The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 226 - The End Is Upon Us

Episode Date: March 27, 2019

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Green New Deal failed in the Senate and we’re all going to die. Also, the prosecutor who dropped charges against Jussie Smollet admits that he’s guilty. And the NYT tries to disprove God. Did they succeed? We’ll discuss. Date: 03-27-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Green New Deal failed in the Senate, and now we're all going to die. So we'll talk about that. Also, the prosecutor who dropped charges against Jesse Smollett yesterday, well, he admitted explicitly that he knows that Jesse Smolett is guilty. So we'll discuss that. And the New York Times has tried to disprove God. Did they succeed? That's a very important question. And we'll talk about that today as well on the Matt Wall Show.

Well, here we are without hope. Without a future, all is lost. The Green New Deal was voted down in the Senate. The final tally was zero to 57. Not one senator voted for this legislation, not a single one. They all said, oh, no, we'd rather drown the planets. And so be it. That's what's going to happen.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has told us time and time again that if we don't pass the Green New Deal, we are all going to die. And I believe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she would not lie. If she says it's true, even if it's factually wrong, it's still morally correct. So even if we don't die factually, we're still going to die morally. So what's the point anymore? That's the question I'm asking now.

What am I doing here in this place? What are you doing watching this? It's over. Don't you get it? It's all over. Everything's going to die. The caribou will die first. They're already dying.

polar bears are next, the penguins will go. No arc is going to save them this time or us. But the difference is we deserve it. We deserve to die, okay? Well, I don't deserve it, but you deserve it. I've done my part. I've made, I tried to save the planet. I rode my bike to the post office last week. I reuse my hotel towels. You know, I, when I pump my gas, I shake my head disapprovingly because I don't like using the gas. My watch is made from reused wood. Okay, I have made the sacrifices. It's you selfish pigs.

You're the ones. This is your fault. This is all your fault. So what to do now? Well, there's nothing to do but wait for the tribulation. Mother Gaia is going to exact her vengeance on all of us, and there will be no survivors. You are going to die, your family, your children,

your friends, everyone you know will die in agony soon. Well, anyway, let me tell you about Hair Club. Listen, your confidence is important. Confidence is one of the most important things that you can have in life. If you want to be successful in life, it doesn't help to be paranoid and insecure. Take it from me. And sometimes one change can make all the difference. Hair Club knows this fact, and they're inviting you to become part of the Hair Club family

to see how getting the most out of your hair can change your life. your life. They understand if you're losing your hair, if you're having issues like that, they understand the emotions that you're feeling right now, and they know the questions that you have. That's why Hair Club is the leader in total hair solutions with a legacy of success for over 40 years. They've been doing this. So whether you're looking to revitalize the growth of your own hair, to learn more about the latest methods for hair replacement or restoration, hair clubs professionally trained stylist, hair health experts, and concerns, consultants will craft a solution that's very personalized and that will work for you.

So this is not a cookie cutter kind of thing. This is specific for you. So go to hairclub.com slash walsh today for a free hair analysis. That's free again. And a free take-home hair kit, all valued at over $300. But again, you get that for free. All you have to do is go to hair club.com slash walsh for a free hair analysis and a free hair kit. Hairclub.com slash walls. Take advantage of the free stuff when it's offered to you. I don't know why you wouldn't do it. Experience your hair and your life at its best, only with Hair Club.

I'm certain you'll love the club. All right. A reporter for ABC, I want to talk a little bit about Jesse Smollett. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but there are a lot of other things to talk about, including, by the way, this is coming up in a few minutes, but the New York Times, I guess, is trying to salvage its reputation after embarrassing itself many times over, especially with the Mueller investigation. And so the way they're doing that is they figure they're going to try to disprove God. And so we're going to take a look and see if they succeeded in disproving God.

But first, let's talk about Jesse Smollett. A reporter for ABC, Terry Moran says on Twitter, this is what he tweeted. He said, Cook County Clerk's Office, that's a tongue twister, tells ABC they were shocked that no written motions were filed. with the court in connection with today's surprising dismissal in the Smolett case. On top of that, the case has been wiped off their database as if it never existed. So they've already wiped it off, and they didn't file any motions or anything like that. Nothing was written down. They just said, hey, you can go, and they erased it like it never occurred.

