Speaker 1: I'd like to give our feast callers the benefit of
Speaker 1: the doubt, but I can't be evolution consciousness, the origins
Speaker 1: of the cosmos, any phenomena that we have good naturalist
Speaker 1: explanations for, plenty of evidence behind. I'm so so tired
Speaker 1: of it always boiling down to I don't understand this.
Speaker 1: Therefore it must be God. Your personal incredulity is causing
Speaker 1: you to commit the God of the Gaps fallacy. And
Speaker 1: more than that, you're making gaps to shove your God into.
Speaker 1: God has never been in those gaps ever. But if
Speaker 1: you disagree, call the show. It's start now.
Speaker 2: Welcome everyone. Today is August tenth, twenty twenty five. I'm
Speaker 2: your host, Doctor Bennon. With me today is Jamie the
Speaker 2: Blind Liamy. How are you doing, Jamie?
Speaker 1: I am a act similarly of a copy of a
Speaker 1: man in a place in a hat without a hat.
Speaker 1: I'm FINEO.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And especially talking about God of the Gap,
Speaker 2: sounds like there's a lot of frustration with with more
Speaker 2: years going back to this priest suppositional position of well,
Speaker 2: something must be real there for God and not not
Speaker 2: just being willing to say, you know, maybe we don't
Speaker 2: know the answer to everything, So I'm definitely frustrated about
Speaker 2: that as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean people say that God, God is the
Speaker 1: is the most likely answer, or the most logical answer,
Speaker 1: or the most believable answers. Well, it's an answer, but
Speaker 1: in my estimation, not a very good one, because I
Speaker 1: like evidence, you know, to be to be provided for
Speaker 1: such things rather than just but it has to be,
Speaker 1: it just has to be. I find that not at
Speaker 1: all compelling. And I've been at this long enough now
Speaker 1: to now find it just grating, just tiring. There are
Speaker 1: people who've been in this space a lot longer than
Speaker 1: me and have a lot more credentials than I do,
Speaker 1: and much like yourself, Ben, I don't know how you
Speaker 1: haven't just gone completely start raving Bongers about it, having
Speaker 1: to deal with the same arguments over and over and
Speaker 1: over again.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, it's that idea that humans are very patterned sinking animals,
Speaker 2: and we want to just into it that you know,
Speaker 2: A plus B equal C, and will just jump from
Speaker 2: A to C and not think about what the B is,
Speaker 2: or we'll just not think about other possibilities of answers.
Speaker 2: And when we're talking on this show, we're not saying,
Speaker 2: don't have God as a possibility, like keep your options open,
Speaker 2: but be willing to consider other possibilities and be willing
Speaker 2: to be wrong. And if there's a good reason to
Speaker 2: believe in God or spiritualism or any kind of belief system,
Speaker 2: we should be able to arrive at that conclusion if
Speaker 2: we considered other options. So it's just let's have a conversation.
Speaker 2: How do we know that this is the one answer?
Speaker 2: How do we rule out these other ones? And I'd
Speaker 2: love some people to call in today and answer that.
Speaker 2: For us, it can be about God. We can do
Speaker 2: that same conversation about aliens or extraterrestrials. We can have
Speaker 2: the same conversation about ghosts, about spiritualism, about pantheism, deism,
Speaker 2: any belief system. Bring it to us and I want
Speaker 2: to talk about it. Or even if you have a
Speaker 2: story of something that happened to you that seems like
Speaker 2: it isn't entirely natural, call in. We can talk about
Speaker 2: why that may have happened, why we think that may
Speaker 2: have happened. Because this is a call in show, this
Speaker 2: is talking. Then we're open to all of your questions
Speaker 2: about these topics and about morality, philosophy, science, secular humanism.
Speaker 2: Bring us all the topics that you want to talk
Speaker 2: about and we can discuss that with you. Talk Heathen
Speaker 2: is a product of the Atheist Community of Austin, a
Speaker 2: five oh one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to the
Speaker 2: promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation
Speaker 2: of religion and government. And like I said, this is
Speaker 2: a call in show. We want to hear from you,
Speaker 2: So get your calls in at five to one two
Speaker 2: nine nine one nine two four two, or you can
Speaker 2: go to your browser at tiny dot cc slash call thch.
Speaker 2: We're here live every Sunday at one pm Central on YouTube,
Speaker 2: but you can also find us wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 2: so look for the podcast. Also follow us on Patreon,
Speaker 2: where you can get access to bonus content like early
Speaker 2: releases of episodes and some other other fancy things that
Speaker 2: you get. And also you might have your name right
Speaker 2: out later on in the show when we get to
Speaker 2: that section. But enough of that, we have somebody special
Speaker 2: that we'd like to bring up on on the stage
Speaker 2: right now, and that is our backup post. Eli here
Speaker 2: to deliver us the question of the week.
Speaker 4: Hey, guys, how's it on? So last week we asked
Speaker 4: you guys, no, sorry, that's next news. What prayer will
Speaker 4: God always answer? And here's the top three answers we
Speaker 4: got from last week. So number three, see not what
Speaker 4: prayer does God almost always answer? The one from priests, reverends, pastors,
Speaker 4: et cetera. Oh, Lord, please make sure they don't actually
Speaker 4: read the Bible themselves. Make them accept what I tell
Speaker 4: them the Bible says.
Speaker 5: It's a pretty good one.
Speaker 1: That's great.
Speaker 4: Yep, then you're in trouble if they start reading it.
Speaker 4: Number two X million, God always answers when I pray,
Speaker 4: Dear God, please never bother me.
Speaker 3: That's fantastic. That is fantastic.
Speaker 4: The one hundred success right on that one. And then
Speaker 4: number one also x million, well done. God always answers
Speaker 4: when I pray, Dear God, please imbue your followers with
Speaker 4: an impiously arrogant insufferability as great, pretty high success on
Speaker 4: that one. So yeah, those are a pretty good well
Speaker 4: done everybody.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Okay.
Speaker 4: Next week's question is going to be what gap can
Speaker 4: God always fit into? Jamie question?
Speaker 1: An answer for that one, Yeah, so you can fit
Speaker 1: in the gap on the dial of your shower between
Speaker 1: there and there, which is where the water is comfortable
Speaker 1: between scalding hot and freezing cold. That's where God lives.
Speaker 4: That's a good one, Doctor Ben. Did you have an
Speaker 4: answer as well?
Speaker 2: My answer is very terrible and I'm kind of ashamed
Speaker 2: for this, but the Bible made me say this answer.
Speaker 3: Mary, that's good. It's a good answer. I just have.
Speaker 4: This is this is my answer. It's just my that's
Speaker 4: my God of the gaps right there. Soh yeah, that's
Speaker 4: that's it for me. The question for next week on
Speaker 4: gap can always? Can God always fit in to and
Speaker 4: put your answers in the comments not in live chat
Speaker 4: you won't see it.
Speaker 1: Than we are now approaching immaculate conception station. Mind the gap,
Speaker 1: mind the.
Speaker 3: Games, yes for sure.
Speaker 2: And some other people who uh may be fitting in
Speaker 2: some kind of gap somewhere are the crew.
Speaker 3: Let's see what the crew is doing.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Crewe we have our video and
Speaker 2: audio people as always, moderators, notes and stamps people, and
Speaker 2: the call screeners. Thank you so much for working very
Speaker 2: hard every week for these shows. We would not will
Speaker 2: not be able to do this without you.
Speaker 1: Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants.
Speaker 2: Absolutely giants that can also fit into the gap.
Speaker 1: But get some.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we need a spackle for these gaps.
Speaker 2: We do have a theist caller on the line, Steve.
Speaker 2: He him from Nebras. Sounds like you want to talk
Speaker 2: about photographic evidence of artificial satellites. Tell us a bit
Speaker 2: about your position.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, so yeah, Hi Jamie and doctor Benswigan. I'm
Speaker 6: calling this week to discuss a very recent scientific paper
Speaker 6: titled aligned Multiple Transient Events and the first Palmar Sky Survey.
Speaker 6: And this research is led by astronomer doctor Beatrice Vral
Speaker 6: and the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, and the research
Speaker 6: study has uncovered photographic evidence found in an analysis of
Speaker 6: nearly three hundred thousand photographic plates from the Polymer Sky
Speaker 6: Survey that captured the images of pezens of transient objects
Speaker 6: which will reflective of sunlight high above the Earth's atmosphere
Speaker 6: well before a launch of the earliest satellites from Earth.
Speaker 6: And the appearance of these non human technological artifacts hovering
Speaker 6: in space above for coincides with nuclear testing events and
Speaker 6: also coincides with a UAP math citing event that occurred
Speaker 6: on Unduly twenty seventh, nineteen fifty two, when multiple UFOs
Speaker 6: over Washington.
Speaker 4: D C.
Speaker 6: Were tracked by radiar. So I think we've got.
Speaker 3: Can you share with me the study title again so
Speaker 3: I can look for it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, So yeah, it's a very recent it's a pre
Speaker 6: it's a pre print, so it hasn't been subject to
Speaker 6: pure review yet.
Speaker 2: This is not so this is not a published view.
Speaker 2: So this is not a published study. This is something
Speaker 2: But you said it hasn't been period, It was not
Speaker 2: in a journal somewhere.
Speaker 6: It will be. Yeah, hopefully it does get to that point,
Speaker 6: and it doesn't.
Speaker 3: Get So we're in a position.
Speaker 2: We're in a position where the thing that you are
Speaker 2: citing is not yet evaluated and vetted for accuracy and applicability. Right,
Speaker 2: so we're already the impact the impact of the study
Speaker 2: that that you're using already is not is not yet
Speaker 2: to be deemed credible.
Speaker 6: It will be. It's it's you can't say that though.
Speaker 2: You can't just assert that something will be credible because
Speaker 2: you say it is. Are you are you a peer
Speaker 2: of these scientists? Uh? Like? Are are you an astronomer?
Speaker 2: Are you a cosmologist?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 2: Do you would you? Are you rating yourself as a
Speaker 2: part of that.
Speaker 6: No, I study. I study, But I'm not I'm not
Speaker 6: an expert, you know, Like like she is, she's an expert.
Speaker 6: She's a physicist or an astronomer.
Speaker 3: So what's so, what's the title of this.
Speaker 6: She's a credible scientist, she said, They're a.
Speaker 2: Credible They are credible scientists that say stupid things. There
Speaker 2: are credible scientists that say stupid things and reach outside
Speaker 2: of and field of expertise. So we can't appeal to
Speaker 2: somebody's authority. Like I'm a physician, I'm not a surgeon.
Speaker 2: I like, just because I say something reasonable about preventative
Speaker 2: care does not mean that the same thing I say
Speaker 2: about neurosurgery is true. I could be wrong, and even
Speaker 2: even anything I say about my own field, I could
Speaker 2: still be wrong about it. It does matter where I
Speaker 2: get my information and what information I'm communicating. So, but
Speaker 2: what is the what is the title of this study?
Speaker 6: So it is titled aligned multiple transient Events in the
Speaker 6: first almar Sky Survey. Okay, and it's probably a link
Speaker 6: if you google this on where you can find find
Speaker 6: the preprint of the paper.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm finding.
Speaker 6: The scientific community doesn't block this out and I hope
Speaker 6: it does get period, you know, a hostile to scientific
Speaker 6: community when when they're all saved by Steve government.
Speaker 2: Steve, based on based on our conversations previously, I have
Speaker 2: very good reason to doubt your intuition about whether something
Speaker 2: is valid science or not, because, if I remember correctly,
Speaker 2: last time, you were claiming that a paper said something
Speaker 2: that was not set at all by the papers. So
Speaker 2: I'm a little bit skeptical going into this. But we
Speaker 2: can evaluate this kind of together. Is there a place
Speaker 2: that you've been able to find, like the entire out
Speaker 2: here there is a Oh no, I can't access it.
Speaker 2: It is behind to pay Well, I can see the abstract, it's.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's new. Yeah, the abstract that's exactly what I
Speaker 6: saw too. You're probably seeing the same thing. Yeah, I
Speaker 6: can see that.
Speaker 3: But other thing, Steve, Steve, you can't.
Speaker 2: You can't just go buy an abstract and abstract is
Speaker 2: not a paper, it's not You can't tell anything about
Speaker 2: their design just by the abstracts, like it gives you
Speaker 2: such minimal information.
Speaker 6: Right, But there's some more information online on YouTube, your
Speaker 6: YouTubers and YouTube.
Speaker 2: YouTube is not a credible source, Steve, Steve can I, Steve,
Speaker 2: can I go to YouTube and find incorrect information?
