Pints With Aquinas - Stephen Meyer DESTROYS Atheist TikToks | Last Call Ep. 18

Episode Date: June 11, 2026

It’s Last Call! Stephen Meyer is back to destroy the most common arguments for atheism. Pints: Last Call Ep. 18 - - - 📚Resources Mentioned: The Story of Everything: https://www.thestoryofeverything.film Return of the God Hypothesis: https://a.co/d/0b7QUSqd - - - Today’s Sponsors: Seven Weeks Coffee: Save up to 25% with promo code 'PINTS' at https://sevenweekscoffee.com/PINTS Exodus 90: Download the Exodus 90 app to start your 14-Day free trial or visit https://Exodus90.com/matt to learn more. Relay: Ready to overcome porn? Visit https://joinrelay.app/pints and use code PINTS for 7 days free. - - - Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: ⁠⁠https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe⁠⁠ 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. - - - 📕 Get my newest book, Jesus Our Refuge, here: https://a.co/d/bDU0xLb 🍺 Want to Support Pints With Aquinas? 🍺 Get episodes a week early and join exclusive live streams with me! Become an annual supporter at 👉 ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mattfradd.locals.com/support⁠⁠⁠⁠ - - - 💻 Follow Me on Social Media: 📌 Facebook: https://facebook.com/mattfradd 📸 Instagram: https://instagram.com/mattfradd 𝕏 Twitter/X: ⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/Pints_W_Aquinas⁠⁠⁠ 🎵 TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠https://tiktok.com/@pintswithaquinas⁠⁠⁠ 📚 PWA Merch – ⁠⁠⁠https://dwplus.shop/MattFraddMerch⁠⁠ 👕 Grab your favorite PWA gear here: https://shop.pintswithaquinas.com - - - Privacy Policy: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.dailywire.com/privacy⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I feel like I'm getting robbed when I bet the Stanley Cup on a sports book. Dude, delete that app. You need to be using Polymarket. Polymarket? Polymarket is a prediction market. Not a sports book. You trade against other fans, not the house. That means more money for you and less for greedy sports books.

Even during the Stanley Cup? Especially during the Stanley Cup. Polymarket is an official prediction market of the NHL. No way. What's the catch? No catch. And it's available in all 50 states. Polymarket is so confident you'll never go back.

They're giving you $50 free on your first trade. I'm deleting my sportsbook app. How do I get started? Download Polymarket now and use promo code Draw for $50 free for your first trade. Stop letting sportsbooks steal from you. Download Polymarket and use promo code Draw. For $50 free on your first trade, use promo code draw. Trading not available in all jurisdictions.

Check local regulations before trading. Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. I feel like I'm getting wrong. when I bet the Stanley Cup on a sports book. Dude, delete that app. You need to be using Polymarket. Polymarket is a prediction market. Not a sports book.

You trade against other fans, not the house. That means more money for you and less for greedy sports books. Even during the Stanley Cup? Especially during the Stanley Cup. Polymarket is an official prediction market of the NHL. No way.

What's the catch? No catch. And it's available in all 50 states. Polymarket is so confident you'll never go back, they're giving you $50 free on your first trade. I'm deleting my sportsbook app. How do I get started? Download Polymarket now and use promo code draw for $50 free for your first trade. Stop letting sportsbooks steal from you.

Download Polymarket and use promo code draw. For $50 free on your first trade, use promo code draw. Trading not available in all jurisdictions. Check local regulations before trading. Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. I'm Brendan Steinhauser. CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI. We're a coalition of patriotic Americans

who want to stop AI from taking our freedoms. Big Tech is propping up AI-powered mass surveillance and exploiting our children online. This is not the future we want. The alliance is working hard to ensure that we put Americans first. Join us at secureaI.Now.org to learn more. Paid for by the Alliance for SecureAI.

Evolution causes a lot of problems. for Christianity. If you think about a human over here, all the way over to a fish over here, there's like this evolutionary tree that connects them. He seems to be indicating that the fossil record shows a continuous morphing and changing. All of these groups arise abruptly in the fossil record with no discernible ancestral precursors. Most of what he said is just factually not true. Destroyed.

