Quorym,

honestly, i had there is. So i would have a couple other things. I have at least one thing i ould like to say before i say something on that. A, if that's ok. Theyavbeen wanting to say.

So, well, we're getting, we're getting close to the two hour mark. And wi, my wife recently got home my with my two year old. And so am, wecan just close it, and i'll let you guys have the last the closing statements. If you guys want to each take am, let's say five minutes each. And just a you can talk about sceptical theism, or you can just give like, a summary of where you think the organ has beena, we'll close it out so that we can, we want to do other things to day. So, um, so ye, wa e fo, watn't we start with you, corry and thn, we'll move to you, james, and then i'll close it out. Ye,

i can say a few things. To be completely honest, i saw not a little bit there at that last part. You wre say next i was wrigting something down for quedification. So that's probably, that's the honesty's why im not gongtoave good response to that. Buti i suppose what was going to say is that this, this sceptical the so, like one ovious, one of the things that is you see in the literature, talked about at nausea with respect to this issue, is it seems to entail a sort of radical moral epticism. In this different ways that that is hashed out, whether it's just in terms of us being able to recognize whether something's really evil or not, or or even in terms of our actions, i thing its at least plausible that there that if you maintain sep theism, then a lot of the, i think, common sense, moral intuitions that we have and judgments that we make are called into question. And certainly it's not so because you can no longer just rely upon your your moral intuitions as to whether not something is good or bad, or right or wrong. A. But i think more importantly, james and i were talking about this earlier, there's, it's if you imagine the worst possible world and just add whatever flourishingg a topping so that you want just the worst possible world where everyone suffers mass of suffering, i think that the sceptical theist, basically, it would still apply. So the sceptical theist could still, in that situation, just rely upon this radical scepticism af what we don't know. And that seems to me, seems to be self evidently absurd. It's almost as though it, there's noit's unfalsifiable, i guess there's a way of putting it. There is no amount of of, you know, evidence or suffering. There's no amount of suffering that would constitute evidence that would justify the claim that were, one of the claimsthat were making here. And that just seems, this seems oft to me. I was say, no, tha sond objectionoud need to live ut il dont more carefully. But i suppose i t cont just wrap things up for my end. A to me, especially after this discussion, thatifas strictly with respect to our moral experience, and even especially when we narrow it down to evon suffering, a, that that atheism is a better explanation off what, in fact, is the case than theism. And in as i said at the beginning, i grant that there's more more to the picture here, we would have to consider these other arguments. But i also think that even when we consider those arguments and take all that into considerationit the

the the

tablesiit doesn't turn so much as to suddenly warrant a believing in god.