Speaker 1: How the word faith only shows up at the end
of arguments for God. You hear God exists because the
universe had to come from somewhere, because morality needs a source,
because miracles do happen, And when each of those arguments crumble,
you'll hear the infamous phrase, well you just have to
have faith. Faith is the last dying gasp of a sputtering,
bad argument, the emergency exit when reason catches fire. It's
like running out of AMMO in a debate and throwing
the empty gun as your final weapon. Faith doesn't explain God.
It's an admission that you've got no actual evidence for
your God. And if the best you can do is
tell us to believe in things without evidence, then you've
lost the argument. But congratulations, you did win a consolation prize,
a gold medal in mental gymnastics. So get your leotard ready.
Today's your day. The lines are open and the show
starts now. Welcome friends. Today is September fourteenth, twenty twenty five.
I'm your host, Justin You might know me. Elsewhere is
Deconstruction Zone, and I'm joined by the fabulous Jim Burrows.
Great to see a friend.
Speaker 2: Yeah, great to see you too, second time in a row.
I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we were able to do it twice in a month.
That's exciting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and hopefully, you know, this week we get some
callers who can actually answer yes to no questions and
when they say the Bible says something, I can give
us chapter and verse. But I don't hold out for
that level of competence today, So we'll see how it goes.
Speaker 1: Though it is impressive because you know, we're told that
faith can move mountains and that you know, they'll be
able to do anything through Christ. But it's weird that
the simplest things they can't do, like just say yes
or no to an easy question. But we'll see what happens.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and anything except you know, regrow limbs fix You know,
I still wear glasses, although I don't wear them when
I'm sitting in front of a computer. None of these
things seem to be to be fixed, right except by
Charlatans and proven Charlatans who can do that. So where
is all that?
Speaker 1: But Jim, your eyes have been finely tuned for those glasses.
You just don't understand.
Speaker 2: I'd say, my glasses, well they're not so Finally, teened anymore,
I needed a new prescription. But I think it's the
other way around. But I could be wrong, you know,
we could all be wrong about this. Human body could
be finally designed. Even the spinal cord is a complete disaster,
you know, it should It doesn't have the proper support
for a vertical column that it should. You know, why
are our ribs so high up, given that almost all
predators are shorter than us, leaving our stomach wide up
at an unprotected It's almost like we were designed to
maybe walk on all fours at some point, and our
bodies just haven't adapted, you would think. But yeah, I
mean otherwise we're perfectly designed, right, I mean that's why
we catch colds, oh of course, right.
Speaker 1: And then the same virus DNA gets itself into our genome,
and we have thousands of endogenous retroviruses.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, including just one that you know separates us
from from chimpanzees. But yeah, I mean, honestly, if if
I as a software engineer, are you you're software engineer too? Right?
Speaker 3: Or just so?
Speaker 1: I was an electrical engineer for about twenty years, but
I probably spent more of my time programming software than
anything else.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, if you or I wrote software the way
DNA is written, we'd be fired. And because it's just graptastic.
You don't need that many AIRHRM mechanisms if you write
could code in the first place, one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: And the amount of dead code that is coded quotations
that's in our body is preposterous. If you had that
amount of dead code in your program, they'd fire you
and hire an intern to it for you. It's crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I just same like being a double E.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Could you imagine, you know, designing it chip or some
electrical component with a bunch of stuff that just doesn't
work for no reason.
Speaker 1: It worked thirty iterations ago that we copied it from.
But don't worry, it's it's fine.
Speaker 2: It's the top notch, right or copiers? I mean, how
many times a day do we we copy a file
from one place to the other, And if we had
the error mechanisms or the error rate that our DNA has,
we'd get nothing copied, right, just moving from place to place. Yeah, indeed,
you know these streams are copied, so guess what the
streams wouldn't work that well? So where is all this?
You know? Perfect engineering that's supposed to have been done.
Because if God exists, you need to type his engineering
license revoked.
Speaker 4: Jim.
Speaker 1: You have to have faith, remember, just have to have faith.
Speaker 2: I have faith that if God actually did the things
that he is claimed of him in terms of engineering,
that the world would be much much worse.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I have to agree if the God, like that's just
i'd in, like the Bible of the churn and whatnot,
if that God really does design some stuff I've honestly,
it seems like it might be worse than what we
have here, like the If there was a God that
designed this environment, it's got to be some sort of
a theistic god, not in one of these books, because
the God in one of these books is horrific. These
are not good books.
Speaker 2: Yeah, without a doubt. I mean, he can't even get
how to motivate humans, right, because according to psychology, the
worst thing you can do is delay reward or punishment,
and the next worst thing is delayed punishment. That is
the worst motivator is delayed punishment. And yet that's all
God really has. So you know what happens to internal motivation,
which is the best way to motivate somebody to do
what you want. None of that appears in the Bible.
It's all heaven later, mana later, this, you know whatever.
It's never anything now which would work, or nothing but
punishment punishment reward, which is not nearly is effective. Is
finding ways to internally motivate people. He'd think if he
made us, he would know that.
Speaker 1: Well, he's just beyond an understanding. We just don't get
We don't get him.
Speaker 2: It's okay, Oh yeah, So basically the unsustify the means
kind where we're at. Oh no, that's not moral.
Speaker 1: Well, we've got a couple of people in the queue.
It looks like either mostly atheists so far. If you're
a theist and you want us to know about your God,
or you want to prove us wrong and tell us
why indeed your God is real and atheists are silly,
call the number on the screen. We'd love to hear
from you. And with that, let me read the introduction
and we'll get our first guests in here. The Atheist
Experience is the product of the Atheist Community of Austin,
a five A one C three nonprofit organization dedicated to
the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the
separation of religion and government, and those sound like things
we really need right now. So like and share and
share a lot, friends, We're going to grab. The first
in line name appears to be Mary from North Carolina,
and the text says working through deconstruction makes me feel guilty.
I get that, Mary, Can you hear us?
Speaker 4: I can thank you for taking my call?
Speaker 1: Sure thing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I've been deconstructing since two thousand and eight, and
I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, but it
was more like a commune. We lived with everybody, and
scripture is still so ingrained in my heart. When I'm
asking or answering these questions, I still feel this guilt,
like I'm betraying God.
Speaker 1: Sure so, I mean you spent what multiple decades in
a legalistic religious framework, and you've been deconstructing for how
many years? Did I hear?
Speaker 2: Eight?
Speaker 4: Since two thousand and eight and then went back twice?
Speaker 1: Wow? Yeah, well that happens too. Actually, yeah, so well,
let me ask you a question. It took me a
long time to deconstruct as well. Mine wasn't entirely linear,
and I don't know if everybody's is. What were the
factors that first made you question, and then the follow
up is what made you go back.
Speaker 4: Well, when I went to college, I went to community college,
and my pastor was actually concerned. He told me that
he seed a lot of good women lose their faith
and leave their marriage when they go to higher education, right,
And I was guarded against that, but I saw a
different worldview and started questioning things. I had some really
good teachers, especially in religious studies, and started to learn
about other religions and mythologies around them and started questioning
my own. And then my brother introduced me to Sam
Harris and Christopher Hitchins, and I finally let go of
the idea of hell, and that really made me feel
free to explore what I believed and ask questions. And
the second one was I was going to a Baptist
church and that we did this bishop's song study asking
the questions. It was a very liberal Baptist church that
I was going to, and that started another phase for me.
But I went back because of the community. I had
lost all my friend and some family, and I kept
going back and it was a very emotional service, a
lot of praise and worship, and I missed that that
really kind of feeling of the spirit and the connection.
But I just couldn't sit through the sermons. It just
was I just had a dichotomy in my head for
a little while.
Speaker 1: I get that the community is one of the things
I hear the most when people are deconstructing. I miss
a community, and some of them lost their families too,
Like I miss a community and I miss my family, right,
And I think that that's a pretty normal thing to do,
and it's hard to find new community. You spent your
whole life building this community, and you know you don't
want to spend the rest of your life building another community, right,
So I really understand where you're coming from there. It
sounds to me like you you want to be part
of it for the community, even though you don't necessarily
believe it anymore. Is that an accurate description?
Speaker 6: That is?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay, well maybe something to think about.
Speaker 7: And the one thing that money.
Speaker 4: Is I discovered your show last week and and just
hearing you talk about the Bible, and so I ordered
the Skeptics Annotated Bible because I wanted to study the
Bible a different way, and I think that will help
me a lot.
Speaker 2: For sure, there's a there's a number of really good resources.
Richard Carrier has got some really good resources. I'm skipping
I'm forgetting a name. The other one that Christians who's
an atheist now Bible scholar man, Yeah, yeah, Barerment has
some really good stuff. Yeah, And these are just courses
you can take. They do charge a little bit, but
it's not It's well worth it because these are actual
scholars that you're learning from, and you're learning it from
a scholarly point of view if you only kind of
want to study it from that, and then find other
Bible scholars, not just preachers or apologies, because they have
a different viewpoint. They are trying to make sense of
the Bible, whereas the scholars are actually, uh trying to
make put it in its historical context and figure out
where it comes from. Elaine Peggles is another one who's
really really good on that. And then once you start
there with those folks, you can you'll branch out into
more scholarly work where they're actually looking at the history
and not all scholars, not all these scholars are atheists.
By the way, I think Elaine Peggles is still a Christian.
She may be the only one we've mentioned that is,
but the vast majority of biblical scholars are are theists,
so and they have to juxtapose their belief with what
they know, which is why Kip Davis, Yeah, there's another one.
If you want anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls. He's
kind of the the guy for the Dead Sea Scrolls
because he's done the most work on them, starting with
his pre doctor and if I remember correctly, and his
post and his doctoral and post doc work is all
on Dead Sea Scrolls. So, but you're talking about the community,
and yeah, that's the hardest thing. Just find a secular community,
meet up, Facebook, you know, list come out, you know,
three or four or five things that you really like
to do. Go find groups that are doing that on
Facebook or meetup and go do it with them, and
you can build up a really nice community, a really
tight community of friends. It's hard, but you can definitely
do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I joined one of those in Greensboro years ago, but
when COVID came they stopped, so I might find one again.
