WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:03.919
<v Speaker 1>Hello and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio

2
00:00:04.040 --> 00:00:06.719
<v Speaker 1>version of my videos available to make listening to my

3
00:00:06.759 --> 00:00:10.000
<v Speaker 1>stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But

4
00:00:10.160 --> 00:00:13.640
<v Speaker 1>since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may

5
00:00:13.679 --> 00:00:16.920
<v Speaker 1>be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this

6
00:00:16.960 --> 00:00:19.960
<v Speaker 1>podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon, appatreon

7
00:00:20.039 --> 00:00:22.839
<v Speaker 1>dot com slash Vice Rhino, Please enjoy.

8
00:00:23.480 --> 00:00:26.960
<v Speaker 2>Today's video is sponsored by serf Shark. Hello and welcome

9
00:00:27.000 --> 00:00:30.600
<v Speaker 2>to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today I'm looking at

10
00:00:30.640 --> 00:00:33.479
<v Speaker 2>a video on Trent Horn's channel, The Council of Trent.

11
00:00:33.960 --> 00:00:36.560
<v Speaker 2>This purports to be him asking a question that atheists

12
00:00:36.560 --> 00:00:40.560
<v Speaker 2>cannot answer, and he's a proper credentialed philosopher, not some

13
00:00:40.600 --> 00:00:44.000
<v Speaker 2>amateur turned YouTuber like me, So this one has gotta

14
00:00:44.039 --> 00:00:47.719
<v Speaker 2>be good. Right onto the video, but first a word

15
00:00:47.719 --> 00:00:50.719
<v Speaker 2>from our sponsor, serf Shark. Are you worried about privacy

16
00:00:50.719 --> 00:00:52.439
<v Speaker 2>on the Internet in this day and age? If not,

17
00:00:52.880 --> 00:00:55.359
<v Speaker 2>you probably should be. And one of the most important

18
00:00:55.399 --> 00:00:59.000
<v Speaker 2>tools in the privacy toolbox is serf SHARKVPN. Serf SHARKVPN

19
00:00:59.079 --> 00:01:01.079
<v Speaker 2>is a virtual private network which allows you to appear

20
00:01:01.119 --> 00:01:03.359
<v Speaker 2>to be connected to the Internet from any location where

21
00:01:03.359 --> 00:01:05.920
<v Speaker 2>they have a server. By connecting through serf Shark, you

22
00:01:05.920 --> 00:01:09.359
<v Speaker 2>can access streaming services from different geographic locations. This means

23
00:01:09.359 --> 00:01:11.319
<v Speaker 2>you may have access to additional libraries of movies and

24
00:01:11.359 --> 00:01:14.239
<v Speaker 2>TV shows that aren't available in your home area. And really,

25
00:01:14.400 --> 00:01:17.159
<v Speaker 2>given the current political climate, making it look like you're

26
00:01:17.200 --> 00:01:20.239
<v Speaker 2>connected through Canada or Europe might be a good idea

27
00:01:20.280 --> 00:01:23.280
<v Speaker 2>for my American viewers right about now. But that's not

28
00:01:23.359 --> 00:01:25.640
<v Speaker 2>all they do. With their clean Web two point oh features.

29
00:01:25.719 --> 00:01:29.040
<v Speaker 2>You can automatically block ads, reject unwanted cookies without fumbling

30
00:01:29.040 --> 00:01:31.319
<v Speaker 2>through that pop up first, get alerts when a website

31
00:01:31.319 --> 00:01:33.680
<v Speaker 2>was the target of a data breach, and block malware

32
00:01:34.040 --> 00:01:36.480
<v Speaker 2>like seriously, if clean Web two point oher were the

33
00:01:36.480 --> 00:01:39.079
<v Speaker 2>only product they offered, that would be more than worth

34
00:01:39.079 --> 00:01:41.640
<v Speaker 2>the price just for getting rid of the stupid cookies

35
00:01:41.680 --> 00:01:43.920
<v Speaker 2>pop up. Surf Shark VPN adds an extra layer of

36
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:46.519
<v Speaker 2>encryption to your devices, keeping you secure on public networks.

37
00:01:46.560 --> 00:01:49.200
<v Speaker 2>I always connect to public networks through surf Shark. Serf

38
00:01:49.239 --> 00:01:51.400
<v Speaker 2>Shark VPN is easy to use and simple to install.

39
00:01:51.480 --> 00:01:53.599
<v Speaker 2>They don't monitor, track, or store your data, and it

40
00:01:53.640 --> 00:01:56.319
<v Speaker 2>works on phones, tablets, and laptops with no extra fees.

41
00:01:56.400 --> 00:01:58.560
<v Speaker 2>Serf Shark offers a thirty day money back guarantee so

42
00:01:58.599 --> 00:02:01.079
<v Speaker 2>you can try it out completely risk free. My viewers

43
00:02:01.079 --> 00:02:02.640
<v Speaker 2>get a special promo where you can get an extra

44
00:02:02.640 --> 00:02:04.840
<v Speaker 2>four months out of your subscription for free. Go to

45
00:02:04.879 --> 00:02:07.200
<v Speaker 2>surf shark dot com slash rhino or use code rhino

46
00:02:07.239 --> 00:02:10.439
<v Speaker 2>at checkout to get four extra months of search SHARKVPN. Again,

47
00:02:10.479 --> 00:02:12.719
<v Speaker 2>that's surf shark dot com slash RhI and O for

48
00:02:12.759 --> 00:02:15.280
<v Speaker 2>an extra four months for free. This is a limited

49
00:02:15.280 --> 00:02:18.120
<v Speaker 2>time offer, so sign up today and remember by signing

50
00:02:18.199 --> 00:02:20.800
<v Speaker 2>up for search SHARKVPN, you're helping to support my channel,

51
00:02:20.800 --> 00:02:21.319
<v Speaker 2>so thank you.

52
00:02:28.199 --> 00:02:30.840
<v Speaker 3>And today I want to talk about atheism, or a

53
00:02:30.879 --> 00:02:34.080
<v Speaker 3>part of atheism that I think has a fundamental flaw.

54
00:02:34.719 --> 00:02:37.400
<v Speaker 3>But understand why, I need to talk about something else

55
00:02:37.479 --> 00:02:39.680
<v Speaker 3>called the God of the Gaps objection.

56
00:02:40.240 --> 00:02:43.159
<v Speaker 2>So the thing that pretty much every argument for God

57
00:02:43.159 --> 00:02:45.560
<v Speaker 2>eventually breaks down into sure, why not?

58
00:02:46.520 --> 00:02:48.680
<v Speaker 3>So basically it goes like this God of the Gaps

59
00:02:48.680 --> 00:02:52.439
<v Speaker 3>objection claims that arguments for the existence of God they

60
00:02:52.520 --> 00:02:55.840
<v Speaker 3>all fail because they all essentially say the same thing.

61
00:02:56.360 --> 00:02:59.360
<v Speaker 3>Here's something we can't explain, or here is a gap

62
00:02:59.400 --> 00:03:03.080
<v Speaker 3>in our knowledge. God explains the gap in our knowledge.

63
00:03:03.560 --> 00:03:04.800
<v Speaker 3>Therefore God exists.

64
00:03:05.080 --> 00:03:07.280
<v Speaker 2>Thanks for watching. I'll be back next Friday with more.

65
00:03:07.280 --> 00:03:09.439
<v Speaker 2>But if you want to get your rhino fix in before, Ah,

66
00:03:09.639 --> 00:03:10.800
<v Speaker 2>there's more, isn't there.

67
00:03:11.560 --> 00:03:14.639
<v Speaker 3>In other words, you can't argue in this way. I

68
00:03:14.800 --> 00:03:19.159
<v Speaker 3>don't know what caused X, therefore God exists. That's a

69
00:03:19.159 --> 00:03:23.719
<v Speaker 3>bad argument, correct, and it is basically every argument for God.

70
00:03:23.800 --> 00:03:26.479
<v Speaker 3>The cosmological argument, we don't know what caused the universe,

71
00:03:26.520 --> 00:03:29.599
<v Speaker 3>therefore God. The moral argument, we don't know what could

72
00:03:29.599 --> 00:03:32.560
<v Speaker 3>be used as an objective standard for morality, therefore God.

73
00:03:32.960 --> 00:03:37.400
<v Speaker 3>Argument from consciousness. We don't know how consciousness emerged, therefore God. Honestly,

74
00:03:37.400 --> 00:03:39.000
<v Speaker 3>the only argument from God that I can think of

75
00:03:39.039 --> 00:03:41.439
<v Speaker 3>that might not boil down to an argument for ignorance

76
00:03:41.680 --> 00:03:44.879
<v Speaker 3>is the ontological argument, which is basically, I defined God

77
00:03:44.919 --> 00:03:50.000
<v Speaker 3>as existing, therefore he exists, which is completely nonsensical. Now

78
00:03:50.199 --> 00:03:53.280
<v Speaker 3>the unexplained thing. It might be morality, or the beginning

79
00:03:53.280 --> 00:03:57.560
<v Speaker 3>of the universe, or the existence of something rather than nothing,

80
00:03:58.159 --> 00:04:01.400
<v Speaker 3>whatever it is. Atheists say we don't want to rush

81
00:04:01.520 --> 00:04:06.479
<v Speaker 3>to a supernatural explanation because we might miss an undiscovered

82
00:04:06.599 --> 00:04:08.680
<v Speaker 3>or unknown natural explanation.

83
00:04:09.120 --> 00:04:12.520
<v Speaker 2>That's not entirely it. It's more that an explanation has

84
00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:15.439
<v Speaker 2>to have some actual evidence behind it, and by its

85
00:04:15.520 --> 00:04:18.319
<v Speaker 2>very nature, the supernatural just won't ever meet that bar.

86
00:04:19.279 --> 00:04:22.879
<v Speaker 3>On the one hand, I agree that arguments for God

87
00:04:23.360 --> 00:04:28.040
<v Speaker 3>should start not from what we don't know, but from

88
00:04:28.079 --> 00:04:29.600
<v Speaker 3>what we do know.

