Charlie Kirk, leader of Turning Point USA, defends his Catholic faith by citing biblical examples like Jesus’ flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) as justification for immigration, contrasting it with illegal entry—"theft" under federal law (8 USC 1312)—while critiquing Trump’s zero-tolerance stance. He argues abortion isn’t inherently wrong, referencing Exodus 21:22-25, and insists objective morality requires divine truth, clashing with an atheist caller who dismisses absolute claims. Hillsdale College’s free Genesis Story course, taught by Dr. Justin Jackson, explores God’s revelation through reason and history, like the Kalam argument and Jesus’ resurrection, but leaves the atheist unconvinced despite Kirk’s appeals. The debate underscores how faith shapes moral and political convictions, even amid skepticism. [Automatically generated summary]
I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic.
My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth.
If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable.
But if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful.
College is a scam, everybody.
You got to stop sending your kids to college.
You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.
Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter.
Go start a Turning Point USA high school chapter.
Go find out how your church can get involved.
Sign up and become an activist.
I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade.
Most important decision I ever made in my life.
And I encourage you to do the same.
Here I am.
Lord, use me.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends, and viewers.
So my stance today is on immigration.
I think that immigration contributes a lot to America.
So my parents did come here legally, and they right now are in the process again.
And it takes a long time.
No, they came here legally, like they came with their visa, and now they're renewing it, and it's a different process right now.
But so I'm really religious.
I'm Catholic.
My parents grew me up that way.
And in Matthew 2, 13 through 15, it talks about how Jesus had to flee Nazareth, or no, Bethlehem, sorry.
He had to flee because someone was going to die.
And they were looking to kill him.
And he had to flee his own country and leave everything behind because an angel spoke to Mary and Joseph that they should leave.
So a lot of people do that.
That's why they immigrate to the United States.
A lot of people have to leave everything behind because not everyone just wants to pack up all the things and leave.
Right now, I personally would hate if I had to sell my car, my house, leave my parents, leave my friends, and leave everyone.
So I just want to know what your stance is on that, just because in the Bible it talks about that.
Right.
So first of all, Jesus actually didn't emigrate.
He stayed within the confines of the Roman Empire because Egypt was actually under Roman jurisdiction.
That's a separate point.
But there are plenty of verses that says you should welcome the stranger.
And so I will grant you that.
I guess the first point I would have to ask is, should immigration always benefit the home country?
I think so, yes.
And that is one thing that I looked into.
So there are immigrants right now working here, correct?
And they get some of their paycheck cut off, right?
Because of Social Security and all those benefits.
But they don't get those benefits because they're illegal immigrants.
So do you mean legal or illegal immigrants?
That distinction is very important.
Illegal.
They don't get those benefits.
So let's just be clear.
If they have a social security number, how'd they get that?
The right way.
They stole it.
You don't get a social security number as an illegal, period.
It does not happen.
They stole it.
So that's an act of theft.
So they stole an American Social Security number to be able to work here, which drives down wages, which drives down opportunity costs.
But even beyond that, we just have to look at their action.
They were not invited to come to this country.
They broke in line.
They cut in line.
And we should not reward line cutters or border jumpers.
We should reward people like your parents that actually came here legally to this country.
Yeah, I understand that point.
I really do.
But sometimes people generally need to leave their country.
Because in like my mother's case, for instance, there was like a terrorist attack on my family.
And that's the reason my mom had to come.
And thankfully, she did get it immediately.
But now I've heard of so many stories where people have to wait like 10 years, 20 years, even 30 years.
Like my grandma right now is trying to get the process.
And thankfully she is now.
But it's taken her about 10 years now.
And she makes enough money in her country and she just wants to come here as a tourist.
That's the main reason.
And I do understand that.
I think that my main point is that how we should implement more money into the immigration system.
Because Trump's zero tolerance policy, that just felt cruel because there's a lot of people here that are doing well and zero tolerance.
They just have to leave the country.
I feel like that was inhumane of him.
Yeah, but it's not their country, though.
