Embracing Reformed Theology: Faith, Repentance, and Evangelism

Welcome, Pastor Joe! I'm Floyd, and I'm glad you could join us for this discussion about our worldviews.

I recently came across the discussion on Pine Creek's channel, and while I thought it was good, I think I can present a better understanding of an atheistic worldview than what Pine Creek had to offer. My essential argument with Pine Creek was that he had made a point of discussion on a sermon about how pastors may believe that someone goes to hell for eternity, but they're not willing to say that.

I looked at how I would deal with that as a pastor and then decided to bring that question back to bear on him and how he was then consistent with his worldview. For the atheist, there is no actual absolute right or wrong, no absolute morals. So for him to preach something like kindness to his children or to borrow from the Christian worldview and use things like logic and reason, I thought that was a pretty inconsistent thing for him to do when he's blaming the Christians for being inconsistent.

That's where our argument led off, and I think it's a good starting point for our discussion. You said there's no naturalistic explanation for the existence of immaterial truths. That's what I have a lot of pushback on.

Let's talk about immaterial objects. Immaterial objects are not composed of matter or energy, unlike things in the physical world, such as planets, cars, horses, and computers. Immaterial objects can be divided into two categories: abstract objects and concrete objects. Abstract objects include things like numbers, laws of logic, propositions, sets, and motion. Concrete objects are things that are tangible, such as computers and the biblical God.

When discussing immaterial objects, it can be difficult to explain them from a naturalistic perspective. For example, morality is an immaterial truth that cannot be tested in a lab. Atheists may borrow from a Christian worldview to apply laws of morality, but they cannot explain where morality comes from. Christians, however, believe that morality comes from God. It is possible to ground morality in naturalistic phenomena, but this is a topic for another discussion.

We originally talked about the laws of logic and other abstract objects. These present difficulties from a naturalistic perspective, as they cannot be observed or tested. The Christian worldview, however, provides an explanation for these abstract objects. If we were to talk about abstract objects and universals, it has been a debate for centuries among philosophers.

Plato had a position called Platonism, which stated that these universals, such as redness, hammerness, hoarseness, goodness, and beauty, exist in an Arctic realm of forms. His student, Aristotle, argued that universals reside within the particulars that exemplify them. On the other hand, nominalism states that universals or abstract objects do not exist at all.

As far as the laws of logic go, it is certainly abstract. But do they exist independently in some Arctic realm? That is still up for debate. Some may argue that immaterial truths, such as the laws of logic, exist objectively and independently. However, this creates a problem for naturalistic worldviews, as it allows for one immaterial truth. This raises questions such as where does this immaterial truth come from, and how are we drawing the lines between which immaterial truths we accept?

We agree that abstract objects exist, and immaterial truths are not a problem for the Christian. We believe in the soul, spirit, and God, and a lot of other immaterial truths. So why draw the line at logic and not open the door to the possibility of other immaterial truths? You brought up two different types of material objects: abstract, like the laws of logic, and concrete, like souls and gods.

Platonists would say that abstract objects exist outside of time and space and come from nothing. I don't think they come from anything, and I think they've always existed. This is a spin-off of Christianity, where logic is your god. Logic is abstract and impersonal, and quite different from a God, which is personal and concrete. I don't think we can parse down different immaterial things; something is either material or immaterial.

If logic has always been, then you've created a kind of b-rate version of Christianity, where logic is your god. We would say that God is our God, and logic comes from that God. If logic is necessary, then it's not contingent, and a Platonist would think that logic exists outside of time and space and doesn't come from anything. This is a defeater for Christianity because it goes against the Savvy of the Christian God.

If logic or any other abstraction can co-exist eternally alongside the Christian God, then that's a major defeater for the Savvy of the Christian God. Just because something is necessary does not mean it exists; this is true for a starving kid in India who needs food.