Oh. Dr. Meyer, thank you so much for being on last call. Today we are going to look at five different atheist ticked TikToks and have you respond to them. Excellent. But before we do that, you have an excellent movie about to hit the theaters. Yeah, a very timely sort of program to respond to scientific atheists and new atheists. We have a new film called The Story of Everything, which tells the story of three great scientific

discoveries that provide evidence for the reality of God. So it's a direct refutation of the new atheist position that science properly understood undermines belief in God. In fact, there's a fabulous story of the last hundred years of science where one thing after another, very surprising things have been discovered that are not what the scientific atheists or the scientific materialists expected to see, both about the origin of the universe, but also about the structure of the universe and the origin of life. Well, we'll put a link to that below so people can learn where they can watch it, and also to your book, which the documentary is based on.

Yes, return of the God hypothesis is the idea. All right, excellent. Let's take a look at this first video here. Oh, Christopher Hitchens. Is it nonetheless possible for an atheist to say, a proclaimed atheist to say, as I do, proclaim myself to be, that God positively can be said not to exist? No. It's a very common misunderstanding about my fraternity sorority.

I'll just take a moment to clear it up. The atheist says no persuasive argument for the existence of God has ever been advanced or adduced without convincing rebuttal that no argument in favour stands or has been found to stand the test of argument and evidence. We cannot say that we know that there could be no such entity. Among other things,

we are too reverent of the extraordinary time of discovery, innovation, pushing back of the frontiers of knowledge and understanding that's taken place just in our own time to make any such remark. But by saying this, we say, I think, quite a lot. He was an excellent orator. What are your thoughts on that?

Well, the erudition of the late, great Christopher Hitchens is not to be underestimated. It's a fabulous quote. And a very clarifying point about what the atheists themselves hold. And the point is rather not that they know that God does not exist, but rather they're claiming that there is no convincing argument for God's existence that has not been convincingly rebutted. I would simply dispute that. I think there are many very convincing arguments for theism, the cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the fine-tuning design argument, that is,

and the argument from design and biology are all three great scientific arguments that I think are very powerful in support of theism, and I think the materialist or atheist rebuttals are actually quite weak. And in addition, I think there are great arguments, philosophical arguments, the argument from epistemological necessity, the argument that affirms that the reliability of the mind, and therefore, which is a condition of their being knowledge at all, is best explained, best accounted for by theism. I think there's a great moral argument for theism based on the fact that we all live as though there are objective moral principles, and yet if we take a strict atheistic position, we have no grounds for asserting objective

moral morality, only relative morality. So I think there's many good arguments for theism, and I think that it's really essentially a matter of judgment. Christopher Hitchens has judged them not to be adequate, but I judge them the opposite. I also think something could be said about the definitions of atheist and agnostic. Like, in other words, he's sounding quite modest here. Yes. We cannot say with certainty that God does not exist. There's a sort of redefinition of atheists going on here, it seems to me. Sure. You're making atheists. mean agnostic. Right.

But then, so that sounds modest in a way, but then you're going around with great gusto, proclaiming that God does not exist. Right. So it seems to me you have to choose. Well, exactly. I think he's defined down what atheism means. I just give one example, though, to show that I think the shoe is actually on the other foot. The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God, I think many, many scientists, in fact,

Hitchens himself has said it's the most persuasive argument for the existence of God. I don't think it's the most persuasive, but it's a very persuasive argument. The argument is that the incredible improbability associated with the life-permitting physical parameters of the universe suggests the need for a fine-tuner, for some sort of intelligence to have set the parameters in that just-right way. The most persuasive counter-argument to that is something called the multiverse, which posits a near-infinite number of alternative universes where some kind of universe-generating mechanism produced an ensemble of different universes

that had a variety of different laws and constants and parameters that made, and that we just happened to be in the lucky universe where they were all just right. Well, that turns out to be a very unpersuasive counter-argument to the original theistic argument because it turns out that the universe-generating mechanisms that are necessary to make the concept of the multiverse plausible in the first place themselves

have to be exquisitely finely tuned. That is the universe generating mechanisms that would be spitting out the different universes that allow the atheist or materialist to portray our universe as the winner of a kind of giant cosmic lottery. I think we might actually have a TikTok coming up and that someone tries to appeal to this.