Those are good suggestions.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's hard, but you you know, you kind of
have to, as they used to say in dating yet,
to put yourself out there. One of my best friends
I actually met one night when I was just out
grabbing a beer. We just happened to find each other
at a bar. I sat next to them. It turned
out that we were interested in the same stuff. I
found out that he grew up not far from where
I grew up, and we've been friends now for twenty years,
and his friends became my friend. I had like a
whole new community that I adopted. So like, sometimes just
like getting yourself to leave the house and go do
something social and getting to push yourself to interact with
people that you haven't met yet can really open up
a lot of doors. Now, Listen, I've gone out before.
I met some hervit people that I never want to
see again. But I've also met some very delightful people
just by getting out and forcing myself to be social.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, I'll do that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and maybe I'll just add one more thing storry
to pile on, Like it's okay if you're still like
friends in socialized with the people in your church, Like
I understand that there's a little bit that you feel
that division in you because well I don't believe this
stuff anymore, right, but like you know, most of my friends,
friends and families still believe as well, and if I
get to go to church and see them, I'm perfectly
happy to do so. In fact, I'll be going to
a service not too long from now, right, So I
understand that that aspect of it, and there's nothing wrong
with that. And I don't know if you need to
feel weird or guilty about that, as long as you're
not like leading them on making them think that you're
back in the faith again.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah.
Speaker 4: I have quite a few friends that are that are
Christians because I'm in a twelve step program as well,
and we just we just don't talk about that. We
just because they know that my higher power is different
than theirs, and so the reason we're together is to
stay sober, and so we talk about different things. So
I have a lot of people in my circle that
are believers, and we're still very good friends. They don't
try to change my mind. I don't try to change theirs.
You know.
Speaker 1: It's good. Well, congrats of being sober. That's a huge achievement.
Speaker 2: Yes, three years, Thank you, congratulations. That's awesome.
Speaker 1: W thank you well, Mary, thanks so much for calling.
It was delightful to hear from you.
Speaker 4: Well, thanks for taking my call. You have a good day.
Speaker 1: They have a good one.
Speaker 2: That is time, Jim. Yeah, finding community again and rebuilding it,
especially if it's like she said, she's coming from a
commune type situation where they're all of it on the
same compound. It sounds like, so you have that tight
knit community built in. But it's amazing you can go
find you know, there's you know, I do scuba diving
and I drive drive my jeep off road as much
as I can. Those are two very different communities. But
there's still very secular communities. And guess what, God doesn't
come up hardly at all. And I'm in South Alabama.
I have two hours to the east and be in
Georgia in an out you know hour maybe less to
the south. I'm in Florida, so I'm right in that corner.
I've got probably four churches within walking distance of me.
So you know, if we're not talking about it, you
can definitely find it. But you do have to go
out and you do have to, you know, find it.
And that's why I says, you know, come up with
like four or five things you like to do or
might like to do, and then go find this. Those
places keep yourself kind of busy while you figure out
what's gonna work and what isn't. You're likely enough to
do with other people. And if you it's if it's
something where everyone's doing kind of the same thing or
working towards the same goal, it gives you that same
type of community feeling because that's exactly what you're doing.
You know, in a church, et cetera. Is working towards
a goal, working towards a thing. And so even if
it's just something like you know, we go out and
drive along the coast, that's all doing the same kind
of thing. We all have the same kinds of experiences.
So yeah, I couldn't agree more.
Speaker 1: Find people that you enjoyed doing things with. Join a club.
I've met great friends by joining adult clubs. You'd be
surprised there's a lot of adult clubs out there. But
we've got some super chats and some more guests. Let's
do this. How about let's read a couple of super
chats and then I'll grab our next guest and we'll
keep the show moving. We maybe an agnostic from Kansas
named Ben that wants to talk about leaving room for God.
But before we do that, Gretchen Z. Great to see
you tonight, Gretchen, thank you for the ten dollars super chat.
Gritian is the last supper. Jesus passed out bred and
said this is my body as he poured wine, said
this is my blood as he grabbed the jar of mayo.
Judas jumped and said, I just realized I got to
be somewhere. That's great. And Johnny Morris, thank you for
the two super j Johnny says you both rule well.
Thank you, Johnny really appreciate that. And last one for
now from our friend forum Forum, thank you for the
fire doar uh super and for being a member of
the channel. Says I just ate a ghost pepper for
the very first time. WHOA, holy shit. I never had
any kind of transcendent experience before, but hot, damn good pain. Yes,
that's that's tough. I did. I did that once and
it wasn't even fully ripe, and it wiped me out
for the rest of the day. I was done.
Speaker 2: Yeah, good ghosts pepper will do that. There's some restaurants
here and ghost peppers where the ghost pepper has been
turned down, and I really do like the entire taste
of it. But if it's a regular ghost pepper, you're
not tasting the ghost pepper because your taste buds are
gone and your nerve yes shot for the rest of
the day without a doubt. And I like spicy food
most of the time. And if you do eat ghost peppers,
I highly recommend a gallon of ice cream that way
later on, as it's passing through, you can wait for
the ice cream to go through too.
Speaker 1: Ice Cream's essential. Let's bring in Ben. Ben's from Kansas,
and Ben is asking science doesn't explain spirituality? Could there
be room for God there?
Speaker 2: Ben?
Speaker 1: Can you hear us?
Speaker 8: Hey, yeah, I can hear you.
Speaker 1: Awesome, Can you doing well? Thanks for asking? Can you
kind of flesh out your introduction, like, what do you
think is lacking that we would want to leave room
for God in?
Speaker 8: Well, I guess I'll just give you a little bit
of back down and then I'll ask the question if
that's okay?
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, yea. If it helps make your argument that
for spiritual and leaving room for God, sure, go ahead.
Speaker 8: So I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist household, you know,
where people didn't question their faith and they always wondered,
you know, I always wondered why people judged other people's
beliefs but not didn't question their own, you know, and
I've seen quite a bit of the experience, and at
first I was, you know, resistant to what you for
your arguments to help me think more critically and like
work through some pretty difficult questions. And right now I'm
kind of on the fence between atheism and theism. It's like,
I want to believe in God, but I haven't really
found convincing evidence. And so for me just recently, a
question that's kind of popped up is like particle waves duality.
It shows that reality is kind of stranger than what
we think, and it makes me wonder if there's a
deeper layer to existence that we don't yet grasp. And
I'm not saying that that's evidence of God, but it
kind of keeps me open to the idea that there
could be something beyond what we currently understand.
Speaker 2: Well, how is that spirituality? I mean, yeah, quantum mechanics
kind of screes everything up for a lot of things,
especially for any of the cosmological arguments for God. I
think it pretty much closes the book and says those
are done because we know there's just too much randomness there.
But does that mean that there's potential for God to
be there? I guess the question is this wwitch god?
If it's the God of the Bible. No, because the
triomne God of the Bible, the one is omnipresent, omnipotent,
and omnib benevolent, can't logically exist if there's evil in
the world. He can only exist if there is no
evil in the world. So that kind of God can't
possibly exist. If you're talking about like a elemental God
that has control over storms or whatever. Those gods clearly
don't exists. So when you say that there's room for God,
what kind of God is there? Certainly not the God
of the Bible in any stretch of the imagination right
because he possibly exists because nothing about him fits with reality,
even if you get rid of the triomne properties, which
are relatively recent to Christianity. Essay relativey, I think it's
fourth fifth century justin correctly be on that. If I'm
completely off, I'm sure. So it's just problematic. So when
you say there's room for God, I think you got
to define that God just to know if there's room
for him and how does he interact with the universe
and what did he do?
Speaker 8: You know, that's a fair point, I guess. I mean
God more of like ultimate reality or the ground of being,
like not necessarily a specific deity.
Speaker 2: What do you mean by grounded reality?
Speaker 8: Kind of think of it?
Speaker 1: That was my first question is what do you mean
by grounded reality?
Speaker 8: Well, it's just that there's so much we don't understand
about it. Sure, I guess reality. Why would we It
seems like the deeper we go, the fuzzier it gets.
Speaker 1: Well, in terms of reality, go ahead, Jim.
Speaker 2: I would say, in terms of the fuzzier it gets.
And we kind of know a lot about uantum mechanics.
You know. The last thing we didn't know was the
Higgs Boson particle, and that came out exactly as the
math predicted.
Speaker 8: Concern.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know that's kind of what they're doing now,
is just going back and proving the math, so to speak,
well not so to speak, that's what they're doing. And
there hasn't been anything super new or truly groundbreaking. They
have found some things that have shaken up particular areas
of quantum mechanics, but to say we don't know. You know,
we know quite a bit, at least according to our maths.
So when you say we don't know enough, I mean, yeah,
that's probably true, and there's always going to be more
to learn, more than likely. So yeah, but where what
does that have to do with the grounded reality or God?
I got?
Speaker 8: Well, I guess I'm not trying to claim that it
proves God. I just maybe I just think it shows
how surprising reality can be. And I wonder how I
can appreciate that mystery without turning it into dogmas so
to speak.
Speaker 1: Sure, can I see a question about the It sounds
like you're trying to figure out like why there is
reality as opposed to not reality, and so that's why
you're looking for like ontological grounding. But like the question
I would have is like I don't see, like if
you envision some sort of like deistic god that grounds
all this, we still run a foul of the same problem,
which is like we have no explanation for the grounding
of a deistic god. Right, So, as far as I'm
I'm concerned, I'm looking at this and I'm thinking it
just makes more sense that you know, whatever exists is
going to be a naturalistic phenomenon. It might be true
that there's naturalistic phenomenon that we don't know about. We
don't fully understand it yet, right, But everything we learn
about the universe as we gain more knowledge, points towards
naturalistic causes. So I'm inclined to believe that a naturalistic
cause is going to be the next step as opposed
to something that has a mind and created all things,
because once you add a mind into the equation, there
needs to be explanations for why the mind does anything.
And that's when it gets really difficult, because like if
a mind created all this, had all that power, created
the entire universe, but then created the show here on
the Earth man, we got a lot of problems. I
think Okham's razor would do as well, just to not
needlessly multiply entities.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the end.
Speaker 8: Which solution is often the correct one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, the simplest solution that explains the most or
all of the phenomena is usually the correct one. Yeah,
you don't need to really complicate things, but you know
there there's also somewhat similar to the the something from
nothing argument we hear from theists, and the fact is
that energy can never be created nor destroyed, not by God,
not by anyone or anything, and so energy is not nothing.
