okay so i'm jumping right into this uh refutation stuff let's continue where we left off wanted mankind to know him god's existence would be directly and truly obvious to everyone on earth now i thought a bit about how to phrase the first premise there because you can phrase it in different ways i decided to go with directly and trivially obvious so by that i mean something like as obvious as the fact that the sun exists like no one's denied that the sun exists right because it's directly and trivially obvious to everyone yeah and the sun is contingent therefore god so that's my point is that god's existence should be that obvious um but if you prefer to frame that slightly differently then you know there's different ways to frame that god's existence is not directly and trivially obvious to everyone on earth therefore either god does not exist or he does not want mankind to know him and so that's the conclusion is inconsistent with with uh christianity obviously which states both of those things okay so if god wanted if god existed and wanted mankind to know him god's existence would be directly and trivially obvious to everyone on earth says who god's existence in the garden of eden before the fall was trivially obvious to everyone on earth right and then adam and eve fell and now we live in confusion we live in a fallen world i wonder where you get the where you get your ideas about god like if god existed and if god wanted mankind to know him then this is the way god would have done it well you'd on what basis do you make that statement it's ridiculous i'm going to play this but i'm going to play it at a little bit faster speed pro exists promise 2 the bible is god's inspired word promise three romans 1 20 says yeah right yeah so just a nightmare too yeah exactly like did they ask how like how plausible is it that like think about the most implausible case of you know the i don't know pigment tribes of central africa in 2000 bc like did that do they know that a theistic god exists he knows that if those people were to be born in evangelical america they still wouldn't have believed so that's what god chose which premise are you denying which premise you know asking questions you have to say which premise i deny premise one because god was obvious the the existence of god was directly and trivially obvious to those our first parents in the garden of eden but they blew it so we live in a state of confusion now we so i mean uh there's the historical fact of the fall that they're not taking into consideration here premise to god's existence is not directly and trivially obvious to everyone on earth no you have to think about it you have to look at the sun which is contingent and say therefore there's one and only one necessary being aka god that's three questions no idea um all right and so there's another form that's possibly necessary the goddesses know him his existence will be great obvious and biased five so forth inductive form so i don't wanna have to repeat myself go back and watch episodes zero one and two if you haven't already if you have the patience for this nonsense go ahead and do that i'm not gonna repeat all of my explanations about how they are abusing logic with the modal form and all this sort of thing and the bayesian form inductive abductive and all that just go back and listen um this is a slightly different formulation there are many natural science god could have given to provide incontrovertible evidence of his existence the absence of such science is unexpected under the theory if by these meaning god who wants us to know in the force therefore we have strong doctrine of evidence false um so i mean yeah you can think of any sort of natural science you might like to think of i like to point out like a alignment of constellation not like oh i'm just saying constellation you know in words that say that god exists or you know creators on the moon or um you know um you know exactly yeah those could exist in every place like you know central assembling this huge monument sticking out yeah like there's so many things that he could have given uh but we don't really have any other things like that the other questions we have stories about him giving him in the past yeah but in the present you have david ross telling you that god exists and i can write it on a piece of paper for you if you want i can hire an airplane to fly a banner above your head it's not gonna it's not gonna move you it's not gonna move your intellect or your will where there's a will there's a way and where there's no will there's no way period that's all there is to it for those who believe no further evidence is necessary and for those who will not believe no amount of evidence will suffice in mental books that's pretty lame so i think that's evidence against the god who wants us to know his existence because well why would we see these sorts of things uh in an abducted form so the best explanation the absence of such science is that there is no god who wants to know him um and therefore there's no reason to think that please results are there any books that do like an analysis of ancient scriptural texts through um like the eyes of modern mental illness don't know that would be interesting the closest i can think of is that crazy book that argues that in the past humans didn't have consciousness and then when the greeks were talking about i can't remember how is it the bicameral mind one or that yeah that's one that's why i can't quite remember but maybe you remember that status better tonight than i um god emerged as like self-talk to yeah that's right people were thinking in their own minds but they didn't understand what it was so they thought it was god or something like that yeah yeah i don't know about that but i mean i i just meant from like the point of view of like analyzing say like you know what people with like narcissistic personality disorder or like um reports of like epileptic seizures and stuff like that and like comparing the kind of descriptions of reports to like the kinds of things that religious prophets are saying about themselves what their experiences are like and stuff like that i think that could be pretty cool but yeah that actually sounds like a research project kind of hard to do because like modern psychologists are pretty reticent to make any such claims on the basis of historical evidence there's something to do that actually so but i think it could be interesting um and of course the basic form of divine hidden god could have provided far more and clearer signs of existence than he has so uh that's unexpected given the uh given uh uh theism and expected under under atheism all right now this one had a bit of fun with so some of these are explicitly modeled as um parody arguments of some of the ones from cameron's training this is one of them because this was this was used as an argument for the existence of god and so i had to come up with a formulation against it so god knows he has perfect everything no being with semantically indeterminate knowledge you can have perfect knowledge of everything so by semantic uh deterministic or indeterminacy i mean things like um so if you have a heap of stones or pebbles or whatever you could ask well if i remove a stone it's still still heap right so but then it seems to imply that i can keep removing stones and still heat but then it follows from that the heap of one stone is also a heat which seems wrong so the question is when does a heap stopping a heap and it seems that it's indeterminate right so that's an example of semantic determinants you know how many hands you have to lose before you become bold it's another example there's lots of examples of this um so the idea is if god exists he has perfect everything because he's on missions but no but from so no being was magically determined and i just can't have a knowledge of everything so god can't have symmetrically determined knowledge therefore if god says he must know of an objective precisification which is a real word i don't think i saw that correctly for every case of semantic indeterminacy and that means that