But that's a very good example of a theistic argument, a materialist counter argument, where the theistic counter argument to the counter is a lot better than the counter argument. Absolutely. At the end of the day, your multiverse itself requires prior fine-tuning, then you're right back to where you started, which is grounds for a fine-tuner, for believing in a fine-tuner or intelligent designer. So I think that's a

reversal of what he's claiming. All right, let's take a look at the next one. Do you believe in God? Every description of God that I've heard holds God to be all-powerful, very typical, and all good. And then I look around and I see a tsunami that killed a quarter million people in Indonesia, an earthquake that killed a quarter million people in Haiti. And I see earthquakes and tornadoes and disease, childhood, leukemia. And I see all of this and I say, I do not see evidence, both of those being true simultaneously. If there is a God, the God is either not all powerful or not all good. It's interesting in the Sumer Theologiae.

Thomas will sometimes come up with as many as 12 arguments that he wishes to respond to. As you know, when it comes to God's existence, he can only think of two, namely the problem of evil and the idea that the God hypothesis is superfluous, which isn't really an argument against God. It just means there's no reason to appeal to one. You see, God could still exist. Right, right. So it seems like even Aquinas would agree that the problem of evil is the primary one. Yeah. How do you respond to it? Well, the version of the problem of evil that Neil deGrasse Tyson is putting forward is, I think probably the strongest argument for atheism, and that is the problem from natural evil. And it's particularly effective against theists who have portrayed God and his

relationship to the world as one where that would lead us to expect perfection in the natural world. The biblical theistic view is not one where we think that nature should be perfect, but rather that nature both bears the hallmarks of its aboriginal design from God. You get this idea from Romans 1, from the things that are made, the unseen qualities of the Creator, his eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen. But Romans, in the same book in St. Paul in Chapter 8, says that the creation is groaning for its redemption, that it's been subjected to decay. And so on a biblical view, we would expect to see two things in nature. We would expect to see both evidence of Aboriginal design and evidence of subsequent decay that, in fact, would be harmful

to human beings, that there's something that's gone wrong in nature since its original creation. That's the biblical view of, what you might call a, that's a biblical theology of nature. That's what we should expect to see. And that's actually what we do see. And so there's a kind of confirmation of the biblical hypothesis there that I think provides epistemic support or evidential support for biblical theism, not for the kind of pure platonic theism which anticipates that nature would be pristine in all its effects and all its ways. You got the impression from some of the late 19th century natural theologians that they had spent all of their time in an Oxford or Cambridge Garden and that they weren't aware that nature was also subject to decay and problematic aspects.

But that's something you would expect if you took the biblical view of nature seriously. Suppose you're in an elevator with Neil deGrasse Tyson. He says, if God is all good and all powerful, we shouldn't expect evil. We do have evil, therefore God does not exist. Elevator ride. What's your one two line of response? If we're talking about the evil that human beings have perpetrated against other human beings, what used to be called man's inhumanity to man, the classical free will defense, I think,

is exactly apt, that God chose to make human beings with agency, with free will, because he viewed that as better than making us as puppets or automaton's. He wanted us to be freely able to choose to love him, to love each other, and to follow his ways, which he had laid out as being the best things that would comport best with the way he designed us to live and to flourish. But he wanted to give us the freedom to choose ourselves, and he understood that that freedom came with the risk that we might choose to rebel against him or to do harm to each other. And so we live in a world where that has occurred.

Okay. But about natural either, how would you respond to that real quick? Well, the idea, the natural evil question is a bit harder because we don't get the whole backstory in the biblical text, but there is a clear implication that there is a backstory. That not only is there the evil that we have perpetrated against each other, but our choice to rebel against God and the choice of angelic beings that preceded us has in some way affected nature adversely. And so what we're told to expect in nature, if we look at Romans 1 and Romans 8, we're told to expect to see evidence of God's eternal power. and divine nature, his wisdom, that's Romans 1, from the things that are made. We should see in the things that are made evidence of an Aboriginal design, but we should also expect to see evidence of subsequent decay. And we see that, I see that at the genomic level with mutations and

viroi and bacteria that are harmful to human beings. So there is, I think what we see in nature matches that general expectation of that we're, that we should glean from the biblical text, that we should see both evidence of original design, but subsequent decay. It'd be like saying we see the rust on an automobile engine, and that negates the evidence of design. No, it doesn't. We see that it was designed, but we see something that's happened subsequent to that. So at the Frad household, we have tried a lot of coffee over the years, but the one we keep returning to is our sponsor, seven weeks coffee. It's absolutely fantastic, and it is stocked above our espresso machine right now.

