Awesome event, thank you for uploading it for us to watch!

Justin you did a fabulous job...have just started watching your channel and I think you have done better explaining your position than some of your guests have. Bravo sir

I like to go in the comment section of this debate on both this channel and RR's channel and compare the comments. It's so fascinating how people can come away with diametrically opposed opinions from the same debate.

I wish that that both debaters had spent a little more time on clarifying the definition of rationality, which is actually a lot more difficult than it sounds. The debate turned into more of “Is Christianity True?”, which is of course related but not the same thing as, “Is Christianity rational?”

The whole debate is basically Justin stating that belief in god is rational, if you base it on irrational reasons. He literally says himself that it isn't logical at multiple points e.g God is a god of paradoxes. So the conclusion of the question posed is very obvious, no it isnt rational.

I love this! Both sides were so respectful towards one another.

I just finished listening to the podcast but wanted to head over to leave a comment. What an amazing conversation. Thank you so much Justin for this quality content. I have listened to so many debates and conversations (many hosted by you💪) and I have not seen anyone debate with such grace and truth (except for Prof John Lennox of course). I'm shocked I discovered this gem so late but glad I did now. I pray that God will bless you on your way forward on your next adventure! For His glory. 😊

I really enjoy Justin and his radio show

I keep hearing this idea in debates that free will is somehow a necessary ingredient for rationality. An artificial intelligence of sufficient complexity could be said to reason, and if it engaged in machine learning successfully so as to come to conclusions that reflect reality, it could be said to be rational. Rationality has to do with the quality of an entity's epistemology. It's completely independent from the entity's autonomy.

I really like this side of Stephen

I love these discussions. Love Justin :)

Great job to both of you. Justin I thought you handled yourself extremely well and answered questions concisely. I also liked that you weren’t afraid to say you didn’t know about certain things. We all need this honesty.

Curious how this will play out without the logical fallacy Pokémon cards.

I am a big fan of RR but Justin Brierley made some very good points here. Great debate.

Thank you.

This was a very interesting debate. On the topic of justice, I think it would be fruitful to discuss different approaches to justice. Briefly speaking, there's retributive justice, which emphasise the necessity to amend the damage done by punishing the guilty. Future crimes is discouraged through proportional punishment. From this perspective, justice and mercy contradicts each other. However, another approach would be restorative justice, which emphasise the necessity to restore the perpetrator as a functional member of society; to repair the damaged relationship. Future crimes is discouraged through giving the proper tools to live a lawful life. From this perspective, justice and mercy does not contradict each other. In fact, to some extent they overlap. Desmond Tutu's approach to justice is a good example of restorative justice.

I enjoyed both sides of this sooo much. Much respect for both debaters.

Well done Justin. Just indeed and in word!

“I think the West is currently living in a crisis of meaning that has essentially been brought on in large part by the atheistic kind of materialism I’ve been talking about this evening where beauty, love, meaning, purpose, identity, value, justice are ultimately illusions foisted on us by a mechanical process and that is bound to sap meaning from people’s lives. *_No wonder_* we have so much of a *_crisis of identity_* in today’s generation…” Justin Brierley (emphasis mine)

About that last question, I'm not sure how I understand Justin's view that only under theism can make something rational. Before that argument can even be made there must first be an assumption that a deity exists which allows for that statement to be even made. Is it not better to build rational arguments have less assumptions when discussing theories that include areas of knowledge that we have inconclusively made? Just because a theory sounds better or feels more correct, that does not make it more likely

It was perplexing to hear Justin not able to understand Stephen's view of rationality and morality. To me, Stephen not only makes sense, but it actually does not feel uncomfortable at all, implying that I don't have the same "human instinct" (emotional reaction) to the idea that Justin does. Whether society can exist better under Stephen's ideas or Justin's is another debate to be had, but in this particular debate, Justin clearly showed that his beliefs are governed by emotion (even stated clearly by himself in his own conclusion) and not rationality.

Justin's patience is astounding.

The podium is good but the sit down talking really needs a mic as well.

Please produce a video with Justin's opening statements!!

Debate was over at 27:45. Can’t call yourself “Rationality Rules” and be a determinist. It doesn’t work like that, bud....