Speaker 6: Well, yeah, but but it doesn't mean it's wrong to
Speaker 6: you know, just because it's on YouTube.
Speaker 3: It also doesn't mean that it's right. It doesn't mean
Speaker 3: that it's right, Steve.
Speaker 2: So we can't say that because something is on YouTube
Speaker 2: that it's correct. So how do we evaluate information to
Speaker 2: see if it's correct? Like I think you're giving us
Speaker 2: these papers, But I think the big underlying issue here
Speaker 2: with the calls that we have with you is that
Speaker 2: I'm not convinced that you know how to vet your sources.
Speaker 2: So I want to explore a bit how do we
Speaker 2: determine what is true information? And I want to let
Speaker 2: Jamie jump in in here too, but maybe let's let's
Speaker 2: approach that before we kind of get into the UFO stuff.
Speaker 6: Well, they have the photographs. You can see those photographs online.
Speaker 6: They have all these plates, these transient images on them
Speaker 6: that's online.
Speaker 1: Okay, by that we have a collection of photographs that
Speaker 1: and again we have to start assuming things that they've
Speaker 1: been vetted and verified to be authentic and not timmeled
Speaker 1: with and things like that. And He's one of the
Speaker 1: issues that I have with the conversations that we have, Steve,
Speaker 1: is that you come to us with a paper, a
Speaker 1: paper that we didn't know existed until you tell us
Speaker 1: the title of We know nothing of content of it,
Speaker 1: and we have to take your word for what's in
Speaker 1: it and the interpretation thereof we are a calling show.
Speaker 1: We can't just stop it for fifteen minutes to skim
Speaker 1: the paper that you are presenting us at so, as
Speaker 1: Ben alluded to, we have no way of verifying how
Speaker 1: well you're interpreting the paper, If the paper itself is
Speaker 1: even credible that kind of thing, it's going to be
Speaker 1: very difficult for us to make comment on it because
Speaker 1: we don't know its content, or its context, or its veracity.
Speaker 1: And so what I'm wondering, and not to derail the
Speaker 1: conversation slightly, is that what do you hope to get
Speaker 1: out of these courts? Why are you calling us with
Speaker 1: a paper we haven't read and didn't know existed. What
Speaker 1: are you hoping that we say or do?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 6: I am caring to present the evidence of extra terrestrial
Speaker 6: intelligence and volved with humanity.
Speaker 1: But that's not what you're doing. You're calling to your
Speaker 1: interpretation of some possible evidence that we have no reference
Speaker 1: for right now, so we're literally taking your word for
Speaker 1: it and the actual citation is trust me wrong.
Speaker 6: Well for now, but it won't be long before this
Speaker 6: gets pure reviewed. So maybe I'm jumping the gun and
Speaker 6: I don't want it. Maybe I should be jumping the gun,
Speaker 6: and maybe we have to wait and for further you know,
Speaker 6: they probably need to get more photographic evidence from other telloscope.
Speaker 2: Well, but you're also jumping the gun because I did
Speaker 2: find the full paper. I did find the full paper,
Speaker 2: and here's here's again a disconnect for what you are
Speaker 2: expecting the study to prove and even what the study
Speaker 2: is expecting to prove that it's disconnected from what the
Speaker 2: evidence actually is.
Speaker 3: So we have these.
Speaker 2: Pictures that show transient events that we don't know what
Speaker 2: they are. This is it's just people who can't see
Speaker 2: this image like it's a picture with a bunch of
Speaker 2: like random dots on it, and it does look like
Speaker 2: they're I'm not a physicist, but essentially it's the photographic
Speaker 2: evidence is this picture of a bunch of dots on
Speaker 2: a on a white page. So the issue I have
Speaker 2: and they're asserting that there's they're asserting, they're asserting that
Speaker 2: that these are UFO and that they they even mentioned
Speaker 2: in their discussion like that they are artificial objects. I
Speaker 2: maybe need some more, maybe someone to explain to me
Speaker 2: what all the physics is that they're doing here, what
Speaker 2: exactly they're measuring and not like I need to analyze,
Speaker 2: like I need to read through this paper because it's
Speaker 2: fairly dense. But what I'm gathering is there's there there's
Speaker 2: pictures of a bunch of dots that we were able
Speaker 2: to obtain.
Speaker 3: We don't know what these are.
Speaker 2: They were there before like Earth had released satellites, So
Speaker 2: it's not that, but could it be something else?
Speaker 3: Like it's it's just up.
Speaker 2: In the air of what this thing is and you're
Speaker 2: jumping from we don't know what this is to extra terrestrials,
Speaker 2: like we know.
Speaker 6: They're satellites before satellites were launched from Earth. What else
Speaker 6: could it be?
Speaker 2: How do we know that their satellites? What part of
Speaker 2: the paper says that their satellites.
Speaker 6: They reflect, they're reflective of sunlight. They resemble exactly they appeared.
Speaker 2: Everything that reflects sunlight is everything that reflects sunlight. A satellite,
Speaker 2: the water is satellite is a mirror.
Speaker 6: Satellite geosynchronous orbit. Yes, synchrono in geosynchronous orbit around Earth.
Speaker 6: Reflective of reflecting sunlight.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: How do you know that celestial bodies are often made
Speaker 1: of things? They're reflective, Comets are made of ice.
Speaker 6: These these are these are these images are not streaking,
Speaker 6: They're not comets or not. If they were on a
Speaker 6: photographic plate and they were they were moving like an
Speaker 6: astrog you would see a streak on the on the plate.
Speaker 6: These heard pinpoint light images. He heard exactly how satellites.
Speaker 1: My point is that reflective materials that may seem to
Speaker 1: look like the reflective surfaces. I'm assuming you're you're assuming
Speaker 1: things like solar panels or metallic structures, ice crystals can
Speaker 1: look like that. There's metallic elements out there in the universe.
Speaker 1: It is not impossible for a completely naturally occurring chunk
Speaker 1: of something to have settled into an orbit around Earth
Speaker 1: that is just shining.
Speaker 6: In stationary orbit, not not moving in a different speed
Speaker 6: than then the Earth is rotating. That doesn't happen naturally.
Speaker 1: How do you that's a declarative statement. You would have
Speaker 1: to back up with some kind of evidence that it's
Speaker 1: not possible for something to settle into a geostationary orbit.
Speaker 6: These images are the objects, these transit transient objects appear
Speaker 6: exactly how satellites would appear today on these Uh. But
Speaker 6: this happened before. This happened before spucknet. These images were
Speaker 6: taken before for you.
Speaker 2: Here's here's the same problem we keep running into. Is
Speaker 2: that we have an unknown variable. And what you could do,
Speaker 2: what you could do in this moment is say, hey,
Speaker 2: this paper is showing some unknown thing that has these
Speaker 2: particular properties that seems unnatural to me. And instead of
Speaker 2: staying there and saying I don't know what this is,
Speaker 2: you're jumping a huge leap to say these are extraterrestrial
Speaker 2: things like these are are like unnatural extraterrestrial made satellites,
Speaker 2: And I don't think we can get there. Like why
Speaker 2: are you so against like waiting for things to be demonstrated,
Speaker 2: Like why are you so hesitant to say I don't
Speaker 2: know what this is, but we can keep investigating. Well,
Speaker 2: I'm not thinking you want your answers. It seems like
Speaker 2: you want all of your answers right now, and we can't.
Speaker 2: We can't always have that, and there are answers were
Speaker 2: not going to have.
Speaker 6: Well, I think it's not. It's just a matter of time.
Speaker 6: I think it's going to be very soon this work
Speaker 6: will be verified.
Speaker 2: So but so the answer hasn't come yet though, right,
Speaker 2: And so instead of saying this is what the answer
Speaker 2: is going to be, why not stay in the moment
Speaker 2: and say, you know, this could be an answer.
Speaker 3: But it might not be.
Speaker 6: Well, find that. I'm not saying it's aliens, but you know,
Speaker 6: it does look like it.
Speaker 1: Steve, this might be a slightly odd question, maybe slightly
Speaker 1: out of left field. Do you want aliens to be real?
Speaker 6: Do I want? Yeah, I'm rooting for them.
Speaker 1: Okay. So this is something that I encounter quite often
Speaker 1: in my day job. I work for a cancer charity.
Speaker 1: Many people call in having seen something in the paper
Speaker 1: or having seen some new miracle treatment that's been studied
Speaker 1: in a study and it's got it and it's been
Speaker 1: published in some paper or whatever, and they want it
Speaker 1: to be true so badly because it's life and death.
Speaker 1: So they are presupposing the outcome and just hoping that
Speaker 1: the evidence will fit. And I'm feeling a similar vibe
Speaker 1: from you that you're presupposing what it is and trying
Speaker 1: to find evidence to fit it. Because that's how you
Speaker 1: want the world to be. No scientist wants an outcome,
Speaker 1: No true scientist wants something to be true. They are
Speaker 1: compelled to follow the evidence and whatever it points them to,
Speaker 1: and to stop when the evidence runs out. No one
Speaker 1: wanted gravity to be real. No one wanted evolution to
Speaker 1: be real. No one wanted atoms to be the component
Speaker 1: part of the universe. They just are. So I would
Speaker 1: strongly advise you to remove that really quite glaring bias
Speaker 1: from your reasoning when it comes to your interpretation of
Speaker 1: these papers. Because even if and let me give you
Speaker 1: all the toy, let's say that we don't have a
Speaker 1: reasonable explanation for these phenomena, and that it is an
Speaker 1: interesting phenomena that should be studied further. If the paper
Speaker 1: itself has not yet mentioned anything to do with extraterrestrials,
Speaker 1: and you're plugging that in, you're already jumping the gun,
Speaker 1: and you're exemplifying this thing that I am frustrated with
Speaker 1: with people calling in, I have a presupposed reason for
Speaker 1: this happening, and I'm going to shove it in to
Speaker 1: that gap until at such time as it's either completely
Speaker 1: indefensible or proven true. And I think that is not
Speaker 1: a particularly great way to go about thinking. So so
Speaker 1: what do you say to that.
Speaker 6: Well, I realize I have some maybe I have a
Speaker 6: little bit of confirmation biased there, I'll have that. I
Speaker 6: don't think that means I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. But you have to again,
Speaker 1: I'm asking you for a little bit of empathy here.
Speaker 1: Look at it from our position. We are skeptics, and
Speaker 1: we're pretty hardcore skeptics as well. Both Ben and myself
Speaker 1: are trained in some sciences, medical science, on computer scientists,
Speaker 1: that's not really science, but anyway, but we pride ourselves
Speaker 1: on skepticism. We pride ourselves on going where the evidence
Speaker 1: takes us and making as few assumptions as possible. And
Speaker 1: the thing is, when you come to us with an
Speaker 1: obvious assumption as part of your argument, you must understand
Speaker 1: that it's going to harm your credibility with us and
Speaker 1: many of the people who are intellectually aligned with us. So,
Speaker 1: if you want to make your argument compelling to someone
Speaker 1: you on their level, think what is going to convince
Speaker 1: not what convinces me, what convinces you, What's going to
Speaker 1: convince them? Because every time you've called, and I've spoken
Speaker 1: to you a couple of two or three times now, Steve,
Speaker 1: I don't find any of your arguments compelling because you're
Speaker 1: falling into these intellectual traps, these fallacies, and it's killing
Speaker 1: your credibility. So if you want to be a credible
Speaker 1: person who's credibly arguing, then stick to the facts. Keep
Speaker 1: your biases out if you can. It takes introspection. It's
Speaker 1: not easy. I understand that I've made lots of claims
Speaker 1: as a younger, dumber man that turned out to be
Speaker 1: false because I was so certain of what the truth was.
Speaker 1: So do you think you can do that? Maybe you're
Speaker 1: a little bit more introspective there, Steve, Well.
Speaker 6: I think yeah. I mean I just think this is
Speaker 6: interesting and it's I mean, it's something that work that
Speaker 6: you know certainly that warrants further study.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, couldn't agree with you more, but that's it. It
Speaker 1: warrants further study, and it warrants to be taken at
Speaker 1: its own value, inserting no extras.
Speaker 4: Yea.
Speaker 6: In this state, I mean, people just tend to just
Speaker 6: miss this, you know, the aliens, without without being you know,
Speaker 6: without serious study. This warrants because there is there is,
Speaker 6: there is evidence, it's out there. The truth is out there.
Speaker 2: I don't think they're missing it. I don't think they're
Speaker 2: missing it, Steve. What the difference is, we're withholding our
Speaker 2: belief until the evidence comes out. That's what we're doing.
Speaker 2: So we're not saying that we won't ever believe in aliens.
