Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism? (Frank Turek vs. Michael Shermer)

Does belief in God make sense of the world? Or does reality itself point to God’s absence? Is God real or is he a product of human minds? #FrankTurek #MichaelShermer #Reality

[Music]

dr. Turek is an award-winning author and

co-author of multiple books like I don’t

have enough faith to be an atheist

legislating morality and his latest

stealing from God why a theist need God

to make their case Frank is the

president of cross examine org from whom

he travels and presents powerful and

entertaining evidence for the truth of

Christianity we’ll see some of that

today he has presented at high schools

and secular college campuses many who

are antagonistic to his to his message

in fact they were just telling me

Michael and Michael Shermer and dr.

Frank her and Frank Turk were at a

recent college and they both were

attacked by what they both called the

snowflakes on campus so you can see that

they have something in common there dr.

Turk has debated several prominent

atheists including Kurt the late

Christopher Hitchens David Zellmer

Silverman president of the American

Atheists and of course dr. Schurman he’s

sure Murray’s debated him once before

dr. Turk hosts a weekly TV program I

don’t have enough faith to be an atheist

and he has a radio program called

cross-examined with Frank Turk that a

year airs on 186 stations every Saturday

Frank has appeared on The O’Reilly

Factor which doesn’t exist anymore handy

and combs which doesn’t exist anymore

hang on Frank because there’s something

going on here faith on the far and

politically incorrect which doesn’t

exist anymore either with Bill Maher in

fact I believe you’re on those second

the last or the last episode where Bill

Maher actually got fired or I got fired

shortly after so beware of inviting

Frank on your show a former aviator

aviator with the US Navy Frank has a

master’s degree from George Washington

University and a doctorate from southern

evangelical seminary he and his wife

Stephanie have three grown sons one of

whom who is here today and make sure you

go back to the book table he will be

there if you want to meet Frank’s son

and ladies doin Frank Turek come on up

[Applause]

okay let’s welcome dr. Michael Shermer

dr. Michael Shermer is the founding

publisher of skeptic magazine

he’s a monthly columnist for Scientific

American and a presidential fellow at

Chapman University where he teaches

skeptism one-on-one I want to take that

class he’s the author of multiple New

York Times bestsellers including why

people believe weird things the science

of good and evil the mole Ark and his

latest book heavens on earth the

scientific search for the afterlife

immortality and utopia

not to be confused with Ethiopia where I

grew up one of the places I grew up dr.

Schurman has been an invited guest on

The Colbert Report 2020 Dateline Charlie

Lowe’s Rose Oprah and Larry King Live

they also exist except for Larry King

life so apparently Michael Shermer is a

better person to invite on your show if

you want longevity he has been

interviewed on countless documentary

documentaries which have aired on shows

like PBS Discovery The History Channel

the Science Channel and the Learning

Channel he received his BA in Psychology

for Pepperdine University his MA an

experiment of his psychology from

California State University in Fulton

and his PhD in the history of science

from Claremont Graduate University

ladies and gentlemen dr. Michael Shermer

thank you

thank you all now our time is short

today

so as we proceed I will ask that you

hold all applause while the person is

talking till the end of his presentation

that just gives him a bit more time so

he doesn’t have to talk to your applause

but same with Harrah’s and dude your

time is up also isn’t allowed okay

laughter certainly allowed okay now dr.

Shermer and dr. Turek will be assisted

in keeping their timing with the two

most beautiful girls in the world my

wife and my daughter who are sitting up

front they will hold up the two-minute

warning the one-minute warning and the

dude your time is up warning but will so

just you can watch out for that debaters

so let us begin with dr. Turks first 20

minutes introductory statement well

thank you Neil for such a dry opening

before we really get into this you know

people always start by thanking people

and it sounds so obligatory but it’s

really true this is hard to pull off an

event like this so thank you Westgate

church for hosting this and also thank

you South Valley Community Church in

Gilroy for helping with it as well thank

you so much without those people we

wouldn’t be doing this and and thank you

dr. Shermer who came up from the utopia

known as Santa Barbara today that’s

where he lives so he’s a smart man and

thank you for doing this needle as well

I’ve already been yes and the Charlie

Rose show doesn’t exist either anymore

just so you know alright alright one

other thing I want to mention and that

is before we get started I’m from New

Jersey which means I speak at 150 words

a minute with gusts to 350 okay I’m

gonna go really quickly in fact when we

do these opening statements I think

Michael would agree with me when you do

debates the biggest problem is time you

don’t have a lot of times you have to

compress a lot into a short period of

time so we’re up here playing beat the

clock if you want this PowerPoint

presentation I’m going to show you all

you need to do is go to that website

cross examined work forward slash debate

send us an email and we’re gonna send

you this PowerPoint presentation even

the slides I can’t get to so you’re not

gonna be able to keep up with me you can

look at it later if you’re really

interested in this material it’s gonna

be there by the way we’re not going to

share your email address with anyone but

if you do that in fact if you do it

right now it’s gonna in the next

probably five minutes it’s gonna be in

your inbox okay all right Anna you ready

are we ready all right

we’re trying to figure out what better

explains reality theism or atheism and

one of the hardest questions to answer

from the very beginning of time has been

if there is no God why is there

something rather than nothing why does

anything exist in other words and I

think when we look around the universe

we have to figure out certain effects

and these effects must have some kind of

cause in fact that’s how we know God

exists we reason from effect to cause

and there’s a number of effects I want

to go through here tonight

the first is creation we’ll talk about

that first secondly is reason the idea

that we can reason to true beliefs

thirdly is the information found in DNA

number four is morality objective

morality dr. Shermer will agree that

certain things are objectively right and

other things are objectively wrong also

evil why is there evil in the world if

there is a good god I’m gonna argue that

evil actually shows God does exist

rather than not and then finally science

why can we do science why is the world

so orderly so we can actually do science

it appears to be the product of a

rational mind and if you notice each one

of these effects that we’re trying to

discover the cause for is in an acronym

I’ll get to in a minute we’re trying to

figure out the cause I have to figure

out what the cause is and so does dr.