We can take a look at any possible worldview. As a Christian, I would say that in our world, we do have identity because it comes from a God, and we know that there's a God that has created something and ascribed these things. I don't think that's a satisfactory answer to find out where things come from. I think logic comes from the nature of this being. All properties come from Him and who He is. He has an identity, and the law of identity flows from who He is and what He is.

We have to have everything dependent on something for its existence, and when we track that all the way back, we're going to find out where things come from and what they depend on for their existence. The Christian worldview takes it back to the God who said, "Hey, I did this, and here's who I am, and here's what makes me different, so I fit the qualifications."

When we look at an example of a world where just a rock exists or two rocks exist, we can say the law of identity abides because you actually have an identity. We need to track back and find out where identity came from, and that is explained in the Bible satisfactorily as coming from a personable God who has an identity and bestowed identity upon His creation that He made in His image.

So, you think identity is an extrinsic property of an object, imposed on an object rather than actually being its nature? I think that identity is given to something by the Giver of the identity, so I was created in the image of God, which gives me an identity as an image bearer of God.

So, something can exist but not have an identity? That's what you're saying? No, everything exists, and they have their identity from the God that made them. But again, I don't see why it's necessary if no one gave God His identity. So, if God exists, why can't other things have their own identity just the way God has His own?

We need one being to be there in the beginning; we need one thing to fall back on with all this. If it doesn't make sense for us to say that something came from nothing or just exists because it exists, that's just not going to be a logical argument for very long. So, we're going to go back; we have one being in any group or subset of groups, you've got the best thing in the group. We've got to have somewhere out there is the strongest dude, somewhere out there is the smartest woman, somewhere out there is somebody at the top of the line in each different thing.

So, when we start tracing this back, God exhibits the qualities to be the best in all categories, and so that's where the things come from.

I don't see why that's necessary; your God didn't come from anything; it's your God's identity. So, again, why can't other things just have identity just the way God has His own? You're having to presuppose that God exists without needing a cause for you to suppose that everybody else exists without having a cause.

No, I don't see why you need to presuppose a God; you could presuppose that there was some initial starting point, that there is some initial necessary entity from which all contingent things come. And you're going to have to if you're going to say so. So, if you're going to say that, why can't other things exist like God exists, then you need God to exist to have that even argument. But if you take away that God, why is that? I don't understand that right there; why do you need that God?

We don't know what the initial starting point is; that doesn't—what difference does that make? It doesn't deny that contingent things exist; we just don't know the starting point. It's like you're saying you have a line of dominoes, and they all tipped over, and we all know how the first domino fell, but that doesn't mean we can't know how all the other dominoes fell.

Knowing how that first domino fell is one of the most important things we can figure out, which is why people have dedicated their lives to figuring out how that first domino fell. Depending on how that first domino fell is going to affect the rest of the dominoes. If we have a personal, holy God that exhibits all the attributes of the God of the Bible, and He is the one from which all the other dominoes fall, then we immediately have a big problem: man in his sin has fallen in sin against this God, and we need to figure out what we can do to deal with the fact that this original domino, this God, this creator, has expectations of us that we have not met.

We cannot minimize the importance of knowing what happened with the first domino. In any field, this kind of argument would not hold up. For example, if we were in the military and we had nuclear bombs headed for Russia, our commanding officer would want to know how the button got pushed. How and why that button got pushed has drastic effects on humanity.

The Bible is clear that an atheist is suppressing the truth of a holy God in his mind to avoid his own sin problem. The fact that we don't want to deal with the first domino falling down is only because if we back it up, we will meet a holy God that has a problem with our sin problem. Knowing that first domino is one of the most important things we can know. Knowing what happened to that first domino is the only important thing we can know.

We could have just come from the Big Bang or some quantum foam, or we could just be an acyclical expanse and contraction and so forth. I think we have to know things about our current state of being, our current environment, to be able to survive, thrive, and so forth. I think pretty much everything you do in life, except for this one area, you do take the time to figure that out.