I was more concentrated on moderators head. 😂

The mics not on fail, I can't watch this redo

I want to say Thank You Justin, for the Unbelievable channel! You are a great mediator and thinker. You always roll with the punches while having some big hitters on your show. I always wish there was more time in each video. You know how to keep the conversation going and when to let them chat it out. I was a believer and now I just don't know. Trying to figure it all out. Your channel is a great tool. Keep it up. Have Robert Price on sometime. Peace!!

44:53 "It's not a logical answer" (but I'm a rational person). OK...

Dr. Hugh Ross (Astro-physicist and Astronomer) would be helpful in this discussion.

He gave it up to when he claimed to be determined.

Justin is an even better debater than he is a moderator.

The atheist guy was very obnoxious in saying that Christianity is poisonous. Pretty emotive from someone arguing about rationality.

Great job, Justin! I think you defended your stance well.

Apparently "brilliant" is the British "like."

Based on the creation model appealed to rationality is based on what is believed to be possible in our universe. Throughout Rationality (Stephen Woodford) was inconsistent with how he argued and his stance on determinism. But he couldn't help that.

Great job Justin! Smooth move on the freewill point!

Steven makes the same mistakes here as he does in his videos. He ask "how many people believe gays should be able to marry" as a Christian I do, but that's because marriage in our culture now means "civil union". Had he has is homosexuality is a sin, I'd bet the room would not have been so evenly split.

Was anyone else constantly thinking about stephen's hair not being placed correctly while they were talking?

Sound is too low.Fix please.

I’ve started to really like RR just because of how sincere and nice of an individual he is but his reasonings are shallow and very frustrating to listen to.

"christianity is poison" ten minutes later..... "Tsingis khan did nothing wrong!" lol

You can look at the probability of 'fine tuning' from the reverse direction, put simply life on earth exists because of the situation in which the earth exists, we are here because of the situation that exists and 'we' have developed within the constraints of that existence. Life on earth has 'fine tuned' to fit the world , not the other way round.

It would be great if Justin first tried to honestly understand some positions before he rejects them. He consistently shows a fundamental lack of understanding any other view of morality and free will besides his own. Even stranger considering after all the debates he moderated i would expect him to be more knowledgable.

Like: Justin won Comment: Stephen won

God is a god of paradox’s lol well we finally agree on something if only you would realise what that actually means

Beginning at about 11:48, Justin declares: "Determinism also means that if you are a Christian here tonight, you didn't choose to be; and if you are an atheist, you didn't choose to be: the universe chose it for you." This is typical of the lack of understanding that Christian apologists have of determinism-either that, or, if they do understand how determinism works, they deliberately create a caricature of it so that they can shoot it down. Justin's commitment to "free will" makes it impossible for him to think in any terms other than "choice" and "choosing". So, if you did not do the "choosing" then the "universe" (as if the universe were some sort of sentient being with the power of choice") "chose it for you." Elsewhere in his opening speech, he uses the word "predetermined", once again invoking the Christian notion of "predestination" (again involving a decision made by some all-powerful, all-controlling sentient being). Determinism as a scientific principle does not entertain the notion of things being "PREdetermined". Consider that the path of a hurricane is determined (not "chosen by the universe")-but it is definitely not PREdetermined, such that it was decided beforehand exactly what path the hurricane would take. At each moment in the hurricane's progress, the direction of its movement is determined for the next moment by the (often random) environmental conditions prevailing at the time, and so on. The same is true of the trajectory of human lives and where they end up in relationship to the validity of the claims of Christianity (and Biblical theism in general). At around 6:00 Justin himself confesses that he had an "experience" in his late teens that led him to embrace Christianity. Whatever that "experience" was, it was not *inevitable* (that would be Justin's understanding of [pre]determinism). If he had had an accident on that day, just before the "experience", and ended up in hospital, or if he had left home a minute earlier or a minute later, that "experience" may never have happened. And he would then not necessarily be a Christian today. He might still be whatever he was before the "experience". So, his being a Christian today was *determined* by that "experience*, but it was not PREdetermined in the sense that "the universe chose it for him" from the very beginning. We could go into other ways in which Justin's apparent "choice" of Christianity is determined and not "chosen"-his psychological state at the time of the "experience"; his psychological and emotional needs arising from his upbringing; his underlying temperament and his attitude towards risk-taking (which is pertinent to whether he is inclined to play it safe and stay with what is already familiar to him, namely God, or go out on a limb and embrace the uncertainty of life without the God crutch); and so on. Ultimately, Christians need to cling to the notion of "free will", for that is the only way they can get the Biblical God off the hook for all the pain and suffering that is manifest in the world around us. Only if there is "free will" is it possible to attribute whatever is wrong with the world to human wilfulness in rejecting God by means of God-given free choice.