Sherman now dr. Sherman may not have the

same one cause he may have several

causes but these are effects that

require a cause and this isn’t an

acronym known as crime CRI mes and we’re

going to just go through this as quickly

as we can here in this twenty minutes

the first is the idea that there really

was and all scientists seemed to agree

with this there really was at one point

a big I’d like to keep the audience

awake in the beginning all right there

was a big bang as even atheists admit

Stephen Hawking who had you know died

earlier this year said almost everyone

now believes that the universe and time

itself had a beginning at the Big Bang

now Hawking tries to come up with

another explanation other than God I

think he fails but he’s admitting the

data what’s the data that space time and

matter literally had a beginning out of

nothing

non beam not a quantum vacuum but

nothing another colleague of his

Alexander Vilenkin put it this way he

said with the proof now in place

cosmologists and by the way a

cosmologists is not somebody that puts

on your makeup all right cosmologists is

somebody who investigates the origin of

the universe cosmologists can no longer

hide behind the possibility of the past

eternal universe there is now no escape

they have to face the problem of a

cosmic beginning now the Lincoln is a

believer in the multiverse if you heard

of the multiverse there are other

universes out there and ours just

happens to be the one that looks

designed even though there’s no way to

verify this but even for Lincoln admits

that even if there are other universes

out there the whole show needs an

absolute beginning in addition to the

universe exploded into being out of

nothing it did so with extreme precision

Stephen Hawking again put it this way if

the expansion rate of the universe was

different by one part in a thousand

million million a second after the Big

Bang the universe would have collapsed

back on itself or never developed

galaxies

you changed the expansion rate that

infinitesimal amount none of us are here

you can’t make any evolutionary argument

for this why because this is the initial

condition of the universe the universe

started this way also the gravitational

force is fine-tuned to one part in ten

to the 40th power what’s one part in 10

to the 40th power that’s one part in one

with 4008 you say Frank I can’t get my

head around that number I know neither

can I let me just give you an

illustration take a tape measure and

stretch it across the entire known

universe that’s a long way set the

gravitational force at a particular inch

mark on that tape measure

I realize gravity’s not measured in

inches but this is just give you a scale

idea in your mind if the strength of

gravity was different by one inch in

either direction across the scale as

wide as the entire known universe we

wouldn’t be here now I don’t have enough

faith to believe that that value just

happened by chance somebody put that

value right there now when you add up

this these two arguments it’s really two

arguments here the cosmological argument

and the fine-tuning argument you’re left

with two options here are the two

options if the universe had a beginning

we’ve got two options

either no one created something out of

nothing

in a fine-tuned way or someone created

something out of nothing in a fine-tuned

way now which view is more reasonable

this is the interactive portion of the

program I think number two is more

reasonable by the way both of these are

miracles it’s a miracle to have

something come from nothing without a

miracle worker it’s also a miracle to

have something come from nothing with a

miracle worker the only question is

which views more reasonable now ladies

and gentlemen if space matter in time

had a beginning out of nothing as even

many atheists are now admitting then

whatever created space matter in time

can’t be made a space matter in time in

other words the cause must be spaceless

timeless immaterial powerful moral well

we’ll get to that in a minute personal

and intelligent now when you think of a

being with those qualities who do you

think of that’s what we mean by God now

the next argument has to do with reason

now dr. Sherman is a dialogue with the

Deepak Chopra admitted that he’s a

materialist Michael said I explained

that I’m a materialist and a monist I do

not believe that there is a body and a

soul there is just a body there is no

brain and mind just brain so Michael is

buying into what we

materialism and in effect materialism

says that every thought you have have is

the result of the laws of physics

there’s not really a mind there you’re

just a brain you’re nothing but a moist

robot and so I think that there’s a

problem with this because if dr. Sherman

says my thoughts are determined

completely by the non-rational laws of

physics I want to ask him then so is

that thought and all your thoughts about

atheism so why should we believe any of

them if every thought is driven by the

laws of physics we don’t really know if

we have truth or not in fact the problem

here is is that if atheism were true we

couldn’t even be able to reason because

if we’re just moist robots we’re not

reasoning we’re just reacting and a

former evolutionist or a gentleman

wasn’t evolutionist and realized the

problem with his worldview Haldane put

it this way he said this if my mental

processes are determined wholly by the

motions of atoms in my brain I have no

reason to suppose that my beliefs are

true and hence I have no reason for

supposing my brain to be composed of

atoms he got it you know even Darwin

recognized this was a problem with his

view for another reason in fact it’s

called Darwin’s doubt here’s what Darwin

said he said with me the horrid doubt

always arises whether the convictions of

a man’s mind which has been developed

from the mind of lower animals are of

any value at all trustworthy would any

would anyone trust in the convictions of

a monkey’s mind if there are any

convictions in such a mind now reason

makes no sense on atheism materialism

but it makes sense on theism why because

our minds are made in the image of the

great mind and the laws of logic which

allow us to think and communicate are

based on his nature the third effect

that we need to explain is information

particularly the information found in

DNA and the best way of explaining this

is to take you to your breakfast table

suppose you’re a teenager you come

downstairs one morning and you want to

have a bowl of alphabet cereal and you

see the alphabet cereals knocked over on

the table and right in the middle of the

table the letters fell take out the

garbage mom what are you going to assume

the cat knocked the box over earthquake

shook

house no you’re gonna say that that’s

intelligent designed from an intelligent

being mom or if you’re walking along the

beach and you see in the sand john loves

Mary right down here in Santa Cruz what

are you gonna say the waves did that

crabs came out of the water and made

that message no you’re gonna say that

had to be the product of a mind because

you know and all your prior experiences

that messages only come from minds they

don’t come from blind natural laws well

if take out the garbage mom requires a

message what about the message in every

single cell of your body in fact every

one of your 40 or so trillion cells has

a message 3.2 billion letters long every

letter is in the right order

how did that happen where did and codes

come from in fact what we’re saying here

is DNA is a message it’s like take out

the garbage mom but a lot longer and

even Bill Gates admits this he says that

DNA is a software program Gates said

human DNA is like a computer program but

far far more advanced than any software

ever created I don’t know about you

where I come from you guys come from

Silicon Valley don’t you whenever

there’s a program there’s got to be a

programmer

now Michael might say this is god of the

gaps reasoning this is not god of the

gaps reasoning why because we’re not

arguing from what we don’t know it’s not

like we’re looking we just haven’t found

a natural law to explain this yet it’s

that take out the garbage mom is

actually evidence for an intelligent

being when you see take out the garbage

mom on your on your table you don’t go

well gee I I just can’t find a natural

law for this you go that’s positive

evidence for mom so we’re not arguing

from what we don’t know it’s not a gap

we’re arguing from what we do know the

fourth effect we need to account for is

morality in fact evil as well we’re

going to do these two together and

Michael will agree there is objective

morality here’s the problem from an

atheistic standpoint how can you

discover who is morally better Mother

Teresa or Hitler if there is no standard

beyond humanity in fact how can you

discover which one of these is better

well what you need to do is you need to

see a standard or NOAA standard in fact

how do you know which map of Scotland is

better here is it map a or map B what

would you need to see in order to know

you need to see a real unchanging place

called Scotland because if Scotland

doesn’t exist then these two maps are

meaningless but if Scotland does exist

then we can see that map a while it’s

not perfect it’s a better representation

of the real map than is map B in other

words there’s an external reference to

which we can measure both maps that that

standard is what we can do to figure out

which map is closer to the truth well

that’s exactly what we do when we

compare mother Teresa and Hitler mother

Teresa wasn’t the standard Hitler wasn’t

the standard there’s a standard beyond

both of them by which we measure both of

them and that standard is God’s nature I

don’t see how you can come up with a

standard external to human beings unless

God exists now not long I was at a

church in South Dakota in February I

don’t know why I went there in February

but I did anyway we were doing our I

don’t have enough faith to be an atheist

presentation over several nights the

second night I was there we had the

microphone set up and a couple of young

men in their 20s got up to the

microphone and they were atheists I

didn’t think anything of it because if

you call something I don’t have enough

faith to be an atheist

everyone’s gonna show up however the

next night I was there about a fifty

year old man got up to the microphone

and he had a question written on two

sheets of paper and he began to read it

about 10 seconds into his present and

into reading the the question he just

broke down crying he couldn’t go any

further so I walked off the platform I

went down to him and he handed me these

two sheets of paper and all he said was

read it read it so I’m trying to digest

this two page question as I’m walking

back up to the platform by the time I

got back up to the platform I realized

that that man was upset for two reasons

reason number one that man whose name

turned out to be Steve had just

discovered recently that a supposed

friend of him hid friend of his a man by

the name of Tom about a fifty year old

man had been sexually abusing

Steve’s daughter from the time she was

age 4 to the time she was age 14 right

in his own home under his nose never saw

it

the second reason Steve was upset was

because the two men who were there the

night before were his sons who used to

be Christians and are now atheists they

said there can’t be a good God because

he wouldn’t have allowed this to happen

to our sister there is no God so I said

to him Steve it’s okay to be mad at God

some of the Bible writers are mad at God

Rita backache read read the psalm some

of the Psalms read lamentations God

where are you God can take it he’s an

infinite being but I hope at some point

your sons are gonna realize this is not

a good argument against God in fact it’s

actually an argument for God why in fact

here’s what I said to him I said when

the time is right Steve I want you to

say this to your sons if there is no God

what that 50-year old man did to your

sister isn’t really wrong it’s just your

opinion why because if there’s no

standard beyond humanity it’s just his

opinion against yours by the way the man

who did this is still walking the

streets why everyone knows he did it but

he’s not in jail because every time the

trial comes up Jessica the one who was

abused psychologically checks out she

can’t testify against him she wanted to

marry him so I said Steve when the right

time comes I want you to say this to

your sons if there is no God than the

man who did this to your sister we’ll

never get justice he’s not going to get

justice here on earth if she doesn’t

testify and he’s not going to get

justice in the afterlife because

according to atheism there is no

afterlife do you really think that’s the

way the universe is you really think

there’s no such thing as justice the

very reason you’re upset rightfully so

is because you know a great injustice

has been done but there can’t be justice

or I should say there can’t be injustice

unless there’s justice in fact CS Lewis

put it best he said evil requires good

and good requires God he says as an

atheist my argument against God was that

the universe seemed so cruel and on

just but how had I got this idea of just

and unjust a man does not call line

crooked unless he has some idea of a

straight line

what was I comparing this universe with

when I called it unjust in fact it’s

been also put this way the shadows

proved the sunshine in other words in

order to have evil you have to have good

in order to have shadows you have to

have sunshine well you can have sunshine

without shadows you can have good

without evil but you can’t have evil

without good now something’s evil out

there and Michael will agree there are

many things that are evil then there

must be something good what is that good

that good is God’s nature if there is no

God then there’s nothing ultimately good

or bad there are just molecules bumping

into one another now Jessica the girl

that was abused decided to do something

positive with this awful experience she

actually wrote a book here it is not

your princess by Jessica MIT so I read

one chapter of this book and couldn’t

read it anymore why am I telling you

this because her father Steve wants many

people as many people as possible to

know this because this happens too far

too often in American homes now ladies

and gentlemen it’s the sexual abuse of

children evil yes then God exists I know

that sounds counterintuitive because

Michaels going to ask them why would he

allow it to happen that’s a whole nother

conversation but the point is you can’t

say God doesn’t exist because it

wouldn’t be it wouldn’t be evil unless

he did exist because he’s the standard

of good by which we’d even know what

evil was he is the standard of

measurement finally science why is the

world so orderly why can we do science

Michael Shermer is a scientist he

teaches a class on this why can we do

science why is the world so orderly in

fact you might ask yourself the question

science requires nature to be

goal-directed why is nature that way for

example why do the planets reliably go

around the Sun why don’t they go in

herky-jerky movements or random

movements you say frankerz there’s a law

like gravity I know but why is there a

law like gravity and why is it so

precise and consistent it appears to be

the product of a mind not randomness in

order to do science you need consistent

natural laws that can be relied upon

fine tuned net

laws where do these laws come from and

by the way these laws affect living and

nonliving things in fact take a take an

oak tree for example where does an oak

tree come from well oak tree comes from

an acorn well how come when an egg egg

or when acorn is properly nourished it

always becomes an oak tree it doesn’t

become an elm tree or a birch tree or a

seahorse right it always becomes an oak

tree why is that well because it’s

programmed to become an oak tree yeah

but who programmed it I mean it’s an egg

corn in the ground conscious going all

right what do I need to do to become an

oak tree no it doesn’t even have a mind

yet it goes reliably in a direction if

it doesn’t have its own mind to go in a

direction

there must be an external mind directing

it toward an end that is what Aristotle

called the unmoved mover Thomas Aquinas

came along in 1200 ad and said that’s

gonna be my fifth way to argue for God

even if the universe didn’t have a

beginning it needs someone to keep

everything in motion an external

intellect that’s what we mean by God we

wouldn’t even be able to do science

unless this existed unless this orderly

natural world existed in fact sir Fred

Hoyle it was an atheist after looking at

arguments like this I don’t think he

ever became a theist or Christian don’t

get me wrong but he looked at the

fine-tuning and some of these other

arguments and here’s what he said a

common sense interpretation of the facts

suggests that a super intellect has

monkeyed with physics as well as

chemistry and biology and that there are

no blind forces were speaking about in

nature now what do we do with all of

these effects creation reason

information morality evil and science

what did they tell us well I think when

you break these down you get the

attributes of what we call God from

creation we know that the cause is

immaterial timeless and spaceless he’s

also extremely powerful to create out of

nothing from reason we know this being

is rational from information we know

he’s extremely intelligent and has

purpose from morality we know he’s

absolutely morally perfect and also

personal because you only have a moral

obligation to persons you don’t have a

moral obligation to impersonal forces

you know go if you go try and dunk a

basketball you’re not sinning against

the law of gravity

we also know that this beam from science

creates and sustains orderly natural

laws now who fits this it seems to me

that this is a theistic God identified

without reference to any religion

