How to DESTROY Christian 'Morality' With 1 Question

So if God commanded you to kill a baby today, would you do it? — Yes. — Okay. So why would you kill a baby but you wouldn't a baby? — Because that would be cruel or something. — In less than 10 seconds, Nazi Nick Fuentes just destroyed his own worldview. You see, he claims to follow divine command theory, the idea that morality is whatever God says it is. But when he admits that he wouldn't vi babies because it's cruel, he accidentally reveals the truth. He has a moral standard that exists outside of God, — cruel or something. — He's willing to be a monster for his theology, but he's not willing to be consistent. What you're watching is the Euphrow dilemma doing exactly what it was built to do. It's a 2 and a half thousand-year-old philosophical problem that acts like a trap for this exact type of fundamentalism by asking a simple devastating question. Is something good because God commands it? or does God command it because it is good? If you accept the first option that something is good merely because God commands it, then morality is entirely arbitrary. It's made up. If God commanded murder tomorrow, then murder would become good. But that isn't morality at all, is it? That's just obedience. It simply might makes right. However, if you accept the second option that God commands it because it is good, then God is simply pointing you towards a standard of goodness that exists independently of him. His edicts, his rules align with morality, but they are not the source of it. On this view, the good news is that morality exists. The bad news is that you don't actually need God to access it. Nick tried to embrace the first option, but his human intuition slipped and revealed that he actually believes the second. Can we be serious? Can we grow up? — Why hello my fellow apes. I hope you are well. Recently, Dean Withers, a rising liberal political commentator known for his confrontational on the-fly debate style, clashed with Nick Fuentes over the foundations of morality. Now, for those who are unfamiliar with Nick, he's not just some edgy internet theologian. He's the leader of the white nationalist griper movement and a Holocaust denier. — People talk about, well, you know what about the gas chambers? Well, to the extent that that's real, I find that hard to believe. — Keep that in mind as we watch him defend the idea that morality comes from obedience to authority. Nick sack confidently, armed with the standard apologetic stance, that objective morality flows exclusively from God. Don't you know? But Dean didn't come to debate theological interpretations. He came to dismantle the foundation. He came armed with a devastating philosophical question, a dilemma that Plato wrote down four centuries before Christianity even existed. Today, we're going to watch exactly how this ancient maneuver is deployed. We see how Dean pins Nick to a specific hypothetical, secures his commitment, and then extends the logic until Nick is forced to choose between admitting his God is arbitrary or admitting that his standard for cruelty exists outside of God. Oh, and for those of you at the back that think that there might be a third option, some clever answer regarding God's nature that supposedly solves the problem, stick around. — The dilemma that it presents is a false dilemma. There's a third alternative, namely, God wills something because he is good. — As we'll see later, that answer doesn't fix the problem at all. It merely kicks the can down the road. So, let's see the dilemma unfold. I would say to the godless, what is moral? And who are we if we're not just Stardust being rearranged? I mean, slavery, these things, these are conceptual. It can only exist with a real philosophical viewpoint, not with this kind of lame like sky daddy isn't real sort of stuff. So, you know, there's just a lot of assumptions there that kind of need to be interrogated. — We pick up the action right as Nick attempts to corner Dean. He's supremely confident using a standard apologetic line claiming that without God, atheists are just stardust with no moral standing. And I think this is one of the real problems of atheism is that lacking a moral lawgiver and moral authority. It has no basis for affirming objective right and wrong. — I would say to the godless, what is moral? And to cap it off, he smuggly challenges Dean to interrogate his own assumptions. But watch closely. Dean doesn't get defensive. He catches the word interrogate and instantly uses it to flip the entire board. But before we dive into the next exchange, we spend a lot of time analyzing irrational fears and conspiracies about Big Brother or the New World Order, tracking our every move. — I know they're carrying out new world order. I know they staged those terror attacks. But while people are distracted by those fantasies, they ignore the actual surveillance state that is already here. It's not run by a shadowy cabole. It's run by data brokers. These companies have compiled dossier on you that can stretch up to 10 pages or more. Your address history, your family connections, your financial habits, and

