This debate explores whether faith can be a reliable method for determining truth about God's existence. Alan Bondar argues that the scientific method is the only reliable way to determine truth because it allows for testing, falsification, and reproducible results, while Mike Miano argues that faith involves healthy engagement with the church community and personal experiences that provide sufficient warrant for belief. The core tension lies in whether supernatural claims can be evaluated through empirical methods or require a different epistemological framework.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Bondar vs Miano: Debate (Round 2)
Added:Heat.
Heat.
And we are live once again here on the Unravel.
where we have Ellen Bondar and Michael Mo are going to go at it again for round two of their evidence for God debate. So last night uh we ended I think during the open discussion period. Uh tonight our me see if I can get my outline up here. Tonight we're going to open it with 60 minutes of open discussion. Then uh two 10-minute intervals of cross- examination, one for each. And then uh Ellen and Michael are going to steal man each other's positions um for five minutes each. And then we're going to go to the uh question and answer period for half an hour. So save your questions for that last half hour period. Um if they get lost in the comments, it might be a little hard for me to go back and find them so I can put them up in the screen for them. So if if you've got them, save them and remember them and and put them in the comments uh when we get to that period or right before that. Uh so we've got them ready to go. So without any further ado, we're not going to do any introductions tonight. We are just going to jump right into the 60inute open discussion period between uh Ellen and Michael starting now. Take it away, guys.
>> I just want to make a comment real quick. Mike and I talked behind the scenes that we were going to do our best to limit this to 30 minutes. My opinion was that's not going to be enough time and we're going to want to keep going.
If we do, we have the extra grace period of 30 minutes. So, we're going to just do our best and if we find we need that extra time, we'll we'll keep going. But that's >> okay. So, we'll we'll set the timer for 60 minutes and just we'll we'll see where it goes with with kind of a rough estimate about halfway.
>> Yep. 60 minutes and we'll just kind we'll just to tell you if we're done.
Otherwise, cut us off at 60. So, >> Okay, sounds good.
All right, here we go.
>> Imagine if in 30 minutes you repented and believed. This would be a miracle.
This would be great.
>> It would be a miracle.
>> What What a great time this would have been.
>> It would be a great In fact, that would be a really good um That would really be a good start to having me feel like there's evidence for the existence of God. I would I would then be convinced.
>> That's right. I do want to qualify that.
Hopefully you noticed that I mentioned repent and believe, not repent and have faith because faith would take some work as you believe first and then you engage the things that you have belief in and that's where you will find yourself living in faith. So tonight the goal would be not for you to have faith. It would be for you to repent and believe in the things of God.
>> Can I ask you what what am I repenting of?
your disbelief at this point. It would definitely be your disbelief uh that you've wandered in disbelief and that you've spent time uh denigrating, if if I might use that word, uh the Christian God and Jesus Christ our Lord and u and and accept God as as savior. Accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
So, I have to I have to believe first in order to repent of my unbelief.
And what if I actually believe in the rock band God? Like we talked about last night, you haven't yet demonstrated that Yahweh is the correct God versus the Rock Band God. So, I honestly, if I repent of the God you're talking about, what if the Rockband God wants to destroy me if I choose to repent of to the Yahweh God?
Repenting would be acknowledging that you don't know it all, that you haven't served.
>> Well, I'm already there. I I acknowledge I don't know it all. That's why I'm an agnostic.
>> Great. Okay. Well, in that sense, I'm as agnostic as you are. I've just maybe went a little bit further in searching out the things that I'm willing to put my faith in and I've engaged the church and I've heard the voice of God in my heart. The only place that he will speak, it's not an audible voice. We actually read First Kings 19 this morning uh in our church service and sure enough, he's not in the wind. He's not in the fire. He's that still small voice. That's the voice of God.
Mhm. Um so what was that the uh you said yesterday um the meaning of faith is acting in line with with uh the church or something like that. Hang on. I'm trying to find my notes here. Uh I'm sorry for taking this time. Um, do you remember what you said was the de Oh, people engaging truth. That was your definition of faith. And so, how do you know if the people you're with are engaging truth?
How do I know?
Um, well, I would say I know because they're proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. So, that's that would be truth to me. So, I would engage that.
That's how I know that. I guess is that sufficient answer?
>> Well, no, because I thought you said that the only way you knew that to begin with was already because you engaged with the people and that's how you knew.
So, you now have gone circular and said, "I know because the people made me know and then I know that they're true because I know."
>> Right. Well, I do want to qualify that circular is not wrong. Circular just doesn't prove anything, right? Circular.
>> Exactly. Yes. Thank you.
>> So, um, now I don't know that I have to prove my personal experience to you. I don't know how I would do that. That's like telling you I love my wife. Uh, how I would prove that to you would be letting you be here for the duration of the seeing the environment, observing the evidence that I love my wife. But again, how would you ever know that I love my wife?
>> I I would just take your word for it. Of course, I wouldn't know.
>> Good. That's that's good. And then you'd you know, if you cared enough, you would engage that a bit. Maybe you'd call me every so often. You'd ask me about my experiences uh with my wife. Uh you'd ask me about the things I've learned about love.
>> And that would eventually, I would imagine, become circumstantial evidence at best. Uh that would say Mike loves his wife. Would there ever be a place that you could say Mike loves his wife?
Well, the difference is you know your wife exists and she's not invisible.
>> Do you know that she exists?
>> Well, I have no reason to doubt she does. I mean, do people exist? Yes. Do people have wives? Yes. Does Mikeo have a wife? Yes. In fact, I've met your wife, so yes, I know she exists.
>> You have no reason to believe God does not exist.
I have no reason to believe God does not exist.
>> Right. You said you have no reason to believe my wife doesn't exist. You have no reason to believe God does not exist.
>> Well, yeah. Actually, I have a lot of reasons to believe God doesn't exist.
Number one, I've never met him. I've met your wife. Um, number two, my my um evidence of God is supposedly found in people who tell me he exists, which also doesn't demonstrate that that anything exists because people can be completely wrong in a group setting, but because it's a group setting, it sounds like it's true.
Majority doesn't make right. Um, also, uh, your wife is the existence of your wife is not simply contingent upon your marriage certificate or a bunch of love letters. It's you actually talk to her in real life and she talks back to you.
And I can I can literally I can we can we can prove it right here, right now.
You can give me her phone number. I can call her and we can talk and I can tell and we can even put it on speaker. And you know full well that we could demonstrate in a lot of ways that your wife exists. You can even bring her into the room and put her on the screen, but you can't do that with >> with all the modern AI. I think we've proven that we can actually make up a whole lot of stuff.
>> Of course, >> uh, you know, people being in the room.
So, there's a lot of things that you, unless you were willing to do the work, you would not know whether it's true or not. And that's been my argument about faith. Faith is doing the work. It's believing in something, which yes, I can I I'm willing. I think one thing you've proven to me in this debate would be that I presume the existence of God.
Absolutely. I presume the existence of God. I I find no reason to think that there is no God. That would be as I've mentioned uh need to be proved to me uh better than than that God exists, that there is a creator. Um now what direction I go, I know you mentioned yesterday uh Aibaba and the Mormons uh and these folks. I've wandered I've listened to uh different religions. I've searched them out uh to the best of my ability and um I found them wanting. So, the Christian God captivated me. And as I mentioned before about the voice, uh since we talked about hearing my wife's voice, uh God's voice is a still small voice that I have heard that I can tell you that I've I've communed with. And the only way I can tell you that is to say, let's get you into a healthy environment called the church.
So it it comes down for me to asking you once again if belief is determined by the group you visit and and the truth is determined of somebody's existence by the group you visit as you expressed yesterday.
Then how can you possibly distinguish between which is right and which is wrong? In fact, if if they're both right because you literally said they both can be right. So, I'm I'm I I'm just I'm I'm really having a hard time comprehending why you have landed on Yahweh instead of visiting another group, the Rock Band God, and decided to worship that God for a while. Why? Why did you land here and just say, "I'm just going to set my feet in when you have no idea if any other group might be right." In fact, if faith is uh people engaging truth and that truth is based upon the people you're with, why don't you go to a Ku Klux Clan rally and discover that their truth is right, that whites are better than blacks. Is that because that's a position of faith then?
>> Yeah, I'm not going to do that. So, um how do you know you don't >> Well, I'm going to tell you. I'm going to answer your question. I just I'm not interested in going to a clan meeting.
There's nothing about that that would captivate me. Um but what I will say is um so I've explained my story a little bit here and there. Uh >> before you go, I I got to know the answer to that. Why? What? How did you already determine that that has no interest to you?
>> Because racism is ugly.
>> And how did you determine that?
>> Because I've lived an experience where I've seen racism being ugly.
>> Okay. So you already know that there's nothing there of substance because you know for a fact that racism is ugly.
>> Sure.
>> Right. And so you have zero reason to think that they could be right about that even if they're gathered in in a large group because largeness of group doesn't make right. They they there's nothing about that that determines the truth.
>> Largeness of group can attract attention but it doesn't make right. Absolutely not.
>> Correct. Correct. So how I mean I if I already know because I've already experienced the life with God and have come to conclude that I don't have any reason to believe it just like you don't have any reason to believe that the Klux Clan is right and same with me obviously I'm not trying to defend that. I'm with you. Uh but for the same reason I am not doing that is the same reason I'm not doing the church with God because going there and being amongst a bunch of people isn't going to help me draw that conclusion. I would probably want to draw that conclusion first with evidence before I line myself before I align myself with a group of people who also think that way. I want to know why you have decided to align yourself with that particular people.
Um, so I've told you a little bit of my journey, so I just want to remind you of some things. So, um, I don't know that and I know that you want to posit that it's not your job to prove anything I believe is wrong, right? Or or right for that matter. Um, but, uh, but there there has to be a component to that. So, in my experience, I have not seen uh it erroneous to believe in God. Why?
because I have seen the ancients believe in God. Now again, I agree that just because a large majority of people believe in something that it doesn't make it true, but it definitely warrants attention. So I gave it attention. I gave it my attention. It seems odd to me to believe that there's no creator of the world. My lived experience uh has allowed for me to say that there seems to have been a creator of this environment that can be tested that see there's laws of thermodynamics and entropy and all these different things that can be tested. So, it seems as though this has has a beginning and an end. There's a creator to it. So, then uh I wandered in on learning about the Bible as a historical document. Again, I didn't grow up in a church environment.
I mentioned this a couple times here because I'm also in the middle of reading your book. And while I think a lot of your argument is targeting folks that have grown up in the church, that is not my story. And I think we do need to create that distinction between you and I uh there. So, I began to survey different religions. The Quran was what got my first attention. I read the Quran. I studied it. I studied it with other people and I found it wanting namely a concept called tar which is the idea that uh that the Quran says that in its original form that it's perfect and infallible. And uh much like many Christians would posit about the Bible and uh I found that wanting. I found some issues as I read a book about Jesus the historical prophet of Islam. And that led me to become agnostic and as I mentioned for about eight minutes I was an atheist as I sat in a solitary confinement based which would surely in my opinion make someone an atheist. And um there I sat and I wondered about God.