Speaker 2: It's just I don't have any reason yet to accept it.
Speaker 2: But what we've noticed you're doing is you're accepting it
Speaker 2: before the evidence comes out. And that's where our disconnect is.
Speaker 6: Okay, we'll always serve my judgment until she gets peer
Speaker 6: reviewed and that maybe there's some other explanation, but it
Speaker 6: just it seems to me it's pretty compelling evidence.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm assuming you have studied a lot of
Speaker 1: issue you're very interested in, you are, I'm asuming you're
Speaker 1: aware of the Drake equation and the Fermi paradox.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, I mean, you know, the great equation on
Speaker 6: what the probability years were technologically.
Speaker 1: Alien life out there somewhere, and then the Fermi paradox
Speaker 1: of why haven't we seen them yet?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 6: Because I think they're there in plain say, and we
Speaker 6: just don't want to see it.
Speaker 1: I think you are very much denigrating the entire scientific
Speaker 1: field because many discoveries that people would prefer to have
Speaker 1: not have discovered, truths about this universe that are not great,
Speaker 1: have come from scientific inquiry, and the concept that scientists
Speaker 1: would on the whole suppress something that's true. I mean, yes,
Speaker 1: we have examples of government sometimes getting involved, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't last forever. And we've been doing SETI for nearly
Speaker 1: one hundred years now. We've been looking to the stars,
Speaker 1: to the sky to see if there's anything else out
Speaker 1: there for as long as we have been able to,
Speaker 1: and we've been doing it really in earnest since the
Speaker 1: seventies and still and that data is publicly available, and
Speaker 1: there's little anomalies, and there's the wow noise and all
Speaker 1: this kind of stuff and things that you've told talked
Speaker 1: to us about before. But all you've ever given us
Speaker 1: is like individual papers and fringe things that are from
Speaker 1: people who aren't particularly well credentialed. It isn't particularly compelling,
Speaker 1: and the and the thought and when we challenge you, like, well,
Speaker 1: why hasn't the consensus of all of the other astronomer
Speaker 1: astronomers and all of the other physicists and all of
Speaker 1: the other researchers in this field come to this conclusion,
Speaker 1: you start going, oh, well, they'll just cover it up
Speaker 1: they don't want to see And I'm like, oh no,
Speaker 1: not conspiracy theory again, because again, a conspiracy of that
Speaker 1: magnitude to obscure what you're saying is obvious evidence of
Speaker 1: extraterrestrial life that we are seeing with plainly, it will
Speaker 1: take orders of magnitude more organization and resources to keep
Speaker 1: that stub than basically anything else. And if you're thinking, well,
Speaker 1: there's been plenty of conspiracies that have come out though
Speaker 1: were really big, it's like, yes, they've come out, we
Speaker 1: know about them because you can't keep these things secret forever.
Speaker 1: So again you kind of torpedo an incredibility.
Speaker 6: I think we need congressional investigation on this. I know
Speaker 6: we've had some progressional investigations about laps and extraterrestrial intelligence,
Speaker 6: but we need to look into this some more. These
Speaker 6: images too. Interestingly enough, little side know these plate images
Speaker 6: were taken back in the early fifties. Well they were
Speaker 6: the Harvard or the guy that ran this that was
Speaker 6: in charge of these plates had them destroyed later on.
Speaker 6: So the plates like from nineteen fifty seven into the
Speaker 6: nineteen sixties were destroyed. Why that happened, boom, I wonder.
Speaker 1: Why because the storage resources that required often outweigh their
Speaker 1: apparent use at the time. There were just plates that
Speaker 1: were studied and discarded. I mean, the BBC deleted entire
Speaker 1: series of Classic Doctor Who because they couldn't be bothered
Speaker 1: to store them. And that's a pretty trivial thing. No
Speaker 1: just basic snap their fingers. An entire series of a
Speaker 1: beloved t what was to become a beloved TV show
Speaker 1: went into the ether just because they didn't want to
Speaker 1: store the tapes. And also storage media of the time
Speaker 1: was notoriously fragile. You know, everyone thinks that data is
Speaker 1: an immutable thing now because we live in the data age,
Speaker 1: But even now we have things like bit rotten and
Speaker 1: stuff like that. Like how credible were those plates? How
Speaker 1: well preserved were they're what equipment did they use to
Speaker 1: take the photos? I mean, camera technology has come a
Speaker 1: long way since then. I mean, maybe we should redo
Speaker 1: the sky search with modern technology. That's possible, you know,
Speaker 1: if we get the funding. I'm all for science funding, yes, please, please,
Speaker 1: please please, And I agree that these things should be investigated,
Speaker 1: but assumptions should be left out of the equation. And
Speaker 1: that's again where you seem to come in, like it's aliens.
Speaker 1: It's got to be aliens and what it might be,
Speaker 1: but it might well not be.
Speaker 6: Okay, well, my people will just have to wait and see.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's still what some more needs to be done.
Speaker 1: Any less tools they've been now.
Speaker 2: I think I think we're on the same page as
Speaker 2: far as like we need to see more information, and
Speaker 2: I think, like, I do really appreciate you bringing the papers.
Speaker 2: I appreciate you bringing what you believe is evidence, and
Speaker 2: I want more callers to do that as well. The
Speaker 2: thing is, though, I kind of want to take these
Speaker 2: papers and instead of just synthesizing the information into what
Speaker 2: we believe, they say, like, maybe we can break them
Speaker 2: down into what like what does the paper like, what
Speaker 2: is the hypothesis of this paper, what are the methods,
Speaker 2: what is the data they actually collected? How how did
Speaker 2: they collect this data, how did they analyze the data?
Speaker 2: What are the stats that they use to determine the
Speaker 2: significance of this data? And then what are they actually
Speaker 2: saying the significance of this paper is? And that'll help
Speaker 2: help us kind of avoid inserting claims into the paper
Speaker 2: that maybe weren't there and just evaluating it for what
Speaker 2: it is. So I encourage you, like keep calling in,
Speaker 2: keep bringing this stuff. I just think we're getting a
Speaker 2: little bit disorganized in how we're like relating things together.
Speaker 1: Forgive us our incredulity, we do have quite life standards
Speaker 1: of evidence because we're just decades long.
Speaker 6: Yeah, thanks, thanks for how far doctor beach. Uh this
Speaker 6: astronomer gets with trying to get plates from other telescopes
Speaker 6: of that air other other plates and what kind of
Speaker 6: roadblocks that show run into on that, so that that
Speaker 6: will tell us a lot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, well we'll see and if more information comes out,
Speaker 2: definitely call back in and we'll we'll revisit. But I
Speaker 2: hope you have a great rest here Sunday, Steve.
Speaker 1: Thanks, ma'am.
Speaker 6: Yeah you usual world. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean right. I think one of the reasons
Speaker 1: I find Steve so frustrating is the he's obviously kind
Speaker 1: of like he's got like he's got the spirit he
Speaker 1: wants he wants to know a truth, what's true, but
Speaker 1: that it is that presupposition of wanting a particular truth
Speaker 1: to be true and anyway.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure, but some exciting things to talk about,
Speaker 2: which I'm I'm super pumped for this upcoming week because
Speaker 2: it is the Back Cruise twenty twenty five. Is this
Speaker 2: upcoming weekend August sixteenth at seven pm. Sounds like there
Speaker 2: are still tickets available, so get them as soon as
Speaker 2: you can, because I think they're going to sell out
Speaker 2: if they aren't already. People like Caitlin, Jonathan R and
Speaker 2: Kelly K already got their tickets and so I'm looking
Speaker 2: forward to meeting them on the Back Cruise. But you
Speaker 2: should totally, I'm totally not peer pressuring you into coming,
Speaker 2: but it's a it's a fun time and I think
Speaker 2: you'll have a great time if you get your tickets
Speaker 2: and come join us. But if you're also, if you're
Speaker 2: if you want somebody else to enjoy the Back Crewise,
Speaker 2: but you know that you can't make it yourself, you
Speaker 2: can also give a donation in the live chat to
Speaker 2: help purchase a ticket for one of the hosts or
Speaker 2: one of the crew members so that they're able to
Speaker 2: go for those who maybe wouldn't have been able to
Speaker 2: go otherwise. So go to tiny dot cc slash back
Speaker 2: crewise to get your tickets and we'll see you this
Speaker 2: next Saturday. I'm so pumped, and don't forget as well
Speaker 2: for a back cruise weekend. It's not just the back cruise, right,
Speaker 2: there's also the Sunday. Let's say you can't you're in Austin,
Speaker 2: the Austin area and you can't afford to go to
Speaker 2: the back cruise. That's okay because on Sunday we're doing
Speaker 2: live shows from the library, So show up, come say hi.
Speaker 2: We'll be doing Talk to Ethan and XP with multiple
Speaker 2: different hosts playing musical chairs, and it's going to be
Speaker 2: a great time. So I want to want to see
Speaker 2: all of you there if you're able to get in.
Speaker 1: Yep, ye all the there's a lot of the hosts
Speaker 1: coming into town. It's going to be great. It's always
Speaker 1: a good fun party. It actually all starts off on
Speaker 1: the Saturday and the game all the way through to
Speaker 1: the Sunday's a weekend long party. And even if hosts
Speaker 1: aren't going to be on those Sunday shows, they'll be
Speaker 1: in the building, like we'll all be here. So it's
Speaker 1: a unique opportunity. We often get a rush on tickets
Speaker 1: in the final week, So yeah, do get yours in quick.
Speaker 1: I'm bringing you a couple of friends with me who
Speaker 1: are awesome, and yeah, I can't wait to Pesta forest
Speaker 1: Alqai in person and make him squirm and you know,
Speaker 1: play with j Mike's beard and that kind of thing,
Speaker 1: usual shenanigans.
Speaker 3: It's going to be super super fun.
Speaker 2: Also, just as usual, you can send in your super
Speaker 2: chats during the show and we will read them at
Speaker 2: the end. As many as we can read during the show,
Speaker 2: we will read them. You can also become a channel
Speaker 2: member click the joint button below the video and you'll
Speaker 2: get custom chat emotes, early access to clips and shorts,
Speaker 2: and you will help perpetuate the mission TALKI Than and
Speaker 2: the atheist community of Austin. And if you're looking for
Speaker 2: a non monetary way to support the channel and the ACA,
Speaker 2: you can like the video. That goes a long way.
Speaker 2: People don't understand how much that like button does for
Speaker 2: increasing views and getting the message out there to others.
Speaker 2: So click that like button, subscribe to the channel, enable
Speaker 2: notifications and comment in the live chat and below after
Speaker 2: the video, and all of that goes a long way.
Speaker 2: And we appreciate all of your comments and your likes
Speaker 2: on these videos.
Speaker 1: I love the fact that the EMO that they made
Speaker 1: for me as a host. Emos mean that, don'tlin As.
Speaker 3: It's hilarious. I love it.
Speaker 1: It's great.
Speaker 2: So we have a Yeah, we have another caller, and
Speaker 2: this one actually is a great one, I think for
Speaker 2: both of us. This is atheist Lisa. She Her from
Speaker 2: Canada wants to talk about what atheists slash the science
Speaker 2: the community can do about religious beliefs interfering with medical care. Lisa,
Speaker 2: you are alive on Talk Heathen. What is your discussion
Speaker 2: topic today?
Speaker 5: Hi?
Speaker 7: So I'm a little nervous problem, so I can of
Speaker 7: just give like an example of what I mean by that.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, Okay.
Speaker 7: I volunteer with a mental health organization in my city
Speaker 7: and we deal with people, you know, from all different
Speaker 7: kinds of mental health disorders. And what I mean is,
Speaker 7: how do we, like, let how do we stop religion
Speaker 7: from interfering with people getting proper health care. There was
Speaker 7: someone there was someone who we were trying to help
Speaker 7: in the past and they were living in a group home.
Speaker 7: They needed some help taking care of themselves. They had schizophrenia,
Speaker 7: and all was going well until the people who are
Speaker 7: running that facility, thought that they should do an exorcism
Speaker 7: on him, and you know, things like that not only
Speaker 7: do not only are they bullshit, but it causes I
Speaker 7: think a lot of emotional damage to people. You know,
Speaker 7: some people don't want, don't won't take their kids to
Speaker 7: the doctor, you know, thoughts and prayers kind of thing,
Speaker 7: you know. Or maybe we're just being tested and our
Speaker 7: faith needs to get better and they'll get better. But
Speaker 7: I think sometimes that religion interferes in more areas than
Speaker 7: we think it does, and it's the religious people who
Speaker 7: suffer as a result of that. I'm not saying that
Speaker 7: all religious people are not I'm not saying that all
Speaker 7: religious people have medical neglect. Obviously that's not true. But
Speaker 7: I do think that religion can interfere with our physical
Speaker 7: and mental wellness. And how do we as atheists try
Speaker 7: to try to put a stop to that from interfering
Speaker 7: into some one getting medical services.
