Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network.

If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. Today's date is March 15th. That is in Shakespearean terminology, the Ides of March. Remember that when I was younger. And Shakespeare said, beware the Ides of March.

I always thought that was interesting. Hey, well, look, if you want to give me a call, I want to hear from you. So 877-207-2276. You can also email me. All you have to do is send your email to info at karm.org. Let's see, hey, look at that, some good hate mail, I think. Info at karm.org.

Info at karm.org. Look, we have Fridays and we do hate mail sometimes, and I'm looking forward to it. I always like hate mail, and so we'll see if we got some. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, Charlie's birthday's on Sunday?

Whoo! What's he going to be, 70? He's going to be 70, Charlie? Wow.

Charlie Spine, he's one of the guys who worked with me, I've known him since 1980, and he's the guy who read me a quote from Joseph Smith, Bob Joseph Smith, boasting he did more than Jesus to keep a church together, and it started me studying apologetics. So it's Charlie Spine's fault, he's going to be 70. How long have you and Deb been married? How long, 49 years? 50, no, 50? 50? 50 years. Wow. They haven't been married 50 years, man, that's awesome. That is awesome. So congratulations, happy birthday, and all of that.

All right, I'm a youngin' compared to him, I'm only 67, been married 36 years. I got a late start, I guess, I don't know, we'll see. All right, like I said, if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276, and the email is info at karm.org, info at karm.org, and what you can do is put in the subject line, just put Karm question, or radio question, or radio comment, and we can get to it, okay? All right, sounds good, and we got some of that. I like doing stuff like that, answering questions. You know, it is one of my favorite things to do, is answering questions. I've always enjoyed answering questions, even as a kid.

I don't know what it was, I just, I did, maybe because, you know, I was in the smarter classes, and I always enjoyed helping people out, and I liked them. That reminds me, I was in high school once, and I do, okay, well, let's see, I don't know what it is, I could get out and get back in, or you want me to go to access two, and then go right back to access one, or just keep going, we'll do it on the, we'll do it during the break. You let me know, because Keith, keep going, okay, maybe it'll clear up, because, actually, I had to reroute my computer, and so I think the up and down speeds have not caught up to it. It's only the next five or ten minutes, because the up is really slow. We had a little bit of internet problem right before the show, so the up is getting a little bit faster, and, excuse me, the down is in the 90s right now, it's not very fast, and the up here, I'll tell you in a sec, when it goes, and the up is in the range of, oh my goodness, one, two, three, six, five, yeah, very, very slow.

Oh, I don't know what happened, but we had an internet issue here on my end, so I think it's just what it is, it's a little bit distorted. So there you go, see, quick and slick, easy peasy, let's get on that phone with Dave from Texas. Dave, welcome, you're on the air. Hi, can you hear me?

Are you? Yes, I can. Can you hear me now?

Yes, I can. So what do you got, man? Yeah, I hear you. Do I sound okay to you? Yeah, you sound good.

Yeah, we talked yesterday, and you wanted me to call back, you were saying something about, I basically said, what's the best question you have for atheists, and you were getting into it, but then you had to get to other callers. Right. Do you remember what you might have asked me?

Okay. Yeah, there's a couple things that both derive out of a basic logic truth, a basic truth. All events and phenomena, all facts and phenomena, exist in a context, right? Would you be right?

You guess you'd go again, or you don't know if you would agree? Well, in a sense, math is meaningless. It's all just primitive symbols. Math is meaningless? Then you don't count your change when you go to a store?

No? Let me clarify what I mean by that. Math is meaningless? Well, if we say that two donuts plus two donuts is four donuts, right? The reason we can do that is because we proved that two plus two is four mathematically, but the units of two are just nothing.

We don't find any meaning we want to, is what I mean. Oh, okay. Well, then let's work with that, so then mathematics works on the laws of logic, right? Yeah. Right? Yeah. Okay. Where do these laws of logic come from? We made them up. You made them up?

Wow. We did. We made them up. So they're the product of human minds.

