WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:04.480
Hello, Hello, God doing his
best to try and smite us. I

2
00:00:04.599 --> 00:00:09.599
think working and we are back.
If that's the best God has to offer,

3
00:00:09.800 --> 00:00:12.560
then I think he needs to try
a little bit harder. You're not

4
00:00:12.720 --> 00:00:15.640
very good God, are you saying
no? Sir? Ee? For the

5
00:00:15.679 --> 00:00:20.640
third time, I'm going to bring
queuing to have the conversation about Kant's reputation

6
00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:24.440
of the arguments for the existence of
God. Q. How are you?

7
00:00:24.839 --> 00:00:30.679
Yep? Hey, So I wanted
to call in and talk about Kant's various

8
00:00:30.760 --> 00:00:37.399
different proofs or reputations against the proof
of the proof of God. So I

9
00:00:37.439 --> 00:00:42.560
haven't seeing any of the previous episodes
talk about this. Are you guys familiar

10
00:00:42.600 --> 00:00:46.640
with this? Vaguely? It's not
something I've studied in depth. Yeah,

11
00:00:47.200 --> 00:00:53.479
I'm not familiar with it. Overread
a little bit. Is essentially he started

12
00:00:53.520 --> 00:01:00.399
off with the kind of arguing against
the ontological talor or teleological all those things

13
00:01:00.479 --> 00:01:03.159
as invalid, and then kind of
developed a little bit further. But you

14
00:01:03.159 --> 00:01:07.439
you go into it and tell us
what you know, what it was specifically,

15
00:01:07.480 --> 00:01:11.680
I wanted to talk about fill in
the gaps. Yeah, uh,

16
00:01:11.879 --> 00:01:15.159
so it's been a while since I
talked about this. Uh, with other

17
00:01:15.280 --> 00:01:23.640
people quite a few years since I
was in the in the university. So

18
00:01:23.640 --> 00:01:29.079
so I, Richard, you're right. So he has a reputation of different

19
00:01:29.200 --> 00:01:33.480
main proof types of proofs to God. And it's interesting because a lot of

20
00:01:33.480 --> 00:01:36.680
it is stuff that we hear when
people call in. It's just you know,

21
00:01:36.920 --> 00:01:41.000
it's just a different name. So. Uh. The ontological argument is

22
00:01:41.159 --> 00:01:46.599
basically the argument that God is perfect, so he must exist kind of thing.

23
00:01:46.840 --> 00:01:52.079
Uh. And then there's a cosmological
argument, which is basically the klom

24
00:01:52.200 --> 00:01:57.519
argument, right, the column arguments
always called a column cosmological argument. Uh.

25
00:01:57.680 --> 00:02:00.519
And the third one is the teler
lot to go on, which says,

26
00:02:00.599 --> 00:02:07.359
you know if sorry. The third
ist uh, the teiological argument,

27
00:02:07.400 --> 00:02:13.280
which basically said, there's some purpose
that we need to that that's out there,

28
00:02:13.439 --> 00:02:15.159
and so for that purpose, there
must be a God. Right.

29
00:02:15.240 --> 00:02:19.639
So so those are the three types. And you hear one, you know,

30
00:02:19.759 --> 00:02:24.759
some flavor of this use by the
all the time follow so far okay,

31
00:02:24.960 --> 00:02:29.680
Yeah, So I just want to
kind of go over this so that

32
00:02:30.039 --> 00:02:35.479
or kind of give different examples of
these and and kind of using examples of

33
00:02:35.680 --> 00:02:38.960
you know what I've heard in some
of the past shows, and then give

34
00:02:38.240 --> 00:02:43.639
what CON's response to this will be. And one thing to know is,

35
00:02:43.680 --> 00:02:49.639
you know, cons is a very
famous German idealist, so he believes in,

36
00:02:50.240 --> 00:02:53.400
you know, things that are beyond
our sensus, you know, just

37
00:02:53.599 --> 00:02:59.639
these ideal things, and in a
certain sense he kind of considers, you

38
00:02:59.680 --> 00:03:01.639
know, that to be kind of
gods from And his whole point is that

39
00:03:01.960 --> 00:03:07.319
you really can't have access to that. You know what he calls the nama

40
00:03:07.800 --> 00:03:12.680
the now omen o round, which
is you know, where perfect forms,

41
00:03:12.719 --> 00:03:16.400
et cetera. You know, it's
kind of similar to Plato's forms would exist.

