This, you said statements either true or false.

I gave you a statement, and you said it doesn't apply.

Not to that it's not only truth.

App statements would be either true or false.

So is it true that I'm talking to you?

Is it true that it's true?

Statement, I'm talking to you, Is that true?

Yes.

Okay.

Is it true that babies exist?

Well, I mean, how babies exist.

Babies exist.

Babies exist.

Is that true or is it not the case that it's true?

I would, I mean, if you want to go down the, you know, if you want to be very strict about it, I would be skeptical about.

Okay, we're done talking.

This is Apologetics Live to answer your questions.

Your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapaport.

Welcome to another edition of Apologetics Live.

We're here to answer your most challenging questions you have about God and the Bible.

We say every week we can answer any question that you have about God and the Bible.

And if you doubt that, well, just come on in.

Just go to apologize live.com and you can join the discussion.

Give me your most challenging question.

Just remember, one thing I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

So we are here to not only teach apologetics, but do apologetics.

If those of you were watching listening to last week's episode, we had someone just at the end be, be willing to come in, and with like 10 minutes left, it was like, yeah, we don't want to do it.

Three, four hour discussion.

So I asked Landon if he wouldn't mind coming this week so we could get a full time with him.

So let me bring Landon in.

Landon, welcome to Apologetics Live.

Hey, thanks for having me.

Well, you know, I will say, when you emailed, your email said that you were the nice atheists.

So anyone who watched the episode last week will know that there were other types in the comment section, so it seemed like a necessary distinction.

Well, we're, we're, we're kind of used to that sometimes in the chat with, with some.

But so let, let's start off, let folks know a little about you.

Just, you know, you and I were just briefly talking back backstage.

We, we, we, you came up with some ideas for topics.

I, you know, put together something really quick.

I don't know how much of it we're going to get through, but, you know, let folks know a little about you, your background, because I thought it was quite interesting, some of your background.

Yeah, happy to.

Yeah, thanks for having me.

It's great.

I always enjoy a good A good chat on this.

I grew up sort of born and raised evangelical Christian.

My parents were full time missionaries in an international missions organization.

And so I was about as immersed as you can get.

You know, all the summer camps, all the Sunday schools, all the missions trips, all the everything.

And you know, I loved it.

This isn't.

There's no like twist at the end of this story where like I got mad at God or church was terrible or I got mistreated.

Kind of quite the opposite, which maybe makes my sort of angle a little unique.

So fast forward, I graduated high school, moved away to go to school in Florida, and just started kind of evolving as a Christian, asking some questions about the faith I had inherited as a child.

You know, like, pretty typical questions.

How does prayer work?

Do miracles really happen?

Is the Bible inerrant?

Does hell exist?

Just kind of going down, trying to wrestle with some of these things really as much to like strengthen it and take ownership of it as anything.

I was still very involved in church.

It wasn't that I was like now surrounded by non Christians and trying to kind of like be defensive about it.

It was quite the opposite.

But eventually I think that now known as process of deconstruction kind of got to the roots really in some ways unexpectedly and in others kind of unwanted.

And I think ultimately kind of that felt that foundation sort of crumbled out and didn't feel like I had sort of enough of the pieces still intact to say that I was a Christian.

And you know, I sort of processed that and eventually sort of became resolved, I guess not in a like, emotional sense, but just kind of like accepted, I think, the fact that I wasn't there anymore and I wasn't a Christian and stepped back from my, you know, involvement in church and started processing that.

And you know, some people that I know, you know, started, I think I remember like I was getting feedback.

I wrote an essay about it and shared it with some people and just a way to kind of like try to organize my thoughts.

And I had a handful of people respond to that, saying generally pretty loving comments like, hey, we're sorry, kind of hate to see this happen, but I hope you circle back or whatever.

And then a couple people dropped in this kind of FYI.

What are you going to do now that you don't have a grounding for morality or something?

I don't remember exactly how it was worded, but there are a few of these kind of metaphysics, epistemology, little comments people made.

And I frankly had not thought about it.

It Thought it sounded.

I had, like, a weird kind of reaction to, like, that's a weird thing to say.

Like, I'm the same person.

I care about the same things.

I didn't feel like I had gone through, like, a personal transformation.

But anyone who's delved into philosophy in any amount knows that you realize it's a very, very, very deep rabbit hole.

And so it seemed on the surface to be a very strange, almost maybe absurd question to me in the moment, and quickly realized that, like, articulating the answer is not easy.

And that kind of led me down a long path of really enjoying philosophy and being more intentional about conversations.

A very close friend of mine, still my best friend, is the pastor of that church that I was going to at the time.

He and I started a podcast for a while called Meaning in the Middle, and, you know, where we would just chat about things we disagreed about, about theology, about philosophy, trying to sort of model that in the context of, like, a loving friendship and sort of how to disagree.

Well, I guess, in a sense.

So anyway, all that to say I am happy to hold the label of atheist, but I.

It's like we're joking before that maybe comes with a connotation on the Internet that I'm coming in hot and heavy with a lot of top spin, looking to, like, you know, insult you or, you know, that I think you're somehow, like, an instrument of evil.

That is.

Could not be farther from the case.

So, anyway, yeah, I.

Happy to kind of share about the pieces.

I feel like I've tried to kind of put back together and sort of understanding who I am and what I think reality is and how to sort of approach some of these questions.

But, yeah, before I get too much of a rambling biography, I'm gonna bring.

Chuck in to see if he got his audio fixed.

Let's see.

Chuck, can you hear us?

Okay, I see you're talking, but I don't hear you.

So it might be you're muted.

I can unmute you, so.

Oh, there we go.

How's that?

Hey, we hear you.

Oh, okay.

There we go.

It's weird because I can't hear myself through my headphones like I used to, so.

But if y' all can hear me, that's all that matters.

Yeah.

For anyone watching, there are gremlins in the system today.

Apparently, we're all having technical issues.

Yeah, I.

And I don't know what it is, but.

So, all right, let.

Let's.

Yeah.

So.

So, Chuck, nice having you back.

Haven't seen you for a While.

Yeah, it's good to be back, Landon.

Chuck, is.

Is his.

His handle on.

On X is atheist Nightmares.

So I saw that when he signed in.

I kind of figured maybe.

I hope.

It's nice to meet you, Chuck.

Yeah.

So.

But.

So.

And Landon, I'll let you start because I know, you know, one thing, you know, we like to do here, at least I like to do is, is have good discussions, but I like to let my guest, even if I disagree with his view, to share it.

So we.

I don't want to assume your view, because that's something that I find a lot of people do, is assume someone's view and then attack a straw man.

So I don't want to do that.

I want to hear what it is you believe, and then we can interact some.

And, you know, one of the things for folks who, you know, folks who may be new to this program and saying, well, you know, if they're a Christian and they're saying, well, why would I allow Landon here, as a professing atheist, to explain his views?

Well, one reason is because it's respectful.

A second is it's my show.

I can do a whole show responding to anything Landon says next week.

So if I give him full two hours, I can have.

I can have two shows afterwards.

You know, like, it's not a problem.

Right?

I mean, Landon, you're always welcome in because the show is open to anyone.

Anyone that wants.

Can.

Can come in.

So actually, I should let.

Chuck, you want to introduce yourself since you're here?

It's been a while since you've come in.

Yeah, my name is Chuck, and as was mentioned, I run the X account, Atheist Nightmares, and we have a lot.

Of fun with it.

It sounds kind of scary, but it's not.

I think the real fun is when we get into the comments and the replies, and so that's pretty good.

And I am an elder at a church here in League city, Texas.

That's 5 Solas Church.

So if you're looking for a solid reformed church in the area, check us out@fivesomes.net and if that doesn't scare you away, come on in and check us out.

And Landon, just so you know, since you.

You asked me an email, Chuck would be a presuppositionalist.

Okay, cool.

All right, so, Chuck, I'm gonna mute myself.

You don't feel my muting yourself for a little bit?

We'll let Landon just explain a little of his view.

Views.

And then when you want to talk, just on mute.

So.

So Landon Tell us a little bit about, you know, your, your specific views.

When you say, like, you know, me digging more into what it is that brought you to deconstruct what it is that, you know, where you're at today as far as you, you wanted to talk specifically about, like, you know, the, you know, tag argument, transcendental argument for, you know, for God.

You want to talk a bit about, you know, logic, morality.

So I, I, I'm gonna just open it up to you to see where, where you want to go with the conversation.

So go for it.

Yeah, cool.

Yeah, I appreciate the, the space.

Yeah.

Where to start?

I kind of, like, I mentioned a little in that, that intro, I, the things that sort of led to the deconstruction were, you know, pretty standard questions, I guess, in some sense.

And like I said, for a long time they weren't.

I wasn't having a crisis of faith.

I was just, you know, it felt isolated, you know, thinking about miracles that, you know, whether or not miracles happen or how they happen was maybe challenging to the theology I grew up with, but wasn't like, doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Does a lot of, like, Christians that have different views on these things?

So anyway, it kind of felt that way.

And then, yeah, I'm a, I think I came at some of those questions, you know, like, take prayer, for example.

Like, does God answer?

Prayer was a question.

And I know that can be like, complicated topic.

You know, if it doesn't get answered in the way you want it to, does that mean it wasn't answered?

You know, there's like lots of kind of angles at it.

I think for me, I kind of, some of those got somewhat resolved where I felt like, okay, even if it requires faith, for example, for a miracle to occur or for a prayer to be answered, it shouldn't take faith to determine after the fact whether or not a miracle did in fact happen or whether or not a prayer was answered.

And so some of it was kind of empirical like that.

Some of it became a little more philosophical or theological.

You know, does hell exist?