What if all religions information was lost and no one remembered any of it? What would those next generations believe?

Rationality rule fits also perfectly Romans 1:18-22 to a tee: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Just a fairly small point, but I think Matt Dillahunty got the question about the lottery right (i.e. the lottery winner being an example, according to Justin, of an extraordinary circumstance that doesn't need extraordinary evidence). If someone came to me and said "I won millions in the lottery" and then showed me a lottery ticket with winning numbers, I don't know that I, personally, would believe them unless they showed me more than the ticket. The ticket could be one they mocked up, etc., perhaps using Photoshop, just as a joke. However, if they showed me millions of dollars in their bank account, or if they had obviously just bought something they could not have afforded a week ago, in ADDITION to the ticket, then I would be much more convinced of their claim. So, the millions of dollars in their account, or the hugely expensive item they now own would be the extraordinary evidence in this scenario. I believe that extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence and the lottery example hasn't dissuaded me.

This one is easy. Of course it's not rational.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 04:00 🤔 *Justin presents a case for the rationality of Christianity, focusing on the burden of proof, objective evidence, subjective experiences, and historical facts.* 07:39 🌌 *Justin argues that aspects of science, such as fine-tuning in the universe and the effectiveness of mathematics, point towards the existence of a designer, making it rational to believe in God.* 09:16 🌍 *Justin contends that atheism fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for human value, contrasting it with Christianity's belief in humans made in the image of God.* 11:04 ⚖️ *Justin challenges the rationality of atheist materialism by arguing that it undermines human reason due to determinism, whereas belief in God provides a basis for genuine freedom and rationality.* 13:38 📜 *Justin asserts that historical evidence, including Jesus' crucifixion, empty tomb, post-resurrection appearances, and the growth of Christianity, supports the rationality of believing in the resurrection and, by extension, Christianity.* 20:29 🔍 *Rationality Rules argues that exercising different standards of evidence for Christianity and other beliefs is a special pleading fallacy, thus irrational.* 21:11 🧠 *According to Rationality Rules, if an all-powerful Christian God existed, everyone would share the same religious beliefs, yet diversity exists, questioning the validity of Christianity.* 22:47 📜 *Rationality Rules criticizes Christianity's reliance on insufficient evidence and argues that only an impotent or evil being would demand acceptance without adequate proof.* 23:52 💬 *Rationality Rules emphasizes the irrationality of believing in Christianity based on insufficient evidence, suggesting it contradicts the traits of an all-powerful and all-loving God.* 27:03 🔄 *Rationality Rules and Justin Brierley discuss the role of determinism in shaping beliefs and actions, challenging the concept of free will and rational justification for beliefs.* 33:45 ⚖️ *Rationality Rules argues for a subjective morality based on human instincts and societal agreements rather than an ultimate objective morality.* 37:48 🤔 *Justin Brierley defends his faith by explaining his confident trust in God's existence, which differs from empirical knowledge and is based on a different epistemological framework.* 41:20 🤔 *When discussing God's actions, it's problematic to assume how God "should" act based on human reasoning.* 42:03 🤝 *Disagreement among Christians on doctrinal issues doesn't negate the rationality of Christianity but reflects the diversity of free will.* 43:14 🆓 *Free will is essential to Christianity, as it enables genuine love, which is foundational to Christian belief.* 44:35 🔀 *Mercy, in Christianity, is not the suspension of justice but the fulfillment of justice through Christ's sacrifice, demonstrating God's love.* 46:27 📖 *Understanding morality requires acknowledging a standard, which, in the case of Christianity, derives from God's nature.* 49:00 💡 *Jesus serves as the interpretive lens for understanding the Old Testament, emphasizing love and morality.* 51:36 🧠 *Christianity offers rational and emotional satisfaction, addressing existential questions and providing meaning and hope.* 53:41 ❤️ *Christianity provides love through Christ's sacrifice and hope through his resurrection, offering fulfillment beyond material existence.* 55:35 🤔 *Atheism does not necessarily equate to materialism, and conflating the two is a misunderstanding of atheistic perspectives.* 58:54 🤯 *Even if certain claims about Jesus were true, the logical conclusion that he is the Son of God doesn't necessarily follow, highlighting the irrationality of some religious arguments.* 01:01:55 📖 *Christianity's impact and spread, despite perceived illogical aspects, suggests effectiveness in conveying its message.* 01:02:39 💡 *Assessing the Bible's transmission must consider broader historical contexts and diverse evidential needs across time and culture.* 01:04:45 📚 *Historical evidence supports the proximity of biblical texts to eyewitness testimony, challenging claims of widespread inaccuracy or transmission errors.* 01:05:11 🤔 *The assertion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is challenged, using examples like winning the lottery to illustrate evidential standards.* 01:07:47 🌱 *Moral objectivity is intuited, with racism cited as an example, suggesting the need for transcendent moral values.* 01:13:20 🔍 *Examining reasoning processes in light of chemical reactions in the brain raises questions about the reliability of beliefs formed through such processes.* Made with HARPA AI