And then when I was I met someone who introduced the Bible to me as a historical document, which again I have not found in my 13 years of serving at the same church and years of doing debates, I have not found sufficient evidence to discredit the Bible as a historical document. And then of course, as I mentioned, Jesus's crucifixion. The Bible speaks a lot about Jesus's crucifixion. And again, I have not found anything that would prove that to be wrong. Uh then I you know Jesus's resurrection and all that goes along with it. I mentioned the acronym feat last night, fatal torment, empty tomb, appearances, uh you know transformation and uh these things have attracted my attention. These things have been studied out by me and that's where I've arrived in not only a belief in God but a faith in God's purposes and faith in what God is doing in this world. and of course of the impact that this has had in my life which I believe is worthy of personal belief. So that's how I've arrived, you know, and I know we've talked about that and you've asked how how and why do I believe this? I've never gone to the rock band church uh where they have the rock band God. And I'd be willing to go. I haven't heard that they're racist or they're mean-spirited or anything like that. I'd be willing to go. I mean, if you know my story, I went to a church three or four years ago and I got walked out with my family. So, I'd be willing to go uh and hear you out and hear your message and test it. Yes. go home. I'm testing your view right now. I'm reading your book, listening to you. I'd be willing to do it, but this is where I've landed and nothing's proved that wrong.
>> Um, does experience alone, is that sufficient to determine and warrant belief and and does it is it sufficient to determine truth?
>> Depends what truth we're talking about.
An example of a truth that experience by itself is sufficient to warrant truth.
>> An experience where give you an example of where experience alone is enough to warrant truth. Um, I'm not sure that I could think of one because I think I I personally I guess I live a life where if you tell me your experiences, I believe them as true unless there's something that pops up as a lie.
>> Well, you believe I had an experience and I also believe I had an experience.
But that experience by itself is not sufficient to dictate what truth is.
It's simply all it is is enough to say I had an experience.
>> Sure. Okay. But apart from uh apart from empirical evidence and data evaluating that experience, there's no way to determine by itself if that exper if how I'm interpreting that experience is true.
>> Right?
>> So for example, I've heard people say, "Oh my goodness, we were in a room and as we were talking about our friend who had passed away, the light bulb blew out and I knew that was her talking to us.
And I'm like, "Okay, did did you test that and put up another light bulb and talk about her again and see if it would happen repeatedly?" Well, no. We just know it was. And then they just want to jump on to the next experience. You're like, "How did you determine that your experience was interpreted accurately?"
And people look at their experiences and they they jump to many conclusions because gives them chills. It feels right. It's the first thing that pops in their head. Or the famous one is, I couldn't explain it any other way, therefore it has to be supernatural.
And I'm always like, well, if you can't explain it any other way, then why don't you just say I don't know an explanation yet. I until I have one, I'm not going to just leap to one. That's not a good way to determine truth. So, right. I mean, would you at least agree with that?
>> Yeah. But I just I want to poke at that a bit. So, we're sitting in a room and the light flickers and nobody says anything because nobody knows what happens. I mean, that's not reality. Reality is is what we do is we presume, well, maybe it was my loved one burning out the light.
You know, now me, I guess where you and I might differ in our our logic would be I wouldn't find much reason to bother engaging whether that was their friend that passed away or not. I wouldn't It could very well be true. It might be true for them.
>> Sure. So if I if I was a con man and I knew something like that caused people to believe stuff, I might start creating effects like that around and start getting them to believe things so that I can send them a sell them a cure and make some money off of them.
>> You might be >> right. So the the the problem is people can believe whatever they want. You're right. I can't say to them stop believing that. I can I can I can say it, but has no effect. It doesn't matter. But I'm simply saying that a wise person won't make won't draw conclusions just based on an experience that they can't explain.
>> They're going to be patient and do what you said, search, >> seek improve.
>> Yeah. Whatever they you're going to you're going to work out the data first and then draw a conclusion, not just leap to the to the easiest one because it feels right.
>> Right. So, so you're so, so we'll establish by this that your experience with what you now believe is God. That alone is insufficient to draw the conclusion that God exists.
Now, you went to church or I guess in prison is where you accepted Jesus.
So you went to chapel, whatever, and you were a bunch of people and that group of people told you that your experience >> is the type of experience or maybe they didn't tell you verbally, but you inherited the idea that your experience is what other people experience and that experience to them demonstrates it's God. And so your conclusion was, "Ah, man, my experience was also God." Is that am I close?
>> Sort of. Uh, you know what I would say is just to create make a correction there. It would be I I was introduced to the Bible by a man in the prison yard, not in a church setting, in a prison yard. That man introduced me to looking at the Bible, considering what the Bible had to say.
And he gave me the case for Christ. I went into my cell. I did my own thinking, my own reading, read through the case for Christ. And I came out to the prison yard and I said,"I think I might be considering to be a Christian. How do I become a Christian?"
And obviously it was, you know, we pray.
I think I don't know if you've ever heard my testimony in that regard, but I always joke that folks said it was not a gang initiation. It became like a big funny thing. Haha. Um, so uh, you know, then, uh, then I was invited to church.
So at that point, I would say that I had a belief in God. I believed in God. I believe the Christian message could very well be the right way >> because I was very disappointed with the Muslims. I was very disappointed with uh the mythology and the Zohar group that I was meeting with and um you know atheism again just I would need to be uh guided through that just like I was guided through Christianity you know um and and again I'm not obviously convincing me that somebody I know exists is a tricky thing for you to do. Um but you know I'm open to it. I'm willing to hear you out.
Um because again I've seen AI do all kinds of damage to our culture. So who knows?
>> Sure.
>> Uh Mike Mo might be Duke, you know. So point is is and then I was invited to church and then my engagement as I've been offering up my engagement in the church since that day in November 2005 has continued as I've seing studying and proving as I've done that work I've stayed in the faith. I've kept the faith is the way that faith is used in the Bible. Now, you know, I don't want to go too much into that because I know we spent a lot of time talking about faith last night. And I I do want to highlight though that you and I have a categorically different understanding of what faith is.
>> I don't believe faith and belief are mixed. And even in your book, even in things you presented here. Uh and I don't believe that faith is confidence.
If you go back to the first night, I I said yes to that because I do believe that confidence is a part of faith, but it's a a confident hope. I I even wrote down some terms here. I like that you reminded me last night. I said it's people engaging truth. But if I may just share with you a couple other ways that I would define that to help you better understand what I'm getting at here. It would be uh confident participation.
You see, you believe it enough to participate in it. As I just shared with you my testimony, I began to believe enough in the Christian message to have participation in it. And that's what I believe keeps someone is active constant participation in the things that they believe. Or another way of looking at that would be healthy engagement or confident hope with practical uh practical outworking. So that's when I offer up faith. I'm I'm saying something different than what you've posited a few times here. And in Hebrews 11, if I may use that verse uh here, it says faith is the assurance of things hoped for. for we we would say the confidence of things hoped for. It doesn't say faith is confidence. It says faith is confidence in the things that are hoped for. The question then becomes what was hoped for. And I would posit and I've done teachings on this. The church, the church is what was hoped for. So what is faith? Faith is active engagement in the church. And that becomes the evidence of the things unseen. So if folks are disengaged from the church, folks are obstinate to being involved in the church or having healthy engagement. And I want to qualify also engagement and visiting as you used the term before are very different than each other. Uh being engaged to something uh is not just visiting and being there.
It's not even just being present. It's being engaged in the ethos of it. And as we do that, that becomes the evidence of the unseen, the substance of things that are hoped for.
>> So if we apply that definition, and I hope I don't murder your definition. And I'm just going to loosely use what you're saying. So hopefully it's okay to loosely say it, but you can correct it if it's too too far off. But if we were to substitute the word faith in Ephesians 2:8 and 9, then you would say grace, you have been saved by grace through engagement in the church. So you would say that you can't be saved until you have engagement with the church.
So Mike Moano wasn't saved in prison.
You weren't saved until you went to chapel.
>> Well, until I had healthy engagement with the church. Absolutely. Not again, we're not talking about the structure itself. We're talking about the people.
The church was in the yard as well.
>> Sure. So, so it's so now it sounds to me like this isn't faith producing works as James would argue. It sounds like you're saying your engagement is an essential part of becoming saved. So, you can't be saved until you do something.
Faith alone is not really just a belief as most Christians intake it. You're actually arguing that doing works in the church is what saves you.
>> Right? I don't believe faith and belief are the same thing. So belief is believing mentally asending to something.
>> Right? Except Paul doesn't say by grace you have been saved through believing.
He says grace you have been saved through faith. And you're arguing faith is works essentially.
>> Well, absolutely. I would say now in James James 2 uh the distinction is faith with works and faith not without works, right? There's there's actually three distinctions in the text. There's belief and then there's people that have faith but their faith is not producing works and then there's people that their faith is producing works. I would say faith with works is what Hebrews 11 is talking about. It's not dealing with the dead faith. It's dealing with the living faith. It just doesn't say that. So that faith is a faith that has works and that is the evidence of things not seen. What are those works? Those works are the practical application of the things that you believe. And that's what James 2 is actually getting at is that folks believed in the the things of God. They believed in the church. They were even engaging in it, but then they weren't they weren't uh healthfully engaging in it. Right? So they were um let's say you you believe in the things of God and you're just going to church like many folks do. Uh which again was the problem even in the first century. That would be faith without works. Whereas, if you're engaging the church, you have faith with works. That's what James 2 is essentially getting at. Again, notice the three distinctions. Even the demons believe and shutter, dead faith, faith without works, and faith faith with works.
>> I have a whole section in my book on on the James passage. I look forward to you getting there. I'm not going to take the time to deal with this tonight because it's it's too much prep to to get to that point, but you'll you'll see it when you get there. Um, so let let me let me let me try to take you through a line of thinking here. Um so we've already established that experiences by themselves are insufficient to determine truth. Um you're saying that confidence in uh conf faith is the confidence in things unseen or assurance of things for. So you're arguing that confidence in things unseen is sufficient to determine truth.
No, I'm I believe seeking, searching, studying, and proving are sufficient to determine truth.
>> But I'm saying I'm I'm just I'm stuck on the Hebrews 11:1 for a minute because that's where our definitions coming from. And you keep throwing out new definitions to try to work this into your system because every time we have one, we see how ridiculous it is. And then you throw out another one to try to clarify it and put it back into Hebrews 1 11:1.
>> Have I changed my So you're saying that I've changed my view of faith throughout >> several times. The first at the beginning of the very first night, you agreed with me that faith is is something that you have no warrant to believe that there's no justification that there's no evidence for. It's just based upon God doing something in you.
And then by the end of it, you said, "No, no, no. Faith is confidence and evidence, and I'm going to show you that through demonstrating the Bible as is evidence." And then you came here and you said, "Well, no, it's not confidence and evidence. Faith is engagement with the people." And then now you're saying faith is the whole thing of Hebrews 11.
It's faith is confidence in things unseen and assurance of things. So for so yeah, you keep bouncing around. You have so many definitions of faith, it's hard to land land on anyone. So now we're on this new one. And so I'd like to press that one for a second. You're saying confidence in the things unseen and assurance of things for that. You just said a minute ago that that is how Hebrews 11 defines faith, >> right?
>> So, so if so is so faith is confidence in things unseen. And you're saying that's a sufficient way to determine truth.
>> Hebrews 11 is not giving a definition of faith. Let me read it to you. It says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for." That's not a definition.
It's not saying faith is defined as this and this or this is how you define faith. It's saying now faith now we have to qualify what faith is. Faith as I've posited and I would tell you I've been consistent probably the last five years in saying that faith is healthy engagement with the church. So now when you put that in there it would say now healthy engagement with the church is the assurance of things hoped for the conviction of things not seen.
>> Okay. Perfect.
>> I don't believe my view at all. So, so I'm going to ask you if you think engagement with a group of people which you happen to be calling the church, you think that that is sufficient to uh justify belief in to to warrant uh sorry, how am I trying to say this? You believe that that is sufficient to determine truth?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, so, so your experience is insufficient by itself to determine truth. Being amongst a bunch of people is insufficient in itself to determine truth. Um, and yet your whole stance on why you believe in God is a combination of your experience and being with people >> and the seeking, searching. I know you don't want to remember the words that I keep bringing up there. No, that's studying and proving.
