Ulrich Returns With His Two Last Brain Cells

Ajouté : 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]All right, let's get um let's get back in here. He's dying to get cooked uh third time, I assume, on the same topic.

[00:00:07]We'll we'll see. Welcome back, Oric.

[00:00:10]>> Hello. Um I I'm calling basically because the last call I called gave you the reason or the answer that was missing in the first one, right? And I seen the video >> for what?

[00:00:24]>> You somehow managed to not let me speak in that moment. So So the answer is not even there. Oh, you mean I didn't let you preach?

[00:00:31]>> No, you didn't let me give my first answer.

[00:00:33]>> I didn't let you preach babies and I didn't let you pivot.

[00:00:37]>> And now I just thought you you don't know how to use your your equipment.

[00:00:43]>> Okay. It's okay if you need your diaper changed the third time. I'll change your diaper again.

[00:00:48]>> Okay. So, can we start the snow crap or what? What are we doing now?

[00:00:51]>> I don't know. You're the one. Give me your best argument for why God is real.

[00:00:55]That's what we're here for. Let's do it.

[00:00:58]Okay. Fine tuning argument.

[00:01:02]>> That's the best one.

[00:01:04]>> It is a really good one.

[00:01:06]>> It's not very fine.

[00:01:08]>> Yeah, certainly not a good one. Okay.

[00:01:10]Well, go ahead. Give me your best version of the fine-tuning argument.

[00:01:13]We'll see how you do.

[00:01:14]>> Okay. Not only the Earth is fine-tuned for humans, but the whole universe seems to be fine-tuned for exactly us.

[00:01:20]>> Well, I disagree on premise number one and premise number two. Premise number one is poppycock because the earth is constantly trying to unal alive humans at almost every turn. That's why 97% of the drinking water is poisonous for us.

[00:01:33]That's why children die of bone cancer.

[00:01:35]Three million children die a year of starvation. Uh we have natural disasters that kill between 100 and 200,000 people per year on average. Uh even more are injured and maimed and uh live their lives as vegetables. I don't call that fine-tuning, unless you think that the thing that fine-tuned it fine-tuned it for misery, pain, and suffering.

[00:01:56]>> Hey, Justin, what will happen if I walk around on the moon without a spaceuit?

[00:02:00]>> You know what? I'm pretty sure you'll die. What about that?

[00:02:07]>> So, okay, you're confusing two things.

[00:02:11]The finetuning argument does not refer to this all the things that you just mentioned.

[00:02:16]to the conditions >> you did that that was your number one premise was that the earth was finally tuned for human life. Premise number one I disagree with >> I disagree. I don't think it's finally tuned for for life because as it turns out if you're an all powerful creator and you fine-tune something that fine-tuning wouldn't be evil. And I'll give you a perfect example to illustrate this. So, let's imagine you're um an architect and you build a house for your let's say you have a family of a 100 adopted children. You build a house and every single room in the house is booby trapped to accidentally and randomly kill one of your children at random, but your children are still alive. Uh I mean, some of them at least. Is the house finally tuned for your family even though you built it?

[00:03:03]>> This is another crappy analogy that doesn't fit at all.

[00:03:07]>> It's a yes or no. Is the house finally tuned?

[00:03:11]>> Uh, yes. To kill the children or >> Exactly. Okay. Now, if you're an architect, you could build a house that doesn't kill the children, right?

[00:03:19]>> Yes. Yes. No.

[00:03:21]>> So, a finely tuned house would be one that doesn't needlessly execute its inhabitants.

[00:03:25]>> Yes. Can we just Can we do real quick?

[00:03:27]Okay. Yes. Next question.

[00:03:28]>> Okay. So if you finally tune something for your children to live in, it's incumbent that you don't tune it to accidentally and purposely kill them.

[00:03:37]>> Of course not. No.

[00:03:38]>> So if God is all powerful then and he finally tuned the earth for his children to live on, it's crazy that he created the earth with natural disasters and diseases and sicknesses that take life at random and uh cause untold amount of suffering and misery.

[00:03:55]>> I would need to say more than yes or no to that. Can I >> I didn't I didn't ask you a yes or no question. I'm just asking I I just gave you my reason >> why the analogy is spot on. Go ahead.

[00:04:06]>> So the earth was not created with all of that that happens when man sinned. You well remember the the the sin in Genesis 3.

[00:04:14]>> I'm sorry. Who created who created the earth?

[00:04:17]>> God.

[00:04:18]>> Okay. Did God create the earth so that it would behave the way that it behaves right now when Adam and Eve sinned?

[00:04:24]>> Yes.

[00:04:25]>> Okay. So then God's in charge of it. He created the earth so that when Adam and Eve sinned, which he knew they would, that the earth would have natural disasters. So, it's still on God.

[00:04:34]>> Yes. But creation is one thing and then the fall is another thing.

[00:04:38]>> No, it's not.

[00:04:39]>> Can't separate two ideas. No. Okay.

[00:04:41]>> No, they're not. Because God knew they would fall. There was never going to be a universe where humans didn't sin. God knew they were going to sin. God knew what was going to happen when they sin.

