When “Context” Destroys the Apologist

本站添加: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]That's my understanding that verse is wrong.

[00:00:04]>> Okay, give me one sec >> to Google or hit AI.

[00:00:09]>> No, Bible GP.

[00:00:11]>> I'm reading the scriptures. I'm reading the scriptures.

[00:00:13]>> Maybe you should ask God.

[00:00:19]>> Jay, I kind of think you should bail on tonight and try and come back with a better argument because we haven't even got to return to your whole there's a lot we don't know about the Earth defense earlier. Uh, and >> I I I think you guys are are Look, cuz you could take that scripture, but if you put it with other like scriptures, >> which context Matt already asked, which context changes it?

[00:00:41]>> All right. So, before we get into the full clip, I want to say this upfront.

[00:00:45]The reason I picked this clip is not just because it gets heated, and it does get heated, but that's not the important part. What I think makes this conversation worth watching is that it shows how quickly a belief can sound strong until someone starts asking very basic questions. Not mean questions, not trick question, just simply questions like, "What do you mean by God? How do you know that? How can you tell the difference? What would prove you wrong?"

[00:01:12]And honestly, those are questions a lot of us aren't encouraged to ask. So, as we go through this, I don't want you to just watch the caller. I want you to watch the argument. Watch when the claims get specific and then watch if it stays specific when the pressure is applied because that happens a lot.

[00:01:30]Somebody starts with the Christian God, Jesus, Yahweh, the Bible, resurrection, prayer, but when the evidence gets challenged, the claim sometimes backs up into something softer, something like there has to be something out there. And those are not the same thing. So, let's start at the beginning. And I want you to pay attention to how Matt starts the conversation because before he argues anything, he asked the most important question. What exactly are you claiming?

[00:02:00]>> Calling from Kansas and Jay Atheus Bronzer wants to debate on why Christian God exists. Hey Jay, you're on with Matt and Jimmy. How are you?

[00:02:09]>> Hello. How are you guys? I'm I'm good.

[00:02:11]I'm good.

[00:02:13]>> Cool.

[00:02:15]>> Can you guys hear me, by the way? Well, it's a little quiet, but that's all right. Um, so when you say Christian God exists, >> I'm not I'm not remotely trying.

[00:02:26]>> Hello. Can you hear me?

[00:02:28]>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Can can you guys hear me better?

[00:02:30]>> Yeah, that's a little better. So, uh, I I need to do this for for clarity to begin with. First of all, there's a slight delay, so sorry if we end up talking over each other, but you say you want to debate on why the Christian God exists. Can we get a like a super quick summary of what you mean by Christian God before we get to the defense?

[00:02:49]Because I think I would hope that you would agree um that there are plenty of people out there who have some concept that they would call the Christian God which isn't going to match yours. So >> yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So whenever I define God or the Christian God, it's it's a Yahweh, the Jewish uh God going into Christian. Uh a personal being that was before uh what's what is the created order is outside of the created order.

[00:03:17]Um that that's intelligent and you know um and you know yeah that's basically what what it be like that okay this creator of all >> the intelligent the intelligent creator of reality.

[00:03:32]of all things. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We we can say reality.

[00:03:35]>> Cool. Um what what's the reason to believe in that?

[00:03:39]>> I like this opening because now the caller has locked themselves into something specific. He didn't just say I believe there might be something bigger than us. He said Yahweh. He said the Christian God. He said intelligent creator of reality. So now I'm listening for one thing. Can the evidence get him all the way there? Because that's where these arguments usually have a problem.

[00:04:01]They may argue a creator or a design or a first cause, but then they quietly smuggle in something like Christianity at the end. And I don't think we should let that happen. If the argument only gets you to maybe the universe had a cause, then say that. But don't act like it proved Jesus, the Bible, prayer, heaven, hell, and the resurrection. So, now that he's defined the claim, let's see if the reason he gives actually points to God or if it points to something vague.