processifying means that you can say exactly when the heat becomes a non-heat or when a herring head becomes a bald head that's a processification and it has to be objective because it tends to be like an arbitrary decision that's only by an objective processification um but there is no objective specification from at least many cases of semantic indeterminacy because well i mean that's the premise here but plausibly it would be absurd to say that there's any objective for certification of some of these claims like when he becomes a non-deep so therefore does not exist you know if um if god gave you a vision of a collection okay i had trouble hitting the pause button there number one if god exists he has perfect knowledge of everything bingo that's true number two no being with semantically indeterminate knowledge can have perfect knowledge of everything no no being with semantically indeterminate knowledge can have perfect knowledge of everything well it's like okay we have black we have white and any mixture of black and white on the spectrum between black perfect black perfect white will be gray you'll have light gray near the white mid gray in the middle and dark gray near the black right god god is comfortable with the reality that some things are there's a large gray zone in between black and white some things are either black or white but many things are semantically indeterminate right go to a paint store and compare the the labels for the different colors of gray it's arbitrary you can get a slate gray you can get a gunmetal gray you can get all these different kinds of gray and uh usually they're either blue or green or they'll have some sort of uh non-gray element meaning it's not just a mixture of black and white and it's actually quite difficult to get perfect white or perfect black if not impossible i would say impossible because perfect black would not let even one single photon reflect back to your eye right it would absorb all the photons that's just not possible and white would be the opposite of that there's no absorption just reflection so i think it's safe to say that in this finite material world we have nothing but gray zone we have nothing but semantically indeterminate knowledge right when is gray gray so this is not a problem for god god wanted to create nature to be natural and presto bingo it is natural and there's a lot of ambiguity when is a heap of heap well it's up to you it's up to you to define it just like it's up to the color specialists to give their labels and their gradients of gray from black to white they can label that however they want doesn't really matter the objective fact is if there are 1436 stones in a pile if you add one or remove one it's still a pile now when you get to that ambiguous phase where there are very few stones in your pile it is arbitrary it means it's up to the will of the individual given the context of the situation to decide is this a heap or not but when you analyze the reality the objective reality you get away from this semantical indeterminacy that you're so worried about when we objectively analyze what's going on you can say this is three stones this is two stones this is one stone these are four stones whatever it is what it is and the labeling calling it a heap is is no different saying no this is dark gray no no this one is dark gray who cares it's arbitrary means you can choose you're free to choose depending on your situation depending on the field of study depending on uh you know is your wife gonna be happy with this choice of grave for the for the shed or whatever it is it's arbitrary that's why semantical indeterminacy is not a problem you know grains of sand and adding one grain and it becomes a heap of sand would you believe in god james well maybe how would i know that it was a heap of sand right like this god would i like what he says about god we'll just show you this is what i call god splaining this is a term that i coined god's planning because mansplaining used to be a fang back in the day a decade ago or whatever it was now and now i have adopted it adapted it to religion and i call it god's planning god just shows you right that's what's going to happen to all these atheists when they are at their particular judgment god's going to god explain everything to them they're going to be ashamed they're going to be crushed like if they haven't converted and they're on their way to hell they're going to be crushed by the explanation that god gives just by showing them and there's no way to deny it there's no where to run there's nowhere to hide the only place they can run and hide is their own little niche they're the particular place that's been prepared for them in hell and they will run they will fall away from god as soon as god lets them go they will scurry like rats to their little place in hell if god forbid they don't convert before the death right what could he just show himself in a self-sufficient way would not be that easier he'd show you by means of that he interesting yeah i don't actually think it's a good argument but i think that it's at least as good if not better than the the form of the argument which was an argument from semantic determinacy um right so that's why i've included it here just just it's just an example like i guess you could say it's a parody argument but it's still i still think you could make a serious argument i just personally don't think it's very good but um like it's pretty easy to do this you just come up with anything and then make it into an argument pretty much the reason it's difficult the reason it's difficult is because to be honest we don't know either either way what god's concept of heap is like so we can't you know like whether whether there is a god who exists that has a concept of heap or if there isn't a god that exists so there's there's no existing concept of heap in god's mind we just can't say either either way what that concept is like if god exists he has the perfect knowledge of everything that's what it means to be on mission right so there are heaps right so we must have knowledge of those and the argument here is that semantically indeterminate isn't perfect knowledge right so it must be determined knowledge which means there must be an objective processification for all these cases right but they're they're just plausible isn't any objective specification so god can't god can't have this sort of knowledge that fear that he does effectively that's what this is saying the objective precisification which means you're being precise is irrelevant it's absolutely irrelevant because we're not talking about uh an analytical approach at that point we're talking about some sort of qualia or some sort of uh subjective experience some sort of relativist field right like where we are in that gray zone we're just trying to label things depends on it's completely dependent on the person's taste the situation the context of the application and everything else there's nothing there's nothing objective about it there are objective facts involved in every uh case of semantic semantical indeterminacy there is an objective component involved always right god is aware of everything every orientation and position of every particle in creation right that's the objective part the subjective part was created by god when he created the natural world we have our tastes we have our ever shifting objectives and ever shifting context ever shifting needs and wants and these semantically indeterminate things are all part of that soup right but the subjective and the relative although they're less quantifiable than the objective and the absolute they still have a place in human nature and the nature of the material world that god created he was not trying to create a world where there would be absolutely no possibility of semantical indeterminacy right that's a manifest fact yeah doesn't it it depends on a particular interpretation of vagueness like maybe there's like true vagueness of the world right or god has perfect knowledge of that vagueness or well that would be denied premise two i think yeah nobody was magically