89
00:04:30.040 --> 00:04:32.279
<v Speaker 2>And that's a tactic that can be used to pretend

90
00:04:32.439 --> 00:04:35.600
<v Speaker 2>like whatever argument you're using is not an argument for ignorance,

91
00:04:35.839 --> 00:04:38.079
<v Speaker 2>but it will usually wind up back there eventually. Like

92
00:04:38.120 --> 00:04:41.079
<v Speaker 2>the cosmological argument, we do know that the Big Bang

93
00:04:41.120 --> 00:04:43.319
<v Speaker 2>is a thing that happened that will often be included

94
00:04:43.360 --> 00:04:45.759
<v Speaker 2>as a part of the cosmological argument. The universe had

95
00:04:45.800 --> 00:04:49.439
<v Speaker 2>a beginning, then a bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions get added

96
00:04:49.480 --> 00:04:51.240
<v Speaker 2>onto it, so we can say that the beginning must

97
00:04:51.240 --> 00:04:55.720
<v Speaker 2>have been caused by somethings faceless, timeless, immaterial, and immeasurably powerful,

98
00:04:56.160 --> 00:04:58.839
<v Speaker 2>and that must be God because we don't know what

99
00:04:58.879 --> 00:05:01.120
<v Speaker 2>else it could be. Also, we don't know why the

100
00:05:01.120 --> 00:05:04.160
<v Speaker 2>cause had to be spaceless, timeless, im material, and immeasurably powerful,

101
00:05:04.240 --> 00:05:07.319
<v Speaker 2>but that seems cromulent, so we run with it. And

102
00:05:07.839 --> 00:05:09.319
<v Speaker 2>while we're at it, we just need to make sure

103
00:05:09.360 --> 00:05:12.519
<v Speaker 2>to never acknowledge the existence of cosmological models. That don't

104
00:05:12.519 --> 00:05:14.360
<v Speaker 2>actually wind up at a beginning for the universe, and

105
00:05:14.399 --> 00:05:16.439
<v Speaker 2>the Census's argument requires.

106
00:05:16.720 --> 00:05:20.319
<v Speaker 3>They should start with effects we observe, and then reason

107
00:05:20.360 --> 00:05:23.680
<v Speaker 3>to a cause for those effects, and then show that

108
00:05:23.680 --> 00:05:25.680
<v Speaker 3>that cause must have divine attributes.

109
00:05:25.959 --> 00:05:29.560
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's basically what I just said. Apologists are so predictable.

110
00:05:29.879 --> 00:05:33.040
<v Speaker 3>On the other hand, I worry that atheists who lean

111
00:05:33.360 --> 00:05:36.759
<v Speaker 3>too much into the God of the gaps objection they'll

112
00:05:36.879 --> 00:05:42.160
<v Speaker 3>end up making atheism as unfalsifiable as some religions.

113
00:05:42.600 --> 00:05:44.800
<v Speaker 2>Okay, I'm just going to come right out and say it,

114
00:05:45.000 --> 00:05:48.920
<v Speaker 2>atheism is unfalsifiable, at least inasmuch that that's even a

115
00:05:48.959 --> 00:05:52.680
<v Speaker 2>coherent statement outside of a formal debate setting. Atheism is,

116
00:05:52.759 --> 00:05:55.639
<v Speaker 2>by its nature a response to a claim. You claim

117
00:05:55.680 --> 00:05:58.600
<v Speaker 2>that God exists. I don't believe your claim. I don't

118
00:05:58.639 --> 00:06:00.959
<v Speaker 2>need to prove that your God doesn't exist in order

119
00:06:01.000 --> 00:06:03.680
<v Speaker 2>to justify my non belief in your claim, especially if

120
00:06:03.720 --> 00:06:05.600
<v Speaker 2>I don't actually care whether or not you continue to

121
00:06:05.639 --> 00:06:08.399
<v Speaker 2>believe in God after our conversation. But if you want

122
00:06:08.439 --> 00:06:11.160
<v Speaker 2>to convince me that your claim is correct, then yeah,

123
00:06:11.240 --> 00:06:12.920
<v Speaker 2>you need to bring something more to the table. Then

124
00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:16.279
<v Speaker 2>we don't know X. Therefore God so in one sense, Yes,

125
00:06:16.399 --> 00:06:20.000
<v Speaker 2>atheism is unfalsifiable, but that is entirely a function of

126
00:06:20.040 --> 00:06:23.439
<v Speaker 2>the unfalsifiability of the God that is not being believed in.

127
00:06:24.240 --> 00:06:28.040
<v Speaker 3>Or they won't be able to answer this question. What

128
00:06:28.279 --> 00:06:30.199
<v Speaker 3>would prove God exists?

129
00:06:30.680 --> 00:06:34.199
<v Speaker 2>Admittedly, that is a tricky question. I honestly can't think

130
00:06:34.199 --> 00:06:36.800
<v Speaker 2>of anything God could do that I wouldn't first assume

131
00:06:36.879 --> 00:06:38.839
<v Speaker 2>was something like a hallucination. But do you know who

132
00:06:38.920 --> 00:06:42.639
<v Speaker 2>does know God? If the Christian God is real, he

133
00:06:42.800 --> 00:06:45.560
<v Speaker 2>knows exactly what it would take to convince every single

134
00:06:45.600 --> 00:06:48.720
<v Speaker 2>person on earth of his existence, and according to the Bible,

135
00:06:48.959 --> 00:06:51.720
<v Speaker 2>he wants to convince every single person on Earth of

136
00:06:51.759 --> 00:06:54.560
<v Speaker 2>his existence. Since he has not done so, it is

137
00:06:54.560 --> 00:06:56.480
<v Speaker 2>safe to conclude that the God that is described by

138
00:06:56.519 --> 00:06:58.319
<v Speaker 2>the Bible just doesn't exist.

139
00:06:58.800 --> 00:07:02.519
<v Speaker 3>A few examples I've heard from atheists include healing and

140
00:07:02.600 --> 00:07:09.040
<v Speaker 3>amputated limb through prayer, rearranging the stars to say God exists,

141
00:07:09.639 --> 00:07:13.319
<v Speaker 3>or discovering on the human genetic code that our genetic

142
00:07:13.360 --> 00:07:15.120
<v Speaker 3>code says made by yahweh on it.

143
00:07:15.839 --> 00:07:18.279
<v Speaker 2>Some of those are better than others, and honestly I'm

144
00:07:18.279 --> 00:07:20.240
<v Speaker 2>a fan of the healing one. If it were just

145
00:07:20.279 --> 00:07:22.680
<v Speaker 2>a fact of life, that Christians had the healing powers

146
00:07:22.680 --> 00:07:24.839
<v Speaker 2>that the Bible says that they have, it would make

147
00:07:24.839 --> 00:07:27.519
<v Speaker 2>the case for Christianity a whole lot more compelling. The

148
00:07:27.560 --> 00:07:30.040
<v Speaker 2>reason amputees are the go to examples because that's one

149
00:07:30.079 --> 00:07:32.920
<v Speaker 2>of the harder medical conditions to heal through trickery. It's

150
00:07:33.040 --> 00:07:35.040
<v Speaker 2>fairly easy for faith healers to have a plant in

151
00:07:35.040 --> 00:07:37.079
<v Speaker 2>the audience that is on crutches or in a wheelchair

152
00:07:37.120 --> 00:07:40.240
<v Speaker 2>who will then walk unassisted after being prayed for. But

153
00:07:40.399 --> 00:07:43.600
<v Speaker 2>it would actually be impressive if they could cause amputees

154
00:07:43.639 --> 00:07:46.319
<v Speaker 2>to regrow their limbs in front of their live audience.

155
00:07:46.519 --> 00:07:48.759
<v Speaker 2>And if that were just a thing that all Christians

156
00:07:48.759 --> 00:07:50.839
<v Speaker 2>could do, and it was a power that was exclusive

157
00:07:50.839 --> 00:07:53.639
<v Speaker 2>to Christians, it would go a long way to assuaging

158
00:07:53.639 --> 00:07:55.920
<v Speaker 2>the doubts of the hardened skeptics. I don't think this

159
00:07:55.920 --> 00:07:58.879
<v Speaker 2>would necessarily count as definitive proof, even if I grant

160
00:07:58.879 --> 00:08:01.439
<v Speaker 2>that it proves the supernatural. It could be something like

161
00:08:01.480 --> 00:08:04.040
<v Speaker 2>the malicious deity of another religion making it look like

162
00:08:04.120 --> 00:08:07.279
<v Speaker 2>Christianity is true in order to prevent that other religion's growth.

163
00:08:07.439 --> 00:08:09.759
<v Speaker 2>But that's one of those we can cross that bridge

164
00:08:09.800 --> 00:08:11.519
<v Speaker 2>when we come to it. Sort of things it's a

165
00:08:11.519 --> 00:08:13.600
<v Speaker 2>bit of a moot point until such a time as

166
00:08:13.639 --> 00:08:16.680
<v Speaker 2>Christians actually have the powers that they're supposed to have.

167
00:08:17.519 --> 00:08:20.399
<v Speaker 3>Evan Vale says that if all the stars realign to

168
00:08:20.439 --> 00:08:23.000
<v Speaker 3>spell the words men and mene, take al a Barshin,

169
00:08:23.399 --> 00:08:25.879
<v Speaker 3>which is what God wrote on the wall at Belshafar's

170
00:08:25.959 --> 00:08:29.360
<v Speaker 3>feast in the Book of Daniel, then quote that would

171
00:08:29.399 --> 00:08:35.720
<v Speaker 3>convince me of theism or polytheism. No other explanation is

172
00:08:36.000 --> 00:08:37.639
<v Speaker 3>remotely plausible.

173
00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:40.440
<v Speaker 2>I see what you're getting at, and hey, guess what.

174
00:08:40.960 --> 00:08:43.600
<v Speaker 2>I agree. A more likely explanation for the star is

175
00:08:43.639 --> 00:08:47.120
<v Speaker 2>being rearranged like that is that I am hallucinating or delusional,

176
00:08:47.360 --> 00:08:49.840
<v Speaker 2>though that certainly becomes a harder sell if the professional

177
00:08:49.879 --> 00:08:53.279
<v Speaker 2>astronomy community confirms such an event. So maybe that would

178
00:08:53.360 --> 00:08:55.759
<v Speaker 2>do the trick for me. Again, I don't know if

179
00:08:55.759 --> 00:08:59.120
<v Speaker 2>that would convince me. It's possible, but God knows for

180
00:08:59.240 --> 00:09:01.960
<v Speaker 2>sure exact exactly what would, and he has failed to

181
00:09:01.960 --> 00:09:04.919
<v Speaker 2>do that thing, thus demonstrating that He either doesn't actually

182
00:09:04.960 --> 00:09:06.600
<v Speaker 2>care all that much about whether or not I come

183
00:09:06.600 --> 00:09:08.879
<v Speaker 2>to repentance, or that he doesn't exist.