Is that necessary?

Does that make sense at least this kind of like Dante's Inferno version of it?

Does that make sense in, you know, a universe made by an all good God is like annihilationism or a different, like, approach.

Does that feel like it fits the picture, but, you know, just kind of going through those things and then eventually, like I said, I think I chipped away at enough of those where then it was like, okay, I don't really know The Bible can still be valuable and have a lot of wisdom in it now.

I think there's a lot of kind of human stuff in it too, and that sort of makes your relationship with it a little more complicated.

And yeah, it kind of chipped away.

And then after I sort of deconverted, I, like a lot of, you know, ex Christians, I found myself in that position of, okay, now what?

You know, like, I had this framework, I had this worldview that really answers all of the big questions, you know, whether I think those answers are necessarily justified now obviously has changed.

But when you come out of that, like, you lose a big toolkit.

You know, how do I understand who I am or what it means to be a self?

What, you know, how do we ground ethics?

Like, I still have a sense of right and wrong, but how do you justify those things?

You know?

And like I said, I like philosophy.

I like those discussions.

And so I kind of went through that journey of trying to put those pieces together.

And where I'm at now is I. I hold a view that I call.

Not that it's necessarily bespoke, there could be a better phrasing for that, it could just be my ignorance, but that I call relational realism.

And essentially it's a form, it's a flavor of naturalism that says it makes a distinction between relational ontology and what's called substance ontology.

So depending on your Christian tradition or your, your atheist secular tradition, a lot of people hold this, even if it's implicit, the substance ontology view of reality, which is that the universe and the material of existence is stuff, right?

That entities are more or less kind of comprised in and of themselves, and that it's fundamentally chaotic and unstructured, save for some kind of normative force that organizes it.

You know, obviously if you're a theist, you believe that that force is God organizes the chaos of the cosmos into, into order.

And I find that in a lot of these discussions, that ends up sort of being an unnamed sticking point where the, the.

And I just say this out loud not because I think you will do this or have done this, but discussions I've had.

It's very clear that I'm being responded to as if I hold a sort of reductionary materialist physicalism view.

And so I, as hopefully a point of clarity.

My view is not to take like the theist view of God's the metaphysical ground, then there's reality and the stuff in reality, and just to like, remove God and say that that's, that there's Not a problem.

What I'm trying to do or trying to articulate is to say that it's actually a different kind of reality in the same way that you could see God as a special kind of being.

Reality has inherent qualities, an inherent nature.

And the way I articulate that is I say the kind of basic.

Actually I may have it written down.

Let me say this, I don't jumble it.

So I say that reality is necessary, relational, consistent, uniform and multi dimensional.

So obviously a lot sort of loaded in all those terms.

The one I want to clarify though is the relational piece.

You put that in.

Can you copy and put.

And put that in the chat so I could see each of those.

And a question I had early on, let me just ask is what is your church background?

Like what denomination or.

Yeah, I guess you'd say non denominational.

Ira.

The irony of that being a denomination.

Non denominational evangelical, I guess.

Okay, so like Baptistic type.

Yeah.

Official.

Like not official in practice where I grew up was like pretty inter denominational but it was that kind of non denominational, you know, hillsong worship music and okay, that kind of maybe like there were, you know, there's like there was a slightly charismatic group in each church and there were some that were more like.

Yeah, there was some, some variety, but I think.

Yeah, generally that kind of.

Okay.

Flavor.

Oh yeah, let me grab these.

Yeah, because that's.

That, that, that thing he said is a mouthful and I'll.

And then once you put it in.

If you don't mind.

Repe the audience.

Who's.

Do you want that in the main chat?

Actually, yeah, that might not be.

It's like got bullet points.

I don't know if it's gonna like look like a mess.

It probably will because it's.

Well, all right, hold on, let me try something else.

All right, well while, while you're do.

Well, may.

Maybe we could do that after if it's.

Yeah.

Sorry, it's not.

I'll try it here.

Yeah, try it in the private chat.

Let's see.

Or if not email it to me and then I'll.

Yeah, sure.

If you can.

If you can do two things at once.

Not everything.

It might be too much.

I.

This is a true story.

I fell off a ladder today.

Oh, really?

Trying to.

Trying to cover some windows.

I'm going to paint my house.

Or the plan was to paint my house this weekend.

And.

You didn't have a concussion.

I fell off the ladder.

But apparently God wanted me to be on this live stream.

Sorry, I'm okay, if I say anything really stupid, we'll just say that I hit my head at some point we could chuck it up.

Okay, so reality is necessary, which is to say that it can't not exist.

It exists, you know, out of the necessity of its own nature.

It's relational, which is the piece I would like to unpack a little bit.

It's consistent and uniform, which is to say that its structure is universal and uniform and multi dimensional.

Just meaning that I.

Signaling that I'm not taking a physicalism view, that I take the sort of natural world that reality includes, abstracts, it includes consciousness.

With that comes meaning and ethical truths.

And so I, I don't, I'm not allergic to those, those concepts.

The relational piece, and that's what I'll try to touch on here is so I talked about substance ontology, this idea that, you know, there's substance or things that have an independent essence.

Relational ontology in opposition to that is the view that reality fundamentally consists of interconnected relationships, that things as objects emerge through their interactions and mutual and mutual interdependence with other things.

So a useful way I like to talk about this is if you just think about what it means to be a self.

I, you know, if I said, hey Andrew, like who are you?

If I ask one or two questions, I could ask who are you?

Or what are you?

Inevitably you're going to use some kind of reference to relationships.

You might talk about where you're from, you might talk about your family, you might talk about your worldview, you might talk about your genetics or your language or any number of things.

And all of these are sort of intersects, their relationships that intersect.

And the, the self at the, the sort of nexus of those, of that big kind of Venn diagram is you.

And you can't, you can't make sense of yourself outside of reference to those things.

You're, you're constituted by the relationships that make you up.

So I think objects, other entities are very similar.

That there's a lot of things that exist in the world but that are sort of, they're not.

I think there's so many things I want to say, so I'm going to try not to get too ahead.

This ties into ethics really easily, which is a lot of the discussion in morality is often about is moral truth subjective or objective?

And in the background, this is my personal opinion.

I think there's often this hidden assumption sometimes on both sides of hyper individualism that things are framed as this.

Like, well, who's to say that, you know, what so and so wants to do is immoral.

If they decide, you know, to be a serial killer or whatever, I sort of discard that premise on the jump and say that well being.

Any goal, any potential goals or aims of moral action, of value in general, are always interdependent.

And so moral reasoning in a similar sense is distributed.

It's relational.

We're trying to articulate principles that guide relational interaction.

And so at a very basic level, the reason I should not act immorally is because immoral action diminishes myself.

It diminishes me as an entity because I'm violating or compromising one or more of the relationships that sort of constitute my being.

And so I sort of push back on.

I would sort of take a strong stance to say that there's not ultimately a difference between well being for me and well being for you.

That well being itself, because we are relational beings and we exist relationally, is necessarily also a relational state.

And so those.

That's a lot there and a lot of threads we can pull on.

So I don't want to go too long into that, but think that like relational piece is really important.

That in my view reality is necessary, it's structured and ordered and it's also.

Existence is inherently relational.

That's probably a lot of things we generally, we may agree on.

I think the obvious sticking point will be whether or not that nature needs to be personal or you know, involved how you would define a mind.

But that's kind of my view and I think it, it spills into ethics, it spills into these other questions.

So I see reality, I see nature in a very rich, in as like a web of existence, of interdependence, of connection.

Not in a like new age woo woo way, but in an actual, like, I mean that literally.

That I, I think that's the nature of existence.

And because of that I think there's some clarity to be found in questions about morality and questions about existence.

Anyway, that's a lot.

So I'll.

Yeah, let me ask.

So you're saying it sounds like you're saying.

So sounds like you're saying that reality would be universal.

Would that be fair?

By.

Yeah.

I, I don't know exactly.

You mean by that.

I would say by definition, yes.

In other words, every, every human being is going to experience it, right?

We all experience reality.

Yeah.

Reality is everything that is real.

Yeah.

Do you also say it's absolute or is it.

Is reality subjective?

No, I would say it's.

Well, so say a little more about what you mean by absolute?

Well, whether it's objective, subjective.

Right.

If it's absolute, it applies to everyone, everywhere.

Right.

If it's subjective, you know, I can like vanilla and you can like chocolate.

You'd be wrong, but you know, you could.

Sure.

Right.

No, but even in that joke there, right.

It's.

If it's an.

If it's a absolute, then vanilla must be better.

But that.

That's preference.

Right.

You could prefer chocolate over vanilla.

So to me, vanilla, that's subjective.

Right.

To me, vanilla is better than chocolate.

Sure.

To you, maybe chocolate be better than vanilla.

So I would say reality.

Strawberry is better than both.

Then we're fine.

Yeah.

I think reality exists objectively.

Yes.

I think truth and.

Well, maybe I'm a moral realist.

So I tend to.

I think, you know, more morality is something we can be right or wrong about.

It's not vanilla versus chocolate, but distinction.

And this will come up probably in a lot of these is.

I tend to take a third way in the is this objective or objective question, which is to say in this relational frame, a lot of things like that are transjective.

Which sounds made up, but if we think about it, it's real, but it's in the relationship between the agent and the environment.

It's between two things.

So, like this can, this can is graspable.

That's true in the context of me, my abilities, and the inherent objective qualities of the can.

To say, is its graspability subjective to me?

Well, no, I can't grasp everything.

I can't grasp Africa, but I can grasp this can.

So it's not that I'm bringing all the graspability to the can.

It's not.

And the can, it's not an objective fact about the can that it's graspable.