[00:04:32]>> Um, well, I mean, it was really interesting that that you guys talked about the Big Bang um bang and whatnot.

[00:04:38]Um, I I think the Christian view of the Big Bang, like how you guys said, has been uh very wrongly put in because you're right, there's no definite um belief or the definite proof that there is a beginning of the universe. We just know that it's possibility that there was a beginning of the universe. So, we can both argue that there wasn't or there was. But if there was >> then I then I believe that the universe like how this says the order of it the fact that the stars or or suns um are they can't be too close to each other or even planets can't be too close to the sun the fact that the planets are too close to the sun don't have life or the planets are too far away don't have life therefore earth that does uh that isn't a good spot >> um does have life and and yeah >> Jay can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. So I asked I asked what reason why we should believe in the Christian God the the creator of reality and you started talking about big bang and planetary locations. What does that have to do with >> this is where I want to slow down because this move I see all the time.

[00:05:52]The question was why believe in the Christian God? But the answer immediately goes to the universe, planets, the sun, earth being in the right spot and life existing here. And I can get why that feels powerful. We are alive. The earth does support life. The universe is massive and strange and beautiful depending where you're at. I understand why people look at it and feel like there is something behind it.

[00:06:17]But feeling amazed by the universe is not the same thing as evidence for Christianity. Because even if granted the whole argument, even if I said, "Okay, maybe the universe was designed," we still have not gotten to Yahweh. We have not gotten to Jesus. We have not gotten to the Bible. We have not gotten to prayer, heaven, hell, sin, resurrection, or any specific Christian claim. So, this is the gap I want people to notice. A person can make an argument that sounds like it points to God, but when you look closer, it may only point to something and something is doing a lot of the work. So now the question is, can he connect the dots or is he going to stay or is he going to stay at the earth looks special?

[00:07:01]>> I I was Yeah, I um it's basically what the guy was saying um before me, order and design the fact that um >> we we already we've already thoroughly debunked that though.

[00:07:14]Do you really want us to ask you the same? Have you got Have you got Have you got Have you got Have you got Have you got different answers to the questions we've already asked?

[00:07:25]>> Yes. Yes. Yes.

[00:07:26]>> Cool. Yes.

[00:07:27]>> Then let's hear that.

[00:07:28]>> We don't need to rehash the other call.

[00:07:31]>> Yeah. So, so yeah, the way that I I feel like he articulated was he just threw it into what I get like um kind of conceded you guys and you guys make great points about that. But um the thing is you guys take it um to the end of I mean the beginning of your guys' arguments. It's a lot of chance, right? The order of natural stuff.

[00:07:53]>> Jay, stop.

[00:07:54]>> Jay Jay, when I say we don't need to rehash the other call, I mean we don't need to rehash the other call. I need you to make your case for why we should believe this. And you would have to agree that nothing about the last call, nothing about that Jimmy and I have ever said in the history of our lives convinced you that this God exists. And so instead of rehashing that last call and telling us what we said there or didn't say there or anything else, I need you to tell us why you believe and you think we should believe. So, this is one of those moments when Matt sounds impatient. But the point underneath this is actually important because what the caller is starting to do is respond to something that Matt and Jimmy have said to someone else. He's kind of debating the previous conversation. Instead of making his own argument, and I think that happens a lot. Instead of saying, "Here is why I believe," people start with, "Atheists say this," or, "Skeptics can't explain that." Or, "You guys believe everything came from nothing."

[00:08:54]But even if every atheist in the world was wrong about something, that still would not make Christianity true. So Matt is trying to pull him back to the actual question. What is your reason?

[00:09:06]And I think that's fair because if someone says God exists, the strongest thing they can do is give the reason that they have. Don't build the argument around what skeptics don't know. Build it around what you actually do know.

[00:09:20]That's what I'm listening for here. Not just criticism of atheism. I want to hear the positive case for God.

[00:09:28]>> Oh, well, I I believe that like how I said, there's a God that's real because of the fact that yes, even though the world isn't perfect, it moves in a way that's intelligently built as an oxygen.