Meanwhile, Joe Magids, or McGa... I guess I should figure out how to pronounce this guy. It can't really be maggots, can it? That would be a really unfortunate last name. That's the assistant state's attorney who ostensibly made the decision to drop the charges against Milet yesterday, although we know really it came from his boss, who's Kim Fox, who had originally recused herself from the case because of her associations with the family, but then she decided, you know, never mind, I think I'll get involved. He was interviewed by a CNN affiliate yesterday, and his comments are interesting. This is what he said.

He said, this was not an exoneration. To say he was exonerated by us or anyone. else is not true. We believe he did, listen to this part, okay. We believe he did what he was charged with doing. So the people who dropped the charges are convinced of his guilt. They just said, yeah, he did it. This was never about his innocence. And Smollett obviously knows that, by the way, which shines a different light on his comments that he made outside of the courthouse. You may remember yesterday, he gave that triumphant press conference. And, uh, Let's watch those comments again. I've been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one.

I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I've been accused of. This has been an incredibly difficult time. Honestly, one of the worst of my entire life. But I'm a man of faith, and I'm a man that has knowledge of my history, and I would not bring my family, our lives or the movement through a fire like this. I just wouldn't. So he's playing it up like he's been vindicated, right? He's celebrating like this was, you know, like he'd been proven innocent or something like that

when he knows that that's not the case. So the guy is a pathological liar and a sociopath. He's such a pathological liar that even, I'm sure even the Clintons are looking at this guy and they're impressed with the way, with just, it's hard for me to. even say that he's a good liar because you can tell that he's acting, but he obviously has no qualms about lying. He has no issues with it. So what we have here is a guilty man who everybody knows is guilty, who even his allies at the state's attorney's office, and that's a problem that he has allies there, but he does. Even his allies at the state's attorney's office,

they say that he's guilty. And yet he's being allowed to go free with his record, wiped clean, because he's rich, famous, and connected. And that's not my interpretation of what's going on. That is just what's happening, clear as day for all to see. And really, this is what gets me about it. And this is why I think it's so important. It's the blatant nature of this corruption is what makes it all the more harmful.

So it's one thing if you've got these kind of corrupt deals that are hashed out behind closed doors in dimly lit smoky rooms and that kind of thing, we all know that that stuff happens. And it's not good. I'm not saying that it's good or it's okay because they do it secretly. But I think when it goes down in broad daylight

and the corruption is flaunted in our faces, then I think that makes it all the more corrosive to our system and to especially to the public, confidence in the system. Because now we're being told to just simply accept that we have a two-tier justice system and some people are more equal than others and that's the way it is. And they're simply putting it out there for us to see and saying, yeah. It's one thing for us to have theories that it works this way or that a corrupt deal was made. It's another thing when the corrupt deal makers are out in public basically saying, yeah, that's the way it goes. That's what's

going on here? What of it? What are you going to do about it? And I think as far as what needs to be done about it, I think Trump needs to get the DOJ involved because this is now, this isn't simply a guy faking a hate crime, which is bad enough already. When you hear something like, well, it was just a false police report, well, that's a crime that can vary in terms of its degree of severity depending on the situation. And when you're faking a hate crime and you're famous and putting it out there for everyone to see, that is a really, really serious crime. But on top of that, now we have corruption in government. So I think the DOJ needs to get involved.

One other point about this, before we move on, you know, you're hearing a lot of people in the media try to obfuscate and get around what they know to be just. straightforward corruption and injustice. And they're trying to get around it by saying, oh, geez, it's such a complicated, weird, crazy thing. I don't know what to think about it. Nobody knows what to think about it. I guess we'll never know what happened, and then they just want to move on. No, it's not confusing. It is weird in many ways, but it's not confusing. We all do know what to think of it. It's extremely clear to all of us. So that's not good enough. In fact, Kamala Harris, I don't have the clip, but Kamala Harris was interviewed on, I believe it was CNN, one of the news channels yesterday, and she was asked about this. Remember that Kamala Harris, when this first happened, when Smollett first faked the hate crime, Kamala Harris immediately said that came out and she knew exactly what happened and she condemned it and said, this is, I believe she called it a modern day lynching and all of that. Well, now she's gotten tongue-tied, and she was asked about it last night.

and she said, well, I don't know, I'm at a loss for words. Who knows what to say about this? It's all just so confusing. No, again, it's not confusing. Listen to what the state's attorney's office is saying. They're saying, yes, he did it. We're just letting him go. What are you confused about, Kamala Harris?