Wow what a weak opening statement, full of fallacies, by Woodward. Conclusions absolutely not supported by the premises. Almost comical that he does not see this.

As much as it is rational to believe in any other ancient myth.

What is the utility of a predetermined universe ? Has it any utility at all ? If it has no utility, then it has no purpose. Then it has no Reason. How can it then be reasoned ?

Drastic action like that wouldn’t leave much of a brain left, now would it? 😂😂😂

Frank Turek answers most of this kids questions he should debate him

I can answer before watching... no.

If you're rational and transrational, as I am, it makes perfect sense to be a true Christian--meaning a Christian mystic. And an esoteric Christian mystic sees no fundamental distinction between Christian mysticism, Buddhism, Yoga, and Kabbalah. IOW, he embraces the esoteric Perennial Philosophy.

It’s a shame that people who don’t share a belief in the Christian god must continue having this conversation with those who do. Christian apologetics is a dumpster fire that just will not go away 🤷‍♂️

44:30 OK, can anyone tell me how the answer "logically you're absolutely right but I believe God is a god of paradoxes" from Justin is not a full blown acceptance that it is NOT rational to be a Christian? Wasn't that the subject of the debate? How can this answer be interpreted in any other way? I'm serious, can anyone tell me how any Christian could spin this sentence into something seemingly rational?

God bless whoever fixed the audio!

I like Stephen 👍

Justin was going so well until 7:55

Stephen’s a bit cringey in his attempts to be Hitch.

I've been in apologetics for a long time and this is one of the few times that I have heard someone include the emotional reasons, even in a cumulative case, for rational reasons to believe in God - and it worked well. Good job Justin.

If in the end, in Justin’s closing , we are in need of essentially love and hope, how does god actualize this without just appealing to people “acting on his behalf”? We love people, we hope for things in THIS WORLD. Any appeal to some afterlife to “ultimately” assuage our need for hope and love is a faith position, one that doesn’t change anything meaningful in the life we live (although one can certainly have some semblance of comfort believing even in untrue things).

At 36 minutes, Steven says that Genghis Khan isn't doing something objectively/ultimately wrong by torturing people, and then admits that Genghis Khan, in some sense, shouldn't care. Justin then says that it seems like a problem that we can't say that Genghis Khan did anything wrong. This is a straw man on the part of Justin (unintentionally obviously). What Steven (implicitly) said is that Genghis Khan didn't do anything wrong according to Genghis Khan. We, as humans, can absolutely say that Genghis Khan was morally wrong according to ourselves or according to human morality or according to utilitarianism or according to some agreed moral axioms. The only thing we can't say is that it was wrong according to Genghis Khan, which is trivially obvious. Basically, all these paradoxes and discomforts go away as long as you always insist on all "ought" questions having an "according to". Any moral statement without an "according to" is at best ambiguous and at worst meaningless. Also, at 48 minutes, Justin basically says (by accepting that the old testament contains some difficult parts and that the explanation is that ... different culture, more a rulebook for them than an absolute moral code) that it was ok for the ancient israelites to do (god-sanctioned) terrible things, because it was a different culture. Well if his world view means he can't condemn it, that to me is a problem - an awful paradoxical moral relativist of the worst sort. To me, this is a clear picture of what religion does to people. Justin, who is thoughtful, rational and fundamentally a good guy, is in a position where he switches from absolutism to relativism when it suits him, and can condone slavery passages and other attrocities in a holy book. Justin is a good and mainly rational person. But the things he says would be more rational and good if he wasn't Christian. On the other hand, Steven's weak point was the fine tuning argument, where everything he said was missing the problem.