they aren't doing it for ideology. They're doing it for profit. Auctioning your privacy to the highest bidder, whether that's a marketer or a scammer. You could try to fight this alone, yes, but these companies make the opt- out process a bureaucratic maze designed to make you give up. And that is why I use today's sponsor, Aura. Aura cuts through the red tape. They identify the brokers selling your data and automatically submit opt- out requests on your behalf. But they don't stop there. Aura is a total digital defense suite. You get dark web monitoring, a VPN for private browsing, an antivirus, and a password manager, all in one app. When I turned it on, the drop in spam calls and targeted harassment was almost immediate. It's the difference between leaving your front door open and finally locking it. So, stop letting strangers monetize your life. Go to aura. com/rationality rules to start a 14-day free trial. See exactly who has your data and let scrub it from the web while you get on with your life. Thanks. Back to the show. — You know, there's just a lot of assumptions there that kind of need to be interrogated. — Yeah. Well, I mean, I think what needs to be interrogated is the fact that you asked me, "Well, what do I do if a group of people likes to murder and kill others? " Uh, — what if God said that? — You know, I think that's a question nailed it straight away. We are already operating within the euthor dilemma. When he asks whether Nick would commit atrocities if God commanded it, he's implicitly posing the core question. Is an action good merely because God commands it? — What if God said that? And when Nick immediately responds with yes, he's unflinchingly affirming the first horn that morality is whatever God says it is. Full stop. — Put bluntly, Nick is committing to divine command theory. This is a rigid framework in which good is not an intrinsic quality of the universe and it is not based on the well-being of conscious creatures. Good is quite simply whatever God wills it to be. So if God commands charity, then charity is good. If God commands you to wear a silly hat, then wearing a silly hat is the height of moral virtue. But crucially, and this is the part that gets people in trouble, this means that there is no standard outside of God to judge God's commands. You can't say God is good because he does benevolent things because benevolence has no independent moral weight until God wills it into existence. Under this framework, morality is an arbitrary decree from the ultimate dictator. It's the Simon says model of ethics. If Simon says jump, you jump. If Simon says murder, you murder. And if you're wondering why a white nationalist would find this framing so appealing, this is why. Divine command theory is authoritarianism dressed up in theological robes. Obey the leader. Don't question. Trust the chain of command. It's the same logic whether the authority is God, the furer, or whoever Nick decides speaks for both. — You think Hitler was very [ __ ] cool. Yes, I do. — One of those. — And I'm tired of pretending he's not. — Dean knows this and he knows that Nick subscribes to it. So rather than arguing about whether God exists, Dean does something far more calculated. He tests the consistency of that obedience. — You know, I think that's a question that we need to ask. — Then we would have to do it. — Wait, really? If God told you and kill a baby, would you do it? — Notice the tactical escalation here. Dean isn't just trying to shock. He is cornering his opponent. He combines kill with specifically because while religious fundamentalists can often find theological excuses for killing, holy wars, divine judgment, capital punishment, they don't tend to use such theological cover. It strips away the crusader cosplay, leaving only the raw principle of obedience. — Wait, really? If God told you to kill a baby, would you do it? — Well, God would never do that because God is good and those things are evil. — And here we have the panic reflex. Nick realizes that saying yes to this makes him look like a psychopath. So, he tries to dodge the hypothetical entirely, but he's walked himself into a different issue. Now, he's trying to use the second horn of the dilemma to defend the first. He claims he obeys God because God is good. — But remember, under his theory, good is just a label for what God commands. So when he says that God wouldn't command a particular atrocity because it's evil, he is affirming the evil is a standard that exists outside of God's will. A standard that God himself has to obey. Dean, however, doesn't get bogged down in the philosophy seminar just yet. He has a much sharper weapon in his arsenal to prove that God has commanded these things. — Okay, so and killing is evil. So when he commanded the raping in 1 Samuel 15:3, that was evil. This is the moment that the trap moves from theoretical to tangible. Dean cites 1st Samuel 15:3. For those who aren't Sunday school scholars, this is the passage where God commands King Saul to, and I quote, "Now go attack the Amalachites and totally

destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them. Put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. " Yes, you heard that right. God commands the slaughter of babies. It is a brutal, undeniable text. And by putting it on the table, Dean effectively barricades the escape route. Nick insists that God wouldn't do that. Dean points to the scoreboard and says, "Bro, he already did. " — So when he commanding Malachi in 1 Samuel 15:3, that was evil. God is telling us to and kill babies right now. — Would you look at the pivot, the speed of it? Nick realizes that his God wouldn't command killing defense just got nuked from orbit by his own holy book. So he moves the goalposts, changing the criteria so his position can't be proven wrong. Dean brought up God's commands in the Bible. Nick spins it to — God is telling us to and kill babies right now. — But that's not the point. The problem isn't when God commanded it. It's whether he would command it at all. Remember this whole exchange started because Nick tried to reject Dean's original hypothetical. If God told you to and kill a baby, would you do it? — So specifically about killing. In 1 Samuel 15:3, he did command Saul and his men to kill the Amalachi babies. — Babies. He told him to babies. No, to kill babies. — Notice Dean's discipline here. Our boy isn't going to let Nick escape the problem by focusing on the part. He's forcing him to deal with the kill part. He removes the distraction so the trap can continue to close. — Babies. — No, to kill babies. — Well, yeah. And if I were one of those guys, I would have done it, but not — stop right there. This is the crack in the dam. — I would have done it, but not. — Nick has just drawn a moral line in the sand. He's saying explicitly that he would follow the command of an allloving God to execute an innocent baby, yet he wouldn't follow the command to one. Why? If God is the sole author of morality and God commands both, they should be morally identical acts of obedience. But let's set this odd standard aside because Dean sees the inconsistency and the opening that it creates. Before he drives the dagger home though, he needs to secure one final unbreakable commitment. He needs to bring this out of the dusty pages of the Bronze Age and into the studio right here, right now. — Well, yeah, then if I were one of those guys, I would have done it. But not — Okay. So, if God commanded you to kill a baby today, would you do it? — That single word today strips away the Old Testament context defense. Today removes the different times different rule shield. Today forces Nick to stand naked before his own logic. If morality is objective, eternal, and absolute, and it comes from God's command, then the date of the calendar is completely irrelevant. — So if God commanded you to kill a baby today, would you do it? — Yes. — Just uh let that hang in the air for a second. Yes. He says no hesitation, no caveat, a confident fullthroatated affirmation that he would murder a baby if the voice in his head told him it was God's will. And you know, we've seen this play out in reality. For instance, in 2003, Danna Lanni from Texas tragically killed two of her three sons and severely injured the third by striking them with large rocks. She believed that God had commanded her to sacrifice her children to prove her faith and that the world was ending. This is divine command theory in practice. And Nick has opted to adopt that dangerous position. — Yes. — Now Nick thinks that he's winning here. He thinks that he's showing strength. demonstrating the pious unwavering faith of a true believer who puts God above worldly concerns. He thinks that he's Abraham on the mountain, knife raised, proving his loyalty. But he isn't Abraham. He's Jeep's daughter. The biblical sacrifice that wasn't stopped. And Dean is holding the knife. There is no escaping this. — Yes. Okay. So, why would you kill a baby, but you wouldn't the baby? — Here it is. The knife is now driven into the heart of Nick's morality. If you are a divine command theorist, the answer to why would you do X is always because God wills it. That's the whole list. There is no other reason. If God commands killing, you kill. If he commands, you if God commands you to paint yourself blue and dance the macarina, well, you get the point. The content of the action is irrelevant. The source of the command is everything. So, logically, if Nick is consistent, he should say, "I would the baby if God commanded it. " It's a monstrous sentence, a horrific thought, but it is the only logically consistent answer from his worldview. But Nick, for all his bluster, for all his edgy internet persona, cannot bring himself to say it. — So why would you kill a baby but you wouldn't a baby because that would be