[00:09:41]All these things that that scientifically are proven that that you know, it's like a like how he said a circle of life, but it's not necessarily the circle of life, but everything flows together, not necessarily perfectly.

[00:09:53]Jay, we we already addressed this. Let's imagine two planet Earths. Okay, let's let's let's invent two fictional Earths.

[00:10:01]>> One of them was not intelligently designed, >> but happens to be in a universe where it can produce life and has these conditions and in another universe, it's intelligently designed and it contains the life that's on the on this earth.

[00:10:19]How do you tell the difference between those two planets?

[00:10:24]Um the you the the key word that you're using there is happens to be right. So you're saying >> no it's not no Jay I'm saying here's planet A and life occurred uh through no guidance no intelligent design and here's planet B and life occurred through intelligent design. How do you tell the difference between those two?

[00:10:53]>> To answer your question, you can't tell the difference.

[00:10:55]>> The answer right there is a big deal because Matt gave him two options. One planet where life happened naturally and another planet where life was intelligently designed. Then he asked, "How would you tell the difference?" And the caller's answer was, "You can't."

[00:11:12]That might sound small, but that's actually the whole problem with the design argument. Because if you can't tell the difference between a world that has a designer and the world that is undesigned, then what exactly are we detecting? Are you detecting design or are you just looking at life and assuming design has to be there? And I think that's where a lot of these guys get caught because life feels special to us. Of course it does. We are alive. So when we look at the earth, we naturally think this place was made for us. But the skeptical question is not does the earth feel special. The question is, can you show that it was designed? And if your answer is, I can't tell the difference, then I don't know how you get from that to confidence. This is something that he just needs to sit with.

[00:12:01]>> Cool.

[00:12:01]>> No, but you're raising the question, >> Jay. Jay, listen to what you just said.

[00:12:09]If you cannot tell the difference between a planet where life was intelligent designed and a planet where life was not intelligently designed, then you could never make a case to reasonably conclude that life was intelligent designed. You just undermined your entire argument in one admission and I appreciate that.

[00:12:30]>> No, no, no, no, no. Give, give me one sec though. Let me let me ask you.

[00:12:33]>> I don't need to give you a second. I have a question for you. The whole point Jay. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Jay, listen.

[00:12:40]If I have if I take a deck of cards, I'm I'm a magician. There's no reason for you to know that. And I shuffle them and I deal you a royal flush, honestly, without any cheating. And then I stack a deck and I deal you a royal flush.

[00:13:00]>> The exact same result happened. And if you say you believe I cheated and I say, "How do you tell the difference between me stacking a deck and me honestly randomly shuffling it?" And you say, "I can't." Then you have already admitted you cannot have a justification for saying I cheated. What you're doing is you're accusing you're accusing the earth of cheating, but you can't prove it.

[00:13:28]Uh but but then my question to your your hypothetical would be then how did that planet how was that planet able to produce life?

[00:13:40]>> The card example is a really good way to explain the problem. If I deal you a royal flush from a fair shuffle and then I deal you a royal flush when I stack the deck to you the result can look exactly the same. So, if you say you cheated, but you can't tell the difference between a fair shuffle and a stacked deck, then you don't actually have evidence. You just saw a rare result and assumed cheating. And that is where Matt is comparing the design argument. The caller is basically looking at Earth and saying, "This looks too special, so it must be design." But that can only work if he can show what design looks like compared to no design.

[00:14:20]And that's the part that's missing because if a naturallyformed lifebearing planet and a designed lifebearing planet look the same to you, then the conclusion is not therefore designed.

[00:14:33]The honest conclusion is I don't know how to tell. And that matters because skepticism is not about denying everything. It is not about pretending we know more than we actually do know. Now watch what's about to happen because this caller moves from this looks designed to well how did life happen without God and that's a whole different argument >> that's irrelevant >> whether whether you can tell the difference now listen carefully just you asked a question let me [ __ ] answer it please >> okay >> if you can't tell the difference between the two then you cannot at all bring up how it happened as relevant. That's like saying, "Hey, when you shuffled that deck of cards, how did you shuffle it?"

