, you know, and so they're multiplying.

So being the least ad hoc is not about the quality of assumptions. It's about the quantity of assumptions. And you may not like the resurrection hypothesis, but you cannot deny it is.

It does multiply. It doesn't multiply the entities beyond necessity. It multiplies the least amount of assumptions there.

So then you get the other—from there you get other arguments. Well, what about Vespuian's miracles? Or what about these miracles in these other ancient works?

Are you going to take their miracle counts? Well, no, the evidence is not nearly the same.

But even if you're right, you're just shooting yourself in the foot because you're admitting there are more miracles in your naturalistic world.

It's incoherent. That would be an argument between me and maybe a Muslim, or me between maybe and someone who believes Vespuian actually did cure the blind.

But you're not helping your case that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. You're saying there is more evidence for other miracles as well.

You're just supporting the worldview that there's something beyond the natural, which is actually going to support me in the long run. I mean at the end of the day,

I can accept there are more miracles even if they're right. I don't think they are in a lot of cases. But even if they're right, there's more evidence for other miracles because I would agree there are demonic forces at work.

Maybe they were caused by that or whatnot. So we've got to play with probability here. We've got to play with the evidence, and we've got to treat the

Bible like we would treat other ancient works. It's a collection of things, and that's how I would reply to a lot of these skeptical arguments.

So I've said a lot there, and I know I didn't go into a lot of details, but that gives you a general idea of where I'm coming in. Well, I do think it's important.

I mean what you said there is recognizing, for example, when someone is presupposing a naturalistic outlook.

I mean those who listen to my channel, we're always talking about presuppositions, right? Identifying those and then addressing accordingly

I think is very, very important. The existence of miracles outside of our religious context is consistent with a

Christian worldview because we have a particular understanding of the world. And so I think that's a very important thing to point out.

Acknowledging those doesn't help the skeptics' case. I don't know why they do that. I'm sorry?

I don't know why they do that. Like, oh, would you believe that this miracle happened if you accept the evidence for the resurrection?

Okay, we get into details. I think it would be pretty easy to show the evidence is not nearly the same as it is for the resurrection. But even if it was, that doesn't help your case, let alone debunk the resurrection.

Right. Yep. Good point. This is not the last question but the last one that's not serious.

Does Eli look younger? What do you think looks younger? How old do you think I am, Michael? Take a look at this face.

97. Very good. Ouch, man. I don't know. What do you think? Your 30s or something?

I just turned 38 on the 30th. Okay. You're only three years older than me. All right.

Yeah. Ouch, 90 -something. Imagine. Holy crumb cakes. All right. Here's a question for you.

This may be a bit off topic, but what are your opinions on the different views between Protestants and Catholics in regard to the

Eucharist being literal or symbolic? Go ahead. Start another reformation with this question, but go ahead. No.

I don't get into internal disputes. I'm leaving that one alone. Okay. All right. Cool. Here's another question.

I know Mike is a theistic evolutionist, so am I. Ask him about how to defend Christians who cite

Acts 26 .17, and I'll try to pull that up on my phone here if you get to it.

Let me just look at it really quick because I have not memorized the whole Bible, unfortunately. What's wrong with you, man? Come on.

I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from light to darkness and from the power of Satan so they may receive.

I think he may have gotten the wrong reference here. Yeah. I will rescue you from your own people and from the

Gentiles. He might be referring to the verse where Stephen says that God created all the nations from one man because that tends to be the verse young earth creationists use from Acts.

Okay. I refer them to the work of Joshua Suamidas, who has argued that it's very easy to argue that everyone today is genealogically descent from Adam and Eve.

Yeah. Everyone alive at that time would have been descended from Adam and Eve on the genealogical sense. That's not an issue.

All right. This question was meant for those in the chat, but I think people would be interested in hearing your thoughts here.

Who are the best apologists other than yourself on YouTube? I know there's a whole slew of YouTube apologists.

Who do you watch if you watch anyone else's channel? What are your views there?

Have you heard about this sexy guy called Eli? Well, I have heard of him, but this channel is a little sketchy.

Yeah. In terms of other channels, I would say - Before coming on, have you watched any of my videos?

I have. I've not finished some of your debates or whatnot because I have a daughter and she always interrupts me.

I immediately have to stop what I'm doing and make sure I do what she does. It's important for me.

There are a lot of good apologists now, and I'm glad to see a lot of younger ones and smaller channels starting to rise up.