Everything can't grasp this can.

But saying that it's graspable is a true statement about the can that exists.

In the context of my relationship to the can, my capability has a being.

I can grasp things within a certain frame.

And this can can be grasped.

And so things are.

I don't want that to be too confusing, but I think something like.

So let's take ethics for an example.

I think moral truth can't be one or the other.

I think meaning, like value of any kind, I think requires, is rooted inherently in consciousness.

It is a matter of experience.

So in that sense, it's quote unquote dependent on minds.

But an important distinction, I would say is it's not depend.

That does not mean it's dependent on opinions.

It's just dependent on experience, right?

So like rocks, we don't have moral concern for rocks.

They don't have moral responsibility towards us.

It's because they're not agents.

And it's because they do not experience, as far as we know, they do not experience anything that we should need to consider them in ethical terms.

But similarly, moral truth can also not be purely objective because.

So it can't be objective because we need the value to be rooted in subjectivity.

But it can't be purely subjective because we are not, because it is, it exists in this transactive state because we're talking about, as relational beings, we're talking about the answers that can apply to everyone.

I mean, you can take like Kant's categorical imperative.

There's a lot of like different angles at this.

But that's simply to say I tend to sort of reject the subjective versus objective.

And I think when we recognize that it's yes, it's experience because that's needed, it can't be, it can't be decreed from an external authority, right?

Like God, like we'll just take God because it's a matter of value.

It's like God couldn't just decree that torture is moral.

I mean, he could, but that decree wouldn't mean anything to us in a practical sense because it removes, it undermines the reason we care about morality, which is that we care about the quality of our experience.

Now there's a, there's something to be said about, okay, but don't we want some standard outside of any particular person's opinion?

Right.

The very classic cliche, especially on the Internet is, well, who's to say that the Nazis were wrong if Hitler thought he was, you know, producing well being?

But it's because we live in a relational state.

I inherently want what is best for me.

And whether I see it or not, in any given moment, moral behavior is the best path to taking care of myself.

Now it's true, that's not to say that it's just out of selfish ambition because like I said, on my view there is no significant distinction between what's meaningful and valuable for my well being and what's meaningful and valuable for yours.

So I sort of like, I don't know if that's bringing up questions.

I realize I'm rambling a little bit, but.

Yeah, well, let me.

There's a couple people in the, in the chat, I know, I saw it.

It looked like Chuck was taking notes, but Max Peck is at the question of do you believe there's only One reality?

Yes.

I think if we mean by reality everything that is real.

I don't know, you could partition that arbitrarily, but then those sets of spaces in which things are real would still just be sort of one reality.

Okay.

Jesse is asking, what is your standard of morality?

That is absolute truth?

If I try to put it very simply, it would be relational integrity.

It's recognizing that well being is a distributed relational state and that if I want my own well being and the well being of other people, which I do by my very nature, then I ought to act morally because that will cultivate, sustain and establish the integrity of the relationships that constitute my being.

And if I choose to violate those things, I diminish myself.

Okay.

And the re.

Sorry, go ahead.

No, no.

Well, I was just gonna.

Jesse followed up and he asked that.

He says, you know what, what is the standard of your moral behavior then?

By that do you mean what determines what behavior is moral?

What's the standard?

Is.

It's.

To me, correct me if wrong, it sounds like you're saying the standard for morality is.

Is yourself then, right?

It's.

It's your relationships.

Apparently not being clear.

Trying very to make it very clear that that is not my view.

I do not think it's based on me, my opinion, the opinions or preferences of any particular person or group.

It is also not.

It is also not completely independent of minds and experience because frankly, I don't think that makes any sense.

I think that's a category error to say that meaning can be grounded in something outside of experience.

So what I'm saying is the moral standard is relational integrity.

It's this view of relational ontology which I know is like a little foreign.

It maybe sounds a little weird, but.

Yeah, that's why I said when.

When you.

I said yourself in.

In the relationships.

Right.

I mean, it's.

It sounds, and correct me if you think I'm getting it wrong, but it sounds like you're.

You're seeing it's about not you as the individual, but you in relation to others.

Would that be correct?

Yeah, I. I would say.

The distinction I would make is that I think a properly phrased moral question is always plural.

So an example would be the fund.

The basic moral question is not how should I act.

I think the basic moral question is how should we treat each other?

And when you put something in what I think is the proper frame, which is relational frame, then an answer, the answer, you know, there are not.

There's not an unlimited number of right answers to that question.

That everyone can accept.

So I think framing the question properly then sort of leads you to essentially universalizable answers, which is, you know, if.

Anyway, I don't know if that made sense, but I'm happy to say more about it.

Yeah, no, I mean, I'm kind of thinking, though, but when you say phase, phrasing the question properly now we get back to the standard.

What defines properly?

Right.

Well, just from the metaphysics.

So if you believe that reality is inherently relational and that, that, that you are fundamentally a relational being, which I don't mean like you're social.

I mean your existence is in reference to and constituted by these varying relationships.

I think when it's framed that way, and we think about like, okay, well, what are we trying to.

Why are we talking about morality in the first place?

Who cares?

Why is that a worthwhile topic?

Why do I care what your behavior is?

Why you care where mine is?

Why do I care about my own behavior?

Ultimately, it's because it affects other people, it affects myself.

And so it is that sort of relational integrity.

It's.

I would, I would.

Yeah, I would have a different answer.

Maybe.

But you still say it's relational.

Because I'm going to say it goes back to God and you're going to say it's our relationship with God, probably.

Well, so a point of agreement obviously will have obvious differences.

You know, you may believe that this sort of relational story I'm telling is true, but that that's an expression of God's nature as a triune being.

Right.

That he embodies relationship, and that that is expressed through our nature and the existence of the nature of being.

So you may hold a relational ontology.

I think I'm just saying, May, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the distinction may be whether or not you think that can or is an inherent sort of quality of existence itself, or whether that needs to be sort of applied externally from God.

Okay, I, I want to let Chuck jump in because I look like he was taking notes while you were, while you were, you were talking.

So he may have.

And I know, Yeah, I know it's hard to, like, start because you just have to kind of say everything.

Yeah.

Throw a bunch of stuff on the table.

I'm happy to slow down and we can just take pieces or whatever you guys want to do.

Well, and this is, you know, part of apologetics for those who, who are listening or watching.

You know, part of apologetics is letting the person you're.

You're speaking with express their views.

Not jumping on it.

Not trying to.

Because this is one of the things.

Atlanta, I'm just going to talk to the audience for a second.

Yeah, please.

One of the things we have to be careful when we do apologetics is not to just jump on what we think someone is saying not to jump on.

Oh, they mentioned this.

They must believe this.

And you jump on that without hearing out, hearing through what they actually believe.

Because I am sure that every one of you listening do not like when someone does that to you.

Right.

You.

You.

When you have a view and someone doesn't let you express your view, but they start to assume your view, it's a frustrating conversation.

In fact, just personally, I have a position I now hold that anyone who tells me what I believe and I correct them, and they still inform me that they know better what I believe than what I think I believe.

I'm not dealing with a rational person anymore.

Right.

So once someone tells me they know what I believe better than me, I usually go, well, there's one of us that's an expert on what I believe, and I don't think it's you.

Right.

So we got to be careful not to do that as well.

Right.

And that's why we take the time to hear someone else.

Does that mean it makes.

It takes more time?

Well, duh.

Yeah.

Right.

So.

And especially if it's something we hear for the first time, if it's something where, you know, in this case, I.

You know, I'm hearing Landon's argument, I'm not familiar with it.

It's going to take me more to understand his position.

And here's the trick.

Not really a trick, but the thing to do with apologetics is you want to be able to understand your opponent's view well enough that you can argue it as well as they can.

Okay.

If you're gonna try and tackle something and.

And you can't actually argue for it, then maybe you don't know it so well.

Right.

Just.

Just some.

Some advice and thanks.

Jesse's saying that's good advice, so thank you.

So, Chuck, did you.

You look like you were taking some notes.

Yeah, I was.

I was taking some notes, and I.

Gave back a hundred things to aim at, so we'll see what he picks.

Yeah, you are, you know, you're like a unicorn among atheists.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

I've never run across anyone like you.

I will take that as a compliment whether or not you meant it that way.

It's a compliment or.

I don't know it's, it's probably neutral.

It's just more descriptive.

You know, it's.

You're very unique is what I mean by that.

And so, yeah, just like Andrew was saying, we need to ask you questions and learn more about, you know, what your philosophy is and where you come from.

And I want to do that and I sort of want to go back to the beginning of our conversation.

And so that my first question is, is that when you were a Christian, what was your idea of what a Christian was?

Yeah, it's a good question.

I would say someone who, you know, I come from a tradition that's big on sort of quote, unquote, personal relationship with God.

So I would say someone who professes to, you know, sort of believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus and makes an effort, a conscious effort to become more Christlike, you know, and do that through, you know, relationships with other people and with God.

Something like that.

Okay, and then what.

What did you do, quote, unquote, to become a Christian?

What did that look like?

I was born, I guess I come, you know, I was.

Yeah, I guess in my.

So in the tradition I come from, it's.

It's a sort of profession of faith.

Like at some point.

Yeah, I grew up in it and so I'd never, as a child, I didn't.

Like, there was not really a point where I disbelieved it.

But then, yeah, at some point when I was a teenager or something or younger, you know, I made some kind of confession of faith that I recognized, you know, sort of my status as a sinner, my need for salvation and sort of recognizing, putting my, my trust in, you know, God's ability to save and redeem me.

Okay.

And this was in a, like a. I think you said a non denominational church.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, like missions, it.

Churches, it was like an organization.