determined to perform everything so you could say that like that just is all there is to know um but this is just asserting that is uh you know you give some arguments to that well you can imagine a being that had semantically determined knowledge of all of those things it seems that would be a greater being right um so that so it goes no longer the greatest conceptual being that maybe that's one way to go oh god can arbitrarily label every shade but what's the what is the value or the usefulness of that exercise really when you get down to it we human beings we are finite we choose among relative goods here below and we could uh we could work it out for ourselves okay we don't need god almighty to make to micromanage us to that degree it's ridiculous i don't know why even wasting our time with the semantical indeterminacy that's the the joy of being a finite creature and having free will and having different taste from your wife or your spouse your your your loved ones your family friends enemies acquaintances and all the rest like we have our individual tastes and our own way of labeling things our own way of organizing things and so on and so forth that's the joy one of the joys of being a free and rational creature why would you want god to nail everything down so determinately that everything is precisely labeled and everything is quantified so that you your free will basically is uh extinguished why would you want that why would you even fantasize about that and how is it relevant to the existence of god we know that god knows everything he has perfect knowledge of everything maybe um maybe but the other avenue is just to say that you know god just doesn't know you know which atom you removed from the table when it ceases being a table or you know which pattern yeah that would be the other way to go that would be um that would be rejecting four um but you could just like give that sweet all the thought experiments see that we could come with loads of thought experiments is how impossible it is well you were at one time a single cell hopefully in your mother's womb hopefully you weren't in a traditional lab i hope that you weren't created that way but it is possible in these crazy modern times but when you were a zygote when you were a do you you were still james fodor and you nathan when you were a single cell you were nathan ormond okay so you have if you want to use the word evolved or changed grown developed organically into a bigger uh and more complex version of yourself right so if you want to talk about removing one molecule from the table and asking the philosophical question is it still a table yeah that's interesting but what's more interesting is to think about yourself with all of your matter energy configurations that are shifting over time and going back to that very first configuration of a very very complex egg infiltrated by a very very complex creating or procreating i should say you the psycho the physical body of you your physical body and then at that very same moment god of course creating out of nothing your soul your supernatural so if you think about that configuration that particular configuration of matter energy and space time in that moment that first moment of your life you compare it with all the ever-changing shifting configurations up until today and up until your death look at all of them and ask yourself what makes that 4d object which is a subset of the great 4d object which is all of spacetime all the matter expect all of the matter energy configurations throughout all space time if you just zoom in on what is it about that that is identical with your essence your substance your being how are you you your molecules are being replaced right how do you remain you the configuration is changing it's growing when you reach a certain age it slows down the growing slows down and the decay starts a lot of change so how is that you it's a lot more interesting than the question about is a table still a table if i remove one molecule how are you you if you're purely physical and natural then how are you you explain that to me using your atheistic philosophy explain that to me please if you can how are you you given the fact that that ever-changing set of configurations of matter energy and space-time from your conception to your death is never ever ever ever ever the same way twice never take any two random slices in time that configuration will never be the same it'll never be the same content in terms of molecules or subatomic molecules subatomic particles never it will never how do you have an identity as an atheist how can you have a philosophical basis much less a natural science basis for human identity the answer is you can't you don't have any basis you don't have any basis in philosophy much less in the natural sciences and objective precipitation um and of course it you know the burden is on the theater to show that there's an objective processification for every case of spending so it only takes one counter example one case system determining it can be objectively processified in order for this to go ahead yeah i've already addressed that i mean it's like it's completely arbitrary you can on that spectrum from black to white all the gray in between you can name it how you want god gives you that freedom if you want him to name every possible shade of gray he can do it but there's no point to it there's no point to it that's true of course there's another form of that and a basic form of that so the proposition that there's widespread symmetric in terms of it's um unexpected of god exists because it seems to god should know all these things perfectly without determinism all right so those are all the theological arguments about theism specifically no i mean a lot of those sort of directed towards christianity but at least they're not very specific towards particular christian doctrines now here we're moving towards arguments that are directed towards specific christian doctrines so um that's what we've got here the absurdity of the trinity this is an old fun one no guaranteed explanation of the trinity can be given if no current explanation can be given then god is probably not triune i mean you can deal probably if you want to really punch at home but i just thought i'd put that in here christina claims to god is triune i mean you should probably before you uh assert number one no no coherent explanation of the trinity can be given you should read some books on the trinity saint augustine wrote one i mean there are many saints who have written an explanation for the trinity these are all edifying but limited explanations they're all limited because the trinity can never be comprehended by a finite mind right we'll be entering into the life of the trinity if god willingly makes heaven we'll be entering entering into that mystery of the life of the trinity in all eternity right so it's something that we do not want to comprehend as creatures because if we can comprehend the life of the trinity as creatures then basically there's no point in going to heaven and exploring the joys of the life of the trinity there's no point because we we've already comprehended it it's almost as though we the creature have surpassed god and we're standing above god and we have comprehended in its totality the trinity and we can explain it coherently in a way that corresponds with the reality of the trinity it's a fantasy okay but there are nonetheless coherent explanations of the trinity to the limited degree and limited extent that we can explain the trinity there are books and books upon books you don't probably have enough time in your life to read all of the coherent explanations of the trinity the libraries full of books so i mean you could reject those premises there but you know i think one look i think actually most ordinary questions would probably well maybe not that wouldn't probably quite agree with one but they'd probably agree that they don't fully understand the trinity so i i think you can turn that into a defensive one there um i mean of course you could just take all of the concepts being given and