For instance, if you're going to buy a used car and it's got a hundred thousand miles on it, are you going to want to know the service records of the vehicle? Are you curious how many owners the vehicle has? Like, why do things like Carfax even exist if it's not important for us to know the origins? I think you're going to be really interested in that all of a sudden.

Or you're in I.T., let's say you're coding something along in Python and you're getting a syntax error; you're going to need to go back up to find out what caused that syntax error.

I don't see why that's necessary at all. I think you have it completely backwards. I think you're giving it too much importance now. I think you're loading in that this God has expectations or this starting point has expectations for it wants us to follow him and so forth.

To drive a car, I don't need to know what plan it came out of; I don't need to know who the designer of the model is; I don't need to know who is the founder of the company; I don't even need to know the history of the car. I don't need to know about spark plugs or how a combustion engine works to be able to drive it and so forth. All I need to know is you turn the key, or nowadays you only need to do that just press a button, but how did you figure that out? You had to know that from somewhere; that knowledge didn't come from nowhere.

When it comes to driving a car, there are a lot of things you need to know. You can't just assume you know more than you do. You need to know where the gas goes, what type of fuel your car runs on, and where to get it. You don't need to know the specifics of how gas is produced, but you do need to know that you get it at a gas station and that unleaded gas is the most common type. You also need to know which pump is diesel or gas, where the nozzle goes in your car, and if you have enough money to pay for the gas.

When it comes to the universe, it is important to know where things come from and the first thing. Although you don't need to know all the intricate details of how God has orchestrated things, it shouldn't be overlooked.

We have to know the origins of everything that we think is so important. I was raised Presbyterian, and I was raised Christian, and I'm aware of Christianity. I've studied Christian theology for quite a few decades, and I think the Christian story of origin is false, and I think Genesis 1:1 is wrong.

The interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is when God started creating the heavens. For a lot of everyday things, you don't need to have a PhD. Let's assume you know nothing about the car in your driveway. Let's assume you don't know the make, model, you don't know where it came from, you don't know nothing; you just know that it won't go. So you call your tech support guy. The first question he's going to ask you is, "What kind of car do you have?"

I don't think you have to know all the extra pieces, but you do have to know the big things. And where we come from and how we got here is a very big thing to know. Like you said, there's a difference between how the engine is going to work in a Ford or a Honda or a Tesla. Those are going to be different things. Some of the auto parts guys are going to need to know those answers to those questions to help you figure out how to work it.

Now, you don't have to know all the details. There can be a conglomeration of people that know different sides of details to answer your problem. But I think figuring out where we come from in the universe is a much bigger deal than you're acting like it is.

Again, it could come from some quantum foam, some sort of quantum flux; the universe could exist eternally and so forth, but those would all have different implications on how we live. Because if I come from any of the options you just described, then there is zero problem with me just fulfilling the evolutionary model and killing my next-door neighbor's kid because I want to get her inheritance money.

Whereas in the Christian worldview, we say this has huge implications on your eternal destiny and what happened and what you were created for and what will satisfy you in life. I think the difference between the Christian and the atheist figuring out where we come from has gigantic implications on how you're going to live your life and how you're going to spend your eternity.

Okay, that sounds like it sounds like you want to jump to morality, so let's jump to morality. Yeah, I want to talk more about abstract objects, but if we keep on wandering off, let me end with this idea. The more you know, the better, right? The more you know, the more informed decisions you can make, the more intelligent decisions you can make, and so forth. But we don't need to go back real far.

There's a reason science studies those things, and we know about how cells and plants work and how the Sun fuels the things that make the plants grow, and they need water and they need air, and there's a reason we need to know all that stuff, and that all takes us back to somewhere. Again, you don't even know all the details.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth according to the Bible. However, this does not correspond to our current scientific understanding of how the universe and the Earth came about. The Earth was not created, but rather, current scientific theory has changed a lot over the years as we keep on learning more and more. It could be seen as a form of progressive revelation.