religious book we’re just looking at

effects and reasoning back to the cause

so I’m saying that all of these things

point back to our suspect God now if you

and this God by the way is spaceless

timeless immaterial all those attributes

I just mentioned now if you want to go

much further in this you can the book

stealing from God is back there it goes

through this in this order if you just

want the debate PowerPoint you can get

that and I want to point out that all

the proceeds from the sale the books

will go to feed needy children mine okay

just so you know and here’s my oldest

little child who’s now thirty years old

his name is Zach Turk he’s a captain in

the Air Force there he is right there

thank you he’s hungry thank you Frank

dr. Shimron will have twenty minutes now

box trimmer thank you ladies and

gentlemen brothers and sisters comrades

and friends and seekers after reality I

guess I’m here to defend reality which

is a good thing because it’s real

tonight’s debate on theism and atheism

how many of you self-identify as theist

that is you believe in God whoa look at

the time

I’m gonna jump ahead just just for a

moment while you’re in the hand-raising

mode just for a moment just indulge me

your atheists you have come decide there

is no God or you don’t believe that

there is a God can you think of any

reasons why sexually molesting a child

is wrong

okay can you think of any reasons why it

would be bad really most of you can’t

think of any reason why this is wrong of

course you can all right full stop

that’s good enough it’s wrong because of

all the reasons you’re thinking of right

now

harm to a sentient being long term

destruction of their psychological

makeup you wouldn’t want it done to you

and so forth these are good reasons

reasons to be good for goodness sake and

not be evil for goodness sake I was once

a theist as our host mentioned by the

way you referred to us as candidates I

like to thank you for your votes ahead

of time tonight you know there is an

election I mean I was serious about it I

went to Pepperdine University it’s a

Church of Christ school I was a

born-again evangelical Christian for

three years I went door-to-door Amway

with Bibles the whole thing I totally

believed and then and then I became an

atheist and I went door to door saying I

take it all back sort of reminds me of

what you get when you cross a Jehovah

Witness with an atheist is someone who

knocks on your door for no reason at all

I once saw a bumper sticker that said

militant agnostic I don’t know and you

don’t either

now it support we define our terms that

little quip has some deeper meaning in

it this term illogical meaning that is

when thomas henry huxley coining the

term agnostic in 1869 he meant not

knowable that is there are certain

things we can’t get at philosophers

today call these mysterion mysteries

they can never be resolved this is what

Huxley meant when he talked about God as

an unknowable entity not you’re waiting

for one more experiment or another data

set or a better argument and you’ll make

your decision one way or the other he

didn’t mean that nor did he mean like

when I was on The Colbert Report we were

talking about this in the green room and

and I mentioned being an agnostic at the

time and he said that’s just an atheist

without balls and I thought I don’t like

that I’m an atheist but there’s two

types of atheism

there’s weak and strong atheism strong

atheist say I believe there is no God

we Kathy assay I don’t believe in God

slight difference I don’t think the

first one is is this tenable a position

I don’t know that there is no God I’m

not sure how you would prove it would be

difficult to prove a negative in that

sense prove that something doesn’t exist

but the null hypothesis in science that

is I withhold judgment or I withhold

belief until sufficient evidence comes

in which would apply to any particular

claim then I will reserve judgment I

will remain skeptical I will not believe

in your particular claim whatever it is

Bigfoot aliens doesn’t matter until you

provide me the evidence show me the body

and I’ll believe in Bigfoot show me the

spaceship but I’ll believe in UFOs and

so on it just depends on what the the

evidence is and so lack of belief is

this different from believing there is a

lack of something now the proposition

that does atheism or theism explain

anything it’s not quite right not

believing in something or believing in

something doesn’t explain anything it’s

just saying I believe it or I don’t

believe it whatever the it is and it

also leaves out all the other positions

deism for example can explain things

there was a creator the universe set the

whole thing in motion with the laws of

nature that are teleological and create

structure and so forth

and then step back and has had no

further involvement in the process or

pantheism everything is God which is

more of a sort of a Buddhist version why

aren’t we talking about those or my

favorite apathy ism which is I don’t

care if there’s a God or not I think

these words are more proxies for

religion and science what better

explains reality religion or science the

oxford english dictionary defines

religion as the belief in and worship of

a superhuman controlling power

especially a personal god or gods but

that itself doesn’t explain anything

just believing in something or

worshipping something isn’t an

explanation you wouldn’t offer that say

if you were wondering do vaccines work

or do vaccines cause autism or does HIV

cause AIDS you know whatever the

question is you wouldn’t say well I

believe in I’m a theist so I believe in

that well what are you talking about

that doesn’t explain anything maybe what

you mean by theism or religion is God

God did it God being a in your case I

presume an all-powerful omnipotent

all-knowing omniscient and all good I’m

me benevolent entity created out of

nothing the universe and everything in

it

who is uncreated and eternal a

noncorporeal spirit who creates loves

and can grant eternal life to humans but

even that just saying well my

explanation of X whatever it is planets

gravity the universe something rather

than nothing morality consciousness you

know God did it that’s not an

explanation those are just words you’re

just plugging words into the blank the

gap anymore then like people I deal with

that or believe in psychic power

astrology ESP telepathy and so on you

know when they say well you know it’s

just magic power that happens is this

you know this ESP does it that’s not an

explanation we still want to know how

did God do it how does this ESP thing

work so for example by you mentioned

Deepak Chopra

it was a good friend of mine and Deepak

believes along with some other a couple

other scientists Roger Penrose and this

guy Stuart Hameroff anesthesiologist

that consciousness arrives arises out of

the microtubules inside neurons

microtubules of these little

infrastructures that couldn’t hold cells

together and they think that there’s

quantum effects inside these

microtubules in which there’s this kind

of spooky action at a distance in

quantum experiments that that’s real and

maybe this is something that happens

between brains so I could read your

thoughts because our neurons are

collapsing the quantum wave fields at

the simultaneous kind of synchronous to

this wave and so my neurons are firing

in synchrony with your neurons and so

we’re reading each other’s thoughts okay

I don’t believe this I’m skeptical okay

but it’s a it’s a it’s a legitimate

hypothesis that’s out there to be tested

but even if it’s true that wouldn’t be

the paranormal it would just now be the

normal it would be part of science part

of neuro neuroscience part of quantum

physics or it’s even called that quantum

consciousness okay so there’s no such

thing as the supernatural of the

paranormal it’s just the natural to

normal and the stuff we can’t explain

yet the gaps we haven’t filled there’s

lots of gaps that doesn’t mean my

particular preferred hypothesis is the

right one simply because there’s a gap

science of this stance is very

conservative because most ideas that

people come up with are wrong including

those by world-class scientists which is

why scientists start with that thing the

null hypothesis we assume your idea is

probably not right but go ahead give it

your best shot

and let’s see so most ideas and science

turn out to be wrong that’s why we’re

skeptical so in science we’re looking

Frank mentioned science and reason it’s

important to point out these aren’t

things science and reason are tools we

use to try to answer questions so the

moment you say that theism explained

science that you’re treating it like

it’s a thing like a reason is this thing

sitting up there that needed to be

created it’s not it’s more about think

of it as a verb more than a noun it’s

it’s something we do and the moment you

open your mouth to make the argument

that

reason and science can’t stand on its

own you’ve lost the argument you’ve just

used science and reason to argue that

science and reason can’t stand alone and

and if story rest my case

it’s a thing we use to answer these

questions so for example I’ll give you

just one of many we could address

according to UNICEF about 29,000

children under the age of 5 die every

day mainly from preventable causes

that’s 21 dead children each minute

that’s 10 point 6 million a year that’s

almost two Holocaust say year by the

time I finish this sentence

a couple more children will have died of

these presentable preventable diseases

about 70% of them are attributable to

diarrhea malaria neonatal infection

pneumonia preterm delivery or lack of

oxygen at birth some of these the Gates

Foundation is working to eliminate

Sciences explanation these are all

preventable causes preventable tragedies

we know the causes of them we can

eliminate the causes if we have the

right science and technology we have the

right science and technology medicine

the delivery to these poor countries is

the difficult part

what’s religions explanation how would

theism explain this and we get things

like well this is part of God’s plan or

you know God works in mysterious ways

who knows what God has in mind for these

grieving parents and these suffering

children what sort of God would make a

plan like this

this is all-knowing all-powerful all

good God maybe a less than powerful God

maybe maybe God just simple simply can’t

save these poor children no I’m not

talking about human evil like homicide

crimes genocides that you would

attribute to free will and the fall and

and bad choices I’m talking about

innocent children suffering grieving

parents just in agony for the rest of

their lives what what’s the plan there

you know Frank you talk about you know

how beautifully design

the universe is no it’s not there’s a

lot of bad things that happen and most

of the universe is not beautifully

designed for life most of the universe

is completely inhospitable to life and

most of human life all the way up until

really just recent decades has been

largely just suffering and misery it’s

just the second law of thermodynamics

and entropy running its course diseases

felling people cancer killing people

human violence and aggression war

genocides these were quite common before

just recent times now the problem with

explaining these problems these forms of

evil with theism is what I call the

irrefutable God problem when good things

happen who gets the credit God when bad

things happen who gets the blame not God

wow what a great system so no matter

what happens the god hypothesis is

confirmed what would it take to

disconfirm the god hypothesis did just

think let that just float there for a

second what would it take for you to

change your mind what would it take if

you just say you know what I think this

idea I have this theory this hypothesis

is the explanation for whatever maybe

it’s not right how can I decide what

what’s my test so if it’s that good

thing happened good things happen so God

exists and bad things happen so God

exists

what would it take to refute that it’s

irrefutable by definition it’s simply an

assertion and as the late great Chris

Phrygians said in what i elevate it to

Hitchens dictum that which can be

asserted without evidence can be

dismissed without evidence in his great

book his last regular book the demon

haunted world Carl Sagan opens up a

chapter with a little vignette there’s a

dragon in my garage

want to see it let me show you I got

this dragon

let me show me open the garage door you

look in empty floor empty paint cans a

ladder old bicycle where’s the dragon

oh you don’t you know you don’t seem

sorry this is an invisible dragon

visible dragon

yes it’s invisible well I tell you what

I have some flour we’re gonna spread

flour on the floor and we’ll catch his

footprints as he walks around well you

see this dragon hovers above the ground

about a foot so he doesn’t actually

touch the ground well that’s okay I got

some of this spray paint stuff we’ll

spray and we’ll catch the body form well

no you see nothing sticks to this dragon

but he’s a dragon so that means he

bellows out fire so he generates some

heat and I have a thermal camera and we

can detect the thermal signature of the

dragon no see this is this this is a

special dragon he’s a cold fire dragon

he spits cold fire so there’s no heat

signature you see where Carl’s going

with this what’s the difference between

an invisible hovering undetectable

dragon and no dragon at all now you

might say but but I feel the presence of

the dragon I feel his love for me I feel

like when I think about the dragon I get

a parking spot when I wouldn’t have and

I met my spouse cuz the dragons gonna

love for me and you know and the dragon

explains why bad things happen and you

know why is there a universe the dragon

brought it in to existence these are not

arguments these are special pleadings to

affirm a hypothesis you already want to

be true this is like playing baseball

without the bases or the ball we have to

have some kind of rules by which we

decide what’s true and what’s not

now the problem with faith that theists

and religionists use

is that it’s not a reliable means of

true knowledge a valid knowledge and if

you say well but but but but wait dr.

Sharat don’t you believe in love I mean

I love my spouse my spouse loves me my

boyfriend my girlfriend you know there’s

no evidence for that yeah there is

evidence you don’t have faith in that

you know what you call love without

evidence stalking we use evidence and

reason in all parts of our life if

you’re using reason you’re on the side

of science this is what we do if you’re

using faith you’re not doing science

it’s not reliable you may get the answer

by accident right but if your theory

that the cause of things in reality

cause of diseases and accidents and

plagues and so on is that late at night

women go out and cavort with demons

you’re either insane or you lived in

Christian Europe 500 years ago that was

the prevailing explanation for the

physical world a lot of it witches and

by the way parenthetically one of the

arguments for why they believed in which

is so strong is because if there’s no

witches but maybe there’s no demons and

if there’s no demons maybe there’s no

God so there’s a lot of pressure on the

church to find evidence of these witches

to support the super structure of a

supernatural world that science was

beginning to chip away of thou shalt not

suffer a witch to live Exodus 22 18

today no one in their right mind

believes this except in a few of these

third world countries where witchcraft

still exists so what what we need to do

is be able to point to something and say

look this is the evidence I have for my

claim this is the evidence this is the

arguments I bring

see see see that right there look you

can check it and you can run the

experiment and you can consider the

arguments and so forth so we have to

make a distinction between external

objective truths and internal subjective

States so for example if I say there’s

697 people in the room tonight

that’s a proposition that we can

objectively confirm or disconfirm by

simply counting if I say the greatest

rock song of all time is stairway to

heaven

and I can prove it and you say wait a

minute wait a minute of Freebird

Freebird is the greatest rock song of

all time

okay these are internal subjective

states I have an invitation go to Costa

Rica to spend a week taking ayahuasca so

I can discover this truth that everybody

who’s taken ayahuasca knows is real

there is this other spirit world that

really exists so I’ve met these people I

say show me it point to it what you got

to drink the tea and then you’ll see

like yeah but my friends that did LSD

back in the 70s they say the same thing

and we all know that’s just brain wiring

alright so this distinction I’m making

here this would be something to point to

what we’re after tonight we’re sliding

into this area where it’s internal it’s

subjective there’s no experiment we’re

gonna run it look there it is

these are simply arguments that I can’t

explain these five things something

rather than nothing

origins of life or just consciousness

origins of morality good and evil but

therefore you know God did it that

that’s again to conclude that’s not an

explanation you’re just filling in the

gap I’m gonna stick it in there well

five hundred years ago you would have

been putting in the gap women cavorting

with demons will call them witches and

burn them and that’ll take care of that

and you would have now looking back said

that was a crazy idea let’s not do that

again we’ve learned something we learned

about climate and weather and

disease vectors and plagues and things

like that their causes how did we learn

that not from theism we learned that

from science and science continues to

close those gaps and fill those

explanatory voids the aliens have come

to tell me it’s my time and with that

thank you it’s all right

thank you

[Applause]