And that's the so let me just look here's if I went to Mexico without being invited or allowed and I took a job and the Mexican government found out, what would the Mexican government do to me?
I'm not sure.
They would send me back to America.
And why was the reason you left the U.S. first?
So reason, that's an interesting thing.
Is there ever a legitimate reason, in your opinion, to commit a crime?
No.
Well, then the reason doesn't matter.
Because under that say, so let's can you rob a bank because you wish you had more money?
No, you work harder.
Then why doesn't that moral standard apply to immigration?
Because the system isn't doing its job.
That's why I think we should implement more money.
Because there is some people, like I do get it.
You know, some people come here and then I do admit some of them commit crime, but not all of them.
No, no, but they're all criminals if they came illegally.
That's the distinction.
By definition, they're breaking federal law, 8 USC 1312.
Just their presence here is against the law.
Would you be okay welcoming 500 million people into America?
That's why we should implement the system to understand each other.
No, no, you got to answer.
Do you think 500 million people would be too many people?
500 million?
I don't even think that would fit the United States.
I agree.
And that's the point: if everyone all of a sudden declared that their life was in danger, we'd have to let in like all of Nicaragua, all of Honduras, almost all of Venezuela.
The standard all of a sudden starts falling apart.
And we find that people lie about this, they deceive it.
Here's my perspective: why don't we try to empower those people to make the countries they're coming from greater and stronger, or else this problem will actually never be fixed at the root level?
Does that make sense?
It does make sense.
And I wish it was that easy.
So for instance, I am part Peruvian and in Peru.
So they were having a presidential election.
And the president who was going to win was better for the country and would help out a lot more.
But since it's corrupt, they made the other president win.
They sent him death threats, nearly almost killed him.
He had to fake his death and leave, and they jailed her.
They jailed her completely and they let the guy win.
That is why it's corrupt.
It's hard to fix a country when there's no help towards it.
So Peru was.
They were rooting for the good president.
They were rooting to build their system back up.
But the other president, it was rigged.
It was completely rigged.
So does it make it better or worse if millions of people leave that country?
For Peru.
Can you, like, what do you mean by that?
If 3 million people left Peru.
Does Peru get greater or weaker?
Stronger or weaker?
Neither.
I mean, it's in a weak state right now.
I mean, it's pretty obvious.
I'm trying to even say that mass immigration is bad for everybody.
It's bad for America and it's bad for the country that people are leaving from.
The only difference is that they send back American money through remittances that actually subsidize this entire thing.
Let me ask one final question.
If somebody comes into America without invitation and they are illegal, what do you think the penalty should be?
I think it's humane to look at their case and why they had to leave everything they've ever known.
We believe that we should send them back to their country of origin.
I just want to make one more final point.
So I do understand that, but my final point is that do you agree that we should implement more money to the immigration system?
No, I think we should have no immigrants in the country for the next 10 years.
We have way too many people in this country.
And I'll prove it to you here in California.
Your hospitals are overrun.
Your schools are overrun.
Do you guys agree that you have a crowded state right now?
We are a, California is a cluttered state with social services that are being strained, and we need a pause on all immigration, in my opinion, to metaphorically digest the major meal that we just ate, or else we are going to have a major, major assimilation problem, cultural problem, cohesion problem, all sorts of issues.
And I know this is a provocative thing to say, but immigration is something that you use as a way to benefit the homeland.
You don't have to have immigration.
But just as an example, my parents came here, like I said, legally zero dollars, and they have benefited so much to the country.
They have made so much, like hundreds and thousands of dollars.
Abortion and Sin00:11:03
Praise God, that's the American dream.
It is, and it's just like a hard thing to do.
And I want American-born young people from UC Riverside to also have that American dream and not have to compete against foreigners for that.
Thank you for your time.
Can I say one point?
We have a long line.
Thank you.
Really quick, though.
Okay, again, what is it?
Sorry.
Okay.
I understand.
The American dream is hard.
My parents, my mom was pregnant, working two jobs one day, and she sacrificed everything, and now she has more money than the average American.
Praise God, that is the American dream.
Thank you very much.