point out their flaws but that's on the project that we're attempting here um and the thing is that the performance through there would be look if god was trying then surely he could give an explanation himself that we could understand he's only important and an audition after all it doesn't have to mean comprehensive it wouldn't have to be all encompassing but it shouldn't be at least coherent to make sense i guess that's what i said it's not it's not comprehensive but it's coherent there are many explanations the other point i want to raise at this juncture is the fact that you don't just go from atheism to christianity that's foolishness you shouldn't even be talking about christianity as an atheist you should as your first step become a monotheist and you could do that very quickly and easily by using the reason and the free will that god gave you you can look at contingent beings and you can know with certainty that there is one and only one necessary being right once you're a monotheist then you can look at the history of monotheism and pick a truth i don't care become a jew muslim or christian i think it's obvious from history that uh all the different approaches to the messiah in the middle east 2000 years ago all the approaches to explaining that historical fact point to christianity being true judaism being false the post messianic judaism that is being false and islam being false christianity being true just it's just just look at the history look at the claims that are made by the monotheistic religions concerning the messiah the jewish messiah it's not hard and then once you're a christian you need to look at the question of authority where's this bible what's this bible we have where the church gave us a bible i mean the bible is the infallible uh source of truth but an effect can be not cannot be more perfect than its cause so the church that gave us the infallible bible must be infallible so you have the authority the god-given authority of the church and so the church shows you the sacred deposit of faith and says look look we have the infallible we are giving you the infallible teaching that god is trying to try on god it's a mystery we can't understand it but we're telling you that it's a god given divinely revealed truth that god is trying three persons one god without that authority one person's word is good as another i mean you could as a protestant you can argue from these scriptures but you don't even have it's only your own authority that's interpreting these particular books these 66 or whatever number you happen to be going with as a protestant it just comes down to your own authority and as an atheist it's the same thing you just have your own authority like you evaluate the claims made by various uh other people and you can read your tea leaves you can do whatever you want but it comes down to your own authority it's only the monotheist that submits to a god-given church a church that has the god-given authority it's it's only that monotheist who is able to talk even talk about authority you have to submit to authority to have authority this is the point there so that should be within god's powers and he's interested to do so that's justification for famous two there yeah i think i think this formulation of it with the god is probably false um is a better way of doing it because because there are like you know these sort of relatively obscure things that the theists can say to sort of defend their worldview well that's not the case for all these arguments but you know it's gonna be like um well the bible just contains what's necessary for salvation um so you know why would it have like an explanation of god to explain trinity to himself he just didn't need to because that's not what you know the bible's the manual demand that have to be saved well we've got some arguments from the bible uh the absurdity model so it's possible to say that trinity's incoherent um it's possible that the training is inherent from his five is incoherent uh concentration got australian so christian maybe everyone got a bit better because black could something be training coherence possibly not but maybe that should be a premise anyway yeah yeah i mean some of these could do with let's assume half of them are wrong the likelihood ratio the likelihood ratio well we'll get to that as well we've got some fun at the end with likelihood ratios so hold on to that david oh boy do we have some fun at the end with like the ratios um okay inductive form so this is slightly different um oops count to the wrong thing repeating attempts to explain that you only have failed um i failed satisfaction explaining if the training is current notion we should expect that attempts to explain the training would have succeeded maybe he could have by now because they've been trying for a while if the training is increasing christianity's false i think that that's why we're true therefore we have strong demonstrations false especially if the knowledge of god is uh imprinted in everyone's mind right then yeah then everyone if it's like a you know like a trademark stamp that the creators put in in his creative human intellect then you know you think that that we would be able to describe this pretty fundamental aspect of our like intellect the uh the idea of god the clear and distinct idea of a creator that we all have yeah a good sign of it oh there's another type of argument given so many more that i didn't even think of and there's an abductive formulation so no satisfactory country truly has been developed the best explanation of this is that the notion is actually incoherent if the notion's appearing in question it's false and so this is what another same before if it's imprinted on our hearts and god's revealed stuff to us one seems implausible and of course the basic form trinity can't be playing or i mean yeah if you prefer no satisfactory account has been developed it's more likely on not yet christianity all right the absurdity inclination this is one that i'm pretty big on because the information is i find very difficult especially from the theories you've gone about like you know the laws of logic which are immutable and objective and you can't be you know p and not be at the same time but then somehow god is a man and not at the same time it's just so no current explanation the incarnation can be given no okay if if no currently financially encompassing god probably not incarnate and god christianity claims he did so one of the main reasons i was attracted to christianity in spite of myself because i had been an enemy of christ in his church for all of my adult life up until shortly after my conversion to god i was a generic monotheist and then sort of dabbling with islam half-heartedly toyed with just generic monotheism but i was an enemy of christianity so i did not want to become a christian but one of the things that actually attracted me to christianity begrudgingly was the incarnation because i am finite god is infinite was grateful to discover that one of the monotheistic religions and only one of the monotheistic religions offered me a bridge between the finite and the infinite between the fallible and the infallible between man and god creature and creator that's a huge selling point i mean just taken uh philosophically psychologically we know there must be a bridge between the finite and the infinite we know that if we're thinking beings and if we're contemplating the infinite we're studying philosophy and reaching out beyond ourselves and our limited minds with speculation pure reason deduction that we know there has to be a way to bridge that gap and if it's not uh you know if it's not uh pantheism or hard solipsism then it makes sense that there would be something like an incarnation right because pantheism is the ultimate incarnation it's a false worldview obviously it's one it's one that i held actually as an agnostic atheist i was a pantheist of sorts but it's because our hearts are restless until they rest in god and i wanted that bridge between the finite and the infinite and i'm admitting there's a psychological component to that