>> I know. But what I'm what I'm saying is you all you're seeking and studying and searching and proving that actually is is being worked out within the matrix you've already entered because you made that determination before you started that process of seeking, searching, and whatever. Um, so >> wait, I'm sorry Alan, I have to cut you off. I did make a determination that I didn't know it all and that I needed to learn new things. I engaged the Muslim community. I engaged the Jewish community. I engaged the Christian community and I did the work. I spent time listening.
>> Sure. And you landed on the church community and said, "Ah, I'm settled now."
>> Well, I landed on crucifixion.
>> Jesus's crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus and then engaged had faith in the things of God. Yes.
>> Well, you you landed there because this group of people happened to say the Bible's true and you believe the Bible's true. Now, I I seriously like, can you honestly tell me that you did all the necessary investigation to draw the conclusion the Bible's true on your own before you even entered into a church setting?
>> I don't believe I've done all the necessary investigation at this very moment. So, no, I didn't do it then. I didn't haven't done it now.
>> Okay.
>> I did enough to compel me to continue to engage. And today, you're talking to a man who continued to engage and believes he has the evidence of the things that are unseen. And the Right.
>> So, have you have you ever heard of group think?
>> Sure.
>> Um, so you you are aware and and I hope I'm thinking of the same thing. It might be the wrong term, but I think this is group think if I'm not mistaken of the of the terminology of the process, but it's where you're in a setting and everybody around you says that the experience you're having is say the Holy Spirit or whatever it might be. and it feels the same as they're explaining to you and you're having that experience and so you're like, "Wow, must be the Holy Spirit." Do you think it's possible? I'm not saying it is, I'm asking you. Is it possible that you fell victim to group think?
>> No.
>> Okay. And how did you determine that?
>> Well, because the group was fairly small. Well, it was me and another man and maybe another man um that we would study and we we all disagreed about things. There wasn't a whole lot of group think in my story. I went back to my prison cell. I did the reading and studying. And now to answer your question, uh do I think that I did sufficient evidence? I read the case for Christ. Have a hard time to this day still proving uh what Lee Stroel presents about the crucifixion of Jesus wrong. Still haven't proven the resurrection of Jesus wrong. Uh so when I did it then it seemed right. today it still seems right. So I think it is safe to say yes I did sufficient seeking and searching of the message to declare that it was true.
>> Right. So so I I of course as you heard I me say the other day I I think Strobble was already a believer before he even did >> sure any of that research to discover the apologetic arguments. Um and I think apologetic arguments work for people who already believe because they they shore up something they already believe. But they if you take a step outside of it, you realize they don't actually get you to the conclusion of God. They just get you to basically saying, "Hey, things look like they came from somewhere." So I'm like, "Okay, >> was crucified."
>> Well, well, I mean, nobody has any, as far as I know, there's no qualms about that. I don't have any problem with Jesus being crucified, even under Pontious Pilot. I have a problem with throwing in miracles that we have no reason to believe happened. Um, >> raised from the dead.
>> What's that?
>> That he raised from the dead.
>> Yeah. And we we'll get there in a second because I know we got to get into the Bible. But you said earlier that for a brief moment you became an atheist and then you also said that you didn't grow up in a Christian home. And you try to make that sound as though um you had no influence of God prior to this moment where you read Lee Stro's book and became a Christian. Would you disagree that you grew up in America in a culture that inundated your mind with the God with the existence of God?
>> Sure. So, Jew and And I've never never denied that. I never denied that I said a nominal Christian home, meaning that the faith was not taught to me in any real way. The only in my younger years, the only conversation I ever remember, which again would prove your point, um was my aunt teaching me about uh the worship leader in heaven named Satan and my uncle getting upset with her and telling her, "Don't teach him that stuff. Don't teach him that." And I remember it just stayed with me for years. Like, why would he say that? and um you know, worship leader. Um thank God I've never believed that. Um but uh that being said, um my point in mentioning the nominal Christian faith, I know that it was there. Yes, we live in America. We live in west the western world. Dare I say that's why I believe you're an atheist. I believe that this worldview, the western worldview has allowed for folks to completely reject God, completely walk away, and fosters this idea that we can know it all and we have it all figured out. And that personal experience does not matter. I believe that's a part of this western worldview.
Um, so you were you already believed God existed because we all do. We're raised like that. You were in a t a situation of trouble, tension, or transition. One of the big three, the big trinity that tends to, you know, awaken faith in people who have been running from this God that they already think exists. Um, and you got yourself into a situation where now you were like, "Oh what am I going to do? Hey, what about this God?"
>> No.
>> No.
>> True. No. Actually, it was um my reality just became distorted. I wasn't upset with my life. Uh, by many people's standards, I probably should have stayed with my gang life. It would have been more successful and being prideful and powerful. Um, however, um, no, I I began to realize that the way I was putting together life, the things I was living for, seeing my mom through a great, uh, when she came to visit me on her birthday, the things I was living for weren't making sense, >> right? So, tension. I said one of the three.
>> Oh, okay. So, you you could add tension to that. So, um, >> trouble tension transition, >> but I want to be clear that it wasn't like I needed to find a new way or anything like that. It was just that my reality was wrong and that I didn't know at all and I needed to be willing to consider new information. And Christianity wasn't my go-to. It was actually the one I knew that was probably the most likely wrong because I knew people in my family that believed in it and they didn't seem very impressive as far as that being the truth. So, Islam had to be right and that's where I went.
>> Sure. And but regardless, your first your first attempt at solving this tension was some sort of religion.
>> Sure.
>> Why do you think that is?
>> Well, because the ancients have always believed in gods.
>> Who cares what the ancients? That's that's that's an appeal to authority.
That has no who cares. Who cares what anybody else did? I'm asking you why you did.
>> I'm telling you. So, you're talking about a young man in prison who's undoing his world.
>> Mh. mind is coming undone. Where do I look? What do I look at? I could look at philosophy, which I've listened to philosophers. I've read philosophy. I've read Socrates. I read I don't know what I'm reading sometimes. Not smart enough for that. Um then I read uh read the Zohar, read mythology. I I read these things. That's again I did exactly what I asked you last night. If you remember, we talked about study habits and I said, "How did you learn? How do you learn?
You listen to things. You read books."
It's exactly what I did. I did it while sitting in prison.
Right.
So if if all the ancients happened to be atheists, you think that would have been your conclusion?
>> If but they weren't. That's the fact of the matter is atheism is relatively new.
It's an idea that is formed by the Western world.
>> Well, I I don't see how we can possibly know that because we don't know what happened prior to the first theist. So, like I said, in my opinion, mine's just as valid as yours. Prior to the first theist, everybody was, you know, practically an atheist even though they didn't have that terminology because there was no need for it. It's like you don't have you don't need the term sane until you have somebody that's insane.
And now it's like, oh, okay, well, so you have insane and you have sane. But prior to insane, everybody was just sane. So, same thing. Prior to the first theist, everybody's just an atheist. So now and and so of course without the scientific advancements that we have today it was very logical to conclude that a god exists. I mean why not philosophically that makes sense but philosophy is insufficient also to determine truth. History is insufficient by itself to determine truth.
Experiences by themselves are insufficient to determine truth. Groups of people by themselves are insufficient to determine truth. The majority of the the wise people throughout history are insufficient to determine truth. The only way that we have to determine truth right now is the scientific method because it allows us to test and evaluate and determine whether or not what we are observing is in fact true.
>> So nothing was true before what we qualify as the scientific method.
>> I didn't say nothing was true. I said we can't determine whether or not what they said was true just because they said it was true without the scient we didn't have truth before the science >> because the scientific method has always been around that's scientific method is >> we qualify it right I guess as we qualify the scientific method I I don't know >> we we formalized it we formalized it but that doesn't mean it didn't exist it just wasn't nearly as advanced as it is now we they didn't have the the tools that we have today >> would so I guess I want to ask you two questions there. Can you tell me when the scientific method was created?
>> I would say as far back as humans existed.
>> Well, can you tell me like that? That's just an idea.
>> I don't know how long humans existed. I 13. Well, that's the that's the universe. I don't know. I don't know.
>> So then you want me to believe in the scientific method, but we have no place of placing where it began.
>> What difference does it matter where it began?
>> God. That sounds like the way you're positing God at this point.
>> No, because it doesn't matter when it existed. What we know is that it does work because we use it and it's effective and it continues to prove itself effectively.
>> God uses me.
>> What's that?
>> God uses me.
>> Yeah, but you have no way to prove that.
I can prove to you that the scientific method works because it's reliable every single time we use it. It's >> works. God works. The second question I would ask you, >> that's just a claim.
>> So is we can't you can't even tell me where the scientific method came from.
>> That doesn't matter. That's inconsequential. Can you Can you tell me where God came from?
from God. You know, he's a he's a >> That's convenient.
I could say the same thing. Where did the scientific method come from? From science.
>> So then who All right, let's try this one then. Who was the first theist?
>> I How could I possibly know that?
>> Well, you make a lot of claims about it.
You know, prior to the first theist, everyone was or was was an atheist.
>> Well, sure, but that that's not a claim that I can possibly go back and and demonstrate who it was. It just makes it's just a logical conclusion that if there was no theists, then there were atheists.
>> So that's logical. But a young man sitting in prison, a young man sitting in prison and his whole world coming undone and him living a life where he felt he knew it all, coming undone and then all of a sudden turning his head and saying, "Well, all all the ancient people have believed in God. Maybe I need to venture in that direction."
>> No, that makes complete sense. I It makes complete sense why you did it.
Actually, I'm not denying that you did that. That's the reason you did it. I'm saying, yeah, that's that's a logical conclusion as to why you did what you did. And I'm saying that that that was a a method that was not sufficient to determine the truth that you that you concluded, even though I understand why you did that. And the reason that you never had a thought that it might not be religion or that your answers could actually be found in the natural world.
your your your first inclination was to leap to the supernatural because it was already built into you from childhood.
>> Thank God.
>> Okay.
>> So, anyway, one more thought and just respond and we've got to get to the Bible because we're running out of run out of time. Um, you also said you were an atheist. And it's interesting because uh, as an atheist, you you immediately thought the supernatural was the first place to go.
And I'm saying atheists don't draw that conclusion. Real atheists don't say, "Hey, I this is happening. The answer must be the supernatural."
We have no reason to believe the supernatural exists. We have no evidence for it. So, we would never start there.
That would be the last thing we would look at because we have every good reason to think that whatever is happening has a natural explanation, right? You know, I want to say, pardon my faciousness uh when I bring up the atheism thing. I I said I was an atheist for about eight minutes. Um, and that's really just because things were getting really rough in the box and uh, it was >> tongue and cheek. It's tongue and cheek because you weren't really an atheist.
>> Yeah, I was not an atheist.
>> Okay. Well, you said it. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Anyway, so let's go to the Bible. So, you said miracle, the resurrection, right? And you know, so h once again, as I said, you historical historical evidence is insufficient in and of itself to determine truth.
It has to be >> You said it's insufficient.
>> Correct. In and of itself to determine truth. It has to be corroborated.
>> Right. So I just want to qualify what you're saying tonight. So my personal experience is insufficient by itself.
>> Historical evidence by itself.
>> Right.
>> The Bible by itself. But I don't know that I at any point in any of our discussions have I ever said this by itself is what convinced me.
>> Absolutely.
>> Why I'm convinced today. No, >> I agree with you.