[00:15:25]It doesn't matter. The point is I have no idea whether there's an intelligent designer or not. I don't have any reason to think there is because there's no evidence for magic. There's no evidence for super no good evidence for anything supernatural. No way to test for anything supernatural. And so I have to say I can't tell the difference between supernatural causation and something that I don't understand and can't explain. And so your your argument that you're getting ready to make is give me an explanation for how this happened without a designer. But that's a flawed argument because even if nobody ever has an explanation for how it happened without a designer, that does not in any way give you justification for believing there is a designer, which you've already admitted you can't have.

[00:16:17]>> All right, this is the move right here.

[00:16:20]The design argument gets challenged and then the caller shifts to, well, how did life happen without God? And I think we all understand why the caller is asking this question. How life began is a huge question. But not having the full answer does not mean you get to insert your own answer. This is where a lot of these arguments go wrong because I don't know how life started and therefore God did it are not the same statement. There's a whole step missing. You still have to show that God can even be an explanation. And not just any God. You now have to prove the Christian God, Yahweh, Jesus, the Bible, prayer, and the resurrection. All of that. So, this is where I think people need to get comfortable with saying, "I don't know."

[00:17:10]Because I don't know is not weakness.

[00:17:12]Sometimes it's the most honest answer.

[00:17:14]What is weak is pretending the mystery proves your belief.

[00:17:19]>> So, Jay, I will say you should explore that question, not not on the show. If you're saying, "Okay, I actually have it your way. You're right." Do we have an explanation where, you know, there are better people who could explain it to you anyway who are involved in those sciences?

[00:17:35]>> But hang on, Jay. I'm sorry. And Jay Jay, hang on. I'm going to ask you a question to kind of illustrate the point here. Hang on.

[00:17:42]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:17:43]>> From your understanding, does sc do scientists propose that evolution happens randomly or non-randomly?

[00:17:53]um from you know what I'm not studied with evolution in that sense if they propose it randomly or not I I do I do believe it goes into the more rare >> I guess it goes into the from adaptation to evolution does that make sense according to how climate changes then >> JJ you're invoking climate change now your only question was does scientists propose that evolution is random or non-random and you started to say I lay more random. That's incorrect. In fact, evolution is extremely non-random.

[00:18:27]>> So earlier you invoked oxygen.

[00:18:30]>> The reason why we breathe oxygen is because that's the only thing that well not necessarily the only thing but that's the thing that we evolved to. So life in our form nothing was ever aiming for homo sapiens. Nothing was ever aiming for whatever creature you want.

[00:18:46]My dog who I love. Uh nothing was ever aiming for those things. the type of life that evolved because evolution is non-random was the life that could evolve. So you're because people have this tendency to believe that the difference between life and non-life is this extraordinary thing despite the fact that lots of things happen in chemistry, lots of things happen to non-life that is extraordinary and yet natural because the we perceive the difference because we're selfish and it makes sense that we prioritize that. It it like creates this world in which you think that like all the other things that that are are conceivable as as uh non-random orbit, you know, nuclear fusion, all that kind of stuff that that makes sense as like a physics thing. Somehow when it comes to life, it's just the same [ __ ] It's the same physics. It's the same chemistry. At some point, chemistry produced an atom that used chemistry to gather other atoms to replicate the exact rather produced a molecule to gather other atoms to produce the same molecule to start replicating. And that chemistry exists in a way that can cause random adaptations, but those adaptations only persist if they're beneficial.

[00:20:05]That's why natural selection is extremely evolution is extremely non-random despite the fact that we have and by the way even when you say random adaptations that's very limited too because it's not truly random it's not as though I could have a child that is born with wings it can only build it only has certain gene options there too so as far as like what it could do Next.