It is something. But even if and that's just kind
of the scientific basis. And then they've done some experiments
to prove that the nothing that philosophers talk about can't
possibly exist, right, And that's a problem if you're going
to do this something from nothing. That's a problem for
the biblical God as well, because he created the universe
out of nothing. Again, energy can't be created or destroyed,
and nothing can't possibly exist, so according to our best
science that we have so far. But also if we
assume that philosophical nothing, that would also mean that there
are no rules against that nothing spontaneously creating something, right,
because that rule wouldn't exist. So Yeah, Richard Carrier has
got a really really good, long argument that I don't
really want to necessarily get into. I've got it here
in my note somewhere if we really want to, But
he makes are really compelling argument that if absolute nothing
really existed, then something would come out of it, just
because that's more likely than anything else. And he gets
into the math andism makes a really good philosophical argument
against it. But I just I don't buy the something
from nothing at all. That argument just doesn't work for me.
It doesn't work for me from a scientific point of view,
and it doesn't work for me from a philosophical point
of view either. It's just a really bad argument.
Speaker 8: I know, And it's honestly kind of hard to explain
because I'm just like on the fence about a lot
of stuff. I guess if I had to just summarize it, like,
would you consider it to be reasonable for people to
feel spiritual inspiration or not from the strangeness of reality?
And if it was, like, could you give some examples
of some stuff that I could read to help me
with that.
Speaker 1: I think it's okay to feel like a little bit
of awe in wonder at the universe because it's pretty cool,
Like the universe is really cool. Yeah, I thought about
this a long time. When we look at certain features,
like we see a really big mountain range, we're kind
of full of all in wonder. But I remember the
first time I saw my like a really large expansion bridge,
I was like, I had a very very similar feeling
of all in wonder, but like, hey, human beings built.
Speaker 9: This, this is in person, right, So My suggestion is
like crazy, I saw a little helicopter flying in there,
and it looked just absolutely minuscule, you know, the scale
of it.
Speaker 8: It's just like whoa so.
Speaker 1: Like yeah, like the Hoover Dam, right, Like all in
Wonders not reserved for naturalistic things like the Grand Canyon
and whatnot, it's also for human made things. And I
think that tells us that humans just naturally were kind
of impressed by very large structures.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, or just just things that that, you know.
I find it interesting too that some of the most
beautiful places in the world are also places where forging
for food, if you know, back in the day would
have been easier heavily forested areas funding things in mountains,
and you know, civilization grew up on the banks where
you could. So yeah, I think there's also a bit
of an evolution in there. But seeing things and being
inspired by them has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality.
Is just enjoying being human.
Speaker 8: Wow, that's that's pretty cool. I guess it's just dealing
with those And it's funny you even mentioned forging. I
like to do that. I live out in the country
and I've been doing that a lot it's just I
guess happy to be alive, you know, I don't. Yeah,
it's kind of hard if we have time for one
more question, it's kind of off topic, is that okay?
So because of my journey, you know, I was just
wondering how I can maintain a good relationship with my
very religious family when our beliefs are so different. It's like,
I don't want to lie about what I believe, but
I don't want to turn every visit into a debate
or feel like I'm betraying myself by staying quiet. I
don't know if you are something that you guys have
been through, but any help be appreciated.
Speaker 2: Yeah, my parents don't know that I'm an atheist, or
at least I don't think they do. I've never told them,
and they're not on the internet, and they're not anywhere
where they can run into me. Now, my cousins, to
include my mom's sister and her sister in law, are
on the internet and they both know. So do most
of my cousins. Now have they told my parents? I
don't know, but my parents aren't super strict. They asked
me to go to Mass and I say no, no thanks,
and I leave it at that. I don't offer anything,
and they kind of accept that. So your family's going
to be a little bit different. You're gonna have to
navigate your own way, and I don't know that there's
a good way to do it depending you know. I
know atheists who have good relationship with their highly religious parents,
but they set boundaries and there are consequences for crossing
those boundaries, like going no contact for a period of time.
And I know atheists who just have horrible relationships with
their family. So I only I can really give you
is best of luck and try to remember what your
focus is is keeping them in your lives while also
establishing boundaries, right.
Speaker 3: And I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I would ask, sorry, like do you do you want
to maintain a tight relationship with them? Is that your goal?
Speaker 8: I completely changed my career into healthcare, and nobody in
my family really does that. So I actually moved back
to be closer with them so that I could offer
that part of what I can be helpful with to them.
So it's kind of like I really and we've had
a lot of my family has had a lot of
health problems in this coming up. This last year has
been crazy and so that's one of the main reasons
why I move back. But it's like I pretty much
have to not have to. It is my choice, obviously,
but I'm around them and I want to help them
in that instance. But it's just my with my dad,
I pretty much just never talk about it. I just
don't go into it. And then some of my other
family are definitely more open with it, but it just
becomes so heated and you know, the same arguments that
you guys hear. I'm sure you know, ad nauseum over
and over. It's the same thing, and they they will
not be convinced in any way. And I've tried, honestly
just to not be disingenuine. I've read many different books
on different religions to kind of like maybe get a
bridge to even get them, you know, like say, hey,
like there's many other gods, but you just believe in
this one, you know, like just trying to help. But
also I don't you know, I don't want to force
them into anything, you know, I'm just there to help.
It's just it's kind of hard topic to stay away
from because they love to talk about it, you.
Speaker 1: Know, and that's fair. You know, I had I have
a very like right leaning political family, but I have
one aunt who has always been very left leaning, and
I didn't even know about it until I was in
my late teens. I had no idea, and it was
really interesting, and I asked her when I got over it,
how come you never talk about politics, because she clearly
was very interested in politics. She worked for the government
for a long time. And she's like, I love my family,
it's not worth fighting over. And I was like, oh, well,
that's that's fair, right, And so, like, I think you
do have to at some level ask yourself, like, where
are is your priority to maintain your family relationship? If
that's if that's the priority, then you kind of have
to sometimes, you know, not talk about a subject that
you might want to talk about. However, if if like
your family is using religion in a dangerous way, that's
when you might want to speak up. When the conversation
comes up, and you know, present facts or evidence or
arguments that may or may not be persuasive. You're certainly
you're not going to persuade your family to think like you,
but you can at least have an answer ready for
when they come at you with some of these things I.
Speaker 8: Mean, And it's the craziest thing because what I guess
such an ironic statement of common sense. You say that
people would understand, but like sometimes arguing with them, it's
just they will not accept it. You know, I don't.
I don't owe in silence, you know, I just I honest.
I just want to be honest. I don't want I
don't want to worry about like hurting them, you know,
because I want to be there for them. But I
just guess I'm just trying to share gradually because I
just I want to be honest about myself too.
Speaker 2: You know, Well, there's nothing dishonest about not telling them
you're an atheist or not having those conversations, because I mean,
as someone who is obviously on a show as often
as I am and looking to do more shows, I
would still say that atheism is still twenty percent of
my life, maybe ten percent, And so for me to
talk about anything else isn't being dishonest. I don't talk
about scuba diving, and on scuba divers, I don't talk about,
you know, driving off road to people who aren't driving
off road. All the time, we talked about things that
we have common interest and it's not being disingenuine, that's
just being genuine. So there's no dishonesty on that on
your part there as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 8: Okay, Well, I mean what you guys have said have
been really helpful. Thank you a lot. I mean, I
enjoy what you guys are doing, and honestly, it has
been very helpful and in my journey, like I said,
I was pretty resistant at first, but over the years,
you know' as I've traveled and met more people, I've
just realized that, you know, there's so much there's just
a better logical and rational way to approach things, and
it's been very helpful. Thank you guys.
Speaker 10: I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Well, thanks for calling in, Ben, and best luck to
you and best of luck with your with your family relationships.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, jeers friend, I appreciate it. Yep.
Speaker 1: I think that's such a common problem. There's so many
people that live in like a small blue dot and
where they think differently than those around them, and it's
difficult to be authentic but also preserve relationships. That's all.
Speaker 2: It's the hardest thing in the world. Families are rough,
especially the more religious families especially you know, like the
Jdubs are really willing to shun you and cut off
all contact, and others that are just as extreme. We'll
also do that. So coming out as an atheist, especially
for the young folks who are under eighteen and can't
sign rental agreements, can't work full time because of child
labor laws and all that, the hardest thing in the
world is just tell them keep your mouth shut, keep
your head down way till you're eighteen, because that could
be just as dangerous as telling them nothing at all
or to do anything else. So yeah, this Christian idea
that it's okay to throw your children into the wolves
is just horrifyingly bad and it's not uncommon. And if
you read the Bible, I think that you can actually
make that case that shunning and ostracizing people is a
thing to do.
Speaker 1: Yep, sure can. It's absolutely in there.
Speaker 2: Yeah I am.
Speaker 1: Let me grab the next three super chats and then
I'm going to do some announcements and we'll get Daisy
on the line. Next. We've got a twenty dollars super
chat from our friend Jason Jones. Thank you so much,
Jason Jason from Seattle, Thanks you for your work. Well Jason,
I really appreciate that, and thank you for supporting our
work and thank you for supporting the ACA. We've also
got another super chat from our friend Maryland. Marilynd. Thank
you so much for the five dollars super chat. Maryland says,
Justin is God. Well we Marilynd, we appreciate you supporting
the stream. Good to see you as always. And last
our friend Emir, thank you so much, Amir for the
five dollars super chat and for being a member of
the channel. Amir says, question for the esteemed panel, please
have you looked at and really considered the trees? Checkmate?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Also follow up, where do you come from?
Speaker 2: My mama's Betty.
Speaker 1: I have to be careful. I went for a long
hike the other day. I almost came back theist. It
was a tough wow.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, very tough. We have a lot of trees
down here in southern Alabama, and just driving around is
really really hard. But it's a wide variety of trees,
so you get to contemplate different types of trees. You know,
some of them, you know. So yeah, yeah, Well, friends,
we've got some announcements.
Speaker 1: We now have a channel that houses all of the
ACA shows in audio podcast form and you can find
it at tiny dot c C forge slash a e
N podcast We'll say it again, tiny dot cc forge
slash a n Podcasts. There you can listen to all
the latest shows from The Atheist Experienced, Talking Than Truth Wanted,
and the nonprofits, as well as others on the channel.
Another way you can support the channel, as you already know,
is through super chaps. We get them into show, we
read them during and after the show as well as
many as we can, and we love audience participation. We
love to hear from the audience and be able to
interact with you. The ACA also wants you to know
what's going on in our community, so you can find
that at the atheistdash community dot org and learn about
the organization itself, it's policies how you can get involved
as well. And last, but certainly not least, want to
send a big thank you to the crew who puts
this show together every week. And we were just talking
about this before the stream. The crew who runs the
show makes life so much easier for the host because
all we have to do is get up here and talk.