>> Good, good, good. No, and and that's that's fine.
But there is um something that by itself does provide sufficient warrant and does provide sufficient evidence for truth and that is the scientific method. Because >> scientific method that we can't determine where it started, >> who cares where it started? What does that have anything to do with whether it works or not?
>> Because I don't know. I don't know what the science >> you're telling me. only way to determine if something is true is if we know where it started.
>> No, I didn't say I haven't said only one way at all. I've said a whole bunch of things coupled together.
I don't believe that this scientific method which is a theory, a theory of man that again I I think it's practical.
It's great. Um I think in many respects if we were to look at my journey, it has been the scientific method. I had >> a method is not a theory. It's a method.
It produces theories.
it produces um models that are testable and when those models produce true because again the scientific method is intention is to prove those models wrong so that we don't come to conclude and believe things that aren't true. When you can't prove it wrong because that's what falsifiability is. You want to falsify every every um proposition and when that model can't be falsified then and only then does it become a theory because it is it is demonstrated to be true because there's no way to prove it wrong at that point. Now can it change?
Yes. Because science doesn't hold to things with absolute certainty as Christianity does it or as theists do.
It just says hey we are maximally certain currently with what we know that this is the right answer. which is why science is constantly correcting itself and fixing itself. Theists say we know with 100% certainty and you know how we figured it out without the scientific method. And that is completely weird because there's absolutely no grounding for your reason to have truth that God exists. You just said, "Hey, I have a bunch of these things that are insufficient by themselves, but if we put them all together, it it leans that way and seems to be the best answer, and so I'm just going to grab on to that."
>> So tell me more about the scientific method. What is the scientific method?
>> Well, I thought I just explained that, but I'll explain it again. It's essentially you you make a proposition >> and you produce a model that is testable and falsifiable to see if your proposition is true. And that that model produces uh prediction. It it puts forth predictions that if if what the proposition says is true, then these certain things will happen. And so these certain things happen and then you go and you reproduce that again and you try to make that model be wrong over and over and over again. And when it comes back consistently demonstrated true by peer review and independent evaluation on a reproducible manner, you say, "Hey, with all the evidence we have, this seems currently to be the best answer."
And then it becomes what's called a theory. Not a theory the way Christians use it, like oh, you know, this is my best theory of something. It's like it becomes like like a like a factual thing um until something else, you know, comes about that can can demonstrate that that it's wrong. So, so you know you hold to it maximally as much as you know certainty as you possibly can.
But it's but it's the whole point is that it's testable. It's observable. It doesn't require faith. It doesn't require somebody to come along and say, "Hey, this is true. If you come to my church and if you hang out with us, that's how it's true."
Or if you or if you have an experience by yourself and you can't explain it, that's how it's true. But you have to mix them together with that. And there's also this thing that happened in the first century that we can't reproduce called a resurrection. We have no way to know if it's actually possible. We just believe it because this book says so.
And it also says a bunch of other things like people walking on water and and doing all kinds of weird things flying into the sky. We can't reproduce those, but we're not concerned about reproducing it. are not concerned about testing it because the scientific method can't tell anything about the supernatural because we don't have a tool to demonstrate the supernatural. So since we can't prove that true, we're just going to draw the conclusion that this must be God.
>> So would we say that the scientific method began as a proposition?
I no I I don't know that that's how it happened because the scientific method isn't a proposition and nor is it even a theory. It is it is a method. It's the only It's the only method that we can we can use every single time and it and it consistently works because we assume the uniformity of nature and it seems to be working because of the uniformity of nature. And until nature wakes up one until we wake up one day and nature stops working the way it does, then we'd have to come up with another method to determine truth. But so far everything we've evaluated has been consistently rooted in the scientific method. And so we have zero reason to think that's going to change.
It might, but I doubt it >> because I'm just thinking here. So, okay, so Jesus's proposition would be the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. And the tested the way to prove that would be that people will forever engage his church. And therefore, when the church continues forever, uh that that would be the proof that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. Here I am 2,000 years after Jesus. it would seem like he's right so far. Um I'm not in the future, so I don't know if he's going to be right there. So the tested evidence, and by the way, the proof of the resurrection is the change of life. And there's been a lot of people that have changed their lives because of their faith in Jesus's resurrection. Not their belief in Jesus's resurrection, but their faith, meaning living in it, engaging it like everybody in the New Testament. And that's the the truth of that. That's the way that lives have been affected by the truth of the resurrection. the proposition that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church by way of Jesus's resurrection, lives being changed by that resurrection. So for me, I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why the scientific method does not prove uh the Christian message.
>> Do people who have these changed lives ever go back to having unchanged lives or bad lives even though the resurrection is true?
>> Do people that have these changed like Judas?
>> Sure. Apostates in general.
Yeah, the Bible has an explanation for that, too. Of course.
>> Of course it does. Right. But that's what I say. There's always an explanation. If if if it goes your way, if it's changed life, it means God exists because the resurrection is true.
And if it's if somebody's life isn't changed by it or falsely changed by it, there's an explanation for that. You know, it's like it's like Apple. There's an app for that. Like it's like no matter what, God always gets an excuse.
>> I haven't anybody I haven't met anybody yet. I'll tell you where I haven't what I haven't seen. I haven't seen anybody say, "I have this faith and I want to get rid of it and I can't."
>> Well, of course not because you believe it's true. I did. I I believed it was true until the very very very moment that it would like vanished. I I wasn't walking around saying I'd like to get rid of this. It doesn't work like that because belief isn't a choice. Belief is just something you're convinc You're either convinced or you're not.
>> So Allan, I want to let you know uh we're 10 minutes down to the wire here.
So obviously you're already right about another thing. Um, you know, we mentioned you being right about uh me having to presume God and and I think that's a safe thing to say that yes, I I presume God. I'm definitely leaving this debate believing that and I think that's a great thing to do. Uh, and then also you mentioned that the 60 minutes, you know, we would we would be able to max out 60 minutes of conversation. It looks like we have done 50 or a little bit less than that at this point. Um, so I just want to ask you a couple things if you don't mind in our discussion and I know we're going to get into cross-examination, but we'll do that next. Do you mind if I ask you one more question related to what we were just talking about and then I'll give you more >> I apologize I don't want to go too far off. Um you said something about changed lives are proof of the resurrection and my question is can people's lives be changed for the better and have nothing to do with the resurrection?
>> Sure.
>> So if changed lives can happen and it have nothing to do with the resurrection then how can you say that? How can you determine which change lives prove the resurrection and which don't?
>> The lives that say that it's the resurrection that caused it.
>> But just because they say that, does that make it true?
>> Well, then what do they do next? Do they engage the church, which is >> again that's an experience, right? My experience tells me that this is my change life is about the resurrection because a group think >> just because I can't explain all my experiences does that make my experience wrong >> or does that might mean >> just because okay so it doesn't make my experience wrong but also just because I had an experience but I don't know the ways to explain the experience does that make the experience wrong >> when when you say wrong does it make the experience real >> valid does it make it false mean It didn't happen.
>> No, no. Your experience is real. It's valid. It happened. How you interpret it is an entirely different story, >> right?
>> You can be wrong about your interpretation of it.
>> Oh, absolutely. That's why I believe you need to seek, search, study, improve the things that you believe.
>> Sure. And and and in my mind, when I hear seek, search, study, improve, I hear a scientific method because I don't see how it's possible to seek, search, study, improve without actually using a method that you can test.
>> Sure. You seek >> and yet and yet the one thing you've drawn conclusions about you've done without the scientific method.
>> What does seeking mean to you?
>> Looking for evidence.
>> Okay. So if I but in order to look for evidence I have to have a idea hypothesis if you will regarding what the what I'm looking at. So yes my hypothesis is that God exists and that that he might be the God of the Bible.
And so I go and I search I search the wisdom that's out there. I search the Bible itself, the stories. Uh hardly a historical major at 20 years old in prison. Um you know so I I don't know that I that was you know I can qualify that I did all the research. But again here I am sitting here years later haven't found anything to discredit the things that I initially began to believe.
>> So again I don't believe that it was just experience. I don't believe it's just some letters from heaven or something like that. It's coupled with the scientific method as you rightly mentioned.
>> You can't find any No, no, it's it's not. It's strictly the historical method and your experiences. There's no science in that at all, dude. And and the reason you haven't found anything to disprove it is because it's unfalsifiable. You can't falsify something that isn't falsifiable. So, of course, you're not going to find anything to disprove it.
It's like it's again, it's like me saying, "I have a pink dragon in my garage, and if I believe that, you can't prove it wrong because there's nothing I can give you to prove me wrong.
If you said you had a pink elephant in your garage, wouldn't I be able to come and see your garage?
>> No, if it's invisible.
>> I don't know why you you know, I'll just say this. You know, >> why I say it's invisible? Because that's what we're dealing with here, man. It's something invisible.
>> No, it's not. It's not visible. You know, and I I want to let you know, one of the things that's concerning to me is, you know, that we went from life-changing conversations when I first met you, the healing of the nations, the church, uh, and now we've spent so much time talking about unicorns in our pockets and invisible pink elephants.
This is concerning to me, Alan.
>> And believing in God is concerning to me because you have no warrant to believe that any more than I have to believe that there's an invisible pink elephant in my garage.
So, you've you've sought out the ideas that other people had about invisible pink elephants.
No, you haven't. I mean, maybe maybe I'm wrong, you know. Please tell us.
Enlighten us.
>> Sure. The same. It's the same exact evidence for anything people believe without warrant.
Like if you can tell me how how to if you can tell me how you would disprove that I have an invisible pink elephant in my garage. I will use the exact same method to disprove that you the existence of God.
>> Well, I'm going to use what I've shared with you already. So did you seek out in information regarding people before we figure out if it's in your garage or not? First we need to figure out are there is there any substance to this idea that like any other people group think whatever it is is there any substance that there's invisible pink elephants >> you're you're stuck on the specific thing of the pink elephant let let me give you one that I can actually so go ahead >> let me let me give you an example of one that I can give you an like like people seeking so it will match exactly what you're talking about in England there are people that actually believe that in in force from Star Wars. They think it's a real thing.
And so, how would you demonstrate that this invisible thing called the Force isn't actually real?
>> I I'm not I'm sorry. I'm not too sure what the force of Star Wars is.
>> Oh, well, you never seen Star Wars.
Okay. Uh, well, essentially it's just um behind the scenes. It's invisible thing.
It's kind of like magic in a sense. You wave your hand and you say whatever. And then people do what you tell them to or you can fly or throw things and move things with your mind and stuff like that.
>> Okay. So, the first thing I would do is I would have to obviously learn about it. I would have to learn what it is. I would have to learn why these people believe it exists.
>> How can you learn about something that doesn't actually exist?
>> What do you mean?
>> You're learning what you're learning what they believe about it, but you're not actually learning what it is because it doesn't exist.
>> That's what I would do then. Then I would go and I would find out what it is that they believe about it and why they believe those things about it.
>> Okay. I you know we're running out of time. You wanted to go a direction and I've totally taken up too much time on the scope.
>> No, no, that's I think that's a great discussion, but again I do want to qualify that we now we've talked about pink elephants, unicorns in your pocket and you know this is and you gave the example of the pink elephant. That's not something I brought up. So just want to qualify that that you know you brought that up. So when you wanted to change to the Star Wars thing, that's not me bringing up something that was absurd.
That was you bringing up an absurd uni invisible pink elephant and trying to qualify that along with my view of God.