[00:04:51]And he decided that when they sin, he would create diseases and natural disasters and infant mortality and make childbearing so painful for all women that like upwards of 4% of them in history would die giving birth.

[00:05:06]>> Did he have to do any of that?

[00:05:09]>> Yes. Like I said in the last call, God creates evil. Remember that? I I I'm not >> He had to He he had to do it. What forced him to do it?

[00:05:20]Justice.

[00:05:23]Why do I have to repeat my >> So justice justice requires you to maim your creation at random. You know, children dying get maimed in earthquakes. You think that's justice?

[00:05:36]>> Sick.

[00:05:37]>> It's crazy that you guys will say that babies with less nyam syndrome scratching out their eyeballs. That's justice.

[00:05:46]>> Do you think that's justice?

[00:05:48]So like what what's it justice for? What crime is this justice for?

[00:05:54]>> There are some spiritual laws. For example, the parents might have done something that causes the child to suffer. Like if your parents become there, you also get a lot of money. Yes.

[00:06:05]That it's even so so parents do not determine who gets leam syndrome. Parents do not determine who gets bone cancer. Parents do not determine which babies die giving birth.

[00:06:19]That's something that God decided. God didn't have to have any of that happen.

[00:06:25]>> They didn't decide that, but they might have done something that opens a door to that.

[00:06:31]>> Who's in Who's in control of the door?

[00:06:32]Who made the door?

[00:06:34]>> No. Why do intentional understand everything I say?

[00:06:37]>> Who made the door?

[00:06:38]>> Why do intentional misunderstand everything I say? You studied that stuff. You know what I was talking about.

[00:06:43]>> Or I know. That's why I know that you're saying stupid stuff right now. Who made the door?

[00:06:49]>> God made it. So there is >> Okay. Did God have to make the door?

[00:06:53]>> Yes.

[00:06:53]>> Oh, no. He didn't. We'll try this again.

[00:06:56]God doesn't have to do anything.

[00:06:58]Nobody's forcing God's hand. So, for example, when Adam and Eve sinned, >> God God opened a door. Did he choose what would come through the door?

[00:07:08]>> Yes.

[00:07:08]>> Okay. Could he have chosen to open the door and have no natural disasters but other stuff?

[00:07:14]>> Probably not. That's what I'm trying.

[00:07:16]>> Probably then he's not all powerful.

[00:07:18]He's a weak ass punk ass [ __ ] ass God who has no powers. He created the earth having no idea what would happen. He knew Adam and Eve would sin because it says so in Ephesians chapter 1 and Revelation chapter 7. But he had no idea that when they sinned, the earth would do all this crazy stuff that godly gee, he just couldn't predict.

[00:07:37]Is is that what I said? Did you understand that?

[00:07:40]>> That's the entment of what you said.

[00:07:42]>> Draw from what I said.

[00:07:43]>> Was was God capable of creating it so that when Adam and Eve sinned, there would be no natural disasters.

[00:07:50]>> Can I say moral sense? Probably not.

[00:07:52]Because justice requires it. It cannot be out of justice or out.

[00:07:56]>> Justice doesn't require you to destroy babies. At what point in time does justice require you to murder babies?

[00:08:06]That's what we see in the biblical history that yes it did. That's the point.

[00:08:09]>> I'm not asking you about the biblical history. I said what about justice requires you to murder innocent entities? Because the definition of justice is that innocent parties don't get punished. Do you agree that if an innocent party gets punished for a crime they didn't commit that we would call that injustice?

[00:08:31]>> Yes.

[00:08:32]>> Yes. Okay. So that that means God practices injustice, doesn't it?

[00:08:36]>> No, because there is a broader justice.

[00:08:39]>> You just affirmed a contradiction. We'll try this again. Or when a baby when an innocent baby suffers for somebody else's crime and God has control over that, God causes it to happen, that means God causes injustice. These are just basic definitions. Orick, I'm surprised that this is going over your head.

[00:08:58]>> At the same time, a bigger justice he creates. There's no bigger justice.

[00:09:02]>> Justice at the same time.

[00:09:03]>> No, he does not. He He creates injustice every single time he murders a baby that didn't need to be murdered. The babies of the slave girls toiling away in Egypt when he killed their firstborn. Was that justice?

[00:09:17]>> Yes. Who is to blame for that?

[00:09:19]>> Not the babies. Not the babies. Not the babies.

[00:09:23]>> You know the story. It's okay.

[00:09:24]>> So then So then, Aric, you'd be okay if you committed a sin. You'd be okay with God murdering your baby for it.

[00:09:31]No.

[00:09:32]>> Okay. Then then that means it's not okay for God to murder somebody else's babies for crimes that they didn't commit.

[00:09:38]We'll try this again. So when you murder a baby for a crime they never committed but for somebody else's crime. That's called injustice. When God does it, that means God is doing something that's unjust. That means God is not all just which is a direct contradiction of his properties in Deuteronomy 32:4.

[00:09:53]And if this was the only way to get Israel out of Egypt, and that's why he did it.