42
00:03:16.439 --> 00:03:20.960
So he says that doesn't exist,
and what we have is access to

43
00:03:21.280 --> 00:03:24.560
the phenomena, which is what we
can see and sense, et cetera.

44
00:03:24.800 --> 00:03:29.919
And he can kill just quickly before
sorry, just quickly before you jump into

45
00:03:29.919 --> 00:03:32.520
this. What can I ask you
what your kind of position in on this?

46
00:03:34.560 --> 00:03:38.159
Is this something you agree with you
agree with Camp? Or is do

47
00:03:38.199 --> 00:03:43.280
you have the disagree with him and
have your own kind of arguments against these

48
00:03:43.280 --> 00:03:46.439
things. I'm just interested on your
own personal position in this. Yep,

49
00:03:46.560 --> 00:03:50.919
Yeah, so I was really into
Content. In fact, I did my

50
00:03:51.800 --> 00:03:57.360
undergrad thesis on him, but not
on his on his ethics or you know

51
00:03:57.439 --> 00:04:00.039
his proof of God, but at
the time, you know, I was

52
00:04:00.080 --> 00:04:05.960
really into his refutation. But one
thing to consider is that cont actually goes

53
00:04:06.039 --> 00:04:10.360
and tries to say that there is
a God. So Content is not an

54
00:04:10.360 --> 00:04:15.039
atheist, he's a theist. So
for me personally, I feel I'm a

55
00:04:15.039 --> 00:04:19.600
hard atheist. I do not believe
that God exists. So that's my position.

56
00:04:19.800 --> 00:04:24.439
Okay, So once you give us
one one rejection of the one of

57
00:04:24.480 --> 00:04:27.279
the arguments for God, wing to
talk about that, yeah, yeah,

58
00:04:27.399 --> 00:04:31.519
yeah, So, uh, the
one I like the best is this the

59
00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:39.240
argument against the ontological argument. So
you know, the argument again is to

60
00:04:39.319 --> 00:04:44.639
say that you know that God is
being perfect, that if God did not

61
00:04:44.759 --> 00:04:48.199
exist, it would not be perfect. So thereby God has to exist simply

62
00:04:48.279 --> 00:04:55.360
because of his perfection. And the
kind of the simple repute refutation of that,

63
00:04:55.680 --> 00:05:00.000
you know, obviously there's more is
that existence is not a product,

64
00:05:00.800 --> 00:05:06.720
meaning that existence is not a property
that you can assign to to a god.

65
00:05:06.800 --> 00:05:12.199
It's basically a state. So you
have an existential state, so you

66
00:05:12.199 --> 00:05:16.079
could have a God that you have
all the properties of perfection, but existence

67
00:05:16.199 --> 00:05:20.439
is not a property, so it's
not one of it. The example is,

68
00:05:20.480 --> 00:05:24.240
like you know, he has two. He talks about two different types

69
00:05:24.279 --> 00:05:28.680
of judgments. One is the analytic
judgment, where the predicate is contained in

70
00:05:28.720 --> 00:05:31.800
the subject. So the example is, you know, all bachelors are unmarried.

71
00:05:31.879 --> 00:05:35.040
The very nature of being a bachelor
comes with it, you know,

72
00:05:35.240 --> 00:05:40.480
it being unmarried, being on men. And then there's a synthetic judgment where

73
00:05:40.480 --> 00:05:45.000
you're adding something to you know,
adding a predicate to the subject. So

74
00:05:45.439 --> 00:05:49.079
the example is, you know,
the cat is on the mat, so

75
00:05:49.399 --> 00:05:55.199
the it being on the mat is
not part of the property of the cat.

