“We cannot understand the mind of god and he works in mysterious ways… but let me tell you exactly what he wants you to do”

_"A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist."_ [Matt Dillahunty]

I always love the suggestion that what whenever there's something contradicting our interpretation, we can't possibly understand everything that God meant, but anything that fits our interpretation, we know exactly what was meant and we understand it fully.

Great debate! I was dizzy with just how many of Simon’s arguments were just flat assertions 😂

Stephen: 'Here's my rational argument.' Simon: 'Imagine the leaves in your garden.'

A masterclass from Simon in avoiding questions and redefining language to suit an agenda. Truly inspiring, I don't know why I came searching for something as lowly as rational debate.

This theists credentials are quite Impressive. Imagine how hard I laughed when he opens with the watchmaker analogy. Apologetics really hasn’t changed in 200 years huh.

As an Aussie I'm going to apologize, but before you ask, the answer is no. You took the smeghead, we don't want him back. Well done Steve, you hit that one for six.

_"Gods & magic are the simplest & most childish excuses men have ever invented to explain things they didn't & still don't even want to understand."_ [AronRa]

I didn’t think Simon’s arguments would be so bad. That’s probably my fault. Stephen crushed Simon on the moral question.

Thanks you steven for not permitting the word "accident" to stand. Listening to this was worth it just to hear this epic takedown at 48:11 "If you define accident as anything not designed" - rationality rules

I'm only 11 minutes in, but I wanted to share a problem that I've been having. I guess it's a good thing more than a problem but when the believer started his opener, my heart dropped because he seems like a really sweet and kind man who is arguing for things that aren't real. I don't know. It's just a little sad sometimes.

If this is the best god can do in terms of it's people defending his existence... He shouldn't be surprised so many don't believe he's real at all...

What this debate clearly showed is that Simon is a really nice guy, but irrational. :)

It's hilarious how Simon cites racism and sexism as universally objectionable ideas when I'm pretty sure the Bible is the main reason why people still justify those beliefs today

"I kind of predicted that you might pick a few *_obscure Bible passages..."_* "Totally valid that you would pick some *_really tricky verses..."_* Obscure Bible passages?! My guy... Stephen is referring to the sixth commandment (from the second draft), which is literally one of the most quoted parts of the entire collection of books, then referring to an ENTIRE CHAPTER, not "some really tricky verses," where that very same character does exactly the opposite of that commandment specifically because Yahweh directly spoke to him. This isn't obscure. This is from the story of the guy who is credited with one of the most well-known parts of the whole Bible. ---- "Then *_the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites_* for the sons of Israel; afterward you will be gathered to your people.'" "So they made war against Midian, just *_as the Lord had commanded Moses,_* and _they killed every male. They killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of those killed: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword."_ "But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. And Moses said to them, 'Have you spared all the women?'" "Now therefore, _kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately._ However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves." ---- Simon completely deflects from that chapter by saying not only that you can't hold it against a modern moral standard, but that it makes sense when you look back at the same book a few chapters earlier in Numbers 25... But rather than justifying anything, that section raises even MORE questionable killing! ---- "While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them. *_The Lord said to Moses, 'Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.'_* So _Moses said to Israel’s judges, 'Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.'_ Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. _He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach._ Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000. *_The Lord said to Moses, 'Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites.'"_* ---- So people were sleeping with women from another culture and participating in their rituals, therefore not only genocide, but also culling your own people? Yeah, that's NOT better. *tl;dr: Moses being told by Yahweh to kill every male and every female who has slept with a male after being given the commandment not to kill is NOT an obscure tricky verse, and his deflection to holding the Bible to a certain moral standard falls flat when it fails to uphold its OWN moral standard.*

It’s unfortunate this was so short. I feel like both sides barely had time to get their thoughts across. That said, this was less a debate and more of a discussion between cordial adults and that’s always a pleasure to listen to.

By far the cringiest argument was essentially "I can't actually defend how theism supports moral objectivity due to the accurate dichotomy you've raised. So instead I'll ignore that and you'll just have to trust me that 'he is the good' despite not being able to define what that means"

Rationality Rules does a great job explaining difficult subjects in an easy to understand way. Rationality really does rule.

One thing I noticed right away is Stephen's opening statement was, "here's the problem of evil, here are common creationist rebuttals, and here's why I think these responses are insufficient." Simon's opening statement was, "here are 3 common creationist arguments." Stephen playing chess, Simon playing checkers.

