Caller: It's Moral for God to R*pe Punish

[00:00:00]Patrick is calling from Illinois.

[00:00:03]Patrick's uh pronouns are hem. Says the Christian God is the best description for morality and epistemic normativity.

[00:00:10]Hey Patrick, you're on with Matt and Seth. How are you?

[00:00:13]>> Hey. Uh I think my original thing wasn't description, but uh explanation. Thanks for having me on the show. Um so would we agree that universally uh humans ought to believe what is true and ought not believe what is false?

[00:00:29]Um, >> I saw your talk with allegedly Ian, so I know you're more simple. I got a single I give up, Seth. I got a single single syllable out before I was interrupted.

[00:00:39]So, >> well, you saw >> I just wanted to clarify Ian. That's all. I'm sorry.

[00:00:44]>> Yeah, you're throwing a little context.

[00:00:46]You saw a talk that Matt gave.

[00:00:49]>> Yeah, with allegedly Ian. And I saw that he was leaning towards moral realism. I Matt, I did not mean to interrupt you. I just wanted to clarify and give context for everybody if you wanted to fill in where you're at with moral realism.

[00:01:00]>> I'm getting ready to do a new video. Um, and it's not necessarily moral realism.

[00:01:05]It's an objective foundation that goes beyond what I used to have before. But no, I I don't necessarily think that we ought to believe that which is true. I do agree that that is a preference and uh I don't know how to justify that as an ought.

[00:01:22]>> Great. Help me understand real fast both of you.

[00:01:25]>> Is the word ought thrown at as kind of a trip wire?

[00:01:30]>> It's an imperative. Yes.

[00:01:32]>> It's an imperative.

[00:01:34]Yeah. Like like we ought for for example. So we would be doing what we ought not do if we say I don't want to believe that truth. I want to believe a comforting lie. So I'm going to go back to my cult or I'm going to blast my brains out with drugs or any number of things. Like if we like for example if you say I got deconstructed or I got deconverted out of my religion because the evidence brought me out of that then what that means is there is a prescription from truth itself that dictates the actions of people what they ought to do and how they ought to think that truth itself is prescriptive absent of anybody's uh per um uh preferences.

[00:02:11]>> Is it prescriptive or can it be descriptive?

[00:02:15]Well, if it's descriptive, then it doesn't have an actual prescription. For example, I could say that humans have X behavior that is, you know, communal.

[00:02:24]But that's just a description of their behavior. That doesn't necessarily prescribe anything any more than 2 plus 2= 4 or like what the atomic number for lead is.

[00:02:39]I'm sorry, I'm I just I interjected briefly. Go ahead.

[00:02:45]Are you saying Matt or me?

[00:02:47]>> I was just I I figured Matt was going but um >> what are you what are you calling about?

[00:02:56]>> Yeah. So if we ought to believe that if we if there's So if the answer is no to the question ought we believe what is true and ought we reject that which is false then truth and falsity in terms of what people believe are of equal value and there's no tie between true or false belief. is just preferences and therefore decon conversion what it does is it moral maps on the reality around us and uses it to draw away from one conclusion necessarily necessarily.

[00:03:25]>> The fact that you can't the fact that you can't justify um believing true things and not believing false things as an actual imperative doesn't mean they're of equal value. we can demonstrate that accurate beliefs have more value both to the survival of the individual. Not in all cases. There are cases where false beliefs might be beneficial, but that doesn't mean mean that they're of equal value. However, >> um Okay, go ahead.

[00:03:57]>> Oh, I was just going to say so then we're making a value claim about survival and well-being, right? So that would be the tiebreaker between any any uh considerations.

[00:04:08]>> Well, no. I'm I'm saying that that is a potential tiebreaker between those there. People might have personal preferences. That doesn't that doesn't mean that their personal preferences have anything to do with well-being. I I'm trying to figure out >> um so you're calling in to say the Christian God is the best description for morality. Did the Christian God have David's wives raped?

[00:04:31]Uh yeah. Yeah. And here's the difference like like earlier >> and that was a good thing >> that in in terms of judgment the on the primary level God cannot categorically be blameworthy because there's no authority above him. You can't you just can't engineer that. So >> we were just talking about this. We were just talking about divine command theory and vertical morality.