That's hard work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Imagine being a young woman just finding out that you're pregnant, not knowing where to go or what to do, not even knowing exactly what is going on in your body.
While the whole world tells her it's just a clump of cells, you and I, we both know the truth.
We know it is a baby.
And once she has an ultrasound that you provide and she sees the truth of the baby growing inside of her, you help her choose life.
When you join us in providing ultrasounds with pre-born and she sees her baby and hears her baby's heartbeat, you will double the likelihood that she will choose life.
And 100% of what you give goes to providing ultrasounds, 100% pre-born separately fundraises for administrative costs.
$280 can save 10 babies.
$28 a month can save a baby a month all year long.
And a $15,000 gift, I know there's some of you out there that can afford this, $15,000 gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come.
Call 833-850-2229 or click on the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com today.
Again, that's 833-850-2229 or click on the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com.
I want to talk about the debate of abortion.
So I know that it's something very controversial.
Some people are pro-choice, some people are pro-life.
Before I start, I want to make sure that I understand your opinion fully so I don't take, you know, what I've heard online.
What is your stance on abortion?
Life begins at conception.
Okay.
So where do you, so conception, so is that when sperm enters the egg?
Is that during sperm?
When new DNA is formed.
Okay, when new DNA is formed.
So the egg by itself, you don't think, is anything.
Sorry?
The egg of a woman by itself, do you think it's anything?
It's something, but it's not a life, correct?
Okay, that's, okay.
So my question is, when you talk about abortion and why you think you, why you support it, why you don't support it, sorry.
Why you don't support it, what do you use as your evidence?
You use scientific evidence?
Do you talk about the Bible?
Do you use both?
Mainly scientific and self-evident reason.
Okay.
So are you someone who's a follower of the Bible?
I am, but that's not relevant to this discussion.
But we could talk about it if you'd like.
I find it relevant because when I'm going to talk about abortion, there's quotes in the Bible that I think support pro-choice, in my opinion.
Bible, Exodus.
Exodus 21, 22 through 25.
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that her child come out, so miscarriage, but there is no harm to the woman, the one who hit her shall surely be fined.
As the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.
But if there is harm to the woman, you shall pay life for life, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
So I know that that could be interpreted different ways.
The Bible is interpreted in many ways.
There's different types, different interpretations.
But this says if a person causes a miscarriage through a woman, that they will pay for the abortion.
So they will pay.
Another one will punish them.
That is not what this law says.
But let me just ask, are you a Christian?
Yes.
Okay, then continue.
Do you believe in the inerrant word of God?
Yes.
Okay, good.
Yes.
So it says that, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.
So the judges determine, and it's talking about the husband, so therefore it's talking about a person, not God himself, not his judgment.
So it's saying if someone has an abortion, we have the right to choose what to do to them.
Can you say it was a miscarriage, not an abortion?
It says when man strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that's causing her to lose the baby.
That's outside cause.
Outside cause.
Therefore it could mean abortion.
Because some people find that abrasive abortion is through violence, such as hitting, because not everyone has access to medical.
Was it the intent for them to kill the baby?
It's unclarified, so that I cannot tell you.
However, what I will say is that it says that it's the judges determine, the husband determines.
So God's not making the choice for us what to do with the person who does that to someone's child, does that to their own child.
But it does say that if the woman is harmed, her herself, not the child, then they are liable by God, their life for her life, their foot for her foot.
So what I'm saying is if somebody needs an abortion for health care, let's say a woman's baby's not going to make it, and if the baby stays in her womb, she will die.
And they refuse her an abortion, they refuse her that health care and she dies, should the doctor be liable under God?
First of all, those instances don't happen.
So let's just be clear.
No, see, you guys are so propagandized by this.
That only happens in a very rare case of the breaking of the uterus.
So it does happen.
But no, but where the baby is already dead, and that's what the point is that the baby is already dead.
That's a removal of a carcass of a baby.
It's also still medically.
No, it's not.
That's incorrect.
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
A removal of a carcass of a baby is not an abortion.
Those are two technically different things.
It is not a DNE.
It is not.
A DNE is something completely different.