It would be odd to say that what we think now does not align with what we thought before, as science has changed so many times. Christianity, on the other hand, has been consistent in its worldview.

The six-day creation story found in Genesis 1 has been widely debunked and does not match natural revelation. It is presumptuous to say that Genesis 1 is not true without examining all the data. We don't need to know how the universe came about billions of years before to know about how the Earth came about.

If one does not care how the first domino fell, then what is the problem with the biblical idea of how the first domino fell? To have someone who does not have all the data to say that it is wrong seems a bit presumptuous.

We cannot possess the attributes of God, and yet to debunk the thing that the guy that has this quality says that's not working for me really well. Obviously, you're presupposing God wrote it, but you certainly don't think God actually pinned it onto parchment.

Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration where He used people like pens and then to write down His message, which is consistent with what the authors claimed was happening?

But in Genesis 1:1, it describes a flat Earth with a solid dome firmament above that, and we know that's not the case. How do we know? I don't need to know the beginning of the universe or how the Earth came about to know that there's not a solid deferment of a flat Earth. It's not based on the first domino; it's based on what we know about cosmology right now. Therefore, I can rationally warrant my disbelief in Christianity and reject it.

Our current cosmological model might not be represented by what you're saying the biblical model is. I don't believe the Bible teaches flat Earth theory at all, which seems to be where you're going with that. But I think as far as humans in their existence is concerned, the Earth is the first domino to figure out.

It's interesting that on one hand, you're very uninterested in dealing with the first domino, and now the very first thing you go with is the Christian's view of the first domino, and I'm curious why you would hold two different views here.

On one hand, you say we don't need to know the dominoes; science, we don't really need to worry about that; it just matters what we're doing right now, and that doesn't seem to be a super scientific approach. But then the first thing you go for is, well, Christians are wrong on the first domino. Why would it matter to you that the Christians were wrong on the first domino?

I don't need to know about the first domino; I know to know that the Earth was not created as is the first domino. Sure, so how do you know the Earth was not created? Let's start there. That's a great thing. I do think your Earth was created. I have a naturalistic explanation for how the Earth came about.

So you believe that naturalism is in congruence with the idea of a creative design universe? Yes. Who did the designing and the creating? The forces of nature. And where did the forces of nature come from? It's the property of the universe. And where do those properties come from? It's the nature of the universe. And where does the nature of the universe come from? That's the properties of the universe. Where do the properties of the universe come from? The universe.

Okay, so you're calling it the universe, and I'm calling it God. Where do the properties of your God come from? So if the properties of the universe can create and design things, that's an intelligent created design that you're arguing for from the forces of the universe? No, I'm not.

Helonomical design is the quality of apparent purposeness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organizations that are derived through evolutionary history and adoption of reproductive success. This is different from teleological design, which is the idea that something was designed by an intelligent being. An example of helonomical design is a snowflake or a puddle, which were not necessarily intelligently designed but were created by the forces of nature.

Evolution has been well tested and verified, and we have seen evidence of transitional fossils between species and kinds. However, we have never seen a half-monkey, half-man running around in the pathway stuck in his transition. We have only been able to build theories around how they must have looked, but no complete fossils exist.

If evolution hasn't stopped and climate change is true, we should be adapting to life on a different planet or at least adapting very quickly to the changing climate on Earth. However, we don't seem to be adapting very well to that.

Nature is a fascinating topic, especially when it comes to the life on our planet. Before we dive into that, I'd like to go back to the idea of producing a half-man, half-monkey. Naturalism and evolution are often seen as faith-based, but atheists like to pretend otherwise.

We can see evidence of evolution in our DNA and in the fossil record, but we don't have any living examples of half-fish, half-toad, or half-monkey, half-man. If evolution is still happening, why don't we see these creatures walking around? Why are all the transitional fossils dead? If we all turned into fossils when we tried to evolve, none of us would be alive. So why don't we have any living examples of half-monkeys, half-men?