[00:20:34]>> So Jay, >> yeah, >> fundamentally you're calling in with a complaint that random the randomness of because that that's what you had invoked earlier and how perfect everything works when you don't have an understanding of functionally the things that we do know and how they work together and how much that gap that used to just be called God has reduced in size because we actually do understand a lot of the functions.

[00:20:56]>> So if you're going to use it as a throw an argument at us, well, how would you say I do it? That I'm not interested in.

[00:21:02]But if you're asking that question because you genuinely want to know, I would say you should want to know that and go learn it >> because we don't have the time here and Hank Green's got a better course than we could do on it. Anyway, >> I think this part's important because this is where a lot of religious arguments get built on misunderstanding.

[00:21:19]A lot of people hear evolution. A lot of people hear evolution and think skeptics are saying everything just randomly happened. And I get why that sounds ridiculous because it used to sound ridiculous to me. If someone told me every human being randomly popped together out of nowhere, I would not believe that. But that's not what evolution is. There is randomness involved in variation and mutation. But natural selection itself is not random.

[00:21:48]It's it's simple. If a trait that you have helps you survive, you survive and reproduce. And if it hurts to survive, it's less likely to continue on. So when people say, "You believe all this happened by chance?" They are usually not arguing against what scientists actually believe. They are arguing against a simplified version that is easier to reject. And I think Jimmy makes another important point here. He's basically saying, if you genuinely want to know how things work, go learn from the people that studied it. Because sometimes how did this happen is not really a question. Sometimes it's being used as a shield. There's a difference between asking because you want to understand and asking because you want to protect the answer that you already have. And that is what I want you guys to notice. If the answer is always God before you even study the subject, then you are not really investigating. You are defending. Let's keep going because now the caller starts to push back on what atheists actually claim.

[00:22:54]>> No, no, no, no.

[00:22:55]>> As for I I I I'm so I'm sorry. I came into the car assuming that you guys would be debating that the that God isn't real.

[00:23:05]But you you're you're you guys are coming at it in a way that prove to me that God's real, but I'm not going to prove to you that he's not. And that would make sense because then my question would then have Lydia if you guys don't believe that that there is a God then then I would ask you then how does this happen? And and you know I'm I'm not saying that I believe things are random.

[00:23:24]>> We have an answer for that. J you've missed the point. Depending on what god you're talking about I might actively believe that that god isn't real. If there's a god that is logically contradictory I actively believe it's not real. If there's a if you're proposing a god that is in conflict with known facts about reality, then I actively believe that that god isn't real. Um, but I cannot falsify that which isn't falsifiable. So, if you believe in an unfalsifiable god, it would be silly to pretend that we falsified an unfalsifiable god. But we do have a naturalistic explanation for the uh diversity of life. We don't have a concrete uh scientific explanation for the origin of life. But we have a number of propositions and the building blocks of life exist everywhere. There's not the only thing left to explain is the nuts and bolts of how it happened in this case, not the nuts and bolts of how it could happen. Meanwhile, is your god supernatural in any sense?

[00:24:33]This is something I think a lot of believers misunderstand about atheism.

[00:24:37]You always expect others to prove that God is not real. But that is not always what the atheist position is. If I say I don't believe your God claim, that doesn't automatically mean I'm making the opposite claim. For example, if someone says there's an invisible dragon in my garage and I say, "I don't believe you." I'm not saying I searched every garage in the universe and proved no invisible dragons exist. I am saying you have not given me reason to believe your claim. And the distinction matters because if the God claim is specific, then maybe we can test part of it. If someone says God answers prayers, performs miracles, speaks to people, inspired a book, or raised Jesus from the dead, those are claims we can investigate. But if God becomes unfalsifiable where nothing could count against it, then the question becomes why belief in the first place? This is why the burden of proof keeps coming back to the person that makes the claim.

[00:25:46]You don't get to make a claim that's impossible to test and then act like nobody can challenge it.

[00:25:52]>> Uh yeah. Yes. Uh to answer the question directly, but can I elaborate?