Well, how can that be universally absolutely true independent of human minds, because if they're made by human minds, if my mind says a law of logic is different than your mind, then which is true? Yeah. So this is where you would have things like Euclidean geometry versus non-Euclidean.

So Euclidean, the father of mathematics, he couldn't prove that parallel lines intersect, so he just had to take it as an assumption, a postulate or an axiom. What if you drop that- You're not hearing. Okay.

Yeah. You're not hearing. You're not listening.

Okay? So I do this with a thought, all right? You try and speak rationally, and I try and speak rationally. Rationality is developed and based upon the laws of logic, law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle, et cetera. So these laws are not invented by individuals, because if I'm the one who created the laws, then when I die, they go away. Or if your brain is a product of these laws, then how can your brain and my brain, which are different, then how can it be that these laws are true whether or not we believe they're true or not? They're not a product of our brains.

You see that? I understand what you're saying, but the idea is there's no one system of logic. There's many different systems of logic. It's just a matter of what do you want your initial assumptions to be. So you have to make assumptions, right? Yeah. Okay. So do you assume that something is what it is and is not what it is not? Yeah.

Okay. What makes the assumption valid? Just because you say so? You can assume anything you want. I'll say that in our own universe, that assumption doesn't seem to always hold with the way quantum mechanics seems to work.

Basically, an assumption is valid as long as you didn't pick it up. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. You brought something up. You want to respond to it.

Okay. If you say you understand quantum mechanics, you don't. So it operates under laws that they don't know yet. So it's not good for you to say that the law of identity doesn't apply in quantum mechanics because you don't understand what that is, do you? I don't know what quantum entanglement is by any chance. What's that?

Okay. Do you know what quantum entanglement is or quantum tunneling? Yeah. What's quantum entanglement? Where two particles can be, Einstein called it the cookie action at a distance.

So for example, I might have a particle here and someone else might have this. What's that? Yeah. That's what Einstein said. Okay. So you know.

Right. So then you should also know that something simply is what it is. Would you ever say that something is not what it is?

If it exists, it's not itself, would you actually say that? No. Okay.

Good. So then you assume that the law of identity is true. It's true everywhere, isn't it? But you have to assume that it's true everywhere. So what worldview do you work from by which you then say or assert that it is true everywhere? Do you make sense of it from your perspective as an atheist?

So you're saying, because I don't have a, I just get a little bit ahead. I don't have, I don't believe in a God, so why can I be sure of the law of identity? Is that what you're saying?

No. I said from an atheist perspective, how do you account for the universality and the truth value of the law of identity? It seems born out in everyday life. So that's induction. So the problem of induction that Hume dealt with, the philosopher Hume, you know, if you know anything about that, you know, that's not a good argument in your part.

Do you have anything else you want to offer? I don't feel like I have to give some sort of argument for exactly how the universe is. All I can say is I have degrees of confidence of what I observe. So degrees of confidence you observe, epistemologically, that is just empiricism. You're just saying that you look and you see and you conclude based on what you see. So you're assuming your senses are accurate, assumption. So I'm just saying that your worldview, all you do is make assumptions all over the place. What validates the assumptions? You don't have any way of validating them. You just assume their truth value, but you assume the universe out in laws of logic. Yeah.

Really? The problem with atheism is that's as far as you can go. You can't go any further than we don't know, we have to guess, and we just assume. Well, if you say that you just assume that God exists, or the laws of logic just are, then I can say, well, God just is. So the same logic you would use to validate your position also validates my position, which refutes your position. So the same logical principle is incongruous when we use the same principle in both worldviews, which are contradictory.

So it's not a coherent system. You see? Well, the issue is, so we both have to make some sort of starting assumption and you're just saying, well, David, why is your starting assumption better than mine? Well, it's better because assumptions are a liability. You want to limit the number of assumptions. And I don't see what your assumption brings to the table.

It doesn't really add anything. We're talking about yours. What about your assumption?

I haven't told you what I assumed yet. So I'm just asking you, can your atheist assumptions, your worldview, account for intelligibility? Can it provide any condition by which the universality, the laws of logic exist and are coherent?