>> I understand and that's fair. That criticism is fair because I I I can understand why you would think I was just leaping. The reason I did that is only because off the top of my head, I know that's an example of people who actually believe it and there and it and it fell into the the question that you were asking. Um I don't know personally I don't know of anybody that believes in pink elephants if that was what you wanted me to say.
>> Praise God. That that that is what I want to hear. Um so uh that being said, I just wanted to this is a cool place to land for our next three minutes. So uh yesterday as I was watching the uh the comments or reading some of the comments on the uh screen somebody had said or no this wasn't this was regarding our first night our opening night they said my IQ is being lowered by listening to these men. So I guess I want to ask you for the next two minutes or so how can we why do you suppose that is that people are saying their IQ is being lowered by listening to us and how can we work against them?
Well, first of all, I believe the comment was um my IQ is lower because of listening to this.
>> Yes.
>> So, I don't know if they mean because of listening to you or if they mean because of listening to me or if they mean because of listening to both of us. I have no idea. So, I until I have more information about what they're referring to, I I couldn't possibly answer that.
>> Okay, that's fair. I uh I guess I didn't have the answer to it either. I just wanted to hear because I don't know that I'm really trying to add to anyone's IQ.
I think I'm trying to point people to Jesus. Uh, you know, I know that's what I'm doing. So, um, yeah. I guess, uh, I guess the last thing I might ask you, I'll ask you this in our cross- examination. So, I'll give you a heads up on your first question if you will.
It was going to be, uh, so you call yourself the unraveler. Uh, why and how many people have you helped unravel and how, you know, so I want to see why do you call yourself the unraveler? How many people have you helped unravel and how have you done that?
call myself the unraveler because a friend of mine, Rick Welch, um when he read my book, uh he said, "Hey, if you were a superhero, you would be the unraveler." So, it just kind of stuck.
Uh and my book has actually and so the method in which I've been able to help people unravel their faith is through my book. And I don't know the exact number, but it's it's up in the 20s at this point. And I have actual written testimony of people that have genuinely left the faith entirely because of my book.
>> How did you help them unwrap? Well, we >> just by >> that's a good place to pause.
>> You can pass that in a question answer.
>> Yeah, that concludes our 60 minute uh period of open discussion. We are now going to go into the 10-minute uh cross-examination period. So, 10 minutes for each. Uh I believe uh Michael, you're going first. Uh so and I just want to let everyone in the chat know we are taking questions in the last segment. So if you have questions uh have them ready and drop them in the chat when that time comes um just to give you a heads up. Okay, your 10 minutes Michael starts now.
>> So we'll bounce back Allan to the uh the question there. So can you tell us a little bit about how you have helped people unravel?
Uh so the method that I use um that I call unrevelation u is a process of removing layers of indoctrination.
Uh because in my estimation people did not become Christians because of reason and logic or evidence. uh they it they were raised in the matrix of God as I expressed to you earlier and so uh Christianity became an addiction that uh helps them get through life. Uh without their drug of choice they can't they feel like they can't survive. Uh, and essentially what Christianity has done is it basically cuts you and then sells you a band-aid. Um, so it tells you you have a problem and then it provides the solution. And so as long as you believe you have the problem, you also believe you need the solution. And that is ingrained in us so much in our culture that uh that we we never even question it. We just come to accept it as fact. And so my book, what it does is the same thing that happened to me and in my opinion to every Christian that has left Christianity, has left the faith or that that is no longer a believer. Uh is over the years of thinking and studying and and questioning, they were unraveling a lot of indoctrination until one day that last layer just disappeared. And so that's one of the reasons why full predtoism tends to be an outlet to atheism because we've undone so much indoctrination from our upbringing. Uh that it's like that last layer is there and then once you think yourself past that there's like nothing left to hold on to and you're like h and you just out. Um but um but but there's people who have escaped without that as well.
So, it's not like it's it's the only means, but but removing layers of indoctrination or brainwashing, as I like to say, because I because people people tend to bulk at this word brainwashing. They think that I'm being critical of them. Brainwashing is nothing you do to yourself. It's not it's not because you're stupid or anything of that sort. It's something done to you. You You're not even aware that you have been brainwashed. I mean, I don't know if you ever seen the the Jason Bourne movies. Um, but you know, he he he was unaware that he was brainwashed until he started to talk to people and started to wake up and realize things and unravel things. And so then he started to to see it. But but initially we're we're completely unaware that brainwashing is even taking place.
And uh and so there's sometimes forced brainwashing where you can you're sucking a chair tied and they make you watch a TV or whatever, but most of the time it's just, you know, just inundated with thoughts and beliefs and being preached at and hear hearing things and group think and all that kind of thing.
So anyway, to cut this off, that's why my book is effective because what it does is it how how I realize it is because first of all, I realized it was an addiction and I was like, "Wow, that's the connection I made." And so I parallel it with smoking and other addictions. And so how I got out is the removal of brainwashing. So that's what I do in my book is I unravel faith as a method by which people determine God exists. Now, I know you have your own definition of faith, and that's fine, but I still think you're also using my definition of faith. So, you're essentially using two different types of faith. One you call faith, and one that I think is the dictionary definition of faith. Uh, and so I I would say you're using a Christianized version of faith.
And that's fine. I just wouldn't call that faith, even though you do.
Well, if we're going to help Christians come out of faith, you have to use the definition of faith that the Bible uh is highlighting. Otherwise, you're you're highlighting a definition of faith. And then you're unraveling the definition of faith that you've offered folks, which is exactly what you're doing. Uh again, as I'm reading your book, you you have said faith is what we must have to believe God exists. I would assert no.
Uh you have to believe God exists. Those who have faith must believe that God exists and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. That's a biblical faith. So, uh, you know, I will qualify that I think that we have a distinct a necessary distinction between belief and faith that maybe you haven't considered. Maybe maybe your bewilderment last night in the things I brought forth is a great thing. Uh, because maybe I'm presenting to you another perspective regarding faith because those full predtoists that you speak of, I would probably say that a large majority of them did not have healthy engagement with the church that would cause them to keep their faith and grow in their faith or to live faith for that matter. uh and that's probably what also predisposed them to wandering away uh from have from identifying in the faith. So yes, I I agree but that that was a quote from your book and um you know I appreciate you responding to that question uh regarding uh the process. I I thought that was an interesting uh thing that you offered up there that the unraveling is a process and I I hope that um would you say that what I presented in the way that I came to my understanding of Christianity that it was a process >> that coming to it was a process?
>> Sure. my my coming to the knowledge that Jesus died on the cross that there was paricardial eusion uh involved in that that uh the the acronym feat for example that there were people whose lives were transformed by the resurrection of Jesus this was a process for me this wasn't something just dumped on me as a child this was something I learned and I processed I read books I listen to I didn't listen to podcasts in prison uh but I've I've done that since uh so would you say that my coming to the Christian faith has been a process as Well, >> uh, no. I think your understanding of the Christian faith has been a process.
I think you already had a a a foundation of believing you were a sinner and that God existed.
>> I uh I I'd say that might be a little bit of a presumption. I didn't necessarily understand the sinner conversation. One of my earlier issues that I've shared about Christianity was I didn't understand why somebody needed to die for sin. Um I didn't like uh people telling me that because somebody did something for me that I didn't ask them to do that now I needed to respond to it. Uh so you you know I think that I didn't have a very well-versed understanding of that and it took time uh and I asked questions uh you know why somebody needed to die for sin what was this all about? Um so you know I would say that part of your understanding of my story is a bit of a presumption in that regard but I don't think presumptions are wrong. So that leads me to my second question I want to ask you would be uh so you talk about the matrix of God. Uh I might call it God must be presumed right I do believe that in order for uh for faith to become a reality someone must believe that God is as all the ancients did right except for the person that we don't know about that was before the first theist. Um do you believe it's wrong to presume things >> like presuppose? You mean >> Yeah. Yeah. like presuppose uh to to say, you know, I know I know a little bit about this, but I believe it it it's compelling to me enough.
>> I I think we must presuppose some things. Yes.
>> Okay. So then why is it wrong to presuppose God?
>> Because God is an extra presupposition that isn't necessary. Some presuppositions are absolutely necessary for us to even have a conversation and think, but God is one that just goes outside the bounds of necessity. Well, it might not be necessary, but why does it need to be debated?
>> Well, as I said, I I think it's because theism in general causes damage to people. And so, >> experience was good. Not damaging.
>> Oh, at the time I thought it was good, but I also think it was very damaging to my psyche. And also, I was a I was a bigot. I used to think homosexuals were going to hell. Like I used to think they were evil and sinful and that God was punishing them and I used to think drunkards were going to hell and you know if you drink you're or if you get addicted to smoking you know unless you have Jesus that's the only solution and then you can pray the gay away because as long as you're you believe in Jesus he can change you and make you better.
So yeah at the time sure but now I was I was an ass and I'm really glad I'm out of that.
>> I'm glad you're out of that too. that doesn't sound like the Christianity that I've come to know and the Jesus that I've come to know. So, amen.
>> Uh, you know, I guess my last question would be, uh, what caused you to believe in fulfilled esquetology?
>> Is studying the Bible a fair answer?
>> Yeah, but I need a little bit more than that. What What caused you to really lean in on fulfilled Bible prophecy?
What What was the the main thing that was like, "Wow, Jesus came back." Like genuinely my answer is studying the Bible. I I'll give you more more information on that.
I'm not trying I I if you want me to if you want to press me on what you're looking for, I'd be glad to answer. I'm trying to be honest here. Um my friend and I Jeremiah, we were studying uh John 14-16. Uh and uh we got to the um in a little while and a little while and just suddenly my wheel started turning. I was like something's not adding up there. It just wasn't fitting the time. And so that night I went into a deep study of all the time texts and trying to figure stuff out and woke up the next day with the awakening. I was like, "Holy crap, there's no place in the New Testament that puts this in the future." So it took me four nights of doing that repetitively.
But after that strict evaluation going over and over and over again, I was like, "Yeah, I those same verses were there every night. So I had to I had to concede that that's what it was." I hope that I hope I was being that's why I'm trying to give you an honest answer.
Hey, I I have no reason to believe you're not being honest with me. Thank you.
>> All right.
>> Okay. Uh Ellen, we're gonna flip it over to you. It is now your turn to interrogate Michael. You have 10 minutes starting now.
>> All right.
>> Um Mike, does you having your own definition of faith mean that the dictionary definition of faith does cannot also be a cause for why people believe?
Well, I don't know that I have my own definition of faith. I think I have a biblical definition of faith. Um, >> well, yeah, but your your definition of faith is is what's that?
>> I'm sorry. What's the dictionary definition of faith then?
>> Well, it's believing things without without justification.
>> Oh, yeah. Then it's wrong. That's not biblical faith.
>> That's the idea of faith as put out by AI or Google, >> right? But what I'm saying is can a person have biblical faith and also the reason they first came into believing be because they just had a blind leap.
>> I I believe a large majority of people have it.
>> Okay. So that is why my book continues to be effective for most Christians because that's how most people come into faith. Um and my opinion is that's how you came into faith. But you don't see it that way because over the course of time you've retrained your mind to believe that you came to faith because of your current definition of faith which you call the biblical definition of faith. And that's fine. But reconsolidated me memory would speak otherwise. We tend to revamp our memories in light of what we believe currently like a word document. Every time you save it, the old version disappears and it revamps to the new version. We do that with our memories.
We can't help it. It's just the way it goes. So, I'm still convinced that you came to faith in the same way every Christian does, but now you have a definition of faith that makes more sense to you. And so, you think that that confirms your faith. Um, >> well, I makes I have the biblical view of faith that's kept me in the faith.
Yes, >> that's fair. Kept you in the faith.