If we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? The answer is that we have a broad spectrum of species, but we don't see any in between. We have clear examples of monkeys and humans, and it's easy to tell the difference. We should be able to see evolution happening at all levels, but we don't have any living evolutionary specimens.

We have to take it on faith that a rock means something happened. Things have evolved to what they are now, but we don't need to know what happened to the first species. We need to look at what is happening now, and when we do, we see zero evolution. The origin of species is not the first domino, but we need to look at the here and now with zero living evolutionary species.

We don't have any creatures crossing over kinds of species, so why would we think that monkeys could turn into men? We have many forms of hominids in primates right now, such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. We also have different races within humans, with different skin colors.

This can be a scary argument when discussing the evolutionary link between monkeys and men, as it implies that humans and monkeys are the same. However, this is not the case. Our DNA is closer to that of a monkey than it is to another human, but there are still large differences between people and monkeys in terms of how they live and order their societal systems.

There is no evidence of any creature that is currently in the process of evolution, or a link in the chain on the spectrum of evolution. We have common ancestors, but that does not mean that humans and monkeys are the same. We should be seeing a gradual evolution, with a large spectrum of stages still happening today. We should have all the stages in between monkeys and men, but we don't. We have people, and we have monkeys, but nothing in between.

We have a common ancestor that branches out to all these different species. Each one of my fingers would be our current species, but before that, there are a whole bunch of other species. We have a common ancestor down the chain, down the branch, so you're going to change back to the common ancestors instead of dealing with the fact there's no bridge between those two things.

We just have a link; it's linked down to the same branch. There is a link to the tree of life; it's all linked. This is like biology 101.

I recommend checking out the debate between Sproul and Bronson; it's a must-watch. I have highlights on my YouTube channel, and I have a link to the full debate between those two.

If the atheist worldview is true, there's no basis for morality. I disagree; I ground morality in the well-being of humans and sentient beings. Who determines the well-being of humans and what that means? It's part of our biological nature to avoid wrongness at all times in all places; it's situational.

Killing a grown man or a little girl would be wrong in all cases. There was no question of repeat: Is it wrong at all times in all situations for a grown man to kill a little girl? No, okay. So there's that.

We had a really fun discussion on morality, but you're not going to say that a grown man killing a girl is wrong in all situations, and I am, so I think by default we're going to say the Christian worldview wins one point from reality where it's not cool for grown men to kill little girls.

So you're saying it's categorical right, not hypothetical? Yeah. Do you ever differentiate between those two? No, I'm just asking is it okay for grown men to kill little girls, and you say it's always wrong, right? Yeah.

Did God ever command any human to kill a little girl? The question is about God and how He works with humans. That would be a different question now. Humans deal with each other. I thought we were talking about the morality of humans.

No, no, you said is it always wrong for a human to kill a little girl in all cases, all situations, and I said no, and you say yes. I brought up an example of the Old Testament where they have genocide and so forth, where humans were commanded by your God to kill everyone in the city, including little girls.

So you're saying that is wrong, correct? But you just switched categories; now you're dealing with how God deals with His creation and not people to people. Well, you said in all situations yes, but you've entered, you've had to presuppose and bring a God into it to change your case though.

And so if we're not dealing with God, it's different for people. God commanded it; the human is doing the action; humans are the ones doing the killing. Okay, in every situation that's wrong. I brought up an example in your Bible where humans kill little girls commanded by God.

Now if you want to be consistent, because I don't think you're consistent, I don't think you've shown that I'm not inconsistent. I've always been consistent. You're being inconsistent now because I brought up an example of your God commanding humans to kill other humans, which include little girls.

So either you're going to retract what you said or explain. We had to presuppose God exists to make that not rotten. It's an internal critique I'm showing how you're being inconsistent within your world, but if God doesn't exist, then that's no problem for you.

