Premiered Oct. 4, 2019

This is so much better than formal debate structures because they can interact personally and ask each other questions and give immediate answers.

Primrose still considers himself an atheist as pointed out by the host. But further along in the discussion at 37:30 he concedes God might exist, but he is not sure yet. At 1:13:45 he said he is Agnostic. Agnosticism is really just pretentious false humility in light of all the evidence cited.



Interestingly enough Bart Ehrman says he is no longer an Atheist, now leaning towards Agnosticism.

Primrose made some interesting statements: he does not agree with Hawking and that Primrose believes the big bang was not the beginning and that the big bang came from something (not nothing as you previously alluded he believed).

Primrose said the reason he can't accept a Divine Mind is because it is not very specific like his math formulas. But what I was thinking when he said that was at some point along the way you are going to have to accept the mystery extends behind our intellect, because the Creator is infinitely greater than us. You can keep searching back but you won't be able to search beyond a certain point because that is information privy only to the Divine Mind. And no matter how vague you think the connection is to our understanding as unsatisfying, only the Divine Mind can satisfy and support the 3 mysteries of the physical, abstract and and mental.

Essentially the mistake Primrose is making is through his own righteousness, self-exaltation, and arrogance is that he is demanding ultimately to know if God exists he himself must be God all-knowing which is necessarily impossible. That is the requirement he is putting on. His own constant searching beyond blows up, because it's error is found when he asked the question where does God come from? You can't look beyond the uncreated since it doesn't exist. That's self-contradictory.