[00:09:59]>> It wasn't. He's all He's all powerful, he could have teleported them. He could have snapped his fingers and teleported every [ __ ] out of Egypt without injuring a single baby. Every time you apologists get on my live stream, you minimize God so he's the weakest, most feckless, dumbest, incapable deity ever [ __ ] created because you have to justify his atrocities or you have to be honest for 5 minutes and you're not willing to be honest cuz you're a [ __ ] coward. Or >> how am I a coward? And I'm not an apologist. I'm just a normal guy.

[00:10:30]>> You're doing it right now. You're justifying murdering babies.

[00:10:35]>> No, I'm not. I'm explaining to you why it happened because you're obviously know why it happened.

[00:10:39]>> You have to answer them.

[00:10:40]>> I I know why it happened. I'm asking is it justified?

[00:10:49]>> Look, you're asking dumb questions. Here are the answers to the dumb questions because the finetuning argument has nothing to do with it. But look where again number one of your fine-tuning argument or >> like I just said everything is fine-tuned for humans. It's not fine-tuned for humans. It's fine-tuned for murdering humans.

[00:11:11]>> No, that happened when that is the the sin, which is not your integration.

[00:11:16]>> If you have to make an excuse for why it's not fine-tuned, that means the fine-tuning argument fails. The fine-tuning argument only works if you don't have to make excuses for either there's not fine-tuning. Your argument is dead out of the gate the minute you mention the fall.

[00:11:34]>> No, it's not because it originally is it's like it's like you're you got something stuck in your ears. If you have to make an excuse for why there's a lack of fine-tuning, then what you can't do is use the presence of fine-tuning to justify the existence of God because you've already admitted that there's not fine-tuning and you're making excuses for why there's not fine-tuning. So, you can't point to the lack of something to demonstrate God's existence.

[00:12:03]>> Yes. Because life wouldn't be possible without fine-tuning.

[00:12:06]>> Prove it.

[00:12:09]>> Right. How do you know that other forms of life couldn't wouldn't be possible to uh to exist under different conditions?

[00:12:18]>> We don't.

[00:12:21]>> So you have no idea what kind of tuning is possible. If your god is real, if your god's all powerful, he could have created life using any parameter possible. There's no limit to what parameters he could have put together to create life. The reality is you have no idea what parameters are necessary to create life. You have no idea how much life is out there in the universe. You have no idea what's even required for the life on this planet to evolve. The reality is you're just assuming that your god did it and you have no reason to assume that.

[00:12:52]>> But if we imagine there is no god, how how then is life possible? Then it's not possible.

[00:12:58]>> It is possible. Yeah. Without your god, nothing about your god is needed for life.

[00:13:04]>> If your god was necessary for life, science would have figured it out already. Science already has a methodology for life arising from non-living entities. In fact, every molecule in your body right now is non-living. Yet your arrangement, your configuration of molecules is alive.

[00:13:20]Being alive is just a description of how molecules can behave when they're in a particular uh arrangement. That's it.

[00:13:27]>> Yeah. Yeah, but but it's an impossibility.

[00:13:29]>> It's not an impossibility. Prove it.

[00:13:32]>> How do these molecules fit together?

[00:13:34]Exactly. So, we exist. That's the impossibility. Without >> It's not impossible. Prove it. Prove that it's impossible.

[00:13:43]>> It's proven. It's we exist. It's not proven. Therefore, >> it's not proven that it's impossible.

[00:13:48]Try again. In fact, it's proven that it actually is possible. That's why we have the theory of abioenesis and it won't go away.

[00:13:57]Sounds like Ol is making an argument from personal incredility just because he doesn't understand how it could possibly occur. Therefore, it's impossible.

[00:14:05]>> Yeah. Your lack of scientific understanding is not evidence for God.

[00:14:10]>> Well, can you explain this abiogenesis then? What is the proof they have for that?

[00:14:15]>> Abiogenesis, there's lots of proof. We know the building blocks for life, namely amino acids and proteins are already forming in outer space. In fact, we found two meteorites recently that have fully formed amino acids. There's a debate whether or not one of them actually had a fully formed protein, but they're literally self assembling right out in outer space. The same way they self assemble here, we've done multiple experiments self assembling amino acids.

[00:14:38]We've done multiple experiments here um putting together um various amino acids and and bases to self assemble proteins.

[00:14:46]Like we know all the building blocks that are required for life to self assemble.

[00:14:53]And it assembles by itself.

[00:14:55]>> Yes. Has that been absurd?

[00:14:57]>> Yes, they do. It's not absurd. Have you bothered to spend even 10 years researching the literature?

[00:15:06]>> No, that's why I just asked you. I've never >> possibly know that it's absurd.

[00:15:11]>> I said observed.

[00:15:14]>> Oh, yeah. It's definitely observed.

[00:15:15]>> Like watched.

[00:15:17]>> Uh-huh.

[00:15:18]>> Okay. The Yuri Miller experiment was observed and we were able to create amino acids in the lab using naturalistic mechanisms.

[00:15:26]>> Yeah. And there's a peer-reviewed article from UCLA on a more recent one linking self assembling amino acid to uh to RNA. Fact, let me grab the article.