[00:04:55]I I reject I reject divine command theory. I I reject theory. I'm sorry, Patrick. You're saying that it was a good thing to have David's wives raped.

[00:05:06]>> There's an equivocation going on here between primary >> No, there's no equivocation going on.

[00:05:11]>> Can God do anything that is not good?

[00:05:14]>> Can God do anything that is not good?

[00:05:16]>> Can God do anything that is not good?

[00:05:19]>> Can God do anything that is not good?

[00:05:21]>> Can God do anything that is not good?

[00:05:24]>> Can God do anything that is not good?

[00:05:26]>> Can God do anything that is not good?

[00:05:29]You're not going to get to say another word till you answer that question. Can God do anything that is not good?

[00:05:35]>> You're not going to let me parse because you know that I can make it make sense without you.

[00:05:39]>> No, I'm going to mute you. Um, I'm not going to let you lie. If you answer this question, liar, you can then go on to try to make yourself look good. But the reality is you've already said that God had David's wives raped.

[00:06:00]In the story, David sinned and as a punishment to David, God had David's wives raped. And I asked you if that's a good thing. And you, your parsing is, well, there's no way to judge God. There's no authority above God. No, no, no. Can God do anything that is not good? Does God only do good?

[00:06:24]You won't answer that question with a yes or no, which would allow you to continue because the fact of the matter is you know that the Bible represents God as well actually the the Bible represents God as potentially good and evil on different occasions. But is it a good thing? This is this is the question. I'm even going to type it in uh above my head because you're not going to bust my zen with your lies.

[00:06:54]Was it good to have David's wives great?

[00:07:02]There we go. I'm going to put this above my head. This is the question.

[00:07:07]Was it good?

[00:07:11]Here's the question for Patrick.

[00:07:12]Patrick, I'm bringing you back now.

[00:07:14]There'll be a beep, but you didn't miss anything. So, was it good to have David's wives raped?

[00:07:20]>> Is a malformed question. You won't accept it. You You know the primary and secondary causation, and you will not let me clarify that. So, here's the primary and secondary causation.

[00:07:30]>> No, I'm I'm sorry. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you dishonest, lying Christians.

[00:07:38]just answer this question and then I will give you the space to try to rehabilitate yourself.

[00:07:46]You won't answer it because you fundamentally know that everyone who ever watches this is going to have a reaction to rape and to using rape as a punishment. Rape as a punishment would be wrong. Even if the person who was being raped was the one who did wrong and was being punished, that would still be immoral.

[00:08:12]It's especially immoral and wrong if it's done to punish someone else. It reinforces the idea that his wives are his property and I will punish you by doing harm and damage to your property.

[00:08:29]So, I'm going to give you one more chance to answer this question. If you don't answer this question, I'm going to change the question. So, was it good to have David's wife scraped?

[00:08:40]>> It's a malformed question without primary.

[00:08:43]>> Okay, since you're not going to answer that question, we're going to come up with a different question.

[00:08:48]We'll see if this one isn't malformed.

[00:08:53]How you doing, Seth?

[00:08:55]I'm just trying to figure out how you can even approach the idea of rape with an equivocation or a pause. How it cannot be immediately condemned.

[00:09:09]Well, it's weird that you you actually said that because the question that I was typing, which I'm now going to put over my head, which we're going to bring bring Patrick in to try and dodge again, is this Patrick.

[00:09:19]Under what circumstances should ought someone should someone be raped as punishment? That's the next question.

[00:09:30]>> In terms of those who can do the raping, obviously nobody should rape anybody, but that's the secondary causation clarification that you won't allow to come out.

[00:09:40]>> I'm sorry.

[00:09:43]I just allowed you to say that. I asked you under what circumstances. You did not answer my question. So, here we go.

[00:09:51]Try this again. Patrick, under what circumstances should rape be used as a punishment?

[00:09:58]>> By whom?

[00:10:00]>> Anyone.

[00:10:05][sighs] >> I'm sorry.

[00:10:06]>> This is not going well for you.

[00:10:08]>> Indulge me for a second, Matt.