but we can't deny even as cold and calculating philosophers forgetting all the mental illness and proclivities of the psychological just as cold and calculating disinterested philosophers we know that we've reached beyond the finite with our minds we've reached out beyond the finite bounds of our being as individual humans we know that and so that we know that there must be some sort of bridge there must be some sort of interface between the finite and the infinite and only christianity gives us that go look at judaism in all its forms go look at islam in all its forms okay unless you're talking about a mystical form where there can be a sort of uh connection made through mysticism okay i'll grant that i'll grant that to mystical judaism mystical islam but at that point when you when you have that mystical connection it really does become quite blurred at the line that separates judaism from islam and christianity it becomes quite blurred at that point i feel at home i feel very at home with mystical islam and mystical judaism why because the categories here below are all long gone at that point you're you've transcended so again the the incarnation is near and dear to my heart as a philosopher much less as a monotheist so let's continue here and of course we've got some volunteers possibly necessarily inclinations incoherent um because basically incarnation is possibly a necessary event so it's something that god as part of his nature necessarily in certain ways that would be the sort of defense there uh for the motor form uh inductive form repeated temperatures explaining connection failed any inclination is a creation we should expect attempts to get succeeded by now so if the information is also we should we have another reason to think that it is uh christianity is false just a little note here if you're interested in the mystic school versus the franciscan school on the incarnation and the necessity of the incarnation that's really interesting point to research and i tend to fall with the franciscan school they're a more augustinian platonic school and i have an inclination that way but uh they argue for the necessity of the incarnation or or the fact that it was inevitable even without the fall so it's an interesting topic to explore if you're interested in that sort of thing i just thought i'd point that out to you and an abducted form knows that structure can be developed best explanation why they fail to give a sense actually kind of incarnation is that it's incoherent and secret change is probably false and same thing with the base inform the a lot of these arguments now i mean the the recent ones that we've dealt with today and the ones that are coming up probably are completely absurd because they missed the entire point of faith and subjection to authority like i said before the only way to have authority when you speak when you preach is to the centurion or whoever it was in the bible that said i'm not worthy that you should enter under my roof i have soldiers under me and i tell them come and they come and go and they go do this and i do it that was an explanation that was an explanation of authority that was given by a secular a greek i guess you could call him a he understood the hierarchy of authority and how the reason that he has authorities because he submits to a i thought that was very interesting the morality of blood sacrifice this is one that's been discussed as well a nominal goal not required blood sacrificing north korea sinners interestingly most jews and muslims seem to agree with this so so atheists are in good company here thinking that one is true well well except you know like yahweh loves the aroma of burning flesh that's pleasing his nostrils for sins and things like that that's a good point maybe i should say human blood sacrifice there um yeah well it's interesting you should say that there's a bunch of weird accounts um of stuff that's going on in jerusalem and there are groups of jews who are like doing random stuff like rebuilding like the sacrifice um i've got the term like the table basically and there's like this weird like stone cube for example they did some weird ritual where they like killed a sheep on it recently and so there's like christian accounts who are watching jews who are doing this these are jews who want to like rebuild the temple like these are the signs of the end times that like there's this like sect of jews who are like starting to do like sacrifices and stuff again this is like the sign that the end times are coming and stuff interesting well it's much like the alcoholic who time and time again says i'm never drinking again that was really horrible what i got up to last night on my drinking binge and he smashes all of his bottles of whiskey or he dumps the contents down the toilet or whatever right so hundreds of dollars worth of goods destroyed right why because he's committing idolatry when he bows to these spirits and that's one of the words for alcoholism spirits so he wants to free himself from slavery to these spirits same thing with the drug addict he's got his pills or his dope whatever it is and after a particularly heinous terror he chucks them out throws them down the toilet or whatever right it's like hundreds of dollars worth of goods once again disposed of right this is the sacrifice we make when we say no to the false gods and we say yes to the one true god and we say yes to life and no to illness and suffering and death so there's no difference with these animals the animals were worshipped as gods in various nations around the jews and the jews fell prey to that time and time and time and time and time again even doing going so far as to do child sacrifice read the old testament and you'll find out that that's the case read about the exodus you'll see how they were tempted after 40 days when moses had gone up the mountain they were tempted to worship once again the calf the golden calf they made a golden calf because that was the habit that was the bad habit that was the vice vice is a bad habit so when they were left alone cats away the mice play and they built themselves gods or in this case the god in the form of a calf which is worshiped one of the many animal gods worshipped in egypt where they've been over 400 years so it's all about idolatry it's all about the first commandment worship god don't worship false gods you guys don't understand that you don't understand who and what god is and you don't understand that you yourselves are worshiping false gods you don't understand that you need to sacrifice your gods whatever they might be maybe you should smash your computer maybe you should burn your pornography i don't know if people use paper pornography anymore but maybe you should uh give up your you know bad habits your vices that's what was happening now does god love the animals that were sacrificed that were killed cooked eaten or otherwise disposed of yeah of course he created them they're they're good they're ontologically good but there is a lesson to be learned from detachment there's detachment as an antidote to attachment when we get attached to the world don't forget that animals are a form of currency at that time and place right they're a form of currency money the desire of money is the root of all evil so when we think about sacrificing these animals this livestock it really go and read not only the old testament but read other the middle east 2000 years ago just or 4 get into the mindset and then you'll understand the blood sacrifices now the whole question of the sacrifice of christ on the cross that's a hairy issue and i have not quite understood if the church teaches i'm gonna i'm gonna be doing the uh my reading of by ludwig ott today i read the introduction you can go and watch that whole series once it's done or you can start following along with me as i do them slowly over time but it will be explained to me and i have read it i just haven't quite grasped it to the point of memorizing it yet what the relation is between the old sacrifices and the ultimate sacrifice of christ on the cross and how it uh you know the vicarious