76
00:05:55.399 --> 00:06:00.240
And what contest saying is that God
exists is not bachelors are on Mary's

77
00:06:00.319 --> 00:06:05.639
a cat is on the map.
Type of judgment that your concept of God,

78
00:06:05.920 --> 00:06:10.600
and if you add to it,
or if you say it exists,

79
00:06:10.680 --> 00:06:13.879
you are adding something to it that's
not part of that. So it's not

80
00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:18.519
part of the antology. Yeah,
and I think I think that that kind

81
00:06:18.560 --> 00:06:27.839
of that that rests quite well with
humans kind of ideas about rejection of God

82
00:06:27.839 --> 00:06:31.000
as well, because in Hume we
get the idea that you know, in

83
00:06:32.120 --> 00:06:39.519
essentially in humans kind of ideas are
that we get what comes into our mind

84
00:06:39.639 --> 00:06:44.120
is what comes in from outside is
real, and we cannot imagine something that

85
00:06:44.160 --> 00:06:48.639
we haven't got experience of. Therefore
we can't have a we can't have this

86
00:06:48.639 --> 00:06:54.680
this idea of this perfect God because
all we're doing is we can't we've never

87
00:06:54.720 --> 00:06:59.519
seen this perfection. So what we're
doing is we're just magnifying these qualities of

88
00:06:59.560 --> 00:07:04.279
good that we do know to this
ultimate thing. And therefore this perfect being

89
00:07:04.279 --> 00:07:09.839
that we imagine as God cannot exist. And I think that matters quite well

90
00:07:09.879 --> 00:07:13.399
with what you've just said about can. I don't know what you think about

91
00:07:13.439 --> 00:07:15.839
that. I'd like to have your
kind of feedback on that. So it's

92
00:07:16.040 --> 00:07:21.519
interesting because you know, Kant his
critique of Peoriason, he begins it by

93
00:07:21.639 --> 00:07:28.839
basically saying that data Hume walk him
up from his slumber to you know,

94
00:07:28.959 --> 00:07:35.399
push him to write that that huge
treatise. So there is a connection between

95
00:07:35.519 --> 00:07:41.560
Kant and Hume, but Kant is
you could almost say, he's the opposite

96
00:07:41.600 --> 00:07:45.959
extreme, although you know, as
he pointed out that there are some similarities.

97
00:07:46.680 --> 00:07:49.959
Human never say that there is this
kind of this realm, this you

98
00:07:50.000 --> 00:07:55.519
know, essentially kind of sort of
a spiritual around that the phenomena. Human

99
00:07:55.600 --> 00:08:03.120
never say that. But all of
Kant's philosophy revolved around Yeah, Jim,

100
00:08:03.399 --> 00:08:07.600
any thoughts, No, I mean, I don't hear anything I disagree with

101
00:08:09.199 --> 00:08:13.839
or can add to. You know, theological argument is, I think ridiculous

102
00:08:13.879 --> 00:08:18.120
on its face. I can't imagine
a greater God than the one in the

103
00:08:18.120 --> 00:08:22.720
Bible, and a greater God than
most Christians attribute to should I don't see

104
00:08:22.720 --> 00:08:26.360
how that means that that God actually
exists. I don't see how you get

105
00:08:26.680 --> 00:08:31.840
monotheism out of that either. But
those are completely different questions for going on

106
00:08:31.879 --> 00:08:39.320
what we can imagine. But yeah, yeah, I mean I think I

107
00:08:39.360 --> 00:08:43.000
think this is really interesting because,
as you said, I, you know,

108
00:08:43.080 --> 00:08:50.399
I did have leanings towards them shall
we see, But also I believed

109
00:08:50.399 --> 00:08:54.440
in things like free will and things
like that. So it's really interesting when

110
00:08:54.480 --> 00:09:00.720
you get philosophers like Comets who kind
of will on one end of the spectrum

111
00:09:00.720 --> 00:09:03.639
we would probably agree with, then
on the other end of the spectrum we

112
00:09:03.679 --> 00:09:07.279
would probably disagree with. And it's
great diving into those guys, Like I

113
00:09:07.320 --> 00:09:11.960
say, it's not someone I've personally
looked into very much. I've just kind

114
00:09:11.960 --> 00:09:16.039
of read brief overviews and whatnot.
So it's great to have a call talking

115
00:09:16.320 --> 00:09:22.759
specifically about Kant's philosophy. I was
wondering, what if you had any criticisms

116
00:09:22.799 --> 00:09:28.080
of the things like free will that
he did accept and the belief in God

117
00:09:28.120 --> 00:09:31.679
and things if you have it,
because you're obviously you know, you seem

118
00:09:31.720 --> 00:09:35.200
to know quite a lot about Can
and you seem to be very enemored with

119
00:09:35.360 --> 00:09:39.840
some of his arguments. So what
about those that you disagree with from him?