Yeah, but we're talking about your worldview. Do you know the difference between external and an internal critique? I do know the difference between those two things. Okay, I'm doing an internal critique of your worldview, showing how you're being inconsistent where you made it in a categorical imperative that it's always wrong in all times, all places, in all situations for a grown man to kill a little girl.

That's the Bible condones certain humans to kill little girls. And again, it's a hypothetical imperative. I'm willing to say that between people, between people, it is never okay for a grown man to kill a little girl.

If we want to discuss human morality, we need to leave God out of the equation. We are not talking about religious morality or what the Christian view has to offer. We are discussing an atheistic morality worldview, where it is not always wrong to do something.

If we want to bring God into the discussion and discuss theologically how God handles His creation, then that is a different conversation than how humans should interact with each other morally.

You made the claim that it is always wrong for a grown man to kill a little girl, but I brought up an example from your Bible that this is not the case. You are asserting some sort of categorical imperative, but then you contradict yourself by saying that if God commands it, it is okay.

So, in your worldview, as long as there is a morally sufficient reason, it is moral for a grown man to kill a little girl.

In my scenario, God can make things okay that are not okay. However, for the atheist to claim that it is not right all the time is consistent because there is no categorical rule to fall back on. There is no absolute or objective morality without a God to base it on.

I can say it is never okay for a grown man to kill a little girl, and then I can say how God deals with this creation is God's business because those are two different conversations.

Between two humans, what makes it okay for grown men to kill little girls in the world? Your worldview could think of situations such as trolley problems, for example. It'd be okay to kill a little girl if it perhaps saves an entire city of people, according to utilitarianism.

There could be scenarios in which it might be better to kill one person to save the lives of millions of people. What standard would we use to decide when it was okay and when it was not okay? What's the best solution for human flourishing? Who's going to make the decision on the best decision for human flourishing?

To answer this, something we have to learn. I would hope that we actually do have a standard to determine whether or not it was right to kill her at that time. We discover things and learn about ourselves all the time, such as health.

What's to stop you from discovering tomorrow that you should, for example, kill every unborn baby in its mom's womb? It would make sense in your worldview, but it wouldn't make sense in mine. Discovery is a little too vague and ambiguous with lives hanging online.

What if you discovered that to be okay all of a sudden? That's going to be okay because you're discovering and learning all the time, right? We're trying to improve our lives, so there's going to be no problem if you discover that it's going to be good for some people if you kill all the babies.

But there is a grounding; there is a goal; there is a direction that we're taking. Who defines what human flourishing is in this system? It's part of our biological nature.

Our biological natures decide what flourishing is. If our biological nature is to determine what human flourishing is and you've got two biological natures that disagree, how do you figure out which one is the right one?

To those people that harm themselves, do they flourish? That's what we've got to figure out. How do we determine a definition of flourishing, and by what standard do we define that? It's very obvious that this conversation only ends one place.

I think we can know when we experience pain and suffering when we experience it. In fact, I would say in the biblical worldview you presuppose that very thing. Think of what a covenant is between man and God; a covenant is an agreement between two parties.

God said if you obey my commandments and so forth, I will lead you to a land of milk and honey; I will have you flourish and so forth. That presupposes well-being. Look in Revelation where it says and so forth.

It is interesting every time you're pressed for an argument you have to run back to presupposing a God to make it seem for worldview. How do you develop standards and the inconsistency of your arguments? That would be a lot more impressive if you could defend your worldview first by what standard do you get to define human flourishing for all people?

Again, as part of our biological nature, so what happens when two biological natures disagree? How do you determine who's right? As humans, we would share the same biological nature, right?

Oh, no biological stuff, but as far as determining what is flourishing or not, I've met some people with very different ideas. I used to run at EMS, and we'd go out to a guy who had a sniper's nest in his attic, and he'd call 9-1-1 just to have the ambulance show up.