atonement and i've heard different things over the years i've never really quite understood what the church teaches dogmatically about the vicarious atonement and the need for that sacrifice but i know i know that it is a dogma of the church that the crucifixion of our lord is a true sacrifice i know that that is a dogma of the church it's a true sacrifice but i haven't quite understood its relation to the old law and so i'll be interested to brush up on that in the coming weeks and months but yeah obviously in jerusalem oh jesus yeah yeah exactly that's a bit crazy oh there you go yeah but anyway yeah a lot of conceptions of season have not required that god would need a blood sacrifice the human rights secretary of sinners because any claims that god god does require that um and so christianity is false um oops where are we and emotional form supposedly necessarily only the naval and government sacrifice what comes to mind is the uh the song where god says i don't need your sacrifice i don't need your i don't need your sheep and your goats and your rams i don't need that am i am i hungry am i hungry that you're gonna feed me no i own all of that i created all of that that's all mine right so don't get hung up on this sacrifice stuff i'll have to find the reference for that psalm it's very uh entertaining and fascinating and uh what god wants is not sacrifice what god wants is obedience submission to his will because you have to know him love him and serve him in this life in order to be happy with him forever in the next life it's that easy so don't get too hung up on the blood sacrifices the jews got very hung up on it and there's a good reason for that because they were surrounded by non-jews the people who were not chosen by god to bring the messiah and they had fallen into all kinds of errors including blood sacrifice including human sacrifice and if you read the story of abraham the obedience of abraham willing to sacrifice his son was accredited to him as faith but god said i will provide the lamb because isaac asked well where's the lamb if we're going to do a sacrifice where's the lamb and abraham said god will provide the lamb wow i'm getting chills thinking about and sure enough god gave us the lamb of god our lord and savior jesus christ so you always need to go back and you need to rethink the old testament and the old testament times in general um again because it wouldn't be in the nature of an omnipotent being to reply such a such a thing and if it's possibly necessary and it's possible then it is necessary and so it is true and therefore christianity is false by the same s5 reasoning here so abductive version christianity claims that god requires blood sacrifices the best explanation of why christianity claims this is that the doctrine is not divinely inspired uh if it's not violence by then christianity is false which i think um christians would agree with three um and uh christians agree with one as well so it all hinges on premise two here which i think is very plausible that this is such a bizarre and weird doctrine uh that even says disgrace the best explanation for it's just that it's something that humans made up and that god didn't didn't didn't desire so logically and skeptically we ever believe that christianity is false if it were a dogma of the catholic church that we have to sacrifice this many goats and chickens and whatever and you might have an argument interesting make if atheists were capable of making arguments which they're not because arguments imply god but anyway you could make an argument against christianity if there were a dogma saying that we have to do blood sacrifices but that was abolished two thousand years ago right and god himself says in the scriptures i do not desire sacrifice i desire obedience and of course it's basic information christianity teaches that god requires about sacrifice well i think that's most probable under the claim that christianity is false rather than um that is true all right the immorality of the mosaic law so i mean i guess you i guess this is a related to the previous segment different because i was referring more to the atonement with that rather than the sacrifice of the mosaic law although you could maybe include that as well but um if the mercedes would find the given it would not be extremely immoral and barrack or maybe if you prefer if a law would find the given it would not be extremely moral and barbaric but the most glory is extremely moral and barbaric but christianity claims that the mosaic law was finally given therefore yeah but as god incarnate said moses allowed divorce he permitted divorce only as a concession to the stiff-necked people right so we have one example and other examples but this is the one example that i like to go to because it's crystal clear that the mosaic law contains concessions because of your hardness of heart because of your stiff neck attitude there are difficult people the jews were a difficult people and you and i are difficult stiff-necked people with a certain hardness of heart there are concessions being made today by christ's church there are concessions being made today but not in dogma not dogmatic concessions these are concessions with discipline with pastoral directives you don't have to fast from midnight the night before to receive the eucharist you could just fast for one hour well that's that's a concession that's a concession does it render christianity false no it renders christ merciful that's all um yeah i mean i think that two is pretty much indisputable as far as i'm concerned i don't feel they need to give examples of that just just like read what exercise whatever it is i think that's the one that um a lot of theists would reject because they just say well when god commands it it's good and then you've got no standard and then you'd be like oh so um don't you think that kind of like you know like this this war this like killing these people like burning the organs of animals it's a little bit weird right and then they kind of be like yeah well you know it was special revelation they were really bad so god couldn't just tell them what was good because it would have been so crazy of truth it would have killed them or something so he had to reveal to them the moral facts that they were ready for and it's progressive revelation over time so it's not it's actually good like it's a mess but i think objective moral standards if it changes i agree but there are thousands of hours the principle the the first principle that you boys have yet to grasp which is mind-boggling is that god is good god is perfect god is infinitely perfect he's perfect to an infinite degree in all of the pure perfections so there's nothing lacking in god's mercy and his justice and his goodness in his knowledge and his power there's nothing lacking right this is monotheism 101 classical theism 101 and if you understood that you would not even waste your time with these questions about the immorality of this event that's recorded in scripture or that event that's recorded in scripture you would not even waste your time and that's what this is this these 500 arguments are a complete waste of time because you have failed to grasp for whatever reason you've failed to grasp the simple principle that god is good yeah i agree consistently you can make versions of this with any particular aspect of the mosaic or like you know stoning someone for um not being a virgin at marriage or for um having bomb sex or you know what whatever other things are all the purity rituals they had around okay so stoning people because of uh i forget what he said there the example he gave but that's uh the catholic church does not teach that but that the intrinsic evil nature of homosexual acts sodomy and any sexual act outside of illicit is a sin and so there are certain things just the two examples you gave one was maintained in the one true religion and the other was obviously abrogated right there are many things in the mosaic law that were abrogated for example divorce that's my go-to reference because jesus explicitly says that was a concession because of