120
00:09:41.039 --> 00:09:45.840
Well, I mean, I disagree
with the proof that he is or

121
00:09:46.519 --> 00:09:50.679
it's not really a proof, but
how he sort of demonstrates that God exists

122
00:09:50.879 --> 00:09:56.120
and the reason why I disagree with
it, and you know, it's something

123
00:09:56.159 --> 00:10:00.519
that I didn't know at the time, but he basically has a re self

124
00:10:00.679 --> 00:10:05.240
argument for for God, and and
he kind of he puts it as basically,

125
00:10:05.679 --> 00:10:11.120
you know, as part of this
ethics his morality that he feels that

126
00:10:11.200 --> 00:10:15.720
there must be a God. You
have to kind of presuppose a god for

127
00:10:15.879 --> 00:10:22.440
there to be this objective deontological morality. So if there and it's not necessarily

128
00:10:22.480 --> 00:10:26.840
a Christian God, but you know, the idea that there is something beyond

129
00:10:28.039 --> 00:10:33.279
the phenomena that's there that you know, provides the duty the onus and and

130
00:10:33.360 --> 00:10:37.039
also on the free will side that
you know, it's it's kind of coming

131
00:10:37.080 --> 00:10:43.320
from that, you know that God. Uh, and you can't really have

132
00:10:43.639 --> 00:10:46.879
this a moral action that's done in
free will unless there is God. So

133
00:10:48.080 --> 00:10:50.600
I don't agree with that. Isn't
it great that we get these kind of

134
00:10:50.720 --> 00:10:56.279
not and I'm not just talking about
your kind of let's face it, ship

135
00:10:56.440 --> 00:11:05.200
YouTube philosophers, but even your classical
philosophers who were out there and you get

136
00:11:05.240 --> 00:11:09.000
this kind of thing. And even
and those that believe in God seem to

137
00:11:09.039 --> 00:11:13.480
fall into two categories. They seem
to fall into those that will either presuppose

138
00:11:13.519 --> 00:11:18.399
God exists at the beginning or kind
of when you get these arguments from design

139
00:11:18.639 --> 00:11:22.679
and they go through these you know, Anselm did it where you go through

140
00:11:22.960 --> 00:11:28.360
these elaborate arguments of you know,
you know, the world looks like it

141
00:11:28.440 --> 00:11:31.480
was designed, et cetera, and
then at the end with well it must

142
00:11:31.519 --> 00:11:35.840
be God. Everybody knows it's got
don't they. And it's just like it's

143
00:11:35.919 --> 00:11:39.679
just like a really crap ending.
There's no thought being put into it.

144
00:11:39.679 --> 00:11:45.120
It's just a supposition that I,
of all these candidate designers, if even

145
00:11:45.159 --> 00:11:48.919
if we said for the sake of
argument the world had been designed of all

146
00:11:48.960 --> 00:11:52.799
the candidate designers we have, whether
it's you know, some kind some kind

147
00:11:52.879 --> 00:12:01.399
of alien species that have designed the
universe in a kind of contact way,

148
00:12:01.759 --> 00:12:09.000
like in Carl Sagan's novel, or
whether it's whether it's these whether it's like

149
00:12:09.000 --> 00:12:11.279
me and Jim talked about, I
think last time when we were on the

150
00:12:11.320 --> 00:12:16.720
show, this idea of a synthetic
universe, like what's the word I'm looking

151
00:12:16.720 --> 00:12:24.519
for, This created like from a
computer simulation, the simulation type universe.