[00:25:59]>> Sure.

[00:26:00]>> Like how I said um whenever it comes to God, the belief in the God that I I you know I believe in he's outside of the materialistic. So whenever I say he's supernatural, he's above what is time, space, and matter. Right? How you can aim that?

[00:26:17]>> Wait, Jay, how is he how does he do that?

[00:26:20]>> Sorry, Matt, but I get so tired of >> Yeah, no, that's fine. That's fine.

[00:26:23]>> Go ahead. How does he How does he exist outside of time, matter, and space? Be >> because in order to then create something, you have to be outside of it.

[00:26:33]And so we >> No, no, no, no, no. That's not That's That's you just invoking That's just you reclaiming he's outside of it. I didn't ask is he outside of it? How? Since since when we have a belief that is solid, you need to know the mechanics of it. We have to explain to you how evolution works. You're making claims about God. And now I'm expl asking you to explain the mechanics of your God.

[00:26:53]How does your God exist? What are the mechanics of your God existing outside of time, space, and whatever other things.

[00:27:02]>> But see, if I ask the same question on how this hypothetical earth goes, you guys shut me off.

[00:27:08]>> No.

[00:27:08]>> No, I didn't. I explained it to you.

[00:27:10]>> Deal. No.

[00:27:11]>> And you have the claim.

[00:27:12]>> No, Jay. And the difference is we're not claiming there is no God. You're claiming there is a God. He's asking you how it does that. I was going to ask you, how can you detect the supernatural?

[00:27:25]>> Because so far, no one has come up with any method at all to detect the supernatural. And yet, you asserted that your God is supernatural. And if you assert something is something and you have no way to detect it, then your assertion that God is supernatural is fundamentally identical to you asserting that that intelligent design is required, which you've already admitted you can't do. So what is your method for determining for identifying and detecting the supernatural? And to answer Jimmy's question, how does God exist outside of time?

[00:27:58]>> All right, so the conversation really starts to shift. Before this, the caller was arguing mostly from the universe design, earth, life, and things like that. But now he's making a very specific claim about God. He is saying that God is supernatural outside of time, outside of space, outside of matter. And I think we hear that so much in religious conversation that we forget how big of a deal it actually is.

[00:28:25]Because my question is, how do you know that? Not can you say it in a way that sounds deep, not can you repeat the theology, but how do you actually know?

[00:28:36]And I think Jimmy's question is fair, too. If God exists outside of time, what does that even mean? Because when we say something exists, we usually mean exists somewhere, somehow, some state for some amount of time. So when somebody says God exists outside of all of that, they may think they've solved the problem, but really they just created another one because now you don't just have to prove that God exists. You now have to explain how God exists in this very specific supernatural way. And that is why I keep saying the more specific the claim gets, the more support it needs. Let's keep going.

[00:29:18]>> Okay. But see what your guys Okay, I'm I'm I'm just going to answer with what with what what you guys's presuppositions is. So if you cannot >> there's no presupposition. We literally ask you questions about what you assertain it.

[00:29:33]>> I know you can't.

[00:29:34]>> We you keep you keep dodging and now you're talking about presuppositions. We literally asked you >> I'm not No, I'm not.

[00:29:40]>> You're interrupting me. I know what you're literally interrupting me. You're literally [ __ ] interrupting me. We asked you two questions about your claim. You claimed God is is supernatural and exists outside of spaceime. And my question is, how did you detect that? And Jimmy's question is, how can God do that?

[00:30:01]>> Okay. Okay. Let me answer your your your questions plainly and then let me elaborate if I could.

[00:30:08]Is that fine?

[00:30:10]>> I don't need a [ __ ] preamble. I need you to do it.

[00:30:13]>> No, I I know. It's just whenever I do it and then I like say the I say the answer then I >> Jay sorry I've done this for a lot of years and I'm really [ __ ] irritated at the moment. I don't need a preamble. I don't need you to complain about how you haven't been able to finish. We're not the ones who marched in here making claims that we cannot demonstrate on subjects we do not understand.