cruel or something — and it all comes tumbling down. Cruel. [snorts] Huh? Think about what that word implies. To call something cruel is to make a value judgment. It is to appeal to a standard of suffering, of harm, of empathy. It is a moral evaluation that exists independent of a command. By invoking cruelty as a reason to disobey or to assume that God wouldn't command it, Nick has just admitted that he has a moral compass that sits above God. He is looking at two hypothetical commands, kill and he is using his own human brain, his own human empathy to sort them. Killing that passes the filter somehow. No, no. That's cruel — because that would be cruel or something. — He is not getting his morality from God. No, like all believers, he is creating God in his image. He is bringing his morality to God. This is the crushing weight of the Euphro dilemma. Is it good because God commands it? Well, Nick just proved that he doesn't believe that because he thinks that would be bad even if God commanded it. Does God command it because it is good? Then good and cruel are standards that exist on their own and we don't need God to tell us what they are. — Cruel or something. — In four words, that would be cruel. Nick has conceded the entire debate. He has admitted that he is not a divine command theorist. After all, he is picking and choosing which divine atrocities he can stomach based on his own personal ick factor. And Dean Eversharp pounces immediately — because that would be cruel or something. Wait, is killing a baby not cruel? — Dean knows exactly where this is going. Nick's logic holds no water. If cruelty is the standard, how on earth does killing infants, especially the way it's commanded in the Bible, not qualify? — Wait, is killing a baby not cruel? — In the Old Testament, it worked differently. — No, I'm talking about world. — And right on Q, the frantic backpedaling begins. This is a fallacy known as special pleading. when someone asserts that something is an exception to a rule without adequate justification. Nick claims that God's morality is objective and eternal, the rule. But the moment that morality becomes inconvenient, the moment it requires him to justify killing babies, he pleads for a special exception. — He creates a magical Old Testament zone where the normal rules of cruelty simply don't apply. Apparently, in this zone, you could wake up, grab a baby by the leg, and bash its skull against a rock. I mean, just look at Psalm 137. Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. But then, boom, the calendar flipped to the New Testament, and suddenly the exact same action became cruel. Anyhow, I digress. Remember Dean's trap. Remember the key word that blocks any special pleading. No, I'm talking about you particularly said that you would kill a baby today if God asked you, but you a baby if God asked you. So, how could a baby today but not baby? — Once again, Dean forces Nick to face his own words. This is excellent discipline. When you're debating someone who knows they're losing, they try to drag you onto tangental arguments. In this case, theological debates about the covenant, the dispensation of grace, the historical context of the bronze age leaven, anything to escape the trap. But Dean, he tightens the rope. — So, how about kill a baby today, but not — because the context of the Old Testament is that it's a fallen world. And that's the context you're talking about. You said that in the Old Testament, — we're not talking about Dude, please. We literally are not answer. — Nick's struggle here is palpable, right? He is incapable of staying in the present since that is where the contradiction lives. Hence, he keeps trying to teleport back to the Old Testament because that's the only place he feels safe — in the Old Testament. — We're not talking about Dude, please. — If we're not talking about Wait, wait. the Old Testament, what are we talking about? — This faint confusion is another tactical retreat. Nick is trying to muddy the waters so thoroughly that the audience forgets his own admission. So, let's track what happened. Nick said that he wouldn't kill or a baby because God would never ask him to. — Well, God would never do that because God is good and those things are evil. — So, Dean pointed to the Old Testament to show that God has indeed commanded the murder of babies. — In 1 Samuel 15:3, he did command Saul and his men to kill the Amalachi babies. — Nick then changed his position to say, "Okay, yes, I would kill a baby if my inner voice told me to. " — So, if God commanded you to kill a baby today, would you do it? — Yes. But when questioned on the moral separation between killing and under divine command theory, he pivoted to the Old Testament was a different time. — In the Old Testament, it worked differently, — which only serves to evade the question. The goal is simple. If Nick can make the