[00:15:38]>> But even if we have that, how do we come to humans then?

[00:15:42]>> Evolution like you should have learned this in high school. I assume you went to high school. I assumed you learned evolution. evolution is why we are what we are today. It's three three and a half billion years of uh of molecules copying each other uh in the form of DNA specifically the ones we're concerned with. That's why like 70% of our DNA is like non-functional because as we copy one DNA replica to another and then we add new uh modifications to it.

[00:16:12]Sometimes uh it gets more and more complicated and sometimes the stuff that we don't need anymore gets broken and it's just hanging on there. For example, I used to design machines for a living and so one thing we would do is like if we had a machine order, let's say it's machine XYZ. Well, let's pretend like two years ago we built a machine XYZ, but now we need to build the same machine, but we need to add a couple new modifications on it because, you know, technology changes over two years. Well, we're going to copy that software from the original machine to the new machine and then we're going to write some new software on top of it to add in the new modifications. In when you copy machine code over and over again, what you'll find is sometimes you copy code that breaks in the process and it might be code that you didn't actually need. you copied it. You didn't need it on the new machine, but it's there anyways.

[00:16:59]Eventually, someone accidentally breaks it, and you you figure out 10 years down the road, you're looking at the machine code, and you're like, "Why is there a bunch of broken coding here from machines from 10 years ago?" And then you have to go in and clean that [ __ ] up. The same thing happens in our DNA.

[00:17:12]It copies over and over and over again for billions of years. And then we're left with billions of years of broken, damaged, unworkable DNA code that used to work, say, 100,000 years ago, and it doesn't work anymore. The DNA evidence for evolution is so strong. Literally, you could you could spend one day studying the DNA evidences and come away with a pretty good grasp that evolution must be a fact.

[00:17:36]>> So, we have we have like trash DNA and that's that's been confirmed.

[00:17:43]>> 100% confirmed. And one of the best examples of this is the fact that we cannot produce vitamin D. That's one of the reasons why getting sunshine is so important. But we know that um our primate ancestors could process um their body could make their own vitamin D the same way it makes the other vitamins.

[00:18:00]There's one step in that chain that's broken our the DNA expression that's required to for our body to make vitamin D. There's one tiny step that's broken and it's also broken in a lot of our primate uh cousins right now because we had a common ancestor that it got broken in. And we can see the the whole DNA snippet working up until that one broken point. And we I mean we just know like all the DNA lines up with we have a commoners. That's why we have endogenous retroviruses where there's viruses from the outside that make it into our DNA and then it damages I guess you could say damages or inserts itself into our DNA. So you find a little snippet of foreign DNA embedded in your DNA strand.

[00:18:45]And the cool thing is when it gets uh into the reproductive DNA, it gets passed on your children and your children's children and it gets passed on in indefinitely forever. And so we've got like 200 retroviruses that all human beings share. And it's really cool because like 80% of those uh 200 that all human beings share, we also share with the great apes. And a huge portion of those we literally only share with the great apes and no other uh animal life because we had a common ancestor that had those endogenous retroviruses and they got passed down over and over and over and over again until we get to today.

[00:19:25]Is there another possible explanation for that?

[00:19:29]>> Nope.

[00:19:30]>> No. Because whenever I call exp then they say is there another possible explanation? We might do the same thing.

[00:19:38]Maybe these viruses are there for an other cause. No, impossible.

[00:19:44]>> Because the DNA strand that it finds itself in is like sometimes hundreds of thousands of uh of codes or uh of base pairs and sometimes even millions and sometimes even more than that. And what we find is when we analyze a genome, it's always in the same spot in the same part of of the DNA strand, which is why we know it's being copied. If it was just a foreign DNA snippet and it showed up at various different locations in the DNA in the genome, then we can say, listen, these are multiple foreign viruses that are inserting themselves at random into populations, which does happen. But when we find a retrovirus that's always in the same place of the DNA strand and it's always there for all human beings, that means it could only have happened if this existed before all current human beings came to be. Which means we had all of us came from a common blood pool. All of us.

[00:20:42]>> Okay. How come we don't have that somehow in our conscience? I mean >> in our what?

[00:20:48]>> Why do we have religions and we don't Yeah. If we evolved, why don't we have that knowledge brought to us from our ancestors engraved in our brains?

[00:20:59]>> Knowledge of what? You don't know you have >> doesn't make sense to you.

[00:21:02]>> You don't you don't know when you have retroviruses. None of our ancestors knew what they were.

[00:21:07]>> No, but the the whole evolution. But we because we have things like we know when a tree has good fruit. I mean a real fruit tree like an apple tree. We have that in our brains. Why don't we have evolution also?

[00:21:22]>> Why would we? Nobody Nobody knew what nobody knew what evolution was until the modern times.

[00:21:29]>> Yeah. You don't need to know what evolution is in order to like survive.

[00:21:33]>> Like the the the protohumans just knew that they were alive. They had no idea what was happening a million years before them.

[00:21:41]>> But shouldn't we have like some some traits like some monkey stuff in us?

[00:21:47]Yeah, we do.