What's confusing about that? Speaking of double standards, I want to, I got to tell you about this, Cardi B, as you probably know, is a very famous, very successful, for some reason, female rapper. And she's not only successful in rap. She has a, this is a mainstream thing. She has endorsements from Pepsi and other companies.

Well, an Instagram video that she recorded about three years ago resurfaced over the weekend. And now I have said that I think that there should be a statute of limitations on getting outraged over public statements people made about, you know, people made years ago and things that they posted online years ago, digging up old posts to nail someone is usually a lame move. And I don't like it. So when you start a sentence with, oh, an old Instagram video was resurfaced, normally I'm going to say, yeah, who cares? Let's move on. But it's kind of a different ballgame entirely if the old post that we're talking about consists of the person admitting to violent crime. Well, then I think it's different. If this was just something that

they wrote that was offensive, well, that's one thing. But in this video, only three years old, Cardi B admits, actually brags, really, that she used to lure men back to her hotel rooms and drug them and rob them. Okay, she admitted this. in front of everyone. The funny thing is, it's not really funny, but the sort of funny thing is that she admits, she admits this in the context of defending herself. So this was evidence that she brought to the forefront to defend herself. Now, I wish I could play the clip, but it's, it's every other word is the F-bomb, and you wouldn't be able to understand it between all the bleeping. But she cites this fact about herself that she used to lure men, uh,

from the strip club, back to her, back to hotel room, drug and rob them. She cites this in order to prove that she deserves her success. So she's getting very emotional in the video, and she says, oh, some people say, I don't deserve my success. Oh, yeah? Well, I used to drug people and rob them. What? No, you see, Cardi B, that only further proves that you don't deserve your success.

You were a, you were, what, a stripper slash robber, and now you're a millionaire? No, that doesn't help at all. That makes it even worse. By the way, Cardi B is 26 years old, and she made this video, I guess, when she was 23. So she's talking about things that she must have done back, like in, what, 2011 or 2010, assuming that she was at least 18 years old or so, if she was a stripper at the time when she was doing this. The point is, it's not like this is someone who's 65 and admitting to doing something 40 years ago. In that case, even if it's, well, if it's robbery, that it still matters.

But I don't know, 40 years is a long time. So you could at least buy the argument that they've changed significantly in the meantime. But if you're talking about, you're 26 years old and you're saying, oh, back in my youth, this is what I did. Okay, but that was like yesterday. So that doesn't really, not much of a time difference there. After this video surface, Cardi B came out with a statement, if you can call it that, and it falls well short of an apology. I'll read a little bit of it as best I can.

She says, I'm seeing on social media that a live I did, a live video, I did three years ago, has popped back up, a live where I talked about things I had to do in my past, right or wrong, but I felt I needed to do to make a living. I never claimed to be perfect. I mean, some people, the things they had to do to make a living would include maybe landscaping, working at Burger King. No, she had to lure men back to her hotel room and rob them.

It was what she had to do. I never claimed to be perfect or come from a perfect world with a perfect past. I always speak my truth. I always own my S. I want to say it's good that she owns her S. Her, you know, that's certainly wouldn't want anyone else to have to own it. But, and no one is saying, Cardi B, that you have to be perfect.