Can it? I mean, I guess it depends on what you mean by exist. Like if I have in my mind the idea of a movie script and I never write it down, does that movie exist? That's in this sense in your mind. Do you acknowledge that the laws of logic are abstractions? They occur in the mind? They don't have to occur in the mind, but they are abstractions. So they're abstractions. So you know what abstract entities are. Do the laws of logic occur under rocks? I think that abstract entity is an oxymoron.

I don't think that word even has meaning. I guess it does. And so I'm just asking you, do you believe that these laws of logic, do they occur simply under rocks and behind trees?

And you go, hey, look, there's a lot right there. I'm seeing it work. Is that how it is in your worldview? No, you can't find them in the world.

They don't exist like that. So okay, good. And so a property of the physical realm like redness, hardness, refractibility, induction of energy, heat transference, these things are all measurable because they're properties of the physical world, right? Yes. Right? Okay.

Yes. The laws of logic are not measurable. You can't measure them. Therefore they're not properties of the physical world. They're independent of the physical world. And we've got a break coming up, so here's a question you can think about while we get back to the break.

If they're not properties of the physical world, they're not properties of the physical realm, they're abstractions, not based on physicality, how then or what must be the case in order to have universal abstract things walking around that are not dependent on the physical realm? We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Dave from Texas. Dave, do you remember the question? Yeah. Okay. I think you kind of took that past a little bit of an extension. I'm sorry? I was going to repeat the question.

What assumption am I making? You're saying that we can't measure the law of identity and things like that. And that question is very loaded because things like gravity and heat, they can be measured with units. They're numerical values to the measurement. There would be no numerical value you can even expect from the law of identity. Dude, don't say numerical value. Gravity can be measured.

It's intensity and it's strength. It's one of the four basic laws of the universe and it can be measured. Can you measure, weigh, intensity, strength of or whatever of any law of logic? The answer is no.

You can't. Therefore, they're not products or properties of the physical realm. They're independent of it, which means that the universe doesn't exist. Those laws aren't affected because they're not dependent on the physical universe. So the question is, how do you account for them?

You use them? You're an atheist. How do you account for these universal abstractions that are not dependent upon the physical world? Well, I mean, at this point, the question is going to become circular because I'm telling you that the best way to measure them would be something like the double slit experiment with quantum mechanics and you're telling me that quantum mechanics are invalid because we don't fully understand them or whatever? Look dude, I didn't say quantum mechanics is invalid and I know what the double slit experiment is. This has nothing to do with the law of identity, law of proper inference or things like that in logic. You don't put the law of identity through the double slit experiment and get five vertical bars.

It doesn't happen. So how do you account for from an atheist? What I'm doing is showing you just one of the many problems that you have as an atheist. Your worldview cannot account for rationality or any sense of absolute morality or our existence. It fails in the three most critical areas of thought, rationality, discourse.

It fails. It's incoherent. First of all, I just want to say one last thing on the double slit experiment and I'll get off that if we're not going to agree, but my understanding is that it shows that even a single particle passing through the slit will interact with itself, which I interpret that as falsifying the law of identity because it makes it distinguishable from itself.

Well, let me just say that I don't think you have a sufficient grasp on what the nature of the laws of logic are as they relate to the issue of quantum physics when particles are put through the slits. So they're different categories. One deals with super small distances and sizes and the other deals with thought. They're different categories.

You're making a category mistake when you're trying to blend them together. Now if you want to go to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, then you have something to really kind of be interested about because the Copenhagen theory says that something exists when it's observed and then the question is what's observing everything? That's the Copenhagen interpretation, but it's falling out of favor because of what it implies. It implies there's a mind out there, so people don't like that.

So it's falling out of favor. I'm sorry, I really don't believe that you understand the issues. Dave, can you give me from your atheistic worldview an explanation of why the universal laws of logic exist, which are products of mind, which they operate only in the mind. They don't operate under rocks or behind trees. Tell me how they have the universal absolute existence that we apprehend and use from your atheistic perspective.

Can you do that? Okay, so just to clarify, I don't think they're absolute. I'm trying to give a counter example and we may disagree that it is a counter example, but if the laws of logic are not universally true, then blue sleeps faster than Wednesday. You've lost the identity issue and you can then have 103 statements that are incoherent.