But then, if you want to talk about scripture, do you think we are bound to all 613 Levitical laws?
Yes, if you're a follower of the Bible, you cannot pick and choose what you follow.
Oh, so do you eat kosher?
You cannot pick and kosher.
Do you eat kosher?
No.
Well, I thought you were bound to all 613 laws.
I'm not perfect.
I'm a sinner.
Everyone here is a sinner, but if you choose...
Well, are we bound to it?
Do you think Christians should eat kosher?
If you can't choose to follow the Bible, you cannot pick and choose what you follow.
Of course, but we do believe in a new covenant, an old covenant.
So there's three types of Old Testament laws, right?
There's ceremonial, there's civil, and moral.
So ceremonial laws we do not honor.
Civil we consider.
Moral we absolutely.
Why do humans decide what to follow in God declared?
Because Christ actually, it's not humans.
So Paul actually authored in the book of Colossians.
That's a human.
Right.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, which wrote the Bible.
The ordinances of Moses are nailed to the cross.
Secondly, Christ our Lord repeated nine out of ten of the Ten Commandments.
And he said, all the laws of the prophet hang upon the two teachings of Leviticus 19 and Deuteronomy 6.
But now I equally have to challenge you with scripture.
In Luke 1, when Elizabeth came in contact with Mary and both were babies, what did it say that John the Baptist did?
I cannot tell you that.
He leapt.
Okay.
Do non-babies leap?
I don't understand the question.
I'm going to be honest.
Isn't it a baby then worthy of protection if they're leaping?
I suppose.
Yes.
And it was the Greek word brephos, which literally means baby, intentionally used throughout.
Hold on.
In Jeremiah, it says, I knew you before you were in the womb.
In Psalm, I think 139, it's one of the most intricate verses about the detail of our formation process as human beings.
And finally, because of science, because of biology, we know that human life begins at that spark of new DNA.
And God says, do not murder.
And it's incumbent on Christians to therefore protect that life.
Okay.
So my biggest question is, I'm not saying that all abortion is valid.
I feel like that's up for everyone to decide.
But in the most, even if it's very small percentage, in the very small percentage, that a baby is alive, but it has to be aborted for the sake of the mother.
What do you think is a matter of time?
C-section.
What is a C-section?
A C-section is when you cut a mother's.
Why don't they do that instead of the abortion?
Because it could be equally as dangerous.
Wrong.
It's much safer than an abortion and quicker.
Do you have evidence?
I mean, yes, it's self-evident.
Can you tell me?
I mean, again, there's plenty of people.
He has evidence.
Plenty of people that are in medicine can tell you, but like, to be very clear, think about it.
Every hospital is equipped to do C-sections.
You have to go to a specific place for an abortion.
And a C-section, one-third out of everyone in this audience was born by C-section.
C-sections save lives.
They do not terminate lives.
And so when they say we must abort the baby, thanks to modern technology, that's actually a false choice.
You could take the baby out of the environment and try to save its life as a cesarean section.
What if when the C-section happens, the baby's not able to survive on its own no matter what?
Okay, well then that's a separate circumstance.
It's like saying if the baby has a heart attack after the C-section.
That's not a reason not to terminate it.
What do you mean?
You have to give everybody a chance at life.
You don't kill the baby in the womb just because you think that it's going to, well, it could hurt the mother.
You take it out of that environment.
Okay, but what I'm saying is if they take the baby out and they know it's not going to survive regardless.
How did I know that post-22 weeks?
You don't know that.
There's miracles that happen every day in the neonatal.
That's true.
Hold on.
In the neonatal intensive care unit, there's miracles that happen every day in NICUs.
And I agree.
There's definitely, they don't know 100% for sure, but there's definitely probability through science, through biology, that they know, hey, this is more likely going to happen.
We don't do morals on probability.
I'm not saying it's morality.
I'm saying probability of a baby is going to survive or not.
It doesn't matter.
You don't terminate a life based on a probability of survival.
Oh, you do?
Interesting.
You guys murder people based on probability of survival?
Interesting.