conversation confusing enough, maybe he can slip away in the chaos. But Dean is relentless. — If we're not talking about the Old Testament, what are we talking about? — About the fact that you told me today if God commanded you to kill a baby, you would do it. And then I followed that up by asking you if God commanded you a baby, would you do it? And you should do that because that's cruel. — And just like that, he lays the contradiction bare. Nick admitted that he would kill if commanded, but he also admitted that he would not, specifically because it is cruel. Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable. He's judging God's commands based on his own private standard of cruelty. Nick has no move left on the chessboard. So, what does a grand master of bad faith do when he's been checkmated? He tries to flip the board. — We're back in the circle. He's running the same loop again. God wouldn't command evil. But Nick, the hypothetical didn't ask if God would. It asked if you should do it if he did. — Cruel. — Okay. So, killing a baby today, you would do if God commanded it. But a baby today, you wouldn't do because God wouldn't command it. First of all, are you making the implication that killing the baby today is an evil? — This is the killing blow. Dean follows Nick's logic to its inevitable ugly conclusion and does so via the reductio adabsum. Taking an idea and pushing it to an extreme or absurd conclusion to discredit it. If is too evil for God to command, but baby killing isn't, then Nick is implicitly arguing that killing a baby is not evil. There is no way out of this. Either God commands evil things sometimes and we must obey or killing babies isn't evil. Pick your poison. — Are you making the implication that killing the baby today isn't evil? — No. What you said is that in — Okay, so then you wouldn't do that either, right? — Hang on. Let's rewind. Let's rewind because you said in the Bible God says babies. Can you just retract that? — And so having failed to win on principle, Nick retreats into the semantics. At this point, he has completely abandoned the philosophical argument. He knows he can't win on the logic of divine command theory. cruelty standard. So he circles back to a small irrelevant detail where Vaden accidentally implied that the Bible commands babies. And he tries to make that the entire debate. — Can you just retract that? — Nick wants an apology. He wants a correction. He wants a win. Any win, no matter how small, to regain the upper hand. But again, the question isn't whether the Bible says to babies. The question is whether Nick would do it if God told him to. — Can you just retract that because that never happened? No. If you rewind Yeah. Okay, people can rewind the clip. — You said killing babies cuz you got a People got a little ahead of yourself. — Look at how much energy Nick is pouring into this. He is obsessing over the phrasing of the setup to avoid dealing with the punchline. Now watch what Dean does next. This is how you dismantle a pedum. You said killing babies because you got a people a little ahead of yourself. Because you got a little ahead of yourself that I literally clear this up so easily. If I said God commanded Saul and his men babies in 1 Samuel 15:3, I misspoke. God commands Solomon to kill babies. But you are not answering my question. — Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Dean grants the retraction. He gives Nick the crumb. Fine. I misspoke. You win that tiny irrelevant point. And by doing this, he strips away Nick's only cover and continues the assault. — But you are not answering my question. This is a game on answer. Every single person watching the stream can see that you said if God commanded you to kill a baby today, you said you would do it. Can you affirious? — This is where Nick breaks. — Can we be serious? — There it is. The panic button. When a self-styled serious thinker realizes that they've been cornered by someone who they view as an inferior, they almost always resort to this specific tone. It's an appeal to ridicule. When someone mocks or dismisses an argument as absurd rather than actually addressing it, Nick isn't offering a counterargument. He isn't citing scripture. He isn't using logic. He is simply trying to frame the question itself as illegitimate, too childish to answer, too unserious to debate. — But it is serious. Deadly so, because it exposes the hollowess of Nick's entire worldview. So, he tries to laugh it off. He tries to act like the adult in the room, too busy for these silly little games. Dean, however, doesn't flinch. He just holds the line. Answer the question. You said you would do it. Can you affirm — Can we be serious? Can we be serious for a second? — We are being dead serious. Can you affirm the fact that you said if God told you to kill a baby, you — can we be serious? Can we grow up? — He asks this coming from a manchild who thinks that Hitler was really cool. — Hitler was a pedophile and kind of a pagan. It's like, well, he was also really [ __ ] cool, so you know, time