184
00:09:09.919 --> 00:09:12.960
<v Speaker 3>Doug from the Pine Creek Channel says that since the

185
00:09:13.000 --> 00:09:16.519
<v Speaker 3>prophet Elijah could call down fire to light a soak

186
00:09:16.600 --> 00:09:19.200
<v Speaker 3>sacrifice in the Book of Kings, and he could one

187
00:09:19.279 --> 00:09:22.480
<v Speaker 3>up the prophets of ball by doing that. Then Christians

188
00:09:22.559 --> 00:09:25.399
<v Speaker 3>should be able to prove Christianity is true by just

189
00:09:25.480 --> 00:09:29.320
<v Speaker 3>setting a wet napkin on fire through prayer. Well, this

190
00:09:29.360 --> 00:09:33.759
<v Speaker 3>would once again not necessarily prove Christianity. The fact that

191
00:09:33.799 --> 00:09:36.519
<v Speaker 3>it's not something that Christians can do is rather odd.

192
00:09:36.960 --> 00:09:38.919
<v Speaker 3>In the Bible, God is happy to show off in

193
00:09:39.000 --> 00:09:41.799
<v Speaker 3>order to prove himself. The whole Plagues of Egypt thing

194
00:09:41.879 --> 00:09:45.440
<v Speaker 3>was him doing exactly that. He explicitly stopped Pharaoh from

195
00:09:45.480 --> 00:09:48.039
<v Speaker 3>letting the Israelites go so that he could continue showing

196
00:09:48.080 --> 00:09:50.399
<v Speaker 3>off to them. Though honestly, given that a lot of

197
00:09:50.399 --> 00:09:52.600
<v Speaker 3>the times God showing off meant a bunch of innocent

198
00:09:52.639 --> 00:09:55.080
<v Speaker 3>people died, it's probably for the best that he doesn't

199
00:09:55.080 --> 00:09:59.440
<v Speaker 3>do that anymore. Now. Some of the examples are better

200
00:09:59.440 --> 00:10:03.639
<v Speaker 3>than others, but they all share the same flaw. I

201
00:10:03.639 --> 00:10:07.559
<v Speaker 3>would ask the non believers who offer these examples, why

202
00:10:07.600 --> 00:10:12.039
<v Speaker 3>would these particular things convince you that God exists?

203
00:10:12.399 --> 00:10:14.399
<v Speaker 2>As I've already said a couple of times, I'm not

204
00:10:14.480 --> 00:10:16.600
<v Speaker 2>sure that they would, but they'd certainly be a step

205
00:10:16.600 --> 00:10:17.279
<v Speaker 2>in the right direction.

206
00:10:17.960 --> 00:10:20.919
<v Speaker 3>I suspect ultimately this is the reasoning. I don't know

207
00:10:20.960 --> 00:10:24.159
<v Speaker 3>what caused a limb to be healed, or the stars

208
00:10:24.200 --> 00:10:27.399
<v Speaker 3>to move, or the napkin to catch fire. I can't

209
00:10:27.440 --> 00:10:31.480
<v Speaker 3>imagine a natural cause. Therefore God must have done it.

210
00:10:31.720 --> 00:10:34.240
<v Speaker 2>Yep, which is why I typically respond to these sorts

211
00:10:34.240 --> 00:10:36.720
<v Speaker 2>of inquiries with the I don't know what would convince me,

212
00:10:36.840 --> 00:10:39.600
<v Speaker 2>but God does line. I can understand why apologists might

213
00:10:39.639 --> 00:10:41.919
<v Speaker 2>not like that answer, but I've honestly never seen one

214
00:10:41.919 --> 00:10:44.200
<v Speaker 2>of them address it with anything more than a dismissal,

215
00:10:44.440 --> 00:10:46.519
<v Speaker 2>usually with a jab about how arrogant it is to

216
00:10:46.559 --> 00:10:49.399
<v Speaker 2>expect God to personally provide you with a demonstration. Who

217
00:10:49.440 --> 00:10:51.720
<v Speaker 2>do you think you are that you can command God

218
00:10:51.759 --> 00:10:55.759
<v Speaker 2>to perform at your whim, Which is fine, I'm actually

219
00:10:55.799 --> 00:10:58.720
<v Speaker 2>not that arrogant, But that does basically confirm that the

220
00:10:58.759 --> 00:11:01.559
<v Speaker 2>God described by the Bible does not exist. Because that

221
00:11:01.639 --> 00:11:05.080
<v Speaker 2>God gave people personal experiences all the damn time, and

222
00:11:05.120 --> 00:11:07.840
<v Speaker 2>he wants everyone to believe in him, so it seems

223
00:11:07.879 --> 00:11:10.480
<v Speaker 2>reasonable to expect that such a God would continue to

224
00:11:10.480 --> 00:11:13.159
<v Speaker 2>provide demonstrations similar to those that he did in the past.

225
00:11:14.120 --> 00:11:16.240
<v Speaker 3>In other words, they commit the God of the GAP's

226
00:11:16.279 --> 00:11:19.840
<v Speaker 3>fallacy in their hypothetical evidence. I don't know what cause

227
00:11:19.919 --> 00:11:23.399
<v Speaker 3>dex Therefore God exists. Mm hmm.

228
00:11:24.039 --> 00:11:27.200
<v Speaker 2>And remember, folks, that's a bad reason to believe in God.

229
00:11:28.159 --> 00:11:31.120
<v Speaker 3>Here's a blatant example of this from my debate with

230
00:11:31.159 --> 00:11:35.240
<v Speaker 3>atheist Dan Barker. When I asked Barker what would convince

231
00:11:35.360 --> 00:11:38.879
<v Speaker 3>him to give up atheism. He said that if I

232
00:11:39.200 --> 00:11:43.159
<v Speaker 3>prayed and told him what was written inside an envelope

233
00:11:43.200 --> 00:11:45.960
<v Speaker 3>he had on stage with him, then he would believe

234
00:11:46.039 --> 00:11:49.720
<v Speaker 3>God exists. He also claim that since God is all knowing,

235
00:11:49.879 --> 00:11:52.840
<v Speaker 3>I could pray to God and God would tell me

236
00:11:52.919 --> 00:11:56.080
<v Speaker 3>what's written on the card. Here is my reply, So

237
00:11:56.480 --> 00:12:00.000
<v Speaker 3>let me understand, we have fifteen seconds left. If Jesus

238
00:12:00.080 --> 00:12:03.240
<v Speaker 3>appeared and performed a miracle for you, you would ask God

239
00:12:03.279 --> 00:12:05.919
<v Speaker 3>to apologize. But if I could do a magic.

240
00:12:05.639 --> 00:12:08.279
<v Speaker 4>Trick, it's not a magic trick Christian, It's not a

241
00:12:08.320 --> 00:12:09.679
<v Speaker 4>magic trick trant.

242
00:12:09.879 --> 00:12:12.399
<v Speaker 3>I mean, suppose I really did guess what was written

243
00:12:12.440 --> 00:12:15.919
<v Speaker 3>on the envelope Inside the envelope, would Dan Barker convert

244
00:12:16.600 --> 00:12:17.000
<v Speaker 3>No way.

245
00:12:17.440 --> 00:12:20.279
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, you're probably right, but it is quite telling that

246
00:12:20.360 --> 00:12:23.039
<v Speaker 2>Christians don't actually have the ability to do any of

247
00:12:23.080 --> 00:12:25.039
<v Speaker 2>the stuff that the Bible says they should be able

248
00:12:25.080 --> 00:12:27.159
<v Speaker 2>to do. Granted, I don't think that the Bible says

249
00:12:27.159 --> 00:12:29.600
<v Speaker 2>you'll be able to ask God about the contents of envelopes.

250
00:12:29.879 --> 00:12:32.320
<v Speaker 2>But it does say that you'll be able to heal people.

251
00:12:32.720 --> 00:12:35.039
<v Speaker 2>And what's more, it doesn't say that they'll only be

252
00:12:35.120 --> 00:12:37.159
<v Speaker 2>healed if they have faith, or if the faith healer

253
00:12:37.279 --> 00:12:39.440
<v Speaker 2>has faith, or something like that. It just says that

254
00:12:39.480 --> 00:12:41.159
<v Speaker 2>they will lay their hands on the sick and they

255
00:12:41.159 --> 00:12:44.519
<v Speaker 2>will recover, not they'll recover if they also believe. Not

256
00:12:44.639 --> 00:12:46.679
<v Speaker 2>the person performing the miracle has to be a particular

257
00:12:46.679 --> 00:12:49.879
<v Speaker 2>denomination or something, just that those who believe will be

258
00:12:49.919 --> 00:12:52.279
<v Speaker 2>able to heal with the laying on of hands. It

259
00:12:52.360 --> 00:12:55.519
<v Speaker 2>is explicitly called a sign in this case, meaning that

260
00:12:55.559 --> 00:12:57.559
<v Speaker 2>these are things that Christians will be able to do

261
00:12:57.879 --> 00:13:00.320
<v Speaker 2>in order to convince non Christians of the truth of

262
00:13:00.360 --> 00:13:03.840
<v Speaker 2>Christianity while spreading the Gospel. Granted, these the words signs

263
00:13:04.080 --> 00:13:05.399
<v Speaker 2>is one of the signs that this part of the

264
00:13:05.440 --> 00:13:07.720
<v Speaker 2>Book of Mark is a later edition, as the Book

265
00:13:07.720 --> 00:13:10.559
<v Speaker 2>of Mark is very much anti signs and wonders. That's

266
00:13:10.679 --> 00:13:13.240
<v Speaker 2>more of a John type of thing, and Trent is Catholic,

267
00:13:13.399 --> 00:13:15.879
<v Speaker 2>so he probably is willing to treat the Bible with

268
00:13:15.960 --> 00:13:18.200
<v Speaker 2>quite a bit more nuanced than the typical apologiest that

269
00:13:18.200 --> 00:13:20.679
<v Speaker 2>can be found on my channel, which as an atheist

270
00:13:20.840 --> 00:13:24.360
<v Speaker 2>I appreciate. But if I put my admittedly Protestant Christian

271
00:13:24.399 --> 00:13:27.039
<v Speaker 2>hat back on for a moment, I never understood how

272
00:13:27.080 --> 00:13:29.559
<v Speaker 2>anyone could believe that God had a hand in writing

273
00:13:29.559 --> 00:13:31.879
<v Speaker 2>a book that was supposed to be his message to us,

274
00:13:32.159 --> 00:13:34.440
<v Speaker 2>but he treated it as sort of a side project

275
00:13:34.480 --> 00:13:36.840
<v Speaker 2>where if somebody made a mistake with it, it's fine,

276
00:13:36.960 --> 00:13:39.120
<v Speaker 2>humans will probably be able to figure it out. Like, No,

277
00:13:39.600 --> 00:13:42.279
<v Speaker 2>this is the most important book in human history, and

278
00:13:42.320 --> 00:13:45.559
<v Speaker 2>it contains God's most important message to humans, So why

279
00:13:45.559 --> 00:13:49.080
<v Speaker 2>would he not carefully choose every single word and make

280
00:13:49.080 --> 00:13:51.960
<v Speaker 2>sure that the whole thing says exactly what he wants

281
00:13:52.000 --> 00:13:53.879
<v Speaker 2>it to say. As much as I prefer Christians who

282
00:13:53.879 --> 00:13:55.440
<v Speaker 2>are willing to treat the Bible as more of an

283
00:13:55.519 --> 00:13:58.720
<v Speaker 2>interesting anthropological artifact rather than the inerrant word of God,

284
00:13:59.159 --> 00:14:01.320
<v Speaker 2>I've never actually understood that position.