152
00:12:24.720 --> 00:12:30.919
And we've got these different candidates,
and yet these great philosophers who are theists

153
00:12:31.360 --> 00:12:35.080
seem to disregard all these other candidate
explanations just in favor of well, it's

154
00:12:35.080 --> 00:12:39.879
God though in it. That's it. It's just God, and that's what

155
00:12:39.919 --> 00:12:43.080
they fall back on. And I
find that really kind of I find it

156
00:12:43.080 --> 00:12:46.840
frustrating in one light, but I
find it really amusing in another. They've

157
00:12:46.960 --> 00:12:52.320
like put all these thought into these
elaborate arguments and then just kind of rest

158
00:12:52.399 --> 00:12:56.519
on this and they're just pretty crap. Just conclusion. Yeah, I mean

159
00:12:56.559 --> 00:13:01.080
that's what I see. I mean
when I watched some of these videos and

160
00:13:01.080 --> 00:13:03.200
and also in the comments, you
know, I definitely see a lot of

161
00:13:03.240 --> 00:13:07.240
theists who you know, try to
make an argument, but at the end

162
00:13:07.240 --> 00:13:11.639
of the day, it just comes
down to I think I feel like there's

163
00:13:11.639 --> 00:13:13.480
a God, so that you know, that's that's what I will believe,

164
00:13:13.679 --> 00:13:18.159
So you know, there's that.
You know, they basically don't care that

165
00:13:18.240 --> 00:13:22.519
it's a crap argument as long as
you know it confirms their you know,

166
00:13:22.960 --> 00:13:26.440
their viewpoint. It's almost like they've
been sold on the idea of God and

167
00:13:26.480 --> 00:13:31.000
then try to use reason to justify
their quote unquote purchase of the God's concepts,

168
00:13:31.080 --> 00:13:37.159
right, rather than starting from a
clean slate and working their way to

169
00:13:37.279 --> 00:13:41.159
God there, they don't ever surely
do that. They just seem to start

170
00:13:41.200 --> 00:13:43.360
with God and then work backwards and
that's never going to work. I know,

171
00:13:43.440 --> 00:13:46.639
we know that that's the case for
you. I'm like Craig right,

172
00:13:46.639 --> 00:13:50.159
because he's admitted it in public multiple
cases. Is he got sold on the

173
00:13:50.159 --> 00:13:54.799
idea of God and then he uses
the column uh to justify his belief rather

174
00:13:54.879 --> 00:14:01.080
than the other direction. So yeah, it's amazing, absolutely amazing. Yeah.

175
00:14:01.200 --> 00:14:03.080
I mean on the other side too, I mean I see a lot

176
00:14:03.200 --> 00:14:09.080
of atheas who try to argue against
God and you know, struggle themselves because

177
00:14:09.240 --> 00:14:15.360
they're you know, they really can't
provide a really good argument. And so

178
00:14:15.919 --> 00:14:20.320
what I see mostly is you atheists
basically saying that, well, you have

179
00:14:20.399 --> 00:14:24.000
to convince me, so you know, the burden of proof is on you,

180
00:14:24.399 --> 00:14:26.960
and you know you're sort of at
an impast because and that Tears would

181
00:14:26.960 --> 00:14:31.000
say, you know, you know, you have to still give me a

182
00:14:31.120 --> 00:14:33.679
reason why I think there's no God, and you don't get anywhere. Yeah,

183
00:14:33.679 --> 00:14:37.759
I think this is this is a
really interesting point to make because and

184
00:14:37.960 --> 00:14:41.279
you know it, it's not this
is definition of atheism thing. It's not

185
00:14:41.320 --> 00:14:45.159
something I like talking about a lot, but I think in this, in

186
00:14:45.200 --> 00:14:48.840
this particular instance, it's a really
good point. And because what we're talking

187
00:14:48.879 --> 00:14:54.440
about now here is like we're talking
about from the philosophical philosophical standpoint now in

188
00:14:54.600 --> 00:14:58.440
everyday life, when you know,
this conversation comes open even on this show,

189
00:14:58.480 --> 00:15:03.840
when people call in and ask about
atheism and things, my my normal

190
00:15:03.919 --> 00:15:07.799
responses just simply that I don't believe
in God because I'm not. I'm not

