Do I need to sign in to zoom, or did it not start yet?

Carlos Farias, a YouTuber with 47k subscribers has briefly reviewed the CTMU. It begins at 3 minutes 46 seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaql9BQWN_c He describes it as "lacking empirical support". He then says "the CTMU lacks formalism or testability". Obviously these criticisms are beneath us. But they are a sign that we're failing to get the message across clearly enough, for some people.

When God is argued to be, or simply described as being, omnibenevolent and all-loving, atheists sometimes respond that such a being cannot be the God of the Old Testament, because of occasions on which He has commissioned the killing of human beings. The typical examples mentioned are when God flooded the world sparing only Noah and his family, God’s instruction to the Israelites to genocide the Canaanites, and when God “sent 2 bears to merc a bunch of kids for mocking a bald guy” (as it was put to me). This topic is a special favourite among anti-theists, which, owing to the inherent difficulty in resolving the paradox between being all-loving and commissioning murder, has stopped many a Christian apologist in his tracks. It becomes more difficult to address still, when we include the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment in the analysis. I’ve heard many people remark on the difference in character of the God in the Old and New Testaments, and I even heard a Christian on a call-in show mention outright he “doesn’t do” the Old Testament; I suspect this is why. There is, therefore, a considerable bounty on providing a way to resolve these apparent inconsistencies, so that Christians get the upper hand in the debate. One way to explain the difference in God’s character between the OT and the NT would be that omnibenevolence is the property of a function by which God always strives toward a certain goal, but which can appear (if the whole system and its outcomes aren’t considered) to take non-benevolent courses of action when circumstances aren’t optimal. This is rational: someone’s reply to us is conditional on what we have just asked them, as well as on our behavior up until now. Different replies don’t imply an inconsistency in that person’s principles. A person can hold themselves to a standard, yet still behave differently in response to different stimuli while doing so. But why can’t God, in His omnipotence and omnibenevolence, just make life as spiritually-easy as possible for all human societies? And regarding the Genesis flood, the Canaanite slaughter and the 42 “kids” getting merc’d by 2 bears, why can’t God refrain from taking human life in all situations, in order to have an impeccable record?

This is my first post here, thank you for inviting me. For those of you who don't know who I am, I run the @CTMUist YouTube account. This has been a thought of mine I’ve wanted to share for a while. Because I’ve noticed that one of us has called into a YouTube podcast to present the CTMU, I’ve decided to chime in. I’d like to make my stance clear on how CTMUers are to engage with atheist talk shows. We have a teleological impulse to share the truth. Being CTMU-literate, we’re privy to absolute truth and we know we can ultimately come out on top of any adversarial ideological exchange, if we are careful enough and have done enough studying. Arguing with atheists in parts of the internet that receive a lot of traffic therefore is tempting. There is a pull factor for calling into to such talk shows; they get a lot of views, so they are effective platforms from which to reach truth-seeking minds. If you run a YouTube channel, then calling in, arguing and posting the exchange to your channel is also a fast way to generate content that both covers the subject matter and, hopefully, paints you in a better light than our adversaries. As some of you may know, I have called into atheist talk shows. But I haven’t presented the CTMU in any such call. There is nobody in our community who is ready to attempt this (besides Chris Langan). What I have done, is present the ideas present in the CTMU as part of an “argument” for God, or brain-independent consciousness (in terms converted to layman’s language, without mentioning CTMU neologisms). See below for links, if you’re interested in hearing the manner in which I did this. Calling in to these shows and making a good job of it is highly challenging as it is. You have to avoid fumbling your words. You have to avoid having mental blanks. You have to be extremely polite and not get angry when your opponent refuses to see the point (or engages in other forms of irrational denial). Now imagine that on top of that, you’ve got to explain what your CTMU neologism of choice is, to someone who most likely is going to shake their head, come up with some lame excuse not to accept the meaning of the word and say you’re talking word salad. It’s only going to make you flustered and less able to prove whatever point you’ve chosen to make.