285
00:14:02.399 --> 00:14:04.720
<v Speaker 3>He'd think, you know, well, maybe it was a lucky guess,

286
00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:07.559
<v Speaker 3>or maybe before the debate, when he was distracted, I

287
00:14:07.600 --> 00:14:10.559
<v Speaker 3>opened the envelope, I read it, and then I resealed it,

288
00:14:11.120 --> 00:14:13.799
<v Speaker 3>that would be way more likely than a miracle.

289
00:14:14.080 --> 00:14:14.360
<v Speaker 5>Yep.

290
00:14:14.759 --> 00:14:17.240
<v Speaker 2>And that's exactly why I can't believe in miracles on

291
00:14:17.279 --> 00:14:20.200
<v Speaker 2>the basis of testimony written down thousands of years ago.

292
00:14:20.960 --> 00:14:23.480
<v Speaker 3>Or at best, Dan would think that I have some

293
00:14:23.840 --> 00:14:28.120
<v Speaker 3>unknown natural or supernatural power to read hidden messages, but

294
00:14:28.360 --> 00:14:29.480
<v Speaker 3>not that God exists.

295
00:14:29.799 --> 00:14:32.159
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and that is directly relevant to a lot of

296
00:14:32.159 --> 00:14:34.759
<v Speaker 2>the arguments that Christian apologists often use. Even if I

297
00:14:34.799 --> 00:14:38.120
<v Speaker 2>grant that, say, the cosmological argument proves that a supernatural

298
00:14:38.159 --> 00:14:40.840
<v Speaker 2>being created the universe, it does nothing to get us

299
00:14:40.879 --> 00:14:41.919
<v Speaker 2>to the God of the Bible.

300
00:14:42.399 --> 00:14:44.600
<v Speaker 3>So I think this shows we have a double standard

301
00:14:44.720 --> 00:14:49.720
<v Speaker 3>among some atheists, specifically among those who dismiss who dismiss

302
00:14:50.039 --> 00:14:54.399
<v Speaker 3>classical arguments for God as essentially saying I don't know,

303
00:14:54.639 --> 00:14:57.840
<v Speaker 3>therefore God. They just dismiss all the classic proofs I

304
00:14:57.879 --> 00:15:01.039
<v Speaker 3>don't know therefore God. Then I say, you could prove

305
00:15:01.080 --> 00:15:04.799
<v Speaker 3>God exists through one of their hypothetical examples, like guessing

306
00:15:04.840 --> 00:15:07.559
<v Speaker 3>a card in an envelope, which is also a case

307
00:15:07.559 --> 00:15:09.559
<v Speaker 3>of I don't know, therefore God.

308
00:15:10.120 --> 00:15:12.240
<v Speaker 2>I think this might be the most that I've ever

309
00:15:12.320 --> 00:15:15.279
<v Speaker 2>agreed with an apologist in any of my videos. Yes,

310
00:15:15.360 --> 00:15:17.480
<v Speaker 2>that is a double standard, and that's why I don't

311
00:15:17.559 --> 00:15:20.519
<v Speaker 2>use that particular argument against God. And I appreciate that

312
00:15:20.559 --> 00:15:23.399
<v Speaker 2>Trent said that this was among some atheists. It's always

313
00:15:23.399 --> 00:15:26.320
<v Speaker 2>good to see acknowledgement that atheism is not monolithic. As

314
00:15:26.360 --> 00:15:28.320
<v Speaker 2>much as I've brought up the tens of thousands of

315
00:15:28.320 --> 00:15:31.919
<v Speaker 2>denominations of Christianity, I would wager that there are significantly

316
00:15:31.960 --> 00:15:35.000
<v Speaker 2>more versions of atheism. But of course, the main difference

317
00:15:35.039 --> 00:15:37.559
<v Speaker 2>is that atheism doesn't actually have a God figure that

318
00:15:37.639 --> 00:15:40.440
<v Speaker 2>explicitly stated that atheist unity is how you can know

319
00:15:40.519 --> 00:15:41.840
<v Speaker 2>that atheism is true.

320
00:15:42.399 --> 00:15:46.440
<v Speaker 3>I mean, what's the difference between an amputated limb coming

321
00:15:46.519 --> 00:15:50.639
<v Speaker 3>into existence from nothing, proving God exists and a universe

322
00:15:51.000 --> 00:15:53.919
<v Speaker 3>coming into nothing coming into being from nothing. Wouldn't that

323
00:15:54.000 --> 00:15:56.440
<v Speaker 3>also prove God exists if that's what happened.

324
00:15:56.639 --> 00:15:59.519
<v Speaker 2>Not necessarily depends on what you mean by nothing, I suppose,

325
00:15:59.759 --> 00:16:02.039
<v Speaker 2>But the main difference that I can see here is

326
00:16:02.039 --> 00:16:04.399
<v Speaker 2>that we would actually be able to witness a limb

327
00:16:04.399 --> 00:16:06.519
<v Speaker 2>growing back with our own eyes. When it comes to

328
00:16:06.519 --> 00:16:08.879
<v Speaker 2>the beginning of the universe, we are constrained to using

329
00:16:08.919 --> 00:16:11.960
<v Speaker 2>our knowledge of how physics operates to construct mathematical models

330
00:16:12.039 --> 00:16:14.639
<v Speaker 2>for what happened before the Big Bang, and our knowledge

331
00:16:14.639 --> 00:16:17.360
<v Speaker 2>of how physics operates is such that we can't actually

332
00:16:17.360 --> 00:16:19.600
<v Speaker 2>be sure what happened before the Big Bang. As of

333
00:16:19.639 --> 00:16:23.240
<v Speaker 2>this moment, we've got several plausible ideas, but until that

334
00:16:23.360 --> 00:16:26.639
<v Speaker 2>question is answered definitively, that is a pretty big difference

335
00:16:26.679 --> 00:16:27.960
<v Speaker 2>between these two scenarios.

336
00:16:28.600 --> 00:16:31.600
<v Speaker 3>The bottom line is that no matter what wildly fantastic

337
00:16:31.600 --> 00:16:35.679
<v Speaker 3>scenario and atheist proposes that would allegedly prove God exists,

338
00:16:36.480 --> 00:16:39.440
<v Speaker 3>you could always ask him, how do you know that

339
00:16:39.480 --> 00:16:43.720
<v Speaker 3>there isn't an unknown natural explanation for that scenario?

340
00:16:44.039 --> 00:16:46.399
<v Speaker 2>We can't know, Sam Goes for the argument for God.

341
00:16:46.440 --> 00:16:47.720
<v Speaker 2>Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

342
00:16:48.440 --> 00:16:52.120
<v Speaker 3>What's interesting is that some atheists have even conceded that

343
00:16:52.279 --> 00:16:56.159
<v Speaker 3>nothing could prove God exists, since you could always imagine

344
00:16:56.360 --> 00:16:59.840
<v Speaker 3>another unknown explanation being the true cause of what everything

345
00:17:00.080 --> 00:17:00.519
<v Speaker 3>you observe.

346
00:17:00.720 --> 00:17:02.919
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, as far as I can tell, even in the

347
00:17:02.919 --> 00:17:06.200
<v Speaker 2>most extreme of cases, hallucination will be a more likely

348
00:17:06.240 --> 00:17:10.160
<v Speaker 2>explanation than the existence of an actual supernatural entity. Of course,

349
00:17:10.359 --> 00:17:12.799
<v Speaker 2>if the God that you believe in is all powerful

350
00:17:12.799 --> 00:17:15.279
<v Speaker 2>and all knowing, I'm sure he could come up with

351
00:17:15.359 --> 00:17:18.359
<v Speaker 2>something more convincing than my feeble atheist brain can. So

352
00:17:18.759 --> 00:17:20.799
<v Speaker 2>we once again wind up back at a place where

353
00:17:20.960 --> 00:17:23.880
<v Speaker 2>if God wanted to convince me, he could, but he

354
00:17:23.960 --> 00:17:24.920
<v Speaker 2>has chosen not to.

355
00:17:25.640 --> 00:17:28.359
<v Speaker 3>So it seems like you can either have an extreme

356
00:17:28.839 --> 00:17:31.440
<v Speaker 3>God of the GAP's view towards the arguments for God

357
00:17:31.759 --> 00:17:35.000
<v Speaker 3>and write them off, or be open to God existing,

358
00:17:35.640 --> 00:17:36.599
<v Speaker 3>but you can't be both.

359
00:17:36.839 --> 00:17:39.200
<v Speaker 2>If you acknowledge that all of the arguments for God

360
00:17:39.319 --> 00:17:41.279
<v Speaker 2>do in fact make use of the God of the

361
00:17:41.279 --> 00:17:44.839
<v Speaker 2>Gaps fallacy, then yes, you are correct, because this once

362
00:17:44.880 --> 00:17:47.240
<v Speaker 2>again brings us to a point where the all powerful,

363
00:17:47.279 --> 00:17:50.319
<v Speaker 2>all knowing being that you believe in should be capable

364
00:17:50.359 --> 00:17:52.799
<v Speaker 2>of providing evidence of his existence that does not run

365
00:17:52.839 --> 00:17:55.119
<v Speaker 2>a foul of fallacious reasoning in order to work. So

366
00:17:55.319 --> 00:17:57.960
<v Speaker 2>the fact that he has not is pretty good evidence

367
00:17:57.960 --> 00:17:58.960
<v Speaker 2>of his non existence.