I'm not perfect. You're right, that nobody on the planet right now is perfect. But maybe don't drug and rob people. You know, I feel like there's a lot of room between perfect and drugging and robbing people. people. You've got just a lot of area in between. And so I feel like maybe you should try to land somewhere in that in-between area. So it doesn't do much good if someone says, oh, it's terrible that you drugged and robbed people. Well, hey, man, I'm not perfect, okay? She says, I made the choices I did at the time because I had very limited options. I was blessed to have been able to rise from

that, but so many women have not. So many women are still drugging and robbing men. whether or not they were poor choices at the time. I did what I had to do to survive. So she's not even admitting that they were poor choices. She was saying, well, whether or not they were poor choices, for the sake of argument, let's say they were poor choices, but it's what I had to do. The men I spoke about in my life were men that I dated,

that I was involved with, men that were conscious, willing, and aware. I have a pass that we can't change. I guess I should have. What? So the men that she drugged and robbed, she was dating and they were conscious, willing, and aware. So they were willing to be drugged and robbed? So she got consent first. I guess that would change things a little bit if I believed it.

So she said, listen, my plan here is just so you know, to drug you and rob you, do I have your consent? Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm not sure I really buy that. A lot of the comments on Instagram are supportive. I'll read you a few of the comments supporting her. Love you, Mommy. Your truth is all good. Ask, well, I can't even read these. Don't owe nobody no MF explanation of whatever you had to do to survive.

Someone else says, you ain't got to explain S to nobody, boo. F these people. Oh, man, people are so stupid in this world. I can't even. This is just. in illegible. Okay. Anyway,

let's just suffice it to say there are a lot of supportive comments. As far as I can tell, they're supportive. I don't know. Now, let me ask you, this is the question. I said double standards, right? Is there any chance? Is there any chance in hell

that a man could admit that he drugged and robbed women and he would still have a career after that? Is there any chance of that? Now, I think especially a rapper could admit to drugging and robbing men. A male rapper could probably make that admission and be okay. So the double standard here is the fact that this is okay, not even so much because Cardi B is a woman,

but because of who she was drugging and robbing. And that makes it even more perverse, doesn't it? Basically, our society is saying, you know, they were guys, they probably deserved it. They were conscious, willing, and aware, sure, we'll go with that. This is absolutely crazy. And she hasn't even apologized for it. So it's not even as though she's saying this thing I did was horrible. I'm utterly ashamed of it.

It's a terrible thing. I'm so, so sorry. I have changed. She's not even saying that. She's saying that's what I had to do. Which seems to insinuate if she fell in hard times again, if she lost her record deal, well, watch out, fellas,

because she might be coming for you again. Also, now, I don't know how the statute of limitations works exactly with this, but she is admitting to a series of felony crimes. So wouldn't the police have something to say about that? I don't know. All right. moving on. This is interesting. Peter Adderton is allegedly a professor of philosophy. He wrote

an article for the New York Times titled A God Problem, Perfect, All-powerful, all-knowing, the idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent. So this, as I said, appeared in the New York Times a couple days ago, trying to disprove the existence of God. And this guy is, he's writing quite a check with that headline. He's setting the expectation that he will essentially disprove God by demonstrating that the very idea of God is logically impossible. That's what he's, that's what he's claiming he's going to do. Now, I will say that this is probably the, you know, I would say this is probably the best available tactic for an atheist if they want to disprove God. And most atheists will say that they don't have to disprove the existence of God because the burden of proof isn't on them.

But in spite of that burden of proof kind of deflection, the fact is most of them do think that they can prove that God doesn't exist and they make arguments all the time that they believe do essentially prove the non-existence of God. But the problem is that if you want to go that route, there are several moves that you can't make. Like, you can't get into science. Okay, science cannot disprove God, because science can only show us the workings of the natural world. That's all that science can do. And science is a very important thing for that reason, because we live in the natural world. But science cannot tell us anything about what lies beyond it. So even if you think it's absurd to suggest that something lies beyond the natural world,

regardless, that is the claim that we theists are making, that there is something beyond it. And science simply cannot penetrate beyond the limitations of the natural world. So that doesn't work. Anthropology, history, sociology, all of these avenues are avenues that atheists will use to try to attack religion and belief in God, but none of it can do the trick. Now, logic is a different matter, though, because God doesn't have to obey the laws of science, as we know them, but he does have to be logically coherent.

If we're going to say that anything exists in any sense at all, then that thing must be logically coherent. Logically incoherent, logically contradictory things, by definition, cannot exist. So, if God is like a married bachelor or a square circle, then he can't exist. Literally can't. It would be a contradiction. Two things that negate each other cannot exist at the same time simultaneously. So the question is, is God a married bachelor?