Fine. I'm saying your initiation into the faith was not that definition. It's my definition, the dictionary definition. And so you found a way to stay in the faith because as a Christian once you're in, you look for all sorts of defenses to appropriate why you continue to live by faith, my definition of faith. And that's illogical to you.
And so you say, "This definition makes more sense. This definition is the biblical definition, and this definition keeps me in in the faith." So that would just be my the way I the way I see it, the way I understand it. All I wanted to make a point with that question is and you've already established it that your the definition the biblical definition can also be part of the initial reason the reason initial people come in is because of the other definition of faith and we've already established that. So anyway I'm belaboring that. Um it just goes to show and and so you have this definition of faith that you say is the biblical definition of faith. Millions of Christians would disagree with that definition of faith. yours, the one you're using.
>> Well, we've heard agreed majority doesn't make it right or wrong. So, >> that's that's exactly right. But it just goes to show that every Christian has their own version of Christianity. And so, it's it's so strange to me because there are there are over a thousand denominations in Christianity. And all of it is determined based upon a book that is not agreed upon. Nobody can seem to interpret this thing the same way.
God seems to have provided the worst possible way to give us any information about himself, the written text that is left to interpretation.
Would you, if you were God, do you think you would have left a book as a way for you to help people know who you are thousands of years later that was written in some time period?
>> You mean God has created a people, not left a book? The the book is just a book that tells you about the people, what God has done through his people, ancient going all the way back to Adam up to the present day church.
>> And yet to me, >> and yet most people and yet you're going to have 50,000 different interpretations of even Genesis. So here we are, you're using Adam to. And some would say, well, that's just a metaphor. So, and some would say it's coming creation, and some would say it's reliteral. And it it goes on and on. So, how can you say this book talks about the church the way you're defining the church and understanding the church if you all can't even agree on an interpretation of this book, but somehow Mikeo landed on the right one?
>> Well, thank God that it's it's not about interpretation of a book. It's about a relationship with God. And relationships are different no matter what. People have different relationships with the same exact person. So, of course, in my my natural lived experience, I've seen how that could work, that God could have a different type of relationship. People would >> different I'm going to cut you off because it's my turn for questioning.
Um, but yes, different types of relationship. Sure. So, would you say then some people are Christ's cousins whereas some are his brothers and some are his nephews or would you say you're all the same in the same relationship with Christ?
>> Um, I mean, some people were his brothers and his cousins, but >> my question, you know what my question is?
>> Uh, no. I I I don't know that there's a way to say that there's people that are like second cousins of Jesus, etc. >> So, your analogy is not going to work because we're not in different relationships with Christ. Everybody's in the same relationship. It's like having a father that's so absent. None of the kids can absolutely figure out who their dad is, what he's like. They can't define him. They can't explain him. Consistency. Every kid has a different understanding of who their father is. That's an absentee father.
>> That might be one example you could offer up. Or it could be that my three children would probably have different responses to the type of father that I am based on their relationship, based on their personality, uh based on how much time I spend with them that day. Um so >> absolutely. But would you say though that there is an object of truth about you that your kids should know?
>> Should but that's not always the case.
>> Correct. But relationship My turn.
Doesn't God want his children to know him accurately? Sure.
>> So why is it he can't present himself in a way that his children can interpret who he is accurately?
>> Like a uniform way that this is who I am.
>> Sure.
>> That's not the way he wants people to know him.
>> And how did you determine that?
>> Because I've read the Bible and I've saw the God.
>> So the Bible tells you that your interpretation of it is right. And your interpretation of it is that God doesn't want people to know him that way.
My interpretation of the Bible would be that God has been creating a relationship with his people and relationships are different. Again, that's my lived experience. I've seen that uh that relationships are different. So, I don't know that I'm understanding. So, God does allow for See, I think this leans in on what we were saying before about the Western worldview that it demands this Christianity that's about right and wrong rather than relationships. And even when the Bible was being written, the folks were disagreeing right there in First Corinthians where there were people that believed certain things and people that didn't believe certain things. And those certain things were contingent. What most people don't lean in on was they were contingent upon other things they believed. So there was a whole bunch of mixed belief even in the time of the writings.
>> Sure. Sounds like God is an author of confusion.
>> No, doesn't that doesn't that's not true. Just because something is not uniform in conformity, conformity doesn't demand unity.
>> No, it doesn't demand unity. But it certainly demands that you understand that God >> unity does not, let me back that up.
Uni, unity does not demand conformity.
In other words, a united thought about God does not mean that everybody has to have the same exact opinion, experience, way of defining uh >> All right, I'm running out of time. I want to move on to something else. Um, Michael, let me ask you a question.
>> Do you believe the Bible is a science book?
>> No.
So we should not expect to find scientific facts about reality and to do to be able to use that as a determining factor of of arriving at truth about our universe.
>> I don't know that I agree with that.
>> So you do think that there's that it's a science book.
>> I think that I could read a history book and learn science. I could read a fiction book and learn realities that are real.
>> Sure. My question is, is the Bible sufficient to give us scientific facts about our universe?
>> I don't know that I would go that route.
>> So, you would agree that it's not?
>> I would say I I don't read the Bible to try to understand the universe. It's >> not my question. Do you think the Bible is sufficient to warrant truth about our universe?
In other words, when I read the Bible and it says the sun st stood still, is did the sun stand still?
>> No.
>> Right. So there isn't anything in the Bible that we can just land on by itself and ah it's in the Bible. So that dictates reality >> scientifically.
>> Correct. which is the only method we have available to us by which to test and observe something and draw a conclusion that is reasonable without guessing. We already said >> we already said history is insufficient in and of itself to determine truth. So is the Bible. So if the Bible isn't in and of itself sufficient to draw a conclusion regarding scientific facts about our universe, then we cannot go to the Bible. And because we see and only see in the Bible and no place else about these miracles, we can't just go in and say, "Hey, there's a resurrection that happened. It's recorded in this book and it is a scientific fact." When in fact, it is not because we have no way to duplicate that through the scientific method that we use today. So, it's completely a guess that the Bible is true.
>> And that is time. So, we've now concluded the cross- examination period and we're going to go into something where um Michael and Ellen are going to take turns steelmanning each other's positions. Now, for anybody who doesn't know what what steelmanning is, it's the opposite of straw manning. So, like Ellen is going to take Michael's position. He's going to pretend to be Michael and he's going to present his argument in the strongest way possible to uh demonstrate that he in fact does understand it. and is being the most charitable to it uh in his understanding. So we're going to start doing that uh with Michael and it's going to be a fivem minute period. So Michael if you are ready your five minute steel manning of Ellen's position starts now.
>> So I'll just share a quote from Allen's book. uh he says here in his book uh so how did we become convinced that faith is a reasonable method for determining truth particularly about things in the unseen supernatural realm and he explains that we grew accustomed to it living in a religious culture that conditioned us to accept certain things as true without questioning uh so as I understand it as we just landed uh here just now uh it would be that unless I'm able to use the scientific method to determine truth, then I shouldn't believe it. That, you know, I I guess I'm as bewildered as Allen was last night. Uh that, you know, I just sit here and I say, "Well, then if there is no way to prove it scientifically, then does that obviously doesn't make it false." Um, so I just I guess I'm having a hard time with that, not understanding that his so history is not reliable. uh that we can't search out history if we if we have no scientific method, no way to scientifically find out if something is true.
Can we rely on history? Allan wants us to say no. Or at least he'll say not history alone, which I would agree with.
Uh not by personal experience alone, not by the Bible alone or any historical document for that matter alone. But I that's what Allan wants you to believe.
And with that, I guess I'll forfeit my time because I I don't know how to get around that.
>> Okay. Uh, now we're going to turn turn it back over to Ellen. And Ellen, it is now your turn to steal man Michael's position. And your time starts now.
>> Well, it wasn't exactly a steelman. That was more of a critique of why you don't understand my position. So, I don't think that was really fair. But that's fine. You can get away with it. I'm going to steal man your position, honestly. Here. Um, I have every good reason to believe a God exists because number one, I had a personal experience with God. He has a still small voice that he speaks to me, not audibly, but I know it in my heart.
I can feel it. Um, and it's distinguished from my own because my own thoughts are not good. They're not going to help me get to where God helped me get. And so when I evaluate that I say man this had to be something more than me. Um and so that by itself did not was not sufficient to warrant belief but that is a big start because it helped me see that it had to be something else.
Somebody gave me a book. It's called um Lee Stroel's book uh the um my mind's the case for Christ and I read it and he provides some very compelling arguments in there for the existence of God for belief in Jesus for the resurrection and at that point it just after evaluating multiple religions this was the only one that stood under scrutiny. It made sense and when I looked into the scriptures everything the Bible taught worked. It just added up and it and it provided a resolution to the issue that I had. I had a sin problem and Jesus Christ resolves that by not only dying for me but through his resurrection. And when I look the scriptures teach that a person with a changed life believing in Christ is validation of that resurrection. And so that's another evidence evidence to me that man, not only did I have a changed life, not only did something speak to me inside, not only did all this evidence about it seem to stand under scrutiny, but now the Bible itself is is highlighting how how strong my case is for believing that Jesus Christ in fact is the truth and that his word is the truth. And all of it doesn't have to be true. That's totally fine. And yes, there could be other gods that that people believe in and and and being a part of just going to a group of people might believe might mean that there is a god. Um but uh but then you would have to search seek study um seek search study and prove uh and so I had to do that and when I do that the only one that makes any sense is Yahweh because the others fall short of anything that makes any sense in reality. Um and uh and what what ultimately solidified it for me was being a part of the church.
The Bible teaches that faith is um being amongst the people of God and uh producing a life with them. Um and I apologize if I murdered that. I'm trying to hit it exactly. It's not my definition. So I'm I'm trying to remember how it went. In fact, I'm going to going to read it precisely because I don't want to screw this up. Um it is um people engaging truth. Um and so when when the people are together engaging truth, what they're saying solidifies my experience and my beliefs and my beliefs continue to work in line with what they believe. And so that's a pretty strong evidence that all of this must be true.
And even though you can't ultimately prove the existence of God um using the scientific method um there is so much evidence uh that even in design and seeing how this this universe is is exists and and I would say that has to be designed. It has to be created because there's too much complexity in it for it not to be designed. And so you look at that and you're like man sure maybe that only gets you to a designer and doesn't get you to God. But look at all this other stuff that I shared with you. All of this validates that the only possible explanation for the scientific evidence, it has to be this God. And so with that, I absolutely feel that I am justified in believing that God exists, particularly Yahweh. And that's the rest of me. I don't need any more time.
>> Okay, our next segment is supposed to be >> Hang on. Was that fair? Did I hit Did I hit it?
>> Can I respond for a moment?
>> Yes, please do.
>> I I first I want to say thank you. And yes, I think you did more than fair. And I want to apologize to you. I want to repent to borrow the the phrase I used right at the very beginning. I want to repent that and when I said repent before, remember I admitted that it's idea that you don't know it all. Uh and that you you realize you might be in error. And I want to let you know that you deserve a better steelman position.
And I'm going to put some effort into it. I'm reading your book. I'm obviously reviewing what we're doing here and uh I want to repent from not being able to do that, but I want to promise you uh that I will uh continue down this road and I will eventually offer up what I better understand as your view. So, thank you, Alan.
>> Hey, way to use up the time perfectly.
We just hit zero. Nice job. But thank you. I appreciate that, Mike. And I look forward to hearing from you in private.
We'll continue the conversation, but we still have we still have Tuesday. So >> yeah, if you if you want to try again on Tuesday to steal man his position, um there most likely will be excess time.