So send a big thank you to the operators. The
audio operators, the note takers, the video operators, the call screeners,
and the chat moderators. Because they're making our load much
much lighter up here. As they say, many hands make
the load lighters.
Speaker 5: How they say that, yeah, yeah, and it's true. They
make our lives so much easier. And of course the
folks stands for our now another justin they do. They
do a lot more than they take, a lot more
than people will give them credit force sometimes, but yes,
the folks answer and mail are also part of that crew.
Speaker 1: Speaking of answering mail, I see people commenting after the streams,
in the comments of the video is wanting us to
answer their questions. And I'll just let you know now,
if you want your questions answered, you have to call
in the show. I don't go into these comments and
debate you after the show. You've got to got to
pull your britches up and get in and call in
the show if you want to prove Jim and I wrong.
Speaker 2: We don't bite much, but you know, you get ready
to have a conversation.
Speaker 1: Indeed, let's get Daisy into the chat. Daisy is from
Washington and is asking is there a way to actually
disprove dogmatic religions unlike deism. Here's a fair question. Do
you need any addition to that, any clarification of Daisy's I.
Speaker 10: Think that's pretty much it. It's like, is there a
way that dogmatic religions can be just like I understand
that Dehism can't really be disproved necessarily, but like, do
you think that the like like say, you know, like
just take the example like the God of the Bible.
Is there a way that you can disprove that?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 2: Which version of the God of the Bible? Because there's
multiple there's multiple versions of that God. There's at least
now some people say ten thousand. I'll go with what
I can prove and say, there's a thousand different religions,
all of which disagree on some fundamental point of dogma,
and they all claim the Bible as their source. So
which God of the Bible are you talking about? And yeah,
I just start there.
Speaker 10: Well, I was recently having a discussion with an Episcopalian
and I kept bringing things up, like, you know, how
there's slavery in the Bible, and like the problem of
evil and about the thing about the testing of women's
virginity and how that's wrong. And they kept saying, oh, no, no,
we don't believe that kind of thing, and we kept
gaining trans people and stuff because we don't take the
Bible literally in that way.
Speaker 1: And yeah, laws are not literal anymore. With that, So
if they're telling you that laws are not literal anymore,
I think they're more confused just about anybody, like the
most literal part of the Bible are the laws?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 4: Right? Right?
Speaker 1: Well, let me get let me give you. Can I
give you some nuggets that you might want to take
and use in the future, because there's a couple of
things you can write down if you're trying to do
some work on debunking the Jesus nonsense. I would start
with a two for one, which is show that the
Bible contradicts itself and show that the contradictions come directly
from Jesus. I think these are problematic for a lot
of Christians. Once they say that Jesus can say things wrong,
there's all kinds of problems that they can't reconcile. So,
for example, if you go to Matthew twenty seven and
then go down to verse seven, it talks about Jesus
being betrayed for the thirty pieces of silver. But listen
to what it says in seven and eight says, after
conferring to they get together, they use them to buy
the Potters Field as a place to bury foreigners. For
this reason, that field has been called the field of
blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been
spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, and they took thirty pieces
of silver, the price of the one on whom a
price had been set, on whom some of the people
a visual headset a price. So the author right here
of Matthew referring to Jesus's betrayal is just wrong. Jeremiah
didn't say anything. He actually just quoted Zachariah. He quoted
Zachariah and attributed it to Jeremiah, which was just all
complete flubb He completely flubbed it. Jesus does the same
thing in Matthew twenty three with Matthew twenty three. Yeah,
Matthew twenty three, We grab it real quick. In verse
thirty four he talks about the wrong Zachariah. In verse
thirty five talks about a Zacharia that was martyred. As
is upon you may come all the righteous blood shed
on the earth from the blood of the righteous able
to the blood of Zachariah's son of better A Kiah,
whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. But
that's not correct, that's the wrong Zachariah. And second Chronicles
twenty four where it records the death of that Zachariah,
it's not actually the son of berachoid I say that right, yeah, Betterrakiah,
it's the son of Jehoida. So, like we've got lots
of instances of the New Testament just completely flubbing the
Old Testament. One of my other favorites is Jesus in
Luke chapter four, misapplies Isaiah sixty one to himself. If
you just read all the way to verse four, it's
clear that it didn't come true. He also misquotes other
parts of the Old Testament, like he completely flubs in
Matthew twenty two, what's happening in Psalm one ten because
he can't read Hebrew. He's only reading the Greek. And
so once you start pointing out the problems with Jesus
himself not even understanding what's in the Hebrew Bible, it's
are difficult for them to come back from that because
they think even though the Bible could have an error
in it, they wouldn't expect an error to be in
Jesus's own words.
Speaker 10: Right, even if they were Episcopalians.
Speaker 1: Right, because Episcopalians aren't always like in Arrentists, like there's
episcopalions that can hold to a biblical view that this
still contains like some errors. But once you start showing
them problems with, like well, Jesus himself said things that
just aren't true. Now they've got some stuff to wrestle with. Now.
My favorite topic, of course, and I would spend all
day every day talking about it, is just reading the
prophecies that are supposedly applied to Jesus. If you go
to the Book of Matthew, just just do the first
two chapters, go to those prophecies that are quoted, and
go back to the Old Testament where they're quoted from,
and read them in the original context. You can easily
just demonstrate quite quickly that Jesus didn't fulfill them in
the context they were given. Like Hosea eleven to one
talks about the sun coming out of Egypt, but that's preposterous.
Hosea eleven one is about the Israelites coming out of Egypt.
Israel is God's first born. It's a quotation of Exes four,
verse twenty two. So the reality is, once you start
looking at how Jesus didn't fulfill a single prophecy, got
a lot of big problems here. Jesus doesn't know the
Old Testament properly. The Gospel authors don't even know what
a prophecy is, and so like, what are we supposed
to believe about this Jesus character When the Gospels clearly
are lying about the Hebrew Bible. Why would we believe
them on something as monumental as a guy like raising
from the dead.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, like I think you're totally that is
way better than anything I could have thought about, Like
on this spot when I was talking to this person,
It's just it seems so slippery, where like anytime I
would bring up something, they would say, oh, like no,
we don't believe it like that, you know, like you know,
we like like have this new progressive interpretation. And I
was just thinking, like, well, you know, you could probably
you couldn't really disprove a God exists, like a prime
mover or something like that. But like I feel like
you know, I've watched the show for a long time.
I've watched other shows. Like I've been really really uncomfortably
reading the Bible lately to sort of like see what
it said, and it's it's it's in the Quran as
well as like a lot of this stuff is kind
of hard to get through because it's in this like
the sentences are really difficult to I mean, they're in
this kind of language that just is not it doesn't
really make too much sense when I'm sure you like
and I know justin you have like a lot of
knowledge on this, but like it's really hard to read
the Bible and come away with some kind of good
interpretation that you think like that you've got it, like
you you've actually understood the sentence and that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: But it certainly can be difficult, yeah, if you're not
used to it.
Speaker 10: Yeah, But just one other thing, like do you think
that there's like do you know much about like other religions.
Do you do you think that there's like in like
in the Koran or like in Buddhism or anything like that.
Do you think that there's there's those same types of things,
like these contradictions that can kind of show that the
dogma is like it could be shown to be wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I think Jim's got some stuff to
say about this as well. But like in Islam, there's
like clearly things that are untrue. It says that Mohammad
split the moon into that's in the hadith, clearly didn't happen.
We also have like preposterous stuff like it talks about
how sperm in the Koran comes from between the backbone
and the ribs. It doesn't. It gets embryology wrong, the
order of development of the embryo. And then there's like
really nonsensical passages that are just like wrong in sexist,
Like in the Koran two eighty two says, in regards
to doing a financial contract, if there are not two
men available to serve as witnesses, then a man and
two women such as you agree for witnesses so that
if one of them, the other can remind her. So
there's this baked in idea that like women are insufficient
compared to men mentally, And if you read the Hadiz,
the Hadis and the tough Seer they say the same thing.
So in one hidith Sahi Bakari, it says this is
because of the deficiency of a woman's mind. They're baked
into this religion is that women are deficient, they're less
than men, especially in terms of memory. The funny thing
is we've done actual scientific studies and it turns out
women have superb memories, much better than men. So this
idea that women can't serve as good witnesses because their
mind is deficient because they can remember something wrong is asinine.
Speaker 2: Have you heard of street epistemology. Yeah, that's a really
good technique for finding out we're basically asking how do
you know that? At nauseam without sounding like a three
year old, but as basically what a lot of it
is is asking questions. So you don't have to know
a lot about Hinduism or Buddhism or anything else to
ask questions about it, and to be able to ask
questions in such a way that you're actually trying to
discover how they know that, how do they why do
they believe that, what's the root cause, what's the evidence
do they have? And there's a lot of really good
stuff out there. Anthony mcnabosca is probably one of the
better ones out there, and he's a real good guy.
Many him a couple of times, but you know, the
website's a good place on straight epistemology is a good
place to get started with that. You don't have to
know everything to help people to discover the truth. You
just have to be willing to ask good questions listen to
the answers so that you can generate more good questions.
And that's the best way to go about doing that.
Because and as for every religion, right or even you
first Superman over Batman, you can use Trade of Pistemology
to figure out why somebody likes Superman more than Batman.
So it's not just religious questions, it's any any particular
point of knowledge that somebody may know more than you do.
And people know more about their own beliefs than most people.
But if you watch enough Anthony mcnabosco and enough Trade
of Pistemology folks, you'll be able to pick up the
rhythm and figure out how to ask those questions while
listening just for your own notification, because you know somebody
could actually have a good reason. That's why we do
this show all the day. I'm doing this show just
to see if we can get thes to answer the
questions yes or no, questions with yes or no. But
we haven't had any thes yet today, so I may
have scared them up with that.