Look, I'm going to tell you something. I've discussed this hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times with atheists. Basically they do the same thing that you're doing. You just get backed up to a wall and then you offer incoherent statements. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm not trying to be insulting, but the thing is that this is repeatedly what happens is because your worldview has you hamstrung. You can only go so far down the road of logic. You can only go so far and I'm way up ahead of you going, come on, let's go, but you have to give up your worldview, you have to understand there's a universal mind out there because the laws of logic, logic occurs in the mind, not behind trees or under rocks, it occurs in the mind and these laws are not dependent upon your mind or my mind and are not dependent upon the physical universe because they cannot be measured or not properties of the physical realm. Therefore, they are abstractions that are independent of the physical realm. What must be the case for those abstractions to exist universally to which we all ought to adhere to if you want to be rational and you can't answer it and I can. The issue is God himself, who is the universal mind, who is everywhere, he's ubiquitous, is the one who has revealed these laws to us. We being made in his image can then think his thoughts after him and we can then provide a rational reason why these laws exist. I've offered you an opportunity several times to justify their existence from your atheist perspective.

Can you try one more time before we go on to the next caller? For why the law of identity exists? The laws of logic, but we can use the law of identity.

What would reality look like with identity? What's that? I'm sorry. What did he say?

What did you say? You're asking me to account for why the law of identity exists without a God? From your atheist perspective, give me a rational reason why the laws of logic have their universal truth values and they're not properties of the physical realm. Well, they're not properties. They're more descriptive, but they're just assumptions is all they are.

It's all they are. So how do you know that they're true everywhere? You don't. You have to make assumptions. You have to presuppose the validity of logic in order to do this. This is as far as your worldview allows you to go. You just believe that they're true. I just believe that God exists. So my perspective, based on your perspective, means that your perspective is wrong.

Your perspective is self-refuting. This is the problem that atheists have, and this is just the issue of rationality. We can get into the issue of morality and universal truth statements. If you want to call back, I can run a question by you for morality to see if you believe in truth statements.

You want to try that? Want to call back or you want to hold? I'll get to the other caller.

I'll show you how that doesn't work. Okay. I'm going to put you on hold so I can get the other caller, and then we'll get back on with you. Okay? So hold on. Thank you. All right.

Let's see. Let's get on with John from Colorado. Hey, John. Welcome. You are on the air. Hi. Thanks for taking my call. Sure.

I told the call streamer I don't really have a super specific question. I grew up LDS, and I don't believe that. I've had some interesting experience with that that I can share or not share.

It doesn't really matter, but I don't believe it. In the meantime, I've been through cancer, and really, I shouldn't be alive. Long story short, I am, and very grateful for that. Oh, man. Hey, we've got a break.

There's a music coming up. We have a break. Just hold your thoughts, okay? I apologize for the timing of the break because I want to hear what you have to say, but we're right now. Okay, buddy. So hold on. All right.

Hey, folks. We'll be right back after these messages if you want to give me a call. 877-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking a call at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. I went and welcomed back to the show.

We're at the bottom of the hour. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Okay, John. Sorry about that.

You're back on the air, buddy. No worries. Thank you.

Yeah. So it's a miracle that I'm alive, and I recognize that in my life. And I'm just kind of trying to find where I fit, Nick. You know what I mean? What God's plan is for me, because there's got to be one I'm alive.

I've got a nine-year-old child, and I know that that's a lot of it, and I'm very grateful for him. But I've always felt like there's something more. I've looked into a lot of different Christian faiths and different religions, and I've been to different churches, born-again churches, and I've just struggled with finding something that felt right, and I just was curious to get your opinion on it more than anything. All right.

In Mormonism, they emphasize your feelings, the testimony that you have that's supposed to be from God, and you realize that that testimony was false. Your feelings betrayed you, correct? Okay. Right. Exactly.

So when you say a church that feels right, I can't help but wonder, I'm not accusing you or anything. I'm just going, okay. Yeah. Are you doing the same thing? Yeah, yeah.