It'd be hard for me to cover them all. I don't want to mention some of the smaller channels and leave some of them out that I'm going to forget off the top of my head.

I'll just mention some of the bigger channels. I'm sorry for the little guys out there, but there are a lot of good little channels. I share their videos if I can on my

Facebook page, so check that out. I think Mike Winger is pretty good at explaining some of the things in the

Bible. I don't agree with everything he says, but there's a good place. I think WhatDoYouMeme is pretty good at handling current affairs.

I think Capturing Christianity brings a lot of good experts on in terms of that. Those are some pretty good people

I can think off the top of my head because I know them more personally because we've interacted with them. Check out other people in the

Apologetics Empire, which I am in, and I feel like that is a pretty good place to start in terms of apologists.

All right, very good. What is your view on total depravity in Scripture? That's an interesting question.

I do think humans are depraved. I'm not sure if I'm under the idea that maybe as strong as the

Calvinists would look at it. I look at total depravity as like a spectrum, and I definitely lean more towards that way because I did a video on the problem of evil, and I think if you study evil,

I think it's pretty clear humans are quite, quite depraved. I don't believe in total depravity.

I believe in quite depraved. I think that might be a good way to put it. I feel like humans are very, very depraved might be the best way to put it.

Maybe I'm not in the exact same boat as John Calvin on that particular issue, but I can see where he's coming from.

Right, and those of you know where I stand there. Would you affirm an errantist perspective in your theology, but not something worth defending with atheists and apologetics?

So I don't know what that even means anymore. When I was at ETS last year, I attended a lecture by Mike Lacona, and he raised a good point.

He's like, depending on who you talk to, an errancy means something different for each person. I mean,

I don't know what that means. I don't even like the word anymore. I prefer to talk about the Bible as if it's reliable to what was originally written and what happened.

So that gives me a little bit more leeway in dealing with skeptics and whatnot. I don't think I have to take this strong position, and I don't even think the biblical authors necessarily have to say that.

I do agree that scripture is God -breathed, but, I mean, that has become such a detailed topic, depending on who you talk to.

I feel like the topic of an errancy would take hours to break down and what you even mean by that anymore.

Okay. What type of philosophy are you going to be studying, and are you going to study philosophy of religion?

So I guess that's your master's that you're going to be working on. Yeah, so I like to focus on philosophy of science.

I'm going to the University of Arizona because, A, it's close by. I can ride my bike there pretty easily. I live pretty close to it.

But also there's a professor there named Richard Healy who I want to study under, and he's written a book. I just read it over the summer on quantum mechanics, and that's where I would like to focus in because he takes a pragmatist approach to quantum mechanics and ended up agreeing a lot of what he said in that book but also disagreeing with his underlying philosophy because I'm not a pragmatist.

So I'd like to study under him and get a better understanding of quantum mechanics and be able to use that. I'd like that to be my specialty.

So I'm probably more going to focus on philosophy of science. I would like to study philosophy of science in regards to philosophy of mind, philosophy of quantum mechanics, philosophy of biology because those are topics

I've done on my channel, which I like, and it's unique to my channel. I'd like to continue doing that. Here's a question.

Can you explain drinking during your debates? I think they're referring to—I think you took a couple of shots.

So I actually haven't drank since my debate with Matt Dilhunt during the debate because when

I first started doing debates, I would get so nervous and paranoid. I just needed to calm down, and so I'd have a little bit of whiskey to keep my nerves calm, and I feel like that really helped get better at debates.

So as I said I was talking about earlier, it takes time to get good at debates, and that was something I employed earlier on because it really just helped keep my nerves calm.

Even when I would go up against someone I knew that I would do well against, still I was just nervous, and I wanted to keep myself calm and reserved.

Yeah, there's a wide range of views of Christians and alcohol and things like that. I mean, taking a couple of sips of something is not going to send you to hell.

Anyone who's Reformed knows that a good Reformed person could enjoy a nice foamy beer.

I like to remind people when people say, Jesus doesn't want you to drink alcohol. Meanwhile, Jesus made wine at a wedding at his first miracle.

Non -alcoholic wine, Michael. Louis, pastor did not exist yet. Come on.

I mean, that's what I was told when I grew up. I remember asking my pastor once, because I grew up in a very strict

Pentecostal background, and we didn't go to the movies because the devil hangs out at the movies.

Not the movies. Not the movies. We didn't go to the beach. Halloween, of course, was the devil's birthday, but clearly everyone knows he was born in August.