Speaker 1: It is a conundrum, and I don't just take it
Speaker 1: from an atheist standpoint. It can become a broader topic
Speaker 1: of people who do not properly engage with medical services
Speaker 1: due to misinformation. Of course, religion and religious doctrine is
Speaker 1: very powerful but you've also got things like the anti
Speaker 1: vaxx movement stuff like that. There's two things. One if
Speaker 1: it's the caretakers of people who are not engaging with
Speaker 1: the medical field, that are on behalf of the person
Speaker 1: they're caring for, especially parents. We do have laws and
Speaker 1: things around that, but one of the most sacrisanct things,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, is bodily autonomy. And unfortunate as it is,
Speaker 1: we cannot force someone to undertake a medical or mental
Speaker 1: health intervention without their permission unless we can declare them
Speaker 1: unable to make those decisions themselves. And that's very important
Speaker 1: to me that patient autonomy and dignity is preserved. And
Speaker 1: yet we have religious denominations that in their very doctrine
Speaker 1: prohibit things like blood transfusions for Jehovah's witnesses, that kind
Speaker 1: of thing, And there isn't really a very easy way
Speaker 1: to do it on a broad scale. We can't ban
Speaker 1: these religions. I wouldn't want to ban them. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: want to make it illegal to refuse doctor's orders or
Speaker 1: to have people compelled to undertake a medical procedure that
Speaker 1: they don't want to do for whatever reason. Now I
Speaker 1: am only secondhand in this I work parallel to the
Speaker 1: healthcare system in my role in a cancer charity, but
Speaker 1: these issues pop up now. I've also seen the flip side,
Speaker 1: where people are in bold and to keep going and
Speaker 1: to engage with the medical things when things like really
Speaker 1: horrific side effects keep people feeling sick and chemotherapy is
Speaker 1: briillt off on some people. But their faith is one
Speaker 1: of the things that keeps them strong enough to keep going.
Speaker 1: So I'm not saying that religion as a whole is
Speaker 1: entirely detrimental to people's ability to seek the best medical outcomes.
Speaker 1: But I haven't done a medical ethics class. I think
Speaker 1: you talked about might have a bit more insight on that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, like I said, maybe I was referring more to, like,
Speaker 7: you know, stopping kind of these I don't want to.
Speaker 7: I'm trying to figure out how to say it without
Speaker 7: stopping kind of like religious Like if someone's a caretaker,
Speaker 7: like you said, and they're religious, like there has to
Speaker 7: be I just think that it.
Speaker 2: May I ask a quick question for the example you
Speaker 2: gave about the exorcism, was that a group home that
Speaker 2: was explicitly like labeled as a religious institution or was
Speaker 2: this like like a group home that services the public
Speaker 2: and serves as you know, not a specifically religious entity.
Speaker 7: I'm not sure if it was religion based.
Speaker 2: I don't think it was, because if it wasn't, if
Speaker 2: it wasn't a religious institution, like if the patient wasn't
Speaker 2: consenting to be placed in a religious group home, that's.
Speaker 3: A big legal problem.
Speaker 2: Because even if you are a minor, or if you're
Speaker 2: an adult, or if you have whatever condition, it doesn't matter,
Speaker 2: Like you should have the ability to consent to what
Speaker 2: religious procedures are done for you in the same way
Speaker 2: as medical procedures, like if this is a group home
Speaker 2: meant to help take care of you and keep you safe,
Speaker 2: make sure you're getting your medical treatments, et cetera, and
Speaker 2: you are not explicitly and apparently a religious place. They
Speaker 2: should not be forcing an exorcism on anybody. They should
Speaker 2: not be doing that at a at a public institution.
Speaker 2: So that's that's one facet of this.
Speaker 7: Like I just think that personally, just my opinion, I
Speaker 7: don't think that religious organizations should have like their own
Speaker 7: hospitals and be selected based on that religion's morality.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I agree, or to disclude.
Speaker 7: Certain right, Like, there was a case in my province
Speaker 7: a few hours north of here, and there was this
Speaker 7: they had. One of the things that we're kind of
Speaker 7: struggling within the West in Canada is they're creating more,
Speaker 7: you know, hospitals that are kind of like run by
Speaker 7: religious groups. And you know, and I don't care what
Speaker 7: anyone's opinion is on abortion. My opinion is that it's
Speaker 7: part of healthcare. I don't know the reason, it's none
Speaker 7: of my business, but you know, to to not offer
Speaker 7: you know, I live in a province that there's only
Speaker 7: two cities. Everywhere else is a rural place, so there
Speaker 7: aren't a lot of options. But to deny someone like,
Speaker 7: you know, they could possibly be a life saving procedure.
Speaker 7: But you know if they say, like they're miscarrying or something,
Speaker 7: but the nearest hospital is Catholic run and they refuse
Speaker 7: to do that procedure.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 7: I just don't think that medical groups should really be
Speaker 7: involved in medical care. I think it's wrong. And I
Speaker 7: also think that and this is just my opinion, right.
Speaker 7: You know, when people are suffering, when people are desperate,
Speaker 7: sometimes they do turn to religion. And that's not like
Speaker 7: to criticize them. You know, we've all been there where
Speaker 7: we want something to grab them to because we're afraid.
Speaker 7: And I think that along with and I'm not saying
Speaker 7: all religious organizations you don't do that or manipulate them
Speaker 7: or whatever, but there is an influence with ulterior motives
Speaker 7: in some places that I've seen. And I also think
Speaker 7: that as a result of that, there's a lot of
Speaker 7: emotional abuse that goes on. When I was when I
Speaker 7: was thirteen, I grew up in a very Catholic household,
Speaker 7: and when I was thirteen, I was diagnosed with epilepsy.
Speaker 7: I just started having seizures and I didn't grow out
Speaker 7: of it. Some people grow out of it, some people don't.
Speaker 7: And I didn't grow out of it. And you know
Speaker 7: what my Catholic mom told me was, you know, this
Speaker 7: is a test from God. And I thought to myself,
Speaker 7: a chronic illness is a test from God. What could
Speaker 7: I have as a thirteen year old, What could I
Speaker 7: have done to have some sort of you know, need
Speaker 7: to be tested this way for the rest of my
Speaker 7: life or you know, some people will say you're sick
Speaker 7: because you're sick, because it's a punishment you did something wrong. Well,
Speaker 7: I don't. I don't know. I just think that it
Speaker 7: doesn't just cause physical harm, it doesn't just cause harm
Speaker 7: in the medical system. But I also think it's emotionally abusive.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 7: Like, and when I was twenty two, I went to
Speaker 7: I was traveling, and I don't know if you've heard
Speaker 7: of this before, but there's this place in France called
Speaker 7: Lords and they have like apparently there was this miracle
Speaker 7: where the Virgin Mary came down and by the Lord's
Speaker 7: fountain and healed people. And so I went there, not
Speaker 7: because I believe in God, is I wanted to get
Speaker 7: some water from there. As a president for my Catholic mother.
Speaker 7: I just thought I just thought it would have meaning
Speaker 7: to her. And yeah, I see people, you know, they're
Speaker 7: from all over the world bringing human you know, humongous
Speaker 7: jugs to I almost said it out loud.
Speaker 5: I didn't.
Speaker 7: I'm glad I didn't, but I almost said it, Like,
Speaker 7: you know, it's just water, right, and like, can you
Speaker 7: imagine like funding someone from South America with religious donations
Speaker 7: to fly all the way to France just to get water,
Speaker 7: and then these people are going to be disappointed because well,
Speaker 7: obviously they are not cured.
Speaker 2: And money, and that money and the money could have
Speaker 2: been used to give them evidence based treatment, like it
Speaker 2: might not cover all of the treatment, but it could
Speaker 2: at least give them a head start in getting a
Speaker 2: specialist evaluation or something that's more tangible and more likely
Speaker 2: to succeed. And yeah, I'm I'm with you on how
Speaker 2: frustrating this whole thing is. I've worked with a fair
Speaker 2: number of religious physicians I've worked at I did rotations
Speaker 2: during med school at Catholic facilities, and it is very
Speaker 2: frustrating when you have this disconnect between, you know, religion
Speaker 2: and evidence based medicine. And I wholeheartedly agree that I
Speaker 2: don't think that churches should be able to have like
Speaker 2: basically a monopoly like they do on community health. They
Speaker 2: have it on like rural health, and a lot of
Speaker 2: the more service based medical charities are run through religious institutions.
Speaker 2: And I think kind of the one of the big
Speaker 2: ways that we can fight this is by establishing more
Speaker 2: secular organizations that can do the same thing without requiring
Speaker 2: people to adopt a certain belief system, that won't require
Speaker 2: people to sit through a sermon in order to get
Speaker 2: their medical care. We can have more people with initiatives
Speaker 2: setting up evidence based groups in secular groups to go
Speaker 2: out to these communities who may have only had missionary
Speaker 2: groups show up. I mean, if you have a missionary
Speaker 2: group of doctors show up and you get treatment that
Speaker 2: you need, of course you're more likely to lean on
Speaker 2: a religious belief after that because that's the only group
Speaker 2: of people that gave you help. So if we start
Speaker 2: kind of getting on board and establishing services like that,
Speaker 2: I think that would help. As far as the autonomy issue,
Speaker 2: I'm one hundred percent with Jamie and the fact that
Speaker 2: we can't force people to not make or make decisions
Speaker 2: based on their own religious perspective. There there's kind of
Speaker 2: some nuance with how you play out these conversations, and
Speaker 2: I think a lot of this is related to education
Speaker 2: and how we present the information. Of course, there's always
Speaker 2: going to be people, for example, Jehovah's witnesses who won't
Speaker 2: accept a blood transfusion. There's informed consent that you have
Speaker 2: to have with obtaining a medical procedure, but there's also
Speaker 2: a degree of informed consent with declining a procedure, and
Speaker 2: there's a very detailed discussion that you should be having
Speaker 2: with patients either way. Like I can give a recommendation,
Speaker 2: and if somebody is declining the recommendation, I should be
Speaker 2: having a good conversation with them, making sure that they
Speaker 2: actually do understand the risks of not accepting this particular
Speaker 2: piece of care. Ultimately, they do get the decision. They
Speaker 2: get to make the decision of whether or not they
Speaker 2: will accept or decline. But we should still try to
Speaker 2: answer the questions, make sure that they're not declining because
Speaker 2: of misinformation, and if there is misinformation, we can address
Speaker 2: it there and then, because sometimes it is on me.
Speaker 2: Sometimes that lapse in communication is because I phrase something inappropriately,
Speaker 2: or if I thought that the person knew something that
Speaker 2: they didn't know. A lot of that does fall on
Speaker 2: the way I'm presenting info, and I will admit there
Speaker 2: are times when it is useful to rely on a
Speaker 2: bit more religious wording for things, knowing that this particular
Speaker 2: issue isn't going to be what deconverts them. But the
Speaker 2: important thing is in the here and now for that person,
Speaker 2: maybe saving their life so that later on they can
Speaker 2: evaluate their belief system. But you can kind of almost
Speaker 2: take like a little bit of a straight epistemology stance
Speaker 2: with this and just kind of ask ask the questions
Speaker 2: that maybe they didn't think of before. For example, if
Speaker 2: they think that an exorcism is going to cure them,
Speaker 2: but then they also might have a belief that doctors
Speaker 2: are put there by God and have been blessed by
Speaker 2: God in order to do their job. Where's that disconnect
Speaker 2: at that point? Why are you if you believe that
Speaker 2: these experts exist because of your faith and because of
Speaker 2: your God, why is that seen Why are these people
Speaker 2: seen as like the secondary option, or why are they
Speaker 2: seen as less credible? Why are you not trusting them
Speaker 2: in the way that you are trusting the exorcism. There's
Speaker 2: some inconsistencies that you may here with religious people in that.
Speaker 3: I don't know if any of that helped.
Speaker 7: I am and I just I just you know. In concluding,
Speaker 7: I just wanted to say, like, I don't care what
Speaker 7: a person believes in. I just when it comes to
Speaker 7: essential services like hospitals, I don't think they should be
Speaker 7: church run. I don't think there should be that religious influence,
Speaker 7: especially if it's in a rural place where whether you're
Speaker 7: a Christian or not, that's the nearest hospital to go to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And for example, like another thing, because I've kind
Speaker 2: of been in between jobs lately. I was looking at
Speaker 2: ways to do some more community medicine, and pretty much
Speaker 2: the only organization going out well, I guess there's two
Speaker 2: organizations going out on ships like big hospital ships. The
Speaker 2: only one that's like not military run is a Christian
Speaker 2: organization And if you apply to work there, they require
Speaker 2: a statement of faith, So they require you to share
Speaker 2: your testimony and to be sure that you believe the
Speaker 2: right things before you go work on this hospital ship.