>> Yeah.
>> We'll keep that in mind.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh you guys have any more thoughts before we jump into Q&A?
>> No, I've I've I've enjoyed this, Mike. I have. And and and I just want to say Mike and I know this because we both have done debates. Mike has done way more debates than I have. He's he's a veteran in debating. He knows as far as far as as well as I do that you that's the nature of debate is pressing a person and and owning them down to something and challenging them and interrupting them and that's just all part of it. Mike and I are not going to walk away from this enemies. We understand how this works. In fact, after each night already we hung out afterwards and talked and laughed and so there's no hostility here in case you're wondering that. A lot of people know this in debates but there's a lot of people that that don't and they think, "Oh my gosh, they're being jackasses and to each other." And we're not.
In fact, Mike was far less of an than I was. I know that. But it's all good. I mean, that's just the way that's the nature of debate. Anyway, go ahead, LA. Oh, I'm sorry, Mike. Did you want to add to that or anything?
>> I appreciate that.
>> Okay. If anybody has specific questions, like now is the time to put them into the chat. Uh, I'm going to go ahead and set the timer for 30 minutes right now.
Uh, because we're definitely not going to need all 30 minutes. Um, and I'm going to start back at the beginning.
Um, let's see. Ellen, do you happen to know somebody named church elder Steve?
>> No, I have a hunch it might be, but I don't know for sure.
>> Okay. He asked quite a few opinions about you. So, I wondered if maybe you guys had had uh known each other in some previous way.
>> Some negative opinions, I'm guessing.
>> Oh, yeah. Well, he's a church holder, so yeah, they're all they're all negative.
He doesn't think that you're holding up your your end of the debate very well at all, but uh we'll see if he can come up with specific question.
>> Yeah, >> maybe you can respond to uh let's see. Okay, here's one.
>> How do you know truth and the difference between right and wrong? Um is not addressed to anybody in particular, so you can each take a crack at it. Whoever wants to start.
>> We'll each take a crack at both. any at each question anyway, but whoever has addressed it will go first. Mike, do you want to go to this first?
>> No.
>> I'll let you go.
>> Okay. Uh, so to me, how you know truth is through the study of evidence. As I've said many, many times in this debate, you propose a proposition. You put together a model. You evaluate whether or not it it withholds under scrutiny. You attempt to prove it wrong and you basically just do that until there's no reason to to think that it's not true. You falsify it as much as you can. And if you can't falsify it, then then it stands. So, um, so you you you land there, but it's you can only be maximally certain. So, when you say how do you know truth? You can know truth loosely. you can know it uh with whatever amount of evidence you have at any given time. So new information may present itself and when it does you have to recognize that what you held previously might be wrong and you have to be willing to move forward and and change. So so truth is um can only be known maximally at least at least that's all we know now. I have no idea whether truth can be known definitively. Maybe it can. I just don't know a way to know that yet and hope that maybe someday we'll figure that out. But uh but I do think we can maximally know truth by using the scientific method and it just it's the only method we currently have to that I know of that is reliable that we can test and that continuously produces the same results versus you know the faith method that I've been arguing against that you know you just you can believe anything based on it. So anyway oh and he said the difference between right and wrong. Um, Mike, why don't you do truth and then I'll do right and wrong and you can go back to that one after that. Unless you want to do both at the same time. Let me think about right and wrong for a second.
>> Um, so truth uh you know again truth as just a a word requires a little bit of context. So when we're leaning in on truth where we have to kind of be like Pontious Pilot and say what is truth? Um and obviously we know Jesus said that he is the way, the truth and the life to the father. Uh so in that context he was the truth uh there. And then also Jesus said that he came to come he he came into the world to testify to the truth.
Uh so and I believe that that qualifies that truth was about him being the way, the truth and the life. So um how do I know truth? Uh I know truth because it can be tested. Seek, search, study, and prove. Uh what do I how do I know the difference between right and wrong?
If we're talking about morality, I would say it's what runs against love. Uh, I would say love is always right. And I with that I'll hand it back over to Alan.
>> Gotcha. Um, yeah, I I would say um love is not a good determining factor because sometimes love is not the best way to handle a situation. Um, but determining right and wrong is uh so morality in my opinion is uh ultimately subjective. But what happens is you you you determine a set goal. And what we've seem to have arrived at just instinctively as a human species is that um uh the the goal is to uh provide the greatest the the greatest well-being and the least possible harm. And once we have that goal, because that just naturally is something that everybody wants. We don't want to be harmed and we want the greatest possible well-being.
Once we have that goal, you can have objective rules to get there. Uh and it's like uh playing a game of of chess, once you agree what the what the goal is of chess and how you win, you can you have objective moves that will be made to win and you know which ones you can do to lose. So um so right and wrong is based on an ultimate goal that is agreed upon which in this case morality is the the goal of greatest possible well-being and the least possible harm. Um so that's that's what I would say is how you come across right and wrong difference.
>> And Mike, you're you're good on that question or did you want to follow up?
>> No, I'm good.
>> Okay. Uh here's another uh this might like restart the debate. You don't necessarily have to answer it uh Mike.
I'll just put it up here anyway because it is a question. Um what was the positive argument for God's existence?
>> My life.
>> Um and uh I guess I would respond by saying there was none.
>> Okay.
>> Exist, >> right?
All right, bear with me here.
Looking for question marks. You guys got to ask questions.
>> Guess this is why I asked Elliot to come on and do this. And Mike and I agree because this part sucks and it's really hard to think and also do this at the same time. So >> here, here's one from old uh church elder Steve.
He says, "Will Ellen give any tangible evidence that God doesn't exist?"
>> No, I have no tangible evidence that God doesn't exist. I haven't been provided tangible evidence that he does. So, how can I disprove it?
>> You mean you don't want to take on a burden of proof right now? And uh >> No, this is >> give all of your your evidence against God's existence.
>> Yeah. Because this is this is a complete flip of the burden of proof. I mean, I have not made any claims that God exists. I haven't made a claim that God doesn't exist. And this is the thing that this question continuously irritates me because this question assumes you still are thinking I'm making a claim God doesn't exist. And that is not true. You're just not listening. I can't tell you how many times I've had to correct people on this. I am not making a claim God doesn't exist. I'll say it again. I am not making a claim God doesn't exist. I have no idea if God exists or not. I just have not been presented sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that he does. And so until I have sufficient justification to believe that he does, I'm going to wait and be neutral and just say I don't know. And that's a good enough answer for me because I don't need to leap to a god just because I'm uncomfortable not knowing. So no, I don't have any tangible evidence that god doesn't exist.
>> Are you moving up the list or down the list with the questions?
>> I'm starting with the the earliest comments and going down to the to the current ones. So, um, Mike, if you want to you want to address that before I move on to the next one or or are you good?
>> No, I mean, obviously I've offered up that my life I I believe my life changed uh and that I believe is the evidence that God has uh put out. I I I talked talked to the big man upstairs and he didn't he won't change his methodology of making himself known. So, you know, uh talking about the god that reveals himself to children and donkeys here.
Um, so, uh, I I'll let next question go.
>> That's funny, man.
>> Okay. Question for Ellen. If moral views are evolution and culture, what makes one moral judgment objectively right and another wrong, like disagreements about issues such as sexuality?
>> So, as I said, once you have the common goal, you can set rules to get there. Um and so um you have to allow for another way of saying these rules is is my rights end where yours begin and and vice versa. So you have to allow me to live my life the way I see fit so long as I'm not bringing harm to you and I'm also seeking your well-being. And so you have to do the same for me. And so there there's ways to know what's right and wrong based upon that parameter of seeking the greatest well-being and the least possible harm. So um I I don't think there has to be disagreements about sexuality because just because you have your opinion on that doesn't mean I have to live by your opinion. You can live that way and that's great because to you that's the greatest well-being.
What does that have to do with me? Um so you dictating how I have to live would be the opposite.
What if I dictated to you that you're wrong in your view of sexuality? Well, now you have to bow to mine. I just I just don't see how that's a healthy way to live. So rather than having disagreements, I think we can let them dissolve into the greater goal and not sit around trying to dictate to everybody how they should live.
>> And your turn, Mike, if you want to address it.
Well, if moral views are just evolution in culture, obviously I don't believe that. Uh what makes one moral judgment objectively right and wrong? Obviously, being that I'm a believer in Jesus and the Bible, I do believe that biblical wisdom and the spirit of God uh can help us understand uh moral judgment. Um and regarding disagreements about issues such as sexuality, uh I don't think that the church has healthfully dealt with that uh that moral dis that moral discussion. And um I think I'm probably more in line with Allen's uh explanation there uh that we do need to let people live their lives and exper you know again Christianity was intended to be something that allows you to live life to the full. It wasn't supposed to be something that's jumping in front of you and telling you that you're wrong which again I think is the very reason why we have to have these debates is that Christianity has done a horrible job of responding to questions like this. So I'll end there.
>> Question for Ellen. If reasoning is just a product of matter and evolution, why should we trust them to reliably truth seek?
>> Um, what other choice do we have?
>> I mean, this sounds default.
>> Well, that >> that's a default position, >> right? It is it's the default position.
I mean, we we think I think, therefore, I am uh we seek truth naturally. We we just do this. and why it happens is inconsequential. Like it's an interesting subject. I would love to know why it happens and where it comes from. It may come from nothing. Um the universe doesn't pro never promised us any sort of reasoning for anything. We just are here because of evolution and the universe just is. And so when when we seek truth, that's just what we do. Like I don't I don't see any other option. So I guess the real question is to reliably seek truth seeeking uh because again that's why we have the scientific method because it's reliable. It's it's reproducible. It continues to do the same thing every single day and it never it never ceases to produce the same types of results. So it's reliable because it's reliable. Like there's it just hasn't been proven wrong yet. So, so I guess that's the best answer I can give.
Mike, did Mike want to respond to that?
>> No, thank you.
>> Okay. Um, Ellen, maybe you'll understand this. I don't fully, but it's not my problem, I guess. What are you, Ellen, engaging regarding inattentive information or the influence that you have been receiving?
Mike, do you understand the question?
>> It seems as though it's a dis they're creating a distinction here between uh inattentive information. I don't know if that's a phrase uh or the influence that you have been receiving. Obviously, it sounds like it's creating, you know, are you engaging information or are you engaging influence, but again, this is just my reading the question. I'm not sure either.
>> I can't answer because I don't know what they're asking. So, move on.
>> Yeah, that's fine. We we'll go on to the next one. And uh church elder Steve says his comments are not negative. Does Ellen think that everything can be explained scientifically? Why does he really feel you can explain the spiritual with the physical? These things are spiritually discerned.
>> Okay. So first of all, I never said the spiritual can be explained with the physical. I also never said that I think everything can be explained scientifically. What I said was it is the only method we currently have available to us by which we can test things and know whether true or not. Who knows? There may be another method that's out there laying under a rock somewhere. Somebody might come up with with the method in three minutes from now. Maybe before this show ends, Mike will just or somebody in here will just miraculously be, oh, here's a method that works to test the supernatural. And I'd say, great, that's amazing. tell us how it works and how we can evaluate it and how we can use it to actually arrive at a determination of this of the spiritual or the supernatural. So neither of these questions are accurate questions because I deny both conclusions of those.
>> Mike, if you have any thoughts?
>> No.
>> Okay, another question for Ellen. If morality is based on greater well-being and less harm, what makes well-being or harm objectively the standard rather than just another human preference or evolutionary instinct?
>> Well, that's inter that's interubjective agreement though. It's there's there is every there is an instinct within each of us that says I want what's well good for me and not what's bad for me. Um that's just that's just natural.