191
00:15:07.840 --> 00:15:13.519
going to argue for fucking twenty minutes
about the meaning of the word atheism,

192
00:15:13.639 --> 00:15:20.360
because it is a word that has
different meanings, and all of them legitimate,

193
00:15:20.480 --> 00:15:24.039
legitimately. So I think, you
know, what you've just said is

194
00:15:24.039 --> 00:15:28.399
a good standpoint because I've just mentioned
and it's a good counterbalance too. I've

195
00:15:28.480 --> 00:15:33.639
just mentioned that we have a lot
of theists out there who watch YouTube videos

196
00:15:33.799 --> 00:15:39.639
and become like really crap internet you
know philosophers, because I've watched a couple

197
00:15:39.679 --> 00:15:45.360
of YouTube videos. This applies to
the other side as well, and you

198
00:15:45.399 --> 00:15:48.320
know, and you know, our
side of the of the fence has the

199
00:15:48.399 --> 00:15:52.639
same thing. You know, I
see quite a lot in these conversations that

200
00:15:52.679 --> 00:15:58.840
I have people I have really really
good conversations with, you know, theists

201
00:15:58.679 --> 00:16:03.679
about philosophy. You know, theists
so like yourself, have done degrees in

202
00:16:03.720 --> 00:16:07.799
it, but from the other side
of the fence, and we have those

203
00:16:07.840 --> 00:16:12.360
people I tend to have really good
conversations with because that's my field of study

204
00:16:12.399 --> 00:16:17.720
anyway, that's my background, and
so we have really good, just genuinely

205
00:16:17.799 --> 00:16:22.279
good, honest conversations about it.
You also have theorists who come up and

206
00:16:22.799 --> 00:16:26.759
watch, you know, watch a
couple of William Lane Craig videos or you

207
00:16:26.799 --> 00:16:30.399
know, these other crap apologists so
are out there and they come up with

208
00:16:30.679 --> 00:16:33.759
the same crap arguments they do,
and they've not put any thought into it.

209
00:16:33.799 --> 00:16:37.519
They've not thought about it. And
you know, you can refuse God

210
00:16:37.759 --> 00:16:42.279
if you know the arguments, but
if you've just watched a couple of videos,

211
00:16:42.519 --> 00:16:48.080
you are limited to send this again
as stress. Is nothing wrong at

212
00:16:48.080 --> 00:16:51.879
all with the definition of atheism that
says, you know, I just don't

213
00:16:51.919 --> 00:16:56.320
accept God. That's my position on
it. There's nothing wrong with that at

214
00:16:56.320 --> 00:17:02.639
all. But if you're having a
philosophical conversation and you're kind of going down

215
00:17:02.639 --> 00:17:06.359
that route, you're going to be
left kind of in deep water, because

216
00:17:06.519 --> 00:17:11.119
you know, you can have a
proper philosophical conversation and not have to go

217
00:17:11.319 --> 00:17:15.039
there. You can you can go
into the why you don't believe into in

218
00:17:15.079 --> 00:17:19.759
God and things like that, and
it's really really important, Jim you so,

219
00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:25.680
I mean also in many cases,
like with callers that we've gotten in

220
00:17:25.680 --> 00:17:30.519
the past, when you get them
on their back foot and really get them

221
00:17:30.519 --> 00:17:33.480
into a corner, one of the
tactics is to shift the topic, change

222
00:17:33.519 --> 00:17:37.920
the topic. And so one of
the topics one of the ways they'll shift

223
00:17:37.920 --> 00:17:41.319
the topic is to simply say,
well, you can't prove it doesn't exist,

224
00:17:41.480 --> 00:17:45.359
or you know, prove he doesn't
exist. That that is a change

225
00:17:45.359 --> 00:17:51.559
of topic to avoid a being in
a corner where they either have to admit

226
00:17:51.599 --> 00:17:56.160
what they believe makes no sense or
you know, concede whatever point you're trying

227
00:17:56.160 --> 00:17:57.119
to make right, and they don't
want to do that, they can't do

228
00:17:57.200 --> 00:18:02.480
that in their head, so they'll
change the topic. And so I see

229
00:18:02.480 --> 00:18:07.160
that definition of atheism as a tactic
to stay on target and to stay on

230
00:18:07.279 --> 00:18:11.880
topic, because I mean, you
can watch a lot of these types of

231
00:18:11.880 --> 00:18:17.839
shows and sometimes the caller is able
to run the host around in circles.