[00:10:11]You're here. Hold on. I know you don't want to say something and then I'm going to say something. You're not going to say [ __ ] until I say otherwise. Patrick, >> the morbid curiosity in me would like to hear him uh would like to give him just enough rope to hang himself and let him go for about 25 seconds. Would that be okay? Cuz I'm I'm insanely curious as to what comes next.

[00:10:31]>> Yeah. No, no. Here's the thing. I'm going to unmute you now, Patrick. I know I'm going to wait for the beep. I'm going to say this. So, in answer for in answer to your question, when I said under what circumstances should rape be used as a punishment, you said for whom?

[00:10:44]uh by God >> here's what >> against it against someone under what circumstances should God use rape as a punishment >> because he is truth he can use whatever secondary means he wants to including the death of anybody in any circumstance God has decreed from the beginning to the end how things would go and yet the free will choices of his creatures are still the free will choices of his creatures regardless because they did exactly what they wanted to do and get punished. Could God have punished David?

[00:11:18]Revelation 13.

[00:11:19]>> Could God have punish I'm sorry I I I let you give your answer. Could God have punished David without having his wives raped?

[00:11:28]>> Entire entirely possible. God could have not had that happen. Yes. That means that means that God could have opted for a different punishment, but God specifically opted to have David's wives raped. Correct?

[00:11:48]>> I I'm sorry. I didn't know when I was on the air or not. Am I Am I back yet?

[00:11:52]>> Yeah. So, God could have used a different punishment, but he opted to use the punishment of having David's wives raped. Is that correct?

[00:12:00]>> Yeah. Yeah, he could have used no punishment. He could have had David kill.

[00:12:02]>> I'm sorry. When I ask a yes or no question, I only need the yes because I'm building to the next thing. I'm sorry you don't understand how this works, but we'll get there. So, >> I I I said I said yes or no.

[00:12:13]>> I don't know why you're even speaking.

[00:12:15]It's my turn right now. It's a matter of fact, it's almost always my turn. Um, but here we go.

[00:12:21]>> Yeah.

[00:12:21]>> If God could have Yes, I know. Would you shut up so I don't have to mute you again and let me finish?

[00:12:27]>> Thanks. If God could have used a different punishment, but God opted to use this punishment, then I'm assuming you are fine with God using that punishment. You don't have any objection. You don't have any moral objection, right?

[00:12:42]>> This is a conflation all the way down from the beginning to the end. You are >> No, this is really simple. This is really simple, Patrick.

[00:12:49]>> It's simple to you. If you're not able to Patrick, okay, >> I'm not going to let you bust my zen.

[00:12:56]You're not [ __ ] worth it.

[00:12:58]I'm going to unmute you. I'm going to ask you. I'm going to type the question again because you're a little, you know, floundering. You've already basically acknowledged this.

[00:13:09]Can I tag one on while you're I mean, you don't have to type it. Why would any punishment be meed out to someone other than David?

[00:13:21]Wait, he's punishing David.

[00:13:24]>> Why were the Why were somebody else punished? It'll be the same. It'll be the same answer because God gets to do whatever he wants.

[00:13:30]>> Okay. All right.

[00:13:31]>> So, Patrick, I've unmuted you. Do you have a moral objection to God using rape as punishment?

[00:13:39]>> Oh, no. Because God is the truth and he can do whatever he wants, not humans.

[00:13:44]>> Yeah, Patrick.

[00:13:46]>> It's not an equivalent.

[00:13:47]>> You act like I wasn't aware that that's what you were trying to say the whole time. I don't know why you wouldn't just give the answer. And the answer is that Patrick, which is why lazy question.

[00:13:55]>> I'm sorry. I don't know why you're [ __ ] opening your [ __ ] mouth. Shut your pie hole. The fact of the matter is Patrick has just acknowledged that he has no moral objection to God using rape as punishment even though God had other options and he believes this because he thinks God is true. And so for clarity, Patrick, does that mean that God has no moral judgment upon his actions because he is morality?

[00:14:30]>> God is morality. Sure. But that does not entail that we >> No, no, no. That that was it. You don't get to do a butt and continue. I'm going to bat you around like a little [ __ ] chew toy and I'm going to make a million dollars off of your clip because Patrick is basically saying he knows that the God of the Bible who we have no reason to think exist who Patrick has not made any demonstration that God is truth.

[00:14:57]Patrick has not made any demonstration that God is moral or what morality is.