I mean, I went to church, but.

So did you go to Churchology?

I grew up and it was.

Did you go to church overseas?

I meant, I meant to ask you, like, where, where do you grow up?

Because you said you were, you grew up in a missions.

Were you overseas?

I grew up in Texas.

The campus for this organization was in Texas and so I lived there my whole life.

I did a lot of traveling and missions trips.

But yeah, I was, I was here.

Well, compared to New Jersey.

Foreign country, so.

Or a very fair point.

Yes.

A small town in East Texas in the middle of nowhere.

A lovely place, but.

But yeah, not a foreign country.

Yeah.

Okay, go ahead, Chuck.

Sorry.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, no, no worries.

So what if you could just name the first thing that comes to your mind that was like, I don't think Christianity is true.

Could you just briefly describe what that was?

You're asking when I felt that or.

Yeah, when you first start came to the conclusion, like, I'm not buying it anymore.

What was the big thing or the first big thing that brought you to that decision?

I don't have a first big thing because it did feel, in my case pretty like cumulative.

Like, I think it was a sort of long process of chipping away or sort of holding things very loosely and I think maybe looser than I, I realized.

I do remember when it happened, but it wasn't really anchored on one particular question or doubt, if that makes sense.

Okay, and then my next question is, as an atheist, are you a strict materialist or do you believe that there's something that goes beyond the material natural world?

I am not a strict materialist.

Now I think people define material in different ways.

If I take your question correctly, I am not a strict materialist in that I believe the natural world includes consciousness, it includes abstracts, it is multi dimensional in that sense.

So I, I tend to not sort of fall into the like, quote, unquote, matter in motion, strict view.

Can I take.

Okay, go ahead.

I'm curious, like, I mean, I want.

To take a little more.

I mean, if, if it's not, if it's not matter, it's right, it's either matter or, or either material or immaterial.

Right.

Or do you see something in between?

It can be, yeah.

So I'm saying it can be.

I accept immaterial things.

Would you say reality is immaterial?

No, I mean, it's both.

If I, I think it's comprised of both material and immaterial things.

Okay, sorry, Chuck.

Okay, no worries.

So my next question is, is that, so you've, you've come to this new philosophy that you have.

What sources would you say influenced you into determining this new philosophy?

Yeah, great question.

I, I genuinely wish I had a better answer this question.

Besides that, it's like a lot of people, I think I, it sort of has happened in phases, I think very early on in that sort of deconstruction mode, sort of post deconversion.

You know, I, like a lot of people, was, you know, very interested in like quote, unquote, new atheists.

And I like Sam Harris a lot and hope that doesn't like trigger people put me back in the stereotypical bucket.

But then I, it branched, I think very quickly, I Sort of bored of that deconstructive mode.

I just like, it's.

I mean, I'd love a good philosophical debate or, you know, I'm here to have this discussion, but I just don't find that like taking things apart, critique mode to be sustainable.

And so I think I moved away from that into more of a reconstructive mode.

And there's a lot of people.

One that comes to mind is John Vervake, which I don't know if people are familiar.

He's a cognitive scientist in Canada.

I think I found him originally on Jordan Peterson's podcast.

He is a really interesting person, is very philosophical.

He kind of grounds a lot in the science of cognition and what we understand about the mind and meaning making.

But he also, like, he's kind of one of those like potluck spiritualists, not in a new age way, but like he's a brain, he's a cognition guy.

And so he recognizes, you know, oh, Buddhism gets these things right, about attention and about, about the mind, the nature of the mind, and Christianity gets this piece right.

You know, he's on Jordan Peterson's podcast for a reason.

He would call himself a non theist instead of an atheist.

But I just say that to say like he, he's really good with language.

So he's really, he did, he had a lot of things that kind of unlocked some paths for me about what makes something sacred.

You know, how do we think about ways of knowing.

This phrase transjective was something I think I originally heard from him.

And so he shaped some of this.

I have other good friends, Christians that have shaped some of these ideas.

A dear friend of mine is an Eastern Orthodox ethicist.

She went to Princeton and she's, she does a lot of really great work, Catherine McCrae, on disability and a lot of this like dependency as nature.

And that kind of falls into this relational ontology stuff.

So sort of, maybe surprisingly some of it's from Christianity and Christians, but kind of a long list.

But yeah, it's.

That's helpful at all.

Okay, so that makes a lot of sense because in your philosophy, as you've stated it here tonight, I hear a lot of Eastern influences in it.

Right.

You mentioned the relational piece tends to like, I think the hyper individualism that I try to push against and the sort of substance ontology.

I think.

Yeah, I agree those are kind of stereotypically Western.

So yeah, that doesn't surprise me.

So yeah, I definitely heard that in your, in your presentation.

So I think I'm going to Hand it back over for now and.

And listen some more back in later.

We'll probably have some more questions.

So thank you.

Yeah, appreciate it.

Yeah, I think what Chuck said, Landon, is very true.

As I was listening to you, I was thinking the very same same thing, which was why I kept going like, okay, I need to understand more, which is why I was glad you sent to share the document.

And I'm just gonna.

Hold on one sec.

I'm just gonna mute.

Chuck.

I'm just gonna mute you just for a bit.

So.

All right.

So, yeah, we had some comments, so I'm gonna try to.

I starred those so we could bring those up.

So Max.

Max is saying this is about when I was talking about listening to you.

Right.

He says that's.

That's good advice.

Yes, but I feel like.

He says, but I feel like I would need a philosophy degree to follow some of this.

I. I hope not.

I hope we can make it easier.

I think that's just, to me, maybe not explaining all these points as clearly as I could.

So Jesse asked the question of.

Of who's defining relational integrity.

I guess it's defined in the worldview.

So, I mean, relational integrity, I guess, is partly, like, analytical.

It's like, in the definition, like integrity, you know, strength, resilience, like, however you want to sort of interpret that word.

Integration, I think, is like a big part.

So, like.

Okay, I guess it's just the way it's defined.

So I would say, like, immoral action disintegrates the self in, like, a literal sense, because it's that relational integrity piece.

All right.

And I think.

I think Fatima might have missed some, but by the way, good morning, Fatima.

She's down in the Philippines, but she said after dabbling in lots of philosophies, did he decide to try Jesus?

Where's he at now?

And so Fatima.

No, he.

He actually was.

Was said in the beginning.

I know you came in late, but he actually would.

Was grew up in a missions home, missionary home, believing he was a Christian and then.

And then walking away.

I really like Jesus, though.

For what?

It's worse.

Jesse says, thank.

Thankful this guy has the guts to come on here.

And.

And I do.

I. I started that one because, you know, one of the things I do like to.

To let folks know.

I mean, Landon contacted at the end of the show last week and said, hey, can I come in?

Emailed.

Right.

I was shocked because, you know, 90 of the people that say they want to come on and.

And have a discussion never show up.

So Kudos to Landon for that.

So.

So let's see.

Jesse says this dude's ultimate authority is in himself, who is limited knowledge.

Now, I think you might.

You're going to disagree with that.

I think I know how.

So let me.

Let me try.

Because how good I've done.

Yeah.

Because this says whether I'm.

I'm, you know, listening to you, right?

Yes, that's what I'm trying to do.

So I think you would disagree that it's not from yourself, but it is in the relationships you.

You have with others.

Would that.

Would that be close?

Yes, relationships with others.

Because, you know, it's.

Because that's deeper.

That's like sort of an ontological piece.

So, yeah, I don't start with, you know, a common and valid critique of sort of strict materialism or some secular worldviews is like, from a theist perspective, is that it starts and ends kind of with the person.

Right.

It starts with you as a fallible person and sort of, who are you to be an authority on absolutes and universals?

My view does not start and end with me.

My experience is an important piece of the transjective puzzle, the relational puzzle, and it does inform things like ethical truth, but it does not decide them.

So I, you know, reality has its nature.

I don't.

I'm not the one trying to say that I know everything and I'm deciding on the truth of the matter.

Okay.

And one last question I see in here for now, and then.

Then I'll engage with you a bit.

Jesse's asking who is defining more immoral actions.

Yeah.

So I guess it's kind of the same answer as before, which is the metaphysics, I guess, like, if you.

If you hold this relational ontological view, which I think is both empirically valid, I think that is, I think if we reflect on that, I think that's true about what it's like to exist as a person, and I think it tends to be how we interpret the world.

Then I think this sort of relational integrity piece becomes a little clearer.

All right, so.

So, I mean, I think several of the questions we're coming down to really come down to the standard.

So it sounds like you would accept that there are things that are immaterial.

Would that be fair?

Yes.

Okay.

That there are things that would be universal.

In other words, applying to all humans everywhere.

Yes.

And you'd agree that there's things that are absolute.

It's true for everyone everywhere.

Yes.

Okay.

And so if let's.

Let's step into the.

The worldview there is no God.

Where would we get these things that would be absolute and immaterial and universal?

Right.

Because if, if we're chemical reactions, if there's no God to that created us, then where.

Where would we.

What would be the source?

And I think this is where some of the, like Jesse and.

And was trying to get to with some of the questions of the.

What's the standard?

Right.

What would be the source of these things that are immaterial, absolute and universal?

The answer to some of that, you know, depends on specifics, is the inherent nature of reality.

You know, as I understand it, in my view, the, you know, something like where do immaterial things come from?

The come from question.

I'm not totally sure how to answer.

But, you know, because we are conscious, there is a domain of existence that includes value and agency and all these other, you know, the subjective piece that's necessary to get moral truths and some of these things off the ground.

So I don't know if that answers that question at all, but.

Happy to say more.

Yeah, I, I would need to dig more to, to understand because, I mean, it's.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but it's.