232
00:18:17.880 --> 00:18:21.319
They never really stay on topic.
And I'm guilty of that too, of

233
00:18:21.359 --> 00:18:25.240
not keeping people on topic, especially
when you've got them at a point where

234
00:18:25.240 --> 00:18:29.880
they have to concede a point or
concede that they're being illogical. Right,

235
00:18:30.799 --> 00:18:37.400
So sometimes it's a conversational it's a
conversational rebuttal, not a philosophical rebuttal,

236
00:18:37.480 --> 00:18:41.079
but it's a conversation rebuttal to a
shift in topic, so they don't have

237
00:18:41.160 --> 00:18:45.599
to admit that they're being a logical
or concede your point. So sometimes it's

238
00:18:45.599 --> 00:18:49.039
that it's and that's two different things. I think we have to realize there's

239
00:18:49.319 --> 00:18:56.720
philosophical argument and then there's conversational argument
styles and tactics that can be used,

240
00:18:57.119 --> 00:19:02.000
and they aren't the same. And
the conversational ones don't have anyone near the

241
00:19:02.079 --> 00:19:06.680
rigor of the philosophical ones, but
they're the ones we have more often than

242
00:19:06.680 --> 00:19:10.480
we do philosophical ones. So I
think sometimes just kind of remember that too,

243
00:19:10.599 --> 00:19:15.039
is it's it's a tactic, conversational
tactic to get to get out of

244
00:19:15.039 --> 00:19:18.440
a corner. Yeah, I agree, Yeah, I'll just I'll just add

245
00:19:18.480 --> 00:19:23.160
one last thing before I believe.
But you know, basically, when you

246
00:19:23.279 --> 00:19:27.400
have a theist and atheist, and
theists basically let's say that they don't really

247
00:19:27.480 --> 00:19:32.039
have a good argument, but you
know, ultimately it's just their feeling.

248
00:19:32.200 --> 00:19:37.400
And then you have an atheist who
you know doesn't believe a God because there's

249
00:19:37.559 --> 00:19:41.759
no evidence for it, and you
can kind of see that from for both

250
00:19:41.799 --> 00:19:48.759
of them, it's essentially a belief
state right until someone can provide something more

251
00:19:48.799 --> 00:19:52.680
concrete. And so when a theist
provides, you know, some you know,

252
00:19:52.799 --> 00:19:56.000
not so good argument from their point
of view, they've made the best

253
00:19:56.119 --> 00:20:00.839
argument, you know, for the
proof of God that no one could refute,

254
00:20:00.039 --> 00:20:03.759
and from the atheist point of view, you know they're not convinced,

255
00:20:03.799 --> 00:20:07.519
so they just kind of stay on
the on the kind of I'm not convinced

256
00:20:07.519 --> 00:20:11.079
point, and then you know,
you can't really have a conversation at that

257
00:20:11.119 --> 00:20:15.519
point. I would slightly push back
on that because I think the thing is,

258
00:20:15.759 --> 00:20:19.359
when you're looking at justification for something, you can you can reasonably say

259
00:20:19.440 --> 00:20:25.319
I would say anyway that you can
reasonably say that. You know, if

260
00:20:25.680 --> 00:20:29.599
there is an evidence for something and
somebody is claiming that that things exist,

261
00:20:29.920 --> 00:20:33.480
that thing exists, you have a
better state of justification than they do for

262
00:20:33.559 --> 00:20:38.559
not accepting that thing. And you
know, it's a bit like Russell's teapot.