Is he a square circle? That's what the professor claims he's going to prove. Does he succeed? Well, let's go through this. I'm going to go through this bit by bit. I'll read all of his arguments such as they are, and then I'll respond. I'm not going to read his entire article. I'll just skip to the parts that are actually arguments. So he says, let's first consider the attribute of omnipotence. You've probably heard the paradox of the stone before. Can God create a stone that can not? be lifted. If God can create such a stone, then he is not all-powerful since he himself cannot lift it. On the other hand, if he cannot create a stone that cannot be lifted, then he is not all-powerful since he cannot create the unliftable stone. Either way, God is not all-powerful. Oh my. This is awkward. This is a philosophy professor, and he's starting. He's coming right out of the gate. His first argument is the heavy stone thing. That's a very good. That's a That's what he's starting with.

This, I remind you again, is a philosophy professor, and he comes out the gate with a theological conundrum that used to confuse me when I was six years old. I can remember being six years old and having this discussion with my parents about, can God make a rock so big he can't lift it? As an adult now, I realize that this hypothetical is nonsense. It is a logical contradiction. for God, who is all powerful, all stones, by definition, are liftable. All powerful means you can do all things. And so for an all powerful God, that means that all stones are inherently liftable. So what you're really asking is, can God create a liftable, unliftable stone?

And the answer obviously is no. That's an easy answer, easy question to answer. No, he can't do that. Does that prove that he's not all-powerful? No. Because it's in the same sense that he can't create a square circle. He can't exist and not exist at the same time. He can't make north-south and south-north.

He can't make chili with beans in it. These are logical contradictions. If a thing has four sides, it's not a circle. If a thing has beans in it, it's not a chili. That's just the way that it goes. So this question is nonsense. You may as well disprove God by saying, can God blibbibbitty blue?

Well, no, he can't blibity blue because that doesn't mean anything. He continues a little later on. He says, let's see, can God create a world in which evil does not exist? This does appear to be logically possible. Presumably, God could have created such a world without contradiction. It evidently would be a world very different from the one we currently inhabit, but a possible world all the same. Indeed, if God is morally perfect, it is difficult to see why he wouldn't have created such a world.

That is a perfect world. So why didn't he? The standard defense is that evil is necessary for free will. Well, not exactly. We'll get to that in a minute. According to the well-known Christian philosopher Alvin Plantica, to create creatures capable of moral good, God must create creatures capable of moral evil. And he can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil,

and at the same time prevent them from doing so. However, this does not explain so-called physical evil suffering caused by non-human causes like famines, earthquakes, et cetera. Nor does it explain, as Charles Darwin noted, why there should be so much pain in suffering among the animal kingdom. Okay, so the problem of evil. He goes from unliftable stone, and then next he's going to the problem of evil. This can be separated into two basic categories,

man-caused evil and non-man-caused evil, what we might call natural evil. The man-caused evil really presents no challenge whatsoever. Now, the evil, it said, the suffering itself is a challenge. It's a huge challenge. It's a difficulty. But in terms of a theological challenge, there isn't much there. If we are, as Alvin planting and noted, if we are to have free will,

then we must have the ability to do good or bad. Just as if we are to have the freedom to go north, then we also have to have the freedom to go south. If north is the only option, then we can't say that we had the freedom to go north. We had no other choice. So this to me seems rather obvious. Although he opened that paragraph by saying,

well, Christians will claim that evil is necessary in order for good to exist. That's not exactly true. That's not what we're saying. We're saying that the possibility of evil is necessary in order for good to exist. It's not that the good is reliant on the evil or something like that. This isn't some sort of dualist notion. It's just that if you're going to give people freedom,

then in that freedom, there must be at least the potential for them to do a bad thing, or else it's not freedom. And if you're forcing someone, if you're compelling them to always make the right choice, to always do the good thing, to be loving, to be patient, to be kind. Well, then it's not really them being those things. Then it would really be God. Then we're all marionettes on a string, and God is just up there making us dance around, and life becomes meaningless.