It to me seems like you weren't answering the question, but it could be.

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

So, you know, when we, we have, for example, morality.

Right.

Right and wrong.

Right.

Let's.

Let's take an example.

The act of rape.

Would.

Would you agree that the act of rape is always wrong?

Yes.

Okay.

And would that be true for all people everywhere?

Yes.

Okay, so what.

What is it that makes it wrong?

It's wrong.

Well, the simplest way to answer that question is I do not want to be raped.

And so I know that it violates the inherent interests of, of people.

And if we're thinking about this in terms of relational integrity, then, I mean, it's a little golden rule esque, I guess, in its formulation.

Or you could go sort of Kant's direction of, you know, act in a way that you.

You believe could be, you know, universalized.

Yeah.

Okay.

What.

I think sometimes there's a question here about moral obligation or what makes moral truths binding.

And I think there is.

I do find that there can be a sticking point.

I know it's like hard to get into that sort of relational ontology view, but I think it.

I think we have everything we want from morality in that view.

And I mean, there's.

I say that to say, obviously there's more things for me to say and explain.

But is there something maybe this is helpful in that answer?

What are you not hearing?

So the.

You would.

That you want me to say or not that you want me to say, but that.

Yeah.

What's the criteria that I'm not meeting?

Let me ask it this way.

So if you had someone that said they wanted to be raped, they, they enjoy then.

Then in your.

Based on what you're saying, I think if you have a person that says, well they want to be raped, then that would mean that rape is not universally wrong, it's only wrong.

I would say that's changing the meaning of rape, which is divorce yourself on someone against their will.

If it's not against their will, then we're not talking about the same thing anymore.

So I don't think that's a contradiction.

Okay, I see your point.

So, but what if you know, is it wrong if, if they're not making the choice.

In other words, they're unconscious, they don't know about it.

Yes.

It's not wrong just because it's consciously disapproved of.

I think it's about.

It's also about the agent, the person acting.

I think they're.

And this maybe doesn't sound like it has teeth if you're in a sort of theistic worldview, but it does diminish you as a person.

Like is wrong.

Because what we mean by something being morally wrong in some basic sense is to treat other people how you want to be treated.

If we sort of take this sort of plural view.

And yeah, I don't think it needs to be like, that's just what it means to be wrong.

Because I, I guess where I'm trying to go, you know, the.

If we have chemical reactions, right.

Then they can't really produce a right and wrong.

Right.

So there's an immaterial part of us and we both agree that there's an immaterial world.

What would be the source of that?

Of which piece of the immaterial?

Like for.

For us, as far as we're.

We're.

We're material and immaterial.

Correct.

As human beings.

What.

What creates the immaterial.

I mean, is it.

Was it a, A chemical reaction that creates the immaterial.

It's not.

I wouldn't say.

I mean consciousness from a mechanics standpoint is mysterious.

I think regardless of your worldview.

I think in my worldview, though, you know, reality, nature is a space in which consciousness is possible.

And under whatever conditions it apparently requires, which we do not know of yet, it is instantiated So I don't.

I would say something simple like, you know, it emerges as an expression of the nature of reality, you know, or at least some parts of it.

But I don't know what like creates.

I don't think anything necessarily creates.

I guess I would say, like, I don't take the.

Where chemical reactions, determinist sort of view.

That's not my personal worldview.

I think my view from a metaphysical standpoint is generally agnostic on questions of physics.

And so, yeah, I don't, I don't.

There's not a. I'm not trying to solve the question of.

Or I'm not running up against.

My worldview says we're just chemical reactions.

And how does that make sense?

That's just not my view.

Yeah, no, I'm recognizing that.

I want to put Fatima's sort of a question here because she's trying to understand your view.

And so I want to give her a chance to see if.

If she got this right.

She says yes.

For Landon, the moral orator is self.

The.

The rape question.

In a relational ontology, social need is assumed.

The social contract determines morality and therefore reality.

And then she.

She says, did I get that right?

Close.

I wouldn't say.

I think social contract theory gets parts of it right.

I think it's like a good.

You know, John Rawls sort of famously has this thought experiment called the Veil of Ignorance, which says, like, a fair society is one that is designed and architected by agents who don't know who they're going to be in that society.

And I think it's similar kind of for moral questions.

If we think, if we take this plural relational view, a helpful.

It's at least a helpful, like, thought experiment tool is to say, like, what do I.

What would we deem is moral if we don't know which person we're going to be in the scenario?

And I think this is another way to sort of force yourself into this distributed view of you're sort of trying to find answers that can be universal.

And then I think it sort of pushes you away from being able to say, oh, well, I can just choose what's good for me and bad for you, because in this view, there's not really such a thing.

So.

So let me try to explain, you know, my view a bit.

Maybe.

Maybe that would help.

Yeah, yeah, be great.

So, you know, when I look at this, I think that there.

There isn't a material part of us that would come from reproduction of material things.

But as we talk about consciousness, reality, things like this.

I think you even alluded to this.

I, I think it requires a mind.

Right.

I think that the fact consciousness requires a mind.

Well, I would say yes.

Consciousness, mind, yes.

And maybe also a brain.

Well, I, So we disagree on that.

But no, no, I, maybe, maybe not.

I, I think that, so I would argue that the mind is the immaterial and the brain is the, is material.

How those two interact, I'm not 100 sure in scripture doesn't say so, but I think that, you know, you know, so if you're going to say it has to have a brain, I, I probably disagree, you know, because, you know, God's not a physical being and doesn't have a brain.

Sure.

I would say that in like a, a very loose sense.

I would just say it seems like consciousness is at least in some part dependent on a brain.

Well, that's all that we would know, right?

Physically.

That's all.

That's all.

I would.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I think that when we look at something that's absolute, so it applies to, to everyone, everywhere.

So it's absolute, universal.

It, it has to have a source that is absolute and universal.

So, so where you're basing it in the relations, we can end up looking and see there's, you know, being someone who's done lots of counseling, some relationships are really messed up.

Right?

Yeah.

I would say it's in this.

If the source need, you know, if I went with you for a second and said, okay, the source needs to be absolute and universal, that would be relational ontology, not human relationship.

I would take it that like, metaphysical layer deeper.

And that piece is sort of by definition universal and absolute and that human relationships are an instantiation, a human instantiation of that absolute nature.

So the absolute reality of the mom.

But yeah, but it would, I mean, what the, what makes it absolute and universal has to be the source of it.

Correct?

What makes it apply?

Well, sure, but I'm saying if on my view that source is, you know, the relational nature of existence that is absolute and universal.

And so it, if it is that.

Right.

It can't be our relationships because our relationships are not universal and absolute.

Those are more subjective.

Right.

It's not our relationships.

Yeah, Like I said, it's the, it's relational ontology.

It's the quality of existence that.

But sort of like, like I think, you know, the theist position, you could correct me if I'm wrong, I think would have a similar view in that obviously God is an agent in a mind, at least in some loose Sense, depending on your specific theology.

And you would say logic or morality or any of these sort of transcendental categories are in some sense expressions or instantiations of God's nature.

I'm just saying why can't that be the sort of inherent nature of reality instead of putting God behind it?

So it's sort of answering the question in the same way.

I think my attempt and my, you know, my bias to my own view is that I think it's more parsimonious to apply that to reality instead of to what I think is maybe an unjustified answer of a disembodied sort of spaceless, timeless mind.

But ultimately we're not really talking about things that are that different.

It kind of is that mind piece of it.

Whether or not you think that's a backstop to reality or part of it.

It's I guess the question of whose mind.

Right.

Because I would.

So to answer the issue of rape, I would not say rape is wrong because I don't want to be raped.

I would say rape is wrong because God is not a rapist.

In other words, the standard of morality and reality is God his nature.

Right?

So what makes stealing wrong?

God's not a thief.

What makes lying wrong?

God's not a liar.

And yet surely it's not.

Sorry, go ahead, go ahead.

Surely it's not coincidental that those things are also things we don't want done to us.

It's not like it's just arbitrary that giving people ice cream without them asking for it is not an immoral action.

It seems like, yes, you can.

Yeah, I mean, I understand the view that it's somehow dependent on God.

But even I think if we are in your view, made in God's image, then at least in practice it also is in some sense like, not relative to, but it is, it's like in part relative to our nature.

Does that make sense?

I guess where I'm struggling is because you're basing on the relationship.

And yet I've seen lots of people who have extremely destructive behaviors toward relationships.

I mean, they're self destructive in their relationships, right?

Self destructive is how, you know, I think immoral action being.

I'm actually glad you said that.

Moral action being self destructive, which I think I, I take, we would agree is true, I think is evidence of relational ontology that me acting against someone else is self destructive.

I think that's a demonstration of the fact that that's part of the judgment, like I think.

And again, I don't want to Argue against someone who's not here.

So tell me if this isn't your view, but I think sometimes there's this like, underlying question about justice which is like, how do people.

Is there an ultimate justice?

Sort of who's the arbiter of moral judgment?

And I think on the theist view that sort of gets adjudicated at some point in the afterlife or the transition or whatever.

I think in my view, and I don't always think this is necessarily satisfying, but like experience is the judge.

I think I would go as far to say that's the judge for both of our views.

You would maybe say that the experience that, you know, you're concerned about is in the afterlife.

But ultimately like that judgment to immoral action is sort of its impact on experience, both ours and others.

No, I don't.

Yeah, and I don't think we, we would agree with it because it's not that I'm looking for the judgment by the experience in the afterlife.

The judgment comes from the nature of who God is.

Sure, the.

But the because.

And the reason I say is because if you, if we're going to rely on, if we're going to rely on our experience.

Well, first off, our experience could be deceiving.

People are deceived by their experience.