Yikes, outside the confines of an edited video RR is not such the force that he appears on his own channel.

Plenty of Christian commenters on here claiming Stephen’s arguments are fallacious but WITHOUT naming what they are. A bit like claiming a god exists without arguing why

It’s poor education that leaves people confused by so many vague definitions. Everyone would potentially agree if we all understood what the issues are. You can get the results that you want from a “survey” by the way a question is asked, especially using words with nebulous definitions. The more specific the question is, the better results you can have. Defining evolutionism as object credit giving, it is easy to see how irrational evolutionism is.

On the next episode : Is it rational to clean your chimney before santa claus comes to deliver your presents ?

I found I couldn’t rationally be a atheist was brought up by a atheist family taught evolution at school then at 21 God challenged me I couldn’t believe in it no longer now 31 years later and still believe

We are not. God puppets we are. Free. Thinking and God. Has given us independent

Without faith you cannot be rational.

Steven looks good clean shaven and with that haircut.

Lol. So many christians making nonsensical arguments down here

Great job Justin! Stephen's arguments are riddled with holes/fallacies! He didn't have adequate responses to the arguments on reason and morality. I have been exchanging comments with Stephen's fandom in his Rat Rules channel.

The borrowed valor of superfluous moderators.

I've listened to this twice, on both channels, and it seems to me the central issue is that any particular religion is exactly as (ir)rational as the others. Where Justin claims that atheists are appropriating morality from an 'objective' Judaeo-Christian foundation, so too might the Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist claim the 'objective' moral foundation.

The sick bloke in the background, coughing every 5 minutes, needed to have excused himself. Seriously distracting. I understand two or three coughs, but seriously, every five or so minutes give or take a few minutes. It was like he was doing it on purpose! Unless he was on deaths bed, he could have gone out and watched or listen to the debate later.

His hair in his face is going to annoy me for the rest of the video, isn’t it?

Justin is certainly right about morality, minus the determinism bit. If we are wrong about murder being wrong, we need to question our most fundamental epistemological apparatus. As Louise Antony says, "any argument for subjectivism is going to contain premises which are less obviously true than that killing the innocent is wrong". Thus, it would be irrational to believe in subjectivism.

45 minutes in Justin said, "love is not logical." If God is all loving it follows God is not logical at all.

Doing good Justin! Out of the first 4 comments, half are trolls haha

I tried to put myself back into my prior atheistic self to better comprehend the argument, seeing it, as it were, from Stephen’s perspective, as I once did for 54 years. But what I found was that, no matter how hard I tried to hear Justin from the atheistic side, standing with Stephen, I couldn’t. Not really. Of course I understand the intellectual positions of the argument, but now that the God who I once thought completely fictional has so radically altered my understanding, I can in no way revert back to that position any more than a monarch butterfly can become its former caterpillar self. Once altered, forever changed. There are things that can’t be seen until you’ve actually traveled there. Stephen can’t see it yet, and I pray that in his sincere search for Truth, that he be given true perspective. The ticket to travel is only a humble heart. God will do the rest.

far far more unlikely - how the hell did Justin work out that "likelyness", just after his ridiculous fine tuning argument which had been debunked many times - if the universe is fine tuned for Justin please get him to live at the bottom of the atlantic

Can you have more debates, conversations concerning uniformitarianism versus catastrophism. The evidence for a single catastrophic global flood in the recent is quite overwhelming, yet scientists consistently overlook the evidence or call it an anomaly. This topic will truly explain the assumptions that scientists rely on as fact versus hypothesis. I was only shown one side of story throughout my entire educational life. Many are just ignorant and have never been introduced to the alternative theories that explain the earths geological past.