So somebody on a ventilator should just be murdered?
I mean, it's such incredible morality.
Would you keep someone on a ventilator for the entire of everything else then?
It depends.
There's two different things.
There's no more and not yet.
Once you reach the level of no more human interventions can improve this person's life or bring them back to a full life, that is a separate moral decision than not yet.
When a human being is at not yet, which they are in the womb, you must do everything you can to make sure they get life.
When a human being is at no more, it's a completely separate moral dimension and decision to make.
No more and not yet are the ways to look at pro-life decisions.
That makes sense?
Yes, that makes sense.
Well, thank you for debating with me.
Thank you very much.
Agree to disagree.
Hi, folks.
Objective Morality Debate00:08:49
Andrew Colvett here.
I'd like to tell you about my friends over at YReFi.
You've probably been hearing me talk about YReFi for some time now.
We are all in with these guys.
If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call.
Maybe you're behind on your payments.
Maybe you're even in default.
You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore.
WhyReFi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay.
They tailor each loan individually.
They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back.
We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt.
Many of them don't even know how much they owe.
WhyReFi can help?
Just go to YReFi.com.
That's the letter whythenrefi.com.
And remember, YReFi doesn't care what your credit score is.
Just go to YReFi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.
I have a friend named Thomas Sheedy.
He is the founder of an organization called Atheists for Liberty.
He is openly conservative, but he's mostly interested in atheist activism and normalizing atheism and all sects, including the conservative movement.
He seems to be under the impression that a lot of conservatives, including you, are more hesitant to work with atheist organizations.
Is there any truth to that?
Yes and no.
I mean, if you're an atheist and you want to be part of the conservative movement, go ahead.
But you must be an honest atheist and acknowledge that morality is definitionally subjective without a belief in God.
You cannot be an atheist and believe in objective morality.
It is an impossibility.
And true atheists will acknowledge this.
At some point, you have an ought claim.
Well, things ought to be a certain way.
We as Christians, or we that believe in the divine, we have is claims that murder is wrong.
Whereas an atheist will say, well, murder ought to be wrong because you can't have an objective definition if there is not a divine eternal power over you.
So look, if an atheist wants to fight alongside of us to end abortion or to try and end the massacring of our kids, that's called gender-affirming care.
Or if an atheist wants to march alongside of us to say no men in female sports, they're more than welcome to be able to do that.
But atheists for liberty is an interesting phrase because I don't believe you can have liberty without God because liberty is not man's idea.
It is God's idea.
That's just my own personal belief, and it's also the belief of everything that built this nation.
But yes, I know a lot of good atheists.
The question, though, is how do you know they're good?
It's because you're appealing to a moral authority above just the secular material realm, one that is transcendent, we would believe, given by God.
Well, I don't believe in objective morality.
I do know there are plenty of atheists who are moral objectivists.
Are you an atheist?
Sorry to interrupt.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Okay, cool.
So let me just, can I ask you a question?
And I don't mean, I know this is your first time at the mic, so I'm just going to try to be tender in doing this.
Okay.
Appreciate it.
So you don't believe in objective morality, right?
I personally don't.
Okay.
Was the Holocaust objectively wrong?
Objectively, no, but it would have been better if it didn't happen because most people wouldn't want that to happen.
So that's where we are on different planets.
And that's okay.
I'm not trying to make fun of you.
I'm trying to be graceful in the way that we're going about this.
Do you think Hitler was objectively evil?
No, because it's subjective.
But I just hope all of you guys understand he's being an honest atheist to your credit because as an atheist, you're not allowed to say anything is objectively right or wrong.
I come from a worldview that when you butcher six million people, that is objectively wrong, no matter what.
And it's very important.
It's a very important truth claim because when you do not have objective truth anchoring your society, then it becomes a power struggle.
If you do not have truth, then power will reign.
Whoever can get the most amount of power then ends up having the most amount of say over society.
We believe what is objectively right, true, good, and beautiful should be transcendent over society.
Your thoughts?
So do you believe objective morality specifically comes from the Bible?
Yes and no.
It's in nature and the Bible explains nature.