Almost every criminal that's in, in prison thinks they're innocent.

So their experience is that it was always someone else's fault or it didn't happen.

Right.

So great.

Because if we're saying it's universal and absolute, can't be something where my experience can, can alter it or change it or be the standard of it.

Because it's not that it's the, I guess I would say that the, the experience is.

The.

Like motivation.

So if I said if we had the like why ought you be moral question like discussion.

If I, you know, I've tried to sort of give varying answers to that type of question.

I think if I asked that of you, you know, you can attribute to God's nature, you know, if I just did the.

And why that and why ought I, you know, and why should I live according to God's nature and why should I live according to the design and why, you know, and go back and back.

Is it true that at some point you would say because there's a consequence, because it's in my interests to have a certain type of afterlife?

It seems like at some point, and this, my view is that consciousness is the only intrinsic source of value, that at some point you have to appeal to it, even if the attribution is God's nature and his commands and his will.

Any of that.

I think at some point the only appeal we can make that means anything to other people is that it has an impact on your experience.

So what do you think of that?

You're appealing to your consciousness, but where do you get the consciousness from?

Right.

What's the source of that?

What's the source of consciousness?

What is it?

I don't know what the source of consciousness is.

I just know consciousness is part of my nature and it's the domain in which value exists.

But where would we get that from?

It's part of.

It's part of reality.

It's part of nature.

Yeah.

And.

And what, what I like saying, where.

Do I get my hands?

It's just part of.

And I think.

I think where.

Where I would see this.

And let me just read some scripture.

This is Romans, chapter 1.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Because that which is known about God is evident within them.

For God made it evident to them.

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 they are without excuse.

Even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but became futile in their speculations and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools.

And so what I would say is that that which you call a conscience is your knowledge of God.

It's.

It is the source of.

It is God.

It is that God has made it evident to you that he exists.

And when we violate his nature, we do, son, against his nature.

That is what that called guilty conscience.

That is how God.

What God uses to reveal not only that he exists, but that we're going against his nature.

Sorry, just to clarify, did you ask me where the conscience comes from?

Yes.

Okay.

I think.

I thought you meant where does my consciousness come from?

Sorry.

And then you said that and it clarified.

I might have misunderstood you.

I guess in my view, the conscience would be.

What do you see as the difference before you answer?

Well, if you're saying consciousness, conscience is this sort of moral instinct of some type about, you know, I think you use the word guilt or blame or guilty conscience.

There's like an oddness, an oughtness instinct.

If we could say.

I would say that that's.

That's just a sense of a relational being.

I think that.

I think there's, you know, we have a natural, you know, interdependence with other people.

I think we have, you know, that's something that's not as sensitive as it is with others, like anything that needs to be cultivated.

But I don't think that piece is necessarily something that, you know, is crying out for a transcendental explanation.

Sorry, I just realized I misunderstood your question before, and so I didn't want it to sound like I was, like, waving it away.

So then.

But where does that come from?

Where do we get.

Where do we have the conscious from?

It's part of our nature.

Okay.

But it's not part of a material nature.

Right, Right.

We're not purely material beings.

Yeah.

And.

And.

And the.

The whole idea of where we would get an immaterial nature from without God, how could that come about?

Well, in my view, nature includes immaterial things and immaterial potential.

And so how specific.

Specific.

How a specific instantiation of consciousness like mine comes to be.

Like I said, I think we've both said, I'm not sure exactly how that.

The connection between that and my physical brain works.

There seems to be a dependence there.

But on my view, that's not.

That's not branching into a sort of unexplained category that I think, you know, that, like I'm saying, everything is just material.

And who knows about consciousness?

You're saying everything's material.

I think I. I think it's not really a begging the question fallacy, but sort of.

And what I mean by that is, for example, Charles Darwin writes a book on the origin of species.

But what he actually does is he doesn't start with the origin.

He starts with the species being there.

Right.

So he never actually answers the question being asked.

Because he's not saying, where did life come from?

He's assuming life.

Because when we get to where life comes from, it has to come from God.

I would argue.

Well, yeah, we were obviously just disagreeing.

Yeah.

Well, let me ask this.

I change gears.

We.

I know we have a little bit of time left, but the universe, how do you believe it came into existence?

I don't know.

It's the simplest answer.

I would say.

I don't.

If I had to sort of plant a flag, I would say it's eternal.

Okay.

Even though.

And so, because there's only.

There's three options.

Right.

Either the universe created itself, which violates law of logic.

Right.

Second law of logic.

It.

You know, you can't have something create itself because it can exist and not exist at the same time, because that.

So that's a law of non contradiction.

If you argue it's eternal, though, that violates the second law of thermodynamics.

That Einstein had shown that the matter and energy had a beginning.

I think there is some legitimate debate on had a beginning.

I think in my view there could be a multiverse.

I think there.

Something has always existed and it has been governed by the intrinsic nature of reality.

I think at bottom, everybody has to have that.

You have that in God, I have that in nature.

It has an inherent, you know, it has inherent qualities that are expressed in the universe.

Whether our universe is one of many that came about that someone that, you know, quote unquote began to exist is possible.

I, like I said, I, I think that's somewhat of a physics question and I'm relatively, at least on the like worldview, conversation level, agnostic too.

Okay.

The.

And the reason I, I'm kind of going there as I.

What, what I.

What I think.

Okay.

From.

From the conversation.

Right.

Seems like you, you came from a, you know, a Christian home.

I'm not, I would not say you were a Christian.

You, you might want to disagree.

I understand.

Yeah.

I give you your, you can have your anthology.

That's fine.

Well, it's, it would be, wouldn't be my theology.

It's First John 2:19.

Well, right.

Yeah, that's fine.

Right.

That's not worth talking about.

No, but it says they went out from, from us because they were not really of us.

If they had been of us, they would have remained with us.

But they went out so that it would be shown they were not of us.

So, so it's not my, the, it's.

I'm just reading that.

Right.

So it would say that everybody thinks.

Their theology comes from the Bible.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I'm just saying all I could speak to is my own experience and it seemed to be just as genuine as anyone else's.

Whether that counts.

I.

Honestly, it doesn't.

Actually, this may be a fitting part because it's.

See, this is where it's, it's not a subject.

See, I didn't interpret it.

I read it.

Right.

Well, you interpret everything you read.

Well, so do you.

Right.

So what does it mean?

That, that they went out from among us because they were not really of us.

For had they been with us, they would have remained with us, but they went out so that it would be shown that they were not of us.

Well, you're interpreting that.

That applies to everyone, which is an interpretation.

Okay, so what.

What I'm asking you what.

What do you think it means?

I don't.

I'm not saying I disagree with your interpretation.

I'm just saying you experienced something different.

I'm just saying I had to.

The best.

All I can say is.

All I can speak to is my own experience, which is that I was around Christians, people that are still Christians, their whole lives.

I was having the same experiences as they were, as far as I know.

I don't.

Yeah.

Like I said, I don't care if you.

If your belief is that I was never a Christian.

In that view, it.

Honestly, it's totally fine.

Okay.

I don't have, like, a competing theological view that's worth, like, trying to dig into the specifics of.

Because it's just not my view anymore.

So.

Yeah.

And there's someone who's.

Who's responding.

I just.

I'm.

I'm gonna.

I just have to.

Because I think it's interesting.

So Wesley Curry here says, I only read the King James Bible of Jesus.

Well, Wesley, Jesus didn't have the King James Bible because English language didn't exist in Jesus's time.

I'm just saying, also, if you believe in the King James Bible is inspired in 1611, recognize the fact that you're using one from 17.

I think 1768 or 86.

You're not using a 1611 because it changed.

And, you know.

Oh, he's saying.

Yeah, I love this.

He's saying Jesus created all languages, idiot.

Yes, he did.

But the King James Bible was not something that he created.

Now, if you're saying he did create the 1611 King James Bible, then you, I hope, will agree with the Catholics.

The guy we had in two weeks ago, because the Apocrypha was part of the 1611 King James Bible.

So I'm just saying.

But, you know, and Wesley, if you'd like to come in and have a discussion on the King James, we.

We could talk about that.

That'd be fun.

So.

So here's the thing, Landon.

I. I really.

I look at it and see that what.

What we see is your experience.

Right?

You.

You.

I don't.

From what I, you know, I can only go off what you told me.

It doesn't seem like there was something in your background as you were talking with me and Chuck.

There wasn't something that happened that turned you away from Christianity.

You said it was kind of a gradual thing of just studying philosophy.

Right.

But would it be.

Would it be fair to say that you, you, you thought philosophy had a better answer for life than the Bible, would that be.

Or to explain reality maybe?

No, I would, I don't think I hot swapped it quite like that where, like, I didn't, I didn't, I didn't come to like this relational realism, articulation.

And then just like say, that's what I think now.

It was really the deconstruction of, I think I, I had good intentions genuinely to strengthen my faith and to really like have a theology that is aligned with what is really true.

And I think in that pursuit I tried to commit to kind of, you know, forcing some standards onto the answers, meaning just like trying to check my own biases and trying to be open to other possibilities.

And I think that the commitment to that possibility ultimately sort of led to, I think, me just kind of finding that the, the, the theological answers weren't in my mind justified.

And, but it was a long time until I had like, what I think is a better answer.

And you're saying it's a better answer.

But here's the thing, what it seems to me is you're doing that very thing with the philosophy.

You're, you're not questioning that philosophy even though it can't account for, you know, the creation of the universe.

Right.

If, if the universe had a beginning, that's what science shows.

If it, if it can't create itself, that's what logic shows.

The only option left is it had a creator.

Well, it had a cause.

Yeah.