Speaker 2: So that kind of calls in a question, is your
Speaker 2: agenda to actually heal people or is your agenda to evangelize?
Speaker 2: And so we need, we definitely need to step up
Speaker 2: our game on the secular humanist side and say, you know,
Speaker 2: we can have a boat too, not only have a
Speaker 2: boat and go out and do the same things, but
Speaker 2: just not have the faith statement question, just have what
Speaker 2: are your credentials and like, can you do the job
Speaker 2: that we need you to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in an ideal world, it would be great to
Speaker 1: be able to excize like religious bias from these things
Speaker 1: that all hospitals and secular run and nonprofit if possible
Speaker 1: and these kinds of things. But if we just as
Speaker 1: the world stands right now, just excise religion from medicine. One,
Speaker 1: we're cutting off a massive source of resources and funding
Speaker 1: for everything from the medical care itself to research and
Speaker 1: all that kind of stuff and charitable care. And secondly,
Speaker 1: we are cutting off community outreach. Like if, for example,
Speaker 1: the organization I work for refuse to work with religious
Speaker 1: organizations because of their potential biases, more women out there
Speaker 1: would have missed their breast cancer screenings and their cervical
Speaker 1: cancer screenings, because it's those Sundays groups after Mass where
Speaker 1: the ladies get around and pass out the pamphlets and
Speaker 1: talk about when they should get their mammograms, and it's like,
Speaker 1: is it ideal? No, but it's kind of it's the
Speaker 1: world we live in, and the change is going to
Speaker 1: have to come incrementally and really quite painfully slowly. So
Speaker 1: I don't think it's an easily solved issue. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's one that's going to go away anytime soon.
Speaker 1: And as Dr Ben was saying, it behooves us in
Speaker 1: the secular humanist community to try and provide better alternatives
Speaker 1: to allow people to just get what they need without
Speaker 1: any of the whole and don't forget to thank Jesus
Speaker 1: for for this healing that you have received.
Speaker 7: Of course. Okay, well thanks for the conversation. I just
Speaker 7: wanted to know your opinion on that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we're very much in agreement with you.
Speaker 1: We're very much in agreement with you, Alisa. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: are very frustrated to.
Speaker 7: Okay, well, thanks so much for us. I really do
Speaker 7: appreciate the discussion because I don't think people sometimes I
Speaker 7: don't think that people consider like different ways religion can
Speaker 7: harm people. And I'm not saying that all religious people
Speaker 7: are like that.
Speaker 4: That's not true.
Speaker 7: It's mostly when you see things like that, it's mostly
Speaker 7: just kind of people who are on the extreme side.
Speaker 7: And yeah, anyway, I gotta go, but thank you for
Speaker 7: answering my question. And I do hope you guys have
Speaker 7: a good weekend.
Speaker 2: Intend Thank you so much, Lisa, have a great rest
Speaker 2: of your Sunday. And with that, it is it is
Speaker 2: that time. It is that time of the stream, Jamie,
Speaker 2: would you like to do the honors and read the
Speaker 2: top five patrons.
Speaker 1: These names of those that have given of themselves for
Speaker 1: our cause. Champions, heroes, every jack of them, and they
Speaker 1: are at number one oops all Singularity and at number
Speaker 1: two still it's been two years, Barry Jackson, whoever they are,
Speaker 1: I will never not giggle when I'm talking about your name.
Speaker 1: Number three, Calari Helvetti, number four, Carlton, number five, moldread
Speaker 1: d malcontent awesome, and our honorable mention is Ted Duision
Speaker 1: d Ui Duisian Duision. I'm sorry I've butchered your name,
Speaker 1: but thank you very much for all of your support.
Speaker 1: We literally couldn't do what we do without you. And
Speaker 1: if you out there in great listener and want to
Speaker 1: be included in this pantheon of wonderful people, you can
Speaker 1: do so at tiny dot c c ford slash, Patreon
Speaker 1: t H and give whatever you can.
Speaker 2: Every little helps absolutely. All right, are you ready for
Speaker 2: another caller?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 2: So we have Benji. He him from Alabama. Sounds like
Speaker 2: he wants to talk about real religious people are in
Speaker 2: denial of God being bad. Benji, you are alive on talk?
Speaker 2: He then, can you clarify your your conversation topic for us?
Speaker 5: Yeah? Uh yeah, so I was in earlier and I'm
Speaker 5: kind of I didn't mean to bombarded the guy with
Speaker 5: a hundred different you know, kind of problems with the Bible,
Speaker 5: but they just kind of came out naturally pretty much.
Speaker 5: And then I told him that God created evil and
Speaker 5: he was like, oh, well, no he didn't. You know,
Speaker 5: evil came in the world through humans and sin and
Speaker 5: YadA YadA. And I said, which I couldn't remember the verse,
Speaker 5: but it literally says, you know, I created good and
Speaker 5: evil like you created light and dark. That in evil,
Speaker 5: YadA YadA. So I told him that, and it's like
Speaker 5: his brain just malfumpson, like he taught about it for
Speaker 5: maybe like a split second, and then he asked me, well,
Speaker 5: where's it at? And I was like, well, I think
Speaker 5: it's an Ezekiel, but am not one hundred percent, sir,
Speaker 5: but I know it was. I knew, I know it's
Speaker 5: in there. And and then he just kind of he
Speaker 5: kind of just blusted off and kind of just you know,
Speaker 5: like thanks to subject pretty much is like you stay
Speaker 5: in for church. I'm like, no, not today, but I
Speaker 5: mean it's like, you know, it just kind of threw
Speaker 5: me on guard a little bit, because, like, you know,
Speaker 5: if he's a Tristan, because he said he's been a
Speaker 5: Tristan for decades, you would thank somebody that's been that
Speaker 5: way for decades. Would at least lead the Bible, because
Speaker 5: if you weed the if you absolutely read the entire Bible,
Speaker 5: you're gonna end up reading that part anyway. So like
Speaker 5: somebody that says that about Tristan, you know, they would
Speaker 5: already know that, And the fact that it surplied him
Speaker 5: and he didn't know that what on pretty said he
Speaker 5: didn't know that because they caught him off guard. I
Speaker 5: was just gonna get y'all's opinion on that. I mean,
Speaker 5: I feel kind of bad for the guy too.
Speaker 1: But I mean your initial question of religious people, I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems like you're talking specifically about Christians, and there
Speaker 1: are the major religions do predicate that their God is good.
Speaker 1: You know, God is great. Not all religions do very Historically,
Speaker 1: a lot of the pantheon based religions like Greek and
Speaker 1: Norse and stuff, their gods were more like people, flawed
Speaker 1: and potentially bad and capable of doing wrong things. They
Speaker 1: weren't paragons like the Abrahamic God is often lifted up
Speaker 1: as But you are correct. Again, I don't know the
Speaker 1: exact versus the top of my head, but I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure there is a a verse in the Bible where
Speaker 1: God literally says I do all these things. I create
Speaker 1: the light in the dark, I create good and evil.
Speaker 1: And also there's the whole. If he's triomne, they be
Speaker 1: all powerful. Then everything that happens is his purview, good
Speaker 1: or evil, and it's all part of the plant.
Speaker 5: Which would make cam boast any boy.
Speaker 1: Yes, depending on your interpretation. But there's an entire religious
Speaker 1: philosophy called the theodicy, which is explaining evil under the
Speaker 1: auspices of a good God, and that's been going on
Speaker 1: since before Christ, like the Epicurean trilemma is the famous example.
Speaker 1: You know, whence it come with gard and all that.
Speaker 1: We've been wrangling with this idea for longer than Christianity
Speaker 1: has been Christianity, and and no good answer has yet
Speaker 1: to be brought forward. So I mean you are pointing
Speaker 1: out something that in some cases for many, for many
Speaker 1: religious adherents, especially Christians, Muslims, Jewish jew I think maybe
Speaker 1: there may be an argument that Jewish people understand that
Speaker 1: God's not the greatest guy on the planet. But you'd
Speaker 1: have to ask what you have to ask them. Yes,
Speaker 1: I agree it is. It is cognitive dissonance. But like
Speaker 1: you're basically calling in saying water is wet. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's almost self evident. Got any thoughts on this, ben.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, it's a situation where essentially Christianity has to
Speaker 2: deal with inconsistencies in the Bible and even direct contradictions between.
Speaker 3: The Bible and their worldview.
Speaker 2: And so the verse that we're talking about is Isaiah
Speaker 2: forty five to seven, which says I form the light
Speaker 2: and create darkness, I make peace and create evil.
Speaker 3: I the Lord do all these things.
Speaker 2: And of course, oftentimes when you bring this up to
Speaker 2: a Christian there's a lot of mental gymnastics going on
Speaker 2: because they have a couple options. They either have the
Speaker 2: option of, you know, reconciling that like there's a difference
Speaker 2: here and saying, you know, the Bible can't be the perfect,
Speaker 2: unaltered word of God. Or they can say, well, the
Speaker 2: Bible's the correct and that my viewpoint was wrong and
Speaker 2: I'm going to adjust my belief to what the text says.
Speaker 2: Or they can try to keep this dissonance and just
Speaker 2: not do anything about it but start making excuses for
Speaker 2: why the text actually confirms what they already believed. And
Speaker 2: that's often what people do. So they'll make statements like, oh, no,
Speaker 2: but he didn't. He didn't create evil. He created the
Speaker 2: circumstances in which evil could take place. He gave the
Speaker 2: free will which allowed people to do evil, But he
Speaker 2: didn't actually create the evil. But then they're not recognizing
Speaker 2: that it says that he created the evil.
Speaker 5: He didn't.
Speaker 2: He wasn't just the dungeon master playing the role in
Speaker 2: setting up the scenario. He was the one that caused
Speaker 2: this to be in existence. And so you'll get you'll
Speaker 2: get different answers to of no, No, he wasn't creating
Speaker 2: the evil part. He just created the consequences of evil.
Speaker 5: So, yeah, what he did was the first time you
Speaker 5: just said he he literally said half of what you
Speaker 5: just said. He's like, yeah, well no, he gave us
Speaker 5: free will and gave us choice and this and that,
Speaker 5: and I gave him the rebuttal, which was, you know,
Speaker 5: if God knows every time, then he knew that. You know,
Speaker 5: basically he allowed and in the first place. So he's
Speaker 5: still responsible either way, even if he didn't directly create it,
Speaker 5: which it says he did, Even if he knew about
Speaker 5: it ahead of time, that still makes him responsible because
Speaker 5: he could have stopped it. And I also brought up
Speaker 5: the point that somebody. This was years ago that one
Speaker 5: of y'all pointed out, but I pointed it out to
Speaker 5: him at a few minutes ago when I talked to
Speaker 5: him about this, I said, I said that if God,
Speaker 5: if somebody killed someone, right, and you're saying God is
Speaker 5: all good, then that means somebody killing somebody was good.
Speaker 5: Either God could have stepped in and stopped it. But
Speaker 5: if he didn't, and it was part of his plan,
Speaker 5: which means that he allows bad things to happen. But
Speaker 5: under their worldview, they would have to look at every
Speaker 5: evil and good saying is good since they considered God
Speaker 5: to be the ultimate good, which means any bad he
Speaker 5: does he does would also be good, which is self confidentially,
Speaker 5: But they don't look at it that way.
Speaker 1: And that's the point basis of divine command theory. Yes,
Speaker 1: where got everything that God does and instructs is inherently
Speaker 1: good because it's God?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: The idea that it is possible to still grant free
Speaker 2: will and child proof the house like it doesn't take
Speaker 2: away your free will to put the covers over the
Speaker 2: outlets and make sure that appliances aren't on when the
Speaker 2: children are like nearby and stuff right, and.
Speaker 5: He brought that. He also was like, oh, well that
Speaker 5: would affect to our free will. I might, No, it doesn't.
Speaker 5: And then I told him those free will on oers
Speaker 5: and those free will in heaven, you know, hypothetically, He's like, oh, well,
Speaker 5: there's no free will in heaven because there's no evil
Speaker 5: in heaven. I'm like, well, then how did Lucifer increase
Speaker 5: force and the angels decide that what it gives God?