[00:21:49]97% of our DNA is identical to chimpanzee and bonobo DNA.

[00:21:56]We have eyes. We have fingernails in common. Some of us are even born with tails.

[00:22:04]>> What?

[00:22:05]>> Yeah. You know, there are human beings born with tails, right?

[00:22:07]>> Humans with tails.

[00:22:08]>> Yeah.

[00:22:11]>> I've never heard of that before. Okay.

[00:22:13]>> There was actually a young boy in India who was born with a tail. And as a result, they thought he was the incarnation of the monkey god Hanuman.

[00:22:21]And they worshiped him.

[00:22:34]Yo, I don't I don't know what happened, but your connection got slow. Let me give me a second. Let's see if it comes back.

[00:22:42]There we go. I think we're good.

[00:22:45]>> Okay.

[00:22:49]The reality is we we can explain the world around us without a god. Like everything that we see around us today can be explained without a god. So I don't see why we need a god to explain anything.

[00:23:04]>> Okay. Yeah. Then then we have two two things, right? We we decide at the end of the day we decide which one we believe, >> right? But we have evidence for my worldview. Like we have evidence for evolution and abioenesis and for a planet that's 4 and a half billion years old. We have evidence for all this stuff. We don't have any evidence for the Bible god. In fact, the Bible itself is full of things that are patently false. It says that the earth is flat, that there's a dome over top of it. It says that the first humans lived only 6,000 years ago. I mean, the reality is every time you stack the Bible up against known scientific facts, it just starts failing over and over again. They didn't even know about germ theory. They thought like diseases and germs were caused by unclean spirits.

[00:23:49]>> However, they were taught to wash their hands and stuff like that.

[00:23:53]>> Not not in the Bible.

[00:23:54]>> But yes, the Jews were taught to like be clean and do their cleaning lit rules.

[00:23:59]>> Not from God. God didn't say wash your hands. That that developed outside of the Bible. That was part of the tradition of the elders.

[00:24:09]But like cleaning and washing rituals, they're not in Leviticus. I don't remember exactly.

[00:24:14]>> No, the the washing your hands before a meal, that's not part of the Levitical law code. That's something that the Jews were already doing. Not already doing.

[00:24:22]That's something they were already doing in Jesus's time period, but that came from from the uh from the sages, not from Moses.

[00:24:30]>> The sages? You mean the the 70 elders or something like that?

[00:24:34]>> Well, later elders. I don't think it came from the original 70 elders that you see in Exodus chapter 24.

[00:24:42]>> Okay. Well, well, the Bible doesn't say you have a flat.

[00:24:46]>> Yeah, it does. Job 38:14, >> Isaiah 40:22.

[00:24:54]>> Or you should know by now that I don't make empty claims about the Bible.

[00:24:58]>> Yeah, but I've read the Bible and I've never seen it saying, "Oh, the earth must be flat."

[00:25:02]seems seems to be problem with your eyes, not mine.

[00:25:08]>> 22 specifically says he sits upon the circle of the earth.

[00:25:16]>> So yeah, we circle a globe is a circle.

[00:25:21]>> It's not there's a there's a word for ball and it's not in that verse. A circle is not a ball. A circle is flat.

[00:25:28]>> Well, a circle is the shape you see from afar. Also often that's not the shape of the earth. It doesn't say what it looks like from afar.

[00:25:37]>> If he sits on it, it probably looks like that from afar.

[00:25:39]>> It doesn't matter what it looks like from afar. It's making a statement about what it is, not what it looks like.

[00:25:49]>> Okay. If you think so. What was the other the other verse?

[00:25:52]>> Yeah. Job 38:14 talks about what God does with the earth. says uh that it might take hold of the ends of the earth which wouldn't exist on a globe and the wicked shall be shaken out of it. Taking the imagery of a rug now says it takes form like clay under a seal which is a flat disc and stands out like a garment.

[00:26:12]The description of the earth in Job 38 is something that's flat that you can take by the edge uh much like a carpet or a a clay seal. And if you look at like Hezekiah's seal, it's a very good example.

[00:26:27]>> Yeah, I just might say that that's just poetic language. Just the shake people out of the earth is not possible.

[00:26:33]>> I'm not saying I'm not saying that shaking people out of the earth is literal. We know that God's not literally shaking the earth to knock people off of it. He's describing the shape of the earth, though. He says it takes form like clay beneath a seal. And this is what clay beneath a seal looks like.

[00:26:53]Okay.

[00:26:54]>> The the reality is nothing in the Bible makes sense unless you understand that they believe what everybody believed that the earth was flat. Which is why Jesus could go up to the highest mountain and see all the kingdoms of the earth because the earth is in fact flat.

[00:27:08]That's why it says that there is a dome over top of it. The rakia is a dome.

[00:27:12]It's a hard dome and it was like described in all of the extra biblical literature. The Egyptians described it.

[00:27:18]The Babylonians and other Mesopotamians described it. The Greeks described it.

[00:27:23]Uh the Romans described it. It wasn't until modern times that people realized that there was no dome over the earth.

[00:27:30]But everyone believed it back then.

[00:27:31]>> Say there's a dome.