And again, I don't, I don't concede that it had a beginning.

I do think there is legitimate controversy around that.

Like, I like, you know, take Big Bang cosmology.

I think in general, people, at least in my experience, don't take that to mean there was nothing and then there was a singularity.

If they believe in a singularity and then there was a expansion of the universe, whatever, it just kind of starts with the singularity and leaves the kind of metaphysical where did that come from?

Question to the philosophers.

And so I don't, I don't think there's a logical issue there.

The reason I say it's a, I think it's a better explanation is because I do think it accounts for logic and knowledge and morality.

I think it explains, it accounts for the things we need it to account for.

I think it fits our experience of the world better in that I think there's reasons to believe the relational ontology piece.

There's reasons why we have meaning and value, but we don't have in this view, a problem of evil, a problem of suffering.

It's not unexpected that there's imperfection and some amount of destruction and waste and loss in the universe.

And I think ultimately it's more parsimonious because it's not sort of positing that extra.

What I view as an extra step to say it comes from the innate nature of God instead of from the innate nature of reality.

Yeah, but you know, and I know I'm going to.

I want to give Chuck a chance.

I don't know if he's got anything more because we only have like 15 minutes or so.

But you keep going back to experience and experience is a.

It's subjective.

By, by nature we know.

Well, Scripture says our.

Our heart can deceive us.

Right.

The heart is, is deceptive.

We can deceive.

People can deceive themselves.

So we, we can't use.

You're relying on, on the experience and the relationships, but those are not an absolute standard.

The relate.

The experience is an ingredient.

It's not.

I'm not saying that it's the arbiter necessarily.

And I'm.

And like I said in the beginning, beginning, saying that, you know, value, for example, or moral truth is necessarily rooted in experience is not the same thing as saying it's dependent on opinions or that I'm the arbiter or that even the nature of my experience in a particular moment is the ultimate judge of everything, I think.

But it is a necessary piece and I think it can't be.

I just think it's a category error to say it can be purely objective and absolute because I, I don't think that's how.

I don't think that's what value is or how we can make sense of it.

So anyway, that's okay.

Chuck, I don't know if you had.

Give you five, ten minutes before we close out.

Yeah, I would like to.

So it's been a lot to take in and again, thank you for coming.

In and I would love to chat again.

I know it like takes a whole session just for me to say a bunch of stuff.

So I love.

If you guys want to think on it.

I'll be happy to come back and chat anytime.

Yeah, so.

So I'd like to turn the corner and, and, and do something a little bit different.

You may have heard this before or not, I'm not sure, but I think it's going to be very important.

Would you consider yourself to be a good person?

Yes.

Okay.

May I ask you some questions to see if that's true, sure.

Okay.

The ninth commandment is you shall not lie.

How many lies would you say you told in your life?

A lot.

So what do you call someone who tells a lot of lies?

Someone who tells a lot of lies?

A liar.

Sure.

Right.

Yeah.

Right.

So it makes you a liar.

Right.

Well, that's not.

That's not an indelible characteristic I hold forever.

Track that I have.

Have lied.

I think being.

It depends on how.

Sorry, I don't mean to jump in.

I see where that's going.

If you're defining good person as perfect person, obviously that's not what I mean by good person.

I think good person has more to do with intention and making mistakes does not.

I guess I'll.

And correct me if I'm doing this in both properly.

Making being imperfect, making mistakes, making bad choices, making immoral choices is not.

Is not at odds with being a good person, because I think everybody makes mistakes.

How many times does someone have to kill someone to be a murderer?

I think, yeah, sure.

If you kill someone, how many times.

You are a murderer, Rape someone to be a rapist.

I mean it.

In your view, if you do those things and then you come to Jesus, can you be.

You're still a murderer, redeemed.

Right.

But you can just change and become a different person than you used to be.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Yeah, but you.

But it's.

It doesn't erase.

I think this is what Chuck's trying to get to.

It doesn't erase.

Erase it.

Right.

It doesn't erase it.

But I'm saying it doesn't mean it defines you.

It doesn't.

It doesn't matter what you are.

He's not saying that.

But, but the question is, once you, Once you do these things, you can't just say, well, no one can go before a judge and be like, your Honor, I. I know you're charging me with murder, but I never raped anyone, so you should let me go.

That's not the charge.

Right, but I might not not be the type of person that murders people anymore.

Yeah, but the issue is, Landon, is that, you know, the Bible defines sin as the violation of God's moral law.

Right.

And in John, in First John, he says that it's sin is lawlessness.

The Apostle Paul said he wouldn't know what sin was, but by the law.

So when we sin, we are breaking God's law, moral law.

And when you break a law, we understand that there's a fine to pay.

Does that make sense?

There are consequences in my view as well.

Right.

So have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you, regardless of its size or value?

I have, yes.

Yeah.

What do you call someone who does that?

A thief.

A thief, Right.

That is not the same thing as saying the person I am currently now can be defined as a thief.

That's the distinction.

I'm trying to.

Okay, so then you're before a judge and you've been found guilty of stealing, whatever, but you say, oh, I did that like a month ago, I haven't stolen since.

Is that going to help your case out?

No, it is true that I was a thief and that there are consequences for immoral action.

That is not the same thing as saying, I am a thief forever.

Right, but we are talking about biblical categories here, and God sets the standard.

You, you know, you say you're asking.

Me what I, how I answer these questions.

If you want to tell me what your biblical standard is, that's totally fine.

I'm just saying, in my view, these are not contradictions.

Right.

I just want you to understand that when you do these things, you're violating God's moral law and there's a fine to pay.

And that's true for everyone.

Right.

I'm violating the moral law in my view, of you as well.

Correct.

Right.

Okay.

So in your opinion, noting that you've violated these commandments and there's, you know, more of God's.

The canons of God's law pointed at you.

Right.

Would you, would you be innocent or guilty of breaking those moral laws?

I would be guilty of having broken those moral laws, yes.

Right.

And then so should God send you to heaven or to hell?

If he's good.

Absolutely he's good.

And I don't think you understand what.

That means if he is good.

The point is, the point I'm making is if you, if you're meaning that because I stole something as a child and that's against the law, that it's somehow justified that God would send me to hell, that I will disregard out of hand because I think that's morally completely bankrupt.

And so what ultimate authority dictates that that's morally bankrupt?

Or who are you to judge God's morality?

I'm judging what you just said.

I understand that and I'm reflecting what God's word says.

It's not.

Not.

It's not a proportional punishment.

Well, there's, there's two answers to that and had the same exact conversation with godless granny, and she brought it up.

And the first Answer to that is, is that a crime against an infinite eternal authority deserves an infinite, eternal, eternal punishment.

Now, I know that as Americans.

Yeah, we, as Americans, you know, we think of a president, but God in Christ is a king, and it's totally different.

And the second point I want to make concerning your objection is that who says that when we're in hell, we stop sinning?

We're probably sinning even more, and so we can't keep on sinning, and so we've got an eternal punishment.

Sure, they're speculating about that is fine.

I don't think that excuses injustice.

Okay.

What ultimate authority dictates what justice and injustice is?

If you.

I think justice is proportional punishment.

Okay, so you're the ultimate.

Your logic that an eternal, A crime quote, unquote, against an eternal God somehow implies or infers an eternal punishment, I think is a fallacious argument.

So you're the ultimate authority.

No, I'm just saying I think what.

Is the ultimate authority that determines right and wrong and just and unjust punishment?

On my view, you.

We've talked about it.

Relational ontology.

What is necessary to.

To reinstate relational integrity and what ultimate authority.

Punishment is not punishment for its own sake.

Without.

Without redemption or the goal of reformation is never just.

By what standard?

What ultimate authority dictates that?

Relational ontology is the standard.

It is the ultimate standard.

That's what I'm saying.

Right.

So you just keep going back to reality is.

Reality is right.

God is right.

And I'm exactly.

My basic argument is that that's an unnecessary step to take.

That's the whole basic crux of our disagreement.

I think the difference is what Chuck is saying is your argument's rooted in.

Thin air versus no, it's rooted in the nature of reality and the nature of the self.

But you have to assume that to come to that conclusion.

I can presuppose that that's not the same thing in the same way.

I mean, everyone.

Everyone's metaphysics needs to have some kind of necessary starting point.

I think mine is the most parsimonious and I haven't heard.

I don't know what it is that it supposedly can't account for.

I know there are arguments for that, but.

Sorry, I don't mean to derail the line of questioning.

I think those.

That sort of eternal punishment argument.

I understand why people believe it, I think on the surface.

So if, if you threaten.

Morally absurd.

Yeah, if you, if you threaten my life, are the police going to do anything to you?

What are they going to Do.

They might.

It's a restraining order or something.

They'll tell you, stay away from me.

Right.

You threaten the president's life, what's going to happen?

A much stronger version of that.

Yeah.

You get put in jail.

You're going to be in jail.

Right.

So the.

The threat was the same.

What made the difference?

It's who you threatened.

When you say that, it's absurd.

It's because you don't understand how infinitely holy and infinitely just God is.

That's why you can't say infinitely just.

Why not?

Well, because that's not true.

I think you know that.

You can't know what justice is apart from the nature of God.

That's your view.

I'm saying that.

Well, that's the view.

I'm saying the logic of he's eternal, so the punishment is eternal is not.

That's not a logical inference.

I'm saying, like, when my son does something wrong, I don't judge.

His consequence is not.

Because I'm an adult.

He's not judged by.

By my adultness.

No, I.

He's judged because he's a child.

He gets a consequence that is appropriate to what and who he is, not what and who I am.

I want what's best for him.

And so there's a consequence that is aimed and intended towards some sort of character development or reformation.