to grow up. We're not children anymore. Am I right? AM I RIGHT, BOYS? OH, BOY. This is the death rattle of the debate. When your opponent stops arguing facts and starts attacking your maturity, it is a tacit admission of defeat. He is attacking the messenger because the message is unanswerable. — Can we be serious? Can we grow up? — Why won't you answer my question? Well, because we're talking about the Old Testament, are we not? — And around we go. Nick tries the door one more time. The locked door. The door that Dean welded shut minutes ago with the word today. — Well, because we're talking about the Old Testament, are we not? — Dude, we're talking about today. How many times do I need to say that? — You're talking about the Old Testament. You're citing the Old Testament. — It's almost sad at this point. Nick is simply denying reality. He is insisting that they are talking about the Old Testament despite Dean explicitly, repeatedly, and loudly saying, "Today. " It's like watching a child cover their ears and humly so they don't have to hear that it's bedtime. You're talking about a specific verse in the Old Testament. — Oh my god. — Look, you can giggle, but can we confirm that we're talking about the Old Testament? Is that correct? — Nick is desperate to seize control of the frame. He thinks that if he can just bully Dean into agreeing that they're discussing the Old Testament, he can unleash his prepared script about ancient context to escape the modern day. But seriously, to any apologist listening, saying that was then, this is now does not save objective morality. — Can we confirm that we're talking about the Old Testament? Is that correct? — What are we talking about? — Nick knows what they're talking about. Of course he does. He just wishes they weren't. — Exactly. I'll tell you exactly what we're talking about. We are talking about the fact that I asked you a damning hypothetical question. I asked you one moment. Do you mind if I have 30 seconds? — Context. No, — cheap context denial. He says, appreciate the language. He is critiquing the style of the debate. fairness of the question. He is doing everything except answering it. — It's one moment. — Context. No, it's context because you don't want me to talk because you know that you're losing. Dean finally labels what everyone watching already knows. Nick is a loser. It's a spotlight that only further embarrasses Nick, sending him scrambling. Now, since he can't bully Dean into agreeing to the Old Testament premise, he just decides to force the conversation there anyway. He launches into what he thinks is a saving throw, a long winding theological monologue designed to bore the audience into submission and to bury the contradiction under a mountain of words. But don't worry, we will skip over some of these parts in respect for your sanity. — Because you don't want me to talk because you know that you're losing. — Yeah, because the Old Testament says bad things in it. I know I'm a new atheist and I just discovered here. Here's my answer to your question if you allow me to answer it. I know you want a cheap gotcha question, but let's add a little context. The Old Testament takes place in a fallen world. We live in a fallen world because we have free will. Okay? God created human beings. human beings disobeyed God and sinned. Because we disobeyed God and sinned, we have the penalty of death, war, shame, guilt, pain at birth, all these things. — So Nick totally ignores that Dean asks him about what he would do today and instead goes into the fallen world theology. And you know what? Why not? Let's break down what this actually is saying because this is a common Christian position and it is fascinatingly incoherent. Just think of the setup here. God creates humans who literally do not know the difference between good and evil. He then puts a tree in front of them that grants them that knowledge but forbids them from eating it. Why? Cuz God's mysterious, bro. That's why. — When he does bad things like hurricanes, AIDS, cancer, child, then we just go, "Oh, well, God works in mysterious ways. " — So, you have creatures that lack the moral capacity to understand that