prior to the beginning we agreed that

they would be allowed to go over a few

seconds here or there and so I turned

off my buzzer I was surprised that they

went off sorry no so at this point we’re

gonna move into what is my favorite part

of the discussion the candidates re the

debaters my other hat is politics and

Christians and things like that but so

at this point we are going to have a

15-minute cross-examination where each

debater gets 15 minutes to ask questions

to the other debater and they get to

answer it and then they switch roles

after 15 minutes and at this point you

can also throw in some rebuttal

statements in them but however I do ask

that if you do ask a question you allow

the person that you’re talking to to

answer the question before you move on

so we didn’t really decide who goes

first did any of you have a point okay

yeah I mean again it’s we’ve got about

30 minutes to dialogue so we’ll do 15

minutes primarily from Frank and then at

the end of 15 minutes I’ll just kind of

say so you can go great all right thanks

Michael question I’ll put on the board

so everyone can see if you’re a brain

evolved by an unguided unintelligent

process and all your thoughts are

completely dictated by the laws of

physics in other words you’re a moist

robot then why should we think your

thoughts are true including the thoughts

you’ve stated right here tonight okay

we’re operating at different levels here

so your tell you it would be like if you

wanted to explain water by looking at

the quantum physics in the subatomic

particles in hydrogen and oxygen atoms

how do you get water out of these

quantum these these quarks inside the

protons and neutrons of the atom you

don’t it’s a higher level explanation

yeah much like we talked about emergent

properties how do you get democracy out

of atoms we don’t you don’t use physics

to explain democracy you use political

science so we’re what we’re talking

about here is kind of different levels

explanatory levels which is one reason

why we have different fields of study to

you know think about the cause of things

and economics or psychology

or whatever so well I agree with you on

that that there are other fields of

study but if you’re a materialist unless

you’ve changed your mind all that exists

are molecules so again why should I

believe what you’re saying I’m

consciousness what could that that’s

sort of a bizarre question what do you

mean why should I believe it would be

like saying you’re made out of quarks

and so why should I believe you

what does quarks or atoms got to do with

anything because if I if we’re

controlled by the laws of physics

including our thoughts why should we

expect our thoughts to be true okay I’m

a compatibilist so I believe that we

have volition and free will how well

okay so it has to do with emergent

property of complex systems so you and I

have more degrees of freedom than a dog

dog has more degrees of freedom what by

degrees our freedom I mean places to

move choices to make

so rats make choices I’ll press the left

bar or the right bar I’ll go down this

alley that alleyway Dover those are

choices rats make them dogs make them we

make them and and we have more choices

more degrees of freedom than say rats

then say cockroaches okay so like what

would be the difference between a drug

addict hooked on oxycontin and you and I

who are not you know you and I don’t are

not under that sway but this the poor

addict is there’s a difference there of

degrees of freedom okay so I would I

would answer it that way that it’s it’s

kind of different levels of how many

controlling vectors are at work do you

believe the laws of logic exist well

okay not without humans to describe them

okay let me ask you this then yeah

you’re saying the laws of logics are

just human constructions correct

well okay two things one there is a

reality that really exists so we can

measure that the angle here you know to

a bats brain or you know it may look

different then then on my brain but

there really is a table and it really

exists even if I can’t ever know what

it’s like to be a bat and know what it

feels like to experience a table through

echolocation rather than touch or sight

but still that really exists of the laws

of nature that we describe and interpret

with mathematics and words

those are human constructions there’s no

like second law of thermodynamics or or

a Newtonian equation in a star a star is

just doing what stars do when they get a

certain pressure and temperature they

convert hydrogen into helium I mean let

me let me just ask you this and you send

a human constructions then so let me ask

you this before there are any human

beings on the earth was the statement

there are no human beings on the earth

true yes okay well then how could the

laws of logic just be human

constructions then well but we’re asking

that today regardless of where answers

no humans there’s no one asking the

question but it was still Joe prior to

that how how could you and I even

communicate if you had your own idea of

the laws of logic and I had my own idea

how could we even communicate unless

we’re we because there is a reality and

we share a common neural anatomy to

describe it in ways that are similar so

this could set the problem of other

minds how do I know you’re read looks

like my read okay these head scratchers

that you get in philosophy 101 how do I

know that you’re not all a bunch of

zombies and I’m the only one with the

lights on okay look if my answer to this

is the Copernican principle which says

we’re not special if this theraph is not

the center of the universe you know that

we go around this time with all the

other plant we’re not special we’re just

a little corner of the gallic Milky Way

galaxy one of 100 billion galaxies we’re

not special so the chances of me be the

super special one human that’s conscious

and self-aware and the rest of you or

zombies walking around and you only look

like your matenda ng to be conscious is

very low so that that’s how right but

you’re still not answering how these

laws exist because they exist even if

human beings don’t exist

the laws exist in the mind of God

otherwise you and I couldn’t even

communicate okay okay so first of all

they exist in the mind the mind I’ve got

that that doesn’t follow from this at

all that’s a separate assertion we can

come back to that when we talk about

that what you just said there is an

assertion and you’re using the laws of

logic to say it if the laws of logic

aren’t objective that statement couldn’t

be true first of all okay so deca

first of all it’s not true that there

has to be a god or else that why would

God make two laws any special what’s God

got to do with the laws of nature

nothing

you’re just saying well that’s well

that’s the very point though I’m not

talking about laws of nature I’m talking

about the laws of logic but you want to

talk about the laws of nature those are

just words we’re using conventions

mathematical equations those are all

human comes Michael I know you’re not a

postmodernist please there just were no

no they’re describing truths yeah but

okay yep but okay the equation again

back I’m skeptical you’re a

postmodernist they say say Newtonian

equations they don’t exist in the Sun

the sun’s just doing with the Sun it’s

just physical matter doing what it has

to do we described it so before there

were humans no there was no the Sun was

not burning before there’s no love no

the Sun of course is burning doing its

thing but there’s no law there’s no

Newtonian equation to describe it well

did it there’s no de tournay equation to

describe it in our minds because we’re

not here yet but that Newtonian equation

is still not described being the truth

of what was happening no not the

equation well the equation describes

what happens the equation doesn’t do the

work the equation is our way of of

describing how it works right okay but

that that existed prior to you and me

ever existing the Sun was burning before

you and I ever existed okay I think

we’re let me move on to another question

okay talk about two different things

here we’re talking about the material

reality of stuff that exists and then

our description of it like well you

you’re going with emergent properties

which appears to be a faith position

anyway let me ask you this if God does

not exist only molecules exist what is

the nature of the moral standard called

goodness and why are we obligated to

obey it what is that little ruler if

it’s not God’s nature okay back to where

I started Frank can you think of any

reason why sexually molesting a child is

bad I can think of yes I can think of

reasons but they’re all based on moral

principles which require God no they

don’t sure they don’t really do you

really need God to tell you and explain

to you why it’s wrong ss no not to tell

me why it’s wrong but you don’t need God

to know right and wrong you don’t need

God to be good you just need God to

justify what it is nope what right there

it stopped right there and lean out to

God

I know why it’s wrong full-stop you know

why it’s wrong but why is it wrong so

independent of you knowing it so Plato

refuted this two and a half millennia

ago it’s called the Euthyphro problem

whether you throw dilemma that is if God

says say murder is wrong although

technically by definition that’s what

murder means wrongful killing it but any

case if are the reasons why God is

saying that yes God has his reasons okay

give us the reasons made in the image of

God and skip the middleman all we need

are the reasons why but you see that

that implies a moral principle when you

like before you said the reason you

shouldn’t sexually molest a child is

because they’re sentient beings and you

wouldn’t want them doing it to you or

vice versa or whatever those are all

other moral principles that need a

source what is the source on atheists

the source what is the standard leave

atheism out of it atheism isn’t anything

it’s just lack of belief in God . we

could talk about civil rights civil

liberties the rule of law where the

rights conventions we okay I think

rights come from the basis of it is

human nature and what all of us want now

I think we’re born with an inherent

innate sense of right and wrong we know

from research like in Paul blooms lab at

Yale for example with tiny infants these

are like six months to a year old babies

and they are showing a little puppet

show

so imagine there’s this ramp and this

puppets pushing this ball up the ramp

and one puppet comes up and bashes the

ball back down and it’s fighting a

little the puppet and then this is a

great experiment okay make it an

argument for I’m not disagreeing that we

all know right from wrong that’s not my

point my point is not epistemology how

do you know right from wrong my point is

what is rightness on an atheistic

materialistic worldview on a humanist

worldview right and wrong is determined

by a combination of our innate moral

sense our upbringing what our parents

teach us our family our social

communities and so on which by the way

have changed a lot you guys would have

been in favor of burning witches and

enslaving Blacks centuries ago you don’t

believe that anymore

maybe fifty years ago most of you would

have voted probably about 90% would have

voted that blacks and whites getting

married should be illegal it’s not God’s

plan God separated the races by

continents these were arguments made in

the 20th century okay nobody here would

argue that today Michael you’re both a

marriage most of you were probably

against this I contend probably half of

you tonight are already in favor of it

or at least let it happen in ten years

we won’t even be talking about gay

Michael why are any right is wrong right

and wrong shifts over time and it

doesn’t come from religion doesn’t come

from the Bible

there’s no reinterpretation of when Paul

said this he really meant gays should

get married no that’s not how moral

change happens it’s not happening

through religion I’m not talking about

moral change I’m talking about the

grounding of morality we if we’re just

molecules well then if we do it then

who’s to say Hitler was worse than

Mother Teresa who’s to say that that

that if there’s no standard beyond

either of them how can you say Hitler

was wrong can you think of any reason

why Hitler was worse than Mother Teresa

if you say because he killed people then

you just brought another moral principle

and it’s wrong to kill people why is it

wrong to kill be about the survival and

flourishing of sentient beings is a good

and the more of we promote that and do

it that’s good

Harvey Hitler says my bad Michael Hitler

says no Hitler wants to flourish his

sentient beans not you yes why is he

wrong so he was wrong because it’s going

violating the sense that every

autonomous person has of a desire to

live and fulfill their destiny why is

that a moral principle we ought to obey

we’re born with it we’re born knowing it

but why should we obey it we get it from

like for example our constitutions that

we write and we say this is what we’re

going to do and we’re going in so if we

write a constitution that says gay

marriage is bad you’re for that

no no oh okay so there’s a standard

outside the Constitution you want to

impose on it based on our nature yes

it’s it comes inherent with the species

we’re born with a sense of a desire for

life freedom and autonomy which is why

women have been fighting against the

church for 2,000 years to have

reproductive rights freedom from

oppression from males and so forth

and we have all

bending to this because women say that’s

what we want unless it’s something we

want because we’re born unless the woman

is in the womb okay now let’s let’s talk

right for a second let me let me go to a

new subject no no no no wait wait wait

wait no no your that time Mike brought

it up I should I and hear me would it be

immoral for me to stop you it it might

be a good time to to use Bill Maher’s

line that Republicans are pro-choice all

the way up to the time where their

mistress gets pregnant and also

conservatives seem to be pro-life all

the way up until birth and then after

that just war it’s perfectly okay to

kill innocent civilians in Iraq it’s

perfectly okay to put to death people on

death row you’ve already argued that

it’s justifiable to kill certain people

even innocent people do to some other

cause alright so you we’re already on

the same page no no no no Michael what

you just brought up there’s a difference

between the innocent child in the womb

and a guilty murderer on without an

innocent civilian in Iraq that we bomb

using vitro that’s why we try and

minimize those because you know that

person was valuable okay let me go on to

final question only got three minutes

left

what does dialogue frame we don’t have

to all right but I want you I want you

to put me on the spot what blind natural

laws can create computer code billions

of letters long okay first of all you

were wrong about that business about DNA

it’s perfect there’s not a single what

no there could be mutations in it it’s

not not just mutations 8% of our DNA is

viral DNA this is called lateral gene

transfer it was discovered in the 60s

and 70s there’s a new book out called

the tangled web tangled tree

David qualm and I just had him on my

podcast last week he talks about all the

new research on this eight since the

human genome project eight percent of

our genome is viral how did it get there

it came there from viruses

two-and-a-half percent of our genome of

everybody who’s not in Africa does not

have an African origin is neanderthal

give me the explanation the theists

explanation for why God put Neanderthal

DNA two-and-a-half percent in our genome

what’s the purpose of that

I don’t know what the purpose is because

I’m not a biologist but my question to

you is no purpose is the DNA a computer

program or not okay

these analogies we use it’s not a

computer program this is just a metaphor

we use to try to understand no it’s not

a metaphor it’s it’s one-to-one

correspondence it’s like computer code

you can ask the moderator right here but

you’re just a neutral even though I am

an engineer yes okay but really Frank I

mean we can switch over now it’s your

turn put them on the spot there Michael

the aliens of aliens are here again what

I’m not following you Frank so for

example from your beginning points how

you’re deriving that there must be a

single personal creator who cares about

me from the fact that the gravitational

laws are a certain way I haven’t gotten

there completely yet because this is

just the ISM yeah could it be a

committee of gods it could be two or

three or a dozen could be like a like a

Board of Directors no it can’t for a

couple of reasons although you look at

the Platypus you might think so well but

I mean but I mean deism could be that

could be it God sent him the hole right

you’re right yeah and runs the show it

could be deism but I think when you go

further you realize that God has

intervened in the world since the

beginning but back to your point one

argument which I didn’t bring up is the

idea that the that everything that

exists materially is composed and it

needs to be composed by an external

force now the force that composes the

universe and composes matter can’t be

composed itself because then that being

would need a composer as well yeah so

what you’re getting back to is an

immaterial spaceless timeless composer

that is pure actuality no potentiality

that

being is is isn’t composed at all it’s

spaceless timeless any material who

created only be one of the timeless bean

if you’re timeless do you have a

beginning no yeah of course

look if you’re if you’re the mummy say

that again if you’re timeless you have a

beginning you can how you’re not in time

so now you’re depending on the laws of

logic that are failing because first of

all we don’t know of anything that came

from nothing

there’s no example of this at all for

example quantum physicists tell us that

the things that are bouncing off all of

us right now photons of light they come

from the inside of atoms they’re not in

the atoms they’re not sitting there

waiting to burst out they pop out of the

atoms out of nothing out of the quantum

foam okay you’ve quoted Stephen Hawking

quite a bit Hawking’s point was that not

that the universe comes from nothing

that there’s not this like creation

event from nothing when physicists talk

about nothing

they don’t mean what theologians mean

they mean there’s there’s this quantum

energy field out of which things pop

from just the pure energy we know of no

nothing okay this is a this is one of

these linguistic epistemological walls I

mentioned that we’re going to hit we