But to say that because I'm an adult, the punishment for someone doing something against me should be, like, my nature.

That's what I'm saying.

That logical jump I don't think follows.

It's fine if you believe that, obviously, because.

Because you're.

You're.

You.

You.

I'm just saying.

If you're saying God is good, it.

Was a straw man.

Right.

So if you're gonna.

If you're gonna stay within the.

The realm.

Right.

What Chuck and I are saying is God is infinitely just.

And you can't know what justice is apart from the nature of God.

So you can't.

You can't then say.

Well, then you're just saying God is God.

Yes, but we're talking about.

You say God is good.

I take that to be an.

I take that to be your intention, that you're communicating something to me about God's nature.

That's probably what I.

We would all like to have an authority that is good.

If you're just saying God is God and good is whatever he is, then that statement doesn't have explain.

It doesn't have content.

So if we're saying.

Sure, sounded like you just explain Some content.

What I'm saying is, if by God is good, you just mean God is God, then.

Well, usually when we say something's good, we imply that it has some bearing on our interests.

Is that fair?

No.

If we never existed, God would still exist and there would still be good.

What's the difference between God being good and God being evil?

Well, see, that's the whole point of why I was asking about the standard.

The standard of good and evil is the nature of God.

So by definition, God cannot be evil because what we call good comes from the nature of God.

So evil is anything that's in opposition to his nature.

So God can't do evil.

He can't.

Well, you're just saying it wouldn't be evil.

But let's say everything that we currently think is evil, we swapped it.

And now, on your view, we can't call that evil because it's good.

Because God's.

That's some.

That's now in this new thought experiment, a reflection or an expression of God's nature.

It completely undermines what we're trying.

What the content of saying something is good is.

It seems like maybe, maybe what Chuck just hit on is, is what the real issue you have with Christianity may be is that I do not have.

An issue with Christianity.

Well, well, that you'd, you'd walk away.

Like, you, you struggle with the fact that.

It sounds like you struggle with the fact that God being just, will punish people for all of eternity and that that would be justice.

Yes, I think that is nonsense.

Yes.

Yeah.

And that's where I think your struggle is.

That's not a, that's not where my struggle is.

I'd strongly disagree with that idea.

But that's not like.

I think you can be a Christian and have a different view.

Well, then you have a different definition of what a Christian is than, Than the Bible.

But, Chuck, I don't.

Everybody does.

No, I just mean there are other Christians who have different definitions of what a Christian is.

Yeah, but we, Everyone believes they're right.

Yeah, but it's fine.

That's because they go off their experience and their definition, reality.

And not using what God says in his Word, using the language.

And I've heard them all reference the Bible.

I didn't say reference the Bible.

I, I.

God gave us language.

There's a grammar.

There's people that misinterpret.

That's fine.

Happens all the time.

People take things out of context.

But we can recognize that objectively.

So Chuck's going exactly where I was Going to go when I said so.

But so.

So I want.

I'll let Chuck finish and then I'm gonna.

I'm gonna deal with a couple of comments that we have in the.

In the chat.

I'll just say I think what you guys are getting at is a problem I would have on your view.

I guess I just don't see why those aren't problems on my view.

And I. I don't know why I should adopt or have much or have like, concern about that implication.

Does that make sense?

I don't think it's just that God would punish people for finite crimes with eternal punishments.

You know, what's you think it is?

Just because God is God and he says that's fine.

That's just.

We just disagree on what those terms mean.

You want.

You want to know what is not just as a perfect man paying the penalty for guilty sinners?

Landon, what did God do so that people don't have to go to hell?

On your view, Jesus died?

Well, you tell me.

This is your view.

It's not mine.

No, it's the biblical view.

And it's the fact that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, came down on this earth and he lived under that law that you and I broke so many times.

And he lived a perfect, sinless life of obedience.

Right?

And he.

What do we know about Jesus?

He.

He fed the hungry.

He healed the sick, he raised the dead.

He called out the religious hypocrites and he did all these great and wonderful things.

But later those religious hypocrites had him killed and put on a curse.

And Jesus wasn't murdered, per se.

He said he came to us.

What he came to do, right?

They ripped out his beard.

He was betrayed by a friend.

His.

His followers abandoned him.

His beard was ripped from his face.

He was.

He was whipped to where he was.

He had flesh and bone showing.

And then he was nailed to a cross where eventually he said that it was finished.

Right?

He accomplished the mission that he came.

And the fact is, Landon, is that you and I broke God's moral law.

But Jesus, God in flesh, came and paid that fine for guilty sinners and for those who will make up their mind and heart to turn from their sin.

The biblical word for that is repent and place their faith in the finish.

And Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross, then the Bible says God will forgive that person of their sins and grant them the gift of eternal life.

The fact is that we broke God's moral law, but Jesus paid the fine for giving guilty sinners.

Does that at least logically make sense?

I understand that that is your view.

Okay.

And, and so when you're talking about justice and injustice.

Right.

We get what we deserve if we go to hell.

But Jesus got what he did not deserve and that's because of his great love for his children.

That's, that's the God whom we love and worship.

Understood.

Okay.

So yeah, I, I think, you know, Landon, that, I think that's the, the key difference where we would be is, is the idea of, I think you struggle or you said you just strongly disagree with the fact that God would be, would punish people in hell eternally.

Right.

So I, I do want to thank you for coming on.

Right.

It was a good discussion.

I think that, I mean it would be interesting talking more.

Your view is definitely different as, as Chuck said, a unicorn a different.

And I fear it may have been a little more rambling at the beginning than I hoped.

It's a lot sort of throw out there, but I'd love to talk more about it and with you, Chuck.

I, I would love to chat tag with you sometime or presupposition.

I don't know how if you're a tag guy, but.

Definitely presuppositional somewhat tag.

I have pretty much my own different version of so, yeah, cool.

Anyway, sorry.

Yeah, so, and look, anyone's always allowed to come in anytime.

So just go to apologeticslive.com you scroll down to the duck icon, click on that to join us and anyone can, can join.

So, so yeah, you're always welcome to come back.

I, I'm just, we, we got a guy in the chat that is, I, I, I just love this.

You know, why is it that the most, you know, the most incomprehensible people always like to use caps?

I mentioned, I mentioned about King James including the Apocrypha.

And so Wesley's like is how Satan fooled men into writing the lies called the Apocrypha.

But that was in your King James Bible that you say God gave you.

Right.

It is kind of funny.

I, I'm just going to put a question out to the chat.

Those who are seeing what he's posting on, on YouTube.

Can anyone see a single sentence he says that's coherent?

I mean there's a lot of caps like, I mean here you just see he's, he's just putting things out, all caps there.

Jesus says, and I didn't even read this one, I just put one up.

Jesus said 144000 shall shall say something on the day you leave mankind cast in hell, and those hundred forty four thousand shall be sealed.

I mean, I could have grabbed any comment he posted.

I, I don't see a single one that makes any sense.

So pray for Wesley, because I don't know that he's all there, but he knows how to use the cat, the caps lock.

I'm just saying, you know, pray for Landon that, you know, he would, he would repent and receive Christ.

I don't think he's going to be offended by, by me saying that.

I'll take all your prayers.

Yeah.

I mean, I, he knows I prayed before we got started.

I prayed for his salvation beforehand.

Right.

To me.

Yep.

It's, it's, it's my greatest concern for you, Landon.

All of the philosophy and, and all that put aside, my greatest concern is where you'd spend eternity.

Right.

I mean, this.

Genuinely.

I do appreciate that.

Yeah.

I mean, denying, denying that doesn't.

Doesn't mean it, it won't, Won't happen.

Sure.

And I'm just.

It's, it is 1001, and someone just came into the backstage Brahm.

I'm gonna ask if it's okay if you, if you'd come back in next week.

Would, Would that be all right?

Yeah, that's fine.

Thank you.

All right.

I could hear him.

The audience couldn't.

He said, yeah, that'd be fine, just because we're just finishing up.

Actually, not next week.

What am I saying?

Next week here in America, we have this thing.

All right.

Yeah.

We, we get together with family and eat lasagna because that's what the Pilgrims ate.

I am just saying lasagna.

Okay.

Absolutely.

Must be.

Must have been.

Pilgrims are Italian.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The jersey's really coming out.

I, I, maybe it's because my grandmother would make the Thanksgiving turkey, and I am thoroughly convinced that she started cooking it three days before because it was.

So dry that I hate turkey.

Yeah.

I think that's why I hate turkey, is because, you know, my wife makes a good turkey, so when she makes it, I actually enjoy it.

But I, I would prefer lasagna for Thanksgiving, so.

Yeah.

But.

Hey, Landon.

I appreciate you coming in.

Chuck.

Always good to have you come in.

Yeah, it's been great.

If I could just.

In closing, I genuinely love talking about this stuff, having discussions.

Appreciate both of you.

If anyone is watching or has been, Is interested in chatting with me, please reach out.

You can find me on X. Landon Pontius.

My last name.

Just like Pontius Pilot, unfortunately, Landon Pontius.

You can find me ever I mean, my name's pretty pretty unique, so it should be pretty easy to find.

But genuinely mean it.

I would love to chat with anybody who's interested in talking about any of this stuff.

So I appreciate you guys taking the time.

It's been fun.

All right, so no show next week.

We'll be back the week after.

Hopefully, Brahm will be in.

Sister Tara, is this agreeing with me on that?

She says no.

We eat Cantonese.

I will probably be eating Cantonese this Thanksgiving because I will have all of my wife's family in, and, well, they're Cantonese, so I will probably be doing that, Tara.

So.

All right.

And so until next time, remember to strive to make today an eternal day for God's glory.

And we'll see you next time.

Have a great night.