Speaker 10: Well, No, that does make a lot of sense.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 10: I'm trying to read the Bible and the Kuran and
some other stuff in order to be better at like
addressing some of the conversations. But like, I see how
street of pistemalogy could be. Like, you know, you the
difficulty that I have is that I think that a
lot of the is will sort of pulling on to
belief just sort of without good reasons for it, you know,
like they'll just you know, it's just because like their
their family, like their their little town or whatever is
like all this kind of way, and so that it's
just sort of like this, like they're very they just
sort of believe it because they believe it, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And that's very much the case, and asking the
right questions can do more to expose that. The type
of debate that that Justin and I do on this
show and everyone else does on the ACA shows and
others as well, often runs into the backfire effect. We
know that that's going to happen. The more you directly
oppose someone's ideas, the more strongly entrenched they can become,
which is why we so we don't do these shows
necessarily to win the argument with the caller. It's the
people who are listening, you know, And that happens a
lot more than a caller going oh, yeah, you're right,
I no longer believe so in street epistemology is a
way around that because you're not opposing someone's ideas, you're
exploring their ideas, and you're doing it in a very
non confrontational way. But even so, it's not going to
be one conversation. It may be dozens of conversations, and
it may not be the conversation with you. Maybe it's
a conversation with you that gets them listening to this show,
and then it's a conversation that they listen to that
actually convinces them. It's not a one and done process,
and it's not a short process. Ask anybody who's deconverted.
It takes a long time.
Speaker 10: Yeah, yeah, I mean I had. I was lucky because
I was never really forced into Christianity, Like my family
was Christian. There were Presbyterians, but my family basically just
didn't care.
Speaker 2: What I believed in.
Speaker 10: When I was like twelve, I actually called the emailed
the ACA to try to determine if I was agnostic
or atheist or bullets or that kind of thing, and
they really helped me through that. But honestly, like this
has been really helpful in Justin and Jim. I'll look
up both of the things that you recommended, and I
really appreciate it to my heroes.
Speaker 5: So interesting, friendly, Yeah, best luck to you.
Speaker 1: I mean, uh, interesting question. I do think personally, I
think everyone has a different approach to tackling the religious topics,
and I think personally I've always favored the debunking the book.
But you know, there's a lot of people that don't
have dogmatic views of the books, so debunking the book
doesn't really do it for them, Like you have to
start with philosophy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Catholics are are not strict interpretation. In fact, you know,
Bible only is is a heresy to the structure Catholics
because the Bible was not written as Christianity for dummies.
It you know, they see it as a different book,
but they also don't take it literally. The question then becomes, well,
what do you take literally and what don't you take literally?
And how you decide what you do right? Which do
you take literally and which don't? Like Catholics don't take
Genesis as being factually true, So how do you decide
what is and isn't true? Right? If Genesis isn't true,
then how do you get to the resurrection? Right? If
the flood isn't true, how do you get to the resurrection?
And so they take that as fable and myth and
there's some truths there, but not you know, it's not
literally a word for word true. And I think your
style works better with a lot of evangelicals who are
Bible only you know every word is true type folk.
So yeah, it is harder, but even you know, with
Catholicism there's stuff you can you can get into that
just you know, where does this come from? Where does
papal and fallibility come from? But first sometimes you got
to get a Catholic to figure out what that is
and how the Church defines it, because no two Catholics
believe the same thing on that and Italian Catholics don't
believe the same thing as Churchman Catholics. American Catholics are
a whole different beasts. So Yeah, quite true.
Speaker 1: Well, we got one super chat from our friend psychological projectionist.
Thank you for the superchat, says, in my opinion, we
can't disprove anything, but we can show it's almost infinitely
improbable by demonstrating an infinity of equally disprovable candidate Gods. Actually,
I don't entirely disagree with that. That's one of the
reasons why you'll see behind me the grounding of all grounding,
Doug and Sharon Stone, because every argument for God I
can easily make for these two back behind me the
Rock of Salvation and the co redemptrics. So certainly there
are lots of arguments that could be had against God,
even if we wouldn't classify them as proofs.
Speaker 2: Proofs exists in mathematics and evidences for everything else. And
sometimes we screw those words up and use proof when
we mean evidence.
Speaker 1: But right right, indeed, well, let's grab Hannah from the queue. Hannah,
we we know quite well. Hannah's coming in this time,
says modern physics is evidence that the Kabba law is
revealed by God. Can't wait to see how this goes, Hannah.
Welcome back to the Athey experience.
Speaker 3: Hey, so I just Sorry, is there any background noise
or or am I coming in clear? I mean it's okay, Yeah,
I just wanted to say that I think basically that
principles of modern physics are evidence that Kabbalah, which is
the Jewish mystical tradition, is revealed by God. So I
don't know if he's review your Jewish Now, well, I'm
a Noah Hyde.
Speaker 1: Gotcha. So you're a noahidu. How long have you been in?
No hiju is.
Speaker 3: Someone who's not not a member of nation visual but
subscribes to Jewish philosophy. But I've been in doa Hyde
for years?
Speaker 1: Okay, just asking, So what's the scientific evidence that proves
that Jewish mysticism is true?
Speaker 3: The first piece of evidence is the fact that there
are tensive growths, which are ten attributes of God described
and then ten dimensions which modern quantum physicists discussed. That's
evidence one. I believe that the ten growths are manifest
and correlated to the ten dimensions that quantum physicists discussed.
Speaker 2: That's the first then, So how how just let's just
start there. How is that not a coincidence?
Speaker 3: Well, basically, because if we're talking about dedea that there's
a fundamental nature, at the fundamental nature of reality, that
there's ten essential attributes and ten dimensions in the physics,
and then the ten attributes of God. Well you could
say it's a coincidence. Coincidence.
Speaker 2: Well, that's exactly what it sounds like, right, because quantum
physics and those ten dimensions are things that we got
to from math. And you're saying is written in some
book by some thing that we don't neither justin nor
I accept as existing. So you got to do some
work here. You can't just go, oh, look the two
you got ten here and ten here, So what you
got to do some more work for that. So how
do you get from God to ten aspects of God
being the same thing as ten dimensions?
Speaker 3: It would be a probabilistic argument, or is it an
argument for certainty? But the probabilistic argument would be Ockham's
razor says that apostulate that has fewer assumptions built into
it is more likely to be true to my single formation,
and it requires fewer assumptions to say that there's tenements
and God is God.
Speaker 2: God is an extra assumption. God is an extra assumption.
The existence of God is not ten dimensions but eleven
things now, not ten, right, So you actually have more
complications by adding God in there, which means Akhem Rasor
says you're also wrong.
Speaker 3: Well, the door part is that it requires more assumptions
to assume that it's a coincidence that the Combalists god
this idea that there's ten dimensions of reality, right, and
that having a lot of contum physics when they had
no understand of count physics.
Speaker 2: You you miss under You misunderstood me, You misunderstood me.
Oukham's razor disproves the clan that there are ten dimensions
to a god, and that is the same thing as
ten dimensions, right, because now you're saying ten dimensions in
a god. That is one more thing the claim of
a God than there are in there just ten dimensions.
So even if we accept the coincidence is true, it's
simpler to say that there are ten dimensions, then there
is say, ten dimensions and a God. Right.
Speaker 3: Well, yes, but that's only if you assume that God
is unnecessary. But God could be postulated as a necessary assumption.
Speaker 2: Has absolutely nothing to do with Okham's razor, does it.
I can explain everything with ten dimensions, and I don't
need a God to do it. Therefore, Ockham's razor tells
me that God isn't necessary.
Speaker 3: Well, yes, it would say that unless there's evidence for God.
And now I'm getting into the other arguments. There evidence
from God from modern physics. That was just the first
half of the evidence.
Speaker 1: To me, right, sure, the couple that doesn't say anything
about ten dimensions. Just so we're clear on this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so talk to tens if you're road. But there's
sense of fruit. I'm saying, I believe are evidence that
they're correlated to the ten dimensions because I believe that
God instantuated these ten Ceh discussing Zohar to give people
a flavor of modern physics that would later go on
to be discovered. And there are cours few assumptions that
a bigger coincience. But that's that's only happened.
Speaker 2: Because you're still you're still assuming God exists. You're still
you're still making one more assumption, one more thing that
that doesn't cover it, and that is that there's a
God exists and that a God did something. Rasors the
the idea that there are ten dimensions is simpler than
there are ten dimensions and a God. So you can't
use Occam's razor to make your point here, because OCAM's
rasor are always going in to favor the no God.
If you're going to assume that ten dimensions has anything
to do with God, you're just you're just stuck with them.
Speaker 3: God is dou necessarily, can I get to the latter
half of the evidential like the other part of the
evidence that I think demonstrates God, if that's okay? Now,
to show that, I would.
Speaker 2: Just like to also point out one thing that strength
ory initially suggested ten dimensions, but some variants repose eleven.
So you're still on shaky ground here even without breaking
Occam's razor into it. But yeah, go ahead, okay.
Speaker 3: And then the other half of the evidential argument is
that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is evidence for a cabalistic
principle known as rod La. So Rodla is an acronym
in Kabbala for the unknowable Godhead in Hebrew. And basically
the idea is that Heisenberg's and certainty patrols as you
can't measure the position and momentum of a particle at
the quantum level and so the idea is that this
is also evidence for the Kabbala being true, because the
Kabbala posits basically that there's an unknowable godhead which.
Speaker 2: Is nothing to do with it with each other.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, valid, I've heard from Hannah is wild. So
just just be clear, let's start at the beginning. One,
we have no idea if there's ten dimensions. Currently the
physics model has four maybe five dimensions. You don't get
the ten dimensions unless you accept string theory. String theory
isn't an accepted thing. Even if there were ten dimensions.
It has nothing to do with the ten emanations of
God in Kabo lah. Your your second point is on
even weaker foundation than your first point, So your first
point didn't actually do anything. So I guess what I'm
trying to figure out is why you're now moving on
to point number two and point number one already failed.
Is point number two stronger than point number one? Should
should be considered that first?
Speaker 3: Well, yes, but this is an accumulative evidential case for
Kabbala being predictive.
Speaker 2: Colt, Yeah, but you're not. You're not. You're You're accumulating
a giant ball of nothing. So why should we go
any further since you so far you haven't built anything
on your first foundation you tried to build on doesn't work,
even if even if giving you that ten dimensions has
something to do with ten emanations, which I mean, you're
going to have to do some work to get there.
But even if I grant you that, uh, you brought
up Okaham's razor, and Razor says that the best explanation
is the simplest, and it's always simplest to go with
one fewer assumption, and that leaves God out because we
can prove the ten dimensions, we can't prove whether or
not there's a God. So you're just dead in the
water before you get started. And then you move it
on to the uncertainty principle, you know, which is basically,
there's a limit to the precision with which certain pairs
of physical properties such as position and momentum can be
simultaneously known. So it's not that they can't, there's just
a limit to the precision. That is not the same
thing as whatever it is you just said about the
Kabbalah and God being unknowable. If God is unknowable, then
how do we know about him? I mean, let's just
start with that. You know, you just start with that.