can’t conceive of nothing it’s not

possible for any human brain to conceive

of not sure it is that’s what most don’t

think about thing no thing see the word

itself no thing implies there’s a thing

of which there’s no there’s that would

not even be nothing it would be like my

asking you imagine yourself dead you

can’t do it because to imagine something

you have to be alive Michael don’t go

don’t go Lawrence Krauss on me I mean

come on everything even even even

atheists there’s no visible if I say if

I say I had nothing for lunch that means

I had no thing for lunch I didn’t eat

lunch it doesn’t mean I had something

called nothing okay

again we don’t know anything about what

the universe was like at the very

beginning as far as we know it could be

an infinite universe going all the way

back not a beginning infinitely long ago

that the Big Bang creation from the

singularity point was itself just on the

continuum of there’s always been

something by which I mean the nothing of

quantum energy all right let me okay

so again we’re hitting a wall here I’m

not saying I know what was there before

nobody knows and we can never know as

long as we’re in this universe what was

there before our universe it’s just as

possible that there were multiple

universes and by this I don’t mean you

know multiple universes now I mean a

sequence of these from which for example

a collapsing black hole that collapses

into a singularity point which is with

Stephen Hawking’s great breakthrough for

his PhD thesis was that maybe this is

how the universe started was a

collapsing something like a collapsing

black hole singularity point it’s

entirely possible this is pure science

fiction at the moment that super

advanced extraterrestrials could

engineer a solar system in a star to

collapse into a black hole and create a

universe you could have multiple bubble

universes popping in and out Michael

this is a simple engineering for what

would you call a beam that could create

a universe out of a black hole Michael

you’re supposed to be the scientist you

would call that God my my I’m claiming

that any sufficiently advanced

extraterrestrial would be

indistinguishable from the God you

believe in you are you are you are

coming up with a lot of speculations

with no evidence as our you know you

have no evidence of this God all’s you

have mo show you I have a gap

I can’t exceed C naught I have God it’s

not a gap well I’m losing you from what

we don’t know a reasoning front we do

know if space matter in time had a

beginning the cause must be spaceless

timeless and immaterial know what that

does not [ __ ] what is it oh no no let me

give you some of these thought expenses

here’s a guy I just made these up here’s

the paradox of perfection of God exists

then he’s perfect if God exists he is

the creator of the universe perfect

beings must create perfect things the

universe is not perfect there’s

no God okay solid logic good arguments

fallacious that’s the kind of stuff that

all of these arguments are no it’s

fallacious – and then yes and then none

of those follow from the points just to

find what you mean by perfect well

that’s right you define it cuz I can

tell we don’t have a perfect when you’re

when you’re talking about a world

constrained by physical constraints

there’s no such thing as perfect design

what engineers like Neil do is they find

design that fits their purpose like this

iPhone I unfortunately have to recharge

every two hours now they could have they

could have made the iPhone a lot bigger

but if they did I’d be lugging it around

like a suitcase you need to get the five

whatever the point here is is that the

engineers have to trade-off between size

and portability and battery life so

there is no perfect design unless you

know what the intention of the designer

is so so there’s the analogy there is

phone is fallacious or that statement

you said but let me just ask you this

this an important point here all right

up here

you see you see right here is today

there’s yesterday there’s the day before

yesterday

there’s last week let’s say we don’t

know how far back this line goes the

time line question is can this line be

infinite into the past this would imply

if that’s true that not that it had no

beginning that there was no beginning

infinitely long ago the Big Bang would

just be the latest beginning of this

universe there could be multiple bangs

it could be multiple universes going all

the way back this would be like arguing

there had to be a finite beginning or

else we wouldn’t be here tonight okay no

matter what would happen you’d end up

with this finite beginning but let me

ask you this okay so on the design

question since you had the timeline up

there so we now know the universe is

13.8 billion years old and humans are

roughly about a hundred thousand years

old Christianity began about 2,000 years

ago what was God doing that 99.9

9% of all that time what you know if

this is all beautifully designed and

elegantly and teleological and

purposeful and it’s all here for us so

that we would be here boom here we are

why the thirteen point seven eight eight

nine billion years of nothing and then I

think I’ll send my son to this desert

place in this Bronze Age culture where

no one can write and I’ll give them the

message well what’s the purple all that

time Agustin actually answered that

question he said he was creating hell

for people who asked questions I’m

telling you my best friends are gonna be

there hitches say you know obviously

would be great and I should come it’s

gonna be party time now Michael god

that’s a serious question though really

cuz if you’re if you’re building us into

it as something purposeful I realize you

didn’t go there with your organ

different arguments that’s okay how do

you get to Christianity that you know

Jesus died for us with thirteen point

seven eight eight billion years of

nothing and then I think I’ll come in

now well you could read a book by you

Ross which deals with that question

directly I have not read it myself I

just said him on the radio program but I

will say this that that God sacrifices

retroactively in fact Hitchens asked

this of me in the first debate we had he

said what was God doing for all that

time and and he Hitchens didn’t seem to

realize that Christ’s sacrifice was

retroactive to everything that happened

before him so people that lived before

him were still saved by his sacrifice so

when God came working through free

creatures a lot of people say he came

2,000 years ago because you had a

relative time of peace with a Roman

Empire that build a road system and a

language Koine Greek that was all around

the known world at the time it was the

perfect time for God to come and spread

this message through people around the

ancient world did he did he die for the

Neanderthals too

yes if in fact there were naen Turtles

who had the capacity to make moral

decisions how about Homo erectus

slightly smaller brains if in fact that

was a human a human being yeah not

they’re not humans they’re a different

species of hominid how about

australopithecine little Lucy with the

little you know single tight sort of

chip sized brain so in other words

there’s

Christ’s sacrifice comes a dog does my

dog gets saved you see where I’m going

yes it’s all to go to heaven but cats

don’t clearly come on here here we we

have agreement on this I will concede

the point let the record show there is

agreement that nnn-no I love cats they

taste like chicken

this is devolved I’m sorry he believes

in evolution I’m D evolution nobody’s

ever going to invite me to be a

moderator again huh or at least for the

political candidates coming up how about

Frank how about not just time what was

God doing for 13.8 billion years but but

space I mean we now know that there’s

roughly several hundred billion galaxies

each of which contain several hundred

billion stars and now looks like pretty

much every star has half a dozen to a

dozen planets if not more and moons and

saunch what about all those what’s

what’s the purpose of all that other

stuff if we’re supposed to be the focus

just one little third Rock from the Sun

in this tiny little corner of the galaxy

what well fly all that but that hasn’t

been revealed to us if there are other

life-forms out there but all those

life-forms I should say all that space

out there actually demonstrates the

majesty of God I mean if if the clouds

ended at the cloud tops or if the

heavens ended at the cloud tops would go

hey what’s the big deal

but when you see stars equivalent to

grains of sand on all the beaches on all

the earth spread out there that would

take us over 200 thousand years at Space

Shuttle seed to go between that speed to

go between them you realize the majesty

of God this is why both the old and the

New Testaments say the heavens declare

the glory of God in fact and in Isaiah

chapter 40

and I and in Isaiah chapter 40 Michael

where am i God God is speaking and says

to whom will you compare me or who is my

equal says the Holy One he says in other

words you want to comparison here’s what

he says lift your eyes and look to the

heavens who created all these stars and

named them one by one because of his

great strength and mighty power not one

of them is missing how do you know that

the Christian religion is the right one

how much time you getting you know for

example for example there’s a billion

Muslims who are absolutely certain

you’re going to hell because you chose

the wrong religion and they speak with

as much conviction they have great

arguments and so on but for that matter

my you know Jewish friends and rabbis

they don’t accept Jesus as their Savior

they believe the same God the same book

at least the first part of the book new

Bible and they know the arguments you

know for the resurrection the way

witnesses the missing the empty tooth

they know all those arguments and they

go nope I don’t believe it so it’s

interesting to me from a scientists

perspective that you get so much

diversity over such a long period of

time and there’s no convergence toward

yep that’s the right one like in science

like Big Bang Theory versus steady-state

cosmology that was debated for a couple

decades Big Bang Theory eventually not

the TV show the real theory one out

because there was more evidence for it

or you know just pick any scientific

debate think it’s kind of scattered shot

for a few decades and then it starts to

narrowly focus and then there’s a

convergence and a consensus that’s the

one these other ones are probably not

true the thing that’s curious to me

about religion is that you get this sort

of smattering this is our laughter life

and this is the afterlife now this is

the afterlife well which is the right

one well they’re all true or not all

true nobody’s gonna say that all true

but what’s your standard of objective

standard say well we know that’s the

right one because look I can point to it

and when you point to it why don’t the

Muslims go oh because it’s not a process

of chemistry that you’d have to be an

atheist to believe in the process of

chemistry that gives you all your

thoughts we don’t it’s it’s there’s a

freewill involved in fact the way I

show that Christianity is true I go

through the evidence that truth exists

God exists miracles are possible and the

New Testament documents are telling us

the truth about the resurrection because

if Jesus rose from the dead then

whatever he teaches is true because he’s

God so I I just have a personal policy

if somebody rises from the dead I just

believe whatever they say okay now well

Michael Michael

you wanna point out in India there’s a

god man named sai baba he’s dead now but

he had millions of followers he could

raise the dead he said he came back from

the dead he could perform miracles

millions of people believed it looks

like you don’t believe in Sai Baba

sometimes people are deceived but let’s

run a very quick experiment here what

wait stop right there sometimes we are

right yeah we can be self to see I think

we’ve just witnessed it tonight okay

and I rest my case no Michael we are

going to do a short experiment here this

is for the Christians in the room

Christians I want to ask you guys the

question I want you to think of somebody

you know who’s not a Christian whom

you’d like to be a Christian everybody

got somebody friend relative okay next

question am i one of them they’re

thinking about you Michael next question

is the person you’re thinking of on a

relentless pursuit of truth they want to

know if Christianity is true or not or

are they apathetic or maybe even hostile

how many say the person I’m thinking of

is on a relentless pursuit of truth a

hand and a half how many people say the

person I’m thinking of is apathetic or

hostile yeah there you go there’s the

answer free will they don’t want it to

be true most people are not on a truth

quest around a hapless question if my

friend Andy Stanley says you’re saying

this about Orthodox Jews they don’t want

to know what the truth I don’t know what

each individual person is there are a

deeply religious as you okay

they don’t accept Jesus is your Savior

okay so what I’m saying is these are

from real my pains of quest people have

free will okay they have free will they

choose not to believe Jesus was the

Messiah they even believe that there is

a messiah just hasn’t come yet mm-hmm

that’s pretty close mm-hmm I mean you

gotta let a man for that right

hey it’s no but last couple of seconds

to go ahead we go to QA so let’s do this

now we’re gonna go right to QA we’re

gonna have two lines here and remember

as we go to the questions it’s one line

because we only have one line but two

lines

oh I see that way we can go to we can

each question each candidate sorry yeah

each debater can get one question and

then we’ll go to the next one so we’re

gonna have two lines here we’ll have the

line for dr. Schurman on the right line

for dr. Turk on my left my left I don’t

know right here they’re both right next

to each other right here so if you’re

for dot if you want to ask a question

for dr. shimmer go on this side of the

microphone you wanna have question for

dr. Turek on the other side of the

microphone

that way we can either interchange

between the two and here’s the rules you

know preaching no no long diatribes just

a straight question if you need to set

up the question you have 30 seconds for

your question and at which point each of

them will have the person you asked and

please tell us who you’re asking the

question to that person will have two

minutes and then the other person will

have a minute to respond go ahead and

your athlete tells your name to please

my truck all right hi the camera has to

be set in place sure so again two lines

so I know who is who

so dr. Shermer questions on the right of

the microphone dr. Turek on the left of

the microphone my left my left

am i confusing you all Turek on his side

Shermer on his side i was that when the

cameraman gives us the go-ahead you guys

can talk while we’re doing that are you

going to take a break

are we ready hey come on Clint we ready

okay okay go ahead please your name

first oh he needs to get to the back too

in the meantime you can pray for my soul

yeah

this allows us to broadcast this on the

Internet so that’s why we’re taking this

time are we good to go chat tell a joke

well so so was this uh there was this

guy on a desert island and he’d been

there for like five years and finally he

got rescued and when they came to rescue

him they’re hanging from the helicopter

the rescuer said this is my wife’s joke

by the way she says it much better the

rescuer said when we you know we saw all

these we saw a few of these huts on

their island what were they says well

one was my house he goes oh great

what was the other one right next to

your first your house he said oh that

was the church that was my church

Oh oh that’s nice and then he said well

what was the other Hut over there and

the guys get this really sad look in his

face he’s got an angry-looking face it

goes that was the church I went to

before

are we ready

okay go hi I’m Kevin disease and my

question is to doctor Trek actually

before I came here I was watching your

debate with Hitchens some years ago

before and Russ is resting his peace

wrestle but he said something to which I

didn’t think you had a chance to

necessarily respond to so he said if if

Jesus he said could be possible to trace

back the birth that there could be some

type of immaculate conception but even

if we were we were to be able to do that

that would improve the proposition that

any of this moral teachings were correct

or that we should technically listen to

anything he has to say on the subject of

morality or doesn’t prove the doctrine

of Christianity and my second part of

the question starts a very quick

bilateral given every religious claim on

offer given every doctrine profess or

confection

every assumed as if every believer

should expect damnation as a matter of

mere probability given profession of

belief for how sincerely or seriously

they hold their belief so why would any

any deity want credulity running on

their hardware rather than any any other

moral behaviors I mean if I’m if I’m

understanding the second part of this

question why would why would a Christian

God want credulity as why would a

Christian God want what credulity why

would he want worship and any sense to

be he doesn’t need worship he’s an

infinite being we get the benefit of

worship repet you ha and that’s right

just like you would be jealous if your

wife was dating somebody else rightfully

so but I’ve known people that got over

jealousy I would think a God could do

better than that no jealousy is a good

virtue if it’s properly directed you

should be jealous if your wife’s dating

somebody else right why would God be

like that because He loves us because he

doesn’t want us going to idols or other

other gods he wants to ensure that we

get the benefits of knowing him that’s

why we’re here so God just doesn’t want

intellectual assent even James the

half-brother of Jesus who wrote that

little book and the New Testament called

James thank you even he said even the

demons believe that God exists but they

trembled they don’t trust in him and the

reason they don’t trust in him is they

don’t want to right but sorry actually

is one more thing

how can you sorry sorry guys um how can

you prove the truth of the Christian

doctrine given every other claim of any

other religion or any other book well

I’ve got a minute but my books are very

the be an atheist is what goes into that

okay now proof depends what you mean by

prove I think it’s true beyond a

reasonable doubt could I be wrong of

course okay okay um question for dr.