[00:27:33]>> Oh, it's all over. It's in Ezekiel chapter 1. Uh Genesis chapter 1. In fact, let's grab Genesis chapter 1 real quick.

[00:27:39]>> The firmament. But it says the firmament is the sky.

[00:27:42]>> The firmament is the dome.

[00:27:44]>> But it says God called the firmament heaven.

[00:27:47]>> I know. Yeah. The heavens includes the dome. Go ahead, Don.

[00:27:50]>> What? Why? Why do you think it's called firmament? The reason for that old English word is because the ancients thought the sky was firm and solid. It's the Hebrew word rakia.

[00:28:02]It literally means like something which is solid, which is hammered out.

[00:28:06]>> Yep.

[00:28:07]>> If he explains it's he called it heaven, it must be just heaven. It's not a dome.

[00:28:11]>> Well, it's the sky. The the dome is the outest the most furthest layer of the sky. There you go. Yeah. It's It's a dome and he's gone again. It does say that.

[00:28:26]Yeah. That's why Psalm 150 says that God's throne is just on the other side of the firmament. That's why in all of the extra biblical literature, Jesus, not Jesus, Yahweh is pictured just on the other side of the firmament. Uh the dome, that's what Rakia means. It is a dome. And so we we even see that in Ezekiel in Ezekiel chapter 1 and chapter uh 10 when he goes up to to see God.

[00:28:52]Where does he see God?

[00:28:55]>> In heaven >> in the sky just above the what?

[00:29:01]>> It doesn't say that it's a dome.

[00:29:03]>> It does. Yes, it does. That's what Rakia means. That's why the NRSV Bible, the NABR Bible, and others just translate it as a dome.

[00:29:12]Then that sounds really wrong.

[00:29:14]>> No, they're not wrong. You're wrong.

[00:29:17]Almost all the translations understood this to be a dome except for a couple confused modern translations. Almost all scholars, the King James Bible is a dome. That's what firmament is. The firmament is a dome. It comes from firmamenta from the Latin which is referred to a hard surface. That's what the word means.

[00:29:36]>> And they translated it from stroma in Greek. So the Latin translated it from stroma which means a firm surface into firmamentum into Latin which means a firm surface and then that gets translated into firmament in English which means a firm surface because Job says that it's hard like a cast metal mirror.

[00:29:58]>> We already said that Job is a poetic book. So that's not a description. And in Genesis, he even says it is. You can't you can't say that something being poetic means that it has no meaning anymore. Just because something's poetic doesn't mean that it doesn't have any meaning. That's preposterous. You can be poetic and still be making claims about reality, which is what's actually happening in Job. God is specifically describing the earth while he's questioning Job, saying, "Hey, were you [ __ ] here when I laid its foundations? Were you here when I did this?" He's describing the earth because he knows that Job has no actual knowledge of the earth. In fact, of the skies itself in Job 37:18, he says, "Can you, like him, spread out the skies hard as a molten mirror?" The skies include a hard molten mirror. That's the rakia. In fact, the Egyptians wrote about this. The Egyptians thought it was made of bronze and some of the Jews debated as to whether or not it was made out of crystal.

[00:31:02]They even debated on the thickness of it. By the way, if you read the rabbitic literature, they debate all over the place about how thick it is, uh about how God lives on top of it, inside of an air pocket, how much water's up there.

[00:31:17]I think this is kind of a weird observation because I grew up in mountains and there what I thought as a small child is that the mountains connect to the sky but I I never had the but it doesn't give you the illusion that it's somehow hard. I just thought okay it's connected.

[00:31:32]>> If if you don't know modern science and you just look up around you it looks like you're in a dome and there's water on the other side of the dome being held back by the dome. That's why the sky is blue and that's what all the ancients believed and that's why it shows up >> and that's what it does look hard.

[00:31:47]That's how the waters are held back. The waters are held back by the dome which is why in the Bible it's described as being like sapphire.

[00:31:56]>> That's how why the ancient Israelites thought that rain was uh they spoke about rain as being the opening of the windows of the heavens. Um that's where rain came from from the waters above the dome.

[00:32:08]Wait, that of course was not literal when those >> it is. Yes, it is. You can't just every time you don't like what the Bible says, you can't just say it's not literal.

[00:32:17]>> That's not how you read the Bible.

[00:32:19]>> But if it says Yeah. If something is impossible to be, then it's probably not literal.

[00:32:24]>> No, they could just literally be wrong.

[00:32:26]That's the problem. That's what you can't comprehend. When it says something that's not actually true, sometimes you can be like, "Oh, [ __ ] That's not true." Or you can twist yourself into a pretzel and be like, "Well, it's poetic, so it could it doesn't have any meaning." Oh, it's not literal. It doesn't have any meaning. No, sometimes it's just wrong.

[00:32:45]>> That would be the other possibility. But even if I say windows of heaven, I might write about this in in poetry, right?

[00:32:51]And you know, it's not literal.