disobedience is wrong. placed in a garden that God designed, being tempted by a serpent that God created. All under the watchful eye of an omnisient God who knew exactly what would happen. Then to the complete surprise of the all knowing, the humans ate the fruit. What do you know? Naturally, being allloving, he decides to curse not just Adam and Eve, but all life on the planet to eternal suffering. And this is the context that Nick is hiding behind. He argues that because the world is now fallen, it was somehow righteous for God to order total extermination. I mean, really, we are meant to believe that the master of reality, the author of physics itself, had no other way to demonstrate his love and mercy than to have the Israelites go doortodoor curb stomping babies. But don't worry, despite us living in a fallen world, still, God

wouldn't command such a thing today because that would be cruel. — It is in this context that God commanded the chosen people to kill certain tribes to establish their survival to secure a line for the coming of the Messiah. — Genocide for genealogy. Got it? And you know, let's not pretend that this is purely historical for neck. The idea that certain peoples needed to be exterminated to secure the bloodline is disturbingly close to the blood and soil rhetoric, the Nazi slogan that runs through his political movement. When Nick defends biblical ethnic cleansing, he's not just doing apologetics. He is rehearsing a logic that he has applied elsewhere. And he then has the audacity to say this — to establish their survival to secure a line for the coming of the Messiah. God does not approve of killing because it says in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill. " — What he's completely missed is the total contradiction between that line and the very words he just uttered. Not to mention the texts in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and yes, the one already raised by Dean in First Samuel. If God does not approve of killing, but God commanded killing, we have a major problem. Think about it. Nick is claiming that thou shalt not kill is an objective eternal moral law. But then he admits that God can just turn that law off. If God can forbid killing on Tuesday, but command a massacre on Wednesday, then killing isn't inherently evil, is it? It's just subject to God's mood swings. This is the nightmare of the first horn of the Euphr dilemma. If good is merely what God wills, then words like justice and mercy are just blank checks that God can fill out however he wills. Nick is tying himself in knots trying to deny this. He cites thou shalt not kill as the ultimate standard to look moral but ignores the many exceptions. — God does not approve of killing because it says in the ten commandments thou shalt not kill. — You can't have it both ways for the theist. Either the rule is absolute objective even and God broke it or the rule is subjective dependent on God's opinion. Oh, and crucially and I can't stress this enough, this entire tangent is completely irrelevant. Dean asked, — "So, if God commanded you to kill a baby today, would you do it? " — This is the issue. Nick lives in a fallen world, too, doesn't he? By his own theology, sin still exists. The world is still broken. — The Old Testament takes place in a fallen world. We live in a fallen world because we have free will. — So, if the fallen world was a justification for baby killing back then, what is stopping God from commanding it again right now? Nick is spinning a web of God doesn't support killing, but he commanded it. and whatever God commands is good. But things also work differently before Jesus. It's a word salad. — And of course, taking a life in and of itself, hang on, there's a difference everybody knows between killing and murder. If I go and murder you for no reason, that's immoral. If I kill in self-defense or self-defense of my children, it's a different story. — Dean tries to get a word in, but Nick barrels on and somehow he makes it worse. Now he tries the self-defense defense. This is genuinely baffling. He is equating the slaughter of children, babies in their cribs, with self-defense. In what universe is that self-defense? What the [ __ ] are you on about? I mean, was the babies coming at the Israelites with knives? — If I go and murder you for no reason, that's immoral. — This is a false equivalence of the grossest kind. When someone presents two sides is equally valid when they're quite different. Commanding genocide off babies is not self-defense. They literally can't fight back. Nick is trying to steal the moral legitimacy of protecting your family and wrapping it around the act of slaughtering sleeping infants. But the question at hand had nothing to do with self-defense. newborns attacking his family. By claiming this is self-defense, Nick is hallucinating a threat that doesn't exist to justify violence that shouldn't exist. He's trying to sanitize the atrocity by dressing it up as survival. Oh, it's just like protecting your kids, you know. No, Nick, it is nothing like that. It is an extermination order. God commanding the people of the Old Testament is an extraordinary exception based on the fallen old world. — An extraordinary exception, huh? Could he be more blatant with his special pleading? We're right back to where we started. Remember earlier? Same special pleading, the same Old Testament zone, same magical exception. Only now he's calling it extraordinary. — Is an extraordinary exception. — But what's actually changed? The world

