Atheist Experiences Early Christmas Present

Thank you. We've got Micah and Charlotte. How are you? Hey, good. How are you doing? Good. Pretty good. What did you call about? I just wanted to call about the validity of the resurrection of Jesus and how it relates to the origin of life. Sorry, one more time? The validity of the resurrection of Jesus and how it relates to the origin of life. Okay. And here's my question. Since you're an atheist and I'm a theist, we both kind of have different viewpoints. I believe that the origin of life is supernatural and you believe that it's natural. Yes. And would you agree that, I'm not saying that Jesus rose from the dead. If Jesus was dead for three days and he rose from the dead, would you agree that would be a supernatural event? That it's not something that we see in the natural world, so therefore it's not science. I don't know. That's not enough details. One of the things is that death isn't extremely well defined. We pull people back from the brink of death. So I can't say for sure that it would be supernatural. I can say that it would certainly be extraordinary and would seem to be supernatural. Okay. Right. So if Jesus and all of his cells were dead for three days and somehow his whole entire body was regenerated after three days, would you agree that that would be something supernatural? I just thought, again, we don't know. We just said it would be extraordinary, but we wouldn't necessarily call it supernatural. The fact that something hasn't previously been observed doesn't mean that it's necessarily unnatural. What I said when I answered your question is that I don't know what I would consider it. There's not enough information, but I'm willing to grant that that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural and could in fact be. But I'm willing to grant that that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural and could in fact be. But I'm willing to grant that that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural and could in fact be. But I'm willing to grant that that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural and could in fact be. Okay. But you would definitely agree that this is not something that is seen in the natural world, that at this point in time it cannot be considered science, right? We don't know. Can't be considered science. Everything about the phrasing about this is kind of clumsy. Yeah, I'm assuming you mean that there wouldn't be a scientific explanation. And the answer is we don't know. Well, no, the answer would be no, because we would have the very first occurrence and we would then need to investigate it in order to determine. So at the time that it occurred, there wouldn't be a scientific explanation. But there's lots of things for which we don't currently have a scientific explanation that doesn't make them supernatural. Right, exactly. So if Jesus' resurrection were indeed true, it would not be something that we could have empirical support. We wouldn't have any scientific theory of how it happened, right? Well, are you saying that science, we couldn't use the scientific method to investigate it? We could, but since it's something that we don't see in that, and what I'm saying is that there is a historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Okay. And since we do not see anything, we don't see men dying for three days and resurrecting in the natural world that we have today. Would everyone agree with that? Yes, I'm unaware of any confirmed case of that happening ever, including Jesus. Right, okay. So I guess here's the entire point I'm trying to make. Is that we both agree that if Jesus did rise from the dead, there's no scientific evidence in the natural world that such a thing that is vexed in nature. That a man can be dead for three days, his sales would be dead and somehow be regenerated after three days. Okay. So by your own logic... Wait, hang on, hang on. Before we get to my own logic, two quick things. You're saying we agree on something and then the way you phrase it sounds like it was pre-written and doesn't match what I actually agreed to. And then as far as my own logic, there's just logic. I don't have my own special type of logic. Right, right. Okay. Right, but based on what you're telling me, that's what I'm saying. Based on what we both agree on actually. Okay. But based on what we both agree on and what you just told me, the origin of life when non-living material became living is not science. No, that's... It's not supernatural. You didn't listen to a word I said, did you? No, I did. I was very, very clear that the mere fact that we haven't observed something before doesn't tell us necessarily that it's supernatural. And the fact that we don't currently have a scientific explanation for something doesn't tell us that it's supernatural. Right. And even if it's not supernatural, if we don't, for example, if we don't see men resurrecting after three days in the natural world, science is what we can observe in the natural world, correct? Science is the explanations for what we observe in the natural world. Yeah, it's a method. It's not a body of knowledge. It's not a theory. It's not necessarily science. That's what a theory is. No, no, no, no. Give me your definition of a theory. A theory is an explanation that is based on the fact that what we observe knows we have a set of facts and the theory is what explains those facts. Right. But you're aware that theories... It's a broad model. ...are developed from doing science and that theories are the highest point of science, the graduation point, so to speak, that there's nothing higher than a theory in science. Right, exactly. So what I'm saying is that there are no facts that we have that support the idea that a man can be dead for three days and resurrect, in the same sense that there are no facts that support the idea that nonliving children