[00:30:43]Your claim is God exists sup in is in outside of nature.

[00:30:49]I don't know of any way to detect the supernatural.

[00:30:55]I also have concerns that it's bizarre to assert that something exists outside of time because time is necessarily a function of existence. If something exists for zero time, that is identical to non-existence. So, I'm asking how did how can you detect the supernatural?

[00:31:16]And Jimmy's asking, how can God exist outside of spaceime? That's it. I don't need you to let me finish. Let me do that. Just answer those questions.

[00:31:26]That's it.

[00:31:29]Try again.

[00:31:30]>> Now, this is intense, but I want to separate the emotion from the point because underneath the frustration, the questions are actually very simple. How do you detect the supernatural? How does God exist outside of time, space, and matter? Those are fair questions. And the reason it matters is because claims often get to live in this protected space where they're treated as deep but not explainable. But if I make a claim about something existing, and I add that it exists outside of everything we can test, measure, or understand, I should still have to explain why I believe that. Because otherwise anybody who stops anybody from saying anything, I could say there is a supernatural being outside of time and space who created the universe, but it's not Yahweh. It's not Jesus. It's a completely different being. And if I use that same standard, how would you prove me wrong? This is why the method matters. It is not enough to say God is outside of nature. The question is, how do you know that? And if you can't explain how you know that, then maybe it should not be stated with confidence. Let's see how he answers.

[00:32:40]>> The supernatural. Oh, >> you are now unmuted.

[00:32:43]>> Hello. Okay. Oh, okay. You cannot detect the the supernatural physically. You cannot >> and and I'm not even going to make the argument.

[00:32:53]>> Jay, >> okay, I'm answer I'm answering.

[00:32:56]>> Jay, no. This is the problem. I didn't say physically. I h how do you have something other than a physical way to detect the supernatural?

[00:33:08]>> Okay. No, no, you cannot detect >> um you cannot >> If you cannot detect the supernatural, >> if you cannot detect the supernatural and God is supernatural, how can you detect God?

[00:33:21]>> You you cannot detect God scientifically.

[00:33:24]>> Hey, I didn't say See, this is where the your [ __ ] dishonesty is going to annoy the [ __ ] out of me, Jay. I didn't say scientifically >> because you >> No, I'm going to mute you because if not, I'm going to yell at you for interrupting again.

[00:33:38]I didn't say physically and I didn't say scientifically. Your dishonest brain attempting to defend your undefendable belief inserted those words as a self-defense mechanism so that you feel like you've been [ __ ] honest when you fail to acknowledge that you were asserting, "Oh, you ran away."

[00:34:03]>> This is one of those moments where the wording really matters. Matt asked, "How do you detect the supernatural?" The caller answered by saying, "You cannot detect God physically or scientifically." But that's not exactly what Matt asked. And I think that happens a lot when belief is under pressure. The person does not answer the question fully. They answer a smaller version of the question, the part that feels easier to defend. Because if the question is, "Can you detect God scientifically?" The believer might say, "No, science only deals with the natural world." Okay, fine. But the bigger question is, can you detect God at all?

[00:34:41]Not just with a microscope, not just in a lab, in a reliable way. Because if the answer is no, then we have a problem. If God cannot be detected physically, scientifically, spiritually, personally, historically, logically, or in any way that can separate truth from imagination, then how are we saying we know God is real? That is the issue.

[00:35:07]It is not enough to say science can't test God. Maybe that's true depending on the claim. But then you still need to explain what method you are using instead. Because without a method, you don't have the knowledge.

[00:35:23]You just have a belief.

[00:35:26]When you fail to defend what you've claimed, I'm very careful with what I'm asking. Jimmy's not going to even get a weak ass attempt uh at his answer because you had to run away.

[00:35:38]>> That's your next defense.