You have built nothing here, So why should we continue
with this so called cumulative case of zero plus zero.
Speaker 3: Well, so just real quick, just to quip for the second. Well,
so the first point is the reason is because I
think if you can demonstrate that scientific principles are accurately
predicted in cabalistic texts, that's Evans Forkala.
Speaker 2: You haven't done that, Evans for you haven't done that.
Speaker 3: So the second thing is you misrepresented. I think you
misrepresented the arguments for the evidence from the Godhead because
it's not saying that God. So in Kabala there's a
division on God's essence and so the rod law the
unknowable Godhead is.
Speaker 2: But that has nothing to do with Heirds uncertainty principle,
which you tried to link together. The two things are
completely different.
Speaker 3: The way to related is that godhead or Hebrew ratia dilio.
Speaker 2: It's yeah, so let me let me come out of
this way. Can you represent this godhead as a wave
for them? Can you represent this godhead in mathematics? Because
I can do both for the Heisenberg uncertainty princes.
Speaker 3: Well, no, the analogy between quantum physics and the godhead
is not one to one, but rather it's saying that
this isn't.
Speaker 2: But that's yeah, not only yeah, it's not. It's an
analogy that doesn't make any sense, right, because when we
talk about science, we're talking about things that we can
prove through experiment, things that we know through mathematics that
gets backed up by experiments. I mean, we built, we
spend billions of dollars to build a super collior to
prove that one particle actually exists, that's the Higgs Boson, right,
and the math turned out to be exactly right. But
we still built this collidor so we could back the
math up. Physicists for open era wrong. And so to
say that because of physics, which has all of this
evidence behind it, is the same thing as your god,
which has no evidence. And to say these two things
are analogous, just to say that there's evidence, you're not
comparing apples to apples by any stretch of the imagination.
If you're going to start saying that God exists, you
can't go, well, physics exist, therefore God exists. It doesn't
make any sense none whatsoever. You just can't do it.
So again we're back to you building a cumulative case
starting with zero and adding nothing to it.
Speaker 3: Well yeah, well, so that would be true if there's
no ovens for God. But the whole idea is that
if you can prove there's parallels between cabalistic concepts and
modern physics concepts, that would be ovens for God.
Speaker 2: Right, there are no parallels. There are no parallels because
in order to draw the parallel you need to do
math and provide evidence for the kabbola. Then you're making
a correct analogous comparison between two things that are the same.
You can't do that with God or the Kabla. You
can't do the math to get to God. Can you
conduct an experiment to get to God?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't think you can do an empirical experiment
in the laboratory.
Speaker 2: But then you're not comparing apples apples, are you. You're
comparing apples to elephants, and you can't do that either.
Speaker 4: Though.
Speaker 3: There are also interpretations of modern physics that rely on
unproven metaphysical posture. For example, the many worlds in Copenhagen
interpretations positive in many worlds interpretations positive, Yeah, the.
Speaker 2: Many worlds, the many many worlds is a hypothesis, it's
it's not theory, and yes, the the the entire jury
is out on that. Physicists are debating that, and there
isn't much we can do until we can figure out
how to figure figure out what's outside of the universe,
or better yet, does outside of the universe make any
sense whatsoever. So we're not basing anything on physics on that.
That is an area of physics that's still being debated,
but nobody is building computers on that level of physics.
Nobody is is trying to build quantum computers on that
type of physics. So yes, that's all out there, but
it doesn't really necessarily mean anything because we don't have
the experimental data to do it. But we do have
some math it seems to show that, but again we
need to actually back that math up with actual evidence
to make sure that we're doing the math right to
sometimes there are things we don't understand. So once again,
you're not comparing apples to apples. You're not even comparing
apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to elephants. You're taking
something that is based on good math and good experimental
evidence and comparing it to something that can't be expressed
in math and has absolutely no experimental evidence to it.
So you're not even in the same universe to make
these comparisons to make this analogy.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm same. But the point is that the evidence
can be interpreted in most of ways. So what's known
as underdetermined. So the evidence is consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation,
the many world interpretations, possibly the bombing interpretation.
Speaker 2: Although so what so you know what? So is Harry
Potter who cares? Right?
Speaker 3: But you're saying that you need evidence, and I'm saying
Harry can point to multiple directions.
Speaker 2: It doesn't, yeah, right, if you want to really it doesn't.
But if you if you want to make that claim,
I'll go with it, and I will say that modern
physics is evidence that Harry Potter is trip. But I
use the exact same arguments you just gave me to
do the same thing.
Speaker 3: But I think the evidence is awesome, so consistent with
Kabbala as I understand it, and.
Speaker 2: I think the evidence is also consistent with the You know,
I don't want to use Harry Potter. Let's use Harry Resident.
It's much better. And Harry Resident actually has God and
his magic actually works better. So between Harry Resident's world,
so you know, you can make this comparison, but it
doesn't mean anything. Right, Harry Residen lives in Chicago. Chicago's
a place that exists, So what Harry Residen's magic is
kind of sort of based on physics but not really.
So we can go, we can we can do this
all day long, and we just take everything you say
and substitute Harry Dresden for instead of tabla.
Speaker 1: Also keep in mind, Jim that in the Harry Potter
novels Neville long Bottom won the won the gold for
Gryffindor by ten points. So and there's ten there's ten
wizarding levels, so like the ten ordinary levels. Yeah, I mean,
clearly this is indication that Harry Potter is divinely inspired.
Speaker 2: Okay, so just do you see how we're making the
same arguments you are. That you see how we're making
the same points you are, and that it makes absolutely
no sense.
Speaker 3: Not really, but I'm just trying. That's why I'm trying
to ask this perfine question. Is your point just that
just because there are conceptual parallels between Kabbala and modern
yeris and quantum physics. That Kabbala is not like either
the Copenhagen interpretation or Many Worlds or Bowman or any
other interpretation, because unlike those interpretations of quantum physics, what
we're saying is.
Speaker 1: The conceptual linkage isn't even there. You're just you're grabbing
on to random numbers or random phrases and saying, look,
here's a random phrase that shows up somewhere else. It
must be a conceptual link It's not there. This is
paradolia best thing.
Speaker 3: Yes, you're saying yes to my question?
Speaker 4: Do you think yes, I'm not.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying is your Your question is nonsensical because
it assumes the truthfulness of the premise behind it, which
I've rejected.
Speaker 6: That's not what I said.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Are you saying that it is? I don't think you missed.
You are missing my question.
Speaker 2: Go ahead and ask you again. We'll see if we can.
Speaker 3: Okay, last time, what I was asking one, do you
think it's wrong to make parallels between different interpretations being
underdetermined quantum physics like the Bomian interpretation, Copenhagen interpretation, Many
World's interpretations, and Cabala because unlike unlike Kabala, there's other
interpretations of constantics have actual empirical support for them that
are tested both using mathematics and logic, and Kabbala does
not have some terical support for it is not by
mathematics and logic.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, you're comparing apples to elephants. So let's just
take these ten emanations, right, what dimension from it? Will
just assume it's to ten. For string theory applies to crown.
Is that time? Is that the three dimensions of space?
Or is that one of the other dimensions that string
theory requires? How do you get there? How do you
get from divine crown, kettered vine crown to any one
of the ten dimensions and strength theory?
Speaker 3: So I'm not alist, But the thing is, you said
the question.
Speaker 2: So you just said you're saying that the ten emanations
is the same as the ten dimensions. And now I'm
asking you to draw me the bridge to build that
bridge right starting with and you can take any of
the one as a crown, wisdom, understanding, mercy, justice, beauty, eternity, glory, foundation,
and presence in the world. Okay, So which of those
corresponds to the dimension of time.
Speaker 3: I don't know what I was saying was so.
Speaker 2: If you don't know, then how are you making this? Compare?
How are you making this analogy? If you don't know,
how do you make the analogy?
Speaker 4: Person?
Speaker 6: Let me answer it.
Speaker 3: Well, you're asking me a question, but you keep interrupting
when I try to answer how I'm making the analogy?
Which is that I got the analogy between cabbala and
quantum physics from two scholars. The first is whereby Yitsak
Ginsberg that's Yitsock why A C C U the H
A K and last named Ginsburg. And then the other
rabbi that I got this one was a man named
him Shipper. That's high am c H A I M
C S C h I T T E R. If
you want to know.
Speaker 2: Do they answer the question? And do they answer the question?
How do you get which which are the ten emanations corresponds?
Is analogous to time or the three dimensions of three
dimensional space X, Y or z. Right, that's the question
you've got to answer. And you can't answer that question.
And do you see how we're where? You're still building
nothing on top of nothing, on top of nothing, just nothing,
burder all the way down.
Speaker 3: I can't answer the question because I'm not next in Kabala.
But if you would like an actual an answer from
someone who does know cabalas, you could email or send
a comment.
Speaker 2: You're the one we're talking to.
Speaker 3: You.
Speaker 2: You're the one who's making the clim You're the You're
the one that's making the claim, Hannah, not us. And
if you can't answer these questions that I would suggest
you don't know enough despite your years of studying. This
is according to if I remember what you said correctly,
and I may not. Uh so what you haven't done
anything to prove your case?
Speaker 3: I think, well, I think you're learning my dudism. But
Kabbala and conscienthsics is something I'm relatively new to. This
is just based off of some lectures I listen to
and some articles I write. By no means my area
of expertise. I'm just saying this. A lot of these
specific details, like which are the ten dimensions according to
such a road or something like that, are better as
for a practicing complist than even someone who has spent years.
Speaker 1: Hannah, just pause for a second, because we're running short
on time. I want to get to another caller before
we run out of time. You've been calling into this
show as long as last what three or four years?
Speaker 2: Correct?
Speaker 3: No, I'm not. I don't believe three or four years.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 1: I've seen you call into this show at least a
dozen times, and every time you call in, you've got
some new, brand new kind of way out out their theory,
and it never ends well, like, you've never come close
to demonstrating the truthfulness of your claim. Why why do
you keep calling in thinking finally this will be the
argument that does it?
Speaker 3: Because I presume it's how are you trying to convince evidential?