368
00:17:59.599 --> 00:18:02.079
<v Speaker 3>Instead, atheists, they should just be open to the classical

369
00:18:02.160 --> 00:18:04.200
<v Speaker 3>arguments for the existence of God, and if they're not

370
00:18:04.279 --> 00:18:09.279
<v Speaker 3>convinced by those arguments, be able to explain either which

371
00:18:09.440 --> 00:18:12.400
<v Speaker 3>premise in the argument they don't think is true or

372
00:18:12.480 --> 00:18:15.680
<v Speaker 3>what fallacy so civic logical fallacy the argument commits.

373
00:18:16.079 --> 00:18:18.559
<v Speaker 2>Hey, that's basically my whole channel at this point.

374
00:18:18.759 --> 00:18:23.599
<v Speaker 3>Yay, Now, let me address a few objections to this

375
00:18:23.720 --> 00:18:27.559
<v Speaker 3>argument that I'm offering. One objection is that theists all

376
00:18:27.559 --> 00:18:29.240
<v Speaker 3>they have to do to prove God exists is just

377
00:18:29.359 --> 00:18:33.759
<v Speaker 3>offer repeatable, testable predictions of the God hypothesis, and that

378
00:18:33.799 --> 00:18:34.960
<v Speaker 3>would prove God exists.

379
00:18:35.680 --> 00:18:37.640
<v Speaker 2>We've already kind of touched on this. It would be

380
00:18:37.640 --> 00:18:40.200
<v Speaker 2>a massive step in the right direction. But I honestly

381
00:18:40.279 --> 00:18:43.319
<v Speaker 2>can't think of anything that would actually prove one religion

382
00:18:43.319 --> 00:18:45.880
<v Speaker 2>over another, given the existence of so many malicious gods

383
00:18:45.920 --> 00:18:48.319
<v Speaker 2>in the various religions that might want a trick humanity

384
00:18:48.319 --> 00:18:50.759
<v Speaker 2>into believing the wrong thing. So well, it would be

385
00:18:50.799 --> 00:18:53.200
<v Speaker 2>a step in the right direction, it doesn't quite get

386
00:18:53.240 --> 00:18:53.559
<v Speaker 2>you there.

387
00:18:54.039 --> 00:18:56.799
<v Speaker 3>This is basically saying, well, if you can scientifically prove

388
00:18:56.839 --> 00:19:00.559
<v Speaker 3>God exists, then atheists would change their mind their minds.

389
00:19:01.079 --> 00:19:05.839
<v Speaker 3>But what is science like? What is science? Science is

390
00:19:05.920 --> 00:19:09.599
<v Speaker 3>the search for natural explanations of observe phenomena.

391
00:19:09.920 --> 00:19:14.079
<v Speaker 2>That is, specifically the aspect of science known as methodological naturalism. Yes,

392
00:19:14.359 --> 00:19:17.119
<v Speaker 2>but here's the thing with that, if the supernatural existed

393
00:19:17.240 --> 00:19:20.240
<v Speaker 2>and interacted with our world in a detectable manner, then

394
00:19:20.319 --> 00:19:23.759
<v Speaker 2>methodological naturalism would never have been developed in the first place,

395
00:19:24.039 --> 00:19:27.000
<v Speaker 2>because it wouldn't be an accurate method of learning about reality. So,

396
00:19:27.200 --> 00:19:29.440
<v Speaker 2>given that the best way we have for learning about

397
00:19:29.519 --> 00:19:32.599
<v Speaker 2>reality precludes the idea that supernatural forces are at work,

398
00:19:32.880 --> 00:19:36.160
<v Speaker 2>it seems reasonable to conclude that supernatural forces are not

399
00:19:36.440 --> 00:19:39.079
<v Speaker 2>at work in our world if we could show something

400
00:19:39.160 --> 00:19:43.960
<v Speaker 2>was testable, predictable part of our world, whatever effect that

401
00:19:44.039 --> 00:19:48.279
<v Speaker 2>might be. Like, let's say only Catholic priests can change

402
00:19:48.400 --> 00:19:51.920
<v Speaker 2>water into wine when they say certain words, say we

403
00:19:51.960 --> 00:19:52.599
<v Speaker 2>do show that.

404
00:19:53.000 --> 00:19:55.920
<v Speaker 3>Why wouldn't we conclude this is just an unexplained part

405
00:19:56.039 --> 00:19:58.400
<v Speaker 3>of nature. And now we get back to the crux

406
00:19:58.440 --> 00:20:02.200
<v Speaker 3>of the matter. This is all in highly hypothetical because

407
00:20:02.279 --> 00:20:04.759
<v Speaker 3>the world works in exactly the way we would expect

408
00:20:04.799 --> 00:20:09.160
<v Speaker 3>it to if no God existed. So, yeah, hypothetically, if

409
00:20:09.240 --> 00:20:12.359
<v Speaker 3>only Catholic priests could convert water into wine, there may

410
00:20:12.359 --> 00:20:16.720
<v Speaker 3>be some hypothetical, naturalistic explanation for that phenomenon, but that

411
00:20:16.759 --> 00:20:20.240
<v Speaker 3>wouldn't be the default expectation if God did not exist.

412
00:20:20.480 --> 00:20:22.599
<v Speaker 3>We would just expect nobody to be able to turn

413
00:20:22.599 --> 00:20:25.319
<v Speaker 3>water into wine if no God exists. And that's what

414
00:20:25.359 --> 00:20:27.160
<v Speaker 3>we see. So we are once again at a place

415
00:20:27.200 --> 00:20:29.119
<v Speaker 3>where that would be a step in the right direction.

416
00:20:29.519 --> 00:20:32.200
<v Speaker 3>But so far apologists only seem to be capable of

417
00:20:32.240 --> 00:20:36.200
<v Speaker 3>taking hypothetical steps in the right direction rather than actual steps.

418
00:20:36.359 --> 00:20:39.599
<v Speaker 3>I mean, who knows, maybe despite all our bluster, most

419
00:20:39.599 --> 00:20:42.640
<v Speaker 3>atheists would be convinced by such things. We can't actually

420
00:20:42.680 --> 00:20:46.319
<v Speaker 3>know for sure until such things actually start happening, So

421
00:20:46.759 --> 00:20:47.279
<v Speaker 3>put up.

422
00:20:47.200 --> 00:20:49.519
<v Speaker 2>Or shut up? I guess. Ah, man, this was so

423
00:20:49.640 --> 00:20:52.519
<v Speaker 2>cordial up till now. Oh well, don't feel bad. Despite

424
00:20:52.559 --> 00:20:54.920
<v Speaker 2>Trent appearing to be one of the more reasonable apologies

425
00:20:55.000 --> 00:20:57.880
<v Speaker 2>that I've dealt with, there is plenty of nutbaggery underneath,

426
00:20:57.960 --> 00:21:00.400
<v Speaker 2>and it's not hard to find. Within second of doing

427
00:21:00.440 --> 00:21:02.559
<v Speaker 2>my basic background search to make sure I'm not responding

428
00:21:02.599 --> 00:21:04.519
<v Speaker 2>to a version of Christianity that he doesn't believe in,

429
00:21:04.799 --> 00:21:07.079
<v Speaker 2>I found an article where he bemoans the fact that

430
00:21:07.119 --> 00:21:10.759
<v Speaker 2>people wouldn't tolerate arguments against contraception nowadays that are based

431
00:21:10.799 --> 00:21:14.920
<v Speaker 2>on homophobia. So yeah, I don't actually feel bad about

432
00:21:14.960 --> 00:21:17.720
<v Speaker 2>being less than cordial here. Oh god, damn it. I

433
00:21:17.720 --> 00:21:20.599
<v Speaker 2>didn't even really get rude. Suck a doc trend. You

434
00:21:20.720 --> 00:21:23.200
<v Speaker 2>might like it. No, why people tapologia is seriously but

435
00:21:23.279 --> 00:21:23.519
<v Speaker 2>not me.

436
00:21:24.440 --> 00:21:28.599
<v Speaker 3>This objection is basically saying, I'll believe a supernatural being

437
00:21:28.720 --> 00:21:31.480
<v Speaker 3>exists if you can prove it as a regular part

438
00:21:31.480 --> 00:21:34.759
<v Speaker 3>of the natural world that we observe. But that's a contradiction.

439
00:21:35.240 --> 00:21:38.680
<v Speaker 3>You're saying that you will believe in the supernatural when

440
00:21:38.680 --> 00:21:40.880
<v Speaker 3>you can show me it is a part of nature

441
00:21:41.319 --> 00:21:46.039
<v Speaker 3>because science provides natural explanations for the things that we observe.

442
00:21:46.559 --> 00:21:49.039
<v Speaker 2>And that seems like an admission that the supernatural does

443
00:21:49.079 --> 00:21:52.640
<v Speaker 2>not interact in any detectable way with our world, which

444
00:21:52.720 --> 00:21:55.519
<v Speaker 2>honestly sounds fine to me. Not sure what the distinction

445
00:21:55.640 --> 00:21:58.000
<v Speaker 2>is between that and it just not existing in the

446
00:21:58.000 --> 00:21:58.559
<v Speaker 2>first place.

447
00:21:59.319 --> 00:22:02.200
<v Speaker 3>The point is you cannot prove God exists with science.

448
00:22:02.240 --> 00:22:08.000
<v Speaker 3>Science studies material causes, effects, and forces. God's existence is

449
00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:12.519
<v Speaker 3>something you would demonstrate philosophically, like other immaterial things you

450
00:22:12.559 --> 00:22:14.079
<v Speaker 3>would demonstrate philosophically.

451
00:22:14.359 --> 00:22:16.519
<v Speaker 2>That's not how Old Testament God seemed to see it.

452
00:22:16.720 --> 00:22:20.359
<v Speaker 2>He had no problem people right up to prove that

453
00:22:20.400 --> 00:22:23.799
<v Speaker 2>he was real. Wonder what changed, such as the existence

454
00:22:23.839 --> 00:22:29.240
<v Speaker 2>of minds, moral truths, or numbers and other abstract objects.