in my house. It's not just great coffee. It's a brand built around values we take seriously. Seven Weeks Coffee is America's Pro Life Coffee Company on a mission to fund the pro-life movement, one cup of coffee at a time. Now, why are they called Seven Weeks Coffee? Because at seven weeks, a baby is the size of a coffee bean, and at the same time, a heartbeat is clearly detected on an ultrasound. They've built their business around saving lives by donating 10% of every sale to pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations nationwide. They've now raised over one one and a half million dollars and saved thousands of lives. Now, let's talk about the coffee, because I think we should care about what we're fueling our body with. It's mold-free, pesticide-free,

shade grown and low acid, and it's organically farmed. It truly checks all the boxes, and it's just really excellent coffee. It's not bad coffee with a good mission, so you should buy it. No, it's fantastic coffee with a fantastic mission, which is why you should switch to it. So go to Seven Weeks Coffee.com and save 15% forever when you subscribe. Plus get a free gift with your order and exclusively for my listeners, use code Pints for an extra 10% of your first order. That's 25% total savings on your first order plus a free gift. Just use code Pints at checkout.

Hey brothers, as summer begins, life slows down just enough to ask a deeper question. Am I living as the man God created me to be? Our sponsor, Exodus 90, is inviting you into something different this season, an encounter with the Father who calls you his beloved son. The Kings of Summer Challenge is a chance to step away from the noise, to pray, and to rediscover Christ not just as Savior, but as king, one who invites you to share in his life as priest, prophet, and king. This year's theme, The Return of the King, guided by Joseph Pierce,

draws us into scripture and into the deeper truths behind stories like the Lord of the Rings, reminding us that we're part of a much greater story than we often live. Now, I've had Joseph Pierce on Pines with Aquinas, and he knows more about the Lord of the Rings than anyone I have ever met. You're going to absolutely love it. So if you feel that longing for more, more clarity, more purpose, more of God, this is your invitation, not to prove anything, but to become who you already are in him. Break out of the loneliness of our age and join the Exodus 9.

Brotherhood today, sign up for the Kings of Summer Challenge. Download the Exodus 90 app to start your 14-day free trial. We'll visit Exodus 90.com slash Matt to learn more. That's Exodus 90.com slash Matt. Download the app today and take a step towards the man you were created to be. You're so narrow-minded. No. You don't believe in anything. Yes, I do. Thought you were atheist. Yeah, it doesn't mean I don't believe in anything, does it? It means I don't believe in any God. How can you not believe in God? Which one? What do you mean? Greek God or Ra or Ganesh? No, not those ones, the real one in the Bible.

Yahweh. Just God? Well, you know how you don't believe in all those other gods, I mentioned? That's how I don't believe in yours. How can you not believe that someone created all this, though? Why do you believe that someone created it all? Because it's so good. Can't just be chance, can it?

What, the big bang? Everything came from nothing? That's impossible. You're right. God did it. Right. So where did God come from? He's always been around. There you go.

All right, so I've got to say, I just love Ricky Juvon. I find him so funny. But it is interesting that you've got an atheist who wrote this script to make his position look terrific and the other one looks stupid. What do you say to that argument? Well, there's about four arguments. Yeah, all right. Try to sum it up. Let's start with the argument that was posed at the very end.

Yeah, that's the main idea that positing God is an explanation for the argument. the origin of the universe doesn't constitute an explanation, because then we would have to have an argument, we would have to have an explanation for the origin of God. It's a standard new atheist saw, a standard new atheist trope. And the counter, my counter, is that in every system of thought, whether you're a materialist or a naturalist or a pantheist or a something else, something has to function as what philosophers call the prime reality or the ground of all being, the ontological basis of reality. And in theism, that the thing from which everything else came, something has to answer the question, what is the thing or the entity or the process from which

everything else came? In theism, that entity is a personal God who transcends the physical world, who created the physical world. In materialism, or scientific atheism, that entity is eternal, self-existent, self-creating, self-organizing, matter and energy. Because of the Big Bang theory, because of what we know from cosmology, astrophysics, and theoretical physics, the best explanation, the best evidence we have is that the physical universe had a beginning, which means that matter and energy is a crummy candidate to be the eternal self-existent thing from which everything else came. matter and energy, space and time appear as best we can tell to have arisen a finite time ago