Loving your enemy sure is poison 🙄 Also he believes in the long-debunked Conflict Thesis. The first of his many fallacies is Guilt by Association. Here we go.....

Justin Brierley is a God send.

Stephen is incredibly charismatic. Most of his arguments were rather probabilistic then deductive, and he didn't actually show, that christianity is irrational, but he speech was pretty interesting.

At 22:50 Stephan (Rationality Rules) says, "Ask yourself, with all sincerity, how is that rational? Even if you strip back my hyperbole ..." In all sincerity, I'd ask, what hyperbole? Really. It is not that I agree with Stephan and am asking the question facetiously. I am pretty sure Stephan wants to have it both ways. What would he say that he has uttered that is hyperbolic? And yet he asks, "Can you really rationalize such absurdity?" Now let us not use absurdity as a metaphor. Let's assume that we aren't playing games and for the debate to be helpful and serious we have to use language as unequivocally as possible. All of what Stephan has said to this point is similar to the apparent problem of evil, which says that a good God would not have created a world that permits evil to exist. I use this example, (although Stephan hasn't) because it has been answered convincingly by William Lane Craig and I feel that the same answer can be given to the challenges presented by evil. In short, the claim can be made that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. On another note, he asks the audience at 18:29, please put your hand up if you are for gay marriage. And then he chastens the Christians that God hasn't made it clear. What isn't clear to me is what he meant to actually ask the audience with the question. Was it, "Do you think that God would bless same-sex marriage?" or is the question, "Given that Christians make up a small minority of the population, and the majority of the population is in favor of gay marriage, should the majority of society need to consult the minority Christian segment of the population about what the law of the land should be." I am sure that some in the audience would have raised their hands in favor of gay marriage and indicated that the issue should be decided democratically and not that they necessarily expressed God's approval of gay marriage.

Rationality rules indeed rule no doubt

Is it rational NOT to be a Christian? Might be abetter question.

Just as perplexing as the notion of something out of nothing is the idea that an all-perfect God could have any unfulfilled desires. This concept of desire in an all-perfect, self-contained godhead has always puzzled me. On the one hand, you have God enjoying his blissful perfection, in need of nothing and, on the other hand, that same blissfully perfect God suddenly gets a creative urge, knowing that if he acts on that urge he will be opening Pandora's Box, a box filled with so much horror and suffering any sane entity would recoil at the thought. And yet, we are asked to believe this omniscient, all-loving godhead opens Pandora's Box anyway when nothing is compelling him to do so. When absolutely nothing is forcing him to abandon his state of bliss, in which there is no evil, no suffering, and no eternal torment, nothing compelling him to end that blissful state to create a nightmare. Is it possible for a godhead to become bored with his perfection? That is a question easily overlooked in the stampede of drama that pours out of the bible from the very first chapter. Again, I ask, what could compel a blissfully perfect, loving god to disturb his eternal bliss to create a place of eternal torment for creatures who never needed to exist? This idea is a hole in the creation story big enough to drive a Mack truck through, and yet Christian drama addicts pretend they don't see it. Any thoughts on this, Justin?

In my opinion, thinking that religious people are irrational is a very arrogant position to hold. The vast majority of people have religious views of some kind, whether it be Christianity or some other type of faith. By saying that religious people are irrational, what you’re really saying is that you are more rational than the vast majority of people, which is a very arrogant position to have.

I have listened and generally enjoyed Stephen in the past BUT, he is much more impressive when lecturing to a group of apes (his words in each of his videos) than when having a competent debater. He was Unbelievable(y) weak here. I'm shocked at how irrational he was.

Rationality rules fits perfectly with " The fools says in his heart, there is not God"

Sometimes I think Justin is a professional Poe.

God being all knowing, that he should have snapped His fingers and made the message clear. Is as weak as a robotic engineer should have build a robot that doesn't malfunction, or doesn't need improvement. Unlike the robot engineer, God wanted an actual relationship with his creation, while most robotic engineers want a beneficial relationship with what the robot can reign in, money, substance, a partner, ect. That argument is based in ignorance of Bible, even in comparison to the natural world.