No, you're good. Okay. So might you be doing the same thing? Quite possibly. Okay.

Well, that's beautiful. You said quite possibly. Maybe you are. Maybe you're not. You've got to assess it. That's a very healthy attitude.

Good for you. That's just something to think about. But let me ask you some questions here before I kind of step on the next path here. Do you believe that God exists? Okay. Do you believe there's many gods or just one God in all existence? I believe in Jesus Christ and I believe that there's Jesus Christ and I'm trying to be careful of terms.

I've read the Bible a lot, but there's, you know, Jesus and his Father. So those are the two. That's it. Okay. Well, that's okay.

That's all right. Now, here's another question. Are you familiar with my website, karm.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G?

Yes, that's how I found you. Yes. Okay.

Good, good, good, good. Well, there's a lot of articles that I've written there on Christian theology and I've been teaching theology, debating it, studying it for over 40 years. It doesn't mean I know everything. Doesn't mean I can't be corrected, but, you know, it does mean I've done a lot of study on it. Okay.

And there's articles on this on the website. The Trinity is one God as three persons, not three personages and not three personalities. It's like time, which is past, present and future. The three things are totally the one thing. You get that? Right.

Past, present and future. Yes, yes. God's like that.

Okay. And God's like that. The three things in total are the one thing. It's not the best way to say it, but this works for now. So the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in totality are the one being who is God.

So think of God this way. Think of them as, it's going to sound really juvenile, but try this. A glass sphere is just one thing, a glass sphere is just one thing. And the way you perceive that one thing is in three different colors.

The light that comes through it, three different colors, but these colors also exist in there and come out of it. And they relate, you become aware of them as you see, as you relate to it. And as it interacts in the world. So think of the Trinity like that, in that it is one being when he interacts in the world, he interacts as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which are also extant eternally that way from forever ago. This is a mind blower, okay? That's what God is.

Just like time. So I think I've held on to that perception for two. Go ahead.

I'm sorry, go ahead. I was going to say, I think I've held on to that perception too on that, I mean, so I understand what you're saying is that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one, they're not three separate, they're three in one, they are one. And I think I've held on to that misnomer that they're three separate for a long time, which kind of just clicked. Right. Good.

I'm glad. Because in Mormonism, the Trinity is three separate gods. It's not a Trinity, it's a triad. And so a Trinity is unique in that it's one being who exists simultaneously as three persons. And yet each is completely inter-dwelling the others. And they're not, and if one was to go away, God wouldn't exist, because that's just what God is. It's like time, it's always been past, present, future. And so therefore, if you take the past away, that's not what time is, it doesn't make sense. It's like that. It's not a perfect analogy, but this is just to get you over the hump, okay? Yeah, yeah. No, I'm following it for sure.

All right. Now Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. When we say person, we don't mean like you and me walking around, I could meet you, shake your hand, hey, how's it going? That's not what it means. In theology, related to the doctrine of God, it means that God thinks has a will, a person thinks has a will, can say you and yours and me and mine. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each exemplify these, and yet each are called God, and yet the Bible says there's only one God. That's what the Trinity is. One God and three distinct persons. Not people, not personages, but just persons, which means, I want to say center of consciousness, but that's not the right term to use. But I want you to get the idea that there's an individuality in their distinction as persons, but I don't want you to think that they're three separate beings that come together to form one being. It's not how it is.

The words are tough to say to get across. But if you think of time, it's because it's God. If you think of time as an analogy, then it makes, oh, I get it, past, present, and future. They're the same, but they're a little bit different at the same time.

Right? Okay. So let's just carry on with this. Let's say that the past, present, and future, three parts, I hate these words. I know my theological friends are rubbing their foreheads, smiling at the same time.

They're not supposed to say those words, but they get what I'm doing here. So let's just say, at a past, present, and future, that the present becomes man, adds human nature to it. So now, this is my analogy again, so now what we're seeing is a man who has two natures, a time nature and a human nature. And that analogy carrying over to God, the Trinity is the second person, added human nature. Now he has two natures. That's Jesus. So he's divine and human.