from something else and therefore positing the existence of a transcendent something else that also is personal and has the capacity to exercise volitional choice, that is to say, to make a dramatic change of state from nothing to something in the manner of a creator, is actually a very rational thing to posit. It provides a better explanation for ultimate reality and for the origin of the universe, then self-existent matter, which we know was not self-existent, rather it was a contingent thing that came into existence a finite time ago. Fantastic. We'll leave the other three arguments and take a look at the next one. Evolution causes a lot of problems for Christianity. If you think about a human over here,

all the way over to a fish over here, and there's like this evolutionary tree that connects them, if you resurrect all of the dead intermediaries and you send them all in the line, you start with a human, you go, human, human, human, human, and that goes to the evolution, human and that goes on for 100 billion humans. And then they're starting to look a bit more kind of ape-like. There's no point at which a chimpanzee is stood next to a human. That's not how it works. To be a Christian to say that human beings are special, you need to think that God can just draw this line somewhere. Of course, you can just say that this is what it means to breathe life into Adam and Eve. It was just sort of arbitrarily chosen this point at which they said,

okay, you've got this pre-homomonid ape that gives birth to another pre-homomonid ape and God just goes like, okay, you're a human now. And suddenly they're like rational. and can abstract or something. You can say that, but it seems strange, right? One creature gives birth to another creature, which is, for all intents purposes, identical. But this one is subject to the moral law and qualifies for eternal life,

but his mother doesn't. Not quite sure what Alex is actually arguing there. We had an opportunity to have a one-on-one, and he withdrew. I would have liked to have responded to that point directly with him. He seems to be indicating that the fossil record, shows a continuous morphing and changing of organisms one into another,

as if that is the dominant pattern of the fossil record. It's not. The fossil record shows dramatic discontinuity, especially at the point of origin of the major taxonomic groups, especially those in the higher taxonomic categories of orders, classes, and phyla. I wrote a whole book about the abrupt appearance of the major animal forms, the major animal body plans that are exemplified by that made a lot of the major animal body plans that major animal forms in the Cambrian period. I've also written a technical article with a German paleontologist, Gunter Beckley, documenting 17 additional major fossil explosions in the history of life. All the major groups of organisms where they were talking about the first animals, the first

turtles, the first sea reptiles, the first fish, the first birds, the first mammals, the first flowering plants, all of these groups, and many, many more arise abruptly in the fossil. record with no discernible ancestral precursors in the lower sedimentary strata. So the pattern of the fossil record is profoundly discontinuous. It's not continuous. And therefore, it doesn't present a problem for the idea of the special creation of organisms, still less those of human beings. There's dramatic discontinuities between chimps and humans at the genetic level and at the at the, at the proteanomic level, and in the fossil record as well. So I think just the science is off there.

The old saw that we've always heard that chimps and humans are 98% similar in their gene sequences is no longer true. More exhaustive studies of the, and comparisons of the genome have shown that that number is very much lower. And even more importantly, the proteins that are built from the genes

are very, very different between humans and chimps. That's a new study that's come out with a Brazilian group in a top biology journal showing that the proteanome of humans and chimps is decidedly different, suggesting that the way the genetic information is processed in humans and chimps is decidedly different, suggesting that the argument, the high degree of similarity points to common ancestry is not factually predicated.

It needs to be revised in light of new data. So I think that's simply, most of what he said is just factually not true. when Jesus breathed his last on the cross. St. Matthew tells us the earth shook, rock split, tombs opened, even creation couldn't stay silent in the face of what was happening. Easter may have come and gone, but the invitation still stands to let God shake up our lives, to break open the quiet sins we keep hidden, the ones that weigh us down, though no one else sees them. I've spoken with a lot of men over the years about this, and I've spoken. I'll often ask, what lie do you tell yourself before you look at porn?

And the one I often hear is, I know I'm going to fall into this anyway. I may as well get it over with. The sort of hopelessness, you know. And here's the truth. Porn doesn't wreck your life in one big moment. It just quietly steals. It takes your presence, your intimacy, your hunger for what's real. The woman beside you wonders why she feels unseen.

The kids grow up with a version of you that's distant. distracted. And if you're not married yet, porn man, porn is already shaping the kind of man you'll be one day. And trust me, and I know you know this, right, but that is not the man you want to be. Here's the good news. Freedom is real. I've seen it and you can live it, but it starts with one small, brave step. And if you do not make this step, you're not going to get healing, namely asking for help. And that's what relay is about, real lasting freedom from pornography, not shame, not hiding, just a way out. Please visit joinrelay.com slash pints or click the link below and use code pints. Again, just click the link below and use code pints for your free trial.