I presume that if it's a convincing evidential case like
in this case, I was thinking that the parallels between
constant physics and cabalistic concepts would be convincing evidential case
that they'll convince easure to host for the audience to
re examine their skepticism to God and.
Speaker 2: So based on what Because you obviously didn't do enough
research other than go, oh, look this says ten, and
this says ten. Therefore the same thing, that's the extent
of what you've given us, that's the extent of your thinking.
Speaker 3: Well, I also gave you the Heisenberg. I also gave
you the Heisenberg un certainty principle being correlated.
Speaker 1: It is nothing to do with God, but is God
a part of which is you?
Speaker 2: Which was actually even worse. That analogy was actually worse
than your ten things in physics and ten things in
comb It was worse. It wasn't fatter. I don't want
to talk about that because I don't want tobarrassh you
with that, because that just makes it you sound even
less able to critically think about things.
Speaker 3: But here's the thing. If you object to analogies, have
you considered asking practicing Orthodox Jewish kabbalist or physicists who actually.
Speaker 1: Not remotely interested. You can have them call in the
show and then we'll talk to them. But we're not
going to go out and search like you're weird Jewish
mistressism woo woo, and try to make parallels where they
don't exist. We've already seen what it's done to you.
We're not interested in that. But listen, Hannah, we appreciate
you calling in again. We're going to get to the
next caller. We've got very limited time left, so thank
you for calling, and I will see you again in
a couple of weeks. I'm sure. Okay, I'll never understand
why Hannah keeps calling it never it never ends the
way they're hoping. I don't know why they think that
something new is going to happen this time. But anyways,
I mean, we appreciate the phone call either way. Let's
grab Benji from the queue. Benji's theist and says that
Possy the end of the world's happening soon.
Speaker 2: Let's see the world as we know it, And I
feel fine. There's a song about that. I'm actually good.
Speaker 1: It's a great time.
Speaker 2: I like that.
Speaker 6: Tom the well. I was sitting here listening, and is
it okay if I find the subject to another topic
or doing to just sit with that one?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, maybe I don't know what's your next topic.
I thought the end of the world was going to
be interesting.
Speaker 6: Well I thought so too, but I don't really have
any good arguments for it. I'm sad I had.
Speaker 1: But do you do you believe the world's ending?
Speaker 6: If these have showed up in front of y'all, you
still wouldn't worship them because you don't agree with the doctrine.
Speaker 2: And according to Trip, the reason I wouldn't worship I
wouldn't worship me because I believe that no being is
worthy of worship, right.
Speaker 6: I understand there's a lot of reasons not to. I'm
just trying to make the point, will trick.
Speaker 1: According to if Mohammad and that the if Mohammad showed
up to you, would you worship Mohammad? Would you be
musn't believe he?
Speaker 6: I would believe It's.
Speaker 1: Great, Okay, just making sure that you're holding yourself to
the sam standard. You're about to hold us too.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I am. I was just making the point that
in the Tristan doctrine, you have to worship Jesus to
be a actual Christian. You can believe that He appeared
to you. Now you would know He exists, but you
still wouldn't be assistant. And so I was wondering a
lot of the Tristans that call in to try to
convert your back to Christianity if you was a Christian before,
or whatever religion you was, or you know, denomination. I
was wondering, is there really a point to that, because
at the end of the day, it's subjective, like you
can choose nothing to what worship him.
Speaker 2: The existence of a being is not subjective. The existence
of a being is not subjective. It's objective. And that's
what we're looking for, is objective evidence that your God exists.
Speaker 6: I'm saying the worshiping is subjective, not the existent. Sure
in front of you you would know he exists, but
it still subjective on your part if you want to
worship him or not. And so you don't worship him
the coin the Christian doctrine, you wouldn't be a true
Christian or you know that christ Dootson's fallacy bullshit whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the other the question isn't The question isn't can
you prove that we should worship your God? The question
is does your God exist? Those are two different questions.
That's the point.
Speaker 6: Well, I was just given a hypothetical us you knew
that he did exist? Is where I was going with that.
But also, are you familiar with the terror of fallacy
that any evidence, no matter how big it would be,
would be insufficient, because I've heard some of you and
I'm not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it sounds like you've fallen into it. You just
said that it would be insufficient for you to become Muslim.
Speaker 6: No, No, I said I wouldn't worship him. I didn't
say I wouldn't believe it, No, I just wouldn't want.
Speaker 1: Well belief and worship. Obviously we agree with two different things.
But the reality is like, we have the same standard
you have. Right, You're trying to accuse us of some
kind of a bias, and this is not going to
work because any bias that you applied to us in Christianity,
we're going to apply it to you, and like every
other religion on the planet.
Speaker 6: Well, I don't think you're doing it, but I've watched
videos now where people well they don't know what would
convince them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that may be true, but you're talking to two
people right now that have their own opinions. You want
to ask us what our opinions are. Opinion, I know
what it would take to convince me. Okay, to be sure,
you can say I don't know, and that's a perfectly
fair answer. I do know if every prediction in the
Hebrew Bible came true, I would be convinced that the
God of the Hebrew Bible is true. Now, I would
never be convinced of Christianity because Christianity contradicts the Hebrew Bible,
which is it's source material and you can't contradict your
source materials. So Christianity is dead in the water. That
being said, if there was a book that made all
kinds of predictions and every single one of them came
true in the timeframe that they were predicted, I would
find that to be very compelling evidence. That doesn't mean
it would be compelling evidence for everyone, right.
Speaker 6: Because everyone is subventive and everyone is independent on what
would convince them. I understand that.
Speaker 2: Well, no, because for me, it would depend on the
circumstances in which so it depends on the circumstances that
those prophecies were made. For instance, of the prophecy is
that a temple will be built and people start working
on building a temple. That to me is not fulfillment
of a prophecy. It's just people building a temple maybe
because of the prophecy, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
So it would depend on the circumstances. It would be
sufficient good evidence. Now what evidence is it, I don't
know because all the evidence I've seen so far has
been horrifyingly bad. So if you're going to come up
with evidence, it's going to have to be something better
than what's already been presented on this show for the
last nearly thirty years.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I know it's about twenty five years something that
then as hard as for telling the future or you know,
stuff like that, the stuff that it says would have
to be very specific and not subject to any other
kind of way to troll to where it's specifically talking
about that one of them to nothing else for.
Speaker 2: Your prophecy, yes, yeah, it proviously needs to be very specific.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if it's generic, like you know something so like
there's going to be wars. Yeah, yeah, we get that.
There's always gonna be wars. That's not a real prophecy.
Speaker 6: There's always been war.
Speaker 2: I mean a prophecy that someone's going to that a temples,
the temple is going to appear and people start working
on the temple. That doesn't work for me either.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it doesn't work for me either. I wouldn't count
that as a prophecy either.
Speaker 1: And I would say that failed prophecies are good evidence
that something's not true. What was that that failed prophecies
are also good evidence that something is not true, Like
we're talking about what it would take us to convince
that it's true. Well, the reality is the inverse is true.
When the prophecies fail, we're obviously convinced that it's not true.
That's why Christianity and Judaism are both dead in the
water because of all the filled prophecies. In my opinion, well.
Speaker 6: The only other thing I was and the reason I
brought up terror fallacy is because the teriff and correct
me if I won't hear. But the terror fallacy is basically,
any evidence that would be presented to someone would they
would just be They would be insufficient to them. They
would want more, you know, something else, basically that, and
then it just adds on top of itself. And in science,
science is always self correcting itself. And so if you
make the discovery, you put a hypothesis, and then you
test the aposthesis and you do multiple tests and you
have group testing and independent confirmation and that kind of thing.
And with religion you can't really do that because religison
is set on the basis of here's what happened. You
have to believe that there's there's you know, fates, and
even the definition in the Bible of fates, it's evidence
for stuff unseen, which obviously made so sense.
Speaker 2: So why are you a theist. I mean it says
here you're a theist and you're making perfectly good atheist arguments.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, cool, well listen, Benji. We appreciate you coming
up and chat with us. Sad we didn't get to
the end of the world, but that's okay. We've got
one more caller in line, and we're we're kind of
getting over our time limit here, so I'm going to
get the next caller in, but thanks for calling in, friend.
Speaker 6: Go beforeen you go, can you tell me what time
y'all stark as just experience time.
Speaker 1: Central time is four thirty okay, sure, sure, sure, all right.
We've got one theist or atheist left, and then we're
going to read off our super chats. We've got a
call from Jim in Missouri's been waiting here for an
hour and forty minutes. Ask if there's an omniscient God,
do we have free will? And I think this is
a really good question. What do you think? What do
you think, Jim? We have we have Jim talking to Jim. Now, yeah,
done that before.
Speaker 7: But the reason I say that if God is omniscient,
if God exists, you know, you know, do we actually
have free will because he knows what we're going to
do before we do it.
Speaker 2: Well, the real question, So if it's just omniscience and
none of the other two properties, then yes we do
just because God knows what we're thinking, and thinking is
something that is a definite property. I mean, we have
a neuroscientists right now who can simple thoughts, not super
complex ones of seconds before that thought becomes conscious, So
that's something that is knowable. So if it's just omniscience,
then yes, we still have free will. If it's omnipotence.
With omniscience, that becomes a little bit more difficult because
God would know this our states of mind and how
the neurons are going to fire in such a way
that we're going to make a decision, and He has
the power to change the universe in such a way
that we'll make a different decision. So once you start
adding that omnipotence, and you can make the question that
we really have very well because God can change the
universe in ways that will cause us to make a
different decision. Does that make sense?
Speaker 7: Yeah, And that's kind of what my point was. If
he's omniscient, omnipotent, you know all the other omnis then,
you know, would we actually have free will? You know,
I one time I like to compare like the story
of Job to the nineteen nineteen World Series. You know,
all the gamblers they were betting on the Cincinnati Reds
to win because they knew that the Chicago White Sox
were going to take a dive, So why wouldn't they
get on the Reds.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a little more subtle than that, because God's
setting up the universe in a special way for us
to make the decisions he wants us to make. And
that's what would take away free will. If God chooses
not to make any to change the universe, and we
would still have free will. So it's a little more
subtle than everybody thinking that the White Sox are going
to take a dive.
Speaker 7: Well, I'm just saying. I mean, to me, like if
I knew that somebody was going to make bad decision
and you know they weren't going to believe in me
and I love them so much, you know, to me,
it's like here's an idea. I don't create that person.
I just say, okay, he never exists.