As a lawyer I wouldn't want to be defended by somebody who doesn't believe in evidence. What a shame to the profession. So much false reasoning, so much false argument.

His arguements are soooo bad. I loved watching you smile whenever you saw where he was going well ahead of time, Stephen. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so frustrating.

Dammmmmn Stephen!!!! That opening was outstanding. Everything I've Ever wanted to say on this topic. And exactly the reasoning and rationality that will make someone come to the realization of truth. And finally leave make believe behind.

That was icredibly entertaining. Amazing job, Stephen!

We were treating each other "morally" (mutually cooperatively / constructively) for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years before we ever invented the word "morality" to describe it. It's no coincidence that all religious moral codes just happen to be about behavior -- stealing, killing, lying -- that undermines the sense of security of the group.

Man Steven is so good at this stuff. The inescapable logic is well...inescapable.

Great stuff, I think Stephen's debate style has greatly improved. I was also pretty excited when he whipped out the Problem of Evil _and_ the Euthyphro dillemma later on. Definitely a great 1-2 punch.

Thanks host for the opening false equivalence between rationality and theism.

14:57 Stephen you are so on the money here. That little smile was everything. I smirked at the same time you did when he said, "our universe is finely tuned for life... because our universe has at least 30 or more scientific properties like gravity, electromagnetism, dark energy, like precise dials on a radio..."

I could've listened to another hour. You explain things so well!

dear mr. woodford, i have to admire your patience to explain those things again and again.

I love that when Simon was talking, Steve was just smirking at how ridiculous the things he was saying were 😂

Thanks so much! Your public speaking skills have gone off the charts my man.

Hard to believe that people are still using the "fine tuning" argument.

Very refreshing watching such a respectful debate where people listen and talk to understand and not talk over each other in order to win.

Stephen, you did great in this debate. Although the nerves were getting in your way, you still managed to explain your arguments well enough.

What did I just witnessed? A civil debate? That's so rare! Good job Stephen and Simon! I can even concede that Simon put forward an interesting argument with the "rationality vs fitness spawning from evolution". Never heard that before!

Great conversation. You will get better on the points. It's hard to focus if opponent plan is to mislead.

Rationality Rules, and wow did it! Stephen, I don't know that I've seen you in a public debate like this! Excellent job! I hope it pays well and you keep at it! Most impressive, my young dude!👍💙💖🥰✌

They need to give Stephen a better challenge.

The more Simon went on, the more I was saying "This is easy pickings for Stephen, he's gonna wipe the floor with his nonsense."

Simon's refusal to engage the morality question in good faith is very telling; it's clear he either hasn't given it much thought or is quite uncomfortable with the (obvious) answer.

Simon’s arguments were absolute shite. To be fair, they we’re arguing two different things. But I don’t know if Simon could have argued anything less or more. His naturalistic argument was weak; others have argued better. This was a amateur boxer vs a Tyson in the prime.

Absolutely crushed him imo. Annoyed me that Simon kept referring to an atheistic view as the atheistic belief. One thing to note: you kept forgetting the water bottle was empty 😅

Got so excited when you brought up the Euthyphro dilemma and especially when he gave the classic answer "well God is good'. Legitimately haven't heard any apologist answer the follow up question of that. Still haven't of course, but that's ok I guess.

Breaking out the watch makers argument was the cringiest possible opening. I would have accepted him just standing up and going "come on." Really emphatically over that.

Simon lost the argument on the Euthyphro Dilemma and was conveniently cut short. Stephen's questions would have had the theist grasping for rational answers with none coming.

Man this was good. Thank you Stephen. The only defence Simon seemed to put up was to drag out hes vague answers.

the human mind trying so desperately to rationalise irrational biblical morality, is truly something to behold. Excellent work Stephen!

That opening statement was amazing. Well done.

Well done Steven! First debate of yours that I've seen and for what it's worth I thought you presented your arguments well and responded to counter arguments equally well. Also, I learnt about the counter to objective morality claims. Before, I didn't even understand why it matters or what the point being made is. Now my understanding is that the objective biblical morality is equally shaky. Unless one presupposes a god that is omnibenevolent. But then of course whence cometh suffering and evil...

Frankly right now is like arguing with toddlers: they have absoluterly nothing. 2 minutes into the apologist introduction and i've already groaned 3 times for how childish were his arguments.

Keep up the good work Stephen, huge fan from Uruguay!