So objective morality can be discovered in many different cultures and societies pointing towards what we believe is the ultimate objective truth, Jesus Christ.
C.S. Lewis explained this the best in his book Abolition of Man, which is that almost every religion talks about a certain way to live, a Tao, or a path that we should be on.
And so more simply than just the Bible, we believe in what the founders believed, which is an ethical monotheism, that there is one God.
He has a general way that he wants you to live.
For example, murdering is bad, kidnapping is wrong, defense of the innocent, and we should do our best to try to live alongside of that path.
Okay, well, I think those are very interesting examples.
You bring up the founders, you bring up Hitler, but Hitler was a self-proclaimed Catholic, and he called Nazism a Christian movement.
Yeah, I would be careful saying that.
He was not.
That's okay.
He called himself a Catholic.
He specifically said in 1927, our movement is Christian.
They had on the belt buckles God on our side.
Yet they let us swear to the Almighty God.
Atheists were not trusted to be in the SS.
Even if I grant you that, despite the fact that he killed a lot of pastors and priests, and of course you can pervert things in the name of God.
No one denounces that.
Just as a side note, though, far more people died under the banner of atheism than Christianity in the 20th century.
Mao was an atheist.
Stalin was an atheist.
Pol Pot was an atheist.
Believing in no God actually led to the destruction and the murder of well over 100 million people.
And that's fine.
So, again, if atheists want to come alongside us as conservatives and fight for what is good, that is great.
But I will never acknowledge that atheists can tell me what is objectively good.
They can only give me a preference.
They cannot tell me what is right.
And preferences eventually will lead you towards moral and societal decline.
Okay, so I think you just listed a bunch of communists, and it's worth acknowledging the vast majority of atheists are not communists, just like the vast majority of Christians are not theocrats who don't support the divine right.
It's also worth acknowledging that the founders were actually inspired by Enlightenment values, not by the Bible.
America was founded as a secular nation.
We were the first, quote-unquote, godless constitution.
Yeah, again, I've done this so many times, so I don't know if we want to waste our time doing this, but 55 out of 56 of the signers of the Declaration were Bible-believing church-attending Christians.
Nine out of 13 of the states of the Titan ratification required a declaration of faith in order for you to serve in the states.
Our birth certificate, which is the Mayflower Compact, said explicitly, we are here to spread Christianity throughout the land.
It was the first great revival that led to the American Revolution of Jonathan Edwards and Jonathan Mayhew and George Whitfield that preached all across the Eastern seaboard.
John Adams famously said the Constitution is written solely for immoral and religious people.
It's wholly inadequate for the people of any other.
We were a Christian nation that was able to embrace the idea of a free society.
God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence.
Not only that, Jesus Christ is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, where it says we appeal to the divine judge of the universe, which of course is a direct appeal to Jesus in the book of Revelation.
Yes, there were rationalist Enlightenment values that informed some of the founders, but it irrefutably was a Christian nation.
Maryland was Catholic.
Pennsylvania was Quaker.
Almost every state had their own specific type of Christian preference.
The idea of an atheist or not believing in any God was an idea that was so foreign to the founders.
Even Thomas Jefferson, the great deist, he revered the Bible, albeit with some significant edits.
However, the idea of believing in no cosmological or no axiological or no teleological or no ontological being would be a concept that our founding fathers would not just find foreign, they would find it extraordinarily dangerous.
Why?
Because the French Revolution was happening simultaneously as the American Revolution, which was explicitly atheist.
They actually recreated their own gods and had, they said, we are going to appeal to what?
The God of reason.
And this is my final contention: is that when I talk to atheists, the French Revolution is a great example.
They literally tried to change the Gregorian calendar to a 10-day week.
They went and imprisoned people of faith.
They put priests in jail, all these different sorts of things.
They said, We are going to appeal to the God of reason.
Well, how did that work out?
It worked out with the guillotine and the slaughter of tens of thousands of people.
The French Revolution was one of the greatest disasters in human recorded history.
Contrast that with the American Revolution.
Why did the American Revolution create the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the world?