[00:32:52]>> Yeah. In the modern age, because you live in a time period where people think the windows of heaven is a metaphor for something that doesn't exist. But the ancients didn't. The ancient people did not believe that the windows he of heaven were a metaphor for any kind of nonsense. In fact, they go through great lengths to describe them. Read the book of Enoch. In Enoch, he describes the windows at the base of the firmament that the sun goes in and out of so that it can traverse underneath the earth at night. These were literal [ __ ] windows that they believed actually existed. And they also believe that the sun traversed around the earth. That's why that's why it's described as doing that in the Bible. That's why they can say that the sun stood still. The sun doesn't actually stay still. The earth would have to stop rotating. The earth clearly didn't stop rotating because all the water of the ocean would have swallowed up the land mass if the earth suddenly stopped rotating.

[00:33:44]>> The whole universe would have stood still.

[00:33:48]>> No, >> that's how that's interpreted.

[00:33:50]>> That's not how that works. Says the sun stood still in the sky.

[00:33:55]>> Yes, but for this to be pos Exactly. So the earth has to stand still but everything otherwise it's not possible.

[00:34:01]>> It doesn't say the whole universe stood still. There's no concept of the universe in the Bible.

[00:34:17]Yeah.

[00:34:19]No, the Bible the the Bible doesn't the Bible doesn't say from our viewpoint.

[00:34:25]That's something you have to insert into it because you know that it's wrong. The Bible is describing the way things are.

[00:34:33]And when it gets it wrong, you're like, "Well, that's what it looks like from our viewpoint." But the Bible doesn't say, "That's what it looks like from our viewpoint." Remember, this is from God.

[00:34:41]God has the information. He could describe it the way that it actually is.

[00:34:46]>> Yeah. Would this be necessary, though?

[00:34:47]Would they say like, >> "Yeah." Yeah, it would. it it would stop millions of people in the year 2025 from reading the Bible and thinking that this is a [ __ ] book.

[00:34:59]>> Okay.

[00:35:02]>> The minute you say, "Well, that's what it looks like from our viewpoint," you're admitting that it says something that's untrue and you're trying to find a reason for why it's untrue.

[00:35:12]>> Yeah. Well, I think that that that's the obvious thing there.

[00:35:16]>> It's not obvious. It's obvious that those are the lies you have to tell yourself.

[00:35:20]>> It's obvious to me from reading the ancient literature, the comparative literature from the ancient near east that this is just what everybody believed.

[00:35:27]>> Everybody believed that the earth was flat, had a dome over top of it, there was windows in it, and there was water on the other side of it. They described it in great detail in the writings. I've got the map on the wall behind me.

[00:35:38]>> I've I physically have the ancient Babylonian disc map behind me on the wall. This is what people believed. The Bible believed it, too. That's why the Bible agrees with the Egyptians. It agrees with the Babylonians. It agrees with the Assyrians. It agrees with the Hittites because that's what everybody believed.

[00:35:55]>> Oh, we still speak. If I if I told you this, the sun will go down at 7 p.m. Am I wrong to say that?

[00:36:03]>> No, but you're not but you're not des you're not describing it as God. You're not God.

[00:36:10]>> But yeah, I know it's not actually true, but it's it's correct. The sun goes down at 7 p.m.

[00:36:17]>> But you're not God and you're not writing sacred literature and you're not describing the earth. If you're literally describing the way that the earth is like it does in the book of Job and the book of Genesis, you're not going to describe it that way. You're not going to describe it that way at all. You're going to describe it truthfully. The the sun going down is an idiom that only happens in the modern age because once upon a time they thought that that was true. Back in history, they thought the sun literally was setting. The sun literally was going down. That phrase only exists today as an idiom because people used to think that it's true. If people never thought that that was true, that idiom wouldn't exist.

[00:36:59]>> Okay. Yeah.

[00:37:01]>> Let's let's talk about my last favorite subject now that we've we've got to uh some like mature back and forth. So, I think Christianity fails right out of the gate. The reason why I think Christianity fails, no matter what you think about science, no matter what you think about fine-tuning, I think the reason why Christianity fails is because Jesus fulfilled exactly zero messianic prophecies and it takes no more than five minutes to demonstrate that the New Testament has no idea what's happening in the Old Testament and it's just making [ __ ] up.

[00:37:30]But the the messianic prophecy that he would be born in Bethlehem, they would be called the Nazarene. No bones of him would be broken.

[00:37:38]>> Well, none Well, first of all, two of those aren't prophecies. No bones being broken is Exodus 12. That's not a prophecy. Those are Passover instructions. The other one that that you mentioned, um, being born in Bethlehem, that is a legit prophecy.

[00:37:52]We'll get to that. And then what was the other one you mentioned?

[00:37:56]>> That shall be called >> He shall be called a Nazarene.

[00:37:58]>> Oh, yeah. That's Isaiah 11. That That's not a prophecy. That doesn't even show up in the Bible.

[00:38:03]>> Um, we'll worry about that next. Okay, let's go to Micah.

[00:38:06]>> They will part his clothes.

[00:38:08]>> That's not a prophecy either.

[00:38:10]>> Nope.

[00:38:10]>> It's Psalms. We talked about that already. Psalms can contain prophecies.