[00:15:02]But Patrick is completely convinced that because in his view God can do no wrong, which is the question he should have answered earlier. Can God only do good?

[00:15:12]Yes. Because God by definition is truth.

[00:15:15]God by definition is morality. Which means there is no moral assessment on our part that we can attribute to God.

[00:15:23]That's what Patrick's view is. Patrick is a mindless robotic slave who thinks he's a play thing of God and so is was David and so is David's wives.

[00:15:36]And Patrick is fine with God using rape as punishment and using rape as punishment when it's not even directed at the person he's trying to punish. Patrick called in to explain that the Christian God is the best description of morality and to object to the moral systems that the rest of us would advocate for. And in doing so, he has made an embarrassing show of his own view on morality. that he is unwilling and unable to actually use his mind and his heart and his empathy and his compassion to understand that nobody, no being, no agent, even a god could be viewed as morally correct in raping someone as a punishment, especially for something somebody else did. But Patrick wants to spin. And because Seth asked, and because I'm amused, and because I've already got the clip I got out of Patrick. Patrick, I'm gonna unmute you in a second. And you're going to get to do your best for 60 seconds.

[00:16:48]I'm starting a start a timer. I'm going to give you a full 60 seconds to do your best to explain to everybody who's going to watch this clip exactly why it's okay for God to have people raped.

[00:17:06]60 seconds starts now.

[00:17:10]So, as you can see, we [clears throat] ought to follow that which is true, and we ought to deny that which is false because truth is prescriptive. It's from the beginning to the end. This has been an entire performative contradiction. If you want to talk about primary and secondary causations, you can look at Revelation 13:8 where Christ himself was slayed from the foundation of the world.

[00:17:28]Thereby, by definition, every atrocity, everything was deemed to happen by God, including the flood, including war, including slaughter, including rape, all those sorts of things. And to say that that makes him a bad God, is to beg the question of by what standard, which every atheist has to do from the very beginning. They have to value map all of these things which they can't actually attribute to because they can't find a tiebreaker between any dilemma or any comparison any good or the contrary of any good in any sense whatsoever. So all of these objections which don't parse between secondary and primary causation also have a problem of saying well I didn't do it the big bang did it I didn't do it physics did it I didn't do it evolution did it they can just kick the can down the road and make nonsense out of primary and secondary causation.

[00:18:14]Now, if you look this up, God deems what's going to happen, but he uses the free will choices of his creatures in order to ordain those things. And we have the same problem with atheism.

[00:18:25]Because if we believe we're accountable, like I'm accountable for my words and actions, then therefore I can't blame evolution because even though I'm just a product of matter in motion, I still have responsibility somehow. I still have justice. I still have actual guilt.

[00:18:40]None of this makes sense. Do >> Okay, I gave you counting the nonsequators. But real fast, Matt, I'm sorry. Free will. He just throws free will in there. I And it's it's like we had a whole different conversation for about 4 seconds. Like we're not talking about free will, right? I mean, that was a that's a different conversation, is it not?

[00:19:05]>> Yes.

[00:19:07]>> I gave you an extra I gave you 30 seconds. Sorry.

[00:19:11]>> Uh I gave you an extra 30 seconds. Um because I already knew where you're going. I've done this for 20 [ __ ] years. Um and it's embarrassing. Um Patrick's problem is that he doesn't see any possible solution to where do we get an absolute objective moral standard from and thinks that that makes truth and false equal. That makes there's no tiebreaker for these things which is ridiculously stupid as I demonstrated at the beginning of the call. Um, but even if there was no solution, even if moral realism isn't true, um, I'd rather have situational ethics that are based on empathy and freedom and and good senses of justice, um, that are that are wise than to give up all moral sense to a story book that you cannot demonstrate is true, that would force me to embarrassingly make excuses for rape the way you just did. I am morally superior to you. I am morally superior to the god of your book. I am morally superior to pretty much everything that you said.

[00:20:19]And I'm not even that good. I'm just pretty good. And you're [ __ ] Bye. I did find it uh in a twisted way impressive the sort of um the vomitus apologeticus.

[00:20:36]You know, was he reading? You know, he literally I don't think he drew breath for 80 seconds. [laughter] I was like, "Holy snikes.