can become living. Yeah, actually, there is. Yeah, there actually is. There are facts that support that. All right, so this is the point. Okay, if you believe that it's not supernat... So there's two problems here. There's more than that. There's probably quite a few. If the red direction of Jesus is either supernatural or there's no facts that support that such a thing can happen, it's the exact same thing with the origin of life. Except for two things. Number one, you've got a dichotomy there that is, while it's valid, is completely crazy. It's not a way that you want to phrase things. It's either supernatural or we don't have scientific facts. But the thing is, when you're talking about aviogenesis, we do have facts that have been investigated by science. We do have... We don't fully understand aviogenesis. We don't understand everything about it. But we have, in the laboratory, demonstrated that it is possible for natural material by purely natural mechanisms to give rise to the building blocks of life. Right, right. And here's the issue that I've actually studied this quite a bit. This whole theory of aviogenesis can't even get to the step of producing a protein. What we can do is just... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. For somebody who's studied this quite a bit, I just... Yeah. Huh, this is baffling because... Let me give an example. Can't get to the step of producing a protein. Do you realize how much further down the chain a protein is than just the building blocks of living material? You're objecting to somebody not being able to create a 747. Right, and I'm assuming you know what a protein is, correct? Yeah. Yes, however, I'm wondering why we're going through all of this. Because there's a fundamental problem at the base of this, and one of them is this. There's absolutely nothing that we can investigate with regarding the resurrection of Jesus. It's a historical claim. There's no scientific evidence for it. And so... And so is aviogenesis. No. But also a historical claim. No, because aviogenesis... We can't... We CAN never say what actually happened, how入 our life formed, unless we actually find historic evidence to support that. No, because aviogenesis... We can't... We CAN never say what actually happened, how our life formed, unless we actually find historic evidence to support that. No, no. Because we can't, we can never say what actually happened, how our life formed, unless we actually find historic evidence to support that. No. We can't, we can never say what actually happened, how our life formed, unless we actually find historic evidence to support that. The process, the scientific investigation of the possibility of abiogenesis demonstrates that it's possible or that it's not impossible. And therefore, you're not in this situation like you are with a resurrection, where you have no examples of anything like this, something that was living, become dead, and then become living without any sort of action taking place on it. I think if, I think if abiogenesis is true, then it's just about a man possibly could have raised him to bed. Well, I think that if it's demonstrated that abiogenesis can occur, then yeah, it may be possible to demonstrate that there's a scientific method by which somebody who was dead can return to being alive. Right. Okay? But that's all still natural, and it doesn't mean that it was likely to have happened in the first century. Right. Okay? But that's all still natural. And it doesn't mean that it was likely to have happened in the first century. Right. Okay? Well, yeah. But that's all still natural, and it doesn't mean that it was likely to have happened in the first century. Right. And since you were talking about abiogenesis and I was actually talking about protein, I do have a very simple question, assuming you know a protein is all right. And in order to get a protein to form, the amino acids do not fold themselves into a protein. You understand that, right? I'm aware of that. Yes. Okay. They need a ribosome, correct? Where are we going and why are we going there here? Why aren't you calling science shows? Well, I just assumed that you know, study science quite a bit. I am, here's the thing, I'm no expert in any of the science stuff. Genos and stuff better than I am, so I should shut up except for one little thing. How is any of this relevant to whether or not there's a God? Because that's what this is all about, right? You believe there's a God and I don't. Right? Right. And I think it is relevant because I think I can easily show how abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. Aha! Now, now we get to the crux of it. This is why I said there's a big old fat problem at the back end of this. Your position is that abiogenesis is impossible. You are making a claim that something cannot naturally occur. Not that it has not, but that it cannot. Why would you call, why would you call into a public access TV show? With no scientist to make the claim that this is scientifically impossible. Why aren't you publishing papers and actually talking to scientists about this? And why aren't other scientists making the same assertions that you are? Why are they actually investigating to find out whether or not it is possible? And why does the evidence seem to preclude the impossibility of it? I'm a lot like I caught everything that you said, but I have spoken to scientists before. You have what? I have spoken to scientists before. Okay, and what did they tell you? I've never got a response. Oh, yeah, well they probably were busy investigating how abiogenesis occurred. Which is why this call is over. If you're going to claim that a scientific position, which has not been confirmed, then people are investigating. If you're going to claim that it's scientifically impossible, you need to do it with scientists. Not at all. No, there's no second of all. Thanks for calling.