[00:38:14]>> It it's not a prophecy. So, in Micah 5, it says, "But you, oh Bethlehem of Aphraa." The the of is kind of important in the sentence because a lot of people think that this is referring to the city of Bethlehem. I don't think it is. I think it's referring to the ancient lineage of King David, which includes two individuals, one of them named Bethlehem and another named Ephratha.

[00:38:36]Aphroatha was a woman. Bethlehem was a male. And it says Bethlehem of Aphroatha who are of the little clans of Judah. So it's talking about a clan, not necessarily a city. From you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old from ancient days. So, I'm reading this as saying that whoever this individual is, two things are going to happen. They're going to be from David's lineage. Maybe they come from the town of Bethlehem. I don't think that's necessarily important. And also, number two, they're going to rule in Israel. Well, the problem we have is Jesus did not come from the lineage of David. And he didn't rule for even one minute in Israel.

[00:39:13]>> But Jesus, yes, he came from the lineage of David. That's what we see.

[00:39:16]>> No, he didn't.

[00:39:17]>> In Matthew and Luke, the lineage, >> no, both of them go to Joseph. Joseph wasn't his daddy. And the the prophecy in the book of Samuel says that is going to come from the loins of David. It's going to come from his actual seed, which means it has to come from a physical seed.

[00:39:34]>> Yeah. For in Luke's lineage, that's Mary's lineage.

[00:39:37]>> No, it's not. Nope. Both of them go to Joseph.

[00:39:41]>> I I would love to know where in the Gospel of Luke it tells us the genealogy is Mary's. It doesn't.

[00:39:50]>> It differs from Matthews.

[00:39:51]>> I know it does differ. That's not because it goes to Mary though. This is settled by Ucius.

[00:39:56]>> That's why >> No, it's not from Mary. Uczeius describes that the reason why this is is because um the the parents of Joseph, the mother of Joseph, was married twice.

[00:40:09]All right, let me hold on. Your connection failed. Let me get you back.

[00:40:14]I don't know why it keeps cutting in and out. It's just you your connection specifically. Okay. So, Ucius justifies the the differing genealogies because um because they say that there was two husbands um one a stepfather, one not a stepfather. But the genealogy doesn't say anything about Mary. It says Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his work. He was the son as was thought of Joseph of Heli, son of Mthot. So, this is the genealogy of Joseph, not of Mary.

[00:40:46]Okay.

[00:40:49]But what the thought is the other prophecies, it doesn't fulfill any of them.

[00:40:54]>> None. Not a single prophecy. In fact, the best prophecies about the Messiah didn't even show up in the New Testament. Like a a good prophecy about the Messiah, I'd say like Jeremiah chapter 3, Jeremiah 23, Jeremiah 33. Um Isaiah 11 is actually a good one. Isaiah 2 is another good one. Um, Ezekiel 36 and 37 are good ones. They get ignored by the New Testament because Jesus clearly didn't do it. But let's read real quick Jeremiah. This is the expectation that the average Jew would have had in mind. Says, "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I f will fulfill the promise that I made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah." Well, we know what the promise is. If you read back in the chapter, the promise was to restore them to their land. It says, "Thus sayith the Lord of hosts." Yeah, >> that's right. Restore them back to the land of Israel. It says in those days and at that time I will cause a righteous branch to spring up for David and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. So this is a physical king in a physical land. Says in those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety and this is the name by which it will be called.

[00:41:56]The Lord is our righteousness. For thus sayith the Lord, David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel. And the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time. So I mean, according to the messianic expectation in Jeremiah, there's always going to be Levitical sacrifices, and there's always going to be a physical literal king in a physical literal Israel.

[00:42:25]>> Yeah, they that's the second coming.

[00:42:28]Well, that means he's not the Messiah.

[00:42:34]>> What did you just say? I didn't hear that.

[00:42:36]>> If you think this is happening at his second coming, that means he's not the Messiah. Cuz this this is clearly what the Messiah is going to do.

[00:42:46]>> But using that same logic, I can make I can make the claim that any failed Messiah will actually fulfill the prophecies at a later time at their second coming. Barofa will will fulfill this when he returns, >> right?

[00:43:01]>> Okay.

[00:43:03]I I have to go. I have to work. I also work. Imagine that. So, >> well, listen, we appreciate that you're contributing to society.

[00:43:12]>> Okay.

[00:43:13]>> All right. Hey, thanks for coming and talk to us, Rick, and thanks for calming down. We appreciate that.

[00:43:20]>> Well, that was interesting. I expected them to crash out the entire time.

[00:43:25]>> My one of my least favorite counterarguments to Isaiah 40:22 is, well, they're just looking at the Earth from far away, it looks like a circle.

[00:43:33]No, if you look at the Earth from far away, it still looks like a sphere. You can see the continents and the clouds sort of circling it.

[00:43:43]>> Also, that's a fair point. Like, because it it's not like an immediate snapshot.

[00:43:47]Like, if you're looking at it from afar, you can literally see it rotating.

[00:43:51]So it's like if this was God's eye view, he would still know it's a fear sphere.

[00:43:56]Describe it as such because it would be rotating. Discs don't rotate like