[00:35:40]>> Defense number one is to pretend like you've answered or pretend like you've tried to answer or pretend like you understand when you don't. Defense number two is to answer the question, but add in some sort of criteria that wasn't in the question that gives you a comfort zone so that you can feel like you said something when you said nothing. And your final defense is to run the [ __ ] away.

[00:36:08]>> Well, he's apparently back.

[00:36:10]>> I don't believe it. I will say the as we bring them back in here, the reason why I like the how question is in in engaging with a lot of theists who watch our show, uh I think we a lot of times don't address enough how much they think God did it is an answer and that it's actually less than. So in other words, a lot of people would be like a biogenesis, how did it happen? Well, I don't really know, but it could be this, could be this. Here are the hypotheses.

[00:36:38]You could pop it up. And then they go, well, I can confidently say it was God.

[00:36:42]And they think that's more of an answer because they said it confidently. And it's literally like, okay, right, but then how did God do a biogenesis? Well, God decided life would exist, right? How did that mechanism work? His thoughts moved phys like what what how did it happen? And when as soon as you just go like if I just ask you the exact same questions you're asking about my beliefs, we'll actually find it's less of a I don't know. It's literally like, "Oh, I don't know." But when he says expelis, the wand flies away. What c what happens in between? I got nothing on.

[00:37:16]>> I'm glad Jimmy made this point because this is something that gets skipped over a lot. When someone says science doesn't really know how life began, they're really just saying God did it is a stronger answer. But is it really?

[00:37:28]Because if I ask how did life begin and someone says God did it, I can still ask okay how what was the mechanism? Did God speak molecules into existence? Did God change chemistry? Did God guide natural processes? Did God create the first cell directly? Did God do it instantly? Did God do it slowly? And if the answer is I don't know, God just did it, then that's no more of an explanation. It may actually be less of one because at least with science, even though we might not have the final answer, people are still testing, researching, comparing models, and trying to close the gap. But God did it can become a stopping point. And that is a danger. It can make people feel like they have an answer when they really just gave the mystery a name. All right, I think this is a good place to end. And to me, the biggest lesson from this call is not just the caller had bad arguments. I think the bigger lesson is how easy it is to feel like we have an answer when we really only have a belief we have to protect from questions.

[00:38:37]Because this conversation started with a very specific claim, the Christian God exists. Yahweh, Jesus, a supernatural creator outside of time and space. But every time the claim got pressed, it had to move somewhere else. First it was the design. Then it was earth being in the right place. Then it was, well, how did life get here without God? Then it became Jesus and the resurrection. Then it became prayer. And when prayer got challenged with the Bible's own words, it became context. And I want to be fair here. Context does matter. I'm not saying that every Bible verse should be read in isolation. But if your answer is context, then you need to be able to show the context. You cannot just use the word context like a shield every time a verse creates a problem. And I think this is where a lot of believers and skeptics talk past each other. The believer thinks skeptics is just attacking God. But the skeptic is usually asking much simpler questions.

[00:39:41]How do you know? How do you know God exists? How do you know God is outside of time? How do you know Jesus is alive?

[00:39:50]How do you know prayer works? How do you know the verse does not mean what it appears to say?

[00:40:00]Those questions are not disrespectful.

[00:40:03]Those are questions you should ask if truth matters. And I think this is what I want people to take from this video.

[00:40:10]Don't just listen to answers that sound good. Ask whether those answers actually explain anything because saying God did it does not explain how. Saying mystery does not prove anything and saying context does not change the verse unless you can actually prove and provide the context. So let me know what you think.

[00:40:31]Was Matt being too harsh or was he asking the exact questions that needed to be asked? For the believers out there, I really want to know what context do you think changes Matthew 18, not just the whole Bible, not just God's will, but what specific context changes the meaning of the passage? Drop your thoughts in the comments below. Don't forget to click your buttons. It really helps the channel and it's much appreciated. This also lets you know when I go live so you can come talk to me personally. As always, I'm Jay. Throw away your feelings. Open your mind and question your beliefs.