And the French Revolution resulted in a lot of blood and even the killing of their own once leader, Maximilian Robespierre.
It's because we were anchored on Christian ideas.
If you are not anchored on Christian ideas, then don't be surprised and all of a sudden there is no fruit to the harvest that you're trying to create.
Before he ever stepped behind a microphone, Charlie understood something important.
Leadership begins with learning.
Notice the Beliefs00:07:44
He didn't chase a diploma or a title, he chased truth.
Through Hillsdale College's free online courses, he studied the great works of the classics, the principles of the American founding, and the life-changing truths of the Bible.
Those ideas didn't just inform him, they shaped his character, strengthened his convictions, and prepared him for the challenges ahead.
One of the courses he took was the Genesis story, taught by Hillsdale professor Dr. Justin Jackson.
This free online course explores the relationship between God and man, what happens when that relationship is broken, and the path toward reconciliation.
It's a real college course, rigorous, thoughtful, and accessible to anyone willing to learn.
You can take the very same course completely free.
Grow stronger in your faith, gain clarity about humanity and your place in the world.
Prepare yourself for a life with courage and conviction.
Visit charlie4hillsdale.com to enroll today.
That's charlieforhillsdale.com.
Learn deeply, lead boldly, carry it forward.
I'm an atheist, so I disagree with your religious claims.
Do you believe in absolute truth?
I'm not sure you can provide me just positive evidence that there is absolute truth.
So the answer would be, I'm not sure.
Are you absolutely not sure?
I'm not sure if I'm absolutely not sure.
See, this works if you say no, but it doesn't work if you bottom out in the I'm not, I don't know question.
Right, no, but saying you're not sure, you are not even sure if you're not sure.
So at some point, you just always have to make a truth claim, yeah?
No, you can just be not sure about everything all the way down.
I don't see why you can't.
And my answer would be: I think truth is instrumentalist in theory.
I think it's a thing we choose pragmatically.
For the purposes of discussion, I think you can say, yeah, I think truth exists pragmatically.
Regardless of that, I don't see how you get to God.
Are you alive?
Huh?
Are you alive?
I think I'm alive, yeah.
Think you're alive?
Yeah.
Is the sun shining?
I think it's shining, yeah.
From my frame of reference, it is shining.
Notice how none of this.
I mean, notice how you've gotten no steps closer to proving God.
No, I'm asking questions, man.
Are you sure we did it?
Yeah, I'm sharing the praise.
Are you sure we did?
I'm sure in the pragmatic instrumentalist.
How sure are you that we did it?
In the pragmatic instrumentalist sense?
Absolutely sure.
I see truth as a utility.
So there is a truth that's absolute.
No, it's instrumentalist.
But you just said it was absolute.
No, absolutely sure in the instrumentalist sense of the word truth.
This is a philosophical tradition that dates back hundreds of years, instrumentalism.
Yeah, which, of course, we don't subscribe to.
Obviously.
So, do you believe that murder is objectively wrong?
Epistemologically objective or ontologically objective?
Morally.
See, you didn't answer the question, but you.
Both, both epistemologically and ontologically.
But for the purpose of discussion, okay, so by what you mean, no, I don't think it's objective.
Was Hitler a bad person objectively?
No, if you mean by.
By the way, by the way.
Dude, dude, dude.
Wait, wait, wait.
Well, no, but he's being honest.
At its core, atheists cannot say that Hitler was a bad person.
Can I make the claim now?
Notice who here is relying on feelings and not facts.
Your argument is: I feel that Hitler was objective.
No, no, no, I know.
No, no, you feel that way.
Can you provide me evidence of how you know?
Can you provide me evidence that morality is objective?
No, of course I can.
Because, well, first of all, morality is both reason and revelation, and it's built within to us that murder is wrong.
Okay, where's your evidence of that?
Wait, wait, I'm so scared.
That's a claim, not evidence.
That's a claim.
Okay, we could spend multiple hours, but in the Western tradition.
So, notice how you're saying by tradition, by no standards.
These are not all claims of non-truth value.
Hold on, yes, they are.