Speaker 1: And these are all arguments we've had in the past
Speaker 1: with fasts that have called in. Yeah. One of the
Speaker 1: things though, I would say is that unless is saying
Speaker 1: God is good and therefore that's why you should follow
Speaker 1: these teachings, and his morality is better than yours. It's
Speaker 1: kind of just an academic discussion, you know. It's an
Speaker 1: interesting point to sort of go, hmm, some inconsistencies there.
Speaker 1: But unless someone's put trying to like litigate or legislator
Speaker 1: push that morality on me or people they care about,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna just let them wrangle with it unless they
Speaker 1: want to have a discussion about it. Because this that I.
Speaker 5: Went earlier, they make a point of asking I mean,
Speaker 5: they've asked me like ten different times in one day.
Speaker 5: Literally if I you know, do I know God is
Speaker 5: God in my heart? YadA, YadA, And I would sit
Speaker 5: down and say, well, yeah, of course I know God,
Speaker 5: and I know the Bible at the back of my hand,
Speaker 5: and I would litually troape them verbatim, you know, the
Speaker 5: stuff that they're getting at, because the third it's a search,
Speaker 5: a trust I believe, if I'm not mistaken, and their
Speaker 5: stuff is basically a combination of both I believe Baptists
Speaker 5: and Methodists and a little bit of other stuff. And
Speaker 5: then I bought up the you know, the good insane
Speaker 5: because I maybe, you know, similar to a Gnostics essentially
Speaker 5: and believing in the old Christie had you said, where
Speaker 5: if you're doing good and good rewards you and that
Speaker 5: helps you get in the heaven. And also, I don't
Speaker 5: really believe that you have to go to search to
Speaker 5: get to heaven. That's you know, not really with fire
Speaker 5: Man's I mean, it wasn't mentioned like that.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Let me just let me just jump in here, Benji,
Speaker 1: just for a second, because I've heard you say a
Speaker 1: lot of this already in previous cause and things like that.
Speaker 1: I don't want to matter it too much. But from
Speaker 1: my perspective, we may as well be having an argument
Speaker 1: about the morality of lex luthor like and imagine every
Speaker 1: person a fictional character. So while this is all very
Speaker 1: you know, astute observation on your part, the fact that
Speaker 1: you are taught you from your perspective, are talking about
Speaker 1: someone you believe exists in actuality and I don't because
Speaker 1: I haven't had any evidence compelling enough to convince me
Speaker 1: of it. This is just this is just Bible fan
Speaker 1: wank right now pretty much.
Speaker 5: So to see in mind, if I try to put
Speaker 5: God to you, if I could try that just for argument's.
Speaker 1: Sake, to quote the great Matthew Mercer, you can certainly try.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: But also also on the like, while we're just kind
Speaker 2: of leaving that initial topic, I would love for you
Speaker 2: to try to say the people that you were having
Speaker 2: these arguments with, please have them call into the show.
Speaker 2: I'd love to address that particular issue about God creating
Speaker 2: evil with the people that you're having this discussion with.
Speaker 2: If they're willing to reach out, that would be awesome.
Speaker 5: I don't know if they would actually ask them, but
Speaker 5: I mean.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just go to a shot.
Speaker 2: It would be it would be interesting, and we're we're
Speaker 2: willing to change our minds if they're willing to, like,
Speaker 2: if they bring in good arguments for it, and if
Speaker 2: they are convincing.
Speaker 5: So well we already know how that turns out. I
Speaker 5: was gonna go ahead and try to argue for God myself,
Speaker 5: so I don't want to say hypocritical.
Speaker 3: Yeah, go for it, go for it, give us your
Speaker 3: argument for God.
Speaker 5: So why I'm trying to decide which one to go
Speaker 5: with because I don't want to fall into a fallacy. Well,
Speaker 5: I could seeo edically, I could do it this way.
Speaker 5: So I was watching a video one of y'all's videos yesterday,
Speaker 5: and there was a point with I don't know if
Speaker 5: he's still on here or not, said, I can't remember
Speaker 5: the guy's name now, damn it. Well, basically he was
Speaker 5: saying that any evidence that would be presented to him
Speaker 5: would be insufficient evidence because it would fire its coordinary
Speaker 5: evidence and not just ordinary evidence. And so in my mind,
Speaker 5: you know that, do y'all not falling into the terror
Speaker 5: fallacy with that? Like if I was to present evidence
Speaker 5: and evidence is dependent on your you know, observations or
Speaker 5: your experiences or even subject to y'all's either one of
Speaker 5: y'all's opinions on if that evidence is good enough for
Speaker 5: you or not, because at the end of that, you know,
Speaker 5: it is pretty much subjective because it depends on you know,
Speaker 5: if that would you. It's not like I'm climbed.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: Evidence is not subjective, and there are degrees of how
Speaker 2: convincing certain pieces of evidence are, and I think that's
Speaker 2: what we're dealing with right now. Like there, it is
Speaker 2: easy to demonstrate that this chair is going to keep
Speaker 2: me held up for the rest of the show, because
Speaker 2: over and over and over again I've sat in the
Speaker 2: same chair and it's pretty reliable. I could calculate out
Speaker 2: the statistics of how many times this chair has successfully
Speaker 2: held me up during a Talkie Ethan show, and it's
Speaker 2: pretty significant.
Speaker 3: It's and if I told.
Speaker 2: Jamie, you know, hey, this chair is pretty surty, I'm
Speaker 2: confident that it's not going to fall over during the show.
Speaker 3: I could still be wrong.
Speaker 2: It could be the time where it breaks, but I
Speaker 2: have enough evidence to where I'm convinced of the proposition.
Speaker 2: The difference is nobody really cares about my chair most
Speaker 2: of the time. Nobody gives a crap if I go
Speaker 2: out in public and I say, hey, did you know
Speaker 2: that my chair is really sturdy and it can it
Speaker 2: can hold me while I sit in it. Nobody is
Speaker 2: really going to baton I because that's what the chair
Speaker 2: is supposed to do, and everyone has been in a
Speaker 2: chair that has done a good job being a chair.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 2: But when we get to God claims in supernatural claims,
Speaker 2: that's why there's the standard of evidence to be convincing
Speaker 2: changes because you need number one, you're trying to demonstrate
Speaker 2: something that is less common, and you have you have
Speaker 2: the burden of having something that is statistically reliable to like, uh,
Speaker 2: make future predictions and to you know, be have that
Speaker 2: same truth demonstrated over and over again. And we we
Speaker 2: don't get that with God claims. So yes, there is
Speaker 2: a difference, but it's not subjective. And you can even
Speaker 2: break this down like statistically into like what very what
Speaker 2: variables do to the statistical significance of the particular problem.
Speaker 2: And so yeah, it seems like it's subjective octive that is,
Speaker 2: that is objective, and the majority of the majority of
Speaker 2: people asking for evidence with this are asking for objective evidence.
Speaker 2: We're asking for something that isn't going to be reliant
Speaker 2: on me having faith in it or not, and it
Speaker 2: can still be out to me whether or not. Like
Speaker 2: I accept stats, but that is not a problem with
Speaker 2: the stats. That's a problem with the person understanding the stats.
Speaker 2: But if if something can be statistically demonstrated, that's going
Speaker 2: to be a lot harder to debunk and a lot
Speaker 2: harder to disbelieve.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean I could do this in a few
Speaker 5: different steps. I mean I could say, number one, that
Speaker 5: the the universe evolved in a way that created life.
Speaker 5: And then I should say that the Earth evolved in
Speaker 5: a way after millions of years for life to form
Speaker 5: and toak someone earlier.
Speaker 2: That's that's a claim, that's a claim in itself.
Speaker 3: That's not evidence.
Speaker 5: That's not evidence, right, right, But the clients are supported
Speaker 5: by science. So I could go step by step.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, But here's the here's the problem.
Speaker 2: Here's the problem though, because yes, we have the the
Speaker 2: idea that like we have our planet, we have our universe,
Speaker 2: we have organisms that evolved over time to what they
Speaker 2: are now. However, we cannot like we have that stuff
Speaker 2: demonstrated by science. We do not have a reason, we
Speaker 2: don't have evidence to say that God is connected to
Speaker 2: that at all. And the problem with a lot of
Speaker 2: God claims is that there isn't a way to connect them.
Speaker 2: It's just asserted that this is a possible answer.
Speaker 5: If I took if I took all of those steps
Speaker 5: right at the universe beginning the Big Bain model, the
Speaker 5: universe having multiple galaxies and planets and everything else, the
Speaker 5: ods forming, the sun forming uh, the os forming water,
Speaker 5: water created lives or bacteria that created the lives or
Speaker 5: elements lather that created the live and and then life
Speaker 5: evolving for millions of years and creating people like Benji.
Speaker 2: Do you understand how probability works? So wanting so, do
Speaker 2: you understand how probability works?
Speaker 6: Yes, it's a fifty sixty.
Speaker 4: No no, no, no, no, no no.
Speaker 2: So this is this is actually a more complicated aspect
Speaker 2: of probability. So like, let let's say if I have
Speaker 2: a bag of marbles and I have a certain amount
Speaker 2: that are red, a certain amount that are green, a
Speaker 2: certain amount that are blue, and if I said, my, my,
Speaker 2: it would be cool if I had three red marbles.
Speaker 2: If I only picked three mar three red marbles in
Speaker 2: a row. When I start, before I pull out a
Speaker 2: single marble. Sure, if all the marbles aren't equal amounts, sure,
Speaker 2: there's equal probability of getting any of those marbles, and
Speaker 2: it's a less chance that I'm going to get three
Speaker 2: red ones in a row. However, if I pull out
Speaker 2: a red marble on the first try, the probability still
Speaker 2: is higher that all three of them are going to
Speaker 2: be red.
Speaker 3: Then if I pulled out a blue.
Speaker 2: Marble, Like if I pulled out a blue marble from
Speaker 2: the beginning, there's like a zero chance that I'm going
Speaker 2: to get three red marbles in a row at the beginning,
Speaker 2: But if I pull out a red one, then it's
Speaker 2: more likely that the end result is going to happen
Speaker 2: with three red marbles. So what we have here in
Speaker 2: our universe, Yeah, if you calculate, if you think about probability,
Speaker 2: as in, there's such a small chance that all of
Speaker 2: these things could happen in the way that they do.
Speaker 2: The problem is you're not starting from ground zero every
Speaker 2: single time another event happens. You're starting from the place
Speaker 2: where an event already happened, and now the next one
Speaker 2: the probability of the next one happening after this first
Speaker 2: event happened, So you can't look at it as if
Speaker 2: probability from a vacuum every single time. And I think
Speaker 2: there's a misunderstanding with what what is the probability of
Speaker 2: these things under the circumstances that have already occurred.
Speaker 5: And the other suit you pull is going to be
Speaker 5: with that's not a guarantee.
Speaker 3: If you pull a guarantee, it's not a guarantee.
Speaker 2: But do you understand that? Do you understand that? Do
Speaker 2: you understand that we're not starting from zero every single time?
Speaker 2: The fact that an event occurred changes the probability from
Speaker 2: a would have been before you had picked up any marble.
Speaker 2: And so that's what is we're seeing here, Like, sure,
Speaker 2: it sounds like there's very little probability for all these
Speaker 2: events to happen, but as they happen, the probability changes
Speaker 2: for another similar event to happen.
Speaker 5: Right, But you're still starting from strant the more you're
Speaker 5: not in and trying to pick them all when it's
Speaker 5: one one, one circumstance, one circumstance where you're starting from
Speaker 5: zero from what we from what we know, and we
Speaker 5: don't have, we.
Speaker 2: Don't have evidence, we won't probably won't ever have evidence
Speaker 2: of how many rolls of the dice, if you will,
Speaker 2: things had in order to get to where we're at now.
Speaker 2: But the fact is there is only that one time
Speaker 2: where it went from from ground zero to then having
Speaker 2: an event occur. And so but once you have that
Speaker 2: first event occur, the probability is not the same as
Speaker 2: from being ground zero every single time.
Speaker 5: Okay, if you will to dice and the dice lands
Speaker 5: on one, and then you will the dice again and
Speaker 5: it lands on one again, and you will the dice
Speaker 5: again and it lands.
Speaker 2: On that's not That's not the circumstance that we're talking about.
Speaker 2: We're not talking about just happenstance each dice roll in isolation.
Speaker 2: We're talking about how many Like if we're trying to
Speaker 2: get a yachtzi and you roll certain dice that allow
Speaker 2: you to get that. Let's say you roll like, uh,
Speaker 2: I don't even remember how to play yazi, Like you
Speaker 2: get three sixes on the first role, it's more likely
Speaker 2: that you're going to be able to achieve a yatzi
Speaker 2: than if you got like all different numbers on the
Speaker 2: first role. Right, So, I think your understanding of probability
Speaker 2: is limited to a very very basic understanding of stats.