Apart from just applying skepticism and critical thinking to what I believed, the biggest reason that I'm an atheist is because of crickets, because of divine hiddenness. I spent a long time sincerely trying to God to answer anything. My goal was to convince atheists. My goal was to fill out my obligation under 1 Peter 315, to be the best representative for Christ I could be, to lead people to the Lord because that's what I thought he wanted me to do. And every time I came up with a problem, I'd be like, okay, God, I'm stuck. Nothing. Okay, let me go ask my uncle, who was a medical missionary in Thailand and the most spiritually wise person in the family. No real answers. early on he would say things and I would be like, wow, like I said, you know, I got a roommate who's an atheist, how do I talk to him about God?

And he said, well, ask him where his morals come from? And he said, oh, well, without God, you can't have any objective standard for morality. Yeah, right. So there's two things here, right? One is the problem of divine hiddenness, but the second thing, which might be more interesting to talk about is the moral argument. I would just say that personally, I, of all the atheistic arguments, the argument from divine hiddenness is the least persuasive to me. because I see so much evidence. And I see evidence in the scientific realm, the evidence that we have for the beginning of the universe and therefore a creation event for the fine-tuning of the universe

and the need for a transcendent designer of the universe. And in the evidence of the digital information stored in the large biomolecules inside living cells, which is absolutely necessary to life. What we have in life is, as Bill Gates has said, the DNA is like a software program, but much more complex than any we've ever created. If we encountered that in any other realm of experience,

we would immediately infer to a master programmer. I think we should infer to a master programmer. So the evidence in the physical world, I think, is very dramatically supportive of the reality of an intelligent agent that has the attributes of God is transcendent, intelligent, and active in the creation. And I detail this argument, in detail,

or I detail this argument, rather, in my book, return of the God hypothesis, and also the new film, The Story of Everything, lays this out. I think if people want to see whether or not God is hidden, or the evidence of God is hidden, they should have a look at that film. The next question that he makes, or the next point he makes about the moral law, he stated the argument in a kind of straw man way that is not the way, I think he does not respond to a nuanced and proper way of formulating the moral argument. The moral argument is that we all live as though there are objective principles of morality, even if we say we're relativists in our philosophy, when our ox is being gourd or our mother is

being kidnapped or our interests are being unfairly abridged, we react in kind. We say that's unfair, that's right, that's not right, that's wrong. We act as though there is a standard above us all to which we can appeal. When we say ought, we're not just saying is. We're not just saying, when I say murder is wrong, you ought not to murder. I'm not just saying murder hurts people. I'm saying something more than that. I'm implying that there's a standard that you have violated.

And the problem for the philosophical naturalist or materialist is they cannot give a coherent account of what that standard is. trying to ground that in evolutionary past and saying our moral intuitions are just things that were programmed into us to aid our survival does not stand scrutiny. As soon as we think that our moral impulses are simply things that were programmed into us to aid our survival, we have no reason to obey moral principles that aid the survival and flourishing of other people. And so the naturalistic account of the origin of those moral intuitions that, yes, atheists and theists may all share, is inadequate. It's not that you can't act morally if you're an atheist. It's that there is no coherent account of what the moral principles are that you implicitly affirm when you

make a moral judgment. And that's the problem. Theism can give a ready account of that. Those principles that we repair to or affirm as being normative to guide our actions are things that, according to theism, were given by God both in the moral law, revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai, and revealed to all of us in our consciences. They have moral force because they are given by God to promote human flourishing. And so theism can give a very good account of what do we mean? by that standard. We mean this is something that God has declared to promote human flourishing. They are normative and they are normative for a reason. Whereas naturalism I don't think can give an account of what the ought is. We can all say murder hurts people, but only theism can account for what we mean when we say you ought not to do it. You ought not to do it, yes, because God

has said not to do it for a good reason, and that is it because to do what he wants to to affirm life is to promote human flourishing. Excellent. Thank you. As we wrap up, do us a favor. Tell people where they can watch your new movie. And I really want to promote the book that the movie, the documentary is based on. And just so everybody knows, we're going to have links to these in the description,