So that to me seems rather obvious. What about non-man-caused evil? The professor mentions famines and earthquakes. Well, let's leave aside that free will actually does play a part in some of those things. famines are often caused by incompetence in governments, such as in North Korea and other kinds of human failures can cause famines. But not always, and certainly earthquakes aren't caused by people. There are many kinds of suffering that are not directly caused by human action. Yet the Judeo-Christian view is that, in a way, actually, humans did cause those things.

By rejecting God, mankind fell into discord. with nature fell out of balance, and that harmony with the natural world was lost. Thus, you have now all these terrible things, such as famines and earthquakes and cancer and everything else. Now, you may not like that answer, but the point is that someone brought up in the Judeo-Christian tradition does have an answer for that problem. It's not like we have no answer for it. What about animal suffering? Again, that discord, that disharmony plays a part in that, I think. Also, we should remember that we don't really know to what extent animals experience pain. Now, we know that they feel pain. They're capable of pain. They have nervous systems. But we don't know to what

extent they are conscious of the fact that they are in pain. Can a dog say to himself, I am in pain? Does a dog have I concepts in that way? Well, that's a difficult question. And it's one that the professor certainly doesn't try to answer. Okay, then he says, what about God's infinite knowledge, his omniscience? If God knows all there is to know, then he knows at least as much as we know, but if he knows what we know, then this would appear to detract from his perfection. Why? There are some things we know that if they were also known to God would automatically make him a sinner, which of course is in contradiction with the concept of God. As the late American philosopher Michael Martin, is already pointed out, if God knows all that is knowable, then God must know things

that we do like lust and envy. But one cannot know lust and no envy unless one has experienced them. But to have had feelings of lust and envy is to have sinned, in which case God cannot be morally perfect. All right, this is kind of bizarre. He's arguing here that God would need to be sinful in order to know everything. but although philosophy is the love of knowledge, this philosophy professor has ironically a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of knowledge. And emotional experience is not knowledge. God is well aware that sadistic people, lustful people exist.

He doesn't actually need to be sadistic in order to have the knowledge of and about this fact. you might as well claim that God isn't omniscient because he's never had a toothache. It just, it doesn't make any sense. And by the way, you've also, you've also basically with this argument, discarded all of psychiatry, psychology, all of that. Because then you're telling us that, well, you know, unless you've actually been a sociopath, unless you've been a psychopath, unless you've, you know, unless you've been schizophrenic, you can't really know anything about it. This episode is brought to you by Redfin.

You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home. With agents who close twice as many deals, when you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get started at Redfin.com. own the dream. This is sort of a similar argument to the one that a kid in Sunday school might pose to his

teacher to try to stump his teacher. If God is all powerful, then can he sin? Can he tell a lie? And if he can't sin, then he must not be all powerful. And if he can, then he's not morally perfect, right? But this is a misunderstanding of power. Sin is not an act of power. It's a lack of power.

It's an act of weakness. A person sins because they have no control over their impulses and their desires. an all-powerful person would by necessity be sinless. So when we say that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, when we say all-powerful, we mean that he is literally all-power. He has only power. He has no weakness, if you want to put it that way.

Which means that, yes, he cannot be weak. But that is not, that doesn't mean that he's not all-powerful. You see, it just doesn't make any sense. You're saying, if God is not weak, then he, if God can't be weak, that he can't be powerful? What? In a similar way, people who give in to lust or sadism or whatever else, they are not gaining knowledge in doing this. They are in fact demonstrating a lack of knowledge. They're demonstrating a lack of understanding, a lack of wisdom. Remember, part of omniscience is knowing everything that will happen.

Well, if you could see in real time the negative consequences of your bad actions, then you would probably be less tempted to do. them, right? If a man could actually see in real time before he commits adultery, let's say, let's say, if he could see his marriage being destroyed, his kids being traumatized, his whole life falling apart, if he could really see that, not just kind of know about it in the abstract as a possibility, but see it happening, then I think he would be not so tempted anymore to commit the adultery. So you see where perfect. knowledge and perfect wisdom will mean that you're not going to be tempted to these things. And that's basically the end of the article. That's it. I mean, that's the whole