I did a video on Halloween. Maybe I can show my pastor that.

It's not pagan, man. I remember asking him, why is it wrong for us to drink alcohol? Even if it's just – he's like, well –

I told him, Jesus turned water into wine. He goes, well, if Jesus gave me wine,

I would drink it. I was like, come on. I have so many philosophical problems with that, but okay, man, whatever.

To be sure, wine wasn't as alcoholic as it was back then, but it still was alcoholic. It still was alcoholic, and Jesus is accused –

Jesus says, no doubt you'll accuse me of being a glutton because he's eating, and a drunkard. Now, why would they accuse him of being a drunkard if the wine he was drinking wasn't alcoholic?

Right? Right. A couple things you could point out there. All right. We're actually coming up on 49 minutes, and if I get off the questions and start another line of questioning, we won't have time to address the others.

So do you feel comfortable continuing with some questions here? Yeah, that's fine. We can go to the hour mark. It's fine. All right.

Cool. Okay. Someone says, in his video about hell, sounds like he doesn't believe in literal hell, which would be heresy.

Are you a heretic, Michael? What's going on? No. I don't know how you could get that in that video because I was very clearly talking about people going to this place, this outer darkness, this being exiled from God.

To be fair, the video is more about the psychology of hell. So I've had eternal conscious torment people tell me it's compatible with their view.

I've had annihilationists tell me that my video on hell is compatible with annihilationism. I had a universalist tell me that my video on hell is compatible with universalism.

So I am talking more about the psychology of hell and why people go there, but I obviously think it is a place that people are exiled to.

I said the doors of hell are locked from the inside. So, no, I do think there is a literal hell.

I'm not sure where I am on that spectrum, universalism, eternal conscious torment.

I tend to lean more towards eventual annihilationism, but I'm not nailed down to any view.

All right. Very good. I just want to make a quick announcement for folks who are interested in not a debate on hell, but I will be moderating a debate with Chris Date, who

I believe affirms a historical preterist position, and Michael Miano, who is a full preterist, and they're going to be debating the proposition.

Will there be a future physical resurrection of the dead? And that's going to be on August 11th at 7 .30

p .m. Eastern. So you guys definitely want to check that out. That's going to be a super interesting topic there.

All right. Here's a question for me. Is determinism necessary? I don't even know what that means.

So let's move on. Someone else asked the question, does the apologetic empire have room for a pre -sub brother like Eli?

I don't know. We don't allow heretics in the empire. That's right. I'm a pre -sub heretic.

Come on. I don't know if Michael's in a position to say that. There are pre -subs already in the empire.

I mean, like, I believe Volcad Malone is. Yeah. He's pre -sub positional -ish.

So, yeah. I mean, even though I don't agree with that approach, it doesn't mean I don't think it's, you know, I don't think they're heretics.

So we just have different approaches. All right. Very good. Thank you. There's a question here.

This is from Pine Creek. Hey, Doug, how's it going? Does IP believe the gospel is foolishness for those who haven't been regenerated?

Gee, I wonder how he's going to take this out of context, like all his other videos on me. Okay. Does IP believe it's foolishness for those?

I would refer people to a video that Ben Stanhope did on his channel, Ben S., where he did a video, like, talking about my debate with Ken Hovind and G -Man, and talks about what that kind of refers to in the

New Testament. There's a lot to unpack there, and I don't have time to fully unpack it right now.

So that's a complicated topic. And so I think that would be a good way to get someone kind of an idea of where I would come from, because Ben Stanhope and I agree on about 95 % of things.

The only thing that he's wrong on is the Nephilim. But I would refer people to that video, because that's another thing that needs time to unpack, and what we mean by those terms.

Okay. All right. Very good. Mickey asked the question, is IP familiar with the work of Nigel Cundey, a .k

.a. Quantum Thomist, and his book, What is Physics? He's an expert physicist, specializes in quantum field theory, leads to theism.

That's what the person has there. No, I should probably check some of his work out, though. I've been out of the quantum physics stuff for a while now, because I've been trying to focus on other topics.

But I do need to get back in there, because I'm going to start my degree soon. But that might be a good book to look up. Thank you. Very good.

What are both of your thoughts on the moral argument for God? You can share your thoughts, and I'll share quickly some of my thoughts.

I like it. I use it. I formulated my own version that I like to use, because it gets people to think more about what we're talking about with the moral argument.