is still fallen. People still sin. The only thing that's changed is Nick's desperation. — We're talking about evil, the existence of evil. — So, does that mean that God is not an authority? Of course not. God is an authority. Would God command us to do those things today? Probably not. But if he did, in a hypothetical scenario, we'd have to trust God if we truly believe in God. Otherwise, you would say something like, "We know more than God or God is not good or we're better than God. " And that negates the concept of a God or good itself. — Yeah. He circles back to the start. we would have to trust God and do what he says. He ends the debate by reaffirming the very thing he spent all this time fighting against. When it comes to killing, he claims that we must trust God's command. Absolutely. — So, if God commanded you to kill a baby today, would you do it? — Yes. — Yet, when asked about, he explicitly refused to trust God's command. — So, why would you kill a baby, but you wouldn't baby? Because that would be cruel or something. — He said, "No, that would be cruel. " And now he's back to saying we shouldn't second guessess God. So his conclusion is a lie. He doesn't believe that we must trust God. He believes that we have to trust God as long as God commands things that Nick finds acceptable. — In a hypothetical scenario, we'd have to trust God if we truly believe in God. — Now, throughout this entire exchange, Dean did exactly what he needed to do. He kept control of the frame. He didn't let Nick hide behind the fog of theology or the context of the Bronze Age. No, he forced him to confront the logical endpoint of his own beliefs right here, right now. And in doing so, revealed the moral bankruptcy underneath. — Because you don't want me to talk because you know that you're losing. — And here's the reality. This isn't just a theological problem. It's a psychological one. Notice how Nick's God conveniently seems to want exactly what Nick wants. The divine commands that he's willing to follow, like violence and conquest, somehow killing babies, are the ones that align with his nationalism, his ingroup loyalty, and his hierarchy. Divine command theory in the hands of someone like Nick isn't about submitting to a higher power. It's about laundering your own politics through the voice of God. And that is what makes it so damn dangerous. If God commanded you to kill a baby today, would you do it? — Yes. Now, before we go, I promise to address the third option. the favorite escape hatch of modern apologists, one that Nick evidently doesn't know. You will often hear them claim that the euphero dilemma is a false dichotomy. They argue that God doesn't command things arbitrarily, nor does he report to an external standard. Rather, morality is grounded in God's essential nature. God commands the good because he is the good. There's a third alternative, namely, God wills something because he is good. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that God's own nature is the standard of goodness and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. Sounds clever, doesn't it? It sounds like a solution at least to some. It is actually a mere repackaging of the first horn because we can simply rephrase the dilemma and ask is God's nature good because it aligns with an external standard of goodness or is God's nature good merely because it is his. If you say that his nature aligns with a standard then you're back at horn too. Morality exists outside of God. If God's nature was to be cruel then cruelty would be good. So saying that it's his nature doesn't solve the problem. It just moves the label. — So the Euthifro dilemma presents us with a false choice and we shouldn't be tricked by it. — Whether it's God's commands or God's nature, the trap is all the same. You either have a morality that is arbitrarily defined by God or you have a morality that stands independent of him. Nick Fuentes tried to pick the former and his humanity forced him to accept the latter. Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view and an extra special thank you to everyone who supports the channel, including today's sponsor, Aura. Thanks