455
00:22:29.319 --> 00:22:32.079
<v Speaker 2>I would argue that you can't actually demonstrate the existence

456
00:22:32.119 --> 00:22:35.319
<v Speaker 2>of minds. I'm only aware of mine because I'm in it,

457
00:22:35.599 --> 00:22:37.640
<v Speaker 2>and I find the idea that other people that are

458
00:22:37.680 --> 00:22:39.839
<v Speaker 2>acting as though they have minds of their own do

459
00:22:40.000 --> 00:22:42.400
<v Speaker 2>so because they do have minds of their own to

460
00:22:42.480 --> 00:22:44.839
<v Speaker 2>be a reasonable one. So I have no problem living

461
00:22:44.839 --> 00:22:47.559
<v Speaker 2>with that as an axiomatic assumption. As to moral truths,

462
00:22:47.720 --> 00:22:49.920
<v Speaker 2>I'm not convinced that moral truths are real in the

463
00:22:49.920 --> 00:22:52.759
<v Speaker 2>sense that they would exist if moral agents did not exist.

464
00:22:52.960 --> 00:22:54.920
<v Speaker 2>It seems to me that what we consider to be

465
00:22:55.079 --> 00:22:58.559
<v Speaker 2>moral truths are our opinions based on our feelings that

466
00:22:58.640 --> 00:23:01.400
<v Speaker 2>have developed largely through our solution as a social species,

467
00:23:01.559 --> 00:23:05.319
<v Speaker 2>and numbers are just how we conceptualize quantifications of things.

468
00:23:05.400 --> 00:23:07.599
<v Speaker 2>They're not an inherent part of nature. As far as

469
00:23:07.599 --> 00:23:11.279
<v Speaker 2>I can tell, we invented math to describe reality. Reality

470
00:23:11.319 --> 00:23:12.880
<v Speaker 2>is not inherently mathematical.

471
00:23:13.759 --> 00:23:17.119
<v Speaker 3>An atheist might say, well, God is all knowing, so

472
00:23:17.400 --> 00:23:21.160
<v Speaker 3>even if an atheist personally doesn't know what would convince him,

473
00:23:21.519 --> 00:23:24.759
<v Speaker 3>God knows what would convince him, and therefore God could

474
00:23:24.799 --> 00:23:28.720
<v Speaker 3>just show that person the evidence he needs and he

475
00:23:28.759 --> 00:23:30.480
<v Speaker 3>won't be ignorant about God anymore.

476
00:23:30.720 --> 00:23:33.119
<v Speaker 2>My God, it's like he's been listening to me.

477
00:23:33.759 --> 00:23:36.599
<v Speaker 3>I think one way to address these objections is to

478
00:23:36.599 --> 00:23:40.759
<v Speaker 3>shift the question away from what evidence would convince you

479
00:23:41.440 --> 00:23:45.960
<v Speaker 3>that God exists to what evidence would make it reasonable

480
00:23:46.079 --> 00:23:48.920
<v Speaker 3>for someone to believe God exists.

481
00:23:49.160 --> 00:23:52.559
<v Speaker 2>I don't think that's really helpful here, because reasonableness is

482
00:23:52.680 --> 00:23:55.079
<v Speaker 2>just as subjective a metric as the concept of what

483
00:23:55.119 --> 00:23:58.079
<v Speaker 2>it would take to convince me. It's just externalizing the

484
00:23:58.160 --> 00:24:01.000
<v Speaker 2>same thing. Though, to be fair, the examples I already

485
00:24:01.000 --> 00:24:03.720
<v Speaker 2>gave would meet this mark. Again, I'm not sure if

486
00:24:03.720 --> 00:24:06.519
<v Speaker 2>they would actually convince me. But if Christians all had

487
00:24:06.559 --> 00:24:09.319
<v Speaker 2>magical healing powers like the Bible says they do, then

488
00:24:09.359 --> 00:24:11.480
<v Speaker 2>I would at least think that the belief in Christianity

489
00:24:11.640 --> 00:24:14.119
<v Speaker 2>is a reasonable one. The problem once again lies in

490
00:24:14.160 --> 00:24:17.240
<v Speaker 2>the fact that all of these scenarios are purely hypothetical,

491
00:24:17.319 --> 00:24:20.559
<v Speaker 2>because the reality of the situation is that reality behaves

492
00:24:20.720 --> 00:24:22.480
<v Speaker 2>just as you would expect it to if there were

493
00:24:22.519 --> 00:24:23.079
<v Speaker 2>no God.

494
00:24:23.799 --> 00:24:27.920
<v Speaker 3>You see, being convinced of something. Being convinced seems to

495
00:24:27.960 --> 00:24:31.880
<v Speaker 3>be almost a matter of personal taste. For example, I

496
00:24:31.920 --> 00:24:36.279
<v Speaker 3>could ask Matt Dillahunty, how would you know that what

497
00:24:36.440 --> 00:24:41.319
<v Speaker 3>convinced you that God exists actually gave you a good

498
00:24:41.799 --> 00:24:45.920
<v Speaker 3>reason to believe God exists. I mean, people are often

499
00:24:46.039 --> 00:24:49.480
<v Speaker 3>convinced of false things, So the fact that something convinces

500
00:24:49.480 --> 00:24:52.039
<v Speaker 3>Matt dilla Hunty to believe it doesn't mean it's a

501
00:24:52.039 --> 00:24:52.559
<v Speaker 3>good reason.

502
00:24:53.000 --> 00:24:56.200
<v Speaker 2>And conversely, you can have good reason to believe things

503
00:24:56.240 --> 00:24:58.119
<v Speaker 2>that are not true. When I find a bunch of

504
00:24:58.200 --> 00:25:01.200
<v Speaker 2>shredded tissues on my bed, we have good reasona believe

505
00:25:01.200 --> 00:25:03.240
<v Speaker 2>that the dog got into the garbage again because for

506
00:25:03.279 --> 00:25:06.039
<v Speaker 2>some reason she loves snotty Kleenex and apparently wants to

507
00:25:06.039 --> 00:25:08.680
<v Speaker 2>make sure it gets on my pillows specifically. But there

508
00:25:08.720 --> 00:25:10.960
<v Speaker 2>have been times when it turned out that a child

509
00:25:11.160 --> 00:25:13.720
<v Speaker 2>was to blame, so it was reasonable to believe that

510
00:25:13.759 --> 00:25:15.599
<v Speaker 2>the dog did it, but that would have been a

511
00:25:15.640 --> 00:25:16.359
<v Speaker 2>false belief.

512
00:25:16.920 --> 00:25:20.799
<v Speaker 3>Saying that what would convince Matt Dillahunty to believe is

513
00:25:21.000 --> 00:25:25.119
<v Speaker 3>just what would convince him is circular. It reduces the

514
00:25:25.200 --> 00:25:31.160
<v Speaker 3>debate over God's existence to whether certain external observations merely

515
00:25:31.400 --> 00:25:35.759
<v Speaker 3>cause us to have convincing internal feelings, rather than following

516
00:25:35.920 --> 00:25:38.400
<v Speaker 3>a process of reasoning. That's why I think it's better

517
00:25:38.480 --> 00:25:43.160
<v Speaker 3>to ask whether certain beliefs are reasonable or unreasonable, and

518
00:25:43.200 --> 00:25:45.920
<v Speaker 3>then use our reason to follow the arguments made in

519
00:25:45.960 --> 00:25:49.680
<v Speaker 3>favor of those beliefs to see if either one of

520
00:25:49.720 --> 00:25:52.119
<v Speaker 3>the premises is not true, or we have no good

521
00:25:52.160 --> 00:25:54.559
<v Speaker 3>reason to think it's true, or there's been an error

522
00:25:54.599 --> 00:25:56.039
<v Speaker 3>in the reasoning or a fallacy.

523
00:25:56.319 --> 00:25:58.559
<v Speaker 2>Would you consider a belief to be unreasonable if it

524
00:25:58.640 --> 00:26:01.759
<v Speaker 2>hits one of those marks, because you've already basically conceded

525
00:26:01.799 --> 00:26:03.920
<v Speaker 2>that the arguments for God all make use of the

526
00:26:03.920 --> 00:26:06.640
<v Speaker 2>God of the Gaps fallacy. So if that's our standard,

527
00:26:06.680 --> 00:26:09.039
<v Speaker 2>then no belief in God is not reasonable.

528
00:26:09.480 --> 00:26:12.240
<v Speaker 3>After all, you can think something is reasonable even if

529
00:26:12.240 --> 00:26:15.440
<v Speaker 3>it doesn't convince you. And that seems to take us

530
00:26:15.440 --> 00:26:18.839
<v Speaker 3>more into the domain of reason than the domain of feelings.

531
00:26:19.160 --> 00:26:22.880
<v Speaker 2>Okay, but there's no shortage of apologists making it explicitly

532
00:26:22.960 --> 00:26:26.079
<v Speaker 2>clear that feelings are what convince people that God is real.

533
00:26:26.519 --> 00:26:28.839
<v Speaker 2>So this seems like, once again, it may be a

534
00:26:28.839 --> 00:26:30.960
<v Speaker 2>bit of a moot point. And I just so happen

535
00:26:30.960 --> 00:26:33.240
<v Speaker 2>to have a montage of apologists saying just that. So

536
00:26:33.599 --> 00:26:35.599
<v Speaker 2>let's go ahead and give that a little luky lou.

537
00:26:35.680 --> 00:26:38.920
<v Speaker 2>Shall we learn to circumnavigate or go around the person's

538
00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:42.960
<v Speaker 2>intellect the place of argument and speak directly to their conscience.

539
00:26:43.119 --> 00:26:44.440
<v Speaker 2>And I didn't want to resist.

540
00:26:44.599 --> 00:26:47.160
<v Speaker 5>I had a hunger to give in to this.

541
00:26:47.559 --> 00:26:49.599
<v Speaker 6>The klom cosmological argument. I like, oh, that's a really

542
00:26:49.599 --> 00:26:52.920
<v Speaker 6>good argument for God's existence. But I don't know how

543
00:26:53.000 --> 00:26:55.279
<v Speaker 6>much it strikes people's emotions. I look at the moral

544
00:26:55.359 --> 00:26:57.480
<v Speaker 6>argument and I go, ah, that one hits people's emotions,

545
00:26:57.480 --> 00:26:59.519
<v Speaker 6>and it's intellectually strong as well.

546
00:27:00.119 --> 00:27:04.599
<v Speaker 4>Our lines are all meant to touch the heart, to

547
00:27:04.680 --> 00:27:08.039
<v Speaker 4>go right past, in a sense, the intellect, and to

548
00:27:08.119 --> 00:27:11.200
<v Speaker 4>speak directly to the existential awareness people have.