That's who he is, forever like that. Okay? Okay. Okay. All right. Now, I'm going to insult you and me together. All right. You ready?

I'm going to insult you and me together. Great. Here we go.

Yeah. All right. You're a sinner. I'm a sinner. Boy, we're sinners. I know. I've done a lot more sins than you.

Okay? And I could accuse you of pride and selfishness and you'd have to say, yep. So we are sinners. Yep.

For sure. And that means that everything that, that's right, everything that we touch and everything that we are is touched by sin. Now God is perfect. He's holy. He's not touched by sin.

That's just how it is. So we can't do anything to make it right with him. Now in 2 Nephi 25, 23, you're saved by grace after all you can do. Come on. God's infinite, infinitely pure.

You can't do anything to fix your problem with him. So Jesus did it. Jesus who became one of us, he walked on the earth perfectly. And because he's God, when he died on the cross, his death is of infinite value. Whoa.

That's awesome. Right. So what he did was he took our, yes, he took our sin and died with it. And then he grants that we have faith in him. So he does everything. What we do is trust him completely and totally because we got nothing to offer him except our sin.

And that's not going to help us any. So we just trust in him. That's and then he rose from the dead three days later in the same body he died in, but a glorified body. That's the basics of the Christian faith. So can I ask you a question growing up, you know, where you've said already that everything is how you feel, right? That's what you're taught. So what's the Christian like, how do you, how do you distinguish, so, so what's the right, what's the right way. If you don't go off your feelings when you, you know, when you pray or you like, how do you, what do you trust to say, this is where I should be the word of God or God communicates us to in basic, two basic ways through his Bible, through the scriptures, which are in errant, perfect, everything. And two circumstances in life. I like what the Bible says. I don't like my circumstances. The Bible says you shall not lie. Okay. I don't have to lie.

Then one day I have two job offers on the same day. Where's the answer? I don't know. Got to trust. We go to the word, we pray, we trust, we go forward and make a decision. That's how we do that. And there's another break. So hold on. We've got another break coming up. Okay. We'll be right back. Hey folks. We'll be right back after these messages. Maybe we'll get to Dave, the atheist. I got a tough question for him.

Oh boy. It's a good one. And we'll, we'll see. We'll be right back. Please stay tuned. All right. When we're back on the air, let's get back on with John. Are you still there, buddy? Yeah.

I'm still here. All right. The reason I gave you all that information is I want you to know what the basic truth was.

It's the church that teaches that. Appreciate that. Thank you. I will.

And I'll spend some time on your website. I think I appreciate your help. One of the things that I wanted to share with you that, cause I, as you've talked with people, one thing that really stood out to me and really got me thinking about Mormonism was, and you'll know the exact verse, but I don't remember the exact verse, but I believe it's in Matthew, after Jesus dies on the cross, it says the veil in the temple was rent, which means ripped into, right? And that was, you know, for, for people who are Mormon and have been through that temple ceremony, that says all that you need to hear, you know, that one verse right there says, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

Why do Mormons put back the veil in the temple that God himself destroyed? Right. Yep. Exactly. That's right.

Yeah. So I'll spend some time on your website. I appreciate your help. And if you have any, if you know anybody in my local area, I'll reach out to them, but otherwise we'll just spend some time on your website and I appreciate the work you're doing. My good friend recommended it. He helped me, um, he's helped me with a lot of things.

He's been a great support to me and he recommended your website to me. So thank you for your work. Good. Praise God.

And one more thing before you go, there's an article on what to look for in a church, what to look for in a church, check that out and it'll save you a lot of trouble. All right. Okay. Okay. I will.

Then call me back later. Thank you very much. All right. I will. For sure.

You're welcome very much, John. All right. Have a great day. Good. All right.

Now let's get back over with the atheist. Dave, are you still there? Yeah.

Can you hear me? Yes. You ready for me to test you and trap you? You ready? Okay.

Can I try? Yeah. All right. Do you believe that statements are true or false? Okay.