263
00:20:38.640 --> 00:20:42.000
You know, if if we don't
have whether it's there or not,

264
00:20:42.240 --> 00:20:48.359
it's largely irrelevant that you're claiming that
it's there when there's nothing to suggest it's

265
00:20:48.400 --> 00:20:52.759
there, that there is no evidence
to suggest it's there. It's kind of

266
00:20:52.640 --> 00:20:57.599
yeah, you have less justification in
that belief state than you do in the

267
00:20:57.680 --> 00:21:02.799
belief that it's not that because there's
no evidence. Yeah, And and I

268
00:21:02.799 --> 00:21:06.240
think that's where, you know,
you get to more of a philosophical discussion

269
00:21:06.279 --> 00:21:11.039
where you know, the atheists can
put in the justification to you know,

270
00:21:11.279 --> 00:21:15.240
why their belief stats such and why
it makes sense to hold this belief state

271
00:21:15.400 --> 00:21:19.839
rather than you know, believing something
where there is no evidence. So so

272
00:21:19.920 --> 00:21:25.640
that's where it can kind of progress
into the philosophical discussion. But you know,

273
00:21:25.799 --> 00:21:30.400
I do feel like there are a
lot of debates, quote unquote debates

274
00:21:30.400 --> 00:21:33.079
that people have where they're just essentially, you know, staking out their own

275
00:21:33.240 --> 00:21:37.680
belief states. Yeah, yeah,
I agree. We're gonna let you go.

276
00:21:37.720 --> 00:21:41.000
We're gonna kind of wrap the show
up. I appreciate the call.

277
00:21:41.960 --> 00:21:47.519
I like that call. We don't
get many kind of calls are purely on

278
00:21:47.599 --> 00:21:52.720
philosophy without people trying to throw shit
kind of YouTube style philosophy out you.

279
00:21:53.000 --> 00:21:59.839
So it's nice to have a kind
of call that's in my fieldhouse we allow

280
00:22:00.119 --> 00:22:04.119
without on what field houses. I
don't know why I said that wheelhouse without

281
00:22:04.640 --> 00:22:08.000
without having that argumentation where we can
have a pure, just a simple,

282
00:22:08.079 --> 00:22:11.519
good conversation about it. So I
really do appreciate that call. I do

283
00:22:11.640 --> 00:22:17.240
want to say, before we do
go onto any announcements that if any of

284
00:22:17.279 --> 00:22:21.920
your thinking that's Mary Magdalen behind me. I just want to assure you that

285
00:22:22.000 --> 00:22:25.920
it's actually Mary, the Mother of
God, that Jesus is trying to stick

286
00:22:25.960 --> 00:22:30.640
his tongue down the throat. So
because that's just can't just feel that's the

287
00:22:30.720 --> 00:22:33.960
kind of fellow Jesus was. He'd
just liked to give his mum a good

288
00:22:33.000 --> 00:22:38.319
tonguing in various holes. So if
anyway on that point, on that point,

289
00:22:41.079 --> 00:22:47.240
the prompt for this week is God's
creation won't be complete until it creates

290
00:22:47.359 --> 00:22:51.960
blank. Replying the comments and tune
in at the beginning of next week's episode

291
00:22:52.039 --> 00:22:56.480
to hear the top three answers.
Let's throw some loverings out there. Let's

292
00:22:56.480 --> 00:23:00.319
throw some loverings out there for God, who has tried unsuccessfully to today to

293
00:23:00.519 --> 00:23:08.279
end the show by intervening with our
technology and failing miserably because he's a little

294
00:23:08.319 --> 00:23:12.359
bit crap. We are going to
be both myself and Jim are going to

295
00:23:12.400 --> 00:23:17.400
be in the ACD discord after the
show. So if you want to continue

296
00:23:17.400 --> 00:23:21.400
with the conversation, jump over there. And if you don't believe this is

297
00:23:21.440 --> 00:23:26.160
your community and we appreciate you being
here, and if you do believe we

298
00:23:26.279 --> 00:23:30.200
don't hate you, we are just
not convinced. We will see you next

299
00:23:30.240 --> 00:23:55.599
time. We want the truth,
So watch Truth Wanted Live Friday at seven

300
00:23:55.680 --> 00:24:00.559
pm Central. Visit tiny do's cc
slash YTTW and call into the show at

301
00:24:00.599 --> 00:24:06.079
five one two nine nine one nine
two four two, or connect to the

302
00:24:06.119 --> 00:24:10.160
show on mine at tiny dot cc
slash call tw