Speaker 5: It's not. I just pointed out the flaw that you gave.
Speaker 5: These flaws in the example you gave with the.
Speaker 2: But you're giving, you're giving an argument from probability. So
Speaker 2: if you're saying that these probability, the probability is so
Speaker 2: low of all these things happening, how did you calculate that?
Speaker 3: How did you figure that out? Did you do the math?
Speaker 6: How many?
Speaker 5: Okay, yeah, so I'll just point something out. Do you
Speaker 5: know how many events have happened that could have wiped
Speaker 5: out before it even mapped?
Speaker 3: I don't, and I don't. But that's the thing.
Speaker 2: I'm not asserting a claim that anything specific happened to
Speaker 2: get that. I don't know all of the events that
Speaker 2: led to here. I'm also not claiming a certain thing
Speaker 2: to be the start you are claiming. You are making
Speaker 2: that claim. So if you're making the claim that probably
Speaker 2: that there's a higher probability that a creator was responsible
Speaker 2: for that, you have to demonstrate that probability.
Speaker 3: So where are your numbers?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 5: So there have been multiple I say, is we have
Speaker 5: had multiple violence.
Speaker 2: That's not an answer to my question, Benji, answer my question,
Speaker 2: where are your numbers? You said, probability is in favor
Speaker 2: of a god doing these things going, So, where is
Speaker 2: your math?
Speaker 5: And you gave me the gumball example, Okay, I.
Speaker 2: Gave you an example of the kind of math that
Speaker 2: you would need to demonstrate like you have to bring
Speaker 2: you cannot say. There's a huge pet peeve of mind
Speaker 2: people making a claim about probability or using probability as evidence,
Speaker 2: but then they don't actually do the math for their probability,
Speaker 2: like you're you're allowing maths to carry a lot of
Speaker 2: weight in this debate, but not actually bringing that math
Speaker 2: to the table. I don't want to take the whole
Speaker 2: conversation from from Jamie. I know he's having an aurism
Speaker 2: over there, Jamie, what are your thoughts?
Speaker 5: First, it could be any colored gumball. And then even
Speaker 5: if you picked two wear gumballs, I'm sorry, one ware gumball.
Speaker 5: That doesn't mean that the other two are going to
Speaker 5: be were that could still be any other color.
Speaker 1: No, no, both you both bends. Please please bens bens plural,
Speaker 1: Please allow me to have a little, a little interjection.
Speaker 1: I think one thing is I think the simple thing
Speaker 1: that Ben was Ben doctor Ben was trying to exemplifies
Speaker 1: that in his example, the the determining of the probability
Speaker 1: of pulling out a certain marble necessary necessarily changes the
Speaker 1: probability of the next marble coming out red because it's
Speaker 1: a different amount of marbles in the bag now, So
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's that kind of thing.
Speaker 5: Secondly, that well, that's what I was trying to say,
Speaker 5: because okay.
Speaker 1: Cool, so we've cleared that up. Groovy, Please allow them
Speaker 1: to just say this next thing. I think another thing
Speaker 1: that that you're committing here, Benji, is you are presupposing
Speaker 1: that the current state of the universe was the goal
Speaker 1: or target, not the inevitable eventuality of the natural chain
Speaker 1: of causality. From that perspective, the actual probability of the
Speaker 1: universe being as it is one because we only have
Speaker 1: one universe, we don't have any other universes to compare
Speaker 1: it to. And so while any amount and considering that
Speaker 1: the that we don't know the span of time the
Speaker 1: universe is going to exist, it may be eternal, or
Speaker 1: at least close enough to that. Basically there is given
Speaker 1: enough time space and distance, the probability that everything that
Speaker 1: could happen will at some point happen. So again, You're
Speaker 1: saying that God set this Rube Goldberg machine in motion
Speaker 1: to get us to this point, and I'm saying we're
Speaker 1: at this point just because the machine worked that way,
Speaker 1: and that unless you can demonstrate that it's possible for
Speaker 1: a universe to exist without life in it and compare
Speaker 1: and have other universes to compare to, we can't really
Speaker 1: use probability in the way that you're talking about, because
Speaker 1: while it might seem astronomically impossible, and so many things
Speaker 1: had to go a certain way for us to be
Speaker 1: here having this conversation, they all did and we don't
Speaker 1: know whether they could have happened any other way. So
Speaker 1: that's where I'm coming from. It's the Douglas Adams puddle analogy.
Speaker 1: Isn't this whole perfect for me? I feel it perfectly.
Speaker 1: It must have been made for me. It must be intentional.
Speaker 1: You're essentially giving me the fine tuning argument. And again,
Speaker 1: just to go back to the cold open, it's the
Speaker 1: god of the gaps. We don't know exactly how the
Speaker 1: universe came to be, and you're proposing a god, and
Speaker 1: I'm proposing that it's naturalistic, and I feel like you're
Speaker 1: shoving that God in that gap, we'll say you Benji no.
Speaker 5: So I'm not doing the God of the gaps and
Speaker 5: I'm not doing the pine turning watchmaker argument. What I
Speaker 5: was trying to say is that if I was to
Speaker 5: add up right all of the times that during the
Speaker 5: Earth was forming, that it could have been discarded and
Speaker 5: hurting when it made the moon because the moon came
Speaker 5: from the Earth, or you know, all the climate changes,
Speaker 5: the ice ages, the virus is every other time that
Speaker 5: has happened, not counting Noah's florid of course. Then and
Speaker 5: then I take that and I put one to divide
Speaker 5: that into because this, you know, it created life, So
Speaker 5: I use that as the time. And then I say, well,
Speaker 5: there's a one out of whatever tant that you.
Speaker 3: Know but we don't. But we don't know.
Speaker 2: There's so many variables we're missing. You cannot make that calculation, ill,
Speaker 2: because I think you're misunderstanding what the N equals one
Speaker 2: thing is that Jamie was talking about. You can't determine
Speaker 2: statistical significance with an N equals one.
Speaker 5: I can add up how many times yours almost that destroyed,
Speaker 5: or I say that that.
Speaker 2: Means absolutely nothing. That means absolutely nothing. For the claim
Speaker 2: that you are making, I.
Speaker 1: Can add up all the times to Earth didn't get destroyed.
Speaker 1: I can add up all the times that we are
Speaker 1: still The very fact that we are still here. Having
Speaker 1: this argument is proof that the probability of this existence
Speaker 1: is the most likely, and there's no evidence that it
Speaker 1: was done on purpose or has an outside agent.
Speaker 5: Fact.
Speaker 2: The fact is we are missing too many variables to
Speaker 2: make these calculations, and so using probability as a way
Speaker 2: to demonstrate God just does not work because we have
Speaker 2: an incomplete equation.
Speaker 5: What variables? What other variables is there to consider?
Speaker 2: If I'm the variables that we don't know, variables that
Speaker 2: we do not know and probably will never know. We
Speaker 2: have to account for the unknown unknowns. We cannot do that.
Speaker 2: The only things we have we only have the one
Speaker 2: union that we know of. We have this one existence
Speaker 2: that we know of. We can hypothesize others, but we
Speaker 2: cannot we cannot confirm that we cannot get I mean,
Speaker 2: maybe someday we'll get sufficient evidence for these missing pieces
Speaker 2: of the puzzle, but at present they are missing. And
Speaker 2: so that's why we're saying you're falling into God of
Speaker 2: the gaps, Because the probability, you're trying. You're trying to
Speaker 2: adapt a probability equation for a scenario that the concept
Speaker 2: of probability does not work for. Like the math that
Speaker 2: we do has specific applications and specific times where it
Speaker 2: is actually useful. If you're outside the parameters of what
Speaker 2: that math can do, you're not going to get a
Speaker 2: reliable answer. So that's something that we have to take
Speaker 2: into consideration.
Speaker 5: Like if I can well vost it and do the
Speaker 5: exact same thing that you're claiming I'm doing, and I
Speaker 5: can say that you're doing, oh.
Speaker 2: Because no, Because what the different difference in what we're doing, Benji,
Speaker 2: is that you are saying that there is an explanation
Speaker 2: and that explanation is supernatural. We are saying that we
Speaker 2: don't know the variables that we don't know, and we
Speaker 2: can hypothesize, but we don't know. We don't have enough
Speaker 2: information to know that wow, And so we are not
Speaker 2: making a claim to know.
Speaker 5: How would that not be the same argument you're using.
Speaker 5: I mean, I could play god with science and then
Speaker 5: argue against you with the same thing that you're.
Speaker 3: Doing with me not claiming.
Speaker 2: We're not claiming that science is the one and only answer.
Speaker 2: And because science itself is a field of it's a methodology.
Speaker 2: Science is not an answer. We're not claiming science is
Speaker 2: an answer. It is a method.
Speaker 3: So you're misunderstanding our position.
Speaker 1: It sounds like and even if I grant you, Benji,
Speaker 1: let's let's let's for the sake of argument, Benji, let's
Speaker 1: say let's let me go with you. Let's say I
Speaker 1: agree with you that the the occurrence of intelligent life
Speaker 1: on this ball of rock we call Earth is like
Speaker 1: calculatively demonstrably like very unlikely, like like like dealing it
Speaker 1: like dealing, like dealing every spade out of a out
Speaker 1: of a deck of cards in order, you know, from
Speaker 1: a shuffled deck of cards. You know, something really really
Speaker 1: really unlikely. Just because it's very unlikely does not mean
Speaker 1: that it necessarily must have been put into action by
Speaker 1: an external agent. I mean, many things that are very
Speaker 1: unlikely happened for basically no good reason other than they
Speaker 1: just happen all the time. I encounter it daily. Perfectly
Speaker 1: healthy people that, just by dint of a bit of
Speaker 1: bad luck and the design floor in our genes, are
Speaker 1: struck with a horrific cancer for apparently no reason, and
Speaker 1: so unlikely. Things happen all the time, but there is
Speaker 1: no demonstration that they happen because they were designed to
Speaker 1: be that way by an external force.
Speaker 5: So the well, I agree with you there, I mean
Speaker 5: it also doesn't mean that it's impossible either, So.
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not discounting God as an external force
Speaker 1: as a potential explanation, But until it is evident to
Speaker 1: me that such a thing exists, or even is even
Speaker 1: possible to exist, I'm not going to give it as
Speaker 1: much credence as the fact that the natural forces of
Speaker 1: the universe can tend for these things to come into
Speaker 1: coming to being. We know why we're here. For the
Speaker 1: most part, we can trace it all the way back
Speaker 1: pretty much to the plank time.
Speaker 5: Well before the big band stuff breaks down. But let
Speaker 5: me let me ask you this. So let's say that
Speaker 5: I had evidence, right, or just for the sake of argument,
Speaker 5: so I want to make a point. Let's say that
Speaker 5: I had evidence that would convince you, Sam, but not
Speaker 5: convince the other person. Okay, Now, how would I go
Speaker 5: about it? If I had evidence that would just convince
Speaker 5: you personally of a god, but not convince the other
Speaker 5: person of a god. Then you have different you have
Speaker 5: different expectations of evidence, then because I don't, because I might,
Speaker 5: I might give you evidence that would convince you but
Speaker 5: then not be enough to convince the other person, but
Speaker 5: it still convinces you, and to have, you know, and
Speaker 5: no offense to any of y'all. And I know you know,
Speaker 5: I respect gall and I know I get it. But
Speaker 5: if you had a tristan on here that said, you know,
Speaker 5: let's say that they had evidence and they presented their
Speaker 5: evidence and they convinced one of you and didn't convince
Speaker 5: the other one, then what would the point be of
Speaker 5: trying to call in and present evidence in the first place,
Speaker 5: Because if you all have different standards of evidence and
Speaker 5: different levels of evidence that you would accept as you know.
Speaker 2: So I would think, you don't really don't really go
Speaker 2: with this scenario.
Speaker 1: I'm down with it. I can imagine that we would
Speaker 1: be able to spin off an entire extra show of
Speaker 1: just the now believer trying to convince the rest of
Speaker 1: their hosts. What a concept. But again, as skeptics, I
Speaker 1: would want to I would be constantly questioning. Even if
Speaker 1: something was very convincing to me, I'd still be continually
Speaker 1: questioning it and.
Speaker 5: Why it can be a skeptic and believe in God.
Speaker 5: That's why you became an atheist in the first place.
Speaker 1: I don't want to Well, I've always been an atheist.