Everybody wants that. So um so when we we we we inherently kind of um agree to that as an objective standard uh objective uh standard yeah a goal because everybody wants that. So that is just that is just a natural goal that we have objectively put in even though it is subjectively or interubjectively arrived at. Um, so it's uh the human preference part that's that's in the that's in the the goals to to getting there. So absolute human preface preface is great within the parameters of that ultimate goal. And that's why I said and Mike agreed we should drop things that we're telling other people how they should live. Each person should have their own preference to do what they want standing within the objective goal of of morality. But anyway, Mike, you want to respond to that?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> Are there any questions in here for Mike? I'm just curious.
>> Um, not as far as I can tell. Well, we do have one coming up that it'll be the one after this.
>> All right.
>> But here's our current question.
>> Where do you learn justice, peace, and love?
>> What is this for me? Is this >> That's for anybody who wants to take it.
So yeah, Ellen, we'll start with you.
Where do you learn justice, peace, and love?
>> So, uh, justice would fall within the parameters of morality as we talked about. So, when evil is done, um, you hold people accountable for that because, um, when you're living in our society, we agree to those to those goals to that goal. Um, and as long as you're in our system, you must agree with this with the the justice that we we apply here. So I suppose you could go to an island and learn a different justice. Uh but here uh we have a court system and so we learn justice that way.
Um peace and love uh I don't I don't know that we I don't know that we learned that. Um love for one I know is is a feeling. It's it's not it's not a noun. It's a verb. You don't you don't uh sit around and say hm who will I love today or what is love? I mean we don't we don't do that. We just we feel it. Now sure philosophically people try to do that but doesn't get anywhere because ultimately it's how you feel. And where that feeling comes from is our brain. It's triggering love.
Sure. I know that the common answer is ah see then it's not real. It's not yours. Sure it is. It's still mine. Even if I'm not you know sitting here and saying I'm going to choose love. Love isn't a choice. It's a feeling. You either feel it or you don't for somebody. That's just the way it is. Um, and peace would be the same. You either feel an inner peace or you don't. And some days I feel it and some days I don't. I mean, I know the Christians have this perpetual eternal peace that's surpasses all understanding and never goes away. And I'm like, I don't I don't know what that is. I've never I've never actually experienced this non-stop peace. It's a concept. It's a thing you have by faith. you believe you have it, but you don't really like it's it's like something you say, but you really don't have it because you have just as much in and out of this piece that I have on a regular basis. So, um, so I I I just I think that's that's what it is. It's it's how you feel in the moment.
>> Mike thought on that?
>> Yes, I will add to that. I would say that I would attribute that man learning justice, peace, and love by his own intuition uh is a reality that we have seen in our world. Dare I say it's a scary reality that we've seen throughout history. Um men defining justice based on what seems right in their world, in their nation, their place. Uh and peace and love, the same thing. Um the scriptures speak obviously of uh the fruits of the spirit. Uh that those that are in the spirit that this is what naturally comes out of them. uh and peace and love. Justice I would include there of course um I would say that through the spirit of God uh we come to understand the right things about justice, peace and love.
>> And Michael, we've got one for you specifically. Says, "Does Michael believe that slavery is okay? The Bible thinks it is fine."
>> I saw that video. Um speaking of Allan and Rick uh going back and forth talking about slavery a bit. Um no, I don't believe slavery is okay. And I believe there was a context as to God speaking in ways people understood and that's why that was there uh in the Old Testament period and and New Testament period for that matter. But no, flat answer, no.
Slavery is not okay.
Fortunately, Mike has also said throughout this debate that he doesn't necessarily think the whole Bible has to be true for him to believe. So, I would take issue that um God did in fact think slavery was okay. He never once spoke against it. In fact, he gave laws on how to do it properly and to make sure you can beat your slave within three days.
As long as they don't die, you're you're you're okay and allowed to do that. Um, it tells you how to buy them from the nations and how to bequeath them to your children. Regardless of whether or not you believe slavery is okay today because God doesn't want it. At some point in history, God did in fact want it and he gave laws on how to have it.
So all the justifications as to whether it's a culture or a time period or God used it then because he had need for it or whatever is inconsequential to the fact that he still not only permitted it but endorsed it in the Old Testament at some point in history. So if God knows that it is wrong, he should have said it was wrong then just as much as he thought it was wrong to eat shrimp.
Strangely, shrimp won out over slavery.
I I don't understand that. I I would think that, you know, maybe he could have let them have shrimp instead and said slavery was wrong, but that's just me.
>> I'm sorry. May I just jump in? I had read the question wrong. I thought it said, "Does Michael believe that slavery is okay?" Not, "Does God believe uh slavery is okay?" So, >> the Bible thinks it's fine, >> right? Well, that would be more of a statement, not a question. Um, the Bible doesn't think it's fine. It was God speaking in the culture that he was dealing with there. So, >> so God couldn't tell them, unlike the other nations, I'd like you to not do this because it's immoral.
>> Oh, he could have told them just like I believe he could show up here and say, "I exist, Alan." But again, God has his methodology and his reasons that are beyond my wisdom.
>> Okay, you guys ready to move on?
>> Okay. And I I would just say to anybody in the chat who's asking like multiple follow-up questions, especially for Allan, uh you guys can join us on Friday evening um at uh 5:00 p.m. Central uh where we do a live call-in show and actually have a dialogue that way, which would might be a little easier than, you know, typing out follow-up questions and having them respond to it. If you actually want to have a conversation, keep that in mind. That's on the decon conversionists, by the way, not not here, >> right? But it'll probably link through this channel as well. Uh, I've got another question for Ellen. What would it take for you to become Eastern Orthodox?
>> What's up, Rich? That's a funny question. Um, boy, that would be a hard sell even if I did have faith again. Um, yeah, I don't I don't think so. I don't think it's possible. But I find uh yeah I for one I would go back to full predtoism because that would be the only explanation and um and so anyway um yeah I don't I don't I don't care for the the um the government structure in Etheroxy either. So anyway, that what would it take? Um it would take God to come down and literally have a vocal vocal conversation with me and tell me you're going into Eastern Orthodoxy. Then I'd be like, "Okay, that's probably about it."
Mike, what it take you?
>> You notice it's ironic that the question wasn't aimed at me and yet here I am a Christian. I mean, come on now. Um you know, I think that's exactly the problem. That's what it would take for the Eastern Orthodox folks, for me to become Eastern Orthodox would be for the Eastern Orthodox folks to experience reform.
>> Okay. And we actually have a question for Mike specifically. If God is perfectly good, all powerful, and wants people to know him, why does he allow so much sincere disagreement about who he is and what he wants?
I don't know that God allowing disagreements about who he is and what he wants runs against him being good, all powerful or wanting people to know him. He's relayed his method of making himself known which is uh open hearts.
Uh he reveals himself to who he wants to reveal himself to as I mentioned donkeys and children. Um you know that is God's methodology. So it doesn't run against his goodness that people have disagreements about who he is and what he wants. Uh it doesn't run against his power. God is not trying to create robots. So he's allowing for people to have their personalities. That's why I do believe God speaks to people in ways they understand in the midst of those cultures that he's in. And yes, he does want all people to know him. Uh obviously uh I would give that up as a Christian conundrum if you will uh where we know the verse where it's God doesn't want anyone to perish uh outside of salvation and yet there is a unconditional election that is evident through the scripture. So uh why God has designed it that way I don't know. I I guess you would say that that's a big part of my actively engaging his purposes is making sense of that.
Um, why why do you think that uh God allows so much sincere disagreement?
>> So I I think this runs I mean obviously because I don't think he exists but >> but this also runs into the whole I mean the same question could be asked just by substituting with the problem of evil at the end there. You know why does God allow evil?
>> You know obviously I don't think it exists but if he does this to me poses a gigant a gigantic problem with an allloving God and an all powerful God.
It just doesn't square. I know the Christians have their answers and the answer is well God you know God's good in all things and he always has his reasons and so we justify and make excuses all the time for God and he always has a good re he always has a way out but the reality is you know if he actually did in fact do what he said he did through Jesus Christ why does he continue to allow kids to get raped on a regular basis the idea is oh he's going to meet out justice at some time in the future great how does that benefit the kids now I I don't get this at all so you know I I I know you have your answers as Christians because I used to too as a as a as a Christian, but now I abhore the answers I used to give because they were justifications for my belief and they kind of make me sick now. But anyway, >> well that's all we've got for questions tonight. Um see we've got looks like four people still watching live. So if if you guys have questions, save them until Tuesday. We're doing this again on Tuesday. Uh we're going to take a two-day break here because we've got the uh holiday tomorrow. Um and we will we will start back up then. So uh Ellen or Mike, if you guys have any like quick closing remarks before we end like now's the time.
>> I appreciate you, man. I appreciate you for your time. I appreciate the the the kindness that has been expressed here and um you know, I look forward to Tuesday.
>> Yeah, Tuesday is going to be great. I'm excited about it. Um, so Tuesday is an opportunity where Mike and I will have time for the next couple days to really think through everything that we've talked about and present our final our final responses, our closing thoughts.
Um, and uh, and then once we're done that, we're going to spend the rest of our time in final Q&A. Uh, hopefully you guys come and present the questions, but you'll get to hear our concluding thoughts and uh, and what we think about everything that happened. So, um, so yeah, Elliot, thank you very much for moderating this and being a part of it.
It really helped me to be able to focus on the conversation and not on what was going on on the sidebar. So, >> yeah, no problem.
>> And Mike, thank you. I really appreciate you stepping up and and doing this debate. Um, you know, it's it's it's like pulling teeth in and getting people to be willing to actually debate this subject. And and it's sad to me if you think about it because, you know, you got 1 Peter 3:15, you're supposed to provide a defense for the hope that is in you. And uh you know I I I feel like you did exactly what first Peter 3:15 says to do because I don't think the the defense he's talking about there is philosophical arguments for the existence of God. He's talking about producing your hope that you have like literally just saying because Jesus died for me and rose, I'm going to do the same thing because my hope is that I'll follow him in that glory as well. So you did it. You did exactly what first Peter 3:15 says to do. I of course don't think that's a sufficient reason to believe in God at all, but that's what First Peter 3:15 teaches, and it's great. Um, but it's amazing how many Christians are unwilling to come on here and just do what you did. So, well done.
>> Thank you.
>> All right, everybody. We will catch you on Tuesday. It's going to be 6 pm Eastern time. Um, I am in the 5:00 p.m.
time zone, so I always get that wrong.
But it's 6 Eastern, 5 Central Tuesday night, and we will see you then. Good night, everybody.
>> Good night.
Heat.
Heat.
Related Videos
Socrates: The Wisdom of Knowing Nothing #shorts
BIT-BOCA
4K views•2026-06-07
How to overcome the pressure of success. #ancientwisdom #marcusaurelius #philosophy #stoicism
AncientWisdomDailyu
420 views•2026-06-07
The fates guide the willing, but drag the unwilling. | Cleanthes
forged.in.stoicism
138 views•2026-06-10
Kant and Hume: When Reason Undermined Itself | Church History 121
DavidGuzikEnduringWord
148 views•2026-06-12
Are you serious? | Krishnamurti
kft
439 views•2026-06-07
Cliffe Knechtle Debates the Problem of Suffering: Why Does God Allow Cancer?
Bible_Alive
3K views•2026-06-10
Morality Without God || A Conversation with Two Former Christian Ministers
timmygibsonkc
382 views•2026-06-10
Tertullian's An Answer to the Jews: The Earliest Major Latin Refutation of Judaism
TheCatholicState
295 views•2026-06-09