We believe that truth was revealed to us.
We believe, claim by God.
Hold on, but let me get there.
You can keep on interrupting us.
Okay, keep on.
But let me prove to you how silly your viewpoint is and how self-evidently wrong.
Okay.
Is it objectively wrong to kids?
When you say objective, what I mean by objective, once again, once again, Dude, can I ask you something?
No, no, no.
What is how you still haven't given me dispositive evidence that morality is objective?
You're merely saying my answer is, I feel that way.
Sure, I feel that way.
No, no, that's all I can.
It's objectively wrong to the laws of nature.
What law of nature?
The self-evident nature of existence.
Where's your proof that it's self-evident?
Show me the logical proof that it's self-evident.
Okay, it's in your reason that God gave you in the consciousness of God.
Prove that God gave it to me.
Prove that God gave it to me.
But, again, your existence is proof of that.
Again, we can get back down to the first principles of this.
We can, but you don't want to because you know it doesn't look good.
No, it looks actually really good.
No, because you can't give evidence for it.
Built within, again, interrupting does not make you right.
But you keep repeating your point.
I get your point.
No, I don't.
So let me ask you a question in closing.
Since you can't objectively say that Hitler was bad or that child is wrong.
So how did the universe come into existence?
I don't know.
Okay, but science says that it was a big bang or a beginning point, right?
So using logic which you believe in is this the Kalam cosmological?
Well, hold on.
Again, you keep interrupting.
Using logic, if space, time, and matter had a starting point, then logically, shouldn't something outside of space, time, and matter have started those things.
How do you know that cause is personal?
How do you know that cause is worth praying to?
That's not the question.
Wait, wait.
Okay, sure, there is a cause.
Oh, that cause is God because it's outside of space, time, and matter.
No, no, no.
But you believe in different things about God.
You think that God is personal.
That's not what we're debating.
No, we are arguing about God.
We're arguing about worshiping God is the religion.
Hold on, no, no, no, we're not debating that.
We're debating whether or not there's a God or not.
No, the Christian God.
I said religion, that you're a religious person.
You're a Christian in nature.
You follow a religious tradition.
Calm down.
You said you're an atheist.
Wait, no, God, historically, Aquinas even defines it this way, is a personal God.
You still haven't gotten to me to prove that it's personal.
I'm happy to get to that.
Okay, then get to it.
Look, here's what I find with atheists: they don't want to worship or acknowledge God because many atheists think they are God.
And you embody that really well.
I didn't know you were a mind reader, Charlie.
This is news to me.
It's not a mind reader.
I can tell by your behavior.
I will say this.
I hope that you give your life to Jesus Christ.
I hope you do.
I hope you can find evidence.
I hope you can find evidence.
You know what's interesting?
There is evidence.
There is evidence that Jesus.
Hold on, last thing.
Do you believe Jesus Christ was a real historical figure?
Yes.
Do you believe that the gospels are historically accurate and we can prove them with archaeological evidence?
Some parts are, some parts are, some parts are metaphors, some parts are allegories, some parts are literal.
It depends, some parts are attempts at history.
It depends which book or gospel.
Using rational analysis, why would the disciples lie about the resurrection of Christ?
Okay, we can talk about this.
People, they can be mistakenly wrong about it.
So they would be mistakenly wrong up to the point where they get martyred?
The whole point of being mistakenly wrong about something is you believe it's true.
All the way up until the point of death.
The whole point of being mistakenly wrong about something is you believe that.
I just want to make sure I understand your position.
Position is that the 12 disciples who knew Christ best saw him die, and then they all believed a mistaken conspiracy for the rest of their life.
Yes, all of them together as a conspiracy.
Yes.
Yes.
There is no first-hound account from the 500.
The Gospels are all written by these people.
People have died for crazy claims in the past that we know aren't true.
These are all facts about his own.
That's not correct.
Okay, one of the gospels was written by one of his closest associates, Matthew the tax collector.
Luke was a fact fighter that was hired by the people.
No, I didn't say the Gospels weren't written by them.
I said there's no evidence from the 500 that he appeared to.