your stiffness of neck and your hardness of hurt same thing with love thy neighbor it used to mean for the jews love your neighbor if he's a jew then it becomes love your enemy when jesus comes right your neighbor no matter who it is we have the parable of the good samaritan for example so there is truth incarnate sorting out for the jews of his day what was the tradition of man and what was the divinely revealed immutable truth of god both contained in and recorded in the mosaic law and the histories and the prophets and everything else so there's a sorting out that was done by jesus christ the god man jesus christ and you boys are unable because unwilling to see that truth because you have not yet understood that god is good administration just so much ridiculously superstitious if you think she's been immoral make a drink the mud water um god will perform an abortion if she's been unfaithful it's where god then becomes against abortions later on just to clarify what we're doing here since we are two hours in so this this video is obviously a paradigm of capturing christianity as we said at the start and i don't think that all these arguments are good i would say however none of them are just joke arguments they're all at least like an argument that i think one could run and so i think that there are quite a few arguments in here there are quite a few bad arguments in here and then there's just a lot of duplication right which of course we're trying to make a point about the fact that it's not the number of counts there so um so it's not a mixed bag but that's what we're doing here for those who didn't watch the start um all right let's keep going so the mobile version it's possibly necessary so because it is false just reading these screens all of these things are not actually finally given um um i know that there are some questions tonight this is a fun one um i just skipped ahead because all these different forms have been debunked in the first couple of episodes i did i just don't want to repeat all that nonsense over and over again they're just doing it to multiply their numbers basically i look at the first original formulation of each argument and then uh i just want to skip ahead because uh looking at the abductive and the inductive in the bayesian it's just a waste of time never turned an only bible but not consistent finance says who mainstream christian because i know that there are some christians who denied this but mainstream christianity claims that god does consignment financing sooner than he also mentions so number one who says that god would not consign in finite beings to an infinite hell who says that who who says that so you can do whatever you want and end up in heaven is that what you're trying to say so it literally doesn't matter what you do you end up in heaven is that is that a better worldview do it's very simple should choices freely made have consequences yes or no should you have responsibility because of your free will yes or no you tell me which makes more sense buddy um it's also this one nathan it's being a particularly prominent one and the infinity of hell i mean it's the infinity of the offense god is infinitely good his majesty is infinite the greater the king on earth the greater the offense so god almighty if you know who and what god is then you will not be bulking at the infinity of the sufferings of hell you just won't mute myself i was i got confused then because i was on the youtube tab um and i could like see us in the same layout and i was like looking for the unmute button like i went all but yeah i mean define monk so if god wasn't to punish wrongdoing then he wouldn't be just so in order to be just god has to punish but then it's like what if god has this like different intuition uh if you want to read something interesting about why god does not always send those who deserve hell to hell but he gives them a chance to go to heaven why he doesn't always consign those who deserve hell to hell you should read saint anselm's prayers and meditations i think it's in his meditations in among his meditations very short the whole book with the proselyon and the meditations and the prayer is a very short book probably a couple hundred pages if you're interested i highly highly recommend it it's beautifully written very powerful very edifying saint anselm prayers and meditations go out get a copy electronic copy i think you can probably buy it for a dollar or two for your kindle but uh he does an excellent job of explaining why god's justice is not like our human justice it's better than our human justice he does an excellent job i wish i had it the explanation at the tip of my tongue so that i could just prattle it off for you as beautifully and elegantly as he does it's it's amazing go check it out maybe i'll do an episode on that it's this right so he's kind of like oh they just didn't know so i did it wrong and it's not just but i can't because by virtue of my my just nature i have to which i think is extremely impossible um another objection is middle knowledge so god knows what everyone would do in any possible world even if they had more evidence so uh that's another objection to that we should talk about the grounding objection to middle knowledge sometimes because i'm particularly interesting but i mean aside from that even even given god's middle knowledge it's why would he if he's like only choosing to create already 100 even if if he's choosing to um you know those people who wouldn't have chosen christianity anyway or in like cultures and things where they're not exposed to it like why does he even create those people at all like if he's making those kind of creative decisions based on his middle knowledge why not just create those people who would freely choose to and that's with premise one here right because there's many ways that god could not con i usually consider deliberately because um there's many ways that god could ensure that one is true by not creating those people in the first place and consent is consistent with god actually like sending those people to actively or the idea that like they put themselves in hell because god still sort of allows them or delivers them up like allows that to happen so that's consistent with the notion of consigning them so what however you think of that i think the premise one can be deployed there i'm thinking of there's the there's another kind of incoherence so the way cs lewis talks about this in the great divorce his like fiction story about how there's a bit he has against universalism so he i mean maybe i'm going to go off on like a random and go here and run again here but um he's sort of you know like there's this bus journey through this place and he's kind of like describing like like times kind of weird and like extended nature of beings is kind of weird like they're not you know like the beings aren't quite real but the but the hell place is like really real and they can't quite like interact with it properly it's a little bit dodgy but then um the people who are on the bus ride they like they can actually move towards heaven and eventually like go to heaven but the idea is that um the people who are in hell are so like in love with their voices that they can't um they can't like choose heaven even though like like they can choose heaven but they sort of don't because of their nature sort of thing um and there's like this weird contradiction there where like hell is actually unpleasant for them because they're like oh i hate how horrible it is here and that i you know i can't do this and how nasty everyone is and so forth but but i'm also i also love that more than um changing and choosing otherwise to go to heaven and so it's like there's like a contradiction between like actually being an unpleasant place but then liking it more than the unpleasantness yeah i mean this is the catholic understanding you there's a reason why people are in hell it's because they choose something other than god they have inverted the reality that god is the highest good right so are infinite right but there is hierarchy in hell some suffer greater