Shermer next well he can respond to

Michael yeah let’s hear from this young

man over there I mean I agree with the

first question I mean what’s this whole

business about I gotta have them believe

in me this is like a barely better than

a Greek god that gets angry and jealous

and I mean if there’s a God he can’t be

like us that’s just you know full of

emotions and all these flaws come on

right it’s called an impossibility so my

question is how if the second law of

thermodynamics is true then how can

evolution also be true because it makes

things DK over time so it cannot be go

from simple to bigger and better yep

very good we have a budding physicist

here

this is actually a very old kind of

old-style creationist argument that

intelligent design creationists don’t

use anymore because the the second law

of thermodynamics only applies to closed

systems in which the sources of energy

are fixed and then they run down in an

open system like the Sun providing

energy to us or in the case a smaller

fraction of our energy comes from the

core of the earth that’s energy put into

the system you put energy in the system

it drives complexity so for example you

can put your coffee into the microwave

and heat it up that’s putting an energy

system into into the cup into the coffee

so the second law of thermodynamics was

initially discovered just as a theory of

heat dissipation and how it happened so

and and it’s there’s really nothing

magical about it it’s like there’s just

more ways for say grains of sand to kind

of fall into this gruel of uniformity

versus say a sandcastle which requires

some effort and energy to put into it

and then gets washed away and so on so

it’s just the number of ways things

could be and how much energy it takes to

put into it so evolution starts with the

premise that there’s energy being put

into the system now the whole universe

of ultimately is running down the heat

death of the universe will come about

not in your lifetime fortunately and but

but when that happens then of course

there’s no evolution cannot gain

information which is the whole theory of

evolution they’re gaining information

yes that’s right this is really a good

question the the information increase in

genomes is trackable both in the fossil

record through the phenotype or the

morphology of the what genes do they

make bodies but also now thanks to the

human genome project and all the DNA

sequencing we’ve had over the last 50

years or so we can track back I

mentioned that 8 percent of our genome

is viral due to this lateral gene

transfer so when viruses get into the

human body they can

but viruses are but not exactly living

organisms are sort of halfway between

nonliving organic inorganic organisms

they inject their DNA into our cells and

that that can then be adopted throughout

the whole body and then they get passed

on to your offspring so it’s it’s a kind

of a non Darwinian or do Darwinian

mechanism of gene transfer but that also

increases the information load of the

genome so for example you and I are all

made out of what are called eukaryotic

cells these have a little carry out is

the little nucleus of the cell where our

DNA is stored but we also have these

little things called mitochondria these

are the little energy systems inside the

cell mitochondria also have DNA and it

was discovered by the great late great

lynn margulis and MIT biologists through

her theory that she called endo

symbiosis that those little mitochondria

were themselves once much simpler living

organisms by themselves that then got

through this sort of cooperative process

incorporated into the cells that became

larger and larger the little cilia that

you see these little these little sort

of threads that hang off cells and swirl

around and push cells around to

something the size of a cell water is

like syrup you got to really push to go

through it so they got to have something

to propel them along those little

spirochetes those themselves were once

individual cells so you start adding

these things up each of them have their

own DNA the DNA becomes more and more

complex information increases scales up

very dramatically over long periods of

time but quickly what Michael said is

right about the first part where he said

that once you have a living thing then

it can take energy from the outside the

hardest problem for natural ists and

atheists is where did the first living

thing come from and the information

you’re talking about is not enough to

build a new body plan because even if

you have new DNA in there you need

epigenetic information which is the

structure of the cell and you can’t get

that through mutating DNA that’s why the

Royal Society out there in the UK in

November of 2016

had a meeting about why the current

theory of neo Darwinian evolution is on

the ropes

these are the atheists saying this what

is your explanation for where body plans

come from g.od okay let’s go to the not

an explanation it’s just why is it not

an explanation if God exists why is it

not an explanation you’re ruling it out

in advance such a thorough self-doubt

presupposition say in 10 years

biologists have all agreed yeah that’s

the explanation for body plant we come

back and you go yeah of course

course science can explain it I’m

talking about this gap right because

we’re God the reason is because natural

laws have not demonstrated the ability

to create new body plants that’s the

problem

body plans actually had we have positive

evidence that body plants include an

epigenetic information and and more DNA

are required which means you need an

intelligent being to infuse that into

the system okay what I described happens

naturally you just put energy and nature

is caused by whoo all right sorry we

want to give other people a chance thank

you good [ __ ] but you’re awfully hey

great question hey Matteo okay why don’t

you come up here you’re better tonight

okay go ahead question for dr. Turk

thanks thanks a lot and really praise

your name please – Oh Dave Adler and I’m

a physicist

and some of my best friends are

evangelical Christians and I’m always

jealous of their faith okay so I spent a

lot of time thinking about God and how I

can reconcile it with physics and so I

think tonight you presented what seem to

be opposing views and on God and my

question for you is is this really is it

a problem for you if somebody doesn’t

believe in God or doesn’t believe in

Jesus specifically and if they have a

different belief why do you feel that

yours is right and theirs is wrong well

I think there’s evidence and if someone

were to say like Michael believes his

views right why is he up here debating

it if he doesn’t think it’s right right

he thinks it’s right – the question

isn’t whether or not we have different

positions the question is which position

is

through and if Christianity is true as

CS Lewis said it’s the most important

fact in the universe it what it can’t be

is just moderately important but don’t

you

is there a truth beyond science that

cannot be proven yeah in fact that truth

right there that there’s trues beyond

Sciences and a scientific truth you

can’t get all your truth through science

people who say all truth comes from

science well that truth doesn’t come

from science it’s a self-defeating

proposition so if there’s a conflict

between science and your religion if

they disagree then do you pick your

religion because you believe it and know

it to be true

give me a particular example because

according to Christianity we believe in

two types of Revelation general

revelation which is the natural world

which includes our ability to do science

plus special revelation which is the

Bible and those two if they’re both true

they don’t contradict okay now there are

there are places where we might think

that they contradict at this point what

do we do we keep doing research just

like we as Michael keeps doing research

in the scientific world Christians are

still doing research in the scientific

world to see how it lines up with the

scriptures and sometimes we have answers

sometimes we don’t you want to respond

to that yes so there is a pretty popular

American religion embraced by millions

of Americans that believes there were

latter-day saints in fact one of them

lived in Palmyra New York and he was

visited one night by an angel who told

them about was the main guy he told him

about these gold plates that were buried

in his backyard and he dug him up and he

put his hat in his head inside this hat

that was filled with these magic stones

and he read those gold plates that were

written in the Egyptian hieroglyphics

and translated them and wrote them down

and he had by witnesses to this who all

signed an affidavit on the first page at

the Book of Mormon and said I was there

I saw it happen why don’t you believe

that because the evidence isn’t there

and I can make by the way I can make

golden plates in my garage that’s

a miracle well secondly all the

witnesses or most of the witnesses

anyway recanted and thirdly Joseph

Joseph Smith’s case hang on hang on

please me ma’am

Joseph she’s right Joseph Smith’s

translation of the Book of Abraham was

found to be a forgery now I’m not saying

Mormons aren’t nice people don’t get me

wrong I just don’t think the evidence is

there for the claims of Joseph Smith

let’s go to the next question

do you have a question for dr. Schauer

yeah okay great the kids seem to love

putting you on the spot according to

evolution

people are just pointless because they

happen my chance but then why is harm

wrong if it happens to things that are

just pointless good question I call this

alvey’s error LV is LV singer Woody

Allen’s character in Annie Hall and

woody has a flashback if you recall in

the beginning of the film where he’s a

young child about your age and he

doesn’t want to do his homework anymore

so his mom takes him to a psychiatrist

Alvie why won’t you do your homework

anymore the universe is expanding the

universe is expanding yes the universe

is expanding and eventually it’s all

gonna blow up so there’s no point in

doing any of this I’m not doing my

homework and his mother says what’s the

universe got to do with it we live in

Brooklyn

Brooklyn’s not expanding the point is

that we’re talking about different

levels of analysis

yes we’re made of atoms everything is

made of atoms and molecules and DNA so

chemical chemical we’re just chemicals

we’re just a bag of chemical unique

could phrase it that way that’s it

that’s it’s a certain level of analysis

but we’re so much more than that

you know we’re capable of all these just

amazing things including finding purpose

and meaning in life through each other

it doesn’t matter if there’s a hereafter

we live here and now we care about each

other we love each other we we have

purpose in interacting with

each other that’s very human and that’s

very valuable whether or not there is

some outside source to validate it

really doesn’t matter you should just be

good for goodness sake Frank yeah well I

think we went through that for ad

nauseam before but so let’s go to the

next question it’s a great folks if you

could just ask one question let me let

me just say agree with Michael that you

can make your own subjective meaning but

there’s no overarching meaning if God

doesn’t exist and there’s no good if God

doesn’t exist even for dr. Turk yes sir

and by the way we only have about ten

more minutes so we probably won’t get

two more sir what’s your name hello dr.

Turk Frederick and so you said God is

required to explain justice God is

required God is required to explain

justice and I want to ask you is God

still just if Jessica’s abuser needs

only to believe and repent and then he

will see Jessica and her father in

heaven and we’ll never pay for his

crimes

okay yes God is a God of justice it’s

axle until so a God of love and that’s

why Christ had to come the the accuser

or the the person that committed the

crime isn’t taking the punishment on

himself Jesus is that’s that’s why it

and it’s it’s not fair you’re right it’s

grace it’s not supposed to be justice

here’s the problem though not just

somebody who has done an awful crime

like this every person in this room if

you asked for justice and got it you

wouldn’t like it neither would I

I don’t want justice I want grace so you

said him not going to jail in this life

is not just it’s just as not being

served yet if you go repents he’ll never

even pay in hell well he’ll get an

eternal reward is that right he will no

he will lose his rewards this is

Christian theology you will lose reward

he believes and repents if he does

believe in repent he will still lose

rewards in heaven yes he will lose

rewards he will make it to heaven

because Christ has has paid his sin for

him is heaven not unalloyed bliss is

heaven not what is heaven not unalloyed

bliss for eternity

is heaven not pure unalloyed bliss there

is a hierarchy of rewards in heaven just

like there’s a hierarchy of punishment

in hell how do you know all this from

the scriptures you ever hear of them

it’s in there I don’t ask question for

me why do you have a quick room real

rebuttal for the our response well I

mean this is this is the ultimate one of

the ultimate reasons why people well you

know want to believe in God is so that

there’s some sort of cosmic justice as

if Hitler couldn’t have gotten away with

he didn’t get away you know okay you

know there’s a reason we have the

Nuremberg trials we want justice now

we’re not gonna wait till some afterlife

maybe there is justice in a cosmic

courthouse maybe there isn’t now we want

justice and we want fair justice for all

people equal under the law that’s why we

fight for these things not because we

believe that it’s all going to be sorted

out later just hang them all let God

sort it out no no no we’re gonna do it

right here oh we believe in both

Christians believe in justice now and

later okay next question it doesn’t add

anything all right

my name is Jacob the doctor taking my my

question dr. Shermer so there’s a bit of

hypothetical in it so please bear with

me earlier you said that right and wrong

shift over time and come from our innate

moral sense as well as our upbringings

which seems to say it’s largely its

social contract moral relativism so my

question is what would you believe about

a culture where rape and killing are

morally fine and widely accepted and

what in calling those views wrong or bad

just be ethnocentric or cultural

imperialism yep okay I’m not a moral

relativists I’m an Objectivist I think

the objective standards come from within

part of our innate sense of right and

wrong that we get just by being social

primates we add on to that our

upbringing our parents culture and so on

the moral arc has been bending toward

justice freedom liberty autonomy and so

on over the centuries largely because I

argue in the moral arc that we’ve been

kind of pushing it in that direction due

to the fact we are capable of

interchanging our perspectives my taking

your perspective of imagining what it’s

like to be you there’s many drivers of

the

literature novels is one of them the

fact that we can transport ourselves

into somebody else’s head in a novel

means we can do it

hypothetically here in real life I can

imagine what it feels like to be hurt if

I’m gonna hurt you so the basis of the

golden rule which all cultures have

discovered not just Christianity but all

religions all cultures because it’s it’s

based inside of us so from there much

follows so for example we would argue

that a cult okay so first of all there

very few cultures where they just rape

and kill and it’s acceptable it’s not

acceptable it’s only justified under

certain conditions like an Isis for

example they have these bizarre

interpretations of the Quran where the

it’s okay to behead people and treat

women a certain way and so but most

Muslims in the West do not accept this

okay so there’s that that is very rare

so for example even indigenous tribes

where infanticide is much higher than it

is in the Western world there’s reasons

for this it’s that the hypothesis is the

hardness of life not the hardness of

heart the mothers who let this happen or

do it they’re no less loving just life

is hard and they make a triage decision

what we’ve been able to do over the last

about century and a half is outlaw

infanticide and then provide social

services to help single moms and

pregnant women and so on to reduce the

levels of unwanted pregnancies and

abortions and so I just wrote a column

in Scientific American in which I heard

let’s get off the pro-choice pro-life

moralization divide that’s this that’s

making people so upset and just say

what’s the problem abortion why is it a

problem unwanted pregnancies how can we

all reduce unwanted pregnancies here are

some tried and true techniques we know

that work let’s apply them and all get

on the same page together because nobody

wants more abortions we want fewer

unwanted pregnancies okay that’s one way

to approach well again I think Michael

is confusing what we would call in

philosophy epistemology and ontology

epistemology is how you know something’s

right or wrong ontology is the study of

the actual standard known as goodness

where is that standard and I think what

he’s doing is he’s making the mistake

again of assuming that the standard is

merely in our hearts and it’s not

Journal to us if it’s not external to us

there’s no way to say that the Jew that

the Nazis at the nürnberg trials for

killing the Jews were wrong but Frank if

it depends on God’s existence how do you

know what God thinks is right and wrong

well now you’re again you’re asking an

epistemological you’ve got to know

somehow you’re not God yes

somehow you’ve divined this from the

spectators or you talk you and I Michael

you and I agree well you and I agree how

we know right from wrong some of the

principles you know but how do you know

what God thinks is right or wrong well

partially it’s written on your heart and

even the Bible teaches this in Romans

chapter to the Gentiles and I have the

law of the law written on their heart so

everybody knows it intuitively

and you get more details in the Bible

but you don’t need the Bible to know

right from wrong you know it intuitively

I rest my case

yes epistle you and I are the same on

epistemology but on ontology you have no

way to ground get well but on ontology

speaking you wouldn’t know you can’t

know what the mind of God is you have to

interpret it through scripture or prayer

or something right he’s written it on

our hearts and it comes from the

scriptures as well yes a question for

dr. sorry okay do two more questions and

then we’ll have to have a question for

dr. Turek sir you’ve given a couple of

arguments against evolution being able

to gain information over time and my

question is why is it that when you give

these arguments you usually give a sort

of an intuitive argument based on

non-replicating examples let me explain

if you walk along and you find a watch

you know there must be a watchmaker and

that’s obvious because watches don’t

reproduce we don’t get baby watches they

don’t grow up into new watches you use

an example of alphabets and alphabets

don’t reproduce they don’t have baby

alphabets you used writing in the sand

also it doesn’t reproduce in the past

you’ve compared DNA to an encyclopedia

and you’ve said encyclopedias don’t just

appear on their own and we know that

because there are no baby encyclopedias

running around and you’ve used Mount

Rushmore in the past as well yeah Mount

Rushmore doesn’t reproduce why is it

that you always use these very very bad

examples or do you just not know that

evolution depends on a replicating

system because they’re not bad examples

to say how did the system get there to

begin with where did the genetic code

come from from the very beginning

it came out of replication it repeats

over and over in a trot through actually

gains information in order for something

to replicate you need something

something there to begin with the

replication can start with a very very

simple system of just a couple of

molecules you you start with a couple of

molecules and you grow over time let me

ask you a question if we let let’s let’s

grant that we have this PowerPoint code

here built by Microsoft if we began to

mutate this PowerPoint code randomly

what would happen to the program this is

called a genetic algorithm and we use

this in computer science to actually

develop things the alphago system for

instance was designed under that exact

same principle but that wasn’t my

question if we started to randomly

mutate this PowerPoint code how long

would the program stay up it could

actually become better and this is what

we’ve been shown yes it’s not random

right you create a thousand copies Oh so

evolution is guided by whom that’s not

random Frank whose natural selection oh

is it random guided by them it’s either

guided or it’s random who’s ignited by

the survival of these replicating

molecules generates more of them and the

ones that don’t replicate die that’s it

that’s natural

there’s no designer pushing it’ll that’s

that’s called a tautology those that

survive are the ones that survive next

question last question for the evening

folks thank you sorry about that

we would love to this is my favorite

part do but unfortunately we have to be

out of here by 9:00 skip our closing

arguments cuz I’m willing to give up my

five minutes if you want to take it well

I gotta say more I’ve got more you say

so

sorry Frank you don’t have to give the

Jesus speech they already believe huh

they’re already on your side you don’t

well let’s let’s preserve a captive

audience really Frank let’s proceed last

question of the night thank dr. sure I I

heard you state that the existence of

God cannot be proved beyond science but

the science of mathematics tells me with

the 7.3 or 7.5 billion people in the

world that for the odds of me and my

wife meeting were 1 in 20,000 and then

we have to extrapolate upon that the

fact that we would actually

start dating that we would actually be

together long enough to have children

the fact of the different possibilities

of our DNA in the sperm and the egg all

these mathematical probabilities that we

couldn’t even have our children and this

needs to be duplicated for every

generation going back to single-celled

organisms to know that life can exist so

the probability of all that happening

basically is one in ten to the two

millionth 685,000 power approximately

the universe has 10 to the 80th power

molecules in it so the mathematical

science says that my existence and their

existence is zero but yet here I am and

here they are so how can anything exists

science tell me I exist and not exist at

the same time one and two is there any

possibility that anything can be

explained including God outside of

science knowing that science tells me

I’m not here but you get here I am is

this for me or Frank I don’t know I

think it’s too much for you hope it’s

are you servers for you cuz my answer is

God Almighty cuz here I am but math

tells me I can’t be here okay if you won

the lottery you went out and bought

tickets tickets tickets it’s bones would

you think God made that happen I would

think by God’s grace by the fact that

I’m even here yes but it’s not you it’s

the guy next to you and he feels the

same way oh my god I can’t I win the

lottery if I don’t exist well he can’t

win the lawyer if he doesn’t exist

I was wrong it’s that guy well he can’t

win the lawyer if he doesn’t exist

and in other words this is the law of

large numbers somebody’s got to win the

lottery by the hindsight bias whoever

one thinks it’s unbelievable it’s a

miracle that we’re forgetting the other

boxes of all the people who bought

tickets that didn’t win people that and

so on it’s it’s like it’s inevitable

that if you have that many opportunities

something is going to happen like that

okay so like in in terms of like

miracles what’s a miracle you know

million-to-one odds look there’s 325

million Americans million to one odds

happen three hundred twenty five times a

day it’s inevitable it’s going to happen

it’s like you’re watching watch The

Oprah you know next on Oprah we have

this you know woman that’s had these

incredible dreams about airplane crashes

and so far not one of them has come true

stay tuned no you’re not gonna see that

show you’re gonna see the show about the

psychic who said the thing about the

plane crash and then the plane crashed

right so what about all the people that

didn’t explain the plane crash what

about the people that said the plane was

going to crash and it didn’t crash all

right so we have to take into account

all the possibilities and then ask what

are the chances that that one particular

one happened so had you not met your

wife and you met some other woman you’d

be going this is the one for me she’s a

little taller not quite as athletic but

slightly smarter and I loved her

whichever one you married you’re gonna

be happy with it would be the same odds

however that doesn’t change based on me

meeting someone else thank you want to

respond and then I think we’re done

because it is not a clock and we have to

as I said be out of here but I don’t

know if I understood the question

completely but I agree with Michael that

when you’re looking in hindsight there’s

different probabilities than if you

predict something to happen and it

happens

that’s why prophecy is is so convincing

but not just looking in hindsight like

drawing the drawing the bullseye around

the dart that’s already there is not is

not impressive but the other way oh

that’s uh dr. shimmer do you want five

minutes in closing or do you yeah he’s

going to do it to you might as well come

together

you gotta get a page and John 3:16 and

you already believe I don’t know what

you’re already in church Frank anyway

glad I don’t have a prepared speech let

me just talk to you off the top of my

head and from my art you know I used to

sit where were you sad for seven years

as I mentioned I was an evangelical

born-again Christian I went to

Pepperdine University first four-year

graduating class at the Malibu campus it

was a great experience I very much

enjoyed the Christian Fellowship I had

there I took courses in the writings of

CS Lewis the Old Testament the New

Testament to life of Jesus I know the

stories I know all the arguments I know

the feeling that you know everything

happens for a reason it’s all falls into

place whether this happens or that

happens it’s good it’s bad whatever it’s

God’s intent I know the arguments I know

the feeling I get it okay and so what

are we talking about here tonight well

this business about reality okay the

reason I like science is because it’s

the best tool ever developed for

understanding reality because it has a

self-correcting mechanism built into it

it has a way of saying look we’re all

biased we’re all subject to the

confirmation bias hindsight bias and all

these cognitive biases that lead us to

find evidence to believe what we already

believe and to ignore the disconfirming

evidence everybody does it including

scientists who have their cherished

theories and so on and they hang on to

them and they sort through the evidence

to support it and so the difference is

that in science you you can’t do that

and get away with it for very long

because somebody else is going to try to

find the flaws in your research so built

into the scientific process which makes

it so useful is that if you don’t look

for your flaw somebody else will it

usually with great Glee in a published

form to say aha I just proved the great

scientist and made mine it and so on I

don’t see that religion has anything

quite like that as I mentioned all these

different religions I brought up several

examples there’s many more they believe

as passionately as you do in their

doctrines and beliefs they claim they

have evidence they claim and they make

great arguments how is an outsider to

tell your anthropologist from Mars and

you come to visit earth and you sit down

with each of these different say

50 groups they’re making these

compelling cases and you say well I

can’t decide is there some experiment we

can run to decide which is the right one

no there isn’t

so I mentioned my friend Kent Miller who

is one of the great biologists of the

20th century and teaches at Brown

University and he was the he was the

expert witness and the Dover trial this

was the intelligent design creationism

trial in Dover Pennsylvania and he was

there on the side of science and

evolution and and he’s a Christian he’s

a born-again Christian he’s not an

evangelical he’s Catholic but so I’ve

known Ken a long time we talked about he

knows all my arguments I know his

arguments you know I said Ken why do you

believe in the resurrection of Jesus and

and he says it’s my faith tradition it’s

how I was raised it works for me it’s a

truth inside me and that’s it I’m not

claiming I can prove it it’s just my

truth okay I respect that you know

full-stop okay there’s really nothing

more for us to talk about on that

particular thing and francis collins who

i also know is the head of the National

Institutes of Health he was the head of

the Human Genome Project he’s a

born-again evangelical Christian and

even he tells me you know that okay look

III know you have arguments we have

arguments it can’t be settled you know

it’s a personal experience for me he

talks about this in his book you know

out on a path I don’t hike and frozen

waterfall the whole thing yeah okay I

get that it’s it’s totally

understandable there’s these internal

truths that we can’t prove one way or

the other like free will and determinism

you know there’s no good resolution to

this to me it’s a useful fiction I feel

like I’m free I argue that I’m free I’m

a compatible list I think there’s a

reasonable case to be made but plenty of

people are determinist they also have

good arguments some things you just go

okay I’m just gonna play it fine but you

don’t have to let me make that as my

final point you don’t have to have this

outside source we can get it from within

and through each other through our

families in our relationships through

our communities extended families and

communities through expanding out to our

to everyone that we’ve all been working

for centuries now on bending the moral

arc toward justice and freedom and

liberty and autonomy for more people in

more places more of the time there are

more democracies than there’s ever been

there are fewer homicides and crime

rates is down over the decades more

people have live under constitutional

democracies now and have protections

gays and women and minorities they’re

all human they deserve the same

treatment as everybody else and that you

don’t need an outside source to tell us

that you know you know how to find out

just ask them would you like to be

treated fairly they’ll tell you yes

Frankie you mentioned infidelities you

don’t have to ask God if how your spouse

is gonna feel it whether they’re

cheating on your spouse is okay just ask

your spouse you don’t even actually have

to ask just do the thought experiment in

your head you’ll know okay you’ll know

so you don’t have to have the outside

source if you want it fine but just be

good for goodness sake that’s good

enough thank you

dr. Durack i prefer to call this to come

to evidence meeting rather than to come

to Jesus meeting and let me just say

that I tried to show that all of these

effects have a cause and I think the

cause is God I did not see other than

speculations from Michael Sainte what it

could be this it could be that he didn’t

really give a positive case for a world

without God he didn’t give a positive

case for how in the absence of God any

of these things could come into

existence in fact I think that atheists

have to have extraordinary faith because

they have to have the faith that there

is creation without a creator design

without a designer laws without a

lawgiver programs without a programmer

freedom without free will because we’re

just molecules in motion

order without an order or morality from

molecules and rationality from

randomness I think the evidence shows

that there has to be a spaceless

timeless immaterial powerful moral

personal intelligent creator who created

all things and sustains all things and

whose every attribute is infinite I

couldn’t go through all the arguments

today for that but I think that’s the

case now during the cross-examination

we’d brought up Jesus and I think you

could turn the science in crimes to

sacrifice as well because if this beam

does exist he’s a moral being and he

finds that the creatures he loves her in

trouble at some point he’s going to come

rescue them September 29th 2006 petty

officer Michael Monsoor his United

States Navy SEAL operating in Ramadi

Iraq he’s got two other Navy SEALs

flanking him there on a roof Mansour is

in front of a doorway to that roof

they’ve taken RPG fire ak-47 fire but

they don’t presently know where the

enemy is so they’re waiting for the next

attack suddenly a insurgent from an

unknown location throws a grenade on the

roof it hits Mansoor in the chest and

falls to his feet he has a split second

to make a decision he can leave through

the doorway behind him and save himself

but if he does his two Navy SEAL

colleagues in the prone position next to

him will surely die so Mansoor yells

grenade and then he jumps chest first

onto the grenade it detonates 30 minutes

later he dies his two Navy SEAL

colleagues received minor injuries but

they’re fine one of the survivors said

Mikey looked death in the face that day

and said you will not take my friends I

will go in their stead I’ve never seen

the United States President cry until

April of 2000 and he that’s when

President George W Bush called

montsouris parents into the East Room of

the White House and gave montsouris

parents his Medal of Honor posthumously

since then montsouris high school has

named their stadium after him the golden

trident the seal golden trident is at

the 50-yard line and the United States

Navy has named a ship the USS Michael

Monsoor he literally gave his life for

his friends there’s no greater love than

to give your life for your friends

Michael Monsoor did it he sacrificed

himself when he easily could have saved

himself he died for his friends the

question is has anybody or would anybody

die for you and the answer is someone

already has his name is Jesus of

Nazareth Nazareth the same being that

created and sustains the universe came

added humanity over his deity came to

earth and live the perfect life in your

place and by trusting in him you can not

only be forgiven you can be given his

righteousness and he proved it by rising

from the dead you say Frank how do you

know that I don’t have time in the next

minute to go through all the evidence

but let me just say this and that is

Christian’s do not believe that

Christianity is true that Jesus rose

from the dead because a series of

documents we put under one binding

called the Bible says it’s true

Christianity is true because an event

occurred in fact Christianity would be

true if the Bible had never been written

because the book did not give us

Christianity the resurrection gave us

the book there wouldn’t even be a New

Testament if it wasn’t for the

resurrection what are Jews

inventing a resurrected Jesus for to get

themselves beaten tortured and killed

every writer of the New Testament the

exception of Luke is a Jew they already

think they’re God’s chosen people why

are they inventing a resurrected Jesus

they’re not the reason that we know it’s

true is because there’s evidence it’s

true 1985 years ago he walked out of a

tomb and proved to everybody that he

truly was the savior he jumped on the

grenade for us the question is have you

accepted that will you accept that it’s

free why wouldn’t you that’s why we’re

here thank you

[Applause]

[Music]