Impressive performance Stephen. The first condescending remark came at 39:08 when Simon said "I kind of predicted that you would pick a few obscure bible passages...". I love how you matched his energy in your next response at 42:17 with "in the literature this is the most common rejoinder you'll get to the objection that i raised...". And you kept up with the perfect amount of grit from there as to not allow him to resort to mockery as his arguments failed.

I really appreciate that these two were respectful of each other

13:30 - 14:02 I propose that the human species is so successful because evolution by natural selection has provided us the advantage of being able to come to scrutinise reality and come to true beliefs.

It's not irrational to believe what your parents and community tell you to believe. That has no bearing on whether it's true or not. You can "believe" anything that suits you but "facts" require evidence. Without evidence or data, there is no logical reason to believe something is real.

This was a good debate and wish it was another hour! Thank you, Steven.

Imagine going to Oxford University, and then parroting Frank Turek's arguments.

Only 20 minutes in so keep that in mind... but, why can't relgious people at least come up with new/different arguments?

12:27 I groaned when he mentioned design and morality because I know those two arguments have been debunked on this channel but maybe he got something in his bag

42:19 That was so well played. You literally allow him to run his scripted answer to the dilemma just to strangle him with his own words. It is only more obvious when his ONLY response is to abandon rationality and appeal to intuition and emotion.

Well done, Stephen! You've gotten much better at live debates. I'd like to tackle one topic Simon brought up that you didn't have time to cover in depth... Simon says, "In a godless universe where everything that exists, including our minds, is but the product of mindless, unplanned, unguided processes, then on what rational basis can I trust that anything my mind tells me is true, including the arguments that lead me to atheism?" [13:00] Mind, thought, logic, etc., are the processes of what a naturally evolved brain like ours does (as well as other animals, to some extent). Atoms aren't chemistry, but can lead to the emergence of chemistry. Chemistry is not biology, but can lead to the emergence of biology. And multicellular biology forms the physiology of complex organs, like human brains, which process sensory inputs, distinguishing between hot vs. cold, light vs. dark, sound vs. silence, and in some cases, fact vs. fiction (though some of us are better at this than others). You don't need a god to tell you the truth value that the light in a room is either on or off. Even the most basic light-sensitive single celled organisms, like the Erythropsidinium, can detect the truth of light. Truth starts with our senses. (Though senses too can be fooled, like optical illusions, but work well enough for most species to rely upon to aid in their survival). One would expect that the only way creatures could possibly survive in a mindless, unplanned, unguided process like natural selection in a physical universe, is if those creatures could distinguish basic sensory truths. The rational basis for believing our minds when they tell us some things are true, is the fact that our species has survived the harsh and often cruel trials of evolution. But that doesn't mean we can automatically detect every truth value as easily as we can detect light from dark. Some senses, some processes of logic, etc., are stronger than others. Humans survived for a very, very long time without the ability to smell like a wolf, see like a hawk, or use the advanced math, logic, and reason we take for granted today. Nomadic hunter-gatherers didn’t have time to contemplate the possible ways string theory or loop quantum gravity may or may not affect our universe. But all this is to be expected with slow evolution under naturalism. However, in many theists’ worldview, god is the architect of our minds. But this would imply that humans should ALWAYS discern fact from fiction, because an all powerful, all knowing god wouldn't design an inferior, faulty mind (unless he was not all loving and just playing a cruel joke). Yet, the evidence demonstrates that not only atheists, but the vast majority of people on the planet, disagree with Simon's version of a god in ways both minor and major, and thus clearly cannot rely on his god's design of mind to determine what is actually true.

Like number 500 thank you for sharing this. Think you totally tore his arguments apart. Don't think he had enough experience with Atheists to really deal with what you were saying to him in most contexts.

Just finished hearing the openings but, gosh, it feels like virtually anything can be constructed to be proof of God if you really want it.

It's way more humbling that we're here simply by chance. And it's also super cool to realise that we are the universe looking back on itself.

Is it rational to believe in God? No. In particular, it's irrational to believe the Jewish god of Abraham over all the others from other cultures throughout history.

17.30 "It goes counter to some of our deepest intuitions" - and those intuitions have evolved over a million and more years of living in cooperative groups

"To get away from that uncomfortable dilemma, you'd just have to become a believer! And then you'll believe! Job done!" Christianity becomes more absurd the more you think about it!