tortures and anguish than others okay but the way you want to think about your place in hell and i think it's profitable spiritually to think about your particular place in hell that's being prepared right now for you it's already been prepared for you think about that it's the the the important thing to think about is that if you were to just move a little bit in no change in that placement i'm using spatiotemporal designation by way of analogy but your place your quote-unquote place in hell is the best place for you and any other place would be worse so there's a certain mercy and a certain justice about your place and hell but the very worst place as i said would be to be up in heaven because of your orientation it just it's intolerable and your orientation is fixed at death that's why you have to get right with god now before death because once you die your orientation is fixed and if that orientation renders the fire of god unpleasant then you're in for a whole lot of unpleasantness yeah there are people who like don't like the way they don't want to change but generally you just say that that's irrational um and then you could ask why maybe everyone in hell is irrational yeah but why doesn't god help them out your orientation is fixed you've had you guys have already had uh 20 plus years i've had 51 years plus i mean he's pretty generous god's pretty generous with giving us time to repent and to uh orient ourselves toward the highest good right you will be without any excuse and you will not say one word to your creator you will not say one word you won't even clear your throat you will not raise an eyebrow at your particular judgment you will just no repentance because it's too late for a repentance at that point it's just hatred agony confusion shame guilt horror okay like normally if someone's in a certain way they're like they're doing only self-esteem and they're not self-destructive but they can't break out of it or they kind of don't want you in some sense like they want to want to sort of desire whatever but generally you'd say if someone's in that situation trying to help them do whatever you can to bring them out of that cycle whatever and god could do that because he's on newton right he could change their hearts whatever he does he's just like yeah well the time is now to repent the time is now repent today you don't know if you're going to be here tomorrow repent today okay so god is doing everything in his power to help you but you have free will and your only enemy is the man and the mary because you have free will god is almighty but your free will can block his attempts to save you you should tremble at the notion of your free will because it's the only thing between you and heaven it's the only thing that can land you in hell it's your free will so look in the mirror where do you want to go when you die where do you want to go it's it's a simple question and the fear of hell and the desire of the goods of heaven are imperfect forms of contrition but they're a great they're a great start they're a very powerful start to your journey to perfect contrition which is the fear of god you do not want to offend god and so you do the right thing you do what's right you're good for goodness sake because god is good and you love god you don't want to offend god but the first step can be a very powerful step that first step of imperfect contrition so do you want to burn in hell for all eternity boys i wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy and you guys are far from my worst enemy i don't i barely know either of you but i love you and i wish you well i want you to go to heaven so look in the mirror think about your free will think about your free choice and decide which way you want to go because it's up to you thank you the objections to universalism i guess this is my point is it just it just doesn't really make sense with a good god you think that everyone especially given an infinite time everyone would eventually sort of migrate their way out of hell into heaven and then there's gonna be christians who are like yeah yeah yeah that's great because it's like yeah but i think this is true at all which is an issue but yeah basically i i agree with premise one is what i'm saying around about yeah um yeah yeah if i would become a christian i would always become a universalist i can't fathom the whole thing it doesn't make any sense to me maybe that's my moment back because mom's don't believe in hell in the same in the same way um anyway so uh if you're a universalist you can kiss goodbye to morality because you can literally do whatever you want and it makes no difference so the one who struggles against his passions the one who makes self-sacrifice sheds his own blood for god and for neighbor ends up in heaven and the one who does the complete opposite is completely self-absorbed selfish lazy and not only that but malicious and evil in the way that he behaves toward god and toward his fellow man that person also gets the reward right does that make sense to you boys moving on of course there's mobile version not concerned this is a slight defend not from god what's the section yeah derived from a treaty with giants and and my explanation is the best experience of why we find that ourselves with these problems is on um is the formation of like misleads we got them the basic formulation so uh all right the problem with the fate of the unknowns so this one um also mentioned in chat as well so if the christian god created mankind to believe in him or mankind would have knowledge of him oh my god does not have knowledge of the christian god therefore christians this is not exactly the faith of the unknown per se but it's a variation of that where okay if the christian god created mankind to believe him all mankind would have knowledge of him well no i mean in the garden of eden adam and eve had knowledge of god direct unambiguous knowledge of their creator but they fell from grace and we're suffering the consequences one of those consequences is we're dim of wit our intellects are darkened we're confused okay so god did create mankind to believe in him and to obey him when they disobeyed the human race fell from grace so you can thank your first parents adam and eve okay don't blame god don't blame god it's um sort of asking why doesn't everyone have knowledge of the christian god specifically but in god's mercy his infinite mercy he gave us the ability to know without recourse to faith we can know him by the light of natural reason we can know him we can know that he exists we can know many of his attributes his pure perfections and having that knowledge is called when properly understood is called monotheism and from there you can look at history you can look at authority and before you know it you're a catholic so this could this is basically just like saying romans 1 is just not true not everyone has knowledge of the christian god um and i said before i don't think that he's actually what romans 1 that party's saying but to put that aside um i mean i think if god wants us all to know him then we should have knowledge of him right because he's on the potential so that's that's the base of the premise one and premise two is just i think a simple empirical observation so um i think this is a pretty strong argument actually yeah either so middle knowledge obviously and then yeah that just is that big question of like why even create those people who you wouldn't choose him at all like i haven't i just have no idea why like why the hell do that it's just so stupid just great people who will freely choose like if you're able because the theory is always going to be like well god wants gives people free will so they choose but giving god that middle knowledge means that he knows who will choose to who will freely choose to you know continually freely to um accept him so why not just create those people it's totally bizarre if you understood who and what god is you would not be questioning his motives or questioning his judgment or his wisdom so that's why these proof so-called proofs are all absurd because they have