argument against God. I would say that it fails. Amazingly, he never even makes the best logical arguments against God. I'm a theist and I could have done a better job than him. if you're trying to find apparent logical contradictions between God's various attributes, your best bet is to look at omnipotence and omniscience. You could try to argue that omnipotence cannot coexist with omniscience. So omniscience means you know everything you're going to do in the future. If you do something other than what you knew you would do, you're not omniscient. but if you can't do anything other than what you know you're going to do,

then you're not omnipotent. Okay, that is one logical argument you could try to make. Amazingly, this philosophy professor never makes that argument. And that at least is interesting. Where you're saying, well, if you know everything you're going to do and you're all powerful, then how does that work? Because don't you have to do the things you know you're going to do, which would seem to detract from your, uh, um, uh, your, um, uh,

omnipotence. So that at least is an interesting argument. I'd throw that out there for the next person who wants to write an article in the New York Times, although that also fails because all we have to do is point out the fact that God is eternal. And if he's eternal, that means that he exists outside of time. We know that time is finite, that time came into existence at a specific point along with space. So it's a dimension of reality. And if God is the creator of the world, and that means that he's the creator of that dimension, which means that he exists outside of time, which means that for God, it's not as though he knows what he's going to do, like he's looking in a crystal ball and he can see the future. For him, everything is now.

So there is no what he's going to do, there's no what he did, it's just all now. Now, how does that work? How can a, how, what does it mean to be in an eternal now? I don't know exactly. Obviously, I can't wrap my head around it, but that is the concept of God that people who are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition are working with. And if you're going to argue against God, or at least against the Judeo-Christian God, then you have to engage with those points. All right. Finally, I'm going to skip emails for today because I need to touch on this. That was unfortunate phrasing, actually, I guess, because the subject is men's only cuddling groups. The Daily Wire reports, a Plymouth, Pennsylvania men's group is introducing an all men's cuddling event in order to help men redefine masculinity in their own lives and to cope with past sexual abuse.

The men's therapeutic cuddle group, as it's known on meetup.com, wants to help all men and aims to provide a safe, structured, and platonic environment for men to experience the three A's, acceptance, affirmation, and affection. Let's see, you have to be 18 years or older, you have to be hygienically sound, whatever that means. I guess that's just a polite way of telling someone they have B.O. or something. Hey, man, you're not very hygienically sound right now. More details from the blaze. It says, group organizers suggest holding your fellow man motorcycle style, which is described as, if you're taking notes on this, It's described as the holder who sits on a pillow on the floor with his back against a wall or sofa. And the second man, the one being held, sits in front of the holder facing forward.

So his back rests on the holder's chest, his head on the shoulder. The holder will embrace the man around the chest and in time may be asked for additional forms of affection, such as hand holding, hair or beard stroking, back rubbing, and hand massages. Other options reportedly include spooning and the cuddle train. Now, unfortunately, there is no explanation or description provided for the cuddle train, but I guess we can, if we want to, imagine it. Here's the good news.

The event is in April, and you can still sign up for it, fellas, if you want to. There's plenty of space available, although there won't be a lot of space on the cuddle train. So don't miss out on your chance to be groped by strange men. So I guess the point here is one to combat toxic masculinity, which, yeah, mission accomplished. You have utterly obliterated masculinity. So that you've done. Goal achieved. And then also, though, they're trying to help heal sexual abuse.

Well, that's kind of strange. Because it seems to me that sexual predators might be exactly the sorts of people attracted to an event like this, right? So basically what they're saying is come out and put yourself in a position to be sexually abused again in order to heal from sexual abuse. that strikes me as a bit deranged. The whole thing does, really. Listen, if you're looking for some male bonding, just go to the bar, have a pint, you know, play some pool or something. I think cuddling maybe takes it a step or two.

Too far. But then what do I know? Because I am someone who has been, I like to think, plagued by toxic masculinity. After all, you know, look at my beard, which has never been stroked by a man, which apparently is one of the options at the cuddle group. All right, we will leave it there on that very awkward note. Thanks for watching, everybody. Thanks for listening.

Godspeaker. I'm Michael Knowles host of the Michael Knowles show. Cook County Prosecutors abruptly and bewilderingly drop all charges against hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett, who now like OJ will no doubt go on the hunt for the real attackers. Check it out at Dailywire.com.