Speaker 2: Well, no, you would actually set it up so that
person would would believe, right, because you would know what
it would take for that person to believe, and you
would provide that evidence.
Speaker 7: I could do that too, But or again, I could
just say, yes, they've got free will, they can disobey me.
Speaker 2: I just know that they won't, right, you know, because
I've created the universe in such a way that my
existence and belief in me and worshiping me is so
obviously the right thing to do that nobody can deny it. Yeah,
and he didn't create that universe. So where are we? Right?
Speaker 7: Well, like I said, I don't believe it, all of
it anyway. So you know, I'm throwing out a an
interesting question of you know, there's only one way we
can really have free will, and that's God can't be omniscient.
Speaker 2: Well, he can't be omniscient and omnipotent.
Speaker 7: Right, you know, as I filled believers, he can't be
all if he exists, he can't be all three. He
can't be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni manevolent.
Speaker 2: Benevolent right, well, he can't be how many benevolent if
evil exists in the world, right, and the other two
because he could be omnim benevolent and have no power
to change the world, and that would still be okay.
He could be omnium benevolent, and omniscient and that would
still fit. But he couldn't be all three at the
same time. You can't have all three points of the triangle.
It just doesn't work that way. So yeah, I mean,
and of course they will point to free will, but
that means every time a Christian points to free will
and saying, well, God allows free will and that's where
evil comes from, then you're living in God's power to
directly violating free will. And we know he's willing to
do that because he did that to Pharaoh's heart, right.
Speaker 7: Yeah, Well to me, that also says maybe he's a sadist,
then he's.
Speaker 2: Not omnimb out benevolent, unless, of course it's their kink,
in which case we don't kink shame around here. Right.
Speaker 7: Well, you know again, you know, going back to Pharaoh,
it's like there were points he that he was even
Pharaoh was even saying, look, I give uncle, you guys
can leave and God, hardness are you No, I'm right,
I'm not done with you yet. Right, I'm not done
showing you how powerful I am.
Speaker 2: I got to show off by killing all these children,
and there's the whole talking donkey incident.
Speaker 6: Well not only that, but Pharaoh.
Speaker 7: It's like, if he knew that was the one he
that would do it, It's.
Speaker 2: Like, why do he just lead with that? Right? Well?
Speaker 7: Why did we have to have all the other How
are many.
Speaker 2: All fun stuff? All fun stuff to have while drinking
a glass of wine or five yeah, or a beer
or the beverage of your choice adultera otherwise, Oh yes,
well mine's a beer, so hey, yeah, either way, I
like you good beer TOOI.
Speaker 1: Thank you for calling in, and thank you for waiting
on the line, and we really appreciate the question. And
we got to wrap up the show. But we'll be
live again same time next week.
Speaker 7: Okay, alrighty, well, I hope.
Speaker 1: All right, cheers, have a good one, fair enough question.
I remember going through the cycle on this particular question
number of times before I arrived at the same conclusion
that you're at, which is, you can know all things
and still not have like predetermination. Predetermination requires a couple
other things, namely being the creator of all things. But
with that, let's read some super chats and we'll close
out the show. Do you have access to the super
chats or just mean just to you. I think, okay,
I'm going to read through our super chats. We've got
a ten dollars super chat from our friend. Daisy says.
If Christians read the Bible to get closer to God,
what do atheists read to solidify their non belief?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: What are the atheist Bibles?
Speaker 2: There aren't any, really, I mean not in the same
way that the Christians have a Bible. I don't think
you can read science books and realize that God's not
necessary for anything. You can read philosophy on epistemology or
philosophy religion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you read from the Bible.
Speaker 2: I was going to leave that one for you just because.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, listen, if you want to know about
how God is ridiculous, read the Holy books.
Speaker 4: Man.
Speaker 1: They're full of crazy stuff. And it's not just Christianity,
Like all the Holy Books got some nonsense in it.
That's how I deconstructed. But there are obviously there are
great secular authors out there. I would certainly, you know,
recommend like the Four Horsemen, you know, and then read scholarship.
Scholarship is surprisingly pretty pretty honest in the world of
like biblical studies and even chronic studies. We've got a
nineteen ninety nine hour super chat from our friends Zen.
Thank you so much, Zen, since its high Justin, I've
given up trying to follow you when you're not cooking
at home, Always happy to learn from you wherever you are.
The aroma of Christians is just as pleasing on the
other grills. Rock card for dog. Well, thank you then,
I appreciate it. I'm sorry I've bounced it around, especially
on Sundays and Sundays. I'm I'm really no longer streaming
on my own channel at this point. I'm just streaming
on friends' annals and unapologetic. So hey, thanks for following me.
I appreciate that. And d Frederick, thank you for the
nine ninety nine says, does a theistic evolution contemplate a
God who planned out the genetic changes or the environmental
changes driving selection. That's a fair point.
Speaker 2: What do you think, Jim, Well, so, if evolution is
theistic or evidence of a God, which I don't think
it is, then yeah he would. I mean again, we
go back to that on evident god thing. God created
the universe in such a way that this is exactly
what he wants evil in all which means he can't
be all right. So I don't know how theistic evolution
would actually work because would depend on the god definition
that you use.
Speaker 1: And I think my friend Ian was the one who
turned it beyond to this idea that if there is
theistic evolution, what a weird deity to use the most
carnage barbarian way possible to go from the beginning of
species to today and there's completely carnage after. Yeah, there's
so much, just kind of like a kick it off
the cliff and see what happens type of situation over here, Like,
what are we doing? If that's the best that the
God can do, I'm not impressed. I'm not even convinced
that this God knows what's going on or God's maybe plural.
Gretchen Z, thank you for the three dollars and eleven
sent supertest says absence makes the church grow fondlers.
Speaker 2: Ohoo, that it's true.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's I mean, that was good. That
was good. I appreciate the joke, gretchen You know, I
love a good joke, and we obviously appreciate that. Here
j Ser Jake, I hope I have said that, right,
thank you for the fight hour, Supertest, says the Kabola
masters sadly all passed in the show. Uh, folks claiming
to understand Kabola are selling you a crop of bs.
No one would say it's quantum.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I've actually met some people who are legitimately into the Kabbola,
and I've never heard this argument before. I'm not convinced
that Hannah is, at least for a long time, part
of the Kabala movement or noahai jew I was really
sure in earlier cause Hannah was a generic theist, at
one point a deist, and at one point even made
arguments for Christianity. I maybe I'm misremembering.
Speaker 2: Her critical thinking skills are definitely in question, so and
her curiosity is also in question. Right, she's not asking
basic questions? So right?
Speaker 1: But you know word salad, right, Daisy, thank you for
our ten dollars super jet, big w Daisy. Daisy says,
justin massively helped me deconstruct for my belief in ghosts.
It was false memories and priming. That's why these shows
are important. False beliefs influence what we go through in reality.
So true daisy, because when we when we when we
experience the world, we filter them through our belief systems. Right,
we are automatically are category rising things that are either
plausible or implausible based on past experience. Right, But if
we have in our head past experiences that are false,
like belief and ghosts, belief and deities and things like that,
when we see stuff moving forward, we're likely to categorize
stuff moving forward in those same categories when they don't
really exist. Once we get rid of those categories, it's
funny how quickly our mind looks at that stuff and says, Oh,
that's just the fucking the wind's blowing the tree and
it's hitting my house. No, there's no ghosts out there,
you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're pattern recognition machines, and once you establish a pattern,
will recognize that pattern to be you know, any pattern
that fits side is, will categorize it. And so once
you get rid of the patterns, and it's not always easy.
Speaker 1: To get rid of the patterns, so right, absolutely, Well, Jim,
I had a blast today. Thank you so much for
sharing the screen with me again. And also we need
to say a big thank you to our backup Jimmy.
So we had three gyms today.
Speaker 11: I'm Jimmy jun your Jim's hi dad. So yeah, I
thought it was a great show. Thanks for bringing me up.
I wanted to say a couple of things. Mary Gate
on maintaining relationships with family. So just remember, and this
is a hard reality that many people, I don't think understand.
We're born into family. We have no choice who our
family is. Sometimes you just got to draw a line
and when they cross that line, say goodbye. That's not easy,
but it's always an option. A lot of people don't
recognize that.
Speaker 2: And then you know that.
Speaker 11: Brings me up to call her too religious people, And
I don't believe that this person meant this maliciously, but
just saying religious people cling to belief for no good reason.
I think what a better way to say that would
be with no evidence or maybe no proof, because sometimes
they might actually have a good reason. Maybe they need
those family relationships for their own survival. There are a
lot of people who are in Muslim countries that may believe,
may not believe that. It would not be a good
thing for them to just come clean and say I'm
an atheist. Uh, that is a good reason to not
voice your opinion openly.
Speaker 1: Okay, Also, you guys.
Speaker 11: Were I don't know who's mentioned. I think, Jim, you
mentioned somebody checking out a historian on the Dead Sea scrolls.
Speaker 2: I just want to I want to throw out doctor.
Who is that again? I'm sorry? Doctor?
Speaker 11: Okay, well, I want to throw out somebody who I
like reading up on and listening to. That's doctor Jody Magnus,
an ancient history scholar and archaeologist. If anybody wants to
check her out, go.
Speaker 2: Ahead, Hannah.
Speaker 11: Look, I couldn't have spoken intelligently to physics or the kabala,
but calling the show and telling the hosts that if
they wanted to know an answer they should email experts,
I could have. I could have challenged you on that one,
for sure. I don't know why you would call and
say that. And then oh, Gretchen, Gretchen, that super chat
that you just dropped, Oh that made me cringe. Good job, guys,
thank you so much for having me up and have
a wonderful night.
Speaker 1: Jim, we really love and appreciate you. I'm sure we'll
see it again very soon. And with that, friends, that
is a show for today. Thank you so much for
being here. Remember, if you're not already following the channel,
follow the channel. There's lots of other shows besides this
that you can catch. And also, let's see four thirty
Central time next week, same place if you're in the
Easter time zone five point thirty.
Speaker 6: Glad way.
Speaker 1: To start opening ya, stop listening the bullshit every one
around you buy it, setting up, y'all.
Speaker 2: Be welcome.
Speaker 4: Ell David of.
Speaker 1: Y'all watch Talking Than Live Sundays at one pm Central.
Speaker 10: Visit tiny dot c c slash y t t H
and call into the show at five one two nine
nine one nine two four two, or connect to the
show online at tiny dot c c slash call th
H