👏🙂 Great video. The debate was unfortunately too short for Stephen and Simon to really get into the arguments.

Having been through this exploration of the _rationality_ of faith many times, I could not help but be moved by the fact that *Stephen only got to drink one bottle of water and at least three bottles of air.*

Nice guy. He seems to be a version of the average believer…who’s never pondered (or pretended to ponder) the veracity of his beliefs.

I always enjoy a good debate. 2 different views and yet we can talk. Bravo to both speakers and thank you Stephen for your post.

This is just painful. How Stephen isn’t laughing out loud is credit to him.🤦‍♂️

Circular argument that rejects science Conflating atheism with naturalism Another circular argument And a third circular argument that rejects science Great work Simon. NOT

I don't know, to me Steve's intro already destroyed ANY possible argument the other side oculd have given.

Gotcha Steven! Evolution doesn't evolve minds that can discover true things - we all know there's absolutely no correlation between believing true things and survival! Right, I'm off to eat some nutritious superglue.

If our minds primarily serve truth, then there would not be illusions and biases. I think Simon shot his own foot there.

The argument from morality bolsters the rationality of atheism. God judges us according to a supposed moral code, but morals have obviously evolved over time.... Maybe God judges us according to the moral code during the time we lived 🙄

"Evolution didn't intend Steven." Something we can ALL agree on.

I like that there is no cover on the table so you can see Stephen's leg twitching every time when Simon misrepresents what Stephen is saying, but he stays patient and polite :)

Great job on a great conversation

Simon Edwards could be synonymous with word salad.

Excellent argument from Stephen with "God ask us to do things because they are good or what God ask us is good because he ask it?" that proved in a sense that morality is independent of God, even in Simon logic and argument, because we can see (even Simon) that some things that God asked Moses (to kill genocide etc) are objectively from a moral perspective wrong. Even if God ask it, which it did. And we still think it's wrong right now. So...if we are able too see a wrong thing that God ask, we don't need God to have morality.

Straight into the watchmaker. Fell at the first hurdle, hit his face on the floor and smashed out his teeth.

I think you did really good in this discussion.

If you think that your mind has some kind of access to recognition of truth, you're living in a fantasy world. We very obviously do not have the ability to tell truth from untruth. We can only use our meager physiological tools to attempt to discern what is more or less likely about the world around us, which is why this argument is about which assumption is more or less rational. If there were some access to absolute truth, this debate would not exist.

Nice work, Stephen! I especially like how you “flipped the script” after 7:12

It amazes me every time I see one of these and it just reaffirms that apologists really only have a very limited bag of paper-thin arguments on their belts. At any rate, beautifully done, Stephen. Here's hoping that these discussions continue, and that they accomplish 3 things: 1) Break the religious stigma that atheists are hateful savage people. 2) Break the religious stigma that atheists are all dumb and their worldviews have no leg to stand on. 3) Break the religious stigma that atheism is some concerted "anti-christian" movement and not just a word given to the billions of people across nearly every culture and worldview that simply are not convinced of a deity's existence.

Could you do video on why religion is on the rise is false?

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"

"I want what's true, not what makes me feel good" He said exactly what I wrote months ago!

Justin always comes swooping in everytime the theist is absolutely floundering to address the atheist points.

"I love you brian". Oh how often that emotional appeal worked for me. Sitting in a car, a 5 lb trigger weight from oblivion, Christian music telling me that someone does love me. I suspect he went for that specific message in this hypothetical rather than "there is a god" because often the emotional attachment to God kept many of us in longer than it should have. But of course we now understand the processes of how many aspects of our world as complex and seemingly unexplainable as words in leaves do come about without intervention and as for the processes that we can't yet explain we have no particular reason to believe a deity was involved.

Argh!! So annoyed that Stephen did not think of the fact that, if Simon is right about the mind, that it was created to find truth and god exists then there should be no atheists. But if the mind is created by evolution and not primed for truth finding that would on the other hand explain why people invented religion.

Not sure I had heard of Stephen, but he's terrific! Very easy to listen to, and he gets his points across with great precision. Simon seems like a wonderful, kind man.

Knock, Knock!! "Who's there?" "It's god, let me in so i can save you." "Save me from what?" 'From what i will to you if you don't let me in!!"

Stephen really ought to offer his game of Debunked after this "debate". Simon would have ended up with all the cards.

Stephen, you really excel in this format.

Short answer: no. Long answer: fuck no.