We had to send the cops in, and that was his idea of flourishing, was protecting his property. So his idea of flourishing may contrast with yours or my ideas of flourishing. I'm not comfortable with a moral code built on whatever anybody feels like defining is flourishing.

I'm asking for how do you determine what is right and wrong? Why? What standard do you know those things to be true or not? We've already decided that there's sometimes it's okay for us to kill the girls, and I want to know when is it okay to kill the little girls?

How would I know that? And just you and me having an argument on what flourishing is or isn't going to help us very much. We're going to need a standard to go to to determine is this actually meaning our definition of flourishing or not flourishing.

And I'd say that to the little girl impending death, this is a very important discussion for her as to how we discover whether it's not right or not to take her life.

Well, in your worldview, you have to go a little girl saying, "Oh, your ancestors in the past and let my ancestors walk through your lands after we came out of Egypt, so therefore my God dictates that I kill you little girl."

I appreciate you continually appealing to the idea of a God to find a standard of morality, and I think that proves my point that the atheist has no way of defining actual morality because there is no standard for him.

You're saying, well, listen, when I do an internal critique, you somehow think I'm borrowing, but now what standard do you determine what human flourishing is? Again, our biological nature.

Okay, we avoid suffering; we avoid pain and so forth. Our dog does that. What do you do when two biological people do two people disagree on what biological nature means?

When two people disagree on what flourishing is, it can be difficult to determine an objective truth. In a Christian worldview, there are commands from God on how to deal with things. In other worldviews, it can be difficult to define truth.

For example, if someone believes that smoking cigarettes is healthy, it can be hard to prove that it is objectively unhealthy. To determine if something is objectively unhealthy, one must look at the consequences, such as how it affects human bodies, cells, diseases, and life expectancy.

In the case of pruning vines, the suffering and death of parts of the plant can create more growth, which is not always an exciting process for the plant. However, this does not mean that suffering and death should be the measure of human flourishing.

It is apt to do, and it says, you know what, cigarettes aren't that bad; that's not a problem. Then I obey God the best way that I know how. But for the atheist, there is no objective way of determining whether it was right or wrong to kill the little girl because it's based on a human flourishing which when two people disagree we can't define anymore.

Again, if that's the standard, what is the standard human flourishing, and who defines what flourishing is? Our biological nature? Okay, how do I get in touch with your biological nature to give me a straight answer on what human flourishing is and how we define that?

Humans share similar natures, right? Very identical. We both have to eat; we both need a roof over our head, clothing on our backs, and food in our stomachs. Yes, but after that, no experience will become a very pain; we both experience suffering; we both experience boredom for fulfillment and so forth.

But you switch to truth; you know one theory of truth, which I pretty much hold on; I was not going to concede that one at all. I'm not going to concede that we can also say that we can derive an objective standard of what flourishing is from our biological natures because after we get past your list, the variances of what humans describe as flourishing become profound and exponential.

For instance, let's take a tribe in Africa that likes to extend their necks or people in Old School Japan that will bind their feet, and they thought that was their version of flourishing. When you have two different schools of thought competing for what flourishing is, what standard do you use to decide what flourishing actually is?

And remember, the little girl's life hangs in the balance in our scenario. Extending your necks doesn't affect what the little girl's life, right? It's a different definition of human flourishing, and I'm trying to figure out when people have different ideas of flourishing, who decides who's right?

In Scotland, it's okay for men to wear kilts, but in the United States, people generally don't wear kilts and so forth. I don't think either pick of clothing styles is a great effect on human flourishing or killing your neighbor and so forth is.

But when we're trying to determine why it is objectively wrong to kill a little girl, defining how we figure out right and wrong is actually very important. Christians don't have a problem with evil; atheists have a problem.

You said objectively, if your God commands you not to kill a little girl, that that's subjective Divine command theory.