Yeah. Me too. I have no problem with the moral argument. Again, there's a common misconception of presuppositional methodology versus classical and evidential.

A lot of people equate presuppositionalism with a methodology that is not allowed to employ.

Some of the more traditional proofs. I believe the presuppositionalist is free to appeal to any evidence whatsoever, as long as it is done in such a way that it is consistent with our broader worldview framework.

And so there are ways to go about that. And so I think the moral argument is a good argument. I use it in various contexts.

Even the cosmological argument. I keep telling people, I've actually written out the Kalam cosmological argument on a napkin when

I was witnessing to a guy at a party. I think those arguments are valid as long as we do them in a way that is consistent with our broader worldview and our commitment to scripture from my presuppositional perspective there.

Michael, how do you address solipsism? And for folks who may not know what solipsism is, how much do you define solipsism and then explain how you address it?

I just can't imagine how it could be true. So solipsism is the idea...

That's it. Done. Next. Solipsism is the idea that only you as a mind exist and everything else is an illusion created of your mind.

So I do talk about this in my video, the cosmic conscious argument for God's existence. So more details there.

But basically the simple reply is just logically flowed that it still kind of points to a theistic worldview. Because if you notice that you didn't create reality, you just can't control it.

Like you can control things in your imagination. Like I could imagine a purple unicorn right now. I can't manifest one outside right there.

So if solipsism is true, it would imply there's a larger part of your mind, so to speak.

It's actually in control of everything. And that just implies a theistic worldview. All right. Very good. This might be a very weirdly phrased question, but how strong do you think the quantum argument for God is?

Really strong or so, so strong? Really strong. And the basic reply you get from a lot of skeptics is to ignore the measurement problem and pretend like everything is just going to be solved by interaction, which shows they're not being fair with the data.

They know full... If you're into the data on quantum physics, you know there's a measurement problem and you just can't solve it by claiming interaction.

Or they'll try to argue different interpretations of quantum mechanics. And those are very easy to show or insufficient. With a lot of the data have a lot of problems in terms of what they're trying to claim.

So I think the arguments... So I don't say quantum mechanics gets you to God. I say quantum mechanics likely implies consciousness causes collapse.

And so at that point, they just resort to ridicule, which really shows they're running out of arguments. And that's why I like using it.

And then from there, I make something called the cosmic conscious argument for God's existence. So there's a two -step process.

Quantum mechanics implies consciousness. Consciousness, we use that as an argument for God's existence. Very good.

Pine Creek has another question here. Can IP give an example of a claim in the New Testament that reads as historical that he thinks probably didn't happen in the past?

Can IP give an example of a claim in the New Testament that reads as historical that he thinks probably didn't happen in the past?

Again, I'm really not sure what he's trying to get at here. It seems like almost a trick question, but I feel like you could look at Jesus...

You never know with Doug. He has very interestingly worded questions. Yeah, I know. Trust me, and I know.

But you could look at Jesus' parables. You could say that they're worded in terms of the story fashion of this prodigal son who goes out and whatnot.

So you could say that that's not historical. I get a lot of slack for this, but I don't think

Job is necessarily historical. There was actually a person named Job. I think it's like a parable. And my reason is

I don't think Job shows up in genealogy. So I don't have to pause him as a real historical person. You can look at comparison of how historians treat

Gilgamesh. They don't think what happened in the Epic of Gilgamesh happened, but they think he was an historical person because he shows up in genealogies.

I can make the same claim with Job. So no, I don't have to take everything as historical. I can look at the evidence for each specific thing in the

New Testament or Old Testament and see if I think the authors are trying to argue it's historical or not.

Like right now, I'm studying for a big video on Abraham where I'm going to argue the account of Abraham is historical. But no,

I don't think I have to take that strong view because again, I'm not a typical fundamentalist. Okay.

How strong is your case for the truth of Christianity? Is it beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence or something else?

How strong is your case? No, it's not beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think anything is beyond reasonable doubt.

I think it's just the best explanation given the data. There's not a better explanation that's been presented at this point.

As myself, as a classical apologist, I admit I have to be open that Christianity could be wrong. Now, other Christians might disagree with my approach to that.

I don't care at this point. But no, I don't think it is beyond reasonable doubt. I agree with Mike Lacona when he says if we found a tomb in Jerusalem, it said

Jesus of Nather was on the side of it and there was a crucified victim inside, that would maybe make my doubt

Christianity at that point. All right. And people already know my answer to that.