including when we know where it will be streamed, where it will be streamed for those who aren't in America. Yeah. So the book is The Return of the God hypothesis. And if people want to check me out and make sure that the short answers, I've just given have more substance behind them. It's a great place to investigate. The book tells the story of the three great discoveries in the last hundred years that have brought the God hypothesis back into scientific currency. Three scientific discoveries that I argue have clear theistic implications. They point to God. And the film, the story of everything, is an adaptation

for film of the argument and stories of the book. And it brings to bear things that I could never have done in the book. It's got beautiful cinematography, beautiful animation that takes you inside the cell. And it tells the stories of some of the great scientists of the 20th century, including some newsreel footage and things that we found of Einstein and Francis Crick and others. So it's really one of the reviewers said it's a cinematic experience. Yeah, and as I said to you, I showed it to my wife and kids who really loved it. It's not cringy. Sometimes you think of these Christian movies and you're like, oh, please be good. That's what I was thinking.

And it was excellent. Thanks for all the time and effort and money. Well, we have wonderful production team. Great director, Eric Esau, who deserves a shout-out. And it is, I think, a film that you can bring. If you are a believer in God, you can bring your skeptical friends to the film. You won't be embarrassed. It will likely spark a great conversation of the kind that you've created between me and Ricky

Jervais and Christopher Hitchens and the other prominent atheists. Dr. Meyer. Thank you so much for being on the show. Yeah, thank you. We'll get to more on this in a moment. First, there's something refreshing about buying things that are actually built to last. Not everything has to be built to break. Not everything has to be disposable. Not everything has to be replaced every single year. Some things are worth investing in because they actually get better the longer.

You own them. And that's true, particularly of boots. Tikovas makes handcrafted Western boots that combine classic style with everyday comfort. Whether you're heading to a wedding, a concert, a work event, a weekend trip, or just out to dinner. They make boots that fit the occasion. One thing that really stands out is the comfort every single pair is hand. crafted through more than 200 individual steps using premium leathers and traditional construction techniques. The result is a boot that feels right almost immediately. No painful break-in period,

no weeks of waiting for them to become comfortable. Ticovas offers everything from classic cowhide and goat leather to exotic leathers like ostrich and Kaman. Whether it's your first pair of boots or you've owned Western boots for years, there's a style that fits. And Ticovus is more than just boots. They also make premium apparel, belts, wallets, denim, other leather goods built with the same attention to quality and craftsmanship. The in-store experience is worth mentioning as well. We have more than 50 stores around the country, so you can stop in, try everything on, get expert guidance, enjoy complimentary beverages, even personalize your boots with custom branding. It's the kind of experience that reminds you what good retail used to feel like. It's pretty bespoke.

Right now, get 10% off at Tocovus.com slash Shapiro when you sign up for email and texts. That's 10% off at TECOVAS.com slash Shapiro. That's Ticovus.com slash Shapiro. See, for details. Tukovac. Point your toes west. We'll get to more on this in a moment. First, there's something refreshing about buying things that are.

actually built to last. Not everything has to be built to break. Not everything has to be disposable. Not everything has to be replaced every single year. Some things are worth investing in because they actually get better the longer you own them. And that's true, particularly of boots. Tikova's makes handcrafted Western boots that combine classic style with everyday comfort. Whether you're heading to a wedding, a concert, a work event, a weekend trip, or just out to dinner, they make boots that fit the occasion. One thing that really stands out is the comfort every single pair is handcrafted through more than 200 individual steps using premium leathers and traditional construction techniques. The result is a boot that feels right almost immediately.

No painful break-in period. No weeks of waiting for them to become comfortable. Tukovas offers everything from classic cowhide and goat leather to exotic leathers like ostrich and Kaman. Whether it's your first pair of boots or you've owned Western boots for years, there's a style that fits. And Tocovus is more than just boots. They also make premium apparel, belts, wallet, st denim, other leather goods built with the same attention to quality and craftsmanship. The in-store experience is worth mentioning as well. They have more than 50 stores around the country so you can stop in, try everything on, get expert guidance, enjoy complimentary beverages, even personalize your boots with custom branding. It's the kind of experience that reminds you

what good retail used to feel like. It's pretty bespoke. Right now, get 10% off at tcovist.com when you sign up for email and texts. That's 10% off at tecobas.com slash Shapiro. That's tecovus.com slash Shapiro. See site for details. Tukovac. Point your toes west.