549
00:27:11.960 --> 00:27:17.640
<v Speaker 5>Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that

550
00:27:17.759 --> 00:27:23.279
<v Speaker 5>Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it. I

551
00:27:23.319 --> 00:27:26.559
<v Speaker 5>think that this is a message which is so wonderful,

552
00:27:26.640 --> 00:27:31.960
<v Speaker 5>so fantastic, that if there's any evidence that it's true,

553
00:27:32.519 --> 00:27:35.039
<v Speaker 5>then it's worth believing it.

554
00:27:35.359 --> 00:27:38.400
<v Speaker 2>As Pology is so astutely observed in his recent video

555
00:27:38.440 --> 00:27:41.880
<v Speaker 2>covering apologist reaction to Reht McLaughlin's interview with Alex O'Connor,

556
00:27:41.960 --> 00:27:44.319
<v Speaker 2>it seems as though nothing more than pleasant feelings are

557
00:27:44.359 --> 00:27:46.519
<v Speaker 2>all that is necessary to become a believer in christian

558
00:27:46.720 --> 00:27:48.839
<v Speaker 2>But if you should ever want to leave Christianity, you

559
00:27:48.960 --> 00:27:52.079
<v Speaker 2>better have read every goddamn apologetics book there is and

560
00:27:52.119 --> 00:27:54.839
<v Speaker 2>be fully prepared to respond to every single claim using

561
00:27:54.880 --> 00:27:57.559
<v Speaker 2>nothing but facts and logic. Otherwise you obviously weren't really

562
00:27:57.599 --> 00:28:00.640
<v Speaker 2>a Christian to begin with, or didn't give Christianity or

563
00:28:00.720 --> 00:28:01.839
<v Speaker 2>something along those lines.

564
00:28:02.480 --> 00:28:06.000
<v Speaker 3>So i'd ask an atheist, could it ever be reasonable

565
00:28:06.480 --> 00:28:08.400
<v Speaker 3>for someone to believe God exists?

566
00:28:08.799 --> 00:28:11.480
<v Speaker 2>Using the criteria that you laid out here and taking

567
00:28:11.519 --> 00:28:13.920
<v Speaker 2>your admission that arguments for God are all based on

568
00:28:13.960 --> 00:28:16.720
<v Speaker 2>the God of the gaps fallacy into consideration now. But

569
00:28:16.920 --> 00:28:19.799
<v Speaker 2>in the hypothetical world where only Catholic priests can turn

570
00:28:19.799 --> 00:28:23.240
<v Speaker 2>water into wine, or where Christians can heal amputees, yes,

571
00:28:23.319 --> 00:28:25.720
<v Speaker 2>it could be reasonable. I'd even go so far as

572
00:28:25.759 --> 00:28:27.839
<v Speaker 2>to say that if you had a personal experience that

573
00:28:27.920 --> 00:28:31.200
<v Speaker 2>you are convinced was genuine, then in our actual, real world,

574
00:28:31.240 --> 00:28:33.680
<v Speaker 2>belief in God could still be reasonable. But as I

575
00:28:33.680 --> 00:28:37.039
<v Speaker 2>have already pointed out, reasonable beliefs can be wrong, and

576
00:28:37.079 --> 00:28:39.240
<v Speaker 2>I would argue that it is at least as reasonable

577
00:28:39.279 --> 00:28:41.359
<v Speaker 2>to doubt the existence of God based on the complete

578
00:28:41.440 --> 00:28:43.680
<v Speaker 2>lack of anything approaching actual evidence.

579
00:28:44.359 --> 00:28:46.519
<v Speaker 3>So let me return to the title of this video,

580
00:28:46.599 --> 00:28:49.119
<v Speaker 3>which I admit it it's a bit of a generalization,

581
00:28:49.640 --> 00:28:53.119
<v Speaker 3>but video titles can kind of be that way. I said,

582
00:28:53.359 --> 00:28:58.519
<v Speaker 3>there's one question atheists can't answer, and that's what would

583
00:28:58.839 --> 00:29:02.240
<v Speaker 3>prove God exists? I said, it's not helpful to frame

584
00:29:02.319 --> 00:29:06.440
<v Speaker 3>the question as what would convince you God exists? Since

585
00:29:06.480 --> 00:29:10.079
<v Speaker 3>that's more about feelings than rational discourse. I'd rather ask

586
00:29:10.079 --> 00:29:14.440
<v Speaker 3>an atheist, can a person rationally believe in God? And

587
00:29:14.480 --> 00:29:18.119
<v Speaker 3>if so, under what circumstances could that take place?

588
00:29:18.519 --> 00:29:21.480
<v Speaker 2>Okay, you're changing the language of the question, though I've

589
00:29:21.480 --> 00:29:24.119
<v Speaker 2>already said that it could be reasonable to believe in God,

590
00:29:24.400 --> 00:29:26.680
<v Speaker 2>but now you're asking if it could be rational. Those

591
00:29:26.680 --> 00:29:29.319
<v Speaker 2>two words are often used interchangeably. But when we're getting

592
00:29:29.319 --> 00:29:32.400
<v Speaker 2>into the philosophical weeds regarding arguments for God, we need

593
00:29:32.440 --> 00:29:34.920
<v Speaker 2>to be careful and intentional with our language. And if

594
00:29:34.920 --> 00:29:37.799
<v Speaker 2>we're digging up rationality, we now have to distinguish between

595
00:29:37.839 --> 00:29:41.400
<v Speaker 2>the different kinds of rationality. Are we talking about normative rationality,

596
00:29:41.400 --> 00:29:44.759
<v Speaker 2>which explains how people ideally should make decisions based on

597
00:29:44.839 --> 00:29:47.960
<v Speaker 2>logic and reason, taking all possible data into account, whether

598
00:29:47.960 --> 00:29:50.000
<v Speaker 2>the person knows about the data or not. Or are

599
00:29:50.039 --> 00:29:53.559
<v Speaker 2>we talking about descriptive rationality, which explains why people actually

600
00:29:53.640 --> 00:29:56.240
<v Speaker 2>make decisions based on the knowledge that they actually have,

601
00:29:56.640 --> 00:29:59.920
<v Speaker 2>combined with their desired outcomes. So, for example, if someone

602
00:30:00.039 --> 00:30:03.319
<v Speaker 2>pursues a PhD in some obscure field of anthropology with

603
00:30:03.480 --> 00:30:06.400
<v Speaker 2>very few career opportunities, then we could say that from

604
00:30:06.400 --> 00:30:09.359
<v Speaker 2>a normative perspective, they should have chosen a field with

605
00:30:09.400 --> 00:30:12.680
<v Speaker 2>better prospects, But from a descriptive perspective, they chose the

606
00:30:12.720 --> 00:30:16.039
<v Speaker 2>field that they are passionate about and derive more fulfillment from.

607
00:30:16.160 --> 00:30:20.359
<v Speaker 2>So the normatively irrational choice was the descriptively rational choice.

608
00:30:20.440 --> 00:30:22.920
<v Speaker 2>All this to say that, yes, belief in God can

609
00:30:23.039 --> 00:30:25.839
<v Speaker 2>be rational, but that depends heavily on what you mean

610
00:30:25.920 --> 00:30:28.759
<v Speaker 2>by the word rational. I didn't even get into prescriptive

611
00:30:28.839 --> 00:30:31.400
<v Speaker 2>rationality or what happens when you mix and match between

612
00:30:31.440 --> 00:30:32.279
<v Speaker 2>these three views.

613
00:30:33.000 --> 00:30:36.160
<v Speaker 3>It's not helpful to say, well, under this miracle, this

614
00:30:36.240 --> 00:30:40.240
<v Speaker 3>specific miracle, or that specific miracle, it'd be reasonable to believe,

615
00:30:40.839 --> 00:30:46.519
<v Speaker 3>because those are just examples of sufficient evidence, subjective examples.

616
00:30:47.039 --> 00:30:51.559
<v Speaker 3>They aren't objective definitions of what level of evidence would

617
00:30:51.599 --> 00:30:54.599
<v Speaker 3>be sufficient for anyone to believe.

618
00:30:55.000 --> 00:30:59.039
<v Speaker 2>That's because it's actually impossible to objectively define the level

619
00:30:59.079 --> 00:31:02.799
<v Speaker 2>of evidence required for everyone to believe, because that is

620
00:31:02.799 --> 00:31:05.880
<v Speaker 2>an inherently subjective metric. What it will take to convince

621
00:31:05.880 --> 00:31:08.839
<v Speaker 2>someone will vary from person to person based on their dispositions,

622
00:31:08.839 --> 00:31:11.400
<v Speaker 2>their lived experiences, their prior knowledge of the subject, their

623
00:31:11.400 --> 00:31:14.200
<v Speaker 2>current state of mind, et cetera, et cetera et cetera.

624
00:31:15.000 --> 00:31:18.680
<v Speaker 3>So here's my new question then for an atheist, and

625
00:31:18.759 --> 00:31:20.880
<v Speaker 3>one you could ask an atheist or an agnostic or

626
00:31:20.920 --> 00:31:24.480
<v Speaker 3>non believing friend to be this, what is the best

627
00:31:24.680 --> 00:31:28.079
<v Speaker 3>argument for the existence of God and what's wrong with it?

628
00:31:28.759 --> 00:31:33.160
<v Speaker 3>Or what is the least problematic argument for God and

629
00:31:33.279 --> 00:31:34.960
<v Speaker 3>what's specifically wrong with it?

630
00:31:35.240 --> 00:31:38.720
<v Speaker 2>And this is honestly a really tough question, because I

631
00:31:38.799 --> 00:31:41.079
<v Speaker 2>don't find any arguments for God to be even the

632
00:31:41.119 --> 00:31:43.359
<v Speaker 2>slightest bit convincing. Best I could give you is that

633
00:31:43.400 --> 00:31:46.599
<v Speaker 2>the cosmological argument gets to places where the scientific counter

634
00:31:46.640 --> 00:31:49.000
<v Speaker 2>to the gap that it sticks God into is full

635
00:31:49.000 --> 00:31:52.400
<v Speaker 2>of stuff that I just will never understand, not even

636
00:31:52.400 --> 00:31:56.200
<v Speaker 2>in the slightest But that is itself the problem with it.

637
00:31:56.200 --> 00:31:58.000
<v Speaker 2>It is the argument that I have the hardest time

638
00:31:58.079 --> 00:32:00.519
<v Speaker 2>dealing with because it deals with the subject where there

639
00:32:00.559 --> 00:32:03.079
<v Speaker 2>are a lot of unknowns for me, as in, the

640
00:32:03.240 --> 00:32:06.079
<v Speaker 2>knowledge gap that God gets stuck into is bigger than

641
00:32:06.119 --> 00:32:08.680
<v Speaker 2>the other arguments that I'm familiar with. So that's why

642
00:32:08.720 --> 00:32:10.880
<v Speaker 2>I have a harder time with it. I don't see

643
00:32:10.920 --> 00:32:11.960
<v Speaker 2>how that could be convincing.