We'll keep going with the questions. We will differ there, but that's okay. Let's see here.

How are you doing, Mike? Are you okay? Yeah, I'm good for another five minutes or so. Okay, that's fine. Let's see here.

I don't want to get to someone who... All right,

Simon here says, do you think debating an atheist who's a socialist would be different from debating an atheist on the right?

That's a political one, but you can choose to take it or not. Do you think debating an atheist who's a socialist would be different?

Perhaps, yeah. It depends really on what we're debating, too. It depends on the debate topic. I'm not really going to get into politics that much.

I'm more interested in the psychology of politics. All right, very good. This is kind of related to the hell question before.

Do souls annihilate themselves in heaven? I mean, in hell, sorry. That is my view

I tend to lean towards. So I think God exiles people to outer darkness. And as Dallas Willard said, everyone will be led into heaven who can stomach it.

So only people who want to be there. And then I think slowly over a long period of time, they will annihilate themselves.

But again, I'm not nailed down to that view. All right. This one's a fun one here.

So if God's nature was that punching babies was good, only in apologetics and philosophy, these things will come up.

If God's nature was that punching babies was good, that would be good by definition. See a problem with using that as a standard?

If punching babies didn't harm them, but actually increase their well -being, but see how that's a problem.

It's almost as if consequences of actions matter more. Would you be able to speak to that? So as a virtue ethicist,

I'm fine with noting that consequences do play a role in ethical decisions and outcomes. I'm not a deontologist.

However, you could make a case like of the sheriff example. Like let's say there was a guy and there's a crime that happened in an old

West town and everyone thinks this one guy did it, but you as a sheriff know that guy didn't do it.

But throwing him in prison would make everyone happy. And maybe he's a masochist. Maybe he wants to be in prison.

It would still be wrong to do that because that's not actually the right thing to do. So right then and there, consequences don't always justify the ends.

You can always find examples where the ends does not justify the means. So as a virtue ethicist,

I can look to see what is going to create more virtues in people, what is going to bring about the highest good.

If we as virtue ethicists would say, ethics is quite messy. A lot of these examples, it's really hard to say what would be the right thing to do in reality because who are the players involved?

What are their backgrounds? What's at stake? What's actually going to come about? It's really hard to sort of nail down these specific examples.

In this weird case where punching babies is actually beneficial, I mean, well, you could argue, maybe you should because maybe it helps them, their minds grow and they don't feel any pain.

I mean, who cares at that point? You've changed the game so much that it's not even the same thing as it is in reality when actually punching a baby is clearly harmful.

I mean, you've made it so different at this point. It's something completely different. Punching a baby. Okay. This is the last question for you, bud.

Okay. Let's see here. Is there... Oh, that's not the question.

There was another question here. Oh, it moved up. There we go. I'm sorry. Here's your question.

What is Michael's epistemic theory of justification? And I'm going to kind of move off screen here. Foundationalism.

Okay. So you're a foundationalist. Okay. That was quick and that was simple. Very good. All right.

Very good. All right. Michael, this was wonderful. Thank you so much. We kind of breezed through the questions with regards to just some of those preliminary things we were discussing, but I think they will be very helpful.

And, of course, I really do appreciate your ability to address a wide range of questions that are either related or not related to what we were discussing.

So thank you so much for coming on. Just stay on just for a few moments here, and I will just repeat my announcement with regards to August 11th, 7 .30

p .m. Eastern. Chris Date will be debating Michael Meano on the question, will there be a future physical resurrection of the dead?

Michael Meano holding to a full preterist position. If you know anything about those sorts of debates, full preterists deny a future physical resurrection of the dead.

I do not. Yes. You do not. That's right. So when I say Michael, that's

Michael Meano, not Michael Jones. All right. Also, I will be debating in September, I believe

September 8th or 9th, but I'll double check that. I'll be debating Benjamin Watkins, who appeared,

I believe, on Capturing Christianity. I think he was debating the topic of the soul. We'll be debating the topic, does God exist?

So I'll keep you guys informed when that goes down as well. That's it for today. Once again, thank you so much,

Michael. And I do encourage you guys, if you have not already, to go over to Inspiring Philosophy's YouTube channel.

There are great materials there. And again, if you disagree on certain points, eat the meat and spit out the bone, so to speak.

There is something for everyone on that channel, and I would highly encourage folks to go over there and subscribe if they have not already.