Well, there's a third, there's a, they can be also undecided. Google will prove that in the fifties. So interesting. So is it true that I'm talking to you? Yes. Okay. So is it true that statements are either true or false?

No. There's a third possibility that something seems to be undefinable. But it's either the state, it's either the case that is true or it's the case that it's not true.

That's it. That's a true dichotomy. So you have a problem because Godel, we can talk about him. But the thing is, you have to understand the basics.

You don't want to use philosophy in order to end up with nothing as a philosophy helps you do because it'll give you ways out, which aren't ultimately very good ways out of any intellectual truth value so that you really don't know anything. And then you say, I'm an atheist, which means you know something, but you see, the problem is that self refuting. So here's the thing. It's either true or false. I'm going to ask you to make a statement. You tell me if the statement is true or if the statement is false. Okay. Okay. Here's the statement.

It is always morally wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure. Is it true or false? I can't think of an exception, so I'll say sure. Yeah. Okay. True. Good.

I'm glad you said it's true. But if it's objective, you are affirming a universal moral value that everyone is obligated to follow. How do you have that in an atheistic worldview? Universal moral absolutes, because morals are abstractions. Well, I hate to dodge, but I mean, didn't God do that same thing? No, he did not. All people are born under the law and all people have died in Adam, 1 Corinthians 15, 22, Romans 5, 18, Romans 5, 19.

He's the federal head and therefore God has the right to execute anybody because they're by nature child of wrath, Ephesians 2, 3. Now, from your atheistic perspective, from your atheistic perspective, this is the question. You deal with one topic at a time. How do you justify your belief that it's always morally wrong for anyone? That means always.

It means an anyone. It means it's always an absolute truth value universal. How do you justify that as being true for your atheism? I take it as my first principle that it's wrong to harm anything that's a lie. Okay, so you're saying then it's always wrong for everyone. So who are you to say that everyone everywhere all the time is obligated to follow what you believe is right? It's just my first principle. Obviously, not everyone shares it. Yeah, but I don't care if anybody shares it or not. We're talking about you, your view, whether someone likes it or not or agrees, that's not the issue.

It's you. You're an atheist. How do you justify the truth value of the statement?

It is always morally wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure. You say it's true. That means you're asserting a universal moral absolute that everyone ought to obey. How do you justify that from your worldview? I mean, I'm not trying to assert any kind of universal absolute that I don't think it works that way. That's what you're doing.

You just did. You said it's always wrong for anyone. That's a universal truth value. You just said it's true. So you're now asserting a universal moral truth value.

Okay. So how do you do that and how do you justify it from your atheism? I don't think either one of us can justify it if you want to be like that, but it seems pretty obvious. It's obvious. Back the truck up.

Back the truck up. How do you justify it in your atheism? That's the question. You're dodging.

What you say is, I don't know how. My implication is that it's obvious. It's obvious. It's just axiomatically true. So you're just saying it's obvious, so you have to have a worldview that's universally applicable to all people. So you're saying you're the one in contact with his worldview and the parameters that justify and describe this worldview by which you can then make this universally true statement that you say applies to everyone else.

How do you do that from your atheism? It seems to be the most reasonable position. It's more reasonable than the contrary. Okay.

So it seems to be. It's not what you said. You said it's true.

It's always morally wrong for anyone. You said it's true. Okay. Justify it from your atheism. You can't.

You can't. Morals occur in the heart. See, if I slap you in the face, am I doing something right or it's actually good or bad? Well, it depends. If I don't like your answer, I slap you. That's not a good reason.

But if there's a poisonous bug on your cheek that I see the stinger coming up, I just slap it to save you. Well, that's a good thing because the exact same action gets a different moral value depending on the motive that generates it. So morals are of the heart or the mind. You're saying there's a universal moral absolute, which is a universal abstract truth principle from your atheism. How do you have that without a universal mind, without a universal being? How do you have it?

You don't. I mean, you're really trying to pigeonhole me here. I'm just saying that we're just doing the best we can. Yeah. Yeah. We don't have everything figured out in the beginning. I'm just telling you, I've had this conversation hundreds and hundreds of times. Atheists routinely fail. They can't provide a grounding for it.