644
00:32:12.720 --> 00:32:15.000
<v Speaker 3>Remember, to show something is wrong with an argument, you

645
00:32:15.039 --> 00:32:19.079
<v Speaker 3>need to point out either an untrue premise in the

646
00:32:19.240 --> 00:32:23.559
<v Speaker 3>argument or some kind of fallacy in the reasoning specific fallacy,

647
00:32:23.640 --> 00:32:26.359
<v Speaker 3>not just like it's God of the Gaps, What specific

648
00:32:26.400 --> 00:32:28.000
<v Speaker 3>logical fallacy is being committed?

649
00:32:28.160 --> 00:32:30.160
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I guess, if you want to get technical,

650
00:32:30.240 --> 00:32:32.319
<v Speaker 2>the proper term for the God of the Gaps fallacy

651
00:32:32.400 --> 00:32:35.079
<v Speaker 2>is actually the argument from ignorance, which is the phrase

652
00:32:35.119 --> 00:32:37.359
<v Speaker 2>I used for it before Trent started using God of

653
00:32:37.400 --> 00:32:40.960
<v Speaker 2>the Gaps to reference it. So that is the specific fallacy.

654
00:32:40.960 --> 00:32:43.079
<v Speaker 2>I'm not sure what more you want than that. I'm

655
00:32:43.160 --> 00:32:45.480
<v Speaker 2>happy to acknowledge the fact that a fallacious argument can

656
00:32:45.519 --> 00:32:47.640
<v Speaker 2>have a conclusion that is true. So saying that the

657
00:32:47.720 --> 00:32:50.839
<v Speaker 2>arguments for God are fallacious does not automatically mean that

658
00:32:50.880 --> 00:32:55.160
<v Speaker 2>God does not exist, but it does invalidate those particular arguments.

659
00:32:55.319 --> 00:32:57.720
<v Speaker 2>But hey, if we want to get robust, let's use

660
00:32:57.759 --> 00:33:01.720
<v Speaker 2>the colomn cosmological argument. Premis one, whatever begins to exist

661
00:33:01.799 --> 00:33:06.160
<v Speaker 2>has a cause. Premise too, the universe began to exist. Conclusion,

662
00:33:06.359 --> 00:33:09.240
<v Speaker 2>the universe had a cause. Despite everything I've said up

663
00:33:09.279 --> 00:33:11.680
<v Speaker 2>to this point, this argument does not make use of

664
00:33:11.720 --> 00:33:14.200
<v Speaker 2>the argument from ignorance fallacy. But you'll notice something else

665
00:33:14.240 --> 00:33:17.359
<v Speaker 2>about it. Despite apologists regularly using it as an argument

666
00:33:17.400 --> 00:33:19.880
<v Speaker 2>for God, it actually only gets you to a cause

667
00:33:19.920 --> 00:33:22.279
<v Speaker 2>for the universe. So even if I stop here and

668
00:33:22.359 --> 00:33:24.680
<v Speaker 2>don't point out the composition fallacy that it makes use of,

669
00:33:25.000 --> 00:33:27.400
<v Speaker 2>it doesn't work as an argument for God. But it

670
00:33:27.440 --> 00:33:30.359
<v Speaker 2>also does make use of the composition fallacy, which is

671
00:33:30.359 --> 00:33:32.400
<v Speaker 2>where you infer that something is true of a whole

672
00:33:32.680 --> 00:33:34.359
<v Speaker 2>from the fact that it is true of the parts

673
00:33:34.400 --> 00:33:37.039
<v Speaker 2>of the whole. We don't know that causality as we

674
00:33:37.119 --> 00:33:39.599
<v Speaker 2>understand it within the universe is applicable in the same

675
00:33:39.599 --> 00:33:42.079
<v Speaker 2>way to the universe as a whole, so the conclusion

676
00:33:42.160 --> 00:33:44.839
<v Speaker 2>does not follow from these premises. It also makes use

677
00:33:44.839 --> 00:33:47.480
<v Speaker 2>of the equivocation fallacy, where the same word or phrase

678
00:33:47.599 --> 00:33:50.799
<v Speaker 2>is used in multiple senses in one argument. In this case,

679
00:33:50.839 --> 00:33:53.640
<v Speaker 2>the phrase begins to exist in the first premise that

680
00:33:53.680 --> 00:33:56.359
<v Speaker 2>everything begins to exist has a cause. We are talking

681
00:33:56.359 --> 00:33:59.680
<v Speaker 2>about things beginning to exist within the universe. But everything

682
00:33:59.720 --> 00:34:02.480
<v Speaker 2>that begins to exist within the universe is not beginning

683
00:34:02.559 --> 00:34:04.440
<v Speaker 2>in the same way as the universe as a whole.

684
00:34:04.680 --> 00:34:07.799
<v Speaker 2>Everything within the universe is technically a rearranging of pre

685
00:34:07.880 --> 00:34:10.760
<v Speaker 2>existing energy and material. But when we get to premise too,

686
00:34:10.920 --> 00:34:14.400
<v Speaker 2>with the universe beginning to exist, apologists will usually explain

687
00:34:14.440 --> 00:34:17.119
<v Speaker 2>this as being created out of nothing. There was nothing.

688
00:34:17.239 --> 00:34:20.119
<v Speaker 2>Now there's a universe that is not using begins to

689
00:34:20.239 --> 00:34:22.519
<v Speaker 2>exist in the same sense as we understand it within

690
00:34:22.559 --> 00:34:25.280
<v Speaker 2>the universe. So there you go, two fallacies in one

691
00:34:25.320 --> 00:34:28.239
<v Speaker 2>of the most robust arguments that apologists use. And they're

692
00:34:28.280 --> 00:34:31.079
<v Speaker 2>not even the argument from ignorance fallacy, which inevitably comes

693
00:34:31.119 --> 00:34:33.119
<v Speaker 2>up once you try to connect cause of the universe

694
00:34:33.199 --> 00:34:35.719
<v Speaker 2>to God of the Bible. And that's it for this one.

695
00:34:35.760 --> 00:34:38.719
<v Speaker 2>He just goes into book recommendations from there. Today's comment

696
00:34:38.719 --> 00:34:40.440
<v Speaker 2>to the day comes to us from Steve Weber seven

697
00:34:40.480 --> 00:34:43.400
<v Speaker 2>oh seven, who says, saying that the Disciples disappeared from

698
00:34:43.440 --> 00:34:47.119
<v Speaker 2>reliable history requires them to be in reliable history accounts,

699
00:34:47.159 --> 00:34:49.920
<v Speaker 2>to which I say, yeah, we can be pretty confident

700
00:34:49.920 --> 00:34:52.360
<v Speaker 2>in Peter's existence based on Paul having written about going

701
00:34:52.400 --> 00:34:54.480
<v Speaker 2>to meet him in Galatians. But given how a bunch

702
00:34:54.480 --> 00:34:57.159
<v Speaker 2>of the disciples got smushed together in church tradition, when

703
00:34:57.159 --> 00:34:59.559
<v Speaker 2>it became apparent that each of the gospels had different

704
00:34:59.559 --> 00:35:02.599
<v Speaker 2>people on the list of jesus twelve disciples, I do

705
00:35:02.639 --> 00:35:04.840
<v Speaker 2>feel pretty confident in saying that at least some of

706
00:35:04.880 --> 00:35:07.440
<v Speaker 2>them were themselves a part of the legendary growth of

707
00:35:07.440 --> 00:35:09.519
<v Speaker 2>the story. Thanks for watching. Don't forget to go to

708
00:35:09.559 --> 00:35:11.519
<v Speaker 2>surf shark dot com slash vice Rhino to get four

709
00:35:11.519 --> 00:35:13.760
<v Speaker 2>extra months for free. I'll be back next Friday with more,

710
00:35:13.840 --> 00:35:15.119
<v Speaker 2>but if you need to get your Rhino fixed in

711
00:35:15.119 --> 00:35:17.199
<v Speaker 2>before then, I livestream with service every Wednesday at eight

712
00:35:17.199 --> 00:35:19.679
<v Speaker 2>thirty Eastern on my other channel, The Watering Hole. Thanks

713
00:35:19.679 --> 00:35:21.519
<v Speaker 2>to Piper for being my editor and special thanks as

714
00:35:21.519 --> 00:35:23.719
<v Speaker 2>always do my patrons, who are the ignorance that is

715
00:35:23.760 --> 00:35:26.360
<v Speaker 2>relied upon by the argument that is my channel. If

716
00:35:26.519 --> 00:35:28.239
<v Speaker 2>you'd like to be a fallacy, you can join us

717
00:35:28.239 --> 00:35:29.719
<v Speaker 2>on Patreon for as little as a dollar per week

718
00:35:29.719 --> 00:35:31.760
<v Speaker 2>over at patreon dot com slash vice Rhino, or by

719
00:35:31.760 --> 00:35:33.400
<v Speaker 2>supporting the channel in one of the other methods that

720
00:35:33.400 --> 00:35:35.360
<v Speaker 2>can be found at links advice round dot com, which

721
00:35:35.400 --> 00:35:37.159
<v Speaker 2>is also where you'll find links to my other projects.

722
00:35:37.199 --> 00:35:38.719
<v Speaker 2>If for whatever reason you want to send me stuff,

723
00:35:38.719 --> 00:35:40.800
<v Speaker 2>my pobox addresses in the description, and you can go

724
00:35:40.840 --> 00:35:43.039
<v Speaker 2>to thron dot com slash vice Rhyino to buy something

725
00:35:43.079 --> 00:35:44.559
<v Speaker 2>off my wish list. It's just a couple of hard

726
00:35:44.599 --> 00:35:47.199
<v Speaker 2>drives at the moment, See you next time.

727
00:36:00.079 --> 00:36:00.360
<v Speaker 5>M h.

728
00:36:15.039 --> 00:36:22.000
<v Speaker 2>Either doesn't care all that much. Do not disturb for

729
00:36:22.199 --> 00:36:25.679
<v Speaker 2>two hours, probably not keep my clap position. But what

730
00:36:26.119 --> 00:36:27.440
<v Speaker 2>I don't know what's going on anymore.