Speaker 1: I was never a believer, but I.
Speaker 5: Did know there were some that did believe, and they
Speaker 5: were skeptical, and then they used those skepticism and became
Speaker 5: that way.
Speaker 1: I've never seen someone skeptic their way into religion, at
Speaker 1: least not honestly into a god belief. But it would
Speaker 1: be fascinating if you were able to. And yes, everyone's different.
Speaker 1: Atheism is not an and secular humanism and all these
Speaker 1: things are not monoliths. We have no dogma, we have
Speaker 1: no overriding creed. Yes, standard of evidence may well be
Speaker 1: different than Ben's, probably relatively similar as these things go.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I'm not saying it's impossible for me to
Speaker 1: be convinced of something and Ben to not be convinced
Speaker 1: of something. But uh, like, for example, I mean, I
Speaker 1: could try and pull examples out of my out of
Speaker 1: my ass for things that could be attributed to a God,
Speaker 1: but I could still give you things like my eyes
Speaker 1: suddenly become perfect, like like a miraculous, unexplained instantaneous healing
Speaker 1: of my vision problems which I've gone into in the past,
Speaker 1: but are physical in nature, like there's parts of my
Speaker 1: eyes missing that should be there. Yeah, I've heard, and
Speaker 1: that would be amazing and it would be crazy, And
Speaker 1: I'm thinking that anybody immediately go right, We're going to
Speaker 1: get you into every scanner. We're going to start looking
Speaker 1: into this because maybe it was God, but it could
Speaker 1: have been a wizard, could have been nanomachines, could have
Speaker 1: been could have been anything. Maybe I've just manifested a superpower.
Speaker 1: I don't know. So while I could give creed that
Speaker 1: some amazingly powerful thing just happened, there's still a spectrum
Speaker 1: of potential explanatory sort of things that could explain what
Speaker 1: just happened to me. So while I would entertain a
Speaker 1: god or godlike figure, I can't rule out aliens or
Speaker 1: wizards or fairies, or spontaneous magic, superpowers, or some aspect
Speaker 1: of the human physiology little known.
Speaker 5: Also, Jeremy, if you don't mind, can I add something
Speaker 5: to that? So I'd say, for the sake of argument,
Speaker 5: that somehow your eyes did get healed, right, and you
Speaker 5: wanted to tell people, Hey, my eyes got healed I
Speaker 5: can see again now that by itself, by definition is subjective.
Speaker 1: No, because I would be able to have them take
Speaker 1: photographs of my retina and you could see that the
Speaker 1: scar tissue that was there is gone. Like I say,
Speaker 1: the things that are wrong with my eyes are very
Speaker 1: physical and physical and unless they are rectified, they my
Speaker 1: eyes will not get better.
Speaker 5: Right, Well, seeing my point there was it unless you
Speaker 5: have something you're compared to. Like if you have a
Speaker 5: photo of your eyes that have the start to issue
Speaker 5: on them, They're on my Facebook, and somehow your vision
Speaker 5: gets prepared and then they do it again and it
Speaker 5: has no damage, then you have something to compare it to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the scenario of that my eyes do
Speaker 1: not physiologically change, but I can demonstrate that my vision
Speaker 1: is in fact perfect even though my eyes are still
Speaker 1: physically broken. That would be stepping into the realm of
Speaker 1: magic and the unexplained. But then again, how do you
Speaker 1: know I'm not cheating. I can take you on a
Speaker 1: walk around my apartment and the local areas, and I
Speaker 1: could point to signs off in the distance and tell
Speaker 1: you exactly what they say, not because I'm reading them,
Speaker 1: because I know what they say, because I've passed them before.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So but okay, if I was in your apartment and
Speaker 5: then I moved something and you still knew where, well,
Speaker 5: is that not miraculous.
Speaker 1: No, that's just logical. It's you know, I just because
Speaker 1: I can't see doesn't mean I can't reason. And if
Speaker 1: someone's if I know that something was there and someone's
Speaker 1: moved it, I have a housemate and he does that,
Speaker 1: love Cole. I'm not going to attribute my ability to
Speaker 1: track it down as a miracle. I'm just going to
Speaker 1: be like, well, I was either tenacious or I reasoned
Speaker 1: that here is a more sensible place to put it,
Speaker 1: or the person that I'm with is either absent mindedly
Speaker 1: putting it somewhere and there for where would they put it? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: or it's trying to fuck with me where would they
Speaker 1: put it? So, No, it's not a miracle. It's just
Speaker 1: it's just lateral thinking. Anyway, I've said my piece.
Speaker 5: But I mean the other thing I was going to
Speaker 5: say too, is that you know that kind of goes
Speaker 5: into the concept of fates because a lot of presents
Speaker 5: the way of thinking is well, I can't prove it,
Speaker 5: but it's better than the book to believe than not believe,
Speaker 5: and that goes into arkansaser.
Speaker 2: Benji, is that a good way to evaluate true faith?
Speaker 2: Is faith good enough for you? Like is it good
Speaker 2: enough for you to just insert and answer just to
Speaker 2: have one even if you have no idea if it's
Speaker 2: true or not.
Speaker 5: Well, faith's in the calonical sense, you know, having faiths
Speaker 5: in something is different from faiths in the Bible. But
Speaker 5: I would say, as far as fate's in the Bible,
Speaker 5: Bible's votion of faith, if I have basically evidence for
Speaker 5: stuff that's unseen, which again that makes really no sense anyway.
Speaker 5: But if I had that kind of fate and I
Speaker 5: attributed it to a God or Jesus or whatever, I
Speaker 5: think that depending on the circumstances, it could lead me
Speaker 5: to something that is true and not true. I would
Speaker 5: say that.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 5: The reason why people try to claim that it is
Speaker 5: a reliable way to truth is because it still gets
Speaker 5: some of the truth sometimes, you know, fifty to fifty,
Speaker 5: it's a flip of a coin. If it didn't get
Speaker 5: them the truth at all, they couldn't claim that because
Speaker 5: it doesn't get them the truth at all, But because
Speaker 5: it gets them the truth sometimes and they say, well, yeah,
Speaker 5: it's still reliable half the time. But in y'all's case,
Speaker 5: your argument is is it reliable completely one hundred percent
Speaker 5: of the time? And in that case no, But the
Speaker 5: way that Tristan's look at it, you know, even half
Speaker 5: and half fifty fifty is good enough for them because
Speaker 5: it still gets under the trars half the time, even
Speaker 5: though sometimes it can get them to something that ain't
Speaker 5: crue and other times it can get in to something
Speaker 5: that is crue. And when it gets into something that
Speaker 5: is true, they say God did it. If it gets
Speaker 5: some of something that ain't crue, they blame the devil.
Speaker 1: Again, water is wet, counting heats, that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: And yes, that is a conversation we have with a
Speaker 1: lot of believers about like how can you demonstrate that
Speaker 1: your faith is any better than just chance? And it
Speaker 1: has actually been demonstrated that, you know, especially in things
Speaker 1: are intercessory prayer, it's not. Again, these are pretty in
Speaker 1: the colo.
Speaker 5: Sense is connected too, SAPs like if you have faiths
Speaker 5: something you take a.
Speaker 1: Chance on some well I would when someone uses faith
Speaker 1: as in I have faith that I'll wake up tomorrow morning,
Speaker 1: or rather the sun will rise that's trust.
Speaker 3: That's it's confidence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like we were talking about with probability, I can
Speaker 2: demonstrate statistical significance. That'll tell me how how reliable something is,
Speaker 2: how likely that something is to be true, And that
Speaker 2: is demonstrable. It can be used to predict things that
Speaker 2: will happen in the future, not because of divine anything,
Speaker 2: but just because we have enough data that we can
Speaker 2: calculate and rely on. Is this eighty percent likely to happen?
Speaker 2: Is this ninety percent likely to happen? Is this ten
Speaker 2: percent likely to happen. That's not faith, that's math.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, let's see the faith that they say is
Speaker 5: they use it in place of trust, So that's or confidence.
Speaker 2: But that's but that's not so using faith in place
Speaker 2: of trust is just to us miscommunicating because if we're
Speaker 2: having a completely different discussion, and if someone says it
Speaker 2: thinks that I'm meaning faith when I'm saying statistical reliability
Speaker 2: or if I'm saying trust, or if I'm saying confidence.
Speaker 2: That's why I tend to use the word confidence, because
Speaker 2: it gives you more of a spectrum of options that
Speaker 2: you can give. If someone else is here is thinking
Speaker 2: that I mean faith, when I say confidence, then we
Speaker 2: need to revisit the conversation and I need to say, hey, no,
Speaker 2: this is what I mean by confidence, and then they
Speaker 2: need to say what they mean by faith, and then
Speaker 2: we will understand that we're not on the same page
Speaker 2: with how we are making our decisions.
Speaker 5: Sometimes it is christens when they say face. Sometimes they
Speaker 5: just say it's in the calonical sense. Yes, sometimes when
Speaker 5: they say it's in the biblical sense.
Speaker 2: I mean, but the problem is they're using one word
Speaker 2: to do all their heavy lifting, and then they don't
Speaker 2: and then they don't have to clearly define it because
Speaker 2: they just assume the other person knows what they're talking
Speaker 2: talking about, and it just becomes a very messy conversation.
Speaker 2: So I think, I think maybe we're kind of reaching
Speaker 2: the end of a productive discussion. I think call back
Speaker 2: next week. We'll have multiple hosts next week, and you
Speaker 2: can try this with a few different people and see
Speaker 2: how it goes. But I think, maybe go listen back
Speaker 2: to this call, think about kind of any other ways
Speaker 2: that we can approach this next time, and I hope
Speaker 2: you have a great rest of your day.
Speaker 3: And I just dropped him.
Speaker 1: Okay, the closest thing I ever get to the biblical
Speaker 1: concept of faith is hope. But that's a that's a knowing,
Speaker 1: Like I'm you know, I know that this thing that
Speaker 1: I hope is going to happen is not likely. It's
Speaker 1: not like I think it's definitely going to happen because
Speaker 1: I believe in it so much. But that's about as
Speaker 1: close as I get to that Hebrews eleven nonsense.
Speaker 5: Anyway.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, thank you everybody for joining us this week
Speaker 2: on Talk he then and I hope to see a
Speaker 2: bunch of you you this upcoming weekend at the back
Speaker 2: Cruise and at the live shows at the library. But
Speaker 2: just a reminder, the prompt for this week is what
Speaker 2: gap can God always fit into? Reply in the comments
Speaker 2: and tune in at the beginning of next week's show
Speaker 2: to hear those top three answers. And we want to
Speaker 2: thank Eli for helping out today. Thank you so much
Speaker 2: for being here. And was there anything in particular you
Speaker 2: wanted to address about this show.
Speaker 4: I think you guys did greet the only I wanted
Speaker 4: Steven to know that in the article, like in one
Speaker 4: of the first couple of paragraphs there, it does it
Speaker 4: that where it introduces the idea that it's you know,
Speaker 4: reflective material. It just kind of pops up out of nowhere.
Speaker 4: They're like, one possibility is this if it's real, So
Speaker 4: that's the sort of evidence that we're dealing with in that,
Speaker 4: But otherwise I think, I mean, I couldn't add anything
Speaker 4: to anything you guys said. You guys did awesome, as.
Speaker 2: Always awesome, and it is time for some lover rings
Speaker 2: if we can send those out. Oh and we got
Speaker 2: a super chat from Miranda Renzberger. Great show today. You
Speaker 2: have managed to have productive conversations with one difficult caller
Speaker 2: and made a valiant effort with another.
Speaker 3: Oh, I can't see the rest of it.
Speaker 2: You guys are awesome. Thank you so much, Miranda. Miranda
Speaker 2: is one of the MVPs of this show, always showing
Speaker 2: up those super chats.
Speaker 1: She is to the ACA as the Pope was to
Speaker 1: the Renaissance, like just the payment.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely amazing.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Miranda, And as always, it's great
Speaker 2: to see the community coming together having these more difficult discussions.
Speaker 2: And if you don't believe this is your place, these
Speaker 2: are your people. We hope to see you.
Speaker 3: This upcoming weekend.
Speaker 2: I'm so excited to meet some of you in person
Speaker 2: and hang out for a bit and watch the shows together.
Speaker 2: We appreciate all of your time staying with us every week,
Speaker 2: and if you do believe, we don't hate you.
Speaker 1: We're just not convinced.
Speaker 7: We want the truth.
Speaker 4: So watch Truth Wanted live Fridays at seven pm Central
Speaker 4: Call five one two nine nine one nine two four
Speaker 4: two or visit tiny dot cc forward slash call tw