Okay. What's your grounding? Justified true belief.

They can't ground it. And not Hume, oh crud. The categorical imperative, I can't believe I forgot his name, I'm bad with names. He developed, what was the great philosopher, not Hume, but oh man, you know his name, I can't remember his name.

I hate that when that happens. At any rate, he developed the categorical imperative, trying to solve the problem of universal moral truth values and obligations. Okay?

Okay. It was Kant, Immanuel Kant, there we go, sheesh, I knew it, yeah. So he tried to solve the problem and I don't believe he did because if you can apply logic to it, then you have to have the bridge between logic and morality and the only way they can be united is if they're in the same, from the same author, God, who authors are the logic, reveals logical laws and reveals from his character the universal absolute principles of morals. See, in Christianity, we have no problem with this. Our worldview can account for them, your worldview can't. Your worldview is insufficient. You're saying, you're talking about torturing a baby, so my namesake, King David, wasn't his illegitimate infant son tortured and then killed by God?

No, so I already answered that. We're talking about your perspective, the Christian worldview can answer these. You can't, that's the view, that's the point I'm trying to make, okay? And if you're going to cite scripture, you need to cite me. What I'm trying to say is that if, you can't tell me it's universally and absolutely wrong to torture and kill a baby and then say God did that and he's right. No, where did he say, okay, look, atheists do this to me all the time. They say something to the Bible when it's not there and I say, show it to me in the scriptures because all they do is they just go with rumors and hearsay.

They don't know where it says it and it doesn't say it. Show me where God tortures babies. Show it to me in scripture. Is it in the book of 2nd Chronicles? Show it to me. It's not there, buddy. All right, so I'll first identify the story and then we'll find the passage if you want. Here's the story.

Well, we have callers waiting, I'm going to get to the callers, but look, and you have a whole weekend to think about it. You can try to find an exact verse that says God is torturing babies merely for his personal pleasure because that's the question. That's the challenge, okay? See if you can find it because I'll tell you right now, it's not there, but I would recommend you read the scriptures. Read them.

Study them. I recommend you do that and then get back to me, okay? All right? Okay, David. Nice talking to you. Okay. All right, let's get on with next longest waiting is Sandy from Ohio. Sandy, welcome. You're on the air. Hi.

A couple of things. I second that about reading the Bible. I think you have to study the genuine article before you can recognize falseness and it's like counterfeit money. When you work in a bank, they show you the real hundred dollar bill. They show you the fake one and then you can recognize it.

Otherwise, you can be fooled. I second, um, the, the, and I think everybody should read the Bible for themselves first and with a man that just was on the air about killing babies. That was the Old Testament King Herod did that had babies under two.

This is torture and terrorist stuff that does that. This is not Jesus, the Lord or God. God did not do that. Jesus was in the New Testament, but the thing about it is you have to believe he is who he is in order to understand because the Holy Spirit, the triune, the Trinity that, you know, the God, you know, this, I'm trying to tell the young man from the LDS church latter day saints, God, the father, God, the son and God, the Holy ghost is kind of like water. Jesus called himself the living water, the son of God. I mean, I mean, I mean, and it's forms that if you just, so when, but that leads to what's called modalism versus liquids versus vapor to my kids, all the, it's the, it's the closest thing I could get.

He's, he's the three in one. That's good for, that's good for very, very, very, very young, but when you get older concepts need to be expanded. But yeah, yeah, he's older than that. Well, that's where I'm at, I guess that's about it. I'm not on the order, but that's when I talk to kids that is in local. Sometimes that's where we have to start.

We have to crawl before you walk sometimes. Right. And I would suggest you use time people can, okay. What do you say about time?

That's present for you, sir. Right. Yeah. They're all simultaneous.

They exist, et cetera. There's like a linear, a line, a linear goes one direction and the other we're out of time. Sorry. I'm sorry. We're out of time.

There's the music. We got to go. Okay. So call back. Sorry about that. We're just out of time. Hey folks, may the Lord bless you and by his grace